O'Rourke Denis: Third Readings —Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Third Readings —[Sitting date: 21 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3687. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): There are three questions that I believe the people of New Zealand should be asking this Government about this legislation. First how will this legislation create more homes for people? Second how will this legislation reduce the cost of housing stop the massive increase in rents and stop the ludicrous rises in house prices in Auckland without causing the bubble to burst? Third how will the privatisation of State housing improve the quality and security of housing for the most vulnerable people in our communities? I want to try to give some answers to these questions.To the first question about meeting the demand for rental homes this legislation is not actually designed to increase rental housing stock. It is in fact designed firstly to minimise the role of the State by emasculating Housing New Zealand; effectively requiring it to sell houses and to build only in some areas in the nature of a residential property developer rather than a social housing provider. What is needed of course is an agency with a comprehensive role in order to provide a housing service for the lowest-income people in the country to insulate them from the worst effects of the worst landlords. Also the legislation eliminates Housing New Zealand’s research and advice functions to the Government which seems very stupid to me because all of its expertise will be lost in the process.The second part of the answer is that the legislation means that the Government is actually abdicating its responsibility for social housing by contracting that function to others—to organisations that are not always capable of carrying out that function and to people without responsibility for the welfare of the tenants. The Minister said in her speech that flexibility will allow for tailored agreements to give certainty to providers so that they are able to borrow and build more homes. But the truth is that Housing New Zealand could actually do that faster. It could build more homes and it could build them better if it were properly resourced by the Government to do so. Why go to housing providers outside Government that do not have the capacity to do the job? It just does not make sense.The third part of the answer is that the Government by providing far too little money to Housing New Zealand for new rental housing shows that it is not really interested in solving the problem at all. If that were not bad enough the principal Act amended by this legislation means that people are being pushed out of State houses—actually bullied out of them—through this policy of reviewable tenancies. This is based on a bureaucratic assessment of the ability of tenants to move into private accommodation for no apparent reason and without regard to their health or well-being their community connections or their need for secure accommodation.The legislation is also designed to avoid accountability. The Government wants to be able to point the finger at somebody else when it is shown that not enough rental houses are being provided. This Government’s way of dealing with the social housing crisis is to transfer it to others—avoiding the heat by leaving the kitchen. The answer to the first question about increasing rental housing stock is that the legislation will not cause one new rental home to be built and Housing New Zealand will not be resourced to do it either. It will be another tool to speed the sell-off of rental homes and it will be used to justify less and less investment in new State rentals. It will make the crisis worse not better. Ultimately that means more housing deprivation and it will make State houses even harder to get than they are now.I want to move on to the second question about affordability. The average rental is now $379 per week. Under National that is an increase of $65 per week since 2008—a 20.9 percent increase. That is an increase above the Consumers Price Index of 11.7 percent. What does this mean? It actually means that in the main centres rents have become unaffordable for people despite the rent subsidies offered by the Government. Even that is not the full story because those figures that I gave are for all of New Zealand. The crisis is much greater in Auckland and Christchurch. In Auckland people typically spend half or more of their income on rent and that is unacceptable. In Christchurch where I live I hear stories all the time. People tell me that they are spending $1000 a week for an ordinary three-bedroom home because they cannot find anything of reasonable quality for anything less.Those are facts. They are not just my opinions; they are what people are telling me. It is the truth and this Government is not addressing it in those main cities. People are still forced to live in cars—forced to live in cars—in caravans in tents under bridges and in hovels not fit for human habitation. That is the record of this Government and it is not addressed at all by this legislation. So the answer to the question is this: this legislation is simply not capable of curbing even the rate of increase of rents let alone reducing them at the present time. In fact the legislation is more likely to cause increases in rents because the interest of private providers is in returns not in the welfare of tenants.Moving on to the third question on rental housing quality: social housing will now be at a very great arm’s length from the Government agencies that actually understand housing. Oversight will be seriously compromised as a result. More power is given to Ministers to give directions on the terms and conditions of contracts but they are clearly going to take a very political very dogmatic ideology-driven approach to it. This means under this Government that the approach will be aimed at saving money with much less focus on looking at the best interests of the most vulnerable people in our communities. Non-government providers will impose their own policies and practices. What that means actually is that there will be no satisfactory minimum housing standards for rental properties in New Zealand and we know where that will lead. It will lead in entirely the wrong direction. It will mean poor-quality housing. Most of all this legislation will result in a very uncertain outcome for low-income people who are dependent on the State for housing and above all who need security—not uncertainty—in their tenancies.Lastly the whole thrust of this Government’s housing programme as expressed in this amendment legislation and in the principal Act is that it wishes to suppress demand rather than meet demand. The results of that will be very expensive in social terms. It will result in reduced health and well-being and increases in poverty putting more families at risk and compromising social cohesion. This legislation is a retrograde step. It emasculates Housing New Zealand. It seeks to reduce Government accountability. It does not increase housing supply. It does not control rocketing rents. It does not improve housing rental quality. It simply does not address the New Zealand housing crisis at all. What a shame. This Government should be hanging its head in shame not telling us that it is proud of this useless legislation because that is what it is.I see somebody over there on the Government side laughing at this but the truth is that if he was one of the people affected the smile would be on the other side of his face. This is poor legislation. It should not be passed.