Estimates Debate — Vote Housing

I think the National Government’s housing policy is a mess, and housing in New Zealand is in deep crisis. There are severe housing shortages, especially in Auckland and Christchurch, and homebuyers, especially first-home buyers, cannot afford to buy a house. In a home-owning democracy, which New Zealand has always been, this is a national disgrace. In Auckland there is a need for at least 10,000 new houses per year, probably 12,000. There is already a housing deficit there of well over 30,000 houses, and growing, and under the Government’s plans there is a probability of no more than 10,000 new houses per year. So on that basis the Government’s plan will never catch up. The Government’s plan is obviously a failure, but the worst is that young people seeking a first home will not be assisted by this Government to get a home of their own under its “too little, too late” policies.

To make matters worse, it is highly likely that the Reserve Bank will shortly limit the quantum of high loan-to-value ratio mortgages that the trading banks can make. High loan-to-value ratio loans will typically cover 80 percent or more of the total property value. The Reserve Bank seems to be arguing that the purpose of this is to improve overall financial stability. The higher borrowers are leveraged, the greater the risk that a property downturn could trigger a major economic meltdown, echoing the subprime mortgage crisis that generated the global financial crisis. So the Reserve Bank wants to restrict high loan-to-value ratio mortgages to avert the dangers of risky lending, but I think this is a flawed policy.

Firstly, it is a second-best strategy. Normally, the Reserve Bank would raise interest rates, but it cannot do that without raising an already overvalued dollar and inflicting all sorts of damage on the economy. Secondly, it will not actually work in practice, because people can resort to all sorts of subterfuge to circumvent this restriction by shuffling money around. This has all, of course, happened before. Thirdly, the Reserve Bank’s housing policy is Auckland-centric. Christchurch and elsewhere in New Zealand face different issues, and the results are therefore likely to be patchy and inappropriate for much of New Zealand. Fourthly, it will do nothing to deter property investors and speculators who have been buying up Auckland property and who also have ample equity. Fifthly, it does nothing about the migrant flows, which have been concentrated in Auckland. It does nothing to tighten immigration policy in areas such as parental reunion, which have added significantly to housing demand in Auckland by, we think, something like 10 percent. That is a significant portion. Lastly, and most important, its impact will fall most directly on first-home buyers. It is not the first-home buyers who are driving this bubble, but they will be the sector most heavily penalised by limits on loan-to-value ratio lending. Perversely, the policy may encourage them to seek the extra equity they will now need from potentially risky sources, such as finance companies, and this would, of course, add even more financial risk to the system.

We in New Zealand First think the Government’s policies are overall to blame. The Government has acted far too late. Over the last 4 years the Government has allowed a housing price bubble to emerge in Auckland by its inept immigration and housing policies. Only a comprehensive housing strategy designed to address both demand and supply factors, as advocated by New Zealand First, will make housing affordable for first-home buyers. New Zealand First supports a broadly based housing policy that will make homeownership a reality again rather than a dream for working New Zealanders.

New Zealand First’s policy to assist first-home seekers is to establish a new State agency to acquire land to create a land bank in areas where demand clearly exceeds supply, and those, of course, are currently Auckland and Christchurch. The agency would sell residential sections of a modest size on the basis of long-term agreements for sale and purchase of up to 25 years to first-home buyers. This reduces the upfront capital cost of a new home by, we think, something like a third. Interest rates would be highly concessionary at 2 percent for an initial period of at least 3 years. Purchasers would build their own homes using normal bank financing, and would have title to the section transferred to them, with the amount owing to the agency secured by way of a second priority land charge. The Government’s special housing areas are not enough—

Well, there can be no doubt that we are experiencing a housing crisis in New Zealand at the moment. In my contribution I would like to start with some statistics that illustrate the scale of this crisis, particularly in Auckland and Christchurch. In May the average house price in Auckland was $735,000. It now takes 70 percent of the average income to service the mortgage on a lower quartile - priced house in Auckland, and that is in a context in which unaffordability is understood to be when you have to spend more than 30 percent of your income on housing.

We know that there is a major shortage of affordable housing in Auckland, with an estimated 13,000 new homes needed each year and only 3,000 to 4,000 being built, hardly any of which fall into the affordable category. In Christchurch the situation is just as pronounced, although more concentrated in the private rental market. TradeMe statistics show that the average rent in Christchurch was up 26 percent in the May to June period compared with the same time last year, and demand for rental properties was up 47 percent.

According to the Tenants Protection Association survey, 70 percent of respondents had had a rent increase post the earthquake, and 88 percent reported paying more than 25 percent of their income on rent. Christchurch homes, we know, are cold and mouldy, with 48 percent reporting mould in their homes. Nationwide, we know that 70 percent of the children who live in poverty in New Zealand are living in private rental homes, and very few of these are insulated. Although these problems are most pronounced in Auckland and Christchurch, housing affordability and quality are major challenges all over the country.

So what did the Government propose to do about it in Budget 2013? Well, we got the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill—reported back to the House today—and the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill. The former is an unimaginative and ideological attempt to increase land supply and fast track new housing developments by running roughshod over local democracy and the Resource Management Act. The latter is the beginning of the dismantling of Housing New Zealand as a social agency.

There is no guarantee under the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill that any new affordable houses will actually be built as a result, and the one positive element of the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill—the extension of the income-related rent subsidy to community housing providers—is undermined by the lack of adequate funding for the Social Housing Fund and the lack of Government support for capacity-building in that sector.

Meanwhile, you will hear the Minister of Housing crow about how Housing New Zealand is building more homes than ever—2,000 new homes a year for the next 2 years, if we are to believe the Prime Minister. But what he will not tell you is that Housing New Zealand is busy demolishing and selling houses as fast as it can build them. So those 2,000 new houses will not result in any net increase in its stock of affordable housing, and that is if it can even build them, because it managed to build only 154 houses in the last financial year. We have got a long way to go before we start building 1,000 a year in the next 2 years.

I want to talk about what a smart Green solution to this housing crisis would look like. First of all, we would start by building affordable houses as a matter of urgent priority, both social and community houses, and homes that are available for families to rent to buy as part of a progressive ownership proposal. This would see the Government building affordable homes for families with children to move into immediately. They could start paying a basic weekly rent to cover the cost of the investment while anything they paid in addition to that would go towards purchasing equity in that home. It is a way to help families into homeownership without the need for a conventional bank mortgage or deposit, and it directly addresses the lack of supply of affordable housing.

Secondly, we would introduce a warrant of fitness for all rental properties—not only for State houses but also for the private rental market, in which 70 percent of the children living in poverty are currently housed. This would have to include minimum insulation standards as well as other standards of liveability and weathertightness. We would help landlords to meet these standards by extending the Warm Up New Zealand: Healthy Homes insulation scheme and better targeting it towards landlords with low-income tenants.

Thirdly, we would amend the Residential Tenancies Act to ensure more secure rental tenure for tenants, in order to stop the social, economic, and health damage that is done when frequent evictions require families to move, sometimes dozens of times a year.

Housing has definitely become a political headache for the Government, but it is a nightmare for most New Zealanders, who, all around the country, are saying: “Why don’t we have a Government that actually does something? Why doesn’t the Government that was elected in 2011 actually roll up its sleeves and build some affordable houses? Why doesn’t it actually protect the interests of New Zealand citizens?”. People are wondering why that is happening. We have, after 4½ years of inaction by this National Government, some of the most unaffordable housing in the world. Generation X and Y are locked out of homeownership. The most vulnerable people in this country are about to be booted off State house tenancies by this Government as a deliberate matter of policy. In Christchurch, by the Government’s own reckoning, up to 7,500 people are officially homeless because this Government has taken a hands-off, do-nothing approach to the post-quake housing crisis in Christchurch.

What is National’s response to the housing crisis? What is its response? It has set a target of 39,000 consents in Auckland, and it has set up a mechanism to fast track new greenfields land in Auckland. Every single credible submitter who came to the Social Services Committee on the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill said to the select committee that this bill would not result in any more affordable housing being built. What a failure. What an absolute loss of credibility.

National’s response, such that it is, is based on a trickle-down theory of housing. It thinks that if it simply encourages the building of more housing, no matter what price those houses are, somehow that will make housing more affordable. Well, it is a pipedream. We do not buy it. All of the Opposition parties do not buy it. The Government’s approach to housing, its philosophy to this housing crisis, is basically to blame councils and trust the market. Well, I think people see through that. People can see that that is simply not a credible response to a crisis on which New Zealanders are desperately wanting some bold and decisive action.

It just does not have to be this way. It does not have to be the case that we have the most unaffordable housing in the world. It does not have to be the case that in Christchurch people are facing another winter of whole families sleeping in uninsulated sleepouts or paying hundreds of dollars a week to rent a caravan in someone’s backyard. It does not have to be that way. We have choices. We have a choice between a do-nothing Government that wants to trust a failed housing market or an alternative Government that will actually roll up its sleeves and build affordable houses, a Government that will change the economic settings that got us into this crazy housing mess that we are in now. The National Government refuses to contemplate adjusting the very economic settings that it has presided over for the last 4½ years. It refuses to tax speculators, through a capital gains tax, in a way that would take much of the speculative heat out of the housing market.

We have an alternative. With our KiwiBuild policy we will build 100,000 affordable starter homes over 10 years with fine New Zealand building companies like Fletcher Building, like Stonewood Homes, and I could rattle off half a dozen others. We will build homes that people will be proud to live in for generations to come, not, as Bill English said yesterday in the House, slandering the work of some of our construction companies, describing their houses as being like the back end of Moscow.

Labour in Government will tax the speculators. A capital gains tax that excludes the family home will go a long way to channelling investment into more productive economic development and away from overheating the housing market. We will restrict offshore speculators, and stop them driving up the prices of New Zealand homes and outbidding New Zealand’s first-home buyers at auction. We will put a stop to it because unlike this National Government, which stands on the side of speculators, we stand for ordinary Kiwi home buyers, and especially first-home buyers. We are determined to do something about the declining rates of homeownership in this country, because we believe that homeownership is a good thing. We will adopt policies and we will change the economic settings that will make a difference and get Kiwi first-home buyers into their first homes. Singapore, Hong Kong, the UK, and Switzerland have all recently adopted policies that restrict the activities of offshore speculators, and Australia has had the very same policy in place since 1987. It is a good policy, and it puts the interests of New Zealanders first.

The Government has got itself into a terrible mess with the housing crisis. The controversy around loan-to-value ratio limits on home mortgage lending is a perfect illustration of this. John Key negotiated only a few months ago a memorandum of understanding with the Reserve Bank that gave the Reserve Bank the power to implement these limits on home mortgage lending. He gave the Reserve Bank those powers, and now he stands there and cries crocodile tears for first-home buyers, pretending to be surprised that the Reserve Bank actually wants to do something about the overheating of the Auckland housing market, which is a risk to the macro economy.

That is because this Government has refused to do anything about the forces that are overheating the Auckland housing market. The Reserve Bank quite correctly says that they are a threat to financial stability. It does not want homeowners to lose their shirts when the housing bubble bursts, so of course it is going to use these loan-to-value ratio limits. If the Government was actually willing to do something serious about the housing crisis, then these so-called loan-to-value ratio limits would not have such a huge impact on first-home buyers. That is why Labour is calling for a temporary exemption for first-home buyers while the capital gains tax kicks in and while KiwiBuild delivers the affordable homes that will ease the supply crisis.

National has mismanaged and run down Housing New Zealand—it has. Its restructuring of Housing New Zealand has been a fiasco. It has closed 24 offices. It has sacked 121 full-time workers. It changed the eligibility criteria so, at the stroke of a pen, thousands and thousands of the poorest New Zealanders suddenly became ineligible for a State house. In places like Gisborne on the East Coast and in Napier there are dozens and dozens of perfectly good Housing New Zealand houses lying vacant—lying vacant—while people who would have been eligible for a State house have been forced into the private rental market, into overcrowded and substandard accommodation. That is a disaster. Housing New Zealand, under this Government’s watch, has botched the redevelopment in Maraenui, Pōmare, and northern Glen Innes. The Government has been running Housing New Zealand into the ground.

Today at the Social Services Committee the internationally acclaimed team of researchers from Otago University’s health and housing research programme came along and told the select committee that the Government’s plan to impose reviewable tenancies on all 69,000 Housing New Zealand tenants will create a public health risk. They have the data to prove it, unlike this Government, which has no evidence base for its policy of imposing reviewable tenancies on Housing New Zealand tenants.

The Otago University academics made that point. Dr Michael Baker made an excellent submission, showing the data and saying that Housing New Zealand tenants are some of the most vulnerable people in our society. They have very high health needs. State housing and social housing have a demonstrated positive impact on those people. They reduce hospitalisation rates. The children of families who live in Housing New Zealand houses are healthier and safer and better off than kids in families who are not in Housing New Zealand houses. Their research clearly shows that. By creating insecurity for some of the most vulnerable people in our society, National is creating a public health risk. It will lead to increased hospitalisation. It will undoubtedly cause unnecessary deaths. This thoughtless, negligent policy by National, forcing reviewable tenancies on Housing New Zealand tenants, will create social harm and social damage. It is forcing people out of State houses into the private rental market in the middle of the worst housing shortage in a generation.

Otago University academics came along to the select committee today and they said that they could not see any evidence base for the Government’s Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill. Actually, those very academics came along and presented an evidence base for the opposite of the Government’s policy of making Housing New Zealand tenants even more vulnerable and more insecure. I think that was a huge wake-up call and an indictment of this Government’s housing policy.

It is a pleasure to rise to contribute in this estimates debate. I would like to begin by saying that it is very rich for that member Phil Twyford to actually comment about this Government’s housing policy. When National came into Government back in 2008, the previous 9 years of Labour Government were known as the slum landlords’ years for the condition of the houses that people were living in. They were run down, they were in the wrong place, they were cold, and people were getting sick. We know that good housing is important for the health and well-being of families. We know that, and we had to put money into it—$347 million was spent on home insulation because those homes were run down. Labour mismanaged.

The National Government is legislating right now to build more houses, because we know for a fact that the single biggest influence on housing affordability is the lack of supply of new houses. Local councils actually play a big role in freeing up available land for housing across New Zealand. I think earlier some member talked about how we are legislating to consent 39,000 new homes. They thought that was a bad thing, and they were actually opposing it. Currently, we consent only about 3,600 homes. I would have thought that making more new houses available in order to reduce the cost was a good thing for new-home buyers—that having more available would actually create a situation where they might possibly pay less. The Labour Party, in the meantime, came out with that notion that cashed-up foreign buyers coming to New Zealand to buy our properties are bumping up prices. How very original—let us blame the foreigners! This is the kind of divisive politics where Labour really shows that it is, in fact, desperate. How pathetic and how offensive. I do really find that offensive, because I often get mistaken for a foreigner because of the way I look. I think it is awful that Labour is playing these politics.

There is very little evidence that shows that foreign buyers are the cause of house prices being bid higher. History has shown that we are pretty good at doing that ourselves, actually. A BNZ survey shows that only around 3 or 4 percent of house sales are to foreign buyers. Unlike what Mr Phil Twyford tried to say, overseas buyers could also get round Labour’s policy simply by finding someone else to buy the house for them and hold it in trust. It is absolutely ridiculous to blame foreign buyers, when the biggest chunk of overseas buyers are actually Australians—but, wait, hang on, they are exempt from the Labour policy. That is right. I could go on and on, but I will stop by saying that Labour’s policy would also possibly clash with a number of free-trade agreements. Considering that Labour actually supports free-trade agreements, I think that is ridiculous.

The National Government is focusing on making a real difference to house prices. Take a look at Auckland, for example. I know that Phil Twyford talked about KiwiBuild—“Phil Twyford Build”—saying that it can provide 100,000 homes under $300,000. I mean, that is ridiculous, considering that the average land price in Auckland is more than $350,000. If you look at Auckland, for example, the housing market needs about 300 percent more new houses than we currently have, which means that over 12,000 new homes a year need to be built. The new Auckland Housing Accord will see 39,000 new homes, and that will go a long way in addressing that lack of housing supply.

We are streamlining the Resource Management Act to reduce the red tape around building new homes, introducing a 6-month consenting limit for medium projects, and we have launched an inquiry into building material costs, which often go towards the higher cost of building and higher price of homes. We want to keep interest rates low, making savings for Kiwi families, especially those moving into their first home. At the moment, this Government has made sure that our interest rates are very, very low. Comparing the rate that I currently pay, which is the average price now, with the rate that I paid when I first bought a house, going back quite a long time ago—

The last group of people who should be lecturing this Parliament on housing affordability is the Labour Party, because in the 9 years that Labour was in Government, house prices increased around the country by 100 percent. In the time that this Government has been in office, house prices have increased by 12 percent. If anyone knows about housing affordability, it is members of the Labour Party.

I want to take the opportunity to stand up for the 28,000 people living in my electorate of Botany who were born outside of New Zealand, because 28,000 people in my electorate—49 percent of my electorate—are the type of people whom the Labour members opposite are saying are not welcome to buy houses in New Zealand. The Labour Party has taken a xenophobic attitude to housing. It is saying that foreigners who wish to move to this country, invest in this country, bring skills, bring investment, and, by the way, purchase a house are not welcome. I find that view—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: Before the dinner break, I was telling the Committee why the Labour Party has absolutely no credibility when it comes to housing—no credibility. When Labour was in Government, it saw house prices increase by 100 percent, whereas they have gone up by only 2 percent in the time we have been in Government. Labour has got no credibility. Its xenophobic approach to housing offends the 28,000 people in my electorate who were born overseas.

Dr Rajen Prasad: That’s a lie.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: It should offend Rajen Prasad, and it should offend the 49 percent of my electorate who were born overseas. But, actually, we know that experts in this area do not agree that Labour’s approach would do anything. They know that it would be poor policy that would achieve nothing. Economists know it will achieve nothing. Real estate leaders know it will achieve nothing. People out there who are trying to buy houses know it would achieve nothing.

But I thought the most interesting comment heard in the last 24 hours on this topic actually came from Len Brown, someone whom David Shearer tries to say is a Labour mayor and one of theirs. I was on Back Benches recently with David Shearer, and he was claiming Len Brown as one of their own. Actually, Len Brown was on Radio Live today rubbishing the policy, and telling Duncan Garner that the policy would do very little, because Len Brown—the Labour mayor, as Labour likes to call him—agrees with us. He agrees with us that it is about ensuring that land supply is increased, because the problem in Auckland is a supply and demand issue. It is not an issue of foreigners coming into the country and trying to buy land.

Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor: Yes, it is.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: The number of people wanting to do that is very small. Asenati Lole-Taylor was allowed to buy land. Why should not other people who are coming into the country be allowed to buy land? It is about ensuring more land is made available. The Labour Party wants to talk about another policy it has, which is to get 100,000 houses built over 10 years at a cost of $300,000 a section.

Hon Members: How much?

JAMI-LEE ROSS: At a cost of $300,000 a section. Guess what, though? The average cost of land in Auckland is $325,000 a section. So unless Labour is going to all of a sudden reduce the price of land, it will not work. Unless it is going to absolutely subsidise the cost of these housing areas with taxpayers’ money, it is simply not going to work. Here is another point: the Labour Party policy of 100,000 houses over 10 years equates to 10,000 houses a year—30,000 houses over 3 years. This Government has promised 39,000 houses over 3 years—9,000 more than Labour has promised. Labour reckons it has all the big solutions. We have already got 39,000 houses about to be built in Auckland. That is in Auckland alone, and there will be even more across the rest of the country.

The Labour Party has no credibility. House prices soared when it was in office. The Labour Party has a xenophobic policy that offends many, many people out there in New Zealand who have come to this country, brought skills, brought investment, and want to reside here and make this place their home. The Labour Party’s promise to build more houses actually pales in comparison with what this Government is already talking about. David Shearer wants to say that this Government does not walk the walk. Actually, this Government does. We are increasing land supply, we have got agreements with councils, and we are working intensively to ensure that more housing will be made available in Auckland and around New Zealand. The Mayor of Auckland, Len Brown, agrees with us that Labour is wrong.

One question for Jami-Lee Ross: how many of those 39,000 houses are going to be affordable? Not one. Not a single house—not a single house. National’s policy is to build 39,000 “McMansions” that no one will be able to get into. First-home owners will be locked out of that market. That is National’s approach to affordable housing—affordable mansions for people who can buy them without any other support, apart from maybe their families, who can put their houses up as collateral. That is not a solution.

Everything the National members have mentioned in this housing debate has failed spectacularly overseas. But the reality is that they do not care. They do not care that first-home owners are struggling to get into their first house in New Zealand. They do not care, and that is why they have no intention of doing anything about it. Well, Labour will. I say to Mr Ross: keep repeating the Labour Party policies over and over again like he did in that speech, because New Zealanders love them. New Zealanders want to see a Government that is going to take housing affordability seriously, and Labour will. There will be 10,000 affordable homes a year—that is 10,000 young couples and young families getting on to the housing ladder, the homeownership ladder, in this country. That is a massive step forward for young families who are currently struggling and who are shut out of the housing market, particularly in areas like Auckland, where housing inaffordability is on a par with cities like New York. That is a policy that is actually going to make a difference, unlike the rhetoric from over there, which was a panicked reaction.

When Labour released an actual housing policy, the National Government suddenly thought: “Well, we’d better put something out that shows that we’re even thinking about it.” But what it has put out will not work, and it certainly will not deliver for those young homeowners who want to get on the housing ladder who currently cannot do that.

It has been interesting sitting through this debate, being lectured about housing by the National Government. I want to talk about social housing as well, and about the role of State housing in this country. When we came into Government in 1999 we inherited a decimated Housing New Zealand stock. The National Government had hocked off nearly 14,000 State homes to its developer mates. It had completely thrown those tenants out on to the streets. It carried out no maintenance whatsoever during its entire time in Government. It was a Labour Government under Helen Clark, the last Labour Government, that, despite one of the biggest housing booms we had seen in New Zealand’s history, managed to rebuild 8,000 of those 14,000 homes that had been hocked off. We started renovating and doing the maintenance that had not been done during the 1990s. Did we finish it? No, because it was such an incredibly huge job at a time when it was difficult to get a builder for love or money. But, still, we managed to rebuild 8,000 State houses. We started a maintenance programme.

The National Government likes to brag about the home insulation scheme. That was actually started under Labour, with the Green Party. It was the Green Party that called for that scheme in State homes, not National. So it is very well that it tries to take credit for it now, but let us not rewrite history here. So what have we had since National has come into Government? What have we seen from the National Government? Well, again, it is kicking tenants out of State homes. We thought that this Budget, the last Budget, was going to be about getting families into homes; apparently, it is more about kicking families out of homes. That was a reality of this year’s Budget for Housing New Zealand tenants and those in social housing. From our perspective as the Labour Party, we are dealing with these people every day in our offices—people who cannot find somewhere to live and who can no longer access State housing because National has said: “I’m sorry, those category C and D tenants who are in provincial New Zealand did used to be housed by Housing New Zealand”—nearly 80 percent of the waiting list in Gisborne was category C and D. These are not wealthy people at all.

The reality is, though, that in the provinces rental accommodation is very, very scarce. It is often unaffordable. Housing New Zealand is one of the largest landlords not only in the country but particularly in provincial New Zealand. Well, we have families living in garages and living in their cars on the East Coast at the moment—we saw this during the Ikaroa-Rāwhiti by-election—while 68 State houses sit vacant in Gisborne, being readied for sale. It is the same thing in Hawke’s Bay, the same thing in Wairarapa, the same thing in the Hutt Valley, and it will be the same thing across the country.

How can this Government sit there with State houses empty? And Todd McClay, who is in the chair, should know this, because he is from Kawerau, another part of the country where we have people living in appallingly overcrowded conditions where there is a real need for State housing. We have State houses sitting empty because the Government wants to sell them—the Government wants to sell them. Well, that is appalling. It is not only appalling, it is actually cruel. I think if you asked any New Zealander what we should do with those empty State houses that are sitting there being vandalised because there is no one living in them, and sitting there falling into ruin because there is no one living in them, the answer would be to tenant those houses.

I want to pick up where Moana Mackey left off and talk a little bit about some State houses in my electorate. This National Government came into office and it completely destroyed the community at Pōmare. It came into office and it decided that there was antisocial behaviour at Pōmare, so it threw everyone out. It then closed up those houses. It boarded them all up. Then, once they had been boarded up, of course they got vandalised, because they were left empty. Once they had been vandalised, what did National do? Well, it demolished them. Did it then rebuild any new houses on that empty land? No, it did not. It said: “Oh, we haven’t got any money to build any new houses on this land. We were quite happy to demolish the houses that were there.” So it went ahead and demolished the houses. The land now sits empty, and now National is trying to hock it off—now it is trying to hock it off.

I am watching that repeating now, all throughout the Hutt Valley, because all throughout the Hutt Valley we have boarded-up State houses. The Government has used the excuse of earthquake risk to board up a whole lot of State houses, in many cases where the risk is only a very minor one. It might be that they have a chimney that needs to be rebuilt or some minor piece of capital work that needs to be done in order to make the house tenantable. What they have done instead is board up the whole thing. Of course those houses will be vandalised, because if you leave a whole lot of empty houses boarded up they will be vandalised, and then the Government will turn round and say: “Oh gosh, these houses are now no longer habitable. We’re going to demolish them.” And then it will turn round and say: “We’ve got this empty land but we haven’t got any money to build any new houses on it, so we’d better hock that off as well.”

Then, of course, we are going to find ourselves in the position that we were in at the end of the 1990s, when the National Government had been in power for 6 years and suddenly the number of State houses we had in New Zealand dramatically declined. National is quite happy to board them up, to demolish them, and to hock off the land, but it is not prepared to invest in building more State houses, which is what we actually need in New Zealand.

I am very, very proud of the moves that the Labour Party has been making, under the leadership of David Shearer, to actually deal with many of the big housing challenges that we have in this country. We have a major problem with housing affordability. People desperately want to get on to the homeownership ladder, and they cannot. David Shearer and the Labour Party absolutely recognise that, and we are absolutely committed to doing something about it. We will build 10,000 affordable houses every year, over 10 years. That is going to make an enormous difference for all of those New Zealand families who will get into homeownership, mostly for the first time. That will be huge. It means that the dream of homeownership is not just for those who come from means or who have high-paying jobs. It is for everyday New Zealanders who go out there, work hard, and want to be able to buy their first home. We think that is a dream that every New Zealander should be able to realise, so we will build 100,000 new, affordable houses over 10 years to make sure that New Zealanders can achieve that dream.

David Shearer announced over the weekend that we will also restrict the purchase of existing New Zealand houses by overseas speculators. There has been this hysteria that we have heard from the National Government about this—from the same National Government that of course brought us the legislation about boat people and all of the other Draconian things that it has been doing in the immigration area. Suddenly it is hugely concerned about overseas speculators being able to buy New Zealand houses. Overseas speculators are not the people who want to move here and buy a house and create a life here. They are not going to be covered by that policy, because if they are coming to New Zealand, they have got to be resident in New Zealand and they will be able to buy a house in New Zealand. No one is saying that they will not be able to. What we are saying is that people living overseas who have no interest in living here, no interest in contributing to the New Zealand economy and New Zealand society, should not be able to make massive profits by buying up the available houses, pushing them out of reach of New Zealand families who want to buy them, charging them rent, and then expatriating the profits from doing so offshore. That is fundamentally wrong.

What we are saying is we acknowledge that, so we are going to place some sensible restrictions on who can buy existing houses. If people overseas want to invest in the property market in New Zealand, they can build more houses—they can build more houses—and that will leave New Zealand better off because it will increase the number of houses that we have. We have a housing shortage in New Zealand. That is something that this Government is not willing to acknowledge. In my electorate in the Hutt Valley area we have waiting lists of people trying to get into State housing. We have so many families jammed into houses because they cannot afford to buy their own house. We have a housing supply problem in New Zealand, but the National Government keeps turning away from it. National is quite happy to pick holes in every solution that is being offered by the Labour Party—every solution that is being offered by the Labour Party—and it cannot come up with any solutions itself.

It is going to commission another report.

Vote agreed to.

Vote Communications agreed to.

Vote Environment