Dyson Ruth: Social Housing Reform (Flexible Purchasing and Remedial Matters) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Social Housing Reform (Flexible Purchasing and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 21 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3671. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I first of all commend you Mr Chairman for your choice of giving the call to me against my colleague who has been competing for it longer than I have actually and may not be too popular with you later on. It is good to be able to have an opportunity to speak to the title and commencement of the Social Housing Reform (Flexible Purchasing and Remedial Matters) Bill.I listened with interest to Denis O’Rourke from New Zealand First who just made a very substantive contribution. It is in keeping with the style of the debate on the title and the commencement of bills that we talk about alternative names that they could be called. He quite correctly pointed out that the purpose of this legislation is to continue what the National Government has been doing by stealth which is the selling-off—hocking-off—of State houses to the private sector. It is not so that we can have better provision of affordable houses not so that we can have more affordable houses but just solely so that the Government can get out of that provision of social housing and you know presumably spend less on supporting vulnerable families.I commend Denis O’Rourke’s recommendations in terms of the way that the name of this bill could be changed. But actually if you look at the name of the bill Social Housing Reform (Flexible Purchasing and Remedial Matters) Bill—who on earth would know what that means anyway? Flexible purchasing to the National backbenchers who are going to put their names on the public record alongside this bill selling off State housing—I am sure they have not read it. It is quite obvious that the National Government got to its caucus before the Budget and they were briefed and were told that this was all about flexible purchasing and remedial matters. They would not have asked. None of them would have had the courage to ask the Minister what it actually meant and what they were going to be voting on and putting their names beside.So even though I agree with Mr O’Rourke and other colleagues who have spoken about changing the name the title is actually so meaningless that I do not know whether it would even matter. But if we want to say what this bill actually does then we should be much more honest.The spin around the media that has been associated with this legislation is quite extraordinary. The term “moving to housing independence” which presumably in this conservative model that John Key is now promoting—this conservative-compassionate model that he is now promoting—presumably that means something.Phil Twyford: Being thrown out on the street is what it means.Hon RUTH DYSON: Actually Mr Twyford is right. What it does mean for many people in State houses is quite literally that they lose their home. It is not just a house that they happen to go to after work after school every day. It is their home. It might not be as flash as the Parnell mansion but actually people have a very strong attachment to their home and people in State houses have every right to maintain that attachment unless we are offering them a better opportunity. Moving to housing independence by telling people that they no longer have the tenancy rights of a State house and they have to go into the private market is not offering them a better choice but that is all that Paula Bennett and Bill English are offering them.Prior to the lunch adjournment I listened to some of my colleagues speaking and I was actually pretty dismayed at the sniggers and sneers that came from members of the National Party backbench. When David Clark was talking about a friend of his who was no longer able to afford to have her hair cut on a regular basis and her children were paying for that—the rent had gone up to such a point that she did not have any spare money at all—they were sniggering about that. David Clark also said: “That is not the New Zealand that I signed up to” and I want to totally endorse those comments.When we are talking about what values we have as a society what is important to us what makes us proud to be New Zealanders then it has always been for me that we do have an egalitarian society. We do have people who are respected regardless of their level of wealth or income people who are considered as part of the community and people who have a stable home to call their own—whether they rent it or own it. They are still contributing members of our community. This bill is another step away from that vision away from that respect of individuals away from the ability of New Zealanders to be able to afford to live in a home because the Government thinks that subsidising their rent is a priority.