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

I acknowledge that on this occasion I am speaking on behalf of Phil Heatley, who is ill, and I wish him well for a speedy recovery. But speaking as a former spokesperson on housing, I also take the opportunity of raising in the Committee today a few very real concerns I have about Housing New Zealand Corporation, particularly about the way the bureaucracy of this organisation appears to have become excessively politicised over recent years. I was surprised to hear the Minister of Housing, the Hon Chris Carter, say in the House only last week that Housing New Zealand Corporation, with its 60,000-odd houses, is in fact the second-biggest asset this Government has. Therefore, all New Zealanders should be worried if, as I am going to state now, the organisation has become highly politicised.

We used to have a civil service that was generally taken as being apolitical, that was prepared to roll with the Government of the day, and that initiated the programmes of those Governments without becoming politicised itself. Yet very questionable actions have occurred recently within Housing New Zealand Corporation and its staff. Concerns have been raised about the way in which contractors for maintenance on Housing New Zealand Corporation stock have been gagged from expressing their concerns to politicians.

Phil Heatley was able to say in a press release that a conspiracy of silence has engulfed Housing New Zealand Corporation—and that development should worry us. The conspiracy of silence extends from the chair of the board himself, through to the chief executive, and it has now resulted in Audit New Zealand having to examine the way in which contracts are being awarded by that organisation, and, more specifically, how an instruction came, which was known about by the chief executive of that organisation, that attempted to gag people who were concerned about the improper way in which contracts were being organised.

We know that the organisation is in a mess—it is in a complete and utter shambles—and that is because of the policies of the Government. It is largely because of the policies of the Minister who is now in the chair, Mr Maharey, about whom John Tamihere was absolutely correct. While we have people living in State houses who are earning $100,000 or more, it seems incredible to me that Mr Maharey and Chris Carter can take satisfaction from the fact that 12,000 people are waiting for those particular houses. Labour members come into the Chamber and invariably say that it is all the fault of the National Party. They have been in Government for 7 long years and it is time they accepted that their housing policy is a mess.

I will finish by mentioning one very worrying incident that absolutely proves my point about the politicisation of Housing New Zealand Corporation. During the last election an absolutely outrageously incorrect letter went from many Labour politicians direct to Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants stating that if National were elected they would be kicked out of their houses. It was absolute rubbish, but the point is how Labour members such as Ruth Dyson, Dianne Yates, and David Benson-Pope, to name but three, ever got hold of the names of Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants to be able to write to them directly. The only answer is that some mole in Housing New Zealand Corporation was prepared to supply private information to the Labour Party so that it could write those threatening, incorrect letters to tenants.

It is very worrying when Housing New Zealand Corporation has become as politicised as that. [Interruption] Darren Hughes laughs. He scoffs. He does not think it is important to have a civil service that is apolitical. He might not think that, but I can tell him that many, many New Zealanders do. I say to Darren Hughes that this issue is a very serious one for New Zealanders. Labour MPs should not use Housing New Zealand Corporation to obtain information that is private and confidential to that organisation.

I rise to take a call on behalf of the Minister of Housing, Mr Chris Carter, and to follow on from, I think, the former spokesperson on finance for the National Party, who is the former spokesperson on housing, but I am afraid I have no idea what he does now. I assume he does nothing these days.

The previous speaker canvassed broadly the issues of the housing policies we have, but let me say to him that in 1999 we inherited the virtual destruction of State housing by his National Government in the 1990s. And it did that intentionally. National introduced the accommodation supplement earlier in the 1990s for the express reason of allowing it to destroy the tradition of State housing in this country, and it set about it with alacrity. It was, I think, near a crime for National members to have done what they did, but let me tell members what they did. They sold 13,000 State houses, they built none, they had no stock developing around the country, but on top of that they sold the most desirable houses to people who were largely speculators, who were able to on-sell those houses. They put people who were paying above-market rents, into those houses because anybody, under that Government, could get into those houses. They did not have to be poor or needy. Mr Heatley comes into the Chamber and accuses us of all kinds of things. He forgets that the only people who ever got into a State house when they did not need it financially got there under the National Party. That is why those members are sitting over there.

The National Government’s policy left us, at the end of the 1990s, with 13,000 good houses sold. Stock that was hard to rent, and often unhealthy, was kept in stock because the Government could not sell it. Speculators owned the houses. The accommodation supplement rose towards something like $1 billion being paid out as a kind of supplementary minimum price to ensure that the landlords of the country were able to rent their houses. That is what the genius David Carter tells us was a housing policy in the 1990s and somehow that allows him to come in here and criticise a Government that has rebuilt those houses and that has had to try to find houses in places like Auckland, where National allowed for none to be built.

In Northland we were watching people burn down their houses and children die because of the policies of that man. Yet he has the cheek to come in here and tell us about housing! I think the best thing David Carter could do is leave the House and go and do whatever he used to do formerly because he is wasting his time trying to make a contribution to this debate.

I thank Housing New Zealand, which I was the Minister of for a short period of time. It has, I think, formed itself from being what was essentially a rental agency under the National Government into an organisation now that has public service as its goal; that has what is called social housing—that means that people who are needy get houses—as its goal. The Housing New Zealand people care intensely about that. They now have a housing strategy that covers the building of houses, of trying to be innovative in those houses, of trying to make sure the rents are right, and of being innovative and working with third-party organisations. They have great policy building up, and they have a real sense of dedication to the task before them.

If that is called politicisation, as the previous speaker likes to say, then I guess one could tell progressive people anywhere in the country that they are being politicised. Housing New Zealand believes in the project of housing New Zealanders, not quitting the stock to rich speculators who on-sell it so that they can make a few dollars off the back of the National Party’s policy. Housing New Zealand has a true commitment to housing people in this country, to being innovative, to doing things differently, and to making sure we have people in good, healthy houses so that they can live good, decent lives. That is a mission worth being part of.

I thank Housing New Zealand for that and all the people who have supported this kind of policy, and I thank David Carter for going back to doing whatever it is he does.

Report noted.

Transit New Zealand