Rurawhe Adrian: Social Housing Reform (Flexible Purchasing and Remedial Matters) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRurawhe Adrian: Social Housing Reform (Flexible Purchasing and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 21 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3672. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Speaking to the title of this bill—in the title of the bill it has the words “flexible purchasing”. I just want to say that when you have a purchaser you also have a seller and the seller in this instance is the Government—the State. So I think that instead of having the word “purchasing” in it the name of this bill ought to be “Social Housing Reform (Transfer of State Assets) Bill” or the “Sale of State Assets Bill”. By the Government not using the word “sale” and using the word “purchasing” instead it gives a different slant to that of the public’s perception I believe.Over the last few years we have had a number of debates about the sale of State assets. Changing the terminology now in this instance to have a bill that talks about flexible purchasing does not address the issue that this is a mechanism a provision for the Government to be able to sell State assets. The general public ought to have the opportunity to have their input and they have not had the input in this instance. So I stand here to suggest that the name of this bill should be changed and that the Act of Parliament if this bill is passed should actually be the “Social Housing Reform (The Transfer of State Assets) Act”.I could equally say that it is the transfer of social housing responsibility as well because the transfer of these houses to non-Government organisations to property developers also hands over the responsibility of social housing to those agencies. That is not right. It is not right because the intent of what social housing is meant to be all about is helping those families who are most in need.One of the things that I am really concerned about is the length of time. Once these transactions are made how long does the responsibility of social housing afforded to the non-Government organisations last for? Is it 1 year 2 years? After 2 years can they stop their responsibility of providing those houses as social housing and then sell them on the open market at prices that no doubt those people who occupy those homes will not be able to afford? That is a big concern for me because then at that point those houses stop being social housing. In this bill we do not know when that will be because it is entirely at the Minister’s discretion as to how and when that would happen if at all. We just do not know.These are the kinds of things that could be fleshed out in an open process like the select committee process where people have the opportunity to come and have their say on this particular issue. The title bears little resemblance in my opinion to what the final outcome and effect of this bill would be on social housing. So my suggestion is that the Minister should reassess this particular issue and I agree with the sentiments of other contributors to the Committee on this particular matter that the title of the bill does not give a fair reflection of the content of the bill itself.There is one other issue and it is around Māori housing. I have read this bill very carefully and there is nothing in here that suggests to me that there is any way that the Government is upholding its Treaty obligations in providing and addressing the—