Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill

I move, That the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill be reported to the House by 1 October 2013. This bill implements a substantive shift in Government housing assistance from a State housing model to a social housing model. We all know that New Zealanders are facing increased pressures from high housing costs, that poor housing contributes to poor health and education outcomes for children, and that the old model of massive State housing estates does not work. I want to acknowledge the work of the Housing Shareholders’ Advisory Group and its thoughtful and substantive report, on which this reform is based. The easy politics in the area of Government housing assistance is just to demand that more public money be spent. A Government would never balance the books with this approach. This reform is all about getting the maximum social dividend from the Government’s investment and spending on housing assistance.

The first big change is to say that the level of assistance should not be based on whether the Government owns the house. It should be based on the needs of the family, the income of the family, and the quality of the house. This bill enables the hundreds of millions of dollars spent each year on the income-related rent subsidy to be available to approved social housing providers. So if a high-needs family is housed by the Salvation Army, an iwi, the IHC, Access New Zealand, or the like, the Government will pay the same subsidy as if it were a Housing New Zealand house. The real advantage is the capacity for these organisations to provide, alongside housing support, the specialist wraparound services that are support for those families. It might be family support services, it might be mental health support, it might be alcohol and drug support, or it might be disability services. We all know that integrated support works best.

A more diverse social housing sector also provides for greater innovation. We already know that community social housing providers do a better job of helping people back on to the pathway to housing independence. We are a Government that does not think all the answers lie with politicians and officials, and we welcome the opportunities a more diverse social housing sector offers. I note that in Australia the community social housing sector has more than doubled in size over the past decade and now represents 20 percent of its social housing. In Canada it is over 50 percent. They are getting better social outcomes than from a monolithic State house approach. We are behind the pace, with a very small community social housing sector, and this reform is designed to grow it.

Providing housing for all our most disadvantaged and needy families is difficult for social organisations to finance. These families just cannot pay full market rents. The game-changer in this bill is that having the Government pay approved social housing providers the difference between the market rents and what can realistically be paid by those tenants makes it a far more viable proposition. This is not the only support the Government is providing to social housing providers. We know the sector is small and needs a kick-start to grow. That is why we have set aside $140 million in the Social Housing Fund to help investment in non-government social housing provision. Next week I will be announcing the next round of grants.

This change of opening up the income-related rent subsidy to other social housing providers beyond Housing New Zealand requires a parallel reform. Housing New Zealand currently does the needs-assessment for families needing State housing and income-related rent. This will not work in the new multi-provider social housing system, so responsibility for this role is to be transferred from Housing New Zealand to the Ministry of Social Development. This makes common sense. I can recall so many frustrated constituents who were being pushed from pillar to post, from the Ministry of Social Development to Housing New Zealand, as they struggled to establish whether their housing needs were best met either by a State house or by receiving the accommodation supplement. From April next year there will be only one assessment. It also makes sense that a person’s or a family’s housing need is assessed alongside their income and other social needs.

The second substantive reform in this bill is the legislative provision for reviewable tenancies. This is all about ensuring we use our social housing for the people most in need. This policy approach started with new tenants from 1 July 2011, now covering 10,000 of those in Housing New Zealand homes. Reviewing tenancies will now be applied to all State house tenants and tenants of community housing organisations who pay an income-related rent. The review of tenancies will be undertaken with common sense. We understand the importance of certainty for tenants, particularly those with serious and long-term needs. This policy involves developing pathways to housing independence, and will be focused on those tenants paying market rent. This is about social housing being available for people while they have that high housing need, and as their needs change—they secure a better job, the children leave the nest—they can then free up that house for a new family of higher need.

The reforms in this bill need to be considered alongside Budget 2013. It should be noted that providing income-related rents for community social housing is not coming at the expense of Housing New Zealand, and $27 million of additional money is being provided to fund that change. Nor is the policy of introducing reviewable tenancies a money-saver. Having high-need families replace those on market rents in State houses actually increases the cost to the Government, and that is why we have set aside $47 million in the Budget for that purpose. We are also increasing the income-related rent subsidy for Housing New Zealand tenants, to take into account the increase in housing costs. This bill also makes provision for the new rental Housing Warrant of Fitness scheme. To be eligible to receive an income-related rent subsidy, social housing providers will need to meet certain standards.

I would also note that this Government is providing for the biggest programme of new investment ever in the history of Housing New Zealand. Housing New Zealand is budgeting to spend $2.9 billion over the next 3 years. The most ever spent in a previous year was less than half of that. This money will be spent on completing the insulating of all State houses; it will be going into Project 324&5, which is adding additional bedrooms on to three-bedroom houses, which we have too many of, putting extra bedrooms on 2,000 of those homes; on the huge rebuild job that we have in Christchurch; on earthquake-strengthening State houses in other parts of the country that are not up to standards; and on major new redevelopments. These investments are about improving the quality of our State homes, and ensuring they are the right size and in the right place.

This Government’s housing policy does represent a significant change. We are far more focused on getting good outcomes, rather than just simply counting the number of State houses. We are creating a more diverse and more innovative social housing sector. We make sure our support is going to the families that are in greatest need. We are focusing on the quality, not just the quantity, with the development of the rental housing warrant of fitness. I urge the House to support the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill. It is a better approach, it will help more families, it is well researched, and it is widely supported. It is the sort of reform that all New Zealanders wanting a brighter future for their country should support. I commend the bill to the House.

I will give this Government credit. It is true that it lacks an economic plan. It is true that it has left New Zealanders feeling disgusted by the sale of our gambling legislation to an Australian casino. It is true that it is on the long, steady decline to electoral oblivion in 2014. But at least—at least—it has woken up to the fact that there is a house affordability crisis, and I will give it credit for that. It has actually worked it out. Steven Joyce has looked at the polls. He knows there is a housing affordability crisis. He knows that Aucklanders, particularly, are deeply concerned about it. He knows that unless the Government is seen to be doing something, unless it is perceived to be actually taking some action, then it is in deep trouble. I will give Nick Smith this: he has at least, since he took over from Phil Heatley as the Minister of Housing, conveyed the impression of activity. But the problem is that the very direction, the very nature, of the policy that he is pursuing for social housing, and for housing affordability more generally, is undermining the values that New Zealanders have held dear for many, many years about the role of the State in guaranteeing a social safety net for New Zealanders who need the assistance of the Government for a certain time in the provision of decent housing.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Nick Smith was part of the Government that did away with income-related rentals.

He was—he was in the Cabinet of the Government that was responsible for selling off 13,000 State houses in the 1990s and left it for subsequent Governments, particularly the fifth Labour Government, to clean up that mess. I say to the House that Labour will be in Government before long and we will be cleaning up the mess that this Minister is leaving.

The effect of the reforms in this bill will be to weaken the role of the State. This bill offloads the responsibility of central government in providing income-related social housing for people who need it. The crowning glory of National’s housing policy is to evict 3,000 State tenants. That is going to be Nick Smith’s political epitaph. That is his greatest achievement as the Minister of Housing—to see 3,000 Housing New Zealand tenants booted out of State housing. I ask Mr Smith—I ask him—is this an aspirational target, to boot out 3,000 State house tenants? Is that aspirational, or are you, Minister, absolutely confident that you can kick out 3,000 State house tenants? Is it simply an aspirational target like the 39,000 houses that Mr Smith says that he is going to build in Auckland? He says he is going to build 39,000 houses simply by opening the gate to new greenfield land on the fringes of the city, and streamlining a bit of Resource Management Act consenting. By doing those things, Mr Smith tells us—tells the nation—that he is going to build 39,000 affordable houses. Well, we will see, Mr Smith. We will see if you do that. Only National would come to this House with an aspirational target in the area of social housing to boot out 3,000 State tenants while we are in the middle of the worst affordable housing crisis in living memory. This is this Minister’s idea of some kind of progressive reform: to kick out 3,000 State house tenants in the middle of a housing affordability crisis. That says it all.

Let us talk about some of the detail of what the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill does. One of the first things that it does is that it allows the community housing providers to get access to the income-related rent subsidy. What is that? That is the difference between local market rents and what State house tenants are paying under the current policy. The context for this—it is very important to understand the context for this—is that Nick Smith wants to offload 12,000 State houses to the charity sector. That is his idea of strengthening social housing provision in New Zealand. He wants to flick off the worst, the most run down, and the least fit for purpose State houses to a charity sector that is fragile, undercapitalised, under-resourced, and ill-equipped to manage that kind of asset. It is exactly what the National Government did to rural and country hospitals in the 1990s. It did not want the State to have responsibility for providing health services for rural and provincial communities and isolated communities, so what did it do? It offloaded them to the community and said: “Here. We don’t want to provide this essential service anymore. You go away and run it.” Did it hand over the revenue, the funding streams, and the capital to allow those community trusts to properly manage, maintain, and upgrade that vital infrastructure? No. It was a recipe for decline. It was a sordid act of back-door privatisation and, simply, National’s habitual response, which is to offload and devolve the very functions that New Zealanders expect the State to take responsibility for. It is cynically disposing of a big chunk of the Housing New Zealand estate, the least fit for purpose houses, to NGOs. It is not handing over the capital that would be needed to properly maintain and ultimately upgrade those assets. It is a recipe for decline.

Labour supports the social housing sector. We want to see a Government social housing programme that works in partnership with community housing providers, but that is not what this is about. This is not an act of genuine partnership between the Government and social housing providers. It is shuffling pieces on the chessboard by moving a big chunk of the social housing estate out of Government control and into the community sector. Not a single extra Kiwi family in need will be housed by this move. It will not make a blind bit of difference to the number of people who are currently languishing on waiting lists, desperate to get a decent roof over their heads.

The second thing that this bill does is that it passes over to the Ministry of Social Development the responsibility for assessing the need and assessing the eligibility of State house tenants. The justification for this is that the purpose—the agenda of this set of reforms—is to try to establish a kind of quasi-market for social housing in New Zealand in which Housing New Zealand will be set up to compete with community housing providers. If you are going to have that kind of set-up, then what you have got to do is have a neutral party that assesses the need and eligibility, and that is why Nick Smith wants the Ministry of Social Development to take it over. My concern is that this is just the latest move by the National Government to de-power—to strip away—the functions of Housing New Zealand.

It is already a weakened organisation. It is already dysfunctional. Phil Heatley’s “Smarter, Faster, Fairer” fiasco restructuring of Housing New Zealand has seen tenancy officers taken off the front line. Housing New Zealand tenants have been forced to engage with the organisation through an 0800 number. It has weakened the organisation. It has driven up tenant churn and turnover. It has driven up fraud, it has driven up non-payment of rent, and it has been an absolute disaster. The organisation is in no state to do the kinds of things that Nick Smith is asking it to do, and he wants to weaken it even more by taking away what is a central function of a social housing provider, and that is the assessment of eligibility. Housing New Zealand is going to be left simply as a tenancy manager for the rump of the old social housing estate. Minister, you may as well just get Barfoot and Thompson to basically manage the tenancies. Why not? Just go the whole hog. You clearly do not believe that the State has a role in providing social housing for vulnerable people. No, you do not Minister, and your party does not. Everything that you have done as a party in the last 20 years says that you do not believe in the importance of the role of the State in delivering income-related social housing. Given the logic of these reforms you may as well just hand the whole lot over to Barfoot and Thompson. This National Party has an ideological belief that the State cannot do good in this area. Every opportunity it gets it wants to devolve, contract out, fragment, and fritter away Housing New Zealand’s role as a social housing provider of income-related rental housing. Labour would like to see Housing New Zealand revitalised and rebuilt, working in partnership with the social housing sector.

The final point I want to make is applying reviewable tenancies to 3,000 people who will be booted out under Mr Smith’s aspirational target—

I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. His time has expired.

It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the first reading of the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill. I want to again thank the Minister next to me, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, for his vision, hard work, and determination, and for bringing these solutions to this House tonight.

Budget 2013, as we heard from the Hon Bill English, makes bold changes to the way that we will deliver social housing assistance to those most in need. We are ensuring that housing is in the right sizes, in the right places, and in the right conditions for those who need it most. This bill will help address the issues that Labour, quite frankly, did not have the intestinal fortitude or the appetite to fix. It will increase the pool of resources available to our service providers and get much needed support to those in need.

You see, Labour broke the housing sector by its inept leadership under the direction of former Ministers Maharey, Chris Carter, and Maryan Street. This infamous triumvirate of slum landlords provided cold, damp, and mouldy homes to those most in need. New Zealanders are grateful that this Government will have insulated every Housing New Zealand home by the end of this year. You see, that triumvirate oversaw a sector where the average price of housing in Auckland between 1999 and 2008 grew by 91 percent.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: How much?

Ninety-one percent—two and a half times the rate that those prices are going up under this National Government. Those members oversaw interest rates at an all-time high of 8 percent, a rate of inflation of over 4 percent, and a waiting list that grew longer and longer and longer. That is absolutely disgraceful, and it is a direct example of the type of hands-on leadership those opposite continue to preach in this House.

It was hands on with the economy, and they increased house prices, inflation, and interest rates; hands on with electricity, and they wiped $500 million out of the pockets of hard-working New Zealanders; and it was hands on with ACC—and Mr Smith would know this—and the social insurance scheme almost became insolvent. You cannot trust, and the people in New Zealand cannot trust, Labour to get its hands on anything. If you compare that with the John Key - led National Government, you will see that it has delivered the lowest interest rates for over 50 years, the lowest inflation rate since 1999—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: No growth.

—under 1 percent, and Mr Lees-Galloway knows that—and continued economic growth during the most turbulent financial times globally. That may not matter to Maryan Street, and it certainly sounds like it does not matter to Miss Dalziel, but it matters to the average Kiwi paying a mortgage and supporting their family. This bill is part of our reforms to deliver assistance to those most in need and those who need social housing.

As the Minister has already stated, this bill extends income-related rents to community housing providers. It transfers the needs-assessment process to the Ministry of Social Development. It provides reviewable tenancy for all Housing New Zealand tenants. You see, we on this side of the House are about growing the involvement of those who are best placed to help our most vulnerable. Government is not the only answer. If we are to be lambasted for using the skills, assets, and expertise of our social housing providers like the Salvation Army, CORT Housing, and others—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Transit camps.

—then so be it.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Transit camps, that’s what you’re offering. What about communities? We need communities, strong communities.

The Greens call this privatisation; we call it helping those families that most need help. Community housing providers—and Miss Dalziel knows this—can often do a better job of meeting the need, because they provide wraparound services for their clients. The Minister has already referred to the fact that they provide churches, NGOs, and community providers. Often they integrate their housing with support for people with disabilities, mental health issues, addictions around drug and alcohol, as well as family dysfunction. There is no reason why a family in need should receive less support just because the bricks and mortar of their house are owned by a community provider rather than the Government. So what is important is that those most in need get that support that they require.

We are looking to bring in renewable tenancies for all Housing New Zealand tenants, and I also want to commend the former Minister the Hon Phil Heatley, because he began that work under his tenure. This will allow people to transition and give them support to move into alternative housing when their situations improve—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Transit camps. No communities.

—and they are able to become independent. Miss Dalziel, Miss Street, and their former colleagues oversaw tenancies where people with incomes of over $80,000 were living in State houses while thousands languished and suffered on waiting lists. In Maungakiekie I have often seen three-bedroom homes occupied by single tenants who refuse to move to more appropriate accommodation and make way for families who are actually in need. This bill is about improving access to social housing for those who actually need it. State housing will always be there for those who need it and for the duration of that need. That is most important.

As the Minister has already said, we are making a record investment of $2.9 billion into Housing New Zealand over the next 3 years. We are tackling the issues that matter to New Zealanders. We were elected on a platform to deliver better, smarter, and more innovative public services. With this bill we are delivering on that promise. I commend this bill to the House.

Well, we have just heard a speech that was full of fake sound and fury, straight from the research notes. Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga read them—page 1, page 2, and page 3. I have to say how disappointed I am in a member who has been here 4½ years and still has to read out the research notes. He could not even make a speech straight from his heart. He had to read his fake outrage off a note.

I have to tell you that this is the Nick Smith quinella—the second bill we have had on housing this evening. I have to tell you it is a real gamble, because what we know about Nick Smith is he never does his homework, he makes up fake figures, and he goes around telling people one thing and then the evidence comes out under something else. So I say to people look out for the bodgie figures, and look out for the bodgie evidence as to why we need the change in this bill, the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill. He is “Mr Old Flip-Flop”, because he was part of a Government that got rid of income-related rents. It hated income-related rents. It did not like State house tenants getting a fair deal under a National Government. Suddenly he embraces income-related rents and would like many more to have it in the other parts of the housing sector.

There are three main parts to this bill as I see it: powers for Housing New Zealand to be able to review State house tenancies to ensure appropriate tenants are matched to appropriate housing; secondly, to enable Housing New Zealand functions to be transferred to another Government agency at a later date; and, thirdly, to provide a framework for the provision of social housing by multi-providers in the social market. So I said “Let’s go straight to the regulatory impact statements and see what they have got to say about it.”, because what I learnt with Nick Smith is that the regulatory impact statement on his Better Local Government legislation was the most shocking one I have ever seen. It tore apart his local government reforms. It said that there had been no work done on it and no evidence, and that was backed up over and over again. Well, what did I find, Dr Smith? Your regulatory impact statements are not on the website. You say in the bill here: “Look up the website. You’ll find them.” So I went to the Clerk’s Office, and the staff had to find the statements. They had to run them off and put some on the Table. Why did they not have the regulatory impact statements available?

Well, I had a wee look at them. There are two of them. One is from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. What does it say? It says there is limitation to the analysis provided—there is limitation. Once again Nick Smith has a limitation to the evidence provided. The ministry said it is the early days of reform and most of the decisions being sought from Cabinet at this time—they have not all been finished, you see. The Ministry said it also has not done the consultation. It has consulted with Government departments and has had “targeted informal engagement” with the community housing sector, but “given the Budget sensitivity of the options outlined in this paper, non-government stakeholders have not been consulted on the options.” They have not been consulted, and it is dated 22 March. They have not been consulted, and what is written on it? “Budget Sensitive.” So they were not consulted.

What does the second one say? It is from Housing New Zealand, and I find this very interesting because it goes through, and it just happens to set out some of the risks, and—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: You can do better than this, Annette.

Oh no, you do not want to hear about the regulatory impact statements, because these are the independent statements about your lousy work. That is why he does not want to hear about them.

And what does this one say? Housing New Zealand talks about what will happen in terms of the information-gathering powers. What are the costs? Well, the costs will be increased accommodation supplement payments to tenants moving from State to private housing. That is one of the costs. Secondly, there will be increased administration costs; and, thirdly, cost to the clients complying with information requirements. And then there will be costs to those other than tenants who are asked to provide information. None of that was put forward by Dr Smith today—not one of the costs or problems outlined. The Government hid the regulatory impact statements so the House here, which has to debate it tonight, could not get it.

Well, I will tell you what this bill is. This bill is the “Get Rid of Housing New Zealand Bill”. This is the first step in getting rid of Housing New Zealand. You see, the National Party has always hated State housing. Right back to the 1930s when a Labour Government brought them in, the National Party has—

💬 Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Were you alive back then?

Oh, and that member probably lived in one, but now, of course, he would like to get rid of them. You see, National has never wanted to have State housing. So this is the beginning of getting rid of Housing New Zealand. It wants to flog it off. Why is the Government not honest? As Phil Twyford said, why not go the whole hog and flog off Housing New Zealand to any old agency out there, the private sector, which could just carry on providing houses for it. You could probably get Beerfoot and Thompson or whatever it is called—

💬 Phil Twyford: Barfoot and Thompson.

It could probably do it. Why not be honest, Minister? This is step one in getting rid of Housing New Zealand. The Government wants to get rid of Housing New Zealand, and it started it some time ago. Mind you, the poor, old, hapless previous Minister could not get any traction on anything. He was so set in his ways and so unable to move that all he could do was talk about it. Nick Smith—I have to give him credit—does know how to make things happen. Even if they are terrible things, he does know how to make things happen.

So what did the Government do? The first thing it did was it closed the Housing New Zealand offices. Nobody can go to a Housing New Zealand office now unless they can get through on the 0880 number and get an appointment. You know, the funniest thing happened recently. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Social Development were going through a town in New Zealand and they saw a Housing New Zealand office. They rocked up to the door and they thought: “Let’s pop in. Let’s pop in and say hello. You know, we’re the Prime Minister and the Minister for Social Development—very important people. We’ll just pop into Housing New Zealand’s office.” What happened? They got to the door, and the door was locked. They could not get through the door. They tapped on the door, and nobody opened it.

You see, that is what has happened to Housing New Zealand offices. The Government closed the doors. It did not want—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Rubbish.

Oh, “Rubbish.”, says the Minister. How long has he been the Minister? Oh, maybe he gets in the door. He has to give them a ring on the 0800 number and make an appointment, and then he gets in the door. The Government closed the office and it turned the service into an 0800 number. Well, what a problem it had with that—thousands of calls that were never picked up and thousands of people who did not get any service at all. It was an absolute mess, and this was Better Public Services. Those were the first steps. Now we have this bill, and in this bill are the next steps in getting rid of Housing New Zealand. I think this is a very sad day. We will oppose this bill because the Government wants to get rid of Housing New Zealand. Why not be more honest?

And why are we rushing this bill through at all? Part of it does not even come into effect until 14 April 2014—next year. That is when the Government wants to ensure that it can transfer the functions to another Government department. We now know that it is the Ministry of Social Development. I actually think it is quite a sensible idea to have the Ministry of Social Development giving advice, because we used to have a housing advisory service that was available to anybody who needed advice. That was closed down as part of the downgrading of Housing New Zealand. So it is going to transfer it to the ministry. It does not happen until 14 April—if it happens by then—so what is the rush in terms of this bill? And the ministry is going to be able to provide information, and Housing New Zealand will be just another provider of social housing—just another provider. That is right, Minister, is it not? It will be just another provider.

I support the community housing sector as well, but I have a question for this Minister: can those who have got income-related rent transferred to the community sector, living in one of its homes when they are assessed as no longer having income-related rent, be removed from the community house of a community housing provider? I cannot find out whether that is the fact. If it is the fact, what right does the Government have to control who lives in the homes of the Salvation Army, the Housing Foundation, or Habitat for Humanity? What right does it have to interfere in that? That is something that needs to be answered. In conclusion, the Minister talked about quality, not quantity. This Government has never been able to provide either. We will get that only under a Labour Government.

As we have heard from both sides of the House so far, this bill, the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill, represents a major overhaul of social housing in New Zealand, and its significance should not be underestimated. It does signal overtly what has been clear for some time, which is that the Government wants out of social housing. It wants Housing New Zealand to operate only as a landlord, effectively, and not as a social agency. Housing New Zealand’s 69,000 properties are the second-largest single asset on the Government books. The Government clearly wants to treat them as such, as a commercial asset, not as an essential social service. That much is clear from the Cabinet agreements from 29 October last year, which are revealed in the regulatory impact—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member. There cannot be interjections when people are standing.

Thank you. That much is clear from the regulatory impact statement’s Cabinet agreements, which read like a neo-liberal manifesto. This Government’s vision for social housing has “a shifted emphasis from a model whereby the Government provides social housing primarily through ownership, to one where it purchases services and enables greater consumer choice and diversity through a contestable funding pool; a larger percentage of social housing delivered by non-government providers; a less dominant role for [Housing New Zealand], one where non-government social housing providers enter the market, and/or existing providers expand their operations, and [Housing New Zealand] makes more efficient use of capital.” That is the vision.

How does the bill give effect to this wonderful new neo-liberal corporate version of social housing? Well, it provides for renewable tenancies for all Housing New Zealand tenants, it shifts housing needs - assessments from Housing New Zealand to the Ministry of Social Development, it extends the income-related rent subsidy to community housing providers, and it provides a framework for a very limited warrant of fitness for some rental properties. There is a very small amount of good news in this bill, and that is the extension of the income-related rent subsidy to the community housing sector.

But there are some incredibly damaging measures in this bill as well, and the worst of those is the extension of renewable tenancies to all Housing New Zealand tenants. In July 2011 renewable tenancies were introduced for new Housing New Zealand tenants. That has been in place for not even 2 years. We have barely seen any tenancies renewed under the pilot scheme of renewable tenancies, which is now being extended to all tenants. So with barely any reviews undertaken, the Government is going to roll them out to everyone, even though it has not had the opportunity to actually test them to see how they work in practice, to analyse the data, and to review what the outcomes are for the tenants who have been moved out of Housing New Zealand homes, because it has not had time to implement the pilot policy yet. The Government is already rolling it out to everybody in Housing New Zealand properties. It does not make any sense. Renewable tenancies are very dangerous, because many of the social harms associated with poor-quality, unaffordable housing are associated with the high degree of churn experienced by tenants in the private rental market. That is things like children changing schools frequently. It is things like social dislocation and isolation experienced by families who move frequently and who are unable to put down roots in their community. It is things like the inability to be part of their community and participate fully because they are constantly moving around. That is very common in the private rental market, and that is what we are going to see now in the social housing market because of the extension of renewable tenancies to all tenants in Housing New Zealand and social housing properties.

At the moment, if Housing New Zealand tenants are able to get into a Housing New Zealand home, they get a blessed relief from this dislocation of the private rental market, because finally, after years of that dislocation and severe housing stress and often homelessness, they actually have a place to call home, where they can put down roots, where they can become part of the community, and where their children can go to the same school for a number of years, and they can begin to rebuild their lives. That is one of the beauties of the Housing New Zealand and State housing system. And, perversely enough for the outcomes of this bill, the ability for tenants to participate fully in their education and their community and to develop social connections dramatically improves the chances that they will be able to recover and move into private housing or purchase their own house under their own steam. So Housing New Zealand’s existing policy actually makes it more likely that those tenants are going to be able to recover and move on. Extending renewable tenancies will affect many people before they are ready to do that, and it is likely to contribute to a higher level of churn in the social housing market as well as in the private housing market.

The other concern we have about extending renewable tenancies is that it is going to affect a high number of elderly and disabled tenants who have been in their Housing New Zealand homes for a long time, and for whom being moved on will be incredibly disruptive and harmful. The Minister has told us that he is budgeting to evict 1,000 tenants, or households, in the first year of this policy being in place, and 2,000 in the second—so that is 3,000 evictions, as we heard before, in the middle of a housing affordability crisis. In the Green Party we say that he should build 3,000 new houses to accommodate this demand, and he should give those tenants—because he will talk about tenants in Housing New Zealand homes who are already paying market rents and therefore do not need to be there—the opportunity to purchase equity in their Housing New Zealand houses. If they are able to pay market rents, then that money that they can afford to pay should go towards purchasing equity in these houses, so that not only do they have the opportunity to get on to the homeownership ladder but also we increase the supply of affordable housing by continuing to build new Housing New Zealand properties to replace them.

The second concerning element of the bill is the shift from Housing New Zealand to the Ministry of Social Development of the responsibilities of needs-assessment for tenants. Again, it signals that Housing New Zealand and the Minister want out of service provision in the housing sector. Arguably, I think in some ways this could be seen as an improvement, because Housing New Zealand has been so terrible at doing these needs-assessments since the introduction of the 0800 number. There is, indeed, some rationale to have eligibility assessed by the same agency that assesses eligibility for the accommodation supplement, so there is some potential with this idea. The problem is that what we know about Work and Income New Zealand and the Ministry of Social Development and their attitude towards dealing with clients is that they have a strong incentive not to tell people about their full eligibility and entitlements for support. They have a strong incentive to move people off welfare and not to put them on to the support that they could be eligible for. And we have got no confidence that they would be any better at applying that process to housing needs - assessment and making sure that people were accessing their full entitlement to the accommodation supplement or making sure that they were getting into an income - related rent subsidy house. So we are not convinced that the Ministry of Social Development is actually capable of doing that in a way that potentially might have some benefit.

There is also a risk, in moving this needs-assessment away from Housing New Zealand, that the agency making decisions about what houses to build and where—Housing New Zealand—will no longer be informed in making those decisions by the knowledge that it gleans by being the one that does the assessment of those needs. So there is a separation there.

Extending the income-related rent subsidy to community housing providers is, as I said, one part of the bill that we do support in the Green Party, because we agree that the community housing sector generally delivers high-quality housing that is specifically suited to the needs of its tenants. We could support that, but that on its own is not enough for us to support this legislation. We would note that, as well as extending the income-related rent subsidy, there is a very real need for the Government to fund some capacity-building in the community housing sector—that if it wants the community housing sector to pick up the slack where it does not want Housing New Zealand to provide service any more, it has to build capacity in the sector to allow that to happen.

Finally, I note the rental warrant of fitness. If there is one reform that we urgently need in the housing sector, it is a warrant of fitness for rental housing. But what we have got is a damp squib. We have got a very limited warrant of fitness, which applies to only Housing New Zealand houses initially, and later, perhaps, to the community housing organisations. Focusing this on Housing New Zealand is a waste of time and it is a red herring, because I have received through an Official Information Act request Housing New Zealand maintenance guidelines and I have got a book this thick of the guidelines that Housing New Zealand already has for the quality of its houses. The problem is not that it does not have robust standards at Housing New Zealand; it is that it does not implement or maintain its properties up to those standards, and it does not respond on time when tenants make complaints. A warrant of fitness will not make a blind bit of difference to that. Most children growing up in poverty in poor quality homes do not live in Housing New Zealand properties; they live in private rental houses, and this bill does nothing for them. The Greens will be thoroughly opposing this bill for all of those reasons.

It is a pleasure to rise in support of the first reading of this Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill.

I have to say I am appalled by that last speaker, Holly Walker. I did not realise that people moving off a benefit was such a bad thing in this country. I did not realise that people becoming independent of Government support was such a bad thing that that member opposes support from the Government for people to become better and to live much more independent lives away from Government support. I did not even realise that Miss Annette King thinks that we are closing down Housing New Zealand. Why should we be spending $3 billion on Housing New Zealand if we wanted to close it down?

This is about the Opposition becoming very frightened that we are getting into the territory that it claims is its domain: helping the people who are poor in this country. But what did the Labour Government do in the 9 years that it had the Treasury benches? I would like to ask that question. Obviously, nothing. It was the slum landlord that had people living in cold homes that we had to warm up. We are warming up houses up and down the country and we are very proud of that record.

This bill ensures that the housing we provide is the right size, in the right place, in the right condition for those who need it the most. Our social housing package is a key part of our promise to deliver a better public service. We want to provide the right environment to grow the community housing sector.

There are many community housing providers—organisations such as churches, NGOs, charities that provide support for vulnerable people—and they do a great job. There is no reason why a family in need should receive less support just because the bricks and mortar of their house is owned by a community provider rather than the Government. So we are actually saying that we are providing the same support. We should remember that the important thing is to provide the support that people require, not bicker about who owns the bricks and mortar, in this instance.

Often community housing providers can provide better support to people in need, as they are already providing integrated support for those people in a holistic manner, whether they are providing counselling, whether they are providing support for people who are trying to come off drugs or alcohol, or maybe they are in a situation where there is domestic violence. They provide holistic support, and this support that the Government will be providing will be even better for the job that they already do. That is why this bill provides for income-related rent subsidies to be extended to the community housing providers. This will mean that community housing providers can house more people, without the worry of where they are going to find the funds. They will be funded on the same basis as Housing New Zealand.

The other aspect of the bill is the assessment of people’s housing needs being shifted from Housing New Zealand to the Ministry of Social Development. Currently, people are assessed by Housing New Zealand for housing support and assessed by the Ministry of Social Development for social and income support. The shift in responsibility to the Ministry of Social Development will mean that the process will be fairer and will facilitate a more holistic view of people’s needs, alongside other social and income support. The shift will also mean that people’s housing needs - assessments will be made independently of housing providers. It will be done by people who best understand their need for income and social support.

As I said earlier, the Government is making a record investment of $2.9 billion in Housing New Zealand over 3 years. That is definitely not a signal that we are giving up on Housing New Zealand. We are supporting it to provide a better service for New Zealanders.

Also, Opposition members have previously talked about the reviewable tenancies and why they disagreed with it. Many members in this House have actually come across situations where people are living in Housing New Zealand homes where their families have grown up and moved on, but because they were already given the house—often very big houses to house bigger families—they refused to move out of these homes. There are many other families who actually need the bigger homes and they cannot move in. What we are saying is that reviewable tenancies, which we make these people sign, is not a case of evicting people out of their homes. The Minister never said anything about evictions. This is about providing the right housing for the needs of the people—the housing for the right need for the right people. We are not evicting people but are providing a better housing service for people in this country. This is a great bill. I commend it to the House and look forward to the submissions in the select committee consideration.

The Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill is just another knee-jerk reaction by the Government to the intensifying New Zealand housing crisis. The Government’s priorities are saving money and reducing the size of State services, rather than ensuring that the needs of people, especially those at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum, are adequately met. It will be a darker future for them.

The bill offered here is another one of the Government’s moves being made in isolation to what is really needed: a comprehensive New Zealand housing strategy in which social housing must have a vital part, not a reduced one. The social housing sector in New Zealand is grossly neglected. In comparison with the United Kingdom and Europe, our sector is primitive and fails to meet the needs and expectations for social housing in this century. New South Wales is another example of a place where a much more innovative and up-to-date approach is being tried and found.

This bill goes in the opposite direction. The expectation that somehow the laying-off of social housing to community housing organisations will solve our housing needs is unrealistic and risky. Housing New Zealand as it is is also unable to meet these needs adequately. There are too few rental houses, especially in Auckland, but also in Christchurch, where the earthquakes have caused rents to rocket. There are too few houses to meet the need and there are poor-quality rental units. There is not adequate support, either, for State house tenants who need the assistance of other social agencies. We have in some parts of the country, effectively, State house ghettoes with attendant crime problems in some places, but we have contrasting areas with no such issues in others.

This inconsistency, and the fact that there are too many State houses in some places and not enough in other places, shows that we have had no strategic approach to social housing needs in New Zealand for far too long. We now need new housing models, such as those being established in New South Wales, and more innovation and options for people in the rental market—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s what the bill does.

—this bill does not do that properly, at all—and we need more experimentation. A good example, actually, is the competition for a new housing model in central Christchurch currently. It came up with some well-considered mixed housing ideas, which I hope will all be tried. This bill does none of this.

New Zealand First’s policy is to make rental housing affordable and accessible to people on the lowest incomes and to offer a range of options to meet all social needs. The Government’s social housing policy reduces the scope of the operation of Housing New Zealand and it will transfer large sums of money to community housing organisations. This raises many unanswered questions—most of all, how will the need for a robust regime of accountability be met? The bill before us does not adequately address these issues. And what about the application processes? Last year the Salvation Army was turned down for not meeting the financial criteria, but part of the $3 million Māori fund was allocated to Whangarei Accessible Housing Trust, which was running at a loss. Figure that out.

What about the competency of third sector housing providers applying for social housing? Grants are given of large sums of money, and these organisations will own the housing funded by the Government. How do we know it will be well spent? There will be no State asset in return. What happens if a recipient organisation fails? Where do the assets go? How transparent and accountable are the processes for allocating funds to community providers? What safeguards and risk management have been put in place for the funds allocated to non-profit community providers? Will well-meaning community providers have enough competence in the housing market, when private investors have lost many millions of dollars in the building and property market themselves? Will these organisations have the competencies to maintain and manage assets properly?

New Zealand First believes that it is unwise to confuse social objectives with property investment objectives in non-governmental organisations. The outcome will be risky, uncertain, and unlikely to be acceptable in practice. The State would do better to provide social housing directly and not rely so much on the NGO sector. There is a place for those organisations, such as those organisations that provide refuges for women—and there is a need for that facility—and there are others, too. But these are a discrete and relatively small area of need.

The social housing need in New Zealand is now huge, and is growing. More and more Kiwis are unable to afford a home. Many will never be able to buy one. Their need is for options for long-term rental housing, which in this country only the State can reliably provide. The income-related rent subsidies that this bill will provide to community organisations also has too many pitfalls, especially—

I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair.

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Friday)