Housing Legislation Amendment Bill

It is a real pleasure to rise and take a call on new Part 8 in this Committee stage debate. Firstly, I want to say that this is #changethegovernment in action happening right here. I have to commend Metiria Turei and Phil Twyford for the work that they have been doing through their Supplementary Order Papers and amendments.

Part 8 looks at amendments to the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act 1992, and I want to confine my comments to a couple of the provisions in Part 8. The first one I want to discuss is new section 72A, inserted by clause 12, which looks at ensuring that there is sufficient funding for the income-related rent subsidy when there is not enough social housing stock to meet the need of people who need emergency housing or social housing.

What we have found throughout the homelessness inquiry is that people are forced into really precarious housing situations. It is the role of Housing New Zealand—and it is actually the role of the Government—to ensure that people are housed sufficiently, and I know that there will be many people who have a sense of disquiet at the growing numbers of people who are living in very precarious housing situations. They are not just Labour and Green supporters; they are people everywhere who see the growing numbers of homeless in our country and have a real disquiet about that.

New section 72A actually looks at how we take care of providing not just emergency housing but sufficient housing to give people the opportunity to have somewhere to live while they get their acts together and while they build their resources to be able to, hopefully, move on into homeownership. So having the ability to support social housing providers through the income-related rent subsidy when there is insufficient stock of social housing to take care of the need is very important.

I am absolutely overwhelmed by how good a job we have been doing with these amendments to actually develop a comprehensive housing plan for this issue. This is being debated in this Chamber today, and I would have to say there will be a lot of people who are watching this debate saying: “Why doesn’t the Government do this?”.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Or anything—do anything.

Yeah. I for one would be really happy if the Government would take the opportunity, with all of these wonderful ideas that are coming to the Committee today, to do something to address the growing levels of need.

The other provision that I want to address in the last 2 minutes of this call is new section 98C(2)(d), inserted by clause 13, which says that you should have a plan to provide appropriate responses to the diverse groups needing housing. In this regard, I want to pay particular note to a couple of groups that I do not think have been identified as having unmet need.

The first one is youth. When I had a job in the real world in a place called Waipuna—which hosted one of the homelessness inquiry sessions—we did a lot of work with young people. Young people do not have credit. They are sometimes a risk to landlords. They find it very difficult to get into housing. They cannot find sufficient money for bonds. This is a group that finds it very difficult to get housing. They often are young parents. What I am really hopeful for is that, as part of Part 8, this diverse group will have access to housing.

The other group that has significant need that has not been addressed is women and children escaping violence. This is a group that actually has a huge level of unmet need. We do have refuges, but they have expressed real concern at not being able to provide an opportunity, once the crisis is over, for those women and kids to have decent accommodation. We need to be able to be providing safe opportunities for housing for our communities.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I have been looking at the amendments, and the Green Party position is that we fully endorse and support this amendment. It would make a significant difference to the legislation if it was to be passed in the Committee tonight. The first part of this amendment relates to income-related rents. I think that if we look at what the average incomes are at the moment, it makes sense that we should be looking at rents that people can afford. We believe that shelter is a basic human right and that the Government has the responsibility to provide that shelter. If the market does not provide, then those people need shelter, and the market is broken. It is certainly not delivering shelter to, what, 32,000 people who are currently homeless—32,000 people, many of whom are children, who are living in their cars.

We have just wound up the cross-party inquiry into homelessness. I sat on that inquiry in Tauranga and heard the gut-wrenching testimonies from good people—good people—trying to earn a living and provide for their families. But if we look at income and income-related rents, what we find is that the minimum wage is $15.25 per hour. That comes to $610 for a 40-hour week. In Auckland, the average rent for a three-bedroom house is around about $510 a week, leaving—what is that—$100 for a family to exist on for a week. If we put some controls on the speculation in housing and housing becoming a commodity, which is being used to make the wealthy wealthier, and we see it as a basic human right with responsibility on the State to provide housing at a cost that normal working families can afford, then that is what we should be doing, and that is what this amendment does.

Currently, there are around about 300,000 people who are earning close to that minimum wage, which is $15.25 an hour—300,000 people. That, per annum, is just under $32,000 a year. If you consider the cost of rental accommodation in Auckland, which is becoming increasingly beyond the capacity and beyond the affordability of normal working families, and if you also consider that it is way beyond the price range for normal families on the minimum hourly rate to actually be able to afford to buy any of these homes, given that in Auckland it is now, what, $1 million on average to buy a normal place to live—when you consider all that—then we do need to consider that this Parliament should be taking steps to provide housing.

The amendment also talks about emergency housing, and this is something that we really should be looking at. We cannot be continuing on with this situation where we are putting families in motels and where families with small children are ending up in boarding house rooms just for shelter. That is a shameful, shameful way to be. I want to thank the member Phil Twyford for putting forward this amendment, which we will be supporting wholeheartedly. There is a lot more that we could be doing to give families and hard-working, ordinary New Zealanders the ability to have shelter—that basic human right. This is the amendment that will deliver it, and I think we should be supporting it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek your ruling under Standing Order 302(2) about the admissibility of proposed Part 8 in Mr Twyford’s name. Before the dinner adjournment I raised this point on amendments amending the Income Tax Act, the Overseas Investment Act, and the Resource Management Act, and it was declined on the basis that, however oblique, those amendments did relate to the issue of housing affordability. However, having read this amendment, the amendment itself, however noble, does not relate to that and the purposes of the bill we are debating—it relates to income-related rent, the issues of homelessness, and the issues of emergency housing. Nothing in there has anything to do with the primary purpose of the bill, which is related to affordable housing, and I seek your ruling that it is out of order.

I think it is not enough for a bill to just say “This bill seeks an increase in the supply of affordable housing.”; I think it is reasonable that we should apply some critical faculties to this. I would argue that it is almost self-evident that the provision of affordable rental housing through an organised programme like State or social housing is about supplying a significant part of our community with just that—affordable housing. It is so close to the declared aim of Parts 1 and 2 of the main bill that I would have thought it stands.

Speaking to that, and accepting the point Mr Twyford makes, the Standing Orders are very clear that where there is a single bill being amended, the scope to introduce new amendments—even by the Minister or the Government—is extremely narrow. The reason we are able to have debates of this nature is that this is an omnibus bill, and, as a consequence, a much broader discussion about the issue at hand. But in this case, the issue at hand is not about income-related rents or homelessness; it is about housing affordability. It is on that point that I seek the matter to be ruled out.

Indeed, the scope for considering additional parts to this bill is confined to the subject of affordable housing, and I would just reiterate that providing affordable housing in the form of State or social housing or emergency housing for people who are most acutely in need is directly synonymous with the supply of affordable housing. There is nothing in the description of the earlier parts that says it is exclusively about affordable housing for homeownership. It is about affordable housing.

💬 Su’a William Sio: Mr Chairman.

Su’a William Sio—is it a point of order?

💬 Su’a William Sio: No, I am going to—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Well, give us a chance to have a think about it, will you?

💬 Denis O’Rourke: Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Is it a point of order?

It is just speaking to the point of order. I would like to make very strongly the point that the term “affordable housing” does include rental housing and does include social housing, and the two things are actually directly interrelated—people who cannot afford to buy houses do actually have to rent houses, and the problem is that some of them cannot even do that. So this matter has to be looked at considerably wider than the Minister has indicated. It is not as narrow as he tried to persuade you, Mr Chairman. Affordability is a very broad subject, and we were assured, when I raised a point of order at the very beginning of this debate, that this would be a wide-ranging debate. It would not have to be very wide if you were to include affordability of housing, whether it be rental or house purchases, as part of the consideration of this bill.

Speaking to that, I may be able to be of some assistance in that these issues were, in fact, canvassed, and the Speaker did give a ruling indicating the breadth of the debate. One of the issues that this bill deals with is the disposal of State housing land, so, therefore, it does actually open up the scope of debate around affordable rental housing and State housing—or what the Government now calls social housing.

I am prepared to rule on this matter now. There are a number of matters within the amendment. There are some matters in it that I do not think fit within the scope—for instance, the plan to end homelessness. But I do note that in the explanatory note, on page 2, it says that “The purpose of the bill is to support the wider Government programme of work to increase the supply and affordability of housing,”—not referring to homeownership—“and to maintain the momentum of strong growth in new home construction.” New home construction, in the view of the Chair, includes rental accommodation. I do not believe—and I want to restate this for the purpose of Minister Woodhouse, who has taken this point of order—that anything that relates to a house or a rent or a condition such as homelessness or a situation that people find themselves in will fall within the scope of this bill, but I am convinced that the current amendment is narrowly within scope.

New Zealand First will be very pleased, indeed, to support this new Part 8. In fact, when you think about it, it is surprising that the Government itself has not done something about this, because it is actually fundamental if the Government is genuine about improving the ability of people in this country to find a home if they cannot actually afford to buy one. If you cannot afford to buy one, you still have to afford to rent one. So this part is extremely important.

I note, also, that quite recently, in the last few weeks, Minister Bill English was asked a question in Parliament, in answer to which he stated that the Housing New Zealand Corporation would add an additional 1,700 State house places this year. That was what he said the corporation would be doing. But not long before that, during the Budget debate, he actually said that the Government would be selling 2,000 State houses. So at the same time that the Government is going to provide 1,700 new State houses, it is going to be selling 2,000. If you were to believe those figures—and they came from Government Ministers—then there would be a deficit of 300 houses in the current year. That is very strange, when you consider the magnitude of the waiting list that already occurs in New Zealand.

I have just been reading an article in Hawke’s Bay Today that talks about the number of people—I think it refers to 1,400—in Hawke’s Bay who are homeless, and, more than that, a huge proportion of them are children. There is actually a photograph, as part of that, showing two children sitting on the footpath with a notice saying “Please help.” What they are saying is that they do not have a home—two children, no home, nowhere to go.

What kind of a country are we turning into where children cannot find a home—not just a few, but by the dozens, by the hundreds? What kind of a country are we turning into when that happens? I am very grateful to the news media for bringing all of these examples to light. They are doing a great job on that. Now it is our job—most particularly, it is the Government’s job—to do something about it, and yet it is opposing this very sensible new addition to this bill.

That is why I began my speech by saying that I am surprised that the Government is not doing this itself, because the most important part of this new Part 8, that I can see, is actually on the first page. The addition of new section 72A would require the Government to do exactly what I am talking about. Once it finds that there are more people who require housing than is available through Housing New Zealand, it would then be required to provide the funding necessary so that the corporation could increase its supply by 1,000 per year. What on earth is wrong with that?

Mr English in particular tried to persuade this House only a couple of weeks ago that the Housing New Zealand Corporation’s programme would be sufficient to meet demand. That was the nature of the questions put to him during question time, and that was when he said that there would be 1,700 more places available in the current year—at the same time, of course, as selling 2,000. That does not make sense, but, nevertheless, that is what he said.

If he is serious about meeting demand, then the National Government will be voting for clause 12, which inserts new section 72A. But, of course, very few of us on this side of the Chamber actually credit the Government with a genuine desire to use Housing New Zealand Corporation in any way whatsoever to actually solve the awful housing crisis in this country, where children have to sit on footpaths with notices saying “Please help me.” Ignored by this Government, and fought for by the parties on this side of the Chamber. It is not good enough. Government: you need to improve.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. This is not just a housing crisis; this is a moral crisis. This country is actually in moral crisis as I speak. This amendment to insert new Part 8 is important, like all of the amendments, because what they do is articulate to the country—and people are watching us here tonight—that some people recognise the crisis, and some people recognise that practical, affordable, and reasonable steps need to be taken to work our way out of this crisis. As the previous speaker, Denis O’Rourke, said about this part, it is disturbing to think about our kids right now outside in the cold. As yet another wintery blast hits the country, there are kids outside in the cold. There are parents trying to get them out of the cold. Meanwhile, in Parliament there is a bill before the House that will not help that situation at all, because it has missed the point. It would be easy to say deliberately; it would be kind to say that the Government just, kind of, made a mistake—it meant to produce a wonderful housing bill that was going to work it all out.

But this part is important because it actually spells out the issue around income-related rents. You cannot separate the word “rent” from the word “income”—well, if you do, you are obviously living in fool’s paradise or you are really rich. But the main thing is, we were here about a week ago arguing about the minimum wage. We were arguing that there should be a minimum wage for contractors, and the Government—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!

I am about to link it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well, it would be very good if the member did so quite quickly, because I think you heard the previous ruling. I think it is fair to say that this part was marginal as to its scope, and the member is getting a fair way outside speaking directly to it.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to get directly to the relationship between income-related rent and the minimum wage—i.e., if you are not getting the minimum wage, you cannot even pay the rent. I think that is within scope. Proposed new section 72A says: “The joint Ministers must ensure sufficient funding is available for income-related rent places” in Housing New Zealand houses. The good thing about this amendment is that it attributes responsibility to these joint Ministers, not only in clause 12, inserting new section 72A, but also in new section 98B, “Joint Ministers must ensure sufficient places for emergency housing”. So what it does is it actually names the Ministers of the Crown as responsible. This is appropriate because the State has a responsibility to look after housing, and this is what this bill is about. It is about the role of the State. The joint Ministers must ensure “all people who are homeless have the ability to access accommodation and the services they need.”

At risk of deviating, we have to look at Te Puea Marae. They acted like the joint Ministers; that is what they did. They acted like—maybe we should write into new section 98B: “The joint Ministers, as a reflection of the leadership provided by Te Puea Marae, will act to provide sufficient places for emergency housing.” The leadership came from the people, and new section 98B(2) is all about “The joint Ministers must ensure the number of funded places available in emergency housing each year is not less than 8,000.” I am sure that we would need all of those places. I am sure that what we saw at the marae was about the need for ongoing emergency housing. I, personally, am aware, having visited Whangarei—which is not Auckland—that there is a crisis in emergency housing in Whangarei. There is a crisis in emergency housing—

💬 Clare Curran: Dunedin.

—in Dunedin. There is a crisis in my own town in Thames. There is always a crisis in emergency housing funding because no one is taking responsibility for the overall picture. The Government is just leaving it to agencies that are desperate, and then it has cut the community funding for that.

So those joint Ministers—I am not sure who they are, but the joint ones—can get together and do something about it and make sure that emergency housing is warm, dry, and safe. So it is not just that the joint Ministers must ensure that these places exist, but that they cannot just say any old dirty boarding house will do. What they have to say is “premises which are warm, dry, and safe.” I think “safe” is a critical word in this new section. It is very good that it is mentioned, because if our kids are not safe, we are not safe. No one is safe while our kids are not safe. We need to do this. This amendment needs to go ahead.

Mr Chairman, I appreciate getting the call—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): And I might say that winking at me does not help, to the two people who did it.

Can I remind members that this Committee has not had the benefit of having a select committee scrutinise this bill, and therefore we have been denied the opportunity of receiving the experience and advice from that particular committee. So I am going to go through a clause by clause analysis of this amendment to add a new Part 8, and I will be asking questions of the Government, whether it has any comments to explain what it is that it is doing to address the housing crisis.

First, I draw members’ attention to the explanatory note. I do so because the Minister challenged the validity of this amendment. In the explanatory note, we find that this amendment has two purposes. The first purpose is to require the Government to increase its State housing stock by “1,000 units per year in any year that demand for State housing is not met.”, and that it be income-related rent. Secondly, it requires the Government to “make sufficient funding available to house those who are homeless and develop a plan to end homelessness.” That is what this amendment is about, and I believe it meets the primary purpose of this bill as it was introduced by the Government.

We look to new clause 11, which is common sense, and it refers to the principal Act that we are amending, the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act. We look to new clause 12 and the introduction of new section 72A, “Income-related rent places”, and there it talks about enabling the Housing New Zealand Corporation to “increase its supply of [Housing New Zealand] housing by 1,000 per year.”

There is a real need for that. My own experience is that when we see people sleeping in cars, in overcrowded housing conditions, and in garages, it requires the Government to build more social housing. The term “income-related rent” in new section 72A is important, because in our engagement with budgeting services and with community organisations at the coalface, they tell us that, once upon a time, people renting from Housing New Zealand used to spend 25 percent or 30 percent of their income on paying rent to Housing New Zealand, but today it is 65 percent. This was revealed to me by budgeting services in Auckland, in Nelson, and in Gisborne. I am not saying that this does not exist. This does exist.

We go to new clause 13, which inserts new Part 8A, “Emergency Housing and Homelessness”, and we see there, in new section 98A, the interpretation of terms used in this part. We look at “homeless”, which means “a situation where a person meets the definition of ‘homelessness’ set out in Statistics New Zealand’s New Zealand Definition of Homelessness.”. We find that that definition says that that is when somebody has “no other options to acquire safe and secure housing”. It makes reference to people living in conditions without shelter. I suspect that these are people, like with the situation in Auckland, who are living under bridges or next to gravesides, where there is no shelter—under trees. It makes reference to people living in temporary accommodation that is not their own. It makes reference to sharing accommodation.

Let me go back to temporary accommodation. I suspect that people living in garages consider that temporary accommodation. The definition from Statistics New Zealand says that that is classed as being homeless, yet we have had Work and Income refer people to live in a garage and it says that that would be appropriate accommodation. Yet in the definition of the statistics department, it says no. We have people sharing accommodation. We have people living in uninhabitable housing.

This is people living in debilitated situations. I cannot imagine that here, in New Zealand, this Government would allow people to live in these conditions.

I refer again to the definition of homelessness given by Statistics New Zealand, which says it is where people have “no other options to acquire safe and secure housing”. I refer to new section 98B, “Joint Ministers must ensure sufficient places for emergency housing”. That makes sense. This Government has three Ministers all with housing portfolios—three Ministers. Every other Government has had only one housing Minister, and—

I move, That the question be now put.

I wonder whether I could make a somewhat technical contribution pointing out the structure of proposed new section 98B(2), which specifies that joint Ministers must ensure that the number of funded places available in emergency housing each year is not less than 8,000. I would also like to draw the Committee’s attention to proposed new section 72A on income-related rents, in clause 12. Again, the proposed amendment to the principal Act inserts a quantitative target of a further thousand houses a year. I would like to draw the distinction between that approach of inserting the number in the primary legislation versus inserting an enabling power to allow those numbers to be dealt with by ministerial action through an Order in Council, i.e., a regulation-making power.

I think this is an important point because, frankly, New Zealanders have given up trusting this Government. They would not want to see, in an amendment to this, a power delegated to a Minister—or indeed to Cabinet through the Order in Council process—that was not brought back to this House. Because the track record of the current Government, in failing to meet the needs of everyday New Zealanders, has been appalling.

I would like to concur with recent speakers who have said that this is not only a very practical crisis of children living in cars, enduring the cold of winter, or living in, at best, substandard, wet, damp accommodation, but a moral crisis. It is a very practical crisis. If a child is homeless, the child cannot learn. It will have lifetime proclivity to disease. It will not develop its learning abilities. Its employment opportunities will be constrained. It is much more likely to end up in the prison system or the mental health system, which in turn will be a burden on society.

The irony of the current Government, which has utterly failed to address the housing crisis but speaks in this year’s Budget of the social investment approach—is it not about time we had—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. As I have indicated previously, this was a marginal call as to scope and therefore will be strictly enforced as to relevance. Members cannot wander all over the park on it.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and, Mr Chair, I take your point, which is why my comments were embedded within the quantification of proposed new sections 98B and 72A and related that, as you recall, to the question of the reliability of the policy around homelessness.

Let me touch on another section, which is proposed new section 98C, in which subsection (1) quite specifically refers to the need for a plan to end homelessness. I think the wording here is really important, because it does not talk about a plan to mitigate homelessness or a plan to reduce homelessness; it talks about a plan to end homelessness.

When combined with those rigid, quantitative requirements in the proposed amendment, as the proposed part inserts, I think the Committee can infer that this is a matter where the cost benefit of the intervention is so obvious over the lifetime of the child concerned that there is no excuse for homelessness. There is no non-zero amount of homelessness that should be acceptable or, in the language of social investment, where it is not worth investing to rid the country of it. That is why subsection (1) in proposed new section 98C talks about ending—ending, not just mitigating.

In proposed new section 98C(2)(a), we are required to “Consider whether the official definition of homelessness needs updating, and recommend accordingly.” This is the one subsection where I am not sure I am comfortable with the drafting, and that is because this Government has had a tendency to use data and the updating of methodologies to political effect—but I take it you do not want examples of that in this debate, Mr Chair. I think we all know many of them. In the following paragraph (b): “Assess [the] evidence on the current scale of homelessness, whether it is changing …”. I think the wording could also have said by how much it is changing, because it is clear to all New Zealanders that the homelessness problem is getting worse—exponentially worse—all over the country.

I move, That the question be now put.

I speak in support of Part 8, tabled in the Chamber by my colleague Phil Twyford, who has done a sterling job with his amendments to this bill. I also want to make reference to the good points that were made by Denis O’Rourke about the relevance of this part, given that there has been a challenge as to the scope of this part of this bill. He made the very good point that if people cannot afford to buy a home, then they must rent, and if they cannot afford to rent, then what are their options?

It is our contention that it is a fundamental responsibility of the State to ensure that if there are people in our society who cannot afford to rent a home, then there should be provision made for them. I want to ask the Minister in the chair tonight, the Hon Michael Woodhouse, whether or not he agrees with that concept; and if not, why not? If he does, then why was he objecting to this part of the bill, which is ensuring—new section 72A inserted by clause 12 has a provision that joint Ministers must ensure that there is sufficient funding available for income-related rent places in Housing New Zealand in any year. If there is not, then what are the options for people if they cannot afford to rent?

We have had a lot of discussion about different parts of the country. I want to take the discussion that is relevant to this part to the part that I represent, which is Dunedin—which also happens to be the part where the Minister in the chair lives—to talk about the impact on people who are not able to afford to rent, are in State housing, and currently have their rents in State housing under review, even though their income has not changed. What is happening is that those people are being rung and threatened with being moved out of their State housing, and no new State housing is being made available. In fact, quite the contrary—State housing is being sold in Dunedin.

The people who are in State housing, who still have the same low incomes, are being told that they may have to move out of State housing into a private rental market where much of it is not safe and they will meet the definition of homelessness, as put forward by Statistics New Zealand, and is mentioned in this part of the bill, because the housing is uninhabitable—in other words, slum housing, unsafe housing, housing where there are children who are getting sick and ending up in hospital with respiratory issues. The Minister knows this well.

It has been said that 40 percent of Dunedin’s housing is not warm, not dry, and needs work.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The same as before—please keep the debate narrow on this amendment.

The relevance of this to this part of the bill is that if people cannot afford to live in housing that is habitable, they are then forced into unsafe, uninhabitable housing that meets the definition of homelessness. In places like Dunedin where it is cold and damp and children are ending up in hospital and adults are ending up in hospital, what are the options? That is why this part is so important and is so critical to ensure that there is that income-related rent as the back stop in State housing, which enables more people who should not be in the private rental market in this kind of housing but should be staying in State housing to do so.

Today I received a phone call from one of my constituents begging me to intervene with Housing New Zealand because her roof leaks, there is mould, there is toxic mould in the walls, and her heating does not work because the water has run down and has affected her heating. What will Housing New Zealand do about it? Nothing. It has lost its soul, but it lost its soul because this Government has no soul. That Minister should get up—[Interruption]

Order! I just want to remind the Committee that the Chair is the sole judge of time. Actually, I decide, when there is a point of order taken or if I make a ruling, how much time is added on, if any. To have members rudely interrupt other members—both sides—while they are speaking is just not going to be accepted.

💬 Hon Christopher Finlayson: It wasn’t me.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): No, I know it was not. But the member was looking at me down his nose in such an outrageous manner.

First, I would like to apologise to all the members whom I have interrupted while jumping in to try to get my bit. I am really passionate about this—that is all—that is all it is. But I genuinely apologise for interrupting other members’ speeches. I do not think that is fair.

Here is a tool, a really good part, a really good change to the bill that we are debating, which will take head-on some of the most brutal impacts that are happening to New Zealanders at the moment. I am going to go through each of its parts. I have got a slight change to one of the parts of this amendment, but here is a tool that offers several different solutions that will address the immediate problem of the housing crisis and that we often talk about. We often talk about using all the tools that focus on addressing the housing crisis, but I want to say that what this amendment focuses on are the tools particularly for the group of New Zealanders who are disproportionately bearing the cruel, cruel brunt of this Government’s failure to protect them. Those are the priority tools that are outlined in this Part 8.

So it is actually not just about using all the tools; it is actually about prioritising the tools at the bottom end—that is what this part is about. The income-related rent places provision is important because at the moment people are choosing between rent, food, power, and anything else is a bonus. So this is vital to helping improve our communities. There is a part here, new section 98B set out in clause 13 in new Part 8A, “Joint Ministers must ensure sufficient places for emergency housing”. If we really want to be serious, as I keep saying, we have to look at the bottom end, at the groups who are bearing the most negative and the most harmful impacts of this Government’s failure. So I really emphasise that ensuring that the number of funded places available in emergency housing each year is not less than 8,000 is actually vital at the moment. We have heard that the provisions at the moment for emergency housing are woefully insufficient.

I come to new section 98C, set out in clause 13, “Plan to end homelessness”. I would actually just propose a slight addition before subsection (1) of section 98C. I would put something in before there. I commend the stunning work of my colleague Phil Twyford on this, but my amendment would be, firstly, to ask whether the Government members can even say the words “end homelessness”. Has anyone heard them? Has anyone actually heard them say that? I am looking around. Have we actually heard this Government vocalise or write the words “end homelessness”?

💬 Phil Twyford: They’ve got it all under control.

Have they? No. so I would even propose that in this part of this bill that we are debating—new section 98C, “Plan to end homeless”—that we stick a bit in just to make sure we know that they understand what we are asking: end homelessness. So it was not a long contribution that I felt I needed to make; just a clear one. Thank you.

I move, That the question be now put.