O'Rourke Denis: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 19 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13549. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]9.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) to theMinister of Housing: Does he agree with all of the views expressed by Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga about housing on TV3’sThe Vote on 11 September 2013?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing): I have had a look at the transcript and there are 17 quotes from my colleague and the bulk of them I agree with.Denis O’Rourke: Does he agree with Mr Lotu-Iiga that first-home seekers should lower their expectations and that $130000 for a deposit is not out of their reach?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member Sam told me that he thought he could have—Hon Members: Sam!Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Sam Lotu-Iiga said that he could have expressed himself better and that $130000 is actually a big stretch for many people to get a deposit for a home.Denis O’Rourke: Does he agree that the Reserve Bank’s loan-to-value ratio requirement has killed off the hopes of most of New Zealand’s young first-home buyers; if not why not?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No I do not; because this Government has announced a trebling of the number of Welcome Home Loans that are exempt from those loan-to-value ratios. Secondly this Government has expanded the KiwiSaver first-home deposit subsidy scheme which will mean that twice as many New Zealanders and particularlyin high-cost markets like Auckland will be able to get access to a bigger subsidy from the Government to get a deposit.Denis O’Rourke: Will he give an assurance to home seekers that as a result of the Government’s housing accords and special housing areas legislation at least 15000 new houses will be available in Auckland City by the next election; if not what will the number be?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The numbers in Auckland are very clearly set out in the housing accord that has been unanimously agreed with the Auckland Council: 9000 in the first year 13000 houses in the second year and 17000 houses in the third year. That is 39000 homes. That is more than three times the amount per year that are being built.Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister whether he would give an assurance and all he did was to give a number of houses referred to in a report. I want to know whether he is going to give us an assurance—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again that is an attempt to debate the answer that has been given. The Minister has very adequately addressed the question with exactly the numbers that are in the accord he referred to and that will be delivered over the next 3 years. The question has been answered.Phil Twyford: In light of the Minister’s answer that he agreed with the bulk of the statements made by the Government spokesperson on TV3’sThe Vote programme would he please tell the House which of the remaining statements by the Government spokesperson he did not agree with?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My colleague made the statement that 1100 homes under $500000 are available in his electorate. He told me he made a mistake: it was 1100 homes in Auckland rather than in his electorate.Denis O’Rourke: Does he dispute the BNZ-REINZ Residential Market Survey dated 14 March 2013 which says “In Auckland an estimated 11% of sales are to people offshore.” and is that a significant proportion of total homebuyers contributing to the housing bubble in Auckland?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes I have seen some of those surveys about trying to estimate the number of foreign persons buying homes. The interesting information I had was that they based it on whether people had foreign-sounding names. That is OK if you are a “Smith”; it is a bit dodgy if you are a “Key”. I suspect there are a few other people with foreign-sounding names who might be banned from buying a house if New Zealand First ever gets in Government.Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a pretty straight question. It asked fundamentally—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The question was answered very adequately. He asked about a particular survey and the Minister then referred to other surveys and adequately addressed that question.Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Is the member raising a fresh point of order or is he attempting to dispute a ruling I have already given?Denis O’Rourke: I am asking for clarification. You ruled on a point of order that I had not stated. I would like to have the opportunity to state it.Mr SPEAKER: The member rose questioning the answer that was given by the Minister.Denis O’Rourke: You did not hear the point of order before you ruled on it.Mr SPEAKER: I will give the member one more opportunity to clarify his point of order but I warn the member that if it is an attempt to use the point of order system to further question an answer that has been given by the Minister then that is out of order.Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The point of order is simply this: the question was about whether sales to overseas owners were a significant proportion or not. That was not addressed.Mr SPEAKER: It was very adequately addressed by the Minister saying he had seen results of surveys whereby the basis of the survey is the surname of a particular probable purchaser. On that basis he said that many surveys were unreliable.