O'Rourke Denis: Social Housing Reform (Flexible Purchasing and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Social Housing Reform (Flexible Purchasing and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 21 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3540. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): Annette King said that this was a Government of Neros because of its fiddling policies as far as social housing is concerned but I think that it is actually a Government of zeros because that is the number of additional rental houses that its policies and this bill will generate—zero. That is the effect of this Government’s policies. That is the legacy of 7 years of this National Government—zero. That is what it really is. This bill is a monument to this Government’s appalling record on housing.When I first entered this House in 2011 there was already a very significant housing shortage especially in Auckland. Of course in that very same year we had the Christchurch earthquakes and that created another housing crisis there. Even then the Government was saying: “There is no housing crisis.” However it got worse and it got worse and it got worse until we got to the point when nobody with half a brain could deny that we have the most serious housing crisis in this country’s history. And yet this Government still fiddles and still produces zeros as far as increased houses for people who need to rent them from the State are concerned.New Zealand First would support sensible policies that provide more efficient services and better services at less cost but never—never—at the expense of people who are being forced out of their homes. That is effectively what this legislation and the principal Act that it amends do. What this Government seeks to do is to minimise the role of the State; abdicate responsibility to others; provide as little money as possible for housing; contract others to take responsibility instead; push as many people out of State houses as possible; favour non-government organisations many of whom are simply not capable of fulfilling this function; pretend that public services are being provided at less cost; avoid full accountability for social housing; and lastly fail to protect people against exploding rents. That is the record of this Government and that is why I say that this bill is a monument to its appalling record on housing.If you look at some of the best housing providers in the community one of the best is the Salvation Army. It is an NGO that could be relied upon to be a good provider. However it looked at the Government’s policies it looked at what the Government was trying to do and it stepped back and said: “We’re not going to be a part of that.”—to its credit; to its credit. That actually is a sound commentary from an independent source on what this Government’s housing record really is and on its legislation on social housing in particular. The main thrust of what the Government is trying to do is actually to reduce the size of the State and in particular in this case to reduce the role of Housing New Zealand. It could not be more clearly spelled out than we see in this amendment bill. It is a further step in the wrong direction.By preventing Housing New Zealand from giving advice to Ministers it is sidelining an important role for Housing New Zealand—a role that it has performed very well over a very long time. It is a mistake to do that. Instead the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment will be given that responsibility but actually it is going to be only a contract supervisor with a limited role and no real responsibility. The result will be that far too much institutional knowledge will be lost and Ministers will be empowered to give directions. There is a deliberate move towards what is called “flexibility” but none of the speakers opposite—even though they have used the word a lot—have told us what that really means. What I think it means is that Ministers will be able to exercise their own agenda and that is why they have been given the power to give directions. This is not a good way to conduct and administer housing policy in this country.Tim Macindoe: Does that member understand what he’s trying to say?DENIS O’ROURKE: If that member opposite cannot understand what I am trying to say then that is an indictment on him not on what I have said. He does not understand this bill. I doubt that he has even read it and he certainly does not want to take responsibility for some of the worst Government policy that this Government has brought forward in this term or the last one. I recommend that that member actually reads the bill and when he speaks next perhaps he will try to say something sensible.The results of this Government’s policy will be that social housing will be delivered at very great arm’s length from the Government’s agencies. More power will be given to Ministers which is another example of an increase in executive power. That is likely to mean a very political approach and it is likely to mean a very dogmatic approach not one aimed at looking at the best interests of the most vulnerable people in this country despite what those opposite have been saying. It will in fact have the opposite effect. It will mean those people will be worse off and have fewer housing choices and it will certainly not meet the housing need for people who need to rent homes in this country. It ultimately means more housing deprivation. State houses will be even harder to get non-government providers will impose their own policies and practices—and goodness knows what they will be—and most of all it will mean a very uncertain outcome for low-income people many of whom will be pushed out of State houses with nowhere really to go. That is a very poor legacy and a very poor outcome.The price of supressing demand which is what this Government is really trying to do is very high in social terms. It will cause reduced health and well-being increased poverty more families at risk compromised social cohesion and an exacerbation of the already badly disaffected enough underclass of people in New Zealand. Despite the Government’s claims people will inevitably be bullied out of their State houses. The Government will continue to sell State houses. Goodness knows how that will improve the situation for people who need to rent homes in New Zealand. The Government will build far too few State houses and that is the fundamentally bad part of the Government’s programme. There is no money really set aside in this Budget to improve that situation. This Government is simply unwilling to invest and to ensure that there are enough houses for people to rent in New Zealand. It is another step in the wrong direction.The Government will pay huge sums of money to community housing organisations through contracts that are supposed to be tailored contracts. What does this term “tailored” mean? Again nobody opposite has really described what that means. What I think it means is that some organisations will be treated differently from others. And what is the effect of that and what is the reason for that? We have not been told. We do not really know what this amendment will do as far as these so-called tailored contracts are concerned. Let us hear an explanation from the Minister because so far she has not given one. These are still just subsidies to registered providers. Call it what you like; that is actually what they are. These organisations will own the housing funded by the taxpayer they will profit from it they will compete for it and they will try to get the highest rents they can for them.This bill is a retrograde step. It emasculates Housing New Zealand. It seeks to reduce Government accountability. It increases executive power. It does nothing to reduce rents. It does nothing to increase the rental housing stock. New Zealand First will certainly vote against it.