King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 01 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4159. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
12. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What recent reports has he received on housing in the Aranui area of Christchurch? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I receive a variety of reports on housing throughout Canterbury and Christchurch including the Aranui area. The information is used to inform the wide range of Government initiatives that we are undertaking to help the people of Aranui and other Christchurch suburbs. 
Hon Annette King 
: Did he receive advice from the Housing New Zealand Corporation regarding living conditions for families in Aranui including information about the 17 people existing on one property seven of them in a two-bedroom house 10 others in caravans and a tin shed sharing one toilet a shower and a washing machine; if so does this sound like a housing challenge or a housing crisis? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I have not heard a specific report about that particular tenant but I do know that when I came in as Minister of Housing there were reports that over a third of the State houses right across New Zealand in 2008 were of the wrong size in the wrong place or in poor condition. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I am on my feet. I think the Minister said he had not received any reports on that particular question raised and that was the end of the matter. 
Hon Annette King 
: Has he received a report from the Earthquake Commission saying that State houses in the Aranui area that are boarded up and unable to be occupied are now assessed as livable with repairs; if so what urgent action is he prepared to take to make these houses available to desperate people? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Of the 500-plus houses in Aranui 132 roughly are vacant and damaged 45 are currently on track for repair and the others may be repaired but these repairs are $80000 each. What the corporation is considering doing is subdividing these properties and building new State houses rather than upgrading the old ones. Old State houses—old mouldy cold State houses—were under the Labour Party. We want to upgrade and insulate State houses not just in Canterbury but right across New Zealand. 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question specifically asked him whether he had received a report from the Earthquake Commission saying that State houses that were boarded up are now able to be occupied with repairs. He did not answer that at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not sure. I accept he did not specifically say whether or not he had received that report but he gave information about the number of State houses in the Aranui area that were boarded up some that were available for repair and what the Government planned to do about it. I presume he must have had a report to have that information. The thing is the Minister does not have to answer every aspect of a supplementary question. I think it was a reasonable answer to the question in respect of the serious issue around State house availability in Aranui. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect you made a very valid ruling I think on the previous question where you cauterised the Minister after he had confirmed whether I think he had received advice. The primary part of this question was not about those other related but extraneous matters; it was whether he had received a specific report from the Earthquake Commission etc. etc. I would have thought that in order to be consistent with your first ruling—you ruled he had confirmed he had advice—all he had to do was confirm whether he had received a specific report or not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! It is all a matter of whether in an answer the Minister is treating the House with respect and giving information that seeks to answer the question asked. I accept that on the particular part of the question relating to advice from the Earthquake Commission the Minister did not actually indicate that but he got to the substance of the matter around availability of houses in the Aranui area. He did not try to claim that everything was perfect at all. He I thought gave the House very useful advice. The member has a further supplementary question now to check that out further. If the matter causing crucial concern is a report from the Earthquake Commission that is obviously—given the answer just given—to be the subject of the next supplementary question. 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question is asking him whether he received a report from the Earthquake Commission. He talked about houses—how many and how many they were going to repair. I wanted to know whether he has received a report from the Earthquake Commission. That was the fundamental part of this question. He did not answer it. It might have been nice all the other things he said— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! No the member is not going to comment like that. Members have seen me—I try to treat the House evenly. They have seen me pull up a Minister on a primary question face him down on it and require him to answer to the House. This was a supplementary question and the Minister did not try to play politics with it. The Minister gave information about State housing in the Aranui area. What the Speaker cannot know is the reason why questions are being asked. Clearly if this particular Earthquake Commission report is of crucial interest to the member asking the questions and the Minister has not covered that particular aspect—whether or not his information is based on that report or some other report the Minister has received—then that is obviously the subject for further questioning. If the member had wanted to know whether the Minister had received that particular report if the member knows of a particular report the question should have been whether the Minister had received report such-and-such provided by the Earthquake Commission on such-and-such a date—end of question. Then I could have insisted that the Minister answer that. But the member included more material in her supplementary question. I have got to listen to questions asked and it is my view that the Minister gave a reasonable answer to that supplementary question. I accept he may not have answered the first part of it but that is why further supplementary questions are available to— 
Hon Annette King 
: So I’ll get an extra one then? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The member has a further supplementary question indeed and she may use it should she wish to. 
Hon Annette King 
: Well thank you Mr Speaker. I will pursue that in another way. How many tenancy managers operating in the Aranui area have laptops to help them provide a “Smarter. Faster. Fairer.” service to the desperate people in the area—technology he said this morning was available to all tenancy managers now? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I have not talked to those particular tenancy managers. What I indicated I think this morning on Radio New Zealand is that the changes we are making in the Housing New Zealand Corporation are that tenancy managers will spend 70 percent of their time out of the office visiting tenants inspecting houses and looking at maintenance programmes. They will have a laptop. They will no longer be stuck behind a desk in the office using whiteboards. We are moving to modern technology not old technology because those State houses are worth $15 billion they house 70000 families and they deserve some attention and some modern servicing.