Davidson Marama: Social Housing Reform (Transaction Mandate) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDavidson Marama: Social Housing Reform (Transaction Mandate) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 17 February 2016. Volume:711;Page:9110. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): As Part 2 says this is—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.MARAMA DAVIDSON: We are talking about Part 2 of the Social Housing Reform (Transaction Mandate) Bill. This particular part of the bill is the part that enables privatisation and therefore is a really important part of what this legislation is trying to do. I want to address earlier statements about the Glen Innes community and issue a challenge to ask the Opposition side—and particularly because the Green Party has been mentioning them a lot—what else we would do because Part 2 of this bill concentrates on removing State and public assets for a mix of private ownership community housing and State housing as well. But the key point here is I can and the Green Party can actually discuss the mix of some private housing alongside community housing and State housing as part of solving the housing crisis. However the driver has to be solving the housing crisis. There are no guarantees that the driver of this bill is to actually do that. It is simply a State assets flog off. We have to be really clear about the drivers particularly as set out in Part 2.What has happened in Glen Innes should be a very clear warning to us. Those people have been very clear that the process has been wanting the process has been flawed. They are feeling very disposable as a community. They have been displaced in order for megabucks housing—megabucks private housing upwards of $600000 which is not at all affordable and accessible to the already established community. Those are the words that they have been telling us in their plea and in their campaign to be listened to. There is some nice water there there are some nice boat clubs along that water and it is a fertile community—sorry; it grows plants well—and so they have been feeling very displaced about the intentions behind the drive of the State housing evictions that they have faced. There are no guarantees that those properties and lands will not end up in private hands eventually even though there is an incremental step to flog off public houses. It has gone to the Tāmaki Redevelopment Co. as part of an incremental step to eventually be able to flog off public housing and public land. So yes I do want to stick up for the Glen Innes community particularly around the process of what has happened there.Sometimes I just wish there was a little bit more honesty about what is driving legislation from this Government. That is all—a little bit more honesty about what is driving the legislation from this Government and particularly in this bill. There are no guarantees. There are no guarantees that more and more State assets will not end up profiting private owners and particularly property developers.Hon Member: What a load of hogwash.MARAMA DAVIDSON: Yes I know! Therefore if we are talking about private development the private market has never been successful in providing healthy affordable and accessible homes for people who need them. There is so much need. There is a crisis at the moment and this bill is not the answer to it. This bill has got nothing to do with solving the major issues in front of us about the housing crisis.I did want to take a short call in particular to respond to the raising of the Glenn Innes community issue. Thank you.