King Annette: Third Readings —Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKing Annette: Third Readings —[Sitting date: 21 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3682. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): National members are very proud of this social housing reform legislation. We have heard this repeatedly in their 1 minute and 27 second speeches we heard it again in the second reading in their 1 minute and 40 second speeches we heard it again with their “I move that the question be now put.” speeches during the Committee stage and now we have had another 1 minute speech in support of this legislation from the backbench of the National Party.Unfortunately for this House it started off with the Minister for Social Housing who has bailed out of the debate before it has finished. She started off this debate by saying that the Government had started a vicious programme of reforms. I said yes she is right on one thing; she has started a vicious programme of reforms. We now know what they are. There has been a series of major changes to housing policy under this Government. Every one of them takes State house tenants backwards. Every one of them leaves State house tenants unsure as to whether tomorrow they will still have a roof over their head.I said at the beginning of this debate that I believe this was a series of ideological burps by this Government—in other words a lot of hot air and gas wrapped up in its biased and unbalanced philosophy that the National Party holds dear. I believe we have gone from Nick Smith who has been a great exponent of this sort of philosophy to Paula Bennett and Paula Bennett in her wake has left a trail of destruction in Government departments. Go out and see what you find in the Work and Income offices around New Zealand now. See what the morale is like after 3 years of her stewardship. She has now moved on to Housing New Zealand. What we find out in this legislation hidden in this legislation in the remedial matters part of it is that she is removing any advice from Housing New Zealand on policy. Did the members opposite know that? Were they aware that she was removing any advice that would come from Housing New Zealand?Brett Hudson: Since 2011 Mrs King.Hon ANNETTE KING: The member at the back the list member from the back Brett Hudson who has not bothered to contribute to the debate except from his seat sitting down ought to go and have a real look at this legislation instead of being just a parrot for the notes they are given.In fact we have got a whole backbench of parrots who have not taken the time to read what this legislation does. They did not take the time to ask questions of their Minister. They just said: “We are so proud Minister of your bill.” I actually think they are not earning their salaries today because they are not working and questioning and debating this legislation which they ought to be doing.You know we the people of New Zealand were given a solemn promise by the Prime Minister of this country that there would be no more asset sales and what we know from this legislation and from the other actions that this Government has taken is that the biggest asset sale you could have is taking place now. There would not be a member opposite or on this side of the House who would not think that a house is the biggest asset any of us could ever have. Our house whether we own it or whether we rent it and live in it and cherish it is the best and biggest asset we have. And to say that selling off thousands of State houses is not an asset sale is to be very economical with the truth.That is what this Government has been with this legislation. You see it has been set up. It was set up over 3 years ago when National became the Government and the first wave of changes came to State houses. It followed a pattern and I set that pattern out in the first reading of this legislation. I think it is worth repeating because every constituency member on this side of the House knows the pattern.First of all the people are taken out of the State houses. Is that not what happened out in your electorate our chief whip? Is that not what happened in other parts whether it is in Te Atatū or whether it is in Rongotai? People are removed from the houses. That is the first thing that happens. There are all sorts of reasons why they need to be removed. Secondly the Government then says: “No one wants to live in these houses. Look they’re empty. Nobody wants these houses.” And all the while the waiting list for State houses was growing and growing and growing. These houses were empty the Government said that nobody wanted to live in them and the waiting lists in those areas were growing.So then the next excuse is: “Well these houses must be in the wrong place and the wrong size so if they are in the wrong place and are the wrong size we should sell them to the community sector. It will be able to put people in the houses that are in the wrong place and are the wrong size.” You see it is nonsensical. It does not make sense. Then the Government just flogs them off to whomever whoever will buy them because they are going to be used for community housing. If they cannot be used for community housing by the Government agency why does the Government think a community organisation is going to turn them into the right house in the right place and of the right size?You then get to the next part of this process. When you leave houses empty—just go around and look at empty State houses—what you will find is that suddenly the windows start to be broken. Then you have vandalism and graffiti written on the walls and written on the houses. You see the boards go up as Housing New Zealand tries to cover up the broken windows. Then you get the complaints about what it is doing to the neighbourhood and questions as to why these houses are looking so unsightly in a neighbourhood. Then it gets to the final stage of all. The Government says: “Well we’ve got to sell them off. We’ve got to get rid of them.”That has been the process that we have watched take place since this National Party became the Government—cynical manipulative movement in State houses to get rid of houses whether they are all the best houses or not. We would not have objected if they were being replaced by other houses. That is not the history of the National Party. It sold off 13000 houses when it was last in Government and it is now on the big State house sell-off again.So then we thought that if this party cannot look carefully at the legislation and the backbenchers are too lazy to get out of their seats—other than to make 27-second speeches—that we ought to look closely at it. Many of us go straight to the regulatory impact statement. You see it is provided for a reason. It is provided to tell us the members of Parliament in this House what other eyes have seen when they have looked at the legislation. It is always worthwhile I say to new backbenchers. Go and read any regulatory impact statement.We have seen some very good regulatory impact statements over the years. I can think of the one that was put out on the legislation for the care of adults who are disabled—remember that one? When we got that regulatory impact statement Tony Ryall had it all redacted. On the day we were debating the bill you could not even read what they were saying. Well we have got a regulatory impact statement on this bill and what we found out was there has been no review no evaluation and no reports on this legislation.The first issue: what does it say? Has there been any? The big answer is one big fat no. There have been no reviews or evaluation of this policy. The second one which I think is important is that Treasury did not provide any independent opinion on the quality of this legislation. Those are two fundamental things that happened. Is it evaluated? Have they got advice? Is there a report? What has Treasury said about it? On both those counts the National Party did not get advice. It knows best! It knows exactly what people need in New Zealand; it is what the National Party wants! It is not what people necessarily want; it is what the National Party wants!I say to the members opposite after you have passed this bill—because you have not taken the time to read these statements now and have not taken the time to question whether there is anything in these bills that ought to have closer scrutiny—I suggest you come to the Table pick up the documents and at least learn a lesson from this bill. Learn a lesson that you do not just become the rubber stamp for your Ministers. You are not going to go far in a political career when you just become a rubber stamp for a Minister.And I say to the C-team—except Mr Bishop—that you have become rubber stamps for the Minister who has hoodwinked you into thinking that a bill that does not have to be passed with urgency parts of which they have been undertaking for the last 4 years you are going to need to pass and you just need to rubber-stamp it. Well I say to the members opposite that you are not doing the job that you are elected to do if you are not scrutinising the legislation that is put before this House.I say to the members opposite: shame on them. This legislation should have gone to a select committee. It should have had submissions. It should have had input from the people of New Zealand so they could have a say. State houses are their assets not the Government’s.