Debate on Crown Entities, Public Organisations,and State Enterprises — Housing New Zealand Corporation

My questions relate to Housing New Zealand and its recent financial review. I want the Minister to explain the rationale for the 12,635 people who are now waiting for a State house. I would like the Minister, Mr Maharey, to take the opportunity whilst he is in the chair, to acknowledge that his policy around income-related rents has been an unmitigated disaster.

💬 Jill Pettis: Under a National Government there wouldn’t be any State houses.

Jill Pettis is interjecting, and it is the normal rubbish we get from her about the National Government selling State houses to people who have lived in them for a long, long time. I will take the opportunity to ask the Minister another question. Why does he not allow people who are living in a State house, who like their State house, and in some cases have an income of $140,000, to buy their State house? Why does he then not use that money to reinvest in houses that thousands of people are waiting for.

Little has been done for housing in New Zealand, as acknowledged by the only good work that Minister has done, and that is the release a fortnight ago of the housing strategy. Anybody who reads the housing strategy will acknowledge that the previous policies put in place by the National Government, which Jill Pettis bothers to object to, are reinforced by the housing strategy, and that is the policy of an accommodation supplement.

No Government will ever be in a position to buy the stock of housing required for low-income New Zealanders. There will always be a requirement for the State to provide some houses, and for the private sector to provide the majority of them. That will never change. If the Minister wants an equitable housing policy that will work and will not have 12,500 people waiting for a State house, then he must provide a system that is clear, concise, and equitable, between both the State sector and the private sector. The housing strategy recently released by the Minister states exactly that.

The housing strategy states that the policy must be delivered via the accommodation supplement. Mr Maharey, Graham Kelly, formerly a Labour Opposition spokesperson, and one Helen Clark, now Prime Minister, are repeatedly in the media, criticising the accommodation supplement throughout the 1990s, but now the Minister himself acknowledges that it is the only credible, logical way to deliver housing assistance.

I ask the Minister to explain why he has 12,500 people on a waiting list, and why nearly half of those people are in absolutely urgent situations. He should explain why he came to the House a fortnight ago and tried to tell members that Housing New Zealand is building 4,000 new houses, when any Minister who is on top of his or her own portfolio will know that the number of houses being built is in the hundreds, not the thousands. The Minister is actually doing long-term rental arrangements with the private sector, putting those houses into Housing New Zealand stock, and then claiming that he is building up the housing stock. That is not happening.

The Minister needs to provide housing in areas of high demand, such as Auckland. There is no demand in areas like Wanganui. Jill Pettis criticised the previous National Government for selling Housing New Zealand stock in areas like Wanganui. That was probably the best thing that was ever done because that money is now available, and has been available to Housing New Zealand to reinvest into housing stock in areas where it is demanded. Unless the Minister is prepared to acknowledge that he uses the accommodation supplement, he will not have a solution to the housing needs of New Zealand. The Minister also needs to look at ways of encouraging people who are living in a State house, on an income of $140,000 a year, to stop being dependent on the State.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: Name one!

I am not allowed to name one, because of the privacy laws. However, the Minister’s answers confirm that there is one such family on $140,000 a year.

That was an appalling speech. That member had the audacity to get up on his hind legs and talk about a housing shortage, when it was the National Government that sold off 12,000 houses during its tenure in office.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: How many?

Twelve thousand! It is interesting to note that the shortage of houses for those on the waiting list actually matches the 12,000 houses that the National Party sold off. Then that member had the cheek to respond to an interjection that asked how many houses the National Government had sold, by saying: “Not enough.” He wants to talk about the housing shortage and the long waiting list, and then says that the National Government had not sold off enough houses.

One of the major contributing factors to poverty in this country is the cost of housing. There is no question about that. I ask members Opposite to do their homework and to look up the facts about poverty in our communities. We also know that overcrowding is a significant factor contributing to infectious diseases. People in communities such as south Auckland contract meningitis and all sorts of infectious diseases because of overcrowding, and this Government is doing something about it. We are quite proud of our track record over the last 4 years. We are looking at building an extra 3,500 houses, and another 3,000 to 4,000 houses in the following 3 years. That will deal effectively with the giving of stability to low-income families. When families cannot afford to rent they have to move from house to house. That sort of mobility gives instability to children who need to go to from pre-school and kindergarten on to primary school. When they do not have that stability in their family life, their education suffers. So it is a question not only of health and education but also of the fundamental right of families and children to be able to access affordable, quality housing. That is what this Government is about.

I am very proud that we have significantly reduced the cost of housing by an average of $1,800 for low-income families. The disastrous effect that market rents—brought in by the previous National Government—had on those families is something that those members opposite need to be ashamed of. As we continue to talk about the poverty within our communities, we have to remember that a lot of people, including many children, suffered under the National Government in the last decade not only because of its housing policies but also because of other aspects of its social policy, such as benefit cuts of 25 percent.

Labour has a proud record of rebuilding the stock numbers in State housing. We are looking at meeting the demands in Auckland. I am particularly concerned about the south Auckland area that I represent, which has the longest waiting list for State houses. At least we are moving towards ensuring that the stock numbers are built back up to the 72,000 that they used to be before the National Government sold off 12,000 of them.

We must also recognise the need to promote homeownership. There is a decline in homeownership, and I congratulate the Minister of Housing, Steve Maharey, on looking at initiatives that can promote low-income families into their own homes. The Kiwibank package has already been released. It helps families into homes without deposits, and it is also a way of getting them to understand how to repay their mortgage. That is very important in helping to increase, in percentage terms, the numbers of families into their own homes.

What we in this Government have achieved in the housing portfolio is very important. It is something we can be proud of. Housing is fundamental to the health and well-being of our communities, particularly for low-income people. This Government has a proud track record of achievement, and we look forward to the next phase in its housing policy, which is to improve the numbers I referred to and to get the stock level up to where it can meet the demand, particularly in areas like Auckland. There is no doubt that Auckland’s growth means that there is a need to plan properly to ensure that communities have the facilities planned around Housing New Zealand’s housing projects.

I am sure the Minister can expand on what is being looked at for the next 12 months, but, certainly, the emphasis of this Budget will be not only on housing and levels of incomes but also on supporting low and middle income families who need it.

I did not intend to take a call in the housing debate, but after listening to David Carter, the National Party spokesperson on housing, talk about housing I felt absolutely compelled to. I have never heard such drivel in my life as I have just heard from Mr Carter. My colleague Phillip Field has just explained some of the very good, sensible, socially responsible things this Government is doing in housing. I remind Mr David Carter, National MP, that National members do not mind getting into State houses, as long as they are ministerial ones provided by the taxpayer. There is a degree of double standards coming from those members: they do not mind getting into a State house, but they do not seem to have any inclination towards letting poor people who need a helping hand up get into a secure house. I say to Mr Carter that that is absolutely speaking out of both sides of one’s mouth at the same time, and he should be ashamed of himself. Mr Carter seems to have already forgotten about the huge number of houses that National sold off. That was absolutely despicable, because it removed that valuable housing stock from people with the greatest housing need and placed them in far more severe financial situations than they were in previously.

Fortunately, this Labour-Progressive Government has invested millions of dollars in restoring the housing stock and helping people to get into a home that provides a secure roof over their head, which brings all sorts of other social advantages with it. I will refer to the food bank statistics. Anybody who bothered to look at those statistics would tell the National members that one of the biggest costs for people who require food bank assistance is housing. Those statistics are very revealing, and selling off the State houses shows that National Party MPs did not bother to go and read the statistics and look at the impact that housing costs, particularly under National’s iniquitous market rent policy, had on people’s incomes and the quality of life they were enjoying—and “enjoying” is not the appropriate word, really. I remind the National Party members that housing is important not only for the fact that people need to have a secure roof over their heads but also for the improved health and increased educational opportunities that people are able to access when they have secure, safe, dry, well-provided housing. National members seem to have completely disregarded the impact that safe, secure, dry housing has on people’s health and their education chances.

It is very clear that National intends—if, God forbid, it ever gets back into power again—to sell even more houses, or to quit itself completely of responsibility for what we know in New Zealand as State housing. Tony Ryall is on record as saying that National does not have a desire to expand the level of housing in New Zealand. Housing is not an issue that is dear to National’s core constituency, so the National MPs have absolutely no interest in it, whatsoever. But I remind those members that a large number of people in New Zealand are fundamentally and philosophically in support of the provision of State housing. I meet people who would not necessarily strike one as being core Labour supporters, but who still firmly believe in the provision of State houses. Having a roof over one’s head is a fundamental part of the New Zealand way of life. Those National MPs have clearly forgotten the appalling overcrowding situations that occurred in some of our biggest cities, particularly in Auckland, when, as I said earlier, the iniquitous market rent housing policy applied. We saw people living in garages. We saw two to three families—and that is no exaggeration—living in the same house, and we saw all the health and social problems that accompanied that.

New Zealanders do not want to return to that situation. New Zealanders want people to be able to have a home of their own, and the vast majority of people who get a State house, as we commonly refer to it, move on. It is a first step towards people getting their own independence, and having a home of their own helps them to gain it.

Report noted.

Broadcasting Commission (New Zealand on Air)

Radio New Zealand Limited

Television New Zealand Limited