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:9111. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Your guidance as always is appreciated.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Yes except you do not comment on rulings. The member must learn that.PHIL TWYFORD: OK. Point taken. I wanted to make some comments about in Part 2 new sections 50E 50F and 50L inserted by clause 8 of the Social Housing Reform (Transaction Mandate) Bill. Those are the new sections I want to comment on. One of the two main objections that Labour has to this bill besides objecting because it enables a policy that we fundamentally disagree with is that we also object to it on a basis that it is as we have already said a charter for corruption. It gives unfettered powers to two Ministers to dispose of in any way they see fit billions of dollars of taxpayer-owned assets of land and housing. I want to refer members and any listeners to this debate to new section 50E in clause 8 in Part 2 “Minister may enter into transfer contracts as Corporation or subsidiary”. The designated Ministers acting as if they were the corporation may enter into transfer contracts—or contracts for sale that is. Subsection (2) reads: “A transfer contract may be on any terms and conditions (including as to consideration) that the Minister may agree with the transferee.” This is unbelievable. We are talking about billions of dollars of land and housing owned by the people of New Zealand. The National Government is in the process of giving Bill English and Paula Bennett the power to dispose of these publicly owned assets on any terms and conditions they see fit including as to consideration and that means that they can do a deal on any basis. So if they are desperate to hock off assets to some public-private partnership company to some private investors they can do any deal about the amount of money that changes hands the subsidies the Government is going to pay them the pay-back period and they can bankroll them into the deal. You name it all the options are there.Do you know why the Government is doing that? It is doing it because Government members are desperate to be able to flog off these incredibly valuable public assets in any way they see fit. They do not care about the need to deliver value for the taxpayer. They do not care about stewardship of assets that generations of taxpayers and State house tenants have paid off. Government members want the ability to do deals with their mates and as I said that is a charter for corruption. There is a reason that we have the provisions in the Public Finance Act. There is a reason that Ministers are governed by a raft of legislative provisions that govern control and put limits around them and hold them accountable in the work that they do as Ministers particularly when they are doing commercial deals with publicly owned assets. We have already had the spectacle in the new year of New Zealand slipping down Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index. As reported by the New Zealand Herald“The 2015 Corruption Perceptions Index released today points to the Oravida affair Saudi sheep deal and SkyCity convention centre debacle as reasons New Zealand has slid down the transparency rankings.” These provisions new sections 50F 50G and 50L illustrate my point. They give carte blanche to the Ministers. They are unfettered powers that give these two Ministers the freedom to make any kind of deal they want with billions of dollars of publicly owned assets. I do not even see a raised eyebrow on the other side of the Chamber. They do not think this is a problem. They are quite happy to see two of their members disposing of these hugely valuable public assets with no controls and no accountability.If you look at new section 50G inserted by clause 8 it has a provision in a similar light: “Minister may do other things as Corporation or subsidiary relating to and to implement social housing transactions”. It says that “The Minister may for and on behalf of the Corporation … do anything—(a) that the Minister considers necessary or desirable in relation to the negotiation of or entry or potential entry into a transfer contract or a transitional services contract:”. I mean really folks it could not be clearer that these Ministers are being given a free pass to do any kind of deal they like with their Cabinet club mates with any public-private partnership firms—you name it. I think it is a shocking and appalling abdication of the Government’s responsibility to steward public resources in the interests of the nation and the public good. We have had some debate already this evening about what will happen to the proceeds of the houses that are sold. Nick Smith the Minister formerly responsible for State housing really I think sold us a pup in trying to convey the idea that actually the proceeds of the sale of the houses would be reinvested back into Housing New Zealand. Well nothing could be further from the truth. Nick Smith also tried to make the point that there will be transparency in this whole process because after the sale is made they are going to have to publish something—a notice in the Gazette.If you look at new section 50L it says: “The Minister must as soon as practicable after a social housing transaction is settled—(a) publish a notice in the Gazette describing the general nature of the social housing transaction:”—“describing the general nature of the social housing transaction”. Well that is not transparency. That is not accountability. My goodness! All they need to do is say: “Well we’ve sold a few houses in Invercargill to an Australian company.” They do not need to say what the valuation of the properties was they do not need to say how the sale was financed they do not need to say what the properties were sold for they do not need to say what is going to happen to the proceeds. This is the most pathetic kind of effort at providing any kind of transparency and accountability. To correct I think the mistaken statements uttered in this Chamber before the dinner break by the Hon Dr Nick Smith this bill is very very clear and it says that once land is declared to be social housing land for the purposes of disposal under this bill then the proceeds of that sale will go into a Crown account. It does not say “go back into Housing New Zealand.” It does not say that these funds will be then reinvested in the provisions of State or social housing. And in fact repeatedly National Government Ministers have declined to give that assurance. They have been asked in the media and in this Chamber whether or not the sale proceeds would be reinvested in State housing and they have refused to do that.My point is that if you take into account the provisions in new section 50L which is the best that this bill can offer in terms of transparency all it is is a very insubstantial attempt at telling the public what has happened. There is no rigour; there is no detail. In all likelihood people will have no idea about the substance of what has happened when large volumes of publicly owned assets are sold into what could well be private ownership. My point is that when you take into account these provisions in Part 2 there is no accountability there is no transparency. The Ministers are given huge wide-ranging powers to do whatever they like. It is a charter for corruption. It will cast the Ministers involved and put them in a very vulnerable situation if they are seen to be doing deals with private interests that will benefit from these deals and with the Hon Bill English talking in the last couple of days about large amounts of State housing being sold off to international funds so that they can operate on a business model like the retirement village companies do I think there is a real risk that these deals will besmirch further the reputation that New Zealand has for probity and integrity.