Estimates Debate — Vote Conservation agreed to.

I would like to ask the Minister of Housing about the State housing sector but I will not do that, because I know that I would be wasting my time, and I know that all I would get from the Minister would be half-baked answers and deviations from the truth. Therefore, I will tell the Committee what I think. I have never, in all my business life, seen such a badly run business as the State housing sector. [Interruption] I suggest the member opposite keeps quiet and learns.

Although I believe we should help less-fortunate people, it should be done in an affordable way. It totally amazes me that the Department of Building and Housing subsidises the State housing sector by $465 million per year. That is a massive amount. This subsidy increased by $100 million in the past year alone, and equates to approximately $140 per house per week. I ask members to listen carefully. That is $140 per house per week. That is a stunning subsidy, and that is after the rent has been paid by the tenant and collected by the department.

If we add interest on to the cost of the value of the house, we get a total subsidy of $480 per week per house. This is more than the average person pays in weekly payments for a mortgage to buy a house. It might be sensible for the Government to give State house tenants the house they occupy, and close the State housing department. On my calculations, the Government would save millions over the years. I am not recommending this, but it just proves that the Minister has made a total mess of handling the State housing sector.

The Minister bleats on about buying houses to put into the State housing pool. What a waste of money! I know of many cases where the department has paid $370,000 to $420,000 for houses in Tauranga that have three bedrooms and two-car garages. One of those houses was let for $60 a week to an elderly lady who lives on her own and has no car.

This is a typical example of the failure of this Government’s Minister to be logical. Does anybody in this Government work out the financial cost in owning these houses? It would be a lot cheaper for the Government to pay the full rent for that elderly lady to move into the private sector, and the Government—or taxpayers actually—would be better off by about $300 or $400 a week. We need a National Government in power to sort this problem out.

The Minister of Housing is now thinking of moving into shared equity schemes. I warn him that that scheme is full of problems. I have studied it myself, overseas. Who pays for and who benefits from an extension or any other upgrading of the house—for example, a small room added on to the back? On second thoughts, this Government will have no problem—it will just start up another Government department to deal with the problems caused by this Government department. It will cost millions to set up, but this Government does not care. It is only taxpayers’ money!

This housing Minister needs to wake up, talk to the right people, do some ground-breaking research, and come up with an overall plan for State housing and affordable homes. The Minister is running around and achieving very little. For example, this Labour Government’s home equity scheme was promised in 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, and it might, with any luck, start in 2008. The Minister is very consistent with his promises, but he just keeps failing to deliver. We are lucky he will not be here in 2009; he will not be in Government.

The Minister also intends to mix State housing with expensive houses in Hobsonville. This will top off the Minister’s foul-ups. This idea will offend both the top end and bottom end of the housing market. In answer to a written question, the Minister would not tell me how much the sections in Hobsonville will cost. I want only an estimate of the price of the sections, so that I can warn him how big a mess he will be in, and what it will cost the taxpayers to get out of this mess and for this stuff-up.

The Minister has been given two ears and one mouth, so that he can listen twice as much as he talks. He has failed in that area. I finish off by saying that I look forward to a National Government being in power. Thank you.

Vote agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Before we go on to the next one, I just say to members that we are debating the appropriations, the estimates, for 2007-08. All contributions should be geared towards that time frame. Members may deal with the past only if they are making comparisons or giving examples to illustrate what they are talking about in relation to 2007-08.

Vote Courts agreed to.

Vote Emergency Management agreed to.

Vote Internal Affairs agreed to.

Vote Veterans’ Affairs (Defence) agreed to.

Vote Veterans’ Affairs (Social Development) agreed to.

Vote Employment agreed to.

Vote Environment agreed to.

Vote Social Development