Sio Hon Aupito WilliamAUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): Thank you very much for the opportunity. I am not a member of the Social Services Committee but I do have an interest because housing is a particular issue that runs deep in our communities. So I want to just direct my remarks on three points that emanate from the Vote Building and Housing report. The first point is the KiwiSaver HomeStart scheme the second point is the reference to methamphetamine contamination and the third point is in regard to boarding houses. With the KiwiSaver HomeStart scheme I note in the report that the appropriation was underspent by $11 million. The Minister for Building and Construction when asked to explain the underspend said that it was difficult to forecast the uptake of schemes like the KiwiSaver HomeStart scheme. I find that quite challenging as to why it is difficult to forecast when you can work on what you currently have now and what has happened in the past. When I have asked relevant Ministers how many Pacific people have taken up this particular scheme I am not getting those answers. As I said housing is of particular importance to the Pacific community because even the Minister for Pacific Peoples has noted that homeownership for Pacific people has declined and has continued to decline in the last 9 years.Another answer that concerns me in the report is that the anticipated average grant amount in 2017-18 is $5122. At today's prices how can $5122 possibly contribute to somebody a middle-income couple perhaps who have saved $10000 or $30000—how can that $5122 possibly contribute to meeting the requirements of the bank of 20 percent at least in order to secure a mortgage for a house costing roughly $500000 in today's prices? I am hoping that the Minister can help the Committee understand how it is possible for people with $5000 on average from the KiwiSaver scheme to buy a house.We looked at the area of methamphetamine contamination. In my electorate there have been a number of people who have been booted out by Housing New Zealand for the reason that Housing New Zealand has said that the particular house they lived in has been contaminated. In the report we note that the health risk from living in a home where meth has been manufactured is greater than living in a home where it has been used. But I want to ask—is the Government on top of regulating who it is who is testing whether these houses are indeed contaminated and the extent of that contamination?The second question I want to ask is whether the ministry after kicking out people from these houses due to contamination shows them a pathway where they can get a house to live in? My experience has been that even elderly people have been kicked out of Housing New Zealand houses and there has been no pathway for them in terms of going into a house. It is one of the reasons why Te Puea Marae in Māngere last year took in people off the streets and today a year later it is taking in people off the streets because of the lack of a pathway when people are evicted by Housing New Zealand—and one of the reasons they have given is meth contamination.The third area is boarding houses. I note in that report that the Minister references five changes that the Government has made to improve standards for boarding houses. But the committee also acknowledges that those changes—it is difficult to know who is enforcing them and who pays for the cost of enforcement. But despite those changes that the Government refers to—and I want to lay it on the table in this Chamber so that the Government knows I am raising it—boarding houses are a ticking time bomb as long as the national housing crisis exists. Boarding houses are a ticking time bomb. One of these days somebody in this House has got to take responsibility for deaths for rape for abuse for violence towards young children or couples. Those houses were never meant—never meant—to house families with children. But that is the case we have today as a result of this national housing crisis.