O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you Madam Chair. We're doing obviously the annual review debate. As my colleague the Hon Louise Upston has mentioned it is primarily looking back but I'll signal to the Minister in the chair the Minister for Social Development that a bit like herself touching on COVID I want to look at the past in order to represent the current situation and then to look forward to how we might respond. Being an annual review it's also thematic so we're looking at the wider aspect of social development. I'm sure it's particularly good news to the Hon Kris Faafoi that I'm going to turn my attention to social housing and address the annual review of the Housing New Zealand Corporation and the annual review of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development.But I want to put if I might on the record from the start the if you will sort of expected but unfortunate circumstance which the Parliament finds itself in at the moment in order to do this annual review—the fact that there are so few MPs here. I'm fortunate to be with excellent colleagues in the social development sector like Louise Upston and Alfred Ngaro. But also—it's possibly a little bit presumptuous—the Minister herself who's in the chair doesn't have the usual officials here to support her. I raise that not as a particular reflection on the Minister or the Opposition but actually—Hon Chris Hipkins: It's all right; she's on top of the details.SIMON O'CONNOR: —the usual procedures of the House. Hon Member: That'll be good. We'll wait for her answers then.SIMON O'CONNOR: That's right we've had a challenge that she's on top of the figures which we'll see. Again I don't want to make that too personal at the Minister; this is a wider point that it's hard to be a robust democratic Parliament. The fundamental problem we have is that any Parliament is here to authorise enormous spending and there is no bigger spend than there is in the social development space.I would argue while we're reflecting on the last year where I would suggest the left-wing Government just throws lots of money around and I would say particularly in social housing it hasn't achieved its goals. Things are about to get much much worse post-COVID as our economy effectively collapses. I think the Leader of the Opposition summed it up well yesterday that as we flatten the health curve we don't want to flatten the economy. I fear that we are already doing that and as a consequence the social development spend is going to explode. In fact it would be interesting if the Minister in the chair as the first test is able to give us some extrapolations figures numbers or otherwise of what the next six months of social development spending is going to look like.I want to primarily turn towards Housing New Zealand but interchange if you will between housing and urban development and Housing New Zealand. The context as we started the annual review is over 15000 New Zealanders waiting for a State house. That's 15000—that's three times the numbers—15000: a huge number that's three times as much as when National left Government. I've been happily on the record saying that you know there was always more that previous Governments could do but if you take that as given I think it's important to do so. The now Government who made a big big issue at the time or in the times past of the crisis have tripled it. Even as a I don't know lover of the English language I'm not quite sure what the superlative of crisis" is. So that's another question for the Minister: if 5000 was a crisis under the National Government how does she define 15000 now?When we begin to situate that in the COVID situation—and again it's only a guess; it's a speculation—I expect things are going to get much much worse; substantially worse. I did challenge the various officials from the ministries at the time of how they were handling the current crisis of 15000. If that number's going to go higher—I mean again it's a speculation; it could go up by 50 percent or 100 percent—how are they going to manage that? I think that's a fundamental question that we need to hear from the Minister.We heard also a lot of talk—particularly in recent days but it was coming up in the annual review—about the use of motels. In its short-term approach it's probably not a bad idea. If someone has nowhere to live if you are homeless having any roof over your head is pragmatic. But during the annual review we were raising with Housing New Zealand in particular how do they provide the requisite supports that those people need. When I turn my mind to those who are homeless and having worked with the homeless—granted more in Australia ironically than New Zealand—they come with very complex needs so simply putting someone in a motel doesn't cut the mustard; they need a wide range of support. Importantly too we need some surety. In the reports that we got before the annual reviews and anecdotally it said that you weren't necessarily having the right combination of people in these motels—so for example a solo mum with her children next to someone who's just come out of—Madam Chair?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Oh I beg your pardon; I'll let you continue.SIMON O'CONNOR: Oh that's jolly decent of you. Thank you.Hon Member: Very charitable!SIMON O'CONNOR: Very charitable that's right—"Be kind" I think was the advice we've all been given.Mixing of people in these motels: as I say a solo mum with children being put in next to someone in a motel who's been recently out of prison—both have equal needs but do they need to be equally if you will in the same motel? So these were challenges that were being raised in the past and I note them now because the Government has made a big announcement around 1100 I think now new hotel places for the homeless. As I posted on Facebook and elsewhere I think it's important that we look after the homeless and I think the Government on that is to be commended but the questions now continue of how is that going to be managed? There's over $100000 per person effectively allocated. We want the specifics—or I'd like the Minister to provide some specifics of what care is going to be given because it hasn't been clear in the past.I think we need some certainty as well as a House and certainly as a general public to understand how will people be chosen if you will or rightly allocated into motels so that they are safe and well looked after. And then I think most importantly actually—and I raised this in the past and during the annual reviews as well—is how do we transition those people out? Homelessness living under a bridge or on the street is definitely not good but nor is a motel long term; they're not designed for this. So it would be welcome if the Minister would provide some comment around that.I'll just finish finally on this section—I'll seek some other calls later if possible. It's around antisocial behaviour and it's effectively riffing if you will off that comment of behaviours in some motels. We knew at the time of the annual reviews that there were about a thousand—that's 1000—antisocial incidents per month in in this case State houses. Certainly this side of the House but I'm sure particular electorate MPs on the Government side have had their constituents who are living often by a State house raising with them the issues. I understand that the Minister who has kindly answered questions of me before has pointed out the dog barking and otherwise and I'm certainly not referencing that level of antisocial behaviour. It's when you're dealing with much more violent behaviour threatening behaviour and so forth.The challenge that's been put to the ministries and to the Minister is: why is Housing New Zealand not taking a firmer approach on this? We can all understand there are times when you try to help but there are those that at times there needs to be a consequence. I've pointed out many a time that there's effectively been no evictions and what I think they term "business initiated transfers"—or BITs as an acronym—has literally only happened in bits and I think I could probably count on one or maybe two hands. So there are major antisocial behaviours occurring and there does not seem to be the necessary consequences. As I say 1000 incidents a month.As we now look forward not only are we going to—again it's a speculation but I think I'm pretty accurate to think that we're going to see many more people in need of social housing and on top of that they're going to be very stressed. There's going to be a significant increase in mental health issues—we're seeing that already with the nature of the way that COVID is being managed or not. We're going to see more incidents.So I want some surety—not simply around if you will the more extreme measures around business initiated transfers or evictions—from the Minister that there's going to be situations or processes in place to help those people and obviously to help the neighbours. I certainly reject what we've heard from officials before in annual reviews that they'd be more prepared to move a private person than they are the State housing tenant next door which seems a little bit about-face to me.I also would like to know if the Minister would—because I understand she's got all the answers to hand; the Leader of the House has been very optimistic about that which is jolly decent of him—how they're going to support the moteliers. You know again this is turning out to be the first home of refuge. Moteliers and no offence to them are not actually used to doing social housing services.So there are just a few questions there. I look forward to the Minister's response and will look to come back and have a discussion later.David Seymour: Madam Chair?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Does the Minister—no?Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I'll collect some more.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): OK."