Faafoi Kris: Social Housing Reform (Transaction Mandate) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFaafoi Kris: Social Housing Reform (Transaction Mandate) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 17 February 2016. Volume:711;Page:9127. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I would like to continue from where my colleague Phil Twyford left off. Following the parliamentary tradition of looking at alternative names during the debate on the preliminary clauses I would like to praise whoever the policy person is who dreams up the names of these bills. They try to flower up these names. The bill’s current title is the Social Housing Reform (Transaction Mandate) Bill. But I would like to offer an alternative to get precisely to what this means to the people who will be affected. I would like to see us change the title to some pretty precise language—the “Evict Sell and Abandon (Who Cares?) Bill”. That is exactly what this piece of legislation will do. We have had wave 1 of this policy from the Government and that has reduced the amount of social housing by evicting people.I have got an example of that right here in my electorate. This photo is of Iris Grove in Cannons Creek Waitangirua about 5 or 6 years ago before the demolition men came in and took away all of these houses. If anyone on that side of the Chamber would like to tour Porirua and this rough area around me it will not look like this anymore; it looks a lot different. Imagine beautiful green no houses at all just grass. That happened in about 2011. At the same time Housing New Zealand promised that community that some houses would go back in. Well we are still waiting. So there is phase 1: evict. Just get the people out of their houses—make up any old excuse you can just to get these people out of their houses. They were told the houses were earthquake prone—evict. They were told “We are going to build you some more houses.”—evict. Get them out of the houses—we do not care how you do it; get them out. So phase 1 of this strategy from the Government has happened: fewer homes fewer people in them. What do they care; they are not their people anyway—so get them out.Phase 2 under my new title for the bill is called “sell” and this is exactly what this piece of legislation does. It gives unprecedented power to two Ministers in this National Government to sell this land that I have talked about here—and houses in communities like mine in Porirua—to whom the hell knows who they are going to be for whatever price. No accountability whatsoever and as was debated in a previous part if something goes wrong we do not know who is responsible. This is because apparently the Ministers avoid any trouble and then later on their officials will not be responsible either so whatever dodgy deal these guys cook up no one is going to be accountable. They can sell a house for a dollar give it to someone who has given them some money—it does not matter. No one is going to have any dirt on their hands but the houses will be sold.Then it is all about abandoning the people who used to live in these houses. Apparently there is not any demand for social housing. So much so that in January this year the social housing Minister said: “We are going to move people out of Auckland—because there is such a problem there—and we are going to send them to places like Wanganui New Plymouth Porirua.” Well as I was finishing up my summer holiday I nearly fell off my chair because—Holy moly—there are apparently a lot of empty State houses in Porirua that the Minister wants to send Aucklanders to. Well apparently so in January but not so in December because when we asked the Minister a question about the need the demand in Porirua we were told that it was high. So somewhere over Christmas the Government apparently found a whole lot of empty homes in Porirua that it can send people from Auckland to live in. I do not know how this happened but somehow it magicked up some homes so that people could be sent down from Auckland into all the empty houses that I see every day in Porirua.I would also invite someone from across the Chamber—anyone just one person—to take up my offer of an invitation to my electorate office any day of the week where it is constantly housing-related issues—David Bennett: Oh you’re never there. You’re never there.KRIS FAAFOI: David Bennett you crack me up. Here I am talking about people who contact us via Facebook because they are living in their cars and you know MPs live in their nice houses—and Mr Bennett thinks it is funny. But he is selling them off so what does he care about? What does he care about—because he is part of a Government that does not care about people who live in their cars. I am not sure whether he would get people contacting him and saying: “Excuse me my local MP but I am living in my car with my kids and I need somewhere to stay. Can you do something about that?” Well I would like to do something about that: “I am sorry but the current Government wants to sell all those houses that would be really good for you and your kids to live in.” I know that there are some decent people on that side of the Chamber—not a lot just some.Phil Twyford: Name one.KRIS FAAFOI: I will not name names. I will not name and shame them—I will not name and shame them. But I think some of them are aghast at what could happen here.I would like to tell you a little story about a man who grew up in Christchurch. He lived in a State house; did all right for himself; came to Parliament. It is actually a story about two people: me who is standing on this side—who wants to defend and protect social housing and State houses—and someone on that side of the House who had pretty much the same upbringing as me but he made $50 million and then wants to sell State houses. Sell them. So the very privilege that he and I have had to live in a State house—I am on this side saying: “Do not sell them because actually Mr Prime Minister people like you and me who are vulnerable and families who cannot afford market rental actually need some of those houses to live in.” But no he wants to sell the very privilege that he had—a lot like the free education that he got at university. A lot like the free university education that he had: “Oh it is good enough for me but let’s not have it for anyone else. Let’s not have it for anyone else.” Well there is a double standard right there.So I think that the Government should have a look at itself and think about what it is doing because it is evicting the most vulnerable people in our country—those people who cannot go to the market and say: “I can afford that rent.” The market does not work for them. But on that side of the Chamber the market is perfect: it will sort everyone’s problems out. Everyone’s problems—the market will sort them out. But we know that the reality is that there are people who cannot afford market rent who are struggling every day to do the basics and the help that they need is a State house. Instead of building more houses for these people this Government wants to sell off State houses for God knows what reason for God knows what price and it thinks that is going to help people—it thinks that is going to help people who are the most vulnerable out there. I think that is completely and utterly crazy. It is pretty basic. If people are out there and they need help with their accommodation and they cannot afford market rent when the market fails the State has to come in. That is why State houses are there. That is the way that my family got our start in life and that is the way that the Prime Minister’s family got their start in life. But there is a difference between this side of the Chamber and that side of the Chamber. Those members would like to evict sell and abandon the people who live in State houses. On this side we actually care about the most vulnerable people in our community. We want to make sure that they have got somewhere that they can afford to live in that is safe and warm. That is why this piece of legislation is a complete and utter shame for that side of the Chamber.