Williams Poto: Address in ReplyText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWilliams Poto: Address in Reply[Sitting date: 28 October 2014. Volume:701;Page:301. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East):Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch for the opportunity to speak. I do want to firstly acknowledge you in your role and the new Speakers of the House. Thank you very much for everything that you do in keeping order in the House. I want to welcome our new members and we got to hear some of them give their maiden speeches today and I want to greet the returning members. It has been an honour to return this term to experience the full ceremony and celebration of the Commission and State Openings of the 51st Parliament and I send my regards to the constituents of Christchurch East for affording me the privilege of representing them again.I listened with interest to the Speech from the Throne for this Government’s commitment to our people on housing and I am sad to say that I was saddened by what I heard. Our people know that shelter decent housing and a roof over their heads are the most basic rights and it is absolutely the State’s responsibility to house its people. Our Government has in the past built our nation on this fundamental premise and it is our responsibility to ensure that our people have shelter. We need to look further and say that this shelter must be accessible and that there are no barriers that exist to decent housing whether that barrier be the lack of income lack of availability or the colour of your skin whether you are a beneficiary or a paid employee or whether you have a disability or a mental illness. This Government is saying to our people: “You are on your own and furthermore we are going to provide private landlords with more stock with which to charge exorbitant rents and force low-income people out of the housing market and into cars and garages.”I believe that the provision of housing is a core function of the State and the reasons are simple. Housing and shelter are important. They are basic human rights and they are rights that provide protection from the elements and those things that might harm us. They permit us to establish ourselves and to gather and preserve those things around us that are important to us. They provide us with a base from which we can flourish—a safe place to restore and to recover. But it is not just about housing. It is about decent housing that is warm dry and above all affordable.What causes me the most concern is the lack of commitment to ensure that the sell-off of our State houses is not detrimental to those on low incomes and prices them out of the market for a decent home. We are being assured by Minister English that social housing providers will be able to purchase these homes for their clients arguably the same people currently living in them. I would ask why the State should not continue to be the provider. The State has the resources to maintain these properties. It is cost-effective to hold a large portfolio of property to contract at the best Government rates for maintenance and repair. Again I ask why the Government should not continue with State housing.We have seen plenty of examples of the benefits of State housing and what has been provided to members on both sides of the House and I include the Prime Minister in that line-up. There is a need for housing; no one can deny that. So why does this Government want to sell State houses because clearly the Government is the best provider of social housing in terms of affordability and in terms of being able to maintain and repair these houses? The State has been a good provider of social housing as evidenced by members of this House. It comes down to one thing I believe and that is ideology. The Government does not believe in preserving assets paid for by New Zealanders for the use and enjoyment of New Zealanders. This is wrong.These State houses have been the backbone of strong communities and building decent lives for 80 years and we should be building more of them not flogging them off and flogging them off with no guarantee of any new homes to be built to make up the shortfall in our communities. Why should we not sell these homes? Let me quote John A Lee who knew a thing or two about housing: “It is well to remember that good housing is essential for a good community.” Being able to put down roots and develop links and connections into that community and to take advantage of community capital the social capital takes time and people have to have time to do so regardless of whether they own or they rent.There should not be a barrier to long-term residency in a community simply because of your ability to purchase a home or to affordably rent a home. These are not individual benefits; it benefits the community to have well-networked residents who are aware of their neighbours’ situations and supportive of them. A natural disaster is the time when these connections are most apparent and Christchurch is a case study on well-connected communities pulling together and working together through a very difficult time. Decent housing provides good outcomes for children. They will be connected into school and school will be connected into the family. Children are safer women are safer and communities are safer when those connections have been developed and enhanced over time and outcomes are better for families when transience is minimised or eliminated.The relationship of the cost of housing to income is without question the most critical situation that needs addressing and supply plays a significant role in that cost. The housing issue paints a different picture depending on which part of the country you are in. If you are in Auckland or Canterbury experiencing escalating prices this is pricing first-home buyers out of the market. This fuels pressure which flows through the system and those with fewer resources are competing for rents. We know the story; we know it well. It is repeated every day to us by our constituents and by our media. The result is families in cars and caravan parks in tents and in seriously overcrowded unsafe and unhealthy homes putting their friends and families at risk of losing their tenancies. For low-income people and families it is the most insecure time for housing in many years.Here I want to quote Alan Johnson well-known to many who commented on the Government’s record card on housing in his report Give Me Shelter: “A lack of any vision or unifying view of social and affordable housing … A poor understanding of future housing need and a failure to plan for this need … Inadequate funding and an absence of any funding models which might address housing need in an effective way and on a sustainable basis”. What is the responsible approach to housing? It is one that considers the person’s ability to pay for that housing. This means not only affordability and availability but the income available to pay for that housing which for most of us is the biggest take out of our pay packets each week. This means decent pay raising the minimum wage and setting a target to achieve a living wage in jobs where we value workers with decent conditions adequate rest and meal breaks.At question time in the House today Minister English said that we should not be surprised that the housing programme for sell-off has been signalled for 4 years now and that the Government’s programme will address the serious housing needs. Minister English also admitted that there are serious housing needs which I must say is refreshing to hear given the accusation that our side of the House is always overstating the problem—catastrophising I think the Government calls it. So it is with relief I acknowledge that the Government is finally taking some notice of this. The Minister says that this programme will deliver housing of the right type in the right place of the right condition and of the right size. I do hope that it will deliver for our people. The Minister went on to say that under the Government’s programme of delivering better public services it is taking a better approach to people and that it will be measuring success based on the measures of serious housing need.I can only say that the Government needs a better measure than the one that it is using for reducing child poverty for example because if it is serious about addressing this need and the serious housing need it needs to get real about the impact of its policies on that need. By this I mean the benefit reforms the investment approach to social services and delivering better public services. Do these deliver real solutions to our families? I believe that our families are being put in an impossible situation where based on resources that they have they have no choice. It is not bad decision-making; it is that they do not have choice. Above all I believe that we want a Government that will make it possible for Kiwi families to put down roots and fully participate in a healthy community life.