Paraone Pita: Estimates Debate —  
Paraone Pita: Estimates Debate —  
[Volume:610;Page:7173] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairman. I will confine my remarks to housing because that was my original understanding of the rules for this debate. I do welcome this opportunity to speak. 
On listening to the previous speaker who wanted us to believe that all is well in God’s own country I thought I must have been looking at a television channel from a different country last week when I saw a family in need of housing and also saw the Minister of Housing. On  
One News 
 and  
Holmes 
 we saw a young lady with three children who was living in a garage with a concrete floor no cooking facilities and no running water. If I am to believe the previous speaker all is well in God’s own country. I think not. Although the Government might be well intentioned I contend that we are not doing enough. The case we saw on  
One News 
 is just a small example of the true reality of what is happening in New Zealand. 
That family was based in Auckland but the housing problems of our country are not confined just to the urban areas. I make reference to the fact that in the estimates there is reference to the Special Housing Action Zones programme. Although that programme was established some 3 years ago there has not been very much progress in that area and I wonder why that is. That programme is designed to assist those families who can afford mortgages and are prepared to assist in the building of their homes within a community environment. Yet in the rural situation that sort of assistance is not being made available to the families who are in need of it. 
The Social Services Committee did indicate that the implementation of the Special Housing Action Zones programme has been slow and as a consequence the Housing New Zealand Corporation has moved from it to another programme that is commonly known as the “NECBOP” programme which means “Northland and East Coast / Eastern Bay of Plenty” and which identifies those three areas as the most-affected rural areas in New Zealand. I note that in the 2001-02 financial review the select committee endorsed the collaborative efforts of many agencies to eliminate sub-standard housing in those areas. But it also noted that although the programme provided suspensory loans for 207 urgent and essential repairs the planned target for 2003-04 was to increase that to 266 houses. 
The select committee notes that it now appears that the Northland and East Coast / Eastern Bay of Plenty programme is taking longer than was originally foreseen to implement so capital and associated operating funds have been subsequently transferred from the 2002-03 year to the forthcoming 2003-04 year. The select committee indicated it was concerned about the delay in implementation of the programme as we believe it is a valuable programme. We need to ask ourselves why it is that when we are talking about approving an increased amount in the Budget for that programme we are still not able to meet the demands of our rural people. 
I need to ask that question because a particular group is most affected by all of that: Maori. Although the family we saw on  
One News 
 last week was of Maori or Pacific Island extraction a lot of people from those communities who have decided they will return home to their rural areas their turangawaewae are not able to move into affordable and liveable housing conditions. That is of great concern to me because we are talking about increasing the appropriation for this programme but it is not meeting the needs of those people. I would like the Minister to take a call on that matter because although his ministry has produced a number of reports such as  
New Perspectives on Maori Housing Solutions 
 it has still not dealt with the problem that a number of our families are facing today. 
 Although I said I would confine my comments to housing I realise that we must look at housing in relation to employment and health. Earlier today we heard the Minister respond to a question about whether he had received any reports commenting on social development in this country. He made reference in his response to the fact that New Zealanders are now living longer and becoming healthier. Although that might be true the same report that indicated that—which was put out by Otago University—also indicated the disparities between Pakeha and Maori. I suggest that the figures in relation to Maori are related to their poor housing conditions. It is important that we get our housing programme right because everything else will then fall into place. It is no use for us—or particularly for the Government—to expound the virtues of reduced unemployment when in fact our people still have poor health and are still not being housed in proper and affordable housing. 
Earlier in another debate I made reference to the fact that in order to increase our housing supply serious consideration should be given to on-selling those State houses that families have occupied for more than 20 years. Those houses should be sold to those particular families and in turn the money from those sales could be put towards building more homes. The response from Government members was negative then and I suspect it will be the same now. I ask the Minister to seriously consider that proposal in relation to the appropriation for the 2003-04 year.