Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:606;Page:3777] 
8.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What changes if any will be made to the Government’s housing policy after Youth Affairs Minister Hon John Tamihere said that the policy is wrong and that the Government has “not made it clear that this housing entitlement is not a lifetime entitlement with rights of succession to your family but is rather a respite facility”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Acting Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Housing New Zealand tenants have a tenancy agreement that gives them security of tenure unless they are bad tenants or their circumstances change—for example their income lifts and therefore they are lifted to a market rental. On the issue of succession to one’s family it is not and never has been our policy that tenants have a right to grant succession of tenancy to their families. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister explain without what Mr Tamihere describes as “bullshitting”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. I am not going to allow that. That is a word I prefer not to be used in this Parliament. I know it was said outside and I know it has been said inside occasionally. When we are asking supplementary questions I would prefer that word not to be used. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister explain the logic of the Government’s housing policy which has a single person living in a four-bedroomed State house paying 25 percent of income in rent or $61 a week when just along the road in Nelson a family of five expecting twins is living in a garage; and is John Tamihere not absolutely right to describe that policy as “dumb dumb dumb”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The family to which the member refers—the one with the five children is moving into a house on Thursday— 
Hon Bill English 
: It is not a State house. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: —into a house got for them by Housing New Zealand and if the member would just be quiet for a wee while— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want the answer to be heard in silence. There will be an opportunity for more supplementary questions. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I know that Mr Smith and Mr English are bit scratchy; they are both living together at the present time— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will now stand withdraw and apologise for that comment and carry on with his answer. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I withdraw and apologise. The family he refers to shifted into a house on Thursday. Yes the member raises a very good question—the one that referred to having for example single people with no children living in a larger house. That is exactly why Housing New Zealand has a policy of shifting families from houses where they are not adequately housed into houses where they are. The situation would have been made a whole lot easier if the National Party had not sold 13500 houses and had done something about modifying the accommodation so it would work. 
Taito Phillip Field 
: What is the Government doing to address the housing needs of low-income New Zealanders? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Government has been embarked on a range of policies that are designed to help low-income New Zealanders into houses. It. has provided an additional 1600 State houses over the last 3 years; it is committed to building another 3000 in this 4-year period and income-related rents have been introduced for 53200 State-house tenants which means that those people are on average about $35 a week better off. The social allocation system of State housing has ensured that nearly 98 percent of new tenants receive an income-related rent. Against that we had National selling 13500 houses. 
Sue Bradford 
: Given the manifest shortage of affordable housing for low-income people in some districts at present what steps if any will the Minister take not only to speed up State housing building and acquisition programmes but also to do more to enable and assist the community sector build houses for people in desperate need? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member will know that Housing New Zealand has just released a housing strategy that contains all those policies—speeding up building and looking particularly at modernisation of the stock to make sure that the right kind of house is available to the right kind of tenant around the country. In other words we are doing all the things to correct the failings of 9 long years of National Government. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: In relation to the speech by the Hon John Tamihere in which he criticised the Government’s housing policy what is the Minister’s response to the reported comments that “he is going to have to get away from statism and bullshitting under the name of third wayism because he is not practising”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I prefer not to have that comment brought into this House. There are ways around it. Just because a statement is made outside the House that does not make it in order inside the House. I prefer that the member restates the question and I ask her to do so. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As the quotation given by the member is crucial to her question is it appropriate that when she gets to the— 
Simon Power 
: Offending phrase. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: —offending phrase she can interpose the words “expletive deleted” because Mr Tamihere usually makes those sorts of speeches. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 36/7 which goes back to 1899: “Quotations should be as free from unparliamentary language as a member’s own speech.” I ask Dr Muriel Newman to ask her question. I am sure we will be able to hear it. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect I feel obliged to ask you to consider this matter further. It goes to the heart of the role of the Opposition and the ability of the Opposition to point out when there is a difficulty in a Government. If you are ruling that a Minister giving a speech should not use unparliamentary language—as you have clearly indicated—then at no point can we use that same language inside this House inside quotation marks in order to get the Government to respond to it. The point is that Mr Tamihere is a member of the executive—a Cabinet Minister—and he is bound by collective responsibility. The  
Cabinet Office Manual 
 states that if he wants to speak against policy then he should first resign. The Prime Minister has not required him to resign but there is a case for him or his Cabinet colleagues to answer questions that relate to his speech. It would be very harsh if the Speaker were to rule that the Opposition can never repeat the words that a Cabinet Minister has offered in his analysis of his colleagues’ policies. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has asked a question of Mr Maharey. I have asked that if possible that unparliamentary word not be used. I said I would prefer it not to be used and I would prefer it if the member could possibly reword the question. I would like it if unparliamentary comments were not made in this House even though they have undoubtedly been made outside this House. That has gone on for as long as I have been in this House. I would like to invite Dr Muriel Newman to do that for me because she is capable of doing so.  
Dr Muriel Newman 
: In relation to the speech made by the Hon John Tamihere in which he criticised Government housing policy what is the Minister’s response to the reported comments that “he is going to have to get away from statism and blankety-blank under the name of third wayism because he is not practising third wayism; no no he is practising old left”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am prepared to offer anyone who wants it a seminar on “third wayism”. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect I do not think you could go to any other Parliament with a Western democratic tradition and hear a Minister offer—and not for the first time—a seminar to a person who asks a question. It is arrogant trite and it is dismissive of the serious nature of the question. Having led an unblemished life he should be required to put his mind to it and answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the Minister to please give an answer. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The question asked me whether I would carry on articulating policies around the third way and the answer is yes. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What sort of housing outfit is this Government running when in having made numerous—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask Mr Duynhoven to please leave the Chamber. I have warned him about interjecting when questions are being asked. I ask the member to now ask his question. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What sort of housing outfit is this Government running when having made numerous inquiries to Housing New Zealand over the last year for families living in tents caravans packing sheds and garages I was repeatedly told by Housing New Zealand that there were no vacant homes but this morning I found out that there are six Housing New Zealand homes—one of which has now been offered to the Grey family—that have been vacant for 12 months? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It is a better Housing New Zealand than the one the National Party ran when in June 1998 there were 13000 people on the waiting list. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Can the member please just answer the question. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It is a better one than the National Party ran. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As a constituency MP I am told that Housing New Zealand has no homes. I have families living in tents and packing sheds. I ask the Minister why Housing New Zealand is not telling me the truth and he gives me that pathetic answer. This House deserves better. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: First of all—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will leave the Chamber. I have reminded people about not interjecting during points of order or while questions are being asked. 
Hon Ken Shirley withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: First of all Mr Speaker you demanded silence on the Government’s questions then ejected a Minister. The Minister’s answer was immediately interrupted by a barrage of interjections from members opposite which invited the Minister to respond in kind in terms of references. The answer addressed the question which asked what kind of outfit was being run. The answer was that it was better than the one run by National. The fact that National does not like the answer is too bad. The Standing Orders do not require Ministers to give answers that members opposite like. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As far as I am concerned the answer addressed the question. It was certainly not satisfactory to the member but that is for debate. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to what the Standing Orders state about what must be given in an answer. There are certain types of replies that are not allowed and one of those is arguments. Whether the present Housing New Zealand is better than the National Party’s Housing New Zealand is an argument and not an answer. It is a type of answer that is strictly ruled out. If the Minister does not know what the answer is—which I suspect is the real situation—it would be far better if he said that it was news to him and he would find out rather than giving the answer he gave. That is just replying to a question with an argument which leads to disorder. I suggest to you Mr Speaker that the Minister should answer the question correctly. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The point made by Dr Cullen is the most valid one. If Dr Smith wants his answer he should preface his question with something other than “what kind of outfit are you running?” I respect the people I work with in Housing New Zealand. If the member asked a decent question I would give him an answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This matter has gone too far. As far as I am concerned there are faults on both sides. The first few words of the member’s question were not in order and outside the form in which questions should be asked. Mr Prebble has made some very sensible comments. When we come to review the Standing Orders in respect of question time later this year I will review that particular issue as I will review a number of issues. The Minister did address the question and I will move on. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I suggest that there might be a better way which is to ask Dr Smith to restate his question correctly and then we could perhaps get an answer to the question. Why does he not just ask: “Why was I told that there were no Housing New Zealand homes when in fact there are six?” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a very good suggestion but on this occasion the matter has been going on for some length of time. We usually have about an hour for questions and I want that to be reasonably respected otherwise I will have to cut the number of supplementary questions. I do not want to do that because I think the best part of this Parliament is allowing a large number of supplementary questions. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to rephrase this important question about the honesty of Housing New Zealand. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is.