Muller Todd: Social Housing Reform (Transaction Mandate) Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMuller Todd: Social Housing Reform (Transaction Mandate) Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 18 August 2015. Volume:707;Page:5907. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I am pleased to be able to stand here tonight and take a call in the first reading of the Social Housing Reform (Transaction Mandate) Bill. I am excited because this finally enables the reform of our social housing provision in this country to widen it more comprehensively beyond State provision only to facilitate more community housing provision more collaboration greater innovation in the models around that delivery and in the end to get greater outcomes for those who need it most—our vulnerable New Zealanders our “customers” as we heard this afternoon from Bill English.If ever there was an insight as to why this bill is needed it was the opportunity that was afforded to me a month or so ago when I was asked to attend a community housing hui in Merivale in Tauranga where 50 locals from that community had been called together to hear about this bill in particular and this particular policy reform. I had the privilege of outlining the position from the perspective of the Government but there were four others who were in the room representing Labour the Greens New Zealand First and even the Mana party. It was extraordinary the level of blind ideology that was imparted by the four parties that I mentioned: Labour the Greens New Zealand First and Mana. What was even worse was that the people in that room were nearly all clients of Housing New Zealand who had come to hear what it would mean for them and the language and the narrative that was used by the Labour and Green Party and New Zealand First representatives was appalling. They were told that they would be kicked out of their houses. They were told that this was a dirty deal between Housing New Zealand and community housing providers and that billions and billions of dollars’ worth of housing stock was going to be sold off.What was particularly revealing from my perspective was that speaker after speaker gave the philosophical view that only the Government—only the Government—through Housing New Zealand provision knows what is best for Merivale and Tauranga. They said that only the Government through Housing New Zealand should be the provider of State houses in that community. It was appalling in my view. It was a deliberate exercise in making vulnerable people feel more vulnerable through distorting deliberately what this policy is all about. But the Labour Party has form in this because in the 2008 election it wrote with Labour Party letterhead to every Housing New Zealand tenant and said: “If you vote for National you’ll get kicked out of your house.” That is what it does the Labour Party. It says it represents the most vulnerable but it uses them for its own political purpose and it is outrageous. It was fantastic to be able to stand there and give hopefully an effective outline of why this policy is important and why we are delivering for the people of Tauranga and Merivale.After the kai—we always appropriately have kai at half-time—I had the opportunity to reinforce some key messages around our commitment to have over 60000 State houses by 2017 our commitment to having an additional 3000 income-related rent subsidies by 2017 and our commitment to have housing provision remain for as long as the need is genuine and we will stand beside those people in their time of need. Most critical I could talk to our commitment that does not arrogantly assume that only Housing New Zealand should play a part in social housing provision but that together with community housing providers who are from the community who live in the community and who live its challenges and understand its opportunities we can achieve more. This is what this bill enables and it is why I am so proud to be able to stand here and support it.Obviously the key provisions for this bill support our social housing programme. The bill amends the Housing Corporation Act to provide designated Ministers with the authority to transfer Housing New Zealand properties and these designated Ministers will be able to do that by entering into appropriate commercial contracts in the name of Housing New Zealand. It was interesting to hear Mr Twyford argue—I think ineffectively—that somehow this is an over-reach in terms of ministerial power. I think it is absolutely appropriate. With Housing New Zealand under the current legislation it would be difficult for the Government to direct via policy intent particular houses to be sold on behalf of the State. This bill enables the Ministers to be able to enter into those various contractual negotiations.We heard earlier from Minister Bennett around the importance of the transparency provisions that are implicit here through the gazetting notice and the fact that we have to demonstrate at all times that these transfers are consistent with our social housing reform objectives. This legislation enables us to sell between 1000 and 2000 houses to community providers over the next year and of course as noted the Ministers can use this power only if it is consistent with one or more of the Social Housing Reform Programme objectives set out in the legislation. These are worth just stepping through because they are critical to the bill. The first is to ensure that “people who need housing support can access it and receive social services that meet their needs:”. The second is to ensure that “social housing is of the right size and configuration and in the right areas for households that need it:”. We have heard earlier from my esteemed colleague Matt Doocey the fantastic MP for Waimakariri about the mismatch at the moment between demand and supply with 25 percent of demand being for one-bedroom houses while only 9 percent of the supply exists in that space. The opposite of course is the case for three-bedroom houses which are 24 percent of the demand but just under half—43 percent—of supply. The configuration is not what we need and working with community housing providers will enable that to occur more easily.I am very pleased that Tauranga in particular has been selected as an area to work with our local community and community housing providers for some stock transfer. Obviously we have five community housing providers in Tauranga. There is the Tauranga Community Housing Trust and interestingly only a matter of a month or two ago Minister Bennett was in Tauranga opening a particular local social housing initiative that was put together by the Tauranga Community Housing Trust. Why is that so important and relevant here? It has the same footprint: twice as many houses provided all insulated all warm and all delivering to the mixed needs of that particular community. Ngāti Ranginui as we heard over the last 48 hours are obviously being involved and have 115 rights of first refusal. The country’s biggest non-governmental social housing provider is keen to buy houses in Tauranga. Two iwi organisations Ngā Pōtiki and Mangatawa Papamoa Blocks are keen to participate and have a fantastic vision that provides phenomenal opportunities for social housing not only for their iwi but also for the wider community particularly in Papamoa.So for Opposition members to stand up there as they have today and say that this is all about a philosophical view that is not connected with the community and that there is no demand is absolute patent nonsense. They need to get out of Wellington. They need to come up to Tauranga. They need to talk to the people whom they purport to represent who are lining up and saying they want to be a part of this. Those people have a vision for their community and they think that in this Government—not the Labour Government; this Government—they have a Government they can partner with that is innovative that is open and that will facilitate the delivery of their community housing needs.I look forward to supporting this bill through the select committee. I hope we get some good debate around the bill and I very much commend it to the House.