Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:676;Page:21572] 
4. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: On what date did he make the decision to reverse the previous Labour Government’s commitment to the Tamaki community that the Tamaki Transformation Programme would reduce the concentration of State housing in Tamaki but not reduce the existing number of State houses? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I do not direct the Tamaki Transformation Programme board; it is a partnership between the Government the councils and the community. It does not direct the Housing New Zealand Corporation which is a separate entity. However the Tamaki Transformation Programme does support the corporation’s moves and so do I. Subdividing large sections upgrading brand new houses and reducing the concentration of State housing in Tamaki to below 56 percent is sensible. So is increasing State house numbers by 1400 right across Auckland including central and east Auckland. 
Moana Mackey 
: Has a decision been made to renege on the commitment made by the previous Labour Government to not reduce the number of State houses in the Tamaki Transformation Programme area? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: It is very clear that a decision has been made by the Housing New Zealand Corporation which I support to increase the number of State houses in Auckland by 1400; in Tamaki to reduce concentrations of State houses below 56 percent so that one in every two houses is not a State house; and to rebuild State housing in Tamaki and elsewhere. We are reducing the number of State houses in Tamaki we are subdividing sections and we are reducing the concentrations. 
Moana Mackey 
: Then why is the commitment to not reduce the number of houses in Tamaki still on the Tamaki Transformation Programme website in a document dated 19 March 2009 when he was Minister stating that although the proportion of State housing would reduce they would be “retaining at least the absolute number” of State houses—why is that still on the website today? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: That might be exciting for members of the Opposition but I have been saying for the last few days—and just so that people are clear—that we will no longer have quarter acre sections in Tamaki we are reducing State house concentrations below 56 percent we are increasing the number of State houses across Auckland and we are getting rid of the old and cold and mouldy ones. Have I made myself crystal clear about Tamaki and Auckland? 
Moana Mackey 
: Does he realise just how much time and effort went into consulting Tamaki residents to develop a comprehensive plan that they were comfortable with that reflected their vision for their community which was handed to him on a platter at the last election; if so why has he arrogantly reneged on that commitment to not reduce the number of State houses? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: It was the previous Government’s habit for years to consult year in and year out and do nothing. Essentially in Tamaki we are building new State houses on subdivided sections first-home buyers are able to buy other sections and community housing organisations will also get involved in Tamaki. But we will no longer have excessive numbers of quarter acre sections in Tamaki and we will no longer have State house concentrations of 56 percent. 
Moana Mackey 
: Why then did the National candidate Sam Lotu-Iiga promise before the last election in the  
East and Bays Courier  
that “the aim is not to reduce the number of state houses but the percentage.”? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Right across Auckland we are increasing the number of State houses including in central and east Auckland where Tamaki is. I think the member has to realise that we have a difference of view here. We do not believe that State houses should be on hundreds if not thousands of quarter acre sections in concentrations of 56 percent. We believe that State housing stock needs to increase in Auckland and it will. And we believe that it needs to be upgraded and that is what we are doing. If those members do not support that that is fine. Let us go to the election with that view and let us go to Tamaki with that view. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was somewhat surprised that the question was allowed to go through but your having ruled that it was in order I think there is a requirement on the Minister to address whether he supported the current member’s commitment before the election. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I think the Minister did answer that because he— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did he say no? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. The Minister said it was his policy to increase the number of State houses in Auckland and I believe that was part of the question. No it might not have mentioned Auckland; it did not mention any area if I heard the supplementary question correctly. Where it referred specifically to concentrations of number of houses it did not actually mention an area. The Minister in my view answered that.