Robertson Grant: Social Housing Reform (Transaction Mandate) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Social Housing Reform (Transaction Mandate) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 17 February 2016. Volume:711;Page:9077. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I do want to pick up where my colleague Phil Twyford left off looking at what is clause 4 of this bill inserting the new section 2A. I think that the title of that new section gives away the game completely. It is “Minister may exclusively administer land declared subject to this section”. So what has previously been under the control of the Housing New Zealand board previously the Housing Corporation before that—the decisions about the way in which Housing New Zealand will control the land and the houses that it uses—is gone by the stroke of a pen into the hands of two Ministers.The party opposite which would tell us that it is the great party of democracy the great party of small government—I think that is probably what Todd Muller and Matt Doocey thought they signed up to with the National Party. Those members do not like big Government do not like the control of big government—they are signing up for it right here. They have got a charter here where two Ministers take control of what happens with Housing New Zealand take on the legacy that goes back to the first Labour Government and tear it apart and say that it does not matter anymore that the State should have that role.It is the idea of a social contract that New Zealanders have bought into for generations which is that if you cannot afford to house you and your family yourself the State will be there to step in. That is because it is fundamental—it is fundamental to the well-being of New Zealanders to the well-being of New Zealand children that they grow up in a warm dry safe home and that they have that as the basis of going on to be able to achieve their goals and dreams in their life. That has been there for generations and along comes the National Government which says: “We’re not so sure about that. We want to open it up for private provision.”As Phil Twyford has already mentioned the policy that is enabled here in Part 1 of this bill has been dressed up by the National Government as being about making sure that we improve the quality of provision of social housing in New Zealand. Labour is very proud of having worked with the community sector to build up social housing but that is about building up social housing. That is about increasing the stock of social housing; it is not about transferring something built up by generations of taxpayers and flicking it off to private investors.Members on the opposite side of the Chamber did not seem to like it when Phil Twyford suggested this. Well I suggest that they take a look at what the Minister of Finance Bill English said only this week. I quote here from the news story: “Fully private share market-listed companies could provide social housing in return for guaranteed subsidies within five years Bill English has told fund managers.” So this policy which started out being about the community sector and getting people who were more appropriate than the Government to provide social housing has morphed over a year or so into flicking it off to private developers.The whole point of the State housing system in New Zealand has been because of the market failure in the private sector because the private sector is not interested in providing that base level of housing that is required to give opportunity to all New Zealanders. So in Part 1 of this bill that whole ethos that whole fabric that has been knitted together in New Zealand is torn apart by section 2A. Section 2A(1) states: “The Minister may after notifying the Corporation and by notice in the Gazette declare any State housing land or class of State housing land (including any dwellings other buildings and chattels on that land) to be land that is subject to this section …”. It is anything—anything at all in the hands of two Ministers.I defy any member opposite to get up and justify why Ministers are being put above the law because that is what is happening here. The law is being changed to make sure Ministers can do as they wish here. Why have a Housing New Zealand board? Just get rid of it. Just leave it to the Ministers. Why even have the pretence any longer that there is any form of process here?Members of all the Opposition parties in their minority report state very very clearly that the mandate that has been given here is unwise and they talk about the unfettered powers to negotiate the transfer of such valuable assets out of the public realm into the private. It is unfettered because that section I have just read out to you section 2A(1) gives carte blanche to the Minister.Section 2A(2) states: “The effect of a declaration is that the Minister to the exclusion of the Corporation has and may perform and exercise the functions powers and duties of the Corporation under this Act …”. Just think about that for a minute. That is a specific section in a bill that says to Ministers: “You can exclude the Housing New Zealand Corporation. You can exclude any pretence that you have to abide by the law and you can go forth and negotiate.” Well we know how great this Government is as a negotiator.Chris Hipkins: Steven Joyce will do it.GRANT ROBERTSON: Fantastic work—yes get Steven Joyce involved. He can learn the lessons of Skycity of Rio Tinto Warner Bros—all the great negotiations that this Government over there has done. Government members have hoisted themselves with their own petard here because every private developer now knows that the Government is so desperate to get this policy enacted but has failed to get the community sector to buy in that it is now beholden to someone to come along and rescue its privatisation agenda. Well that is a travesty.This is part of New Zealand’s history. It is part of the social contract because New Zealanders have for generations said “We want there to be this kind of housing stock.” and this Government has come along and given carte blanche to Ministers under Part 1 of this. The only thing I will say is that under new section 2A—what was subclause (5)—it states: “The Corporation is not responsible or liable for the Minister’s performance or exercise of functions powers or duties …” Well they will be pleased about that will they not because they will not have to put up with yet another negotiation stuff-up by the National Government.But let us be absolutely clear. I have not seen a clause like the new section 2A in the time I have been in Parliament—a section that so obviously goes out of its way to undermine the accountability and transparency arrangements that we would expect from our Public Service. Is it little wonder that we are plummeting down the Transparency International ratings under this Government? We had Transparency International specifically mention the Skycity deal and the Saudi sheep deal when it was talking about why New Zealand went down. Well I would add this too.I would add what is in Part 1 of this bill because it is an unbelievable power grab by this Government—the Government and the party that would tell us that it is all about democracy and it is all about small government. What it is about is centralising power. This is actually one of the great centralising Governments of all time. Those members are the people who said “We are going to make sure that we get services to the front line in public services.” and they ended up slashing public services in the provinces. It is the same thing here. It is a power grab but much more than that what Part 1 of this bill does is undermine the legacy of State housing in New Zealand.State housing in New Zealand is something that has given numerous New Zealanders the start in life that they would want. The Prime Minister has been very proud—and so he should be—to stand up and say: “I came from a situation where social housing helped me.” Good on him. Why is that not on offer to everybody else? Why is the opportunity to fulfil their hopes and dreams—just as the Prime Minister was able to do—being taken away because of an ideological obsession of Bill English and Paula Bennett that the State should not be involved in housing? The fact of the matter is that for all its imperfections State housing in New Zealand has delivered opportunity to generations of New Zealanders but this Government wants to come along as it does so often and pull the ladder up behind it and say that other people do not get that.Mark my words this is only the beginning of this agenda as Bill English wants to see it because the social housing sector the community social housing sector is desperate to help out. But it does not want to be just lumped with the Government’s stock; it wants to work with the Government to get the kind of State housing stock social housing stock that New Zealanders need. But instead because the community sector has said no the Government has gone off and said: “All right we’ll sell it off to the highest bidder. We’ll get the private sector involved.”We know the imperatives are different there. We see that in the private rental market. The people and every member in this Committee know that those in their constituencies who are in social housing are there because the private market has failed them and they cannot be part of that. By having this turned over—by giving this power to the Ministers to implement their ideological agenda—New Zealanders are being failed by this Government.