Twyford Phil: Social Housing Reform (Flexible Purchasing and Remedial Matters) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTwyford Phil: Social Housing Reform (Flexible Purchasing and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 21 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3651. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): It is the revenge of the Phils. Thank you Mr Chairman. I was a bit worried actually because one thing I have learnt is that if you give Phil Goff half a sniff he will grab the opportunity with both hands.Speaking to Part 2 of the bill I want to make a point that relates to the argument that many of us have been making this morning about this bill and that is the fact that National has been pushing this bill through the House under the cloak of Budget urgency with no apparent justification for why this bill needs to be passed today. I have not heard anything from any Minister in the chair or any of the Government members in this debate about why this bill has to be pushed through under urgency. But the pitfalls of that approach are actually contained within the clauses in Part 2.Clause 18 which basically ensures that these new flexible purchasing agreements are exempt from GST is a tidy-up. It is a tidy-up of previous legislative mistakes. Clause 23 amends the KiwiSaver Act so that membership in complying superannuation funds counts for the 3-year eligibility period for a first home withdrawal if a person transfers to KiwiSaver. This clause is cleaning up the mess left by the KiwiSaver HomeStart package and by the legislation that enables KiwiSaver withdrawals. So two clauses in Part 2 are evidence of this Government’s previous botch-ups in passing laws in this House but it does not seem to have learnt from its mistakes and it is pushing through this bill under urgency without any chance for scrutiny at the select committee without any expert opinion without the officials being able to take their time and look at the legislation and without the public being able to come along and make submissions. You have to wonder whether clauses within this bill will end up back in the House in some kind of mopping up operation in the future wasting taxpayers’ money to clean up the mistakes that this Government has made.Clauses 20 and 21 are really symptomatic of this Government’s systematic gutting of Housing New Zealand the latest and perhaps the last indignity before the organisation is sliced and diced and handed out to anybody who will take it. With the removal of any kind of policy and research function this bill basically takes away Housing New Zealand’s mandate to do evaluations of its programmes. So it has now basically been reduced to a Government-owned version of Barfoot and Thompson instead of being a full-service social housing organisation devoted to meeting the needs of some of the most vulnerable New Zealanders. It is simply a letting agency. Its ability to manage the waiting lists its ability to handle and assess eligibility has been hived off to the Ministry of Social Development. Its portfolio has been carved up and flogged off to anybody who will take it under other provisions in this bill. But these two clauses—20 and 21—basically take away Housing New Zealand’s ability to do research and most important to give advice on social housing to the Government of the day.But this Government does not want advice on social housing. It does not want to hear from people. We know that there is no evidence base for the Government’s policy of flogging off State houses and devolving the job of providing social housing and State housing to the most vulnerable New Zealanders. There is no evidence for the assertion that the Government cannot do that job properly and that non-governmental organisations charities Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all who might come along and register as a community housing provider private landlords property developers and anyone who meets the perfunctory requirements of being a social housing provider can line up and get these houses at knock-down prices. There is no evidence base for it.