Twyford Phil: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTwyford Phil: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 26 March 2015. Volume:704;Page:2649. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]3.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister responsible for HNZC: Does he agree with the National Business Review who asked “Is the Government’s social housing privatisation policy in tatters”?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister responsible for HNZC): No the Government does not have a social housing privatisation policy. Following the member’s question I have looked at the article in question which is particularly ill-informed. We have a plan that means that the nearly $2 billion that taxpayers spend each year on direct housing support will provide better results for tenants more social houses and better houses. The National Business Review along with Labour Party members and Green Party members are the only people in New Zealand who believe that the way we do State housing now cannot be improved. We believe it can be improved.Phil Twyford: Is he aware that the Waikato Times this morning says that his State house sell-off “smacks of deception” because of his “lack of candour and camouflaging of its intentions behind comforting references to the Salvation Army”; if so is this just another example of them being wrong and him being right?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes I do disagree with the Waikato Times andas the Government releases more and more information about the sorry state of State housing it will certainly not be able to accuse the Government of lack of candour. We will have been and will be completely open about the policy completely open about the information—and that of course allows people to ask us questions and to shape the policy. That is what we will continue to do as we have been doing in public consultation over the last 6 weeks—where that consultation was constructive informative and insightful including in Dunedin.Phil Twyford: Is he aware that the Salvation Army says that the lives of tenants would not be improved by his State house sell-off; if so how will gouging Housing New Zealand as a cash cow for $220 million in tax and dividends as this morning’s Dominion Post notes improve the lives of thousands of vulnerable Kiwi families living in garages and camp grounds?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the member has pointed exactly to what needs to change. So here we have the Labour Party saying: “There are thousands of vulnerable families living in garages and camp grounds let’s keep them there. Let’s leave it exactly how it is.” We however find that intolerable when we have $18 billion of assets and $2 billion of subsidies. So we think we should get people out of camp grounds and garages and that is what this policy will do.Phil Twyford: Does he accept the Dominion Post’s view that he “stumbles on … sowing confusion and doubt” with his housing policy and that his Government is having trouble finding buyers for the State houses it wants to sell and that it is also having trouble deciding what social housing will look like who will run it and who will benefit; if so will he be asking Crosby/Textor for a refund?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No I disagree with the Dominion Post. As the member pointed out before when there are thousands of people in garages camp grounds and overcrowded houses we cannot stand by and allow that to continue. He wants to argue to keep them there; we want to argue to change it. There is broad agreement in the community housing sector that these policies are the best opportunity in a generation to change it.Phil Twyford: Which statement best describes his Government’s State house sell-off: “typical third term government’s over-reach into fringe policies” which was the National Business Review; or “not a triumph of governance or policy-making … perhaps National’s third term will be just a muddle” which was the Dominion Post?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No none of those statements. Some of the statements though that describe the benefits of our policy were statements made by that member in his speech last year to Community Housing Aotearoa supporting the policy before his leader got to him and told him to oppose it.Phil Twyford: Why does he not just adopt the well-balanced and well-considered policies outlined by the Labour housing spokesperson in a well-publicised speech aimed at growing the community housing sector large-scale urban development and building actual houses for people to live in and why does he not drop his own half-baked policy to flick off thousands of State houses to property speculators and property developers?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because we need to get results very shortly and we cannot wait around to follow the model that that member has supported which did work 50 years ago but does not work today. That is why we do not adopt his policies—because they will not work. That is why iwi community groups developers and people who want to redevelop their communities and get a better result for their tenants are working with the Government every single day to make sure that this policy can be put into place. That member knows when he talks to those groups that they support the Government policy because they are sick of seeing thousands of people in garages overcrowded houses and caravan parks and Governments that did nothing about it.