Twyford Phil: Social Housing Reform (Transaction Mandate) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTwyford Phil: Social Housing Reform (Transaction Mandate) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 17 February 2016. Volume:711;Page:9101. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): As we move into Part 2 of the Social Housing Reform (Transaction Mandate) Bill which consists of amendments to the Housing Corporation Act 1974 I want to direct my comments in this part of the debate to new section 50D in new Part 5A which is inserted into the Housing Corporation Act by clause 8 in Part 2. New section 50D sets out a number of social housing reform objectives. We have been very critical of the fact that this legislation gives to the Ministers—in this case Bill English and Paula Bennett—these sweeping unfettered powers to do whatever deal they like with whoever on whatever basis. We have reason to be worried about this because it is very clear that this Government is hell-bent on privatising and carving up this asset which is worth $20 billion by the latest valuation—it is a $20 billion asset sheet. It is very clear from the way that the National Government has conducted itself over the last 2 years on this issue that it is hell-bent on privatising this by hook or by crook. This bill gives it unfettered powers to do that and the way that the Government has changed its story every few months about why it is doing this how it is going to do it and who it is going to sell these houses to gives us real reason to be concerned that the Ministers empowered by this bill will do who knows what kind of deal in order to try to salvage some scrap of reputation and keep their policy alive.We have been highly critical of that because of two things. Firstly who knows what it means for the kind of value that the New Zealand taxpayer and New Zealand citizens will get as a result of this given this Government’s horrendous track record negotiating deals with the likes of Skycity and Rio Tinto and Warner Bros. Who knows what it will do to try to meet its political objectives? It has got a track record of sacrificing the interests of the taxpayer. But all we have got here are some objectives that I want to talk about—these so-called social housing reform objectives. What the bill says in subsection (2) in new section 50D is that “The social housing reform objectives are relevant to decisions by the Minister to enter into transfer contracts … but may also be relevant to other decisions by the Minister under or in relation to this Part.” Well that is not very reassuring. The Minister is not required to have their decisions tested against these values; they are just there. They are not a guideline—they are not even a recommendation. But let us look at these objectives.The reform objectives are “any 1 or more of the following: (a) people who need housing support can access it and receive social services that meet their needs:”. Well that is interesting because if you look at this Government’s record in State and social housing over the last 7 years that has hardly been a priority for it. We have seen a blowout in the waiting list with more than 4000 families now waiting to get into a State house massive unmet social need that has been well-reported and a rising tide of homelessness with people living in overcrowded and substandard conditions.The second objective is: “(b) social housing is of the right size and configuration and in the right areas for households that need it:”. This was the first spin line that we heard from the Government about the need for social housing and basically it was saying that Housing New Zealand stock is in the wrong place and it is the wrong size. The Government does not know. It has never ever provided the data publicly to substantiate that spin. It simply cannot tell us how many houses are in the right place or in the wrong place or are the right size or the wrong size but it has used that as a justification for this privatisation programme in spite of the fact that Nick Smith or Bill English or Paula Bennett have never ever explained to this House or to the New Zealand public how selling these houses to Ryman or Summerset or some public-private partnership company from the UK or anybody else—some merchant banker or property speculator—will magically ensure that these houses are then in the right place and are the right size. That is the logical fallacy behind that particular spin line which somehow makes it into here as a so-called social housing reform objective.The third objective here is that “(c) social housing tenants are helped to independence as appropriate:”. Paula Bennett the Minister for Social Housing day after day gets up in the House and makes out that she is rescuing social housing tenants from the terrible dependency of having a State house. Well I have got news for the Minister. Actually there are many times more poor-quality cold damp mouldy risky unhealthy houses in the private rental sector than there are in the State housing sector. Any electorate MP in this House worth their salt will tell you that they are besieged by people who are desperate to get on the waiting list and who by the reckoning of any New Zealander would be poor and vulnerable and at risk and they cannot get anywhere near the State house waiting list under this National Government because National has overseen a reduction in the number of State houses. Because of the housing crisis of Nick Smith and the National Government there are so many people who are desperately in need with families living in garages and cars and campgrounds but they cannot get a sniff of being on the waiting list for State housing because of the scale of the crisis under the National Government and its running down of Housing New Zealand. But Paula Bennett wants to rescue them by kicking them out of their State houses and we have seen this absurd policy from the National Government.It has done tenancy reviews on more than 3500 State house tenants who have been put through the wringer because they have committed the sin of earning enough to pay a market rent. What we have found is that 300 of them out of the 3500—less than 10 percent of those people—have been found to be ineligible for a State house and National wants basically to kick them out instead of making them pay a market rent and recycling that money back into the building of new State houses. It does not want to do that—it does not want to build State houses.Nick Smith we cannot live in your ghost houses—we cannot live in the houses that you have failed to build. Dr Smith the Minister in the chair needs to know that New Zealanders cannot live in his ghost houses. They cannot live in the houses that he is failing every day to build and they cannot live in the houses that this Government is privatising and selling off. People need more houses and I cannot understand why this Government is hell-bent on doing everything but the obvious thing—that is build more State houses. This whole bill that we are debating here today is all about giving these Ministers unfettered powers to sell off the houses that people desperately need and they are going to go to any number of parties that Bill English is trying to convince can make a healthy profit at the expense of the taxpayer by taking these houses on.The fourth so-called social housing reform principle is “(d) there is more diverse ownership or provision of social housing:” and that is Nick Smith’s big thing. He fondly imagines that the likes of the Nelson Tasman Housing Trust are going to be the future custodians of State housing but nothing could be further from the truth.Take those scales off your eyes Dr Smith and open yourself to the truth: this is a privatisation programme because Bill English does not think the State has any business owning State houses in the 21st century. He wants public-private partnership companies he wants merchant bankers and he wants the likes of Ryman and Summerset to make a dollar off the backs of the New Zealand taxpayer and State house tenants. It is not about growing the community housing sector. The community housing organisations that you have cited Dr Smith feel cynically used and abused by this Government because you and your colleagues have used those community organisations as some kind of front for your privatisation programme. They see what this Government is doing. They see you running off to sell these houses and billions of dollars’ worth of land to overseas companies and merchant bankers.