Heatley Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Heatley Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:629;Page:1883] 
10.  
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: Can he confirm his answer to written question 00910 (2006) that records a New Lynn State household total net assessable income of $2184.65 a week and a Hamilton State household total net assessable income of $1681.35 a week as at 31 January 2006 and what were the respective gross household incomes for the New Lynn and Hamilton tenancies at that time? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Housing 
: I cannot confirm that the figure for New Lynn is correct because it is not. As has already been communicated to the member Housing New Zealand Corporation made a data entry error in the original answer to him. The current household total net assessable income for the tenancy in New Lynn is $662.43. The figure for Hamilton is correct. Housing New Zealand Corporation does not record gross income figures because they are not necessary to its work. 
Phil Heatley 
: Why could the Minister not give me correct answers in the first place—now 3 weeks ago—on State house tenant income given that tenants’ rent is based on their income which is what income-related rents mean; how sloppy is this system? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The first point I make is that one mistake is one mistake out of many thousands of calculations that are made. The second point is that in the particular cases the member has referred to those people applied for income-related rents were found to have a net assessable income in excess of the threshold and were declined. Those people are not paying income-related rents. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What is the average income of tenants who are currently paying an income-related rent? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Since the Labour Government changed the housing allocation system in 2000 99 percent of all tenancies now qualify for an income-related rent and the average net assessable income of those paying an income-related rent is $287.69 per week. In other words we have fixed up the mess created by National in the housing portfolio. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Is the Minister prepared to look favourably at a rent-to-buy programme with a percentage of the increase in value over the previous 5 years as part of the deposit in line with the United Future policy and to enable State house tenants to realise the Kiwi dream of homeownership as their income increases? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The answer to the first part of the question is no and in answer to the second part I say we encourage people to take up the KiwiSaver programme. 
Phil Heatley 
: Now that the Minister has confirmed that our Housing New Zealand Corporation tenant in Hamilton earns in excess of $85000 a year after tax can he tell us how much the single person in that household earns before tax? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: No I cannot and we have no intention of doing so because the gross income of people is not of particular interest to the Government. However I make the observation that a number of people who still currently have State house rentals got them at the time of National’s policy of market rentals and it was only rich people who could afford a State house under National. 
Phil Heatley 
: Can the Minister confirm that under his watch “wealthy State house tenants will not be forced to give up their homes to the needy” as he was reported to tell Newstalk ZB listeners yesterday and what dizzying heights do State house tenant incomes have to reach before the needy are housed instead? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: That is some irony coming from that member given that the previous National Government sold thousands of State houses. I also make this point: let that question be a warning to people in State houses. If National gets into office they will be kicked out of their houses. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I must say that back here we heard not one single word of that response. I think it would be good if we could hear the Minister’s answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would members please keep the noise down. I could not hear anything either. Perhaps the Minister would now like to address the question. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: There is some irony in that question from the National Party member given that National’s policy saw 13000 State houses sold. If we still had those 13000 State houses we could house another 13000 needy people. The second aspect is that implicit in the question from Mr Phil Heatley is that all State house tenants need to be on a warning. If National ever gets to the Government side of the House they will be booted out of their houses. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister in no sense addressed the question that Mr Heatley asked him. Can you please direct him to address the question? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I agree with the member; that was a speech. Would Mr Heatley please redirect his question. I have certainly forgotten it at this stage and therefore we will have another go at it. It will not come off the member’s allocation of supplementary questions. 
Phil Heatley 
: Can the Minister confirm that under his watch “wealthy State house tenants will not be forced to give up their homes to the needy” as he was reported to tell Newstalk ZB listeners yesterday and what dizzying heights do State house tenants’ incomes have to reach before the needy are housed instead? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The Government has no policy of kicking people out when they reach a certain income level and we are not going to have one. What that would mean if National had its way is that any people who improved themselves would be booted out of their houses. That would be a disincentive. The problem has been created by National selling 13000 State houses. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Can the Minister confirm that under this Government the needy will not be forced to give up their State houses to the greedy as happened under National? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I can tell the House that during the previous regime when market rentals were imposed upon everybody there was a constant stream of misery into my office because the poor could not afford State houses. That is not the case under the Labour Government. 
Phil Heatley 
: Can the Minister then confirm that in his own words greedy people can stay in their State houses while needy people stay out in the cold? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: We have inherited a number of people in State houses who are on high incomes as I said before. But that was the policy of the previous National Government. Labour will not have a policy of randomly kicking people out. We will not do that. If people have security of tenure then we will respect that. I would have thought that the National Party would respect contracts. 
Phil Heatley 
: Given that the Minister will not sell a State house to a very very high-income earner who lives in it or ask the person to move on in order to make way for needy people does he intend to keep buying State houses as the waiting list grows and therefore to house everyone—everyone on $200000 a year everyone on $100000 a year and everyone on incomes under that figure? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: There are three aspects to that. First as I said in answer to a supplementary question 99 percent of the people who get into a State house now have an average weekly income of about $287.69. We have a legacy issue. Second yes we are building new houses and third we do have a programme to encourage high-income earners to make their own way in the world.