Heatley Phil: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Heatley Phil: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:15984] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I sat on the Social Services Committee that considered the annual review of the Housing New Zealand Corporation. By way of a backdrop I point out that about eight or nine members of Parliament sat on that committee and it would be fair to say that their ears were ringing after 12 months of stories about million-dollar State homes worth about the same as two or three average State homes in average streets—homes that tenants would be more than happy with. Members’ ears were ringing with stories of State house tenants earning $80000 $90000 or $100000 after tax and their ears were ringing with evidence of blatant vandalism in State houses by a very few State house tenants which Housing New Zealand and the Minister have turned a blind eye to time after time. It was quite difficult in that select committee to know that one had several colleagues from across Parliament who were aware of these stories of million-dollar State houses very high income State house tenants vandals in State houses and also cases of a few State house tenants—nowhere near the majority; in fact a small minority—who actually sublet their State homes while owning baches in Russell in the Bay of Islands and living somewhere else. 
I said to colleagues on the select committee and I said to Labour colleagues who were also concerned about this—and concerned about the hush job done on this issue—”Let’s treat Housing New Zealand objectively in front of the select committee even though we all have this baggage of knowing of houses in lower socio-economic areas of Wellington where the carpet is mouldy where there is plastic over the windows and where curtains are drawn and no sunlight can come in because families are suffering in the cold. I essentially said to colleagues across the select committee that we should try to be objective try to park that information and have a fairly robust investigation of the Housing New Zealand Corporation and its practices. 
I would have to say that colleagues generally felt that Housing New Zealand provides an essential function in this country which is to provide housing for those who are in need of housing—sadly quite often in desperate need of housing—who cannot afford market rental housing and who certainly cannot afford to buy their own homes. But it would also be fair to say that National members on that committee and also members from other parties said that that is not actually where our aspirations are for State house tenants. Our aspirations are not that they will remain in State houses for the rest of their lives and that we will somehow wipe them out and tell them: “Well you know you’re stuck on an income-related rent you can stay there for your lifetime and your kids can inherit the house and maybe your grandkids as well.” Our aspirations for State house tenants are that maybe one day they will have a choice about where they rent and even perhaps the opportunity to buy their own homes. 
Housing New Zealand carries out a very important function in this country. It manages about 67000 State houses. That stock has been building in recent years and that is a good thing. Probably about 1000 State houses have come online each year. About 60 percent of those have been bought or built and about 40 percent have been leased off the private sector and that is a pretty good formula. We had the corporation before the committee and we were concerned about a number of things when we interviewed it. That was partly to do with the whole issue of who the target people were that the commission was trying to house. Clearly from the committee’s perspective it was generally thought that the corporation worked first with the most needy families on the waiting list and then moved on through those to a point where it could house as many as possible with the resources it had. But even so we discovered that Housing New Zealand said in respect of the Weymouth development that it was “ensuring that opposing gangs”—patched gangs—”are housed sensitively.” And we must remember that this quote is from a select committee report written by and agreed on by National and Labour members and members of other parties; it is not a statement just from the National members. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: That’s nice! 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: It is nice that Housing New Zealand is housing opposing patched gangs sensitively but the select committee and certainly the National Party would like to think that the corporation is housing desperately needy families sensibly in houses that do not have ventilation or heating problems. We would like to think it is caring for those people rather than worrying about the fighting of opposing gangs in Weymouth. 
We also talked about the housing affordability issue. It was quite amazing really to get the admission about the Housing New Zealand project in Hobsonville which will build 3000 homes. There is an economy of scale of 3000 homes at Hobsonville and 500 of them will be affordable for first-home buyers. When we asked how much those 500 affordable homes would cost we were told not to worry because first-home buyers would be able to buy them for $350000 each. A very keen sharp-minded member of the select committee—I recall this; his question is echoing even now through my mind—asked how it was that Housing New Zealand and the Government expect builders to be able to build affordable homes at a cheap price when even the Government cannot do it for less than $350000 with the economy of scale of a development of 3000 houses. So Housing New Zealand has an economy of scale of 3000 houses and the cheapest home is $350000 yet the corporation asks builders and developers to build cheap homes when even it cannot do that. 
That point is what I would like to rest on. Essentially this Government has lost touch with New Zealanders if it thinks that affordable housing is cheap at $350000 particularly when people are trying to service a mortgage at 9 or 10 percent over that value fill up the petrol tank buy a block of cheese pay the electricity bill—which has gone up year after year for the last 6 years—and do everything else for their young families or for themselves as individuals all at the same time. Government members have completely lost touch with New Zealanders if they think that a $350000 house is affordable. I tell this Government that the cost of houses might worry them but there is a bigger Indian coming over the hill and that is that rents are going through the roof. They have been doing so for the last 12 months and they will do so for the next 12 months. 
Brian Connell 
: Are they affordable rents? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: They are rents that are not affordable and a lot of families will be under serious pressure. So the Minister should solve that one with her Hobsonville development. I remind her that about 3.5 million people do not live in Hobsonville and do not want to live in Hobsonville. Her 500 houses in Hobsonville will not help those 3.5 million people. She should keep in mind that there is a bigger issue here in housing and that little schemes in Hobsonville and a targeted shared equity scheme to help another 1000 lucky people are not going to solve the problem for everyone. 
It is time that this Government took much more of a holistic approach and looked at the problems for everyone which are essentially take-home pay interest rates the cost of building the cost of subdivision and the cost of land. The Minister should be looking at the Resource Management Act the Building Act and the Local Government Act. If the Minister did that she would start solving the problem for everyone not just those people who live in Hobsonville.