Heatley Phil: Budget Debate 
Heatley Phil: Budget Debate 
[Volume:631;Page:3307] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I was under the understanding—and I think most of New Zealand was under the understanding—that the only thing coming out of the Budget in terms of the Waikato is an argument over who will get the Waikato River. We know that Tainui are distressed and are trying to avoid backroom deals with Helen Clark. Tainui are distressed because they are not quite sure whether Labour is offering the carrot of the Waikato River to them for votes in 2008. So Tainui are distressed. We know that local Waikato residents are distressed because they are concerned that the Government is giving away control of that river—a national icon and in particular a North Island icon—to Tainui in order to buy votes in 2008. Everyone is distressed. Labour Party Maori MPs are distressed because they do not know whether they can tell Tainui that they will get the river under this Budget. It is all up in the air. For people in the Waikato the only issue during this Budget week is what will happen to the Waikato River. 
The issue that the previous speaker Sue Moroney did not touch on was the great Budget announcement. I was impressed by the member who announced the great Budget announcement and developments since—that is the Hon David Cunliffe. He made the Budget announcement about the unbundling of Telecom. He was involved in that and he pushed it along a bit more by making comments that affected the sharemarket after that. I congratulate David Cunliffe on grabbing the key Budget announcement—well done. 
I would like to address housing issues this evening. I know that the Minister of Housing Chris Carter has a bundle of cash that he can spread around the Housing New Zealand Corporation. Members on this side of the House and I know the general public are intrigued as to how the Minister could possibly waste more money within the Housing New Zealand Corporation. We have heard the stories in the last few months. We have heard the stories about the rooms the Minister was having built on to State houses that cost $105000 each. I was intrigued by this. I asked the question of the Minister and he came back to me and said the cost was $105000 per room. I went back to him and said: “Look that’s excessive Minister. I am wondering whether it was $105000 per room or did you spend a bit of money on the bathroom?”. He came back to me and said that the Housing New Zealand Corporation did actually upgrade bathrooms. I said: “That’s fair enough but it’s still a bit short. Did you spend any money elsewhere?”. He said: “Well actually we did some work on the kitchen.” 
So I went away and did some work on the figures. In this country it costs about $1600 a square metre to build a house. A good bedroom—and members can pace it out afterwards—is about 20 square metres. A bedroom is 5 metres by 4 metres. So 20 square metres at about $1600 per metre is $32000. Look with a bit of licence I will say it is $30000. The Minister did up some bathrooms. Let us say it was a brand new bathroom and 20 grand was thrown at it. That is $50000. The Minister said the kitchen was done up. Let us say it was a brand new kitchen at $30000—and I can tell members that my family would be pleased to have a $30000 kitchen—and we are now up to $80000. Let us paint the house for $5000. That is $85000. We are still $20000 short—and I have been generous. The Minister talked about $105000 rooms. I have chucked in a bathroom and a kitchen and I have painted the house and I am still $20000 short. How could the Housing New Zealand Corporation possibly spend that amount of money? 
Darren Hughes 
: How about 42 IQ points short? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Then we discover that Darren Hughes even with the way he tosses money around in pubs buying votes could afford to live in a State home because people on $118000—whether or not they are earning it like Darren Hughes—can stay in a State house. We discovered that there are people in this country on $95000 after tax which is about $130000 before tax living in State houses and it is absolutely appalling. 
I would also like to bring the attention of the House to the appalling issue of the gagging order that stopped a Housing New Zealand Corporation employee from talking to his member of Parliament to the Minister to the media and to his colleagues. How can people working in the public service in New Zealand be gagged from talking to their local MP a Minister the media or colleagues? That is an appalling abuse within our democracy. We asked why the chief executive was not stood down during the course of that inquiry. The person’s middle manager was stood down but we know from the gagging letter which has been tabled in this House that the chief executive had to give her approval for the gagging letter to be served on that public servant. 
Darren Hughes 
: This is an old story. Give us a new story. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Here is news for Darren Hughes. My sources in Housing New Zealand tell me that the chief executive was overseas at the time and the acting chief executive signed off on the gagging-clause letter. That gagging-clause letter was designed to shut that public servant up. He could not talk to his member of Parliament to the Minister to the media or to colleagues. Housing New Zealand Corporation sources say that the chief executive was overseas when the gagging clause was signed and that the acting chief executive approved the gagging clause. As that was obvious to all insiders in the Housing New Zealand Corporation why was the acting chief executive not stood down during the Auditor-General’s inquiry? 
I have one more question for members on the other side of the House. We asked why the chairman of the Housing New Zealand Corporation did not tell Chris Carter and the Prime Minister when he first heard about the gagging-clause issue. The Minister said in the House that the chairman of the Housing New Zealand Corporation actually discovered it at the same time as him. The Prime Minister disagrees it appears that Newstalk ZB disagrees and it appears that the Christchurch  
Press 
 disagrees. I think the chairman of that board Pat Snedden is for the high jump because I know for a fact that the Minister of Housing met with the deputy chairman today in his office this afternoon and spoke to him at length. Why would the Minister meet with the deputy chairman of the Housing New Zealand Corporation on the eve of the release of the Auditor-General’s inquiry? He might meet with the chairman or he might meet with the entire board but it is highly unusual that he would meet with the deputy chair. 
 I think the chairman has gone because he broke the no-surprises policy by not telling the Minister of Housing about the gagging clause when he knew about it. That gagging clause was signed in December. I understand from a source in the Housing New Zealand Corporation that the chief executive was overseas. Therefore the acting chief executive must have signed it off. He was never stood down and the chairman of the board is obviously for the high jump because that is the only explanation one can have for the deputy chairman to be meeting with the Minister of Housing today without the chairman present. 
We know that there is a cover-up within the Housing New Zealand Corporation. We know that the Minister is protecting his people. There should never have been a gagging clause in that contract. I will say this to the House: I asked the Minister whether there had been any other gagging clauses within the corporation and he said that that was not its policy but he did not deny it. There is a cover-up in the Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Auditor-General will inform the public of that in due course.