O'Rourke Denis: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Rourke Denis: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4368. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First wants a robust Government housing effort for three primary reasons. Firstly to meet the housing shortage. The Government is not doing nearly enough to see that housing needs throughout the country are met. Auckland and Christchurch are the problem areas as most people know. In Auckland of course there are the usual growth problems. Not enough is being done to ensure an adequate supply of land and not enough is being done to ensure adequate housing stock either. In Christchurch of course the Government really has underestimated the immediate housing need. Land is becoming available for the future but there is especially a short-term deficit in housing stock. That is a real shortage that is driving up rents and that is undeniable although Ministers in this House have tried to deny that during question time in recent weeks. The second purpose is to make rental housing affordable and accessible to people on the lowest incomes. The third we believe is that we must make sure in this country that we put a regime of legal minimum housing standards in place. That is also an urgent priority. 
But turning to the Government’s social housing programmes the Productivity Commission stated recently: “Although the formal objectives of the SHU”—the social housing unit—“are clear its structure as a semi-autonomous body leaves room for unclear priorities mixed purposes and misaligned accountabilities.” The Minister of Finance failed to answer why that is in a recent question I put to him in this House. Those questions—those issues—need an answer because there is a large amount of money to be spent by way of grants in this area. The Minister must explain what the priorities are what the purpose of the funding is how those purposes will be achieved and what the outcomes sought are to be. Most of all the Minister must show that the need for a robust regime of accountability is met and how that will be met. Instead we have had a deafening silence about all of those things and the Productivity Commission was correct to raise the matter. 
I have other further specific questions. What about the application processes when the Salvation Army is turned down for not meeting financial criteria but part of the $3 million Maori fund was allocated to the Whangarei Accessible Housing Trust which was running at a loss? That does not make sense. Another question is this: what about the competency of third sector housing providers applying to the Social Housing Unit for the $104 million allocated in the 2012 Budget? These grants are given for large amounts of money to organisations that will own the housing that is funded. How do we know that that is going to be well spent? There are no State assets in return. What happens if a recipient organisation fails? Where do the assets go? There are many unanswered questions like that. 
Another question is this: how transparent and accountable are the Social Housing Unit processes for allocating funding to community providers? The answer I think is that they are as clear as a mud house. That is not good enough for a programme of this size. Another question is what safeguards or risk management have been put in place for the $104 million allocated to non-profit NGOs and community social housing providers? We need to be sure that they are risk-averse in their programmes and that they are financially sound. We have been given no such information or assurances. Another question is this: will well-meaning community providers have enough experience in the housing market when private investors have lost millions of dollars in the building and property market? 
My conclusion from the current situation is this: the State would be better to provide State housing directly and not rely so much on the NGO sector. The Government is too focused on party political agendas and not enough on real social housing outcomes not enough on value for money and not enough on the interests of the taxpayer. Its processes priorities accountabilities and allocation processes are sloppy and inadequate. Housing will suffer and the taxpayer will be poorly served.