Moroney Sue: Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill — Second ReadingText is subject to correctionMoroney Sue: Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 07 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14521. Text is subject to correction.]SUE MORONEY (Labour): It is a pleasure to rise to speak to the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill only in order to give the position of the New Zealand Labour Party which has had a very long strong track record of actually developing and improving our social housing in New Zealand and just to place on record that every single time it is the National Government that starts to undermine the fabric of our really important housing sector. I do want to draw a bit of an analogy around some things that have happened in the past that are a little similar to this because it is a warning that I want to make sure people hear. It is related to the history of things that were once State provided then becoming run by very well-meaning non-governmental organisations—very well-meaning but under-resourced non-governmental organisations—then ending up in private hands.The example I want to share with the New Zealand public when we think about this issue is actually what has happened in the rest home sector in the last 25 years. Once upon a time right here in New Zealand rest homes were by and large owned and operated by the State. That is right. It was actually the Government that owned and operated those important institutions that take care of some of the most vulnerable in our society. At a point in time—I think it was probably in the 1980s that this started—very well-meaning non-governmental organisations mainly religious and welfare organisations put their hands up and said they would like to be involved in providing that care. The Government of the day said: “That’s great. We will gift you pretty much without any cost to you these rest home buildings as long as you run the services. We are going to give that over to you.” That seemed like an entirely reasonable and rational thing to do at the time although some of us protested it at that stage.But what happened next was what some of us had predicted for some time which was that these very well-meaning organisations did not actually have the capability and the capacity to do the job in the way they really wanted to. Because they were religious and welfare organisations they really wanted to take care of the vulnerable and the elderly to a very high standard. And when they found that they were not able to do that many of them actually got out of providing rest home care. What did that mean? It meant selling to the private sector. So in a very short period of time we had what were once upon a time State-owned and State-operated rest home facilities changing hands to become almost entirely privatised. And that is the state of that sector today. Why am I talking about that with regard to this piece of legislation?Hon Simon Bridges: I don’t know.SUE MORONEY: Simon Bridges cannot understand the analogy. I am just going to join the dots for Mr Bridges now. It is because that is exactly one of the things that is being proposed in this piece of legislation. What is being proposed is that Housing New Zealand properties can actually now become transferred into the non-governmental organisation sector. That seems like that might work very very well. I know that those organisations had the best interests of their community at heart. They did when they started owning and operating rest homes yet they found that over a period of time they could not sustain it in a way they wanted to.Here is my prediction. I made a few predictions yesterday on the Melbourne Cup and they did not come true. I hope these ones may not either. My prediction is that these same organisations will struggle to provide social housing to a standard that they actually feel good about. That could mean that this social housing ends up in the hands of developers. In fact I have been pointing out exactly this situation recently in Hamilton where the Hamilton City Council has basically sold—not gifted but sold—pensioner housing once owned and operated by the ratepayer to a very good non-governmental organisation a very good community sector.I would actually support that if it was adding to the housing stock and what I am really opposed to is when we have housing stock that already exists passing hands from being taxpayer owned and operated to the third sector and eventually ending up in private hands. That is a pathway to the privatisation of our important assets but more important it is the handing on of these really important community commodities that help keep vulnerable people safe and healthy in our communities into the hands of corporates. It is never a good result when that happens.The other reason why Labour is opposing this bill is that the bill will extend reviewable tenancies which will see 3000 people kicked out of their homes in the next 3 years—3000 people—despite the Government’s promise that this will not apply to elderly or disabled New Zealanders. But how is the Government going to ensure that that is not going to happen? I cannot see in this piece of legislation how it can make sure that that is not going to happen to those 3000 people. How is it going to ensure that those people are not going to be elderly or disabled New Zealanders? I do not believe that the bill addresses that at all.So although this bill is good in parts Labour cannot vote for a bill that will see senior citizens ejected from their homes. We cannot support a bill that will see some of the most vulnerable in our society ejected from their homes. Provisions to extendreviewable tenancies to all tenants will create needless stress needless anxiety and suffering for older New Zealanders who are the people who least deserve such treatment and are less able to cope with it. We have seen no evidence that the Government has considered the likely health and social impacts of this provision.Tenants in social housing are an extremely vulnerable group who need a well-run social housing sector. A well-run social housing sector creates benefits for all New Zealanders as we see the costs of homelessness and poverty on society reduced but that is actually something that a Government should hold itself responsible for. Certainly we here on the Opposition benches are absolutely determined to hold the Government accountable for ensuring that it looks after the most vulnerable in our society but sadly what we see—and this bill will contribute to it—is the gap widening in New Zealand between the haves and the have-nots. The inequalities on a day-by-day basis are increasing in New Zealand and it is through policies like this that those inequalities are increasing.The Government seems to be in denial that there is even a housing crisis in parts of New Zealand. It does not seem to take this issue seriously. We had the Minister of Housing Nick Smith on his feet today in question time saying: “What housing crisis?”. Actually he said that there were more houses being built than ever before. Never mind that most of them are replacing homes that have been wrecked by an earthquake—homes that do not actually add anything to the housing stock in New Zealand at all; they are simply replacing that homes that were wrecked in a natural disaster. So here we have a Government whose head is in the sand about the housing crisis. Its head is in the sand about the needs of some of the most vulnerable New Zealanders in our community and it has come up yet again with a bill that falls well short—in fact it has some very dangerous elements in it—and could well make matters worse. I am proud to be part of a Labour Party that is opposing this bill.