Dyson Ruth: Social Housing Reform (Flexible Purchasing and Remedial Matters) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Social Housing Reform (Flexible Purchasing and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 21 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3652. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Normally I would say I was pleased to be taking a call on a bill that talked about more flexibility in social housing but unfortunately the title bears little relevance to anything in the bill particularly in Part 2. Before I speak to the specifics—and I want to speak particularly about clauses 20 and 21 in Part 2 I just want to talk about why members of Parliament come to Parliament and why we seek to spend our Fridays and our Saturdays for that matter debating in this House. It is because every single member of Parliament regardless of their party I think comes to Parliament because they think they can make a positive difference. They think they can make a positive contribution to a better New Zealand. So regardless of what their party is that I think is the driver behind the intentions of all members of Parliament.One of the things that we have been particularly proud of in New Zealand is our commitment to social housing. That is because as egalitarian New Zealanders we think that it is just right—it is fair—that people should have a warm dry affordable home and be able to stay there and be part of their community. That has been an integral part of the fabric of our society for nearly a century since this Parliament first debated the introduction of social housing. It is something I am particularly proud of especially when you go to other countries and see people living in appalling conditions. Of course we have State houses that are very run down in New Zealand. We have whole areas where we would like to see a lot of improvement done but would it not be great if this Parliament could regain the sense of unity that we had 80 years ago when we introduced social housing and asked how we could do it better for the future?But the National Party instead is saying: “We do not think it is the Government’s responsibility to operate State housing any more. We think we should sell it off.”Well I do not agree with that. I do not agree that it is a valid role of housing providers to provide social housing with the Government completely out of the picture. Social housing providers have always worked in partnership with central government and long may that partnership continue whether it is the Salvation Army or Comcare Trust or the Methodist Mission or Presbyterian Support—any number of organisations that have done their bit alongside the Government to provide warm dry affordable houses so that every member of our society can be safe and be part of a contributing community. That is not the aim of this bill at all.Clauses 20 and 21 specifically outline the further withdrawal of Housing New Zealand from a very critical part of providing social housing and that is in policy advice and in research and monitoring. How do we know what works and what does not if Housing New Zealand—the very agency that was responsible for providing social housing—is no longer providing policy advice to the Government about social housing or doing any monitoring or research? How can we say our aim is to do things better in future if we are not getting any policy advice about how things are working at the moment?I want to challenge the backbench of the National Party to explain why they are putting their personal names alongside a bill that privatises social housing—Chris Bishop: Oh it does not.Hon RUTH DYSON: —and that says that Housing New Zealand will no longer be responsible for policy advice or for research and monitoring. Mr Bishop I recommend some reading for you—the bill would be a good starting place. The bill would be a really good starting place because I am fed up with listening to interjections that are not truthful. They are not truthful and your colleagues listen to them and think that when your untruths are repeated they must be true. Well actually repeating something that is not true does not make it true. That is exactly what happens in respect of Part 2 of the bill which we are debating now. I challenge Mr Bishop to stand on his hind legs and say that he has read the bill—that would be a challenge—and then to explain what it does. How can this bill possibly be accused of providing more social housing more flexibility warm and dry homes or be accused of as Simon Bridges the Minister who was previously sitting in the chair said making time stand still? He said that under Labour—