Catchpole Brent: Budget Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Catchpole Brent: Budget Debate 
[Sitting date: 16 June 2004. Volume:618;Page:13655. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 I am proud to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on this Budget. I shall touch on three main topics—namely housing biosecurity and internal affairs. The Government stated that the key priorities within Vote Housing were to “increase the supply of state housing particularly in Auckland”; to “finalise and implement a New Zealand Housing Strategy review the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 continue to meet housing needs in rural areas and continue to improve the state housing stock.” I shall look at those points a little more closely. 
Firstly I shall look at increasing the supply of State housing particularly in Auckland. The Budget states that in 2004 and 2005 the capital injection will include a further $30 million to acquire additional State houses in Auckland. That is commendable we need it but it is not enough. The population drift to Auckland combined with the open-door unchecked immigration policy of this Labour Government continues to outstrip all the efforts to cater for Auckland’s housing needs. The increasing pressure and demand in Auckland places huge demands on the housing stock of Housing New Zealand and that flows over into rental properties pushing up both the cost and rental of houses. 
The second point is to “finalise and implement a New Zealand Housing Strategy”. I want to know what that actually means. Does it mean like most Labour policies and promises with regard to policy statements that “we will get around to beginning a study into housing needs soon”? That is what the Government has done in most of the other policies when it has come out with such vague and open-ended statements. It should get on with it now. New Zealand First says to get on with it now. The Government’s housing policy is desperately in need of upgrading and New Zealand certainly needs much-improved housing stock. 
The third point is a review of the Residential Tenancies Act. The Government should not bother tinkering with that Act; it should just get on with the rewrite. I know that the Minister has put out a statement that he intends to begin a review commencing on 1 July of the Residential Tenancies Act. Here we go again. The Government is about to commence another review soon and that is another example of allowing legislation that is before the House to drift on. Why bother with the amendment—just get on with the complete review and get it over with. 
Let us look at the fourth issue: “continue to meet housing needs in rural areas”. The Budget states: “The Corporation”—that is Housing New Zealand—“also works with communities to ensure that their housing needs are understood and the most effective intervention is used to meet them and that this can be sustainable over time. These interventions funded through capital contributions are essential elements in meeting Government housing priorities and goals.” 
 Again the effort in this area is not meeting the real needs of the rural areas which is just adding to the urban drift mainly into Auckland compounding the pressure on low-cost housing in the Auckland and Manukau City areas. Auckland City housing is reaching a desperate situation. An example of the failings of this Labour Government is in the rural area of the far north another area that the Government has forgotten where there are 20000—and I will say that again: there are 20000—substandard dwelling houses that people are living in. The new Building Bill that is before the House at the moment has the potential to force local councils to review their situation and to ensure that those dwelling houses are substantially upgraded or evict the occupants. [ 
Interruption 
] 
This is not a desirable outcome and needs to be addressed urgently. Clayton Cosgrove does not care about these people. His comments show that this Government and he in particular does not care about the desperate plight of those people in the far north—in the rural areas that the Government claims it wants to help. He does not give a damn about those people. Clayton Cosgrove can keep on not caring because soon we will be taking his seat on that side of the House. 
Let us look at the fifth point: “continue to improve the state housing stock”. This is a huge ask on any Government now or in the future. This is compounded by the need to ensure current housing stock is up to standard to provide the necessary comfort and needs of the tenants plus to rebuild the housing stock depleted so savagely by the National Party when it was in Government. National simply sold the stock to property investors instead of offering the houses to the tenants with assistance to help them buy the house which would have reduced the demand on Housing New Zealand stocks. Less than 20 percent were offered to the tenants. That is a disgrace. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Some of their members bought a few. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: Yes there we go. Where was the sense in that other than to buy favour with the property investors many of whom live overseas? Labour and National are guilty of this because they have both continued to sell off New Zealand’s assets. Labour does not like to be lumped in with National but Labour is guilty as charged because it continues to sell off New Zealand’s assets to foreign ownership. 
Why has the Government made no-go zones? Why are there blacklisted areas for beneficiaries when keeping them in places like Auckland a high-cost high-rent and high-demand area seems ludicrous? Many of these no-go zones have Housing New Zealand stock empty and available. It seems daft to me so why create these no-go zones? It is better to have them in areas where there is low cost and low cost-of-living for people. 
I would like to quickly touch on biosecurity. The Government has provided significant funds to prevent pests and disease entering our borders through both policy advice and inspection methods particularly in relation to sea containers. This is not only desirable but also necessary to reduce the number of breaches. I would like to point out that this Government allocated $90 million to eradicate the painted apple moth in Auckland. However the programme and the allocation of funds to monitor the health effects of the people residing in the spray zones was woeful inadequate and even non-existent for most of the spray period. How does the Government know whether there were any health effects on those people? It does not know and it does not care. Funding does not appear to be set aside in this Budget for the ongoing checks and inspection of the health regime of those people because this Government has wiped its hands of them. It is a disgrace. 
Let us look at the internal affairs side of things and in particular the establishment of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. This was done in December 2002. There have been around 2000 claims and as of 10 June this year 1848 are currently active. Eight hundred and seventeen have received assessment reports and only 103 have been resolved. Some determinations are woeful.