Estimates Debate — Vote Housing

Members of Parliament, and colleagues from right across the political parties in this New Zealand Parliament, acknowledge the importance of the State house sector in New Zealand to provide housing for the most vulnerable—families, single people, elderly people who are sometimes living alone, older couples, those who are on lower incomes or disabled, and those who find themselves in all sorts of circumstances that make their situations, particularly financially, more vulnerable than many other more fortunate New Zealanders. That is why Kiwis across the decades have been keen to support the provision of State housing for such families in need.

That is why it has been with some distress over the last few years that I have examined, on behalf of a concerned public, the Housing New Zealand Corporation and the management of that organisation—a $13 billion investment on behalf of taxpayers—under a Labour Government. We in the National Party believe that that particular asset should be managed for the most vulnerable New Zealanders, but, in the time that I have spent examining five areas of the State house sector in particular, I have been quite astonished at what I have uncovered. I have not even begun to look into some issues that I embarked upon, because I have been so swamped with concerns in five areas.

First of all, I recall a few years ago raising with the then Minister of Housing the issue of a single home in Auckland worth over $1 million, which was a State house. I pointed that out to the Minister at the time, Chris Carter, and of course his response was to deny, deny, deny that it existed, until I presented papers in Parliament to show that in fact it did exist. I suggested that perhaps this million-dollar State house could be sold, because even in the Auckland market at that time two or three average State houses in average streets and average suburbs—we are not talking about very dilapidated State houses in poor streets and poor suburbs—could have been bought with the $1 million sale of that home.

Interestingly enough, after the Minister denied it, we uncovered million-dollar State house after million-dollar State house, not just in Auckland but in various places in the country. Many, many State houses were worth over $1 million—some were worth only $750,000—and they ranged right up to almost $2 million. Two years after I pointed that out—and the general public had agreed with the sense of not having such high-value State homes but instead of having a larger number of modest homes—we found that the Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Labour Government were on the front page of the New Zealand Herald, talking about selling million-dollar State houses. And it was a pleasure for me to write their policy!

A couple of years ago I pointed out to the then Minister of Housing the issue of a subletting scam in Christchurch, where a State house tenant had decided to get a State home, and not live in it but rent it out to make some cash, and perhaps even purchase a home, on the way through. That particular State house tenant had a trucking business and was on to a good thing. Of course, the first reaction from the Minister was to deny, deny, deny. Needless to say, I investigated this and tabled papers in Parliament; apparently the woman did exist, and this was going on. An investigation was undertaken and I tabled more examples week after week until we saw that the Minister was reported in the pages of the New Zealand Herald and the Dominion Post as deciding to set up an investigations unit within the Housing New Zealand Corporation—which, incidentally, has uncovered 44 subletting scams to date this year. I am very proud to be a member of the National Party again writing Labour policy on how to manage the State house sector.

I am also aware that over 2,000 State houses are defined as being “under-occupied”—that is, some four or five-bedroom State houses have only one or two people rattling around inside them. That is a huge inefficiency of stock when we consider that many large families—many of them Pacific Island and Māori families—are wanting a State home that suits them, but are bunking in with relatives in crowded conditions while at least 2,000 State houses have just one or two people rattling around in them.

The amount of vandalism in the State housing sector is going through the roof. Neighbours have complained that the tenants living next door to them have been kicking in doors, breaking windows, having parties up and down the street, and generally harassing them. These neighbours have rung the Housing New Zealand Corporation but they have had no response. At a Ridgeview Road property in Auckland where neighbours had been complaining for a couple of years, because of media attention the Minister decided to take the tenants to court, only to lose the court case. Why? It was because the Housing New Zealand Corporation had not documented the complaints of neighbours over a period of 2 years.

Members will recall that a couple of years ago I uncovered a very lucky tenant who was earning $127,000 before tax. It was deny, deny, deny, on the part of the Minister, until through Official Information Act requests I received a list from him of hundreds of tenants who were living in States houses and earning well over $70,000 or $80,000 a year, after tax. So of course there was a change in policy.

That is why the National Party considers State housing to be there for the very vulnerable; State houses are not there to be worth a million dollars, and not there for subletting scams, vandals, and high-income tenants. That is why National has announced policies such as the policy that says if someone lives in a State house and is a high-income tenant, that person can buy his or her State home. We will use the money from the sale to replace that State home with another, and we will get another struggling family off the waiting list. It is a no-brainer.

But for reasons that Labour has not told us, it is ideologically opposed to this policy. Labour should be a bit more aspirational. If people living in State homes improve their condition through work or whatever, and raise their income to $70,000, $80,000, or $90,000 and can afford to buy the State home they have raised their family in for the previous 5 or 10 years, why should we not give them the opportunity to buy it? The level of State housing stock will be maintained, because we will replace that home with the income received from the sale. It is a no-brainer and, what is more, it is aspirational for those in State housing who want to move into homeownership.

These are not the sorts of things we see in the estimates. All we see is more money being pumped into State housing for fixing up vandalism, broken windows, and kicked-in doors, for supporting million-dollar State homes, and for giving a home to someone who is renting from someone else who is running a subletting scam, all while that person owns a lovely little bach in the Bay of Islands! Who will ever forget that subletting scam!

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

I was explaining, just before dinner, the importance of State housing—housing for the vulnerable, for those families who are generally struggling financially. I said that the housing the taxpayer provides quite willingly for them is not set aside for the purchase of million-dollar State homes, it is not set aside for those who are running sub-letting scams, which are rife within the Housing New Zealand Corporation, it is not for those who vandalise, kick in doors, and break windows, and it is not for high-income tenants on $70,000, $80,000, or $90,000 a year. It is for the vulnerable.

Members can be assured that the National Party, under John Key, will manage that State housing asset with the care and the attention it needs, to make sure it does house the most vulnerable. We will not turn our eyes away from that, and we will also have aspirations for those living in those houses.

The time for this debate has expired. Therefore, the remaining votes and provisions of the bill will be put as one question, and there is no debate.