Social Housing Reform (Flexible Purchasing and Remedial Matters) Bill

I move, That the Social Housing Reform (Flexible Purchasing and Remedial Matters) Bill be now read a first time. This Government has embarked on an ambitious programme to improve social housing and support more vulnerable New Zealanders. This bill will allow the Government to build on the crucial initiatives announced in the social housing reform programme to increase the supply of social housing and support more people in suitable housing that meets their needs while they need it. The Government will spend more than $700 million this year on the income-related rent subsidy, and that will increase by $154 million over the next 3 years. The number of social housing places available increases from about 62,000 currently to 65,000 by 2018.

This bill does four things. The first and most important of these is the introduction of the ministerial direction power to allow the Minister of Housing, in consultation with other housing Ministers, to authorise the Ministry of Social Development to enter into tailored agreements to purchase social housing places. Currently social housing is paid for via the income-related rent subsidy. Income-related rent is paid by the tenant and is no more than 25 percent of their income, while the second component, the income-related rent subsidy, is paid by the Ministry of Social Development and makes up the difference between the market rent and the income-related rent. The Ministry of Social Development is not able to negotiate prices or tailor contracts in any other way that allows social housing provision to be looked at differently and incentivises providers to enter the market. That is stopping the growth of community providers and means tenants are not always getting the best services. This bill retains the income-related rent payment in the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act so that providers who want to continue with income-related rent subsidy payments can do so. But it also allows the Ministry of Social Development to enter into tailored agreements so that the terms, conditions, and price can be negotiated to promote better social housing outcomes and attract organisations into social housing.

To be clear, nothing in this bill will change tenants’ eligibility for the income-related rent subsidies or how much they will have to pay in rent. What it does do is allow the Ministry of Social Development to explore other arrangements, such as long-term fixed-price tenancies that meet the needs of the Crown, provider, and tenants. Longer-term contracts assure that when a provider has a place available, this place will be offered to a person on the social housing register. Providers would have the certainty of a contract with the Government—that they will be paid to house a certain number of people over a certain length of time, and they can still be paid for properties when they are vacant for short periods before tenants. This means that if they are looking to finance construction or buy properties, they have the guarantee of an income stream that they can use to borrow against. Providers have asked for this certainty so that they can make long-term investment decisions. This will increase the supply of social housing and see more local organisations investing in homes for their communities. Long-term contracts will also guarantee the Ministry of Social Development’s supply so that it knows it can place tenants with providers as their properties become available.

Tailored agreements will allow the Government to pay more or less for certain tenants depending on their level of need. Pricing for these sorts of arrangements should be able to focus on the actual costs of supporting people, not just some pre-prescribed formula; it will be the ability to negotiate these kinds of deals that can help get the right providers who offer the best services and quality housing for different cohorts of people. For example, the Ministry of Social Development may want to enter into an agreement with a provider who specialises in people with disabilities. It will be able to pay more for the extra services that these people might need. This bill is being passed through all stages under urgency so that we can help the community housing sector to increase the supply of social housing places, particularly in Auckland, as soon as possible.

In December the Ministry of Social Development released a registration of interest to providers who are interested in supplying 300 social housing places in Auckland. There was a large response, with 19 community housing providers taking part. Their feedback was clear: that they need more flexibility in contracting to provide more places in Auckland. This bill will allow them to do that. This is an opportunity for the Ministry of Social Development to relieve pressure on the social housing register and engage further with the community housing sector about the different types of contracting arrangements it needs. Tailored agreements are not restricted to just community housing providers. Housing New Zealand is the largest player in the market, and tailored agreements will be available to it as well.

The legislation also makes three minor amendments to other bills. It ensures that payments for residential social housing provision under these agreements are GST-exempt, consistent with the current treatment of residential rental payments. It clarifies that Housing New Zealand is no longer required to provide policy advice to Ministers. This role has been undertaken by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and its predecessor, the Department of Building and Housing, since 2011. Minor amendments are being made to first-home withdrawal rules in the KiwiSaver Act. These ensure that any prior period of membership in a complying superannuation fund should count towards a 3-year eligibility period when the member transfers to KiwiSaver. This means that more KiwiSaver members have access to their savings to assist with the purchase of a first home.

This bill is a major step in the Government’s social housing reforms and enables the Ministry of Social Development to be a smarter purchaser of social housing. We are backing tenants by creating a social housing sector that can house more people in housing that suits their needs, provide essential support services, and assist them back to housing independence where appropriate. I commend this bill to the House.

The National Party is trying to brand this Budget as a Budget of compassionate conservatism. What gives the lie to that particular piece of double-speak is that the very first piece of legislation they are trying to ram through the House after this Budget is legislation that, basically, is designed to help them flog off State houses to their developer mates, in a fire sale and at knock-down prices. It is the big pay-off. It is the big payback. Actually, it is not compassionate conservatism at all; it is Cabinet club conservatism. That is what this is about: flicking off State houses to their developer mates at knock-down prices, breaking up communities, and throwing State house tenants out on to the street. That is the hallmark of this National Government and of what it is doing to State housing in this country.

The bill is all about flexible purchasing. It is so flexible that it is all about giving the Minister the flexibility to do sweetheart deals with property developers, because the Government is desperate to sell off State houses to anybody who will take them. They know that our most respected social agency, the Salvation Army, looked at this policy and said that it would not improve the lives of tenants. The Salvation Army ruled itself out. It said: “We do not want to have a bar of it.”, and so did the Methodist Mission. Bill English was forced to concede that only by flogging off these houses to property developers would they achieve their ambition of divesting thousands of State houses, worth billions of dollars, off the Government books. This Government has been a bystander for the last 6 years, while the housing crisis has been getting worse and worse. House prices in Auckland have gone up 87 percent in the last 6 years. The average house price has gone up by over $100,000 in the last 12 months. We have got families living in cars and garages, and yet the Prime Minister is deep in denial. He says that there is no housing crisis. He says that there is no risk of a bust. Things are all fine in Parnell, apparently.

New Zealanders desperately wanted the Government, in this Budget, to finally do something about the housing crisis. That is what people wanted, and they have been cruelly let down today, even though all the evidence suggests that for the past few weeks, since the Governor of the Reserve Bank gave the Government a bollocking in this Parliament for its failure to do anything about the housing crisis, it has been in a poll-driven panic to try to come up with things that will make it look as if it is doing something about the housing crisis. We have seen its half-hearted measure to target property speculators, which, based on Treasury analysis, will be lucky if it nets a thousand speculators a year and brings in $18 million a year. It will not make a blind bit of difference to the rampant property speculation in Auckland. Today the Government announced a very good scheme to use vacant Government land in Auckland to build housing on, but it was an idea that was developed—and the study for it done—in 2008 by the Helen Clark Labour Government. The National Government has been sitting on its hands for 6 years. It has done nothing with the idea, while the housing crisis has been getting worse and worse. But in a panic before this Budget, it dusted it off and presented it as if it were a new idea.

The biggest con job of all of the failed policies, the photo opportunities, and the deception that is this Government’s housing policy is its State house sell-off. In the middle of a housing crisis, when we have a spike in visible homelessness and in people living on the streets and in caravan parks all over the country, only the National Party would think it was a good idea to sell off the houses that it already owns. It tried to dress it up for months by saying that the Salvation Army was going to buy those houses, but the Salvation Army has ruled that out. Bill English does not care who the Government sells these houses to. He said that. He does not care who it sells them to; he just wants to get rid of them. This bill is about making it easier for the Minister to sell off those houses and to put in place sweetheart deals that will allow someone—anyone—to take these houses off the Government’s hands.

Let us look at what has happened to Housing New Zealand under this Government. It has stripped Housing New Zealand of its powers and its functions, and it has given them to Work and Income. What was once a full-service social housing agency has been reduced to the equivalent of a Government-owned Barfoot and Thompson. It is now simply a letting agency, and this legislation is the final nail in the coffin. This Government has been selling off State houses all over the country without telling anybody. In the past year it has sold 50 houses in Whanganui, at an average of 33 percent below the Government valuation, blatantly undermining property values in that town and flogging off publicly-owned assets below their market value. That is an absolute shame.

This Government has milked $500 million in dividends off Housing New Zealand in the past 6 years. Half a billion dollars—it has used it as a cash cow to prop up its fictional surplus, which never arrives. It has tightened the eligibility criteria so tightly that even people who are in acute need and acute poverty cannot get on the waiting list. It has subjected hundreds of vulnerable tenants, including the elderly, disabled, and families with young children, to the needless stress and anxiety of tenancy reviews—fearful that they will be thrown out on the street by Paula Bennett. The Government has closed offices, sacked tenancy managers, and forced tenants to use an 0800 number. This bill now strips away the last functions that Housing New Zealand has. It is no longer allowed even to give the Government advice on social housing—that function has been taken away. Housing New Zealand is no longer allowed to do research and it is no longer allowed to evaluate the work that the Government does.

State housing has a proud history in this country. It is how we make sure in New Zealand that every child growing up in this country at least gets a decent roof over their heads, no matter how much mum and dad may be struggling financially. It is how we make sure in New Zealand that every kid gets a decent start in life. That is why the taxpayer subsidised John Key and his mother to have a State house in Christchurch in the 1960s. The security of the roof over their heads gave the Prime Minister a good start in life. Paula Bennett benefited from the same generosity of taxpayers. Now the two of them—the worst hypocrites this House has ever seen—are willing to strip away and dismantle the very system of social support that gave those Ministers their start in life. Paula Bennett is happy to pull the ladder up. She and John Key are happy to deny a generation of young New Zealanders the same opportunities that they had in life. They do not care—they do not care.

Just imagine a young John Key in today’s generation, sitting on a suitcase on the side of the road in some suburb in some city in New Zealand, thrown out of the house that he and his mother called home. He is worried, night is falling, and he has no idea where he is going to sleep the night and no idea where they will call home. That is the reality for families all over this country. That homelessness has been made worse by the policies of this Government and by their utter failure to do anything meaningful about the housing crisis. The worst cut of all is that in the middle of a housing crisis and a housing shortage Minister Paula Bennett is dismantling the system of support that provides decent housing to the 4 percent—the most vulnerable people and the most vulnerable families in our country. What an absolute scandal.

Selling off State houses, breaking up Housing New Zealand and dishing out the bits to charities, reducing Housing New Zealand to being no more than a publicly-owned letting agency, and moving to a system of direct subsidies for landlords—that is what Bill English and Paula Bennett want to do. Their agenda here is dressed up in lots of nice words: “We want to grow the community housing sector. We’re stepping up with wraparound services. It’s all about the tenants.” It is not about the tenants at all. Because do you know what? We asked Paula Bennett, under the Official Information Act, what evidence she had for the policy of privatising State housing and for shifting that responsibility to non-governmental housing providers, and you know what she said? She said: “There’s no evidence.” There were no documents. The Government had nothing to say. There is no evidential basis for this policy, but that Minister is happy to preside over the dismemberment and the dismantling of Housing New Zealand—the very organisation that puts a decent roof over the heads of the most vulnerable families in this country.

I am sorry to interrupt the member but his time has expired.

It is a great honour to rise and speak to this first reading of the Social Housing Reform (Flexible Purchasing and Remedial Matters) Bill. I would just like to acknowledge the hard-working Hon Paula Bennett and all the work she has done as the Minister for Social Housing. I must say, as a new MP, it is an honour and a privilege to be part of this National Government today, which has delivered. We are working hard for New Zealanders and listening to New Zealanders.

The purpose of this bill is to provide flexibility. It is right that we provide flexibility because in the care sector it is now a mixed economy of care. What I mean by that is it is no longer solely State provision. It is about the Government provision, it is about private provision, but it is also about community organisation provision as well. So it is right that we provide flexibility in a mixed economy of care. This bill is important as we negotiate and contract with social housing providers because it is about providing the right house to the right person in the right location at the right time.

It reminds me of some statistics I read at the start of this year about Housing New Zealand stock. It was interesting that when we looked at demand for one-bedroom houses, the demand was around 25 percent but the actual supply was only 9 percent—25 percent demand and 9 percent supply. Then you look at three-bedroom houses—24 percent demand yet 43 percent supply. That clearly evidences how we end up in this situation where we have one or two people living in three or four-bedroom houses. So it is right that we move to a flexible model that will provide people with the right housing at the right time in the right place in the right location.

I know from my own experience—I worked in the United Kingdom in the social housing sector, managing a specialist intervention team for people with needs in social housing. These people can have learning difficulties, mental health issues, possibly physical disabilities, they might need education and training, employment help, and budgeting help. It is right that this bill will allow for and enable them to get wraparound services. What we know is that if people are put at the centre of their care, their personalised care, it enables them to become independent. We want people to go on and have independence in their housing. Not only do they become independent, but their self-esteem grows, their confidence grows, and they go on to be productive members of society. I am very happy to support this bill, and commend it to the House. Thank you.

I may have misheard the Minister when she started her speech this evening, but it sounded to me like she said that the Government has started on a vicious programme of reforms. I thought: “She’s right—she’s absolutely right.” She is not denying it, so I presume that is exactly what she said when she opened her speech on this new piece of legislation tonight. A vicious programme of reforms—that is what we have seen in Housing New Zealand under this Government.

What we have seen in the last 7 years in housing policy has been a series of ideological burps. In other words, nothing but a lot of hot air and gas, wrapped up in the biased and unbalanced philosophy of the National Party. The greatest exponents of this ideological burping are Dr Nick Smith and Paula Bennett. The latter, Paula Bennett, is the architect of this latest iteration of dopey policy. That is what this policy is. This bill is another piece of National Party tripe. It is meant to give the Minister the flexibility to negotiate contracts with organisations that purchase State houses. What it is is code for the great State house sell-off Mark II. It is a continuation of an attack on State homes in New Zealand, the sell-off of them by this National Party, and the breaking of a solemn promise made before the last election that there would be no more asset sales. There can be no bigger asset for an individual in New Zealand than the home that they live in. This Government is prepared to sell off thousands and thousands of State houses, and the Government says it is not an asset sale. The Government says it is not a broken promise. Well, I would say there is a name for that, but perhaps I will not use it today. That was a solemn promise—no more asset sales.

This is part of the continuation of selling assets in this country. It has followed a pattern. What this Government has done to soften up the people of New Zealand, those who perhaps are not in State houses, is to, first of all, remove people from the State houses. You saw that—those of you who come from the Hawke’s Bay. You need only to go into Flaxmere and places like that. The Government cleaned the people out of the State houses. It left them empty. Then the Government would say “Nobody wants to live in those houses.”, even though there were people who could not get a house and were on a waiting list—and the houses were empty. The Government said that no one wants to live in those houses.

Then it says that these houses must be in the wrong place and the wrong size, because nobody wants to live in them. The Government lets them stay empty. They lie empty, and then the vandals come along and break the windows and graffiti the walls. The Government says it gets complaints about the security of these properties and the cost of this security. Then the Government says that there is a great necessity to sell them off, because we do not need these houses any more. It is a pattern. It is a pattern that we have seen many times over.

Now we have got, as I said, the great State house sell-off. They were all going to be sold to those very willing community groups. The poster people of this great State house sell-off were the Salvation Army. According to Bill English, the Salvation Army was going to take all these houses. Well, I have met with the Salvation Army and so have many others in this House, and I have to say they were played as fools. They did not know the real effort that was going into this. They did not know the real agenda. When the Salvation Army people went away and did their figures and looked at their books, they said: “There is no way we can buy these houses. We will be in debt for 10 years if we buy these houses. We cannot do it.” But we were told that the Salvation Army was a very willing buyer of community housing. Backbenchers might not know that. Go out and talk to your Salvation Army. Speak to those who run the Salvation Army. They will tell you the truth. You were sold a pup by the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister—you were sold a pup, because the Government does not have any intention to provide houses, to buy up houses for community housing in New Zealand.

Then I had a look at the regulatory impact statement that goes with this bill. There are a number of questions. I always read these with interest because they usually tell you a little bit about what goes on in policy making. The regulatory statement asks the questions: “Are there any publicly available inquiry, review or evaluation reports that have informed, or are relevant to, the policy to be given effect by this Bill?”. What would you think the answer to that would be? Do you think there has been any evaluation of this policy? What will be the effect on people? Would you expect the Government to know that, before it brought some legislation into this House, to pass through every stage tonight, without the scrutiny of a select committee? Would you not want to know that before you did it? Well, what does the regulatory impact statement say? “No”—there has been no evaluation report to inform or is relevant to the policy. So we are going blind into this. We have no idea what the outcome is going to be.

Then we are asked: “Were any regulatory impact statements provided to inform the policy decisions that led to this bill?”. We were told the Ministry used the regulatory impact statement that was done in March, and that was before the community housing groups knew what the real story was and before the Salvation Army pulled out of this whole approach. It also asks: “did the [regulatory impact] team in the Treasury provide an independent opinion on the quality of any of these regulatory impact statements?”. What would you think the answer to that would be, to the members opposite? We are passing the bill through all stages tonight. We are going to put it into legislation without any scrutiny, other than what is happening now. Did Treasury have a look at this? Did Treasury provide any independent opinion on the quality of this? The answer to that is no. It has not happened. Why do we not learn? There is no need to rush this bill through tonight. What is the urgency in passing this legislation tonight, without the scrutiny, the impact, and the input from New Zealanders on this bill? So Treasury has not had anything to say on this bill either.

Has any further analysis become available since this policy has been given effect by this bill? What do you think the answer to that would be? It is another big, fat no. I think the members opposite who are going to speak on this bill might want to go and pick up the regulatory impact statement and then ask questions of your Minister. Backbenchers are so pleased and proud to praise her, but maybe they might want to ask a few questions as to why this bill has not had the scrutiny I believe it deserves.

Then I want to know, and maybe the Minister will answer this when we get to the Committee stage—she is going to have the power under this legislation to make delegated legislation with ministerial direction. That does not come to the House either. All she has to do is gazette it, and present a copy to this House, having done some consultation. I want to know why the extension of this power is going to be needed, Minister. Why is this going to be needed when we know there already exists in the Act powers that you can use? I would like an answer to that question, when the Minister gets into the chair.

We then get to what has really been happening to Housing New Zealand and why I do not trust this latest measure. Any members who are constituency members of this House would have seen what has happened to Housing New Zealand over the last few years. The Government has stripped away its functions. It has sold houses up and down New Zealand. It has milked the dividends out of Housing New Zealand. It has closed offices and it has sacked tenancy managers. That is what has happened. That is the legacy of the National Party State house policy.

I have to give the latest story I heard, and the Minister might like to answer this. There are two-storey Housing New Zealand houses in Dunedin. They have just been renovated in some way, and they had fire escape ladders because if you are on the second floor you might need to get out in the event of a fire. Those ladders have been removed, and Housing New Zealand said, no, that it was not going to replace them. That is a very good indication of what has happened to Housing New Zealand and State houses in this country. It is a mean, vicious, nasty approach, because many members opposite, but not all of them, think that those people who end up in State houses deserve it. They got themselves there, and they are getting what they deserve and the sort of housing that Housing New Zealand is prepared to provide.

I would like to just speak for a few moments on the Social Housing Reform (Flexible Purchasing and Remedial Matters) Bill. I would like to, perhaps, start by helping the member Annette King, who has just spoken. It is clear that her hearing is not quite what it used to be, because what Minister Paula Bennett was talking about was flexible reform, it was innovative reform, it is people at the centre reform, and it is reform that this Government is delighted to be able to push through and debate here this evening. It is not—

💬 Hon Member: They are angry.

They are incredibly angry. It is not this side of the House that is caught in an ideological rut; it is that side of the House. This side of the House has people and tenants at the focus of our social housing reforms, which is not what we hear on the other side. This bill is an important part of the Government’s social housing reform programme and, as we have heard from Minister Paula Bennett, it has the primary aim of introducing flexibility in the way that the Ministry for Social Development can negotiate and contract with social housing providers. This flexibility is important and, from our side, it should be encouraged. It is absolutely appropriate that we create the framework that this bill enables, which enables the Minister for Social Housing to have the power to direct the Ministry for Social Development to enter into these tailored funding agreements with social housing providers.

As we know, the current set-up and environment is constraining for the Ministry for Social Development. There is very little flexibility and this bill enables the agencies to be able to get outcomes that will deliver more social housing places for New Zealanders. Examples of possible tailored agreements include paying more for tenants who may be more expensive due to higher needs, such as older people, or entering into a long-term contract with a provider for them to offer a certain number of social housing places for several years. Both of these options are not currently possible under the current law. This is a move away from a one-size-fits-all to something that is more tailored and more sensible and that will deliver better outcomes.

We have heard over the last few minutes a reasonably impassioned view around how community housing providers are not going to respond appropriately and, to use the words of the Opposition, that perhaps this is a pup. I will return later this evening to talk about the experience in Tauranga and the appetite that exists for participating in community housing providers. I look forward to sharing that with the House later this evening. I commend this bill to the House.

Many New Zealanders look to the Nordic countries as a bit of a role model for how our country could be, and typically look with some longing to countries that offer their citizens high standards of living and egalitarian societies that distribute wealth pretty evenly across their societies. It comes as a bit of surprise to many New Zealanders when they learn that the inspiration for those modern Nordic States was actually New Zealand in the 1930s. That is right—it was the Government of Michael Joseph Savage that provided the inspiration for the modern social democratic movements in Scandinavia. There is no image more evocative of that Savage Government than the picture of Savage himself and several other Cabinet Ministers moving furniture into the first State house at 12 Fife Lane. Savage, of course, talked about his programme, not only of housing but also of social welfare and health care, as applied Christianity. He said: “What is there more important in Christianity than to be our brothers’ keepers in reality?”. He saw the Government as the expression of our collective responsibility to care for each other.

If the Government is not that, then what is it? What is it for? It seems to me that those basic needs that must be met if we are indeed to care for each other, must include warmth and shelter, and they must include a right to housing. It is not just some matter that the Government of the day might choose to make a matter of policy, but it is actually something that our Governments have collectively signed up to as part of the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. New Zealanders have a right to housing. New Zealand Governments have an obligation to ensure that everybody is well housed.

In some ways, this bill may appear on the surface to be somewhat innocuous. There is a particular exception to that, which I will come to a little later in this intervention. But the issue here is what this bill stands for—what it is emblematic of. I have to agree with the contributions made by Phil Twyford and Annette King to date that this bill is emblematic of this Government’s wider housing agenda. A flag is a kind of an emblem. We have got a referendum coming up on the New Zealand flag, and the Government right now is running a consultation under the banner of “What do you stand for?”. Well, the emblem that this bill provides for this Government—what it says this Government stands for—is a return to the neoliberal agenda of the 1980s and 1990s. It is a return to the economic philosophies of Hayek and Nozick. It is a return to an agenda of small government and of public choice theory. It is a return to the idea of core functions of the State being stripped away and devolved to the private sector. That is what is at stake in this bill.

What we have seen from this Government in housing is it shuffling the ownership of State houses ahead of actually providing more houses at a time of crisis—at a time when people are living in garages in their thousands. What we have seen from this Government is the sale of State houses to private developers, who inevitably will have a different agenda—an agenda that incorporates their own profit motive. We have seen no guarantee from this Government of the proceeds from those house sales going into building any more houses. Indeed, we have seen no guarantee whatsoever of any more houses being built at any time. In relation to the income-related rentals scheme, what we have seen is that the changes that the Government has made to that scheme have been driven by ideology—an ideological belief that exposing Housing New Zealand to competition from the private sector will, somehow, increase its efficiency. That is what sits underneath this reform. It is an ideological belief.

In the advice that the officials gave to Cabinet before Cabinet signed off on that particular policy, the officials pointed out that one of the likely consequences of that policy change would be that State houses would sit empty. That is right—at a time when we have, what, 6,000 on the waiting list for State houses, some of those State houses would sit empty because of the ideological need to spread income-related rent subsidies across both State provision and private sector provision. We have seen, in a particularly despicable development, tenancy reviews being expanded so that families that are just starting to recover from the chaos of lives without secure homes are being thrust right back into that same chaos. That is an agenda that services only the ideology of the Government. It does not put tenants, and it does not put families in need, at the heart of the agenda in any way.

Part 2 of this bill contains three measures. Two of those are relatively innocuous, and a third actually continues the agenda of the early 1990s—the separation of provider, funder, and policy maker. Just as a reminder to the House of what that separation was all about, it was a policy that was driven by public choice theory and driven by an assumption that the public servants who were involved in those functions would be motivated by their own self-interest. It was policy driven by a culture of distrust in the Public Service, a policy driven by the need to create the panopticon, in Bentham’s ideas, where everybody in the Public Service being observed and monitored would somehow result in better outcomes. The counter approach is for Government to instead create a culture of public service, a culture of trust, and to acknowledge that the experience of funding, planning, and providing housing might just be a pretty useful start when giving Government advice on policy around housing. It is an asset not a liability.

I asked earlier what this Government stands for, and this bill and its housing programme say it pretty plainly. What the Green Party stands for is a return to those ideas of the Savage Government—a return to the idea that everybody is entitled to security and everybody is entitled to a safe, warm, affordable, and secure home. It is a return to the idea that we can trust our public servants. It is a return to the idea that the community housing sector has an important role to play. It deserves support, it deserves capital to assist in building housing, and it deserves regulatory reform to enable it to contribute more fully, but the role that the community housing sector can provide should occur in addition to the role that the State itself provides, not as an alternative to it. It is only in the zero-sum game philosophy of this current Government that those two have to be alternatives and not joint solutions to a problem that besets this country.

This particular amendment bill is one that is typical of National Governments, which are always seeking to find ways to reduce spending on social services, while at the same time protecting their voter constituencies, those on higher incomes, and those whom it wishes to protect.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: You’re just wrong, Denis.

That is not wrong. That is exactly what this Government is doing, and most people can see it. This Government does not care whether or not its cost-cutting ways will damage the effectiveness of social policy. This is a bill that is badly researched, ill-considered, and based fundamentally on National Party dogma. It is a bill that will exacerbate, not improve, social inequalities, and it will degrade the quality of Government services and not improve them. Nobody opposes sensible measures that will make the provision of Government services, especially social housing, more efficient or will provide the same services at a better cost—but never at the expense of worse outcomes for people. That, I am afraid, is inevitably what this amendment bill is going to do.

There are common themes throughout National’s social housing legislation: firstly, to minimise the role of the State; secondly, to abdicate to others responsibility for social housing; thirdly, to provide as little money as possible, and to contract others to take responsibility; fourthly, to push as many people out of State housing as it possibly can and to favour non-Government organisations, which are not always capable of the function. We can reflect on the Salvation Army and the decision it made not to get involved. Probably the organisation in the country best able to do so chose not to do so, and for very good reasons. This legislation allows the Government to pretend that it will provide social housing more cheaply but, in fact, it will not. It will just push it off to somebody else. It will allow the Government to avoid full accountability for social housing, and it will fail to protect people against exploding rents—a huge problem in this country. Lastly, the Government does not even try to support local councils in providing public rental housing or elderly persons’ housing in this country, thus letting it off the hook too.

The amendment bill is just as objectionable as the principal Act in two ways. First of all, it relies on the policy of reviewable rents—a bureaucratic assessment of the ability of tenants to move into private accommodation—when the real problem is that rents in places like Auckland and Christchurch, due to the simple unavailability of enough homes, are the real problem. Secondly, it will reduce the role of Housing New Zealand. This amendment actually takes that a step further by preventing Housing New Zealand from giving advice to Ministers, thus sidelining that very important organisation. It now reserves that role for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. That is a mistake because the ministry will only be a contract supervisor, essentially, and it will not have the institutional knowledge necessary to provide the service at the level we expect. And Ministers will, of course, be empowered to give directions about what is to be done, and it is easy to see where that might lead.

The results are likely to be social housing provided at very great arm’s length from the Government and its agencies. It will give more power to Ministers, who are, inevitably, going to take a more political approach—a more dogmatic approach—not aimed at looking at the best interests of the most vulnerable people in the community, despite what Government members say over there, but aimed at financial results, fundamentally. Ultimately, that means more housing deprivation, State houses being much too hard to get, non-government providers imposing their own policies and practices—and we do not know what they may be—and, most of all, very uncertain outcomes for low-income people who are dependent on the State for their housing needs. That is not the Kiwi tradition and it is not acceptable as a role for the State in this country.

The price of suppressing demand, which is what this is really all about, is much too high in social terms. It will cause reduced health and well-being, and increased poverty. It will put more families at risk, compromise social cohesion, and exacerbate the creation of a disaffected underclass of people in New Zealand. Despite the Government’s aim that it will have a lenient approach when it comes to reassessing State tenancies, people will inevitably be nudged out of their homes and, effectively, bullied out of their homes. The Government will continue to sell those homes, but it will build too few of them. You only have to take a quick look at this Budget to come to the conclusion that this Government has no intention of trying to meet the demand that is already there—a demand that is not being met now. That is the real issue. This Government is not actually willing to meet the need, and that is really what this legislation is about. It will seek to suppress demand artificially rather than try to meet the genuine housing needs of people in this country.

The bill itself may be seen as a relatively minor provision but it is another step in the wrong direction. As others have said, what is really needed in this country is a genuine social housing service—not just buildings but a true Public Service with the experience and the resources needed. This bill goes in exactly the opposite direction. The Government will instead transfer large sums of money to community housing organisations through contract payments, but these are really still just subsidies, so nothing much will have changed. The landlords will, of course, rub their hands in glee. These organisations will own the housing funded, though, by the taxpayer. They will profit from it and they will compete from it and, as an inevitable result, they will try to increase rents, and that is not in the best interests of either tenants or the taxpayer—or, indeed, anybody else in this country. That is actually the most significant flaw of all in this whole new social housing regime, of which this bill is just one more minor step in the wrong direction.

There will be more diversity, and that is potentially a good thing—potentially a good thing—but it is also a very risky thing if it is not done properly. I do not trust some of the providers to whom this function will be entrusted to do that properly. For all of those reasons, New Zealand First opposes this bill. It is a retrograde step. It emasculates Housing New Zealand. It seeks to reduce Government accountability for housing, and it should not be passed.

Well, it seems to me that the members opposite seem to be completely missing the point of this bill. This bill is for us to be able to deliver better services to those who need social housing. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that we have social housing in New Zealand that is fit for purpose. It is to create flexibility in those arrangements to ensure that we are accommodating people and allowing non-governmental organisations to work with needy people in such a way that is going to be best for their clients. It is part of a bigger plan to ensure that social housing in New Zealand is available to people in the size and the type that is most suitable to them. It is about giving flexibility to those groups, maybe, that will do a better job of housing them, rather than simply assuming that because we are the Government we will always know what is best for every single individual, which seems to be the kind of arrogance that we are getting from across the other side of the House.

It is not about continuing with the status quo and assuming that just because that is the way we have always done it that is the way we should always do it. It is about moving forward. It is about delivering Better Public Services. It is about being better equipped to ensure that vulnerable people in this country are being looked after in the best possible way. This bill is one part of a very big machine that is ensuring we do just that. Thank you.

I call Jan Logie—a 5-minute call.

I rise to take a short call for the Green Party on this bill. We will be opposing this bill, unfortunately. We see housing as a human right. Housing and shelter are at the absolute foundation of community, of family, and of individual well-being. Good, warm, stable, affordable housing improves people’s health, it improves educational outcomes, it improves employment productivity, it reduces costs to Government, and it even reduces carbon emissions. What this bill does is nothing, really, to help us provide warm, secure, affordable housing for people in New Zealand. This is a shifting of the deckchairs on the Titanic.

Right across this country, we have people living on the streets or in their cars. We have heard stories from Invercargill, from Tauranga, from Hastings, from Kaitāia, from Auckland, from Wellington, from Porirua. All over this country people do not have their basic, basic needs being met. This bill is not about building more houses. It is not about actually ensuring that those people get their needs met. What it is about is transferring to the community sector existing houses that are completely rundown as a result of generations of Government neglect. The community sector previously said: “Well, OK, we’re going to look at that, because we think we can provide good wraparound services for people and maybe meet their needs a bit better than the Government.” But then it looked at the state of the housing, and said: “Well, actually, no, this isn’t really viable.”

What this bill is about is enabling more flexibility to pass that over, recognising the absolutely appalling state of so many of our State houses because of Government neglect. That should sit with the Government. We should acknowledge that this bill is a result of the failure of the Government to care for a key asset. The bill is not going to be increasing the housing available for people; it is just about selling it off. Part of that will go to private developers. We have heard from people in Glen Innes where, as an example, there has been a supposed transformation happening. Veterans were, post-World War II, given a house for life. They are no longer in that house. They had established a community. They knew their neighbours. They were connected. They had community. That has been destroyed by this so-called transformation.

What this bill represents, in part, is more of this kind of transformation, which is actually a destruction of community. It is a destabilisation of families that is going to disconnect children from their schools. It is going to put people in more fragile and vulnerable situations. I really struggle to see how anyone can think that that is going to be a good result. We are not hearing from the community sector that what it is being offered at the moment and being provided with is what it sees as part of the solution. We are hearing quite a lot of concern coming from those people. They know that a good thriving community housing sector will sit alongside a well-resourced Government State housing sector. We know that we have in Auckland, as an example, house prices going through the roof. Houses have been gaining, and are earning more than most people in Auckland earn in a year. Again, this bill is not going to help with that.

This bill is reducing the function of Housing New Zealand even more. Housing New Zealand has already lost the ability to assess who will go into its houses, and, now, this bill removes its policy function—its ability to provide policy advice to the Minister. So Housing New Zealand is being put into the role of any other real estate agent, as I think has already been said. If we think about that and about the fact that these are people who are the most vulnerable—because the Government has reduced the housing criteria by such an extent that anyone who is able to get into a house has to be in a pretty dire situation—none of that information and their needs will be fed through to the Minister. Is that going to be good policy making? I think not.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te W’are i tō mihi mai ki a mātou i tēnei wāhanga o te W’are i tēnei pō.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker of the House, in regard to your acknowledgment of us in this session of the House tonight.]

I rise, first of all, to mihi out to all whānau who are in State houses tonight and who may be watching the broadcast tonight. They will be sitting there wondering what their future is in their home. They will be sitting there wondering, hearing all of this kōrero about this bill tonight, whether they are still going to have a home to live in. This bill merely provides a mechanism for the Government to sell State houses. That is how I see it. I think that the people at home in their State houses do not know what their future will be, who their future private landlord will be, or whether a property developer is going to come along and redevelop their home into something that they cannot afford. That is my concern about this bill. It does not do what the Minister has said it will do: provide more social housing. Well, I do not think so.

If you start with one set of State houses and then you sell them to someone else, that does not actually increase the number of houses that you have got. Potentially, I believe that it will reduce the number of social homes, because the only way to increase the number of social homes is actually to build more. Under our KiwiBuild policy, which we campaigned on last year, that is exactly what we would have done. Our solution to the housing crisis in New Zealand is to build more homes—more affordable homes—for our people. This bill fails. It does not provide those. This bill does not increase the number of social homes.

This bill, actually, is a reflection of core National Party policy. In the 1990s it sold 13,000 State houses, and this is a mechanism that the Government is willing to use to make sure that it gets rid of those homes so that it gets rid of its responsibility. Why I am here tonight is to tell the House that I believe that, despite this bill, the Government must never and can never transfer its responsibility for Kiwi families who require social housing. That is a fundamental way of life in New Zealand, which people expect—that we should be able to have clean, dry homes; social homes that people can actually afford to live in.

This afternoon we have heard members on the other side of the House saying some amazing things, and I have thought to myself: “I am hearing the words but they do not match up with what is on the Table.” They do not match up with what is being presented here in this bill tonight. This bill will actually create opportunities—not for families or for living in social housing, but for property developers and private landlords. That is what this bill does. It attempts to transfer the responsibility of the Government to someone else, and we are here to tell you that that is just not good enough. That is not good enough today, and I think, over the next few hours, that we will be hearing a lot more about what should be happening in the social housing sector. Thank you. Kia ora.

This is another great Government bill, sponsored by the Hon Paula Bennett. It reflects again this National Government’s focus on delivering for families and children. This bill is a part of the Government’s Social Housing Reform Programme, which aims to address the needs of families in need for social housing and better meet those needs. In this short call I just want to address one point that is especially coming from the Labour Party. Its focus is on properties, per se—just properties, per se; no focus on families, no focus on families’ needs. That is what this bill is about: changing that focus from properties to families and their needs. I support the bill. Thank you.

It gives me great pleasure to also add my remarks to this particular debate. I was caught off guard, because I would have thought that, given this is a significant policy introduction by this Government, National members would utilise their full time in convincing us why this is an important piece of legislation. It is shameful, to say the least, that they spend not even a full minute on it.

In my mind this bill confirms, once and for all, not only that the National Party continues to be in denial in terms of the housing crisis, but also that it is now denying every New Zealander the opportunity to have a home that they can live in. You see, for the past 7 years this Government has continued to deny that there is a New Zealand housing crisis. Even now, the Prime Minister continues to deny it and does not accept it, despite the fact that this is his third term. Government members are in deep denial about it. They continue to deny it because, I suspect, building more houses is just too challenging for them, and building more houses reduces the profitability of the portfolios of some of their investor and property developer mates. Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that you will agree with me because those mates have been funding the campaigns of this particular Government.

Mr Key and his Government have been bystanders while the housing crisis has worsened year in, year out. In Auckland, house prices have risen by 87 percent in 6 years. That is an increase of $100,000 from last year. A generation of future New Zealanders are now permanently locked out of the dream of owning their own home. They have been locked out by Mr Key and this sad group of National MPs. More and more Pacific people are now locked out of ever owning their own house under this National Government—

💬 Hon Members: We’re not sad.

I wanted to say something else, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I knew that you would pull me up if I did use those words. Any New Zealanders who find themselves unable to afford their first home today—their first home—according to the Office for Senior Citizens, they will be poorer still when they retire without that particular asset. And while Mr Key and his Government continue to deny that there is a housing crisis, house prices and residential rents continue to rise. The average Auckland house price will hit $1 million by next year, while residential rents have jumped again by 6.3 percent to a median rent of—

💬 Kris Faafoi: They’re happy with that.

Absolutely, they are happy with that. More and more middle-income earners will never be able to buy their first home at those particular prices. How can they, when middle-income earners have to front up with a 20 percent deposit before they can even secure a mortgage? That will push more and more lower-income earners into homeless situations of living in cars, caravans, garages, and boarding houses. And what is National’s response to the housing crisis? Sell off those State houses—sell off those State houses. New Zealanders expected a plan to build more houses; instead, all they are hearing from this Government is: “Sell off those State houses.”

So far this Government has had every opportunity to do something meaningful to fix the housing crisis, but it has not. It has not done anything meaningful or genuine to address the housing crisis. Yes, it has tinkered around the edges of the crisis with half-baked policies. That tinkering has not halted the housing crisis. Every week there is a line of people applying to Housing New Zealand for housing. They get turned away. They are told to go down to the Ministry of Social Development. They go down there and they are told: “You are eligible.” They go back to Housing New Zealand and it says: “Well, we have got you on a list, but you are not a priority applicant.” Every week there is a Housing New Zealand tenant being evicted by Housing New Zealand. In fact, I have had cases where, upon the death of parents, Housing New Zealand was quick to notify the children that they would be evicted. In one case, Housing New Zealand sent that eviction notice before the children had a chance to bury their parent. The lines to emergency housing offered by community social services continue to lengthen. Government tinkering in special housing areas has been an absolute failure; the special housing areas have just not worked. They managed about 170 houses in a year and a half, but we are still short by 20,000 houses. The Government needed 13,000 houses just to keep up with population growth.

Earlier I heard a National MP in this debate say that this legislation was to provide flexible options to New Zealanders. He said it was about getting the right house to the right person at the right time. What does that mean, for goodness’ sake? I think what it means is: it is market speak. It means that it is up to market forces whether a person gets a house or whether they are ever housed at all. It means this Government is washing its hands of every New Zealander in a homeless situation. It means this Government does not want to take responsibility for New Zealanders who need a home of their own. This Government is selling off our publicly owned State assets to its private sector investor mates. Not to the Salvation Army or the Methodist Mission or community groups with a social conscience—it is selling them off to its investor mates.

Remember how the Government couched the sell-off of State assets? It said that it would sell them off to mum and dad investors. That was a load of crock. That is the same technique that it is using tonight to cover up the fact that our State houses will be sold off to its property investor mates—the same mates who have been funding their campaign activities for the last 7 years. This is their payback. This is what it means when those members say that the bill is about flexible purchasing. It gives the Minister flexibility to flog off billions of State houses to the National Party’s developer mates. The biggest deception and con job of all is National’s State house sell-off. Most New Zealanders are wondering how on earth selling off State houses to developers and property investors will give them a home. It will not.

This bill completely wrecks Housing New Zealand as we know it. The Government has got rid of the policy development feature of that particular ministry. It has got rid of people who managed tenants. Instead, the tenants are faced with an 0800 number. You cannot talk to a real person when you are in need of a home. You are fobbed off in the line at the Ministry of Social Development, you fobbed off in the line at Housing New Zealand, and you are put in another line for the 0800 number. How on earth do people advance themselves when this Government keeps adding lines and making it difficult for people who want houses?

This bill merrily transfers the responsibility onto the private sector and onto the market. The Government is going to tell people to go and find a house in the market. There is no help for them there. How on earth can people on the minimum wage afford the median rent of $420? On the minimum income you are earning about $500 gross. Less tax, how do they afford the median rent of $420? These buggers—I will start using that word now—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No.

OK, I will not use it. These people—these nasty people—have no care whatsoever for the plight of people in need. It is a basic human right to have a house. It is enshrined in international conventions. It is needed, and, yet, somehow, by introducing this bill, the Government goes away, making itself feel good that it is doing something. But it is not doing anything.

All that this bill reaffirms, in my mind and in the minds of many people in South Auckland watching and listening to this group here, is that the Government continues to deny not only that there is a housing crisis but also that its legislation will deny every hard-working New Zealander the opportunity of either owning their own home or the opportunity of being in warm accommodation where they can house their children. What I foresee as a result of this legislation are more people in homeless situations, more people forced to live in caravans, more people forced to live in boarding houses, more people forced to live in cars, and more people forced to live in garages. That is the kind of legacy that this Government is leaving behind, because under this legislation there is no long-term vision that will ensure that every New Zealander is able to aspire to own their own home and can achieve that. There is no legacy here to allow for every hard-working New Zealander on a minimum wage to be able to secure for themselves warm, comfortable, affordable rental accommodation—not under this legislation, and none whatsoever under this National Government.

It is a great pleasure to speak on this bill, and given that its merits are so blindingly obvious, there is nothing more that I need to say other than that I commend it to the House. Thank you.