Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:645;Page:14174] 
Questions to Ministers 
Violence—Manurewa Electorate 
10.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does she agree with the former Minister of Police the Hon George Hawkins that the recent violence in his electorate is the worst in 25 years; if not why not? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts)  
on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: 
 The Minister has every sympathy for the views of the member the Hon George Hawkins. She is concerned about any community facing an outbreak of violent crime. Violent crime in New Zealand and internationally has been increasing over the past 25 years. However homicides in New Zealand have fluctuated over the past decade: in 1997 there were 151 and in 2006 there were 98. 
Simon Power 
: How can the Minister of Justice claim that the recent spate of murders is the product of the sun and the moon when at the same point in the year there had been five murders in 2006 and 11 in 2007 but there have been 14 so far this year and that means that even when population increases are taken into account violent offences have increased by 22 percent since Labour took office? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The Minister of Justice Annette King made the comments that the member refers to in answer to a questioner whom she believed was seeking the views of others. The comments do not represent the Minister’s views; they represent the views of others trying to seek a rational understanding of or a sensible cause for the recent events in South Auckland. The Minister of Police knows full well that the motivation for individual crimes varies according to the circumstances and she would certainly not seek to trivialise the seriousness of such issues. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on increases in reported violent crime? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Only today the  
New Zealand Herald  
reported that non-governmental organisations were advising that the Government’s attitude and behaviour change campaign around family violence is having an effect and that agencies are seeing quite significant self-referral numbers coming through. This increase in reportage is very good for victims. It is not good for the crime statistics because they will show an increase but it is good for society because the perpetrators of these violent crimes will be called to account. 
Simon Power 
: How will the public view the Minister’s statement yesterday that “… 2008 will be the year in which victims’ rights are properly addressed.” as anything other than an admission that victims’ rights have not been properly addressed for the previous 8 years of this Labour-led Government; and why should they think anything has changed when yesterday the Prime Minister proposed a victims’ charter and compensation scheme—something she first proposed in 1994 14 years ago? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The situation for victims has changed markedly. This Government introduced a new package of rights for victims including the right to be heard at a trial. Under National prisoners were automatically entitled to parole after serving two-thirds of their term; today they are not entitled to parole until they can prove they are not a threat to society and many are held for their full term. Under National people in prison for murder were entitled to parole after serving 10 years; under Labour the courts can set minimum periods and people have to do 14 20 or 33 years before they can apply for parole. Under National people had to have done two serious crimes before they were eligible for a sentence of preventative detention; under Labour the first crime can make a person eligible for that. We have been much tougher on crime. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Can the Minister confirm that two pieces of victims’ legislation have been passed in recent New Zealand history—the 1987 Victims of Offences Act and the 2002 Victims’ Rights Act—that both were passed under Labour Governments and that National has never passed legislation protecting or promoting victims’ rights? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I can absolutely confirm that information put forward to the House by Mr Goff. 
Simon Power 
: Why should appointing a group of “highly qualified and eminent people” to meet regularly with justice sector Ministers make them any more responsive to public concerns about crime when the youth offending Ministers group did not meet for 3 years and the crime reduction Ministers group has not met for 5 years—and is Sir Geoffrey Palmer not busy enough? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: This Government has done a great deal for crime prevention. For example let us contrast it with the National Government. Under National police staff were being cut in favour of a computer; under Labour more police are on the beat. Let us have a look at South Auckland. In 2006-07 there were 49 more sworn staff and 30 extra non-sworn staff. In 2007-08 there were 28 extra sworn staff and 11 extra non-sworn staff. In addition to that $10 million has been allocated to improve outcomes for young people in South Auckland. We are putting money into this issue and we are going to do our best to fix it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Keep the noise level down please. 
Simon Power 
: What does the Minister of Justice say to voters who believed Labour’s pledge card promise in 1999 to “Crack down on … youth crime.” when much of the random violence over the summer has involved youth offenders and when violent crime by youth offenders has increased by 47 percent since her Government took office? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: This Government has put more police on the beat; it has not cut their numbers as National did. It has poured more money into preventing youth crime and youth offending. We have legislation to strengthen our resources to deal with youth crime. This Government has a programme and we are doing our best to make sure it happens. I say that the opposite is true for National—it has no answers whatsoever. 
Simon Power 
: What does the Minister of Justice say to voters who believed Labour’s pledge card promise in 2002 to provide “More support for proven programmes to cut youth offending.” when after 3 years the $12 million reducing youth offending programme failed to reduce reoffending and when the youth offending teams have been found to show “a lack of shared understanding” about their purpose and “a lack of clarity about how aims should be achieved.”? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Youth offending teams were set up in the early 2000s in an effort to draw together local people with local ideas to deal with youth offending. In some areas they have worked really well. In other areas they have not worked quite so well. It is a very good initiative— 
Hon Member 
: Name one. 
Hon Member 
: Hamilton. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: A member says “Hamilton”; Hamilton’s has worked very well. This Government has poured more money into the police and we are cracking down on crime and we are not going to shirk our responsibilities for it either. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What sort of message is sent to victims in this country when a political leader is happily hongi-ing with someone who is a beneficiary of the Bail Act in that he is out on bail although he faces very serious charges? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am not sure the Minister actually has any responsibility for that particular action. [ 
Interruption 
] I am sorry no. 
Simon Power 
: I seek to leave to table a page from the  
Manukau Courier 
 that states: “Last weekend’s violence is the worst Manurewa has seen in 25 years its MP”—George Hawkins—“says.” 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is very rare that I ever question your ruling but in this case the Minister is answering on behalf of the Minister of Justice who I think is responsible for the Bail Act. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member just repeat what he said. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Madam Speaker you ruled out the previous question. My colleague Rick Barker is answering this question but of course he is answering on behalf of the Minister of Justice. The question referred to the Bail Act and my understanding is that the Minister of Justice is responsible for the Bail Act. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well in that respect yes there is ministerial responsibility but there is not the actual act of doing it. Would the Minister then please respond to the Rt Hon Winston Peters in so far as the question related to the Bail Act. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Could we have the question again? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I think we can all remember the question. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The Rt Hon Winston Peters pointed out very clearly the contradiction of someone saying that he was going to be tough on crime then being very familiar—hongi-ing—with someone who was out on bail. I think the public will make their own decisions about that. I just advise the member of what my grandmother said: “Show me who your friends are and I’ll show you who you are.” 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to ask the House whether people who are innocent until they have appeared before the court and been found guilty should be impugned in this House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Simon Power 
: I seek the leave of the House to put the same leave that I put previously which was to table this page from the  
Manukau Courier 
 which states: “Last weekend’s violence is the worst Manurewa has seen in 25 years its MP says.” That MP is George Hawkins. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Housing—Affordability 
11.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What action is the Government taking to make housing more affordable? 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Yesterday the Prime Minister outlined an ambitious programme to tackle housing affordability. Critical to it are first the development of additional large-scale building projects similar to the Hobsonville and Tamaki projects; second the identification of Crown land for developments; third the plans to extend the role of the third sector in housing provision; and fourth the shared equity scheme the details of which will be unveiled in July. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What examples of housing developments are already under way? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: There are several developments under way designed to build mixed communities. These include the developments in Papakura and Weymouth which are expected to deliver 650 houses; the recently announced revitalisation of Tamaki which is expected to add an extra 3000 new houses; and Hobsonville—which incidentally Mr John Key is on the record as opposing—which will bring in another 3000 houses. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What alternative initiatives has she seen to alleviate the housing affordability problem? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I have seen the same tired old simplistic suggestions from the National Party that we should scrap the Resource Management Act remove all building compliance allow urban sprawl and sell State houses. The Labour-led Government understands the issues and unlike National we do have a comprehensive plan of action to tackle the problem. I challenge the other side to be slightly more ambitious. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is becoming impossible for me to hear. Members will be asked to leave the House if this level of interjection continues. 
Phil Heatley 
: Was the chairman of Housing New Zealand Corporation telling the truth at a select committee this morning when he said that the 500-odd affordable homes to be built at Hobsonville—not the shared equity ones but the cheaper first-home-buyer houses—will cost around $350000 and will require a household income of $70000 per annum to pay off; if so how in the world does this flagship policy help low to middle income earners? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Again Mr Heatley takes a very simplistic view of the solutions to what is a very complex problem. In the end we will announce the details of a shared equity proposal which will in fact target new building and may be applied and will assist average low and modest income households to achieve their first home. 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked very specifically whether the Minister would concur with Pat Snedden’s statement that these first-home-buyer homes will cost $350000 and those first-home buyers will have to be earning $70000 a year. Does she concur with Pat Snedden the chairman of Housing New Zealand Corporation that people will have to be earning that sort of money for these first-home-buyer homes? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member knows you cannot ask for a yes or no answer. The Minister did in fact address the question. 
Building—Consent Process 
12.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister for Building and Construction 
: Who does he hold responsible for the current problems in the building consent process that according to the Prime Minister yesterday are “adding unreasonably to the costs of building a house”? 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister of Housing) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Building and Construction 
: There are several parties involved in the building consent process and the Government is actively working with councils through accreditation to improve systems reduce delays and help to deliver a better service to consent applicants. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: When the Wellington City Council noted that “A typical house plan 4 years ago was three A3 size plans and 30 … pages” and that now builders are required to file 12 A3 size plans and up to 300 pages why did the Minister in November dismiss those concerns saying that the building consent process was going “swimmingly well”; what has changed between November and now for the Government to change its mind? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: It may be worth going back a little bit to answer this question adequately. In fact the Building Act 1991 was a product of a failed system that allowed a number of homeowners to be absolutely penalised for inadequate quality and professionalism in the building sector. The leaky home owners are the people I would invite that member to talk to if he disagrees with the establishment of the Building Act as it currently exists. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Will the Government be reviewing its decision in 2002 to change the law on development levies which has seen the cost per section go from $8000 to $24000 and its decision in 2005 to treble the building levy both of which have contributed to the record fall in homeownership and the crisis in home affordability; if not why not? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: If the solution to housing affordability was as simple as that then we might consider doing that. However the issue is much more complex than simply the building consent processes alone building costs alone or the interest rates prevailing at the moment alone. It is a complex question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why was it credible for the Prime Minister to tell the Parliament yesterday that the Government will begin by “simplifying the design and building consent processes” when the Government’s own Building Act 2004 has 19 sections which are yet to take effect that will require a person when lodging a building consent to list in detail the up to 13 different licensed building practitioners involved in the building project; can she explain how that will simplify the building consent process? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: It is entirely credible to say that. If we are looking at ways of standardising plans and standardising approved designs that meet the requirements of the Building Act then that is something that can be done and it is something that we are advancing with speed in order to address those issues. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is John Key not right in describing the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday—[ 
Interruption 
] Is John Key not right in describing—[ 
Interruption 
] Madam Speaker you would probably have thrown me out well before this time for that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I ask for order. Members will be asked to leave the Chamber. Would the member please proceed with his question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is John Key not right in describing the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday as “vacuous” when her own Government has been responsible for adding to the very cost of building that she now complains of when the Government has not been able to provide any detail of how it will either simplify or reduce the costs of designing homes and consenting to their construction and when its own legislation both that currently before the House and past legislation is set to substantially add to the already $30000 of unnecessary costs identified by the Registered Master Builders Federation? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: No Mr Key is not right. The purpose of the Building Act is to ensure that the quality of homes that New Zealanders get and should expect is maintained. There are ways that we can ensure that affordable houses are made to designs that comply with the provisions of the Building Act and that meet all the requirements of a first home buyer for a modest sound sustainable quality house.