O'Rourke Denis: Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 16 May 2013. Volume:690;Page:10104. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): The Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill is just another knee-jerk reaction by the Government to the intensifying New Zealand housing crisis. The Government’s priorities are saving money and reducing the size of State services rather than ensuring that the needs of people especially those at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum are adequately met. It will be a darker future for them.The bill offered here is another one of the Government’s moves being made in isolation to what is really needed: a comprehensive New Zealand housing strategy in which social housing must have a vital part not a reduced one. The social housing sector in New Zealand is grossly neglected. In comparison with the United Kingdom and Europe our sector is primitive and fails to meet the needs and expectations for social housing in this century. New South Wales is another example of a place where a much more innovative and up-to-date approach is being tried and found.This bill goes in the opposite direction. The expectation that somehow the laying-off of social housing to community housing organisations will solve our housing needs is unrealistic and risky. Housing New Zealand as it is is also unable to meet these needs adequately. There are too few rental houses especially in Auckland but also in Christchurch where the earthquakes have caused rents to rocket. There are too few houses to meet the need and there are poor-quality rental units. There is not adequate support either for State house tenants who need the assistance of other social agencies. We have in some parts of the country effectively State house ghettoes with attendant crime problems in some places but we have contrasting areas with no such issues in others.This inconsistency and the fact that there are too many State houses in some places and not enough in other places shows that we have had no strategic approach to social housing needs in New Zealand for far too long. We now need new housing models such as those being established in New South Wales and more innovation and options for people in the rental market—Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s what the bill does.DENIS O’ROURKE: —this bill does not do that properly at all—and we need more experimentation. A good example actually is the competition for a new housing model in central Christchurch currently. It came up with some well-considered mixed housing ideas which I hope will all be tried. This bill does none of this.New Zealand First’s policy is to make rental housing affordable and accessible to people on the lowest incomes and to offer a range of options to meet all social needs. The Government’s social housing policy reduces the scope of the operation of Housing New Zealand and it will transfer large sums of money to community housing organisations. This raises many unanswered questions—most of all how will the need for a robust regime of accountability be met? The bill before us does not adequately address these issues. And what about the application processes? Last year the Salvation Army was turned down for not meeting the financial criteria but part of the $3 million Māori fund was allocated to Whangarei Accessible Housing Trust which was running at a loss. Figure that out.What about the competency of third sector housing providers applying for social housing? Grants are given of large sums of money and these organisations will own the housing funded by the Government. How do we know it will be well spent? There will be no State asset in return. What happens if a recipient organisation fails? Where do the assets go? How transparent and accountable are the processes for allocating funds to community providers? What safeguards and risk management have been put in place for the funds allocated to non-profit community providers? Will well-meaning community providers have enough competence in the housing market when private investors have lost many millions of dollars in the building and property market themselves? Will these organisations have the competencies to maintain and manage assets properly?New Zealand First believes that it is unwise to confuse social objectives with property investment objectives in non-governmental organisations. The outcome will be risky uncertain and unlikely to be acceptable in practice. The State would do better to provide social housing directly and not rely so much on the NGO sector. There is a place for those organisations such as those organisations that provide refuges for women—and there is a need for that facility—and there are others too. But these are a discrete and relatively small area of need.The social housing need in New Zealand is now huge and is growing. More and more Kiwis are unable to afford a home. Many will never be able to buy one. Their need is for options for long-term rental housing which in this country only the State can reliably provide. The income-related rent subsidies that this bill will provide to community organisations also has too many pitfalls especially—