Housing Legislation Amendment Bill

I am very pleased to offer this additional housing solution to the Committee tonight as part of the large suite of housing solutions offered by the Opposition in response to the Government’s failure to do anything about the housing crisis. So this is the seventh of the proposals put forward. This one comes from a piece of work that the Greens did before the Budget, so in May of this year, where we announced our Homes Not Cars policy, which was to allow Housing New Zealand to retain both its tax and its dividend, for the purposes of building State houses. At the time that we made that announcement, it was the beginning of that acute awareness of the extent to which the homelessness crisis was hitting New Zealanders.

We had, in the Greens, the enormous privilege of having a young woman, Rhiannon, come and tell her story with us at the launch of that policy. She was a young mother of three children, one of whom has lung disease—young Emma. Rhiannon was incredibly courageous in telling her story to the New Zealand public, opening herself to potential abuse and judgment. But she talked, with her courage and with her concern for her daughter with her, about how—after a redundancy, a relationship break up, and having to move from a rental home that was being sold—she found herself in this terrible situation of having three children, one of whom was terribly ill and in hospital, and having nowhere to live but her car. She had nowhere to live but her car.

As she said at the time, she felt she could live in a car, if that was what was necessary, but she could not take her very sick daughter to live in a car. She talked about the six medications that her daughter needed every day that needed to be refrigerated, which, of course, she could not do in a car. So she was having to share her children out amongst friends and family, move Emma in and out of hospital, where she had some times with her sleeping on friends’ couches and some times back in the hospital. Her homelessness situation was acute. After the announcement of our policy, which is now set out here in new Part 7, New Zealanders actually came to the party, and she was offered rental accommodation and was able to secure stable accommodation, and for that we were very grateful, and so was she, for New Zealanders’ generosity and kindness.

But she should not have to rely on the kindness of strangers, because that is what she had to rely on to find a home. She should have been able to go to the agencies and the services of Housing New Zealand and talk to them about her story and show them what her needs were, and they should have been able to find her a house. That is what the State housing system was built for to make sure that a young woman like her, with her young children, has a house to live in where she could take care of her sick daughter who has lung cancer. But, as we all know, Housing New Zealand, under this Government, has been required to pay a dividend and tax, until very recently—exposed by Steven Joyce of course. It had State housing being sold, and so there are not enough State houses for the families who desperately need them, like Rhiannon’s.

This amendment, this change, to the Housing Corporation Act is quite a modest change. What it does is it will free up Housing New Zealand’s obligation to pay a dividend. So it is not the tax part; that requires quite a bit more change. But this new Part 7 will enable Housing New Zealand to no longer have to pay a dividend into the Government’s general coffers, but instead to retain that surplus and use that for the purposes of building State houses, State houses that families like Rhiannon’s need. This is critical because 2,500 State houses have been sold off under this Government, we have 4,500 people on the waiting list, and we have the lowest number of State houses per population since 1949. It is an absolute disgrace. The destruction of the State housing system that has provided the safety net for thousands, tens of thousands of New Zealanders over many, many, many decades—[Bell rung]

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Metiria Turei, but before I allow her to continue with her call, if she would just be seated for a moment. I would just make the point that she spent 4 minutes 30 before she talked about what her amendment was going to do, what this part is going to do about retaining a dividend and applying it to the purchase of new houses. I urge her to stay on point in her second call and to talk to the part that we are discussing at the moment. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Of course Rhiannon’s story is very specifically connected to this new Part 7 because new Part 7 will enable more State houses to be built—modest proposal as it is—so that women like her, mothers like her, will have a place to live. I think that is an important story to tell in this Committee. We have to remember that housing issues are not intellectual issues. They are not pointy-headed policy issues; they are about the ability for ordinary New Zealanders to live an ordinary decent life. Our job in Parliament is to provide—through amendments like the one I have put on the Table today—the structure, the infrastructure, and the funding to enable that decent life to be supported for New Zealanders.

So this provision will mean that the surplus of Housing New Zealand will not have to be sent directly back to the Government for it to use as it chooses, but reinvested in Housing New Zealand to build more homes. Now it is modest, and I think that that is important, and I think that is not only important to note but it is important to recognise that even modest changes to the law can make a significant difference. This means around 250 houses, possibly depending on the nature of the building, or 300 new State houses every year. It is a small step towards the many thousands that we need, but every single tool to fix this housing crisis is needed. This is one of those tools. We can free up this financial opportunity for Housing New Zealand in order to build more State houses.

As I said, we have the lowest number of State houses per population since 1949 while 4,500 people are on the waiting list. Let us just reflect for a moment on the 4,500 people on the waiting list, because 10 times that many are technically homeless in this country. Ten times that many do not have a safe secure home to call their own. The core function, we would have thought, of Housing New Zealand, and in fact of government, is to make sure that all New Zealand families have a decent, safe, and secure home to call their own.

So while we have 4,500 people on the State house waiting list, we have 10 times that number who are in severe housing need. So actually the State house waiting list is just a very, very tiny proportion of the people who actually need to be housed in this country. We need to remember that as we go through. That is why all of the previous tools that have been put forward by the Opposition and voted down by the Government have been so important for us to discuss over the last number of hours. Because these are the solutions that will house New Zealanders, including this solution, to enable Housing New Zealand to increase its State house building programme by at least another 250 homes, perhaps even 300 homes, in a year.

And let us not forget how much the forecast dividend was. Steven Joyce did, as I understand it, agree with our policy, and we appreciate that he agreed with our policy—using Twitter to announce his new policy framework that he would not require a dividend from Housing New Zealand.

💬 Phil Twyford: He’s so modern!

It was such a modern announcement. It was very hip; it was very social media—the new way.

💬 Hon Christopher Finlayson: What’s Twitter?

Ha, ha! Yes, a very modern way of communicating his new policy. So we are very pleased that our Government has done it, at least for this year and possibly for next year. But there is no justification for Housing New Zealand ever having to provide a dividend to the Government. Housing New Zealand has a core function of providing housing services to the country. Providing rental housing principally for those who need it is one of the core functions of Housing New Zealand. That is an expensive service. You have to build homes in order to make sure that there are enough. You have to make sure that you have a good infrastructure and a good funding source to keep doing it. Requiring Housing New Zealand to provide a dividend has been one of the worst decisions of this Government, because it has prevented Housing New Zealand from engaging in its core function, which is making sure that New Zealanders, those who need it, have a decent and safe and secure home to live in.

I urge members of the Committee to support this. I urge National members to support it. It is, after all, National policy now, according to Steven Joyce, so they should have no problem supporting a bill that does exactly what Steven Joyce has said he wants to do. I look forward to their support in the future. Thank you.

An inspired choice, Mr Chair. Thank you very much. It is a great day to be in Opposition, I have to say. It is a great day for the Opposition. This has been a day when the Opposition members have been able to talk at length, non-stop about our suite of housing policies and at the same time highlight the complete dearth of policy coming from the Government benches on homelessness, and the fact that we need more houses built. I just have to give credit to my colleague Phil Twyford for all the amazing work that he has been doing, developing our policy.

I believe that Housing New Zealand lost its soul when it decided that it was going to be there just purely to derive a profit from people who are using its services. It has become an organisation that does not see people as an opportunity to actually do some good for the country. It just sees people as problems and it treats them in that way. National has taken $523 million out of profits from Housing New Zealand, including a $118 million dividend for the year 2015-16 alone. Imagine how many houses, how many families, how many people could be supported in order to live in warm, comfortable, affordable houses if that money, instead of going into the Government’s coffers, was actually reinvested back into building houses for our people.

When people come into our electorate offices, there are four organisations that comprise the majority of complaints. First of all, there is Child, Youth and Family, there is Work and Income, there is ACC, and the fourth is Housing New Zealand. I can tell the story—this happened over a year ago—of a family of mum, dad, and three kids who arrived in Whangarei, and they were living in their car. They went to Housing New Zealand, and because the only house available had five bedrooms and they really needed only four they were actually declined that house. That is just ridiculous. The rules around Housing New Zealand and its policies just sometimes do not make sense. Instead of just thinking what is the right thing to do for people, what is the best way that it can support their kids to grow up in a warm, safe, dry, comfortable house so that they can get to school and be prepared to learn—instead of thinking about the ways that it can provide a home for parents so that they can look after their families, it puts every single barrier in the way of these families that it can think of. As I said earlier, instead of looking at ways to help, it sees people as problems, and that, to me, is totally unacceptable.

“What is the social cost in years to come?” is the question that I ask. What is the social cost in years to come if children are growing up not in warm, safe, comfortable, affordable homes but where parents are struggling with rent and struggling to get by in poorly maintained homes? There is a social cost to the country in years to come that is far greater than the cost of actually just providing a house in the first place.

When we talk about affordable homes, one of the submitters at the homelessness inquiry last week in Kaitāia spoke about his ability to build an affordable home—and Housing New Zealand could take this idea on—a 100 square metre home for $100,000. He can construct it in a workshop in 4 days and erect it on site in 3 days. He was saying that he can build homes all around Tai Tokerau—a 100 square metre home for $100,000 and a 200 square metre home for $175,000. How many houses could that $118 million dividend pay for and erect all around the country if the Government had just looked at and attended the homelessness inquiry? Government members were not there at all. These were ideas that could have been taken to Housing New Zealand. The Minister for Building and Housing could have said “Hey, look. Here’s a really good idea that’s come out of the homelessness inquiry that Labour, the Greens, and the Māori Party have established.”, and we could use some of these ideas to build—

Tēnā koe e Te Heamana. I am pleased to take a call on this new Part 7 of the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill. First of all, can I point out again—I think it has already been said—that the public has not had the opportunity to make submissions on this bill. I took the opportunity to read some of the submissions from the 2013 Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act, and I came across a submission from the Salvation Army that bemoaned and pointed out its concerns about the lack of any reference to affordable housing. I stand to support new Part 7 because it is supporting affordable housing. It is really important, and I think there would be very few in this Chamber who would not see the value that the Salvation Army brings to this country, in particular in terms of addressing the issues of homelessness and affordable housing.

More specifically, in Part 7, new section 40(1) inserted by new clause 12 means that the surplus moneys would be used for the functions of the corporation. I also took the opportunity to look at the functions of the Housing New Zealand Corporation. The very first one, stated in section 18(2)(a) of the Housing Corporation Amendment Act 2011, is “providing rental housing, principally for those who need it the most”. That really underpins this new Part 7.

I want to commend Metiria Turei for bringing this to the Committee. I think, alongside all of the other new parts that were brought to the Committee—and I want to acknowledge Phil Twyford for his work in bringing these comprehensive new parts to this bill. Providing rental property principally for those who need it the most—this new part actually addresses that, and I think that it is incumbent upon this Committee to accept this. As Metiria Turei pointed out, we have heard from Minister Joyce that they are already doing great, but we want to make sure that it is enduring, because if the Government can make that decision at a whim, well, at a whim they can turn it around as well. I think that our country, in particular those who need it the most, deserve better than that. So I wholeheartedly support new Part 7.

As I pointed out before, because this has not gone to the select committee, I read some other submissions. I read the submissions from Te Rūnunga o Ngāi Tahu and from Tainui Group Holdings Ltd, and what struck me about their submissions to the principal bill that we are debating tonight is that they pointed out its deficiencies around addressing Māori rights within it. In thinking about what that process would look like if those submitters had had the full opportunity to make submissions on this bill—granted that these are new parts—they would not have had the opportunity to speak on these as well.

I think it just highlights a point around the real importance of that process and the real importance of the point—of which I am absolutely certain—that, given the opportunity of speaking to this Part 7, the majority of those submitters would be supporting it. They have not had that opportunity, so we in this Chamber must ensure that we bring that opportunity to them. We must also ensure that those surplus moneys that are generated within Housing New Zealand—another thing that occurred to me, if the Government had had a proper building programme for more affordable housing and State housing, then there would actually be more profits to be shared, again, for the purpose of providing affordable housing.

I fully commend the new Part 7 to the House, and I am very happy to do so. Kia ora.

I rise in support of the amendment, the proposed new Part 7, tabled by our good colleague Metiria Turei. Many of our colleagues here have already spoken about much of the good that can come from this. We have waxed lyrical in this House about how, over decades, the quality of the housing stock has really declined.

It will be a sad day in this House if we leave it for another how many decades to fix it up, to make sure that the houses that our people live in and are provided by the State are up to scratch, up to standard, are healthy, are warm, and are safe for our families. That is an important step. Although we need to build new homes, although we need to reinvest that money to make houses more affordable, we must make sure that the stock that is there does not decline any further. We must invest in them so that in decades to come they are of a standard that we would like to live in, that they are of a standard where we want our kids to grow in.

We want to raise our families in warm homes, safe homes, dry homes, and I think this particular amendment, the proposed new Part 7, is a fantastic way to do that. Where else should that money go? We know that this is a crisis. We know that Governments have ignored this. This Government has had 8 years, and ignored it. It is important that any profit that is derived from Housing New Zealand actually goes back into, firstly, the stock of Housing New Zealand to make houses more affordable, to grow the stock and, I would like to think, secondly, to maintain that stock, and also to bring whatever is left of our current stock—whatever is left after the sell-off; let me put that out there—up to standard, to make sure that it is safe, warm, and dry for all of our whānau.

I had hoped that this was a step in the right direction, whereby if there just happens to be a bit of money left—which I doubt there will be, but if there is—we need to support our social housing providers out in the community, to provide them with support. We have heard through the homelessness inquiry that many of these social housing providers, in particular in Tāmaki-makau-rau, where I was fortunate to be for the day to listen to the submissions—it blew me away: no support. We read in the papers that millions of dollars are being given to support them. Well, that might be the case for the beds that are there, but what the inquiry did prove was that the need is greater than the supply that is there already. So, just in case there is any money left, I think this particular tabled amendment, proposed new Part 7, is a step in the right direction to signal that when there is surplus we should be supporting those social housing providers, who do a fantastic job, not just in the cities but also in the regions.

We heard some fantastic ideas. What did they lack? Financial support. We see some people digging into their own pockets to make sure that they are able to provide the services so dearly needed by the people in our communities—digging into their own pockets. They are displacing some of their own whānau to make sure that these people in need have a place to stay, have a bed to sleep in, and tamariki have a roof over their head.

I would like to think that this particular tabled amendment, proposed new Part 7, will at least encourage this House, this Government to start looking forward to futureproofing housing for the country, and stock, supply, affordability and, of course, the quality of housing that we expect, that the people of Aotearoa New Zealand expect, should they ever need it. Should they ever need it, because, let us face it, not everybody is going to be able to climb up that ladder to own homes. So we need to be able to provide many families the opportunity to have a safe, dry, warm home to raise their families in, in the hope that one day they may be able to own a home. I do not believe it is about providing it for them forever, but this does need to be a platform to allow them their own tino rangatiratanga, their own independence, so that they are able to enter into a market that, at this moment in time, is shutting the door on far too many. I support the proposed new Part 7 amendment, tabled by our colleague Metiria Turei. Kia ora.

This is my first call, and I hope it will be my first of four calls on new Part 7. I want to pose a question to the Minister in the chair, Chris Finlayson, and to this Government: what is going on with this Government? The whole bill is about increasing the supply of housing and increasing affordable housing, but for the vital parts of the bill that we have presented—new Part 3, increasing the house supply by 10,000—they vote it down. We talked about cracking down on speculators; they vote it down. I hope that they do not vote down new Part 7, which I now come to.

New Part 7 says that it requires that, instead of what this Government is doing—taking money out of Housing New Zealand and using it for whatever it desires—that money actually ought to go back to Housing New Zealand so it can build more social housing. So it is to focus on the function of Housing New Zealand. I will tell you why that is important: because, at the moment, the whole purpose of Housing New Zealand, that social foundation of providing housing for the needy, has been destroyed. Yet for the first Labour Government that set up Housing New Zealand, its very purpose was to help those in need of housing, particularly after World War II. But this Government comes along and in 8 years has destroyed that basic foundation of what Housing New Zealand was established to do.

I agree with section 18(2)(a) of the Housing Corporation Act in “providing rental housing, principally for those who need it most”. That should be what Housing New Zealand is about, and yet today I can give you examples. In the Housing New Zealand office in Māngere, they kick people out who are in need of housing for simple things. One woman was behind on rent by $100. They gave her 90 days’ notice right on the spot. They would not even give her the opportunity. This is a sole mother who works, and, in fact, on the phone they bullied her. That is just one example of many. The needy whom we talk about are the people who are living in cars and living in garages. The other day Alfred Ngaro said to me: “We’ve always had people living in garages and in cars.” That is what he said. That is ludicrous. We may have had people living in garages, but only on a temporary basis in preparation for getting themselves on their feet. This Government has normalised people living in cars and in garages.

This amendment surely needs to pass so that the money generated by Housing New Zealand can go back for the building of social housing for those in need. Housing is a fundamental right. I heard in the homelessness inquiry—here is something that I hope will prick the heart of that Minister. An investor said to me—this was presented at Te Puea Marae—“Housing is so critical for raising families and communities. If families have a stable habitation, a stable house, it means those children will have a stable family, stable schooling, and a stable group of friends, because they are not moving around from house to house. Generally, that means that you have good, strong local communities contributing to that community.” That is what would happen if we were investing money properly into Housing New Zealand and providing for the needy.

But we do not want people just to be living in social housing; we want them to own their own homes. That is part of our overall plan, and I had thought that that was what this Government was doing in this legislation. But, again, in that initial question, “What is going on with this Government?”—it is crazy what it is doing, on the one hand saying that it wants to increase the supply of affordable housing, and on the other hand voting down every initiative that we have put up. I suspect it is going to vote down this initiative, but this initiative is about helping the needy—helping the needy. I cannot understand how some of those MPs on that side can live with themselves—people who believe that they are close to the community. I am not pointing my finger at anyone in particular, but I want to name Alfred Ngaro and Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, because they go out to the community and say—

Malo e lelei, Mr Chair. Thank you very much for this opportunity to contribute to what has been a robust debate. I am particularly supportive of proposed Part 7, which has been introduced in an amendment by my colleague Metiria Turei. What she hopes to amend is section 40 of the Housing Corporation Act, which is “Distribution of profits”. It is interesting when you read the Housing Corporation Act 1974, because it is all about paying money into a Crown account. How much money have we paid into the Crown account? Well, in 2014 we paid $108 million into the Crown account, on 8 September 2015 we paid $118 million into the Crown account, and, in fact, we forecast in this year’s Budget to put in $38 million this year and $54 million next year. Based on that, in answer to my colleague Kelvin Davis’ question: $126 million, Kelvin. That is over 2,200 of your 100 square metre properties, and over 1,500 of your 200 square metre properties, that we could have built in the North. This amendment is actually really relevant when you look at those figures because we could have added to the housing stock over 2,000 properties, which would have housed those most in need.

I want to particularly look at the functions of the Housing New Zealand Corporation. My colleague Adrian Rurawhe talked about section 18(2)(a) of the Housing Corporation Act, which is about “providing rental housing, principally for those who need it most”, but I want to talk about subsection (2)(b), which is about “providing appropriate accommodation … for community organisations … that provide residential support services for people with special needs):”. The reason I want to highlight that is that I was fortunate enough to participate in two sessions of the homelessness inquiry—and I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague Phil Twyford, my colleague Marama Davidson, and also my colleague Marama Fox on the way that they conducted that homelessness inquiry.

What I would like to bring to the table is the unmet need that will be met by the money that will be reinvested into one of the functions of the Housing New Zealand Corporation—the communities that will benefit most from this particular amendment. I particularly want to highlight from Monday’s hearing here in Wellington the submission by Ara Taiohi. It was given by Anya Satyanand and Sandra Dickson, and it focused specifically on the exclusion of LGBTI youth and LGBTI homelessness. I also want to acknowledge that another member of that submission group was Kassie Hartendorp, who works for Evolve. Where we got to, in terms of their representation of LGBTI youth, is that they are already a marginalised group. We have an already marginalised group—because they do not have the family structures available—living on the streets or relying on, as Sandra said, people like herself who are part of the community allowing these young people to sleep on their couches.

One of the solutions that was proposed in the submission hearing on Monday was that maybe we should create a hostel that would be funded by Housing New Zealand and serviced by LGBTI groups for LGBTI groups. That is a huge unmet need in our society. That would be a tangible investment by this Government, based on this proposal by my colleague Metiria Turei.

I want to now quickly reference the 22 August hearing at Te Puea Marae, and particularly want to highlight the submission by Danielle Bergin, who works for the Island Child Charitable Trust. One of the things she said that struck me most was that of the last six families she had had, five of them had newborn babies. She provides a service that aims to help up to 35 families a year, but because of restricted funding it could help only 15. It brings in a context where young women are provided with the support to know how to parent and they are given an opportunity to create a loving bond with that child. This, again, highlights a whole lot of unmet need that this reinvestment, by not putting it into the Crown accounts, can contribute to. Kia ora.

I just want to take a moment, if members could be seated, to remind the Committee what we are doing here. We have had an amendment put up. It is quite narrow in what it says. It is very specific about not taking a dividend from Housing New Zealand Corporation for the Government and applying it back into the purchase of homes. We do not need big long stories or tales of woe.

The context has been given by the initial speaker, Metiria Turei, who was the proponent of the amendment. People need to be either asking the Minister for Building and Housing questions or they need to be doing technical analysis in respect of what this proposal does by way of amendment. Bear in mind that this is an amendment, so the questions you can ask the Minister are fairly limited.

I expect that the debate on this will be very narrow, and it should be, because it is a very narrow and very easy to understand amendment.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. As I understand it, this whole bill began with a clear statement that the debate was to be wide ranging. I also would put to you that as a wide-ranging debate and one where we have not had the opportunity to hear submissions from New Zealanders—from the public—we actually have an obligation to our constituents to talk about the impacts on them of legislation that we are considering. So telling those stories is critical to explaining how legislation will impact on the people we are here to represent. Yes, there are some narrow provisions that we are debating, but I would strongly suggest that you reconsider your view in light of the fact that we have an obligation as representatives in this House to talk about the effects of legislation on our constituency, and this is the only opportunity that we have to do so.

Ruling on that, the point is that you have got an obligation to address the part that is under debate at the moment. That does not give a licence to any speaker to then retell the context over and over and over and over again. Actually, that leads to repetition, and that is what the Chair is responsible for maintaining a control on. That is not something that is going to be tolerated. As members will well know, there have been several hours of debate in respect of this bill, and the context has been put many, many times during the course of that debate.

The ability to be able to have a wide-ranging debate is during the first, second, and third readings. This is the Committee stage, where we analyse the parts that are before the Committee, and at this time we are debating a very narrow and well-constructed Supplementary Order Paper that is around this particular part. The wide-ranging debate relates to the readings. The Committee stage relates to the analysis of the parts that are before the Committee. There has been quite a bit of leniency displayed so far, for members to be able to do that. I am giving you an indication, as I have on previous tours of duty in respect of this particular bill, that we are going to keep it tight.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am just seeking clarification.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Simply for clarification—a point of order, Metiria Turei.

Can I clarify then that you are not ruling out members of Parliament, in this Committee stage debate, describing the impacts? As part of the analysis of the legislation we are considering, are you ruling out us describing the impact of this legislation on the constituents whom we represent in this House?

The impacts of the legislation should be well described within the first, second, and third readings. The purpose of this Committee stage is to analyse and debate the strict terms of what each part does. Members do not have leniency to spend several minutes in a 5 minute call putting in context, which has been done several times over the course of this debate, or they run the risk of being called for repetition and being sat down.

This is about analysis. The Committee stage is about analysis of the parts that we are debating at any one time. I hope that is clear enough.

I move, That the question be now put.

It is a pleasure to rise and speak to this excellent amendment, proposed Part 7, from Metiria Turei about making sure that the money that is dedicated to Housing New Zealand is used for the purpose of housing New Zealanders. It is not a hard thing to ask for—

💬 Phil Twyford: Pretty radical.

I know; it is pretty radical, but, actually, it is pretty simple in its context. It is what every New Zealander would expect their Government to be doing on their behalf—ensuring that the money put aside in the Budget for housing is dedicated to housing.

I want to bring Hamilton into the debate. We have spoken a lot about Auckland. I see there are two members opposite in the Chamber who are from Hamilton, but I do not think we are going to hear anything from them any time soon. They are probably too embarrassed to talk about the impact that Part 7 has on their constituents in Hamilton, and so they should be. About 2 weeks ago Andrew Little came to Hamilton. He addressed a lunchtime meeting on the issue of housing, and there was standing room only. That is how much this issue of Housing New Zealand and how it is operating in New Zealand, and the lack of housing available under Housing New Zealand, is impacting on Hamiltonians. David Bennett might find it entertaining, but I can tell that member, and he should know this himself from the people who come in his door, that it is not at all entertaining for those people who are sleeping in cars and who are sleeping in garages, because Housing New Zealand is paying a profit, a surplus, back to his Government, instead of building more State houses in Hamilton, where they are needed.

The example I will give you, and I took Andrew Little to see this particular block of land, is Jebson Place, which is in David Bennett’s electorate. Actually, Jebson Place and Dey Street, around that area, over in Hamilton East, is a beautifully located piece of Housing New Zealand land. It is largely abandoned. The State houses are boarded up, left derelict by that Government for years, while the need for housing grows exponentially in Hamilton. Our housing prices have increased by an average of 30 percent in the last year alone, and that Government has left that block of land empty, with houses boarded up, derelict. It is like a ghetto, in the middle of Hamilton.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Back to this part.

Back to this part, Mr Chairperson. The surplus that Housing New Zealand has been told to pay back to that Government should be spent on developing good, healthy State houses in Jebson Place, where people can live, not have these resource consents so that people cannot live in them, but have actual houses, built by Housing New Zealand.

I will give another example in Hamilton. This is another one in David Bennett’s electorate, actually. It is known locally as Poets Corner. Well, actually, nothing could be less than poetic than what has happened to that Housing New Zealand land. Housing New Zealand should be using that surplus to build houses on that land. In fact, it was under the last Labour Government that we decided that particular development was not up to standard, and so we cleared it. We had consulted with the local community, to find out what type of State housing they wanted erected in its place. We had an agreement with the community, because we consulted with it, about exactly what that development would look like. What happened next was that when the National Government came in, it left that land abandoned and, again, derelict for years, and still not one State housing tenant has a house back in Poets Corner. No one is tenanted on that block of land because the Government still has not built State houses there.

💬 David Bennett: Yes, they have.

No, it has not. Is anyone living there, David Bennett? Who is living there? What is the street address?

💬 David Bennett: I opened them last week.

You opened them last week. So it took the Government how many years? Is it 9 years that we are up to? Well, 8 years—8 years, and the Government opened one house last week. I do not know whether anyone is living in it yet, but that is how long that Government has neglected State housing in places like Hamilton where the housing needs are that high. Part 7 would ensure that instead of paying a dividend back to that greedy Government, to balance its books, Housing New Zealand would be able to invest money in building good, healthy State houses in cities like Hamilton.

I move, That the question be now put.