Walker Holly: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Walker Holly: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4386. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
10. 
HOLLY WALKER (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: Does he stand by his answer to written question 04915 (2012) where he stated that the Housing New Zealand Corporation “does not distinguish between response and completion times” for maintenance requests? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Yes. However after I spoke last night with the member who raised this question I checked with the corporation and it told me that this arises from the nature of its relationship with regional contractors who in turn let work to subcontractors. The corporation informs me that it holds the main contractor responsible for delivering the performance expectations that I outlined yesterday. It does not necessarily have visibility of what “subbies” are doing. So a “subbie” may respond to a job on Monday and complete it on Monday or they might respond to a job on Monday but complete it on Tuesday. The important thing for the corporation is that the job is completed. 
Holly Walker 
: So when he told the House yesterday that 93 percent of urgent health and safety jobs are completed within 4 hours did he actually mean that Housing New Zealand Corporation had simply responded to those requests in some way not that the work had actually been completed? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: My advice from the corporation is that that measure is about completion so it would expect an urgent health and safety job to be completed within 4 hours. If that was not done then the contractor would be outside the agreement—as I indicated yesterday 93 percent are completed and 7 percent are not—and therefore the contractor would be held to account for this. If there are cases like that and clearly there are some then I think the corporation should know about them and I would love to hear from the member. 
Holly Walker 
: Is it acceptable that the request of a Wellington mother who asked for large holes in her lounge floor to be repaired in August 2011 would be included in that 93 percent after a mere phone call from Housing New Zealand Corporation when in fact she had to wait more than 7 months for the holes to be fixed and still has issues with mould and rotten carpet on the floor which have led her children to develop skin infections? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I accept that that may very well be a case. I know that the member is sincere on this issue. The reality is that in that situation if that is the case Housing New Zealand Corporation would not be working to its own standard and contractors would not be working to the standard of Housing New Zealand Corporation and it needs to know about that case and investigate it. 
Holly Walker 
: Is there not a big difference between answering a call or engaging a contractor or subcontractor and actually ensuring that the work is completed and what is the average time that elapses between when an urgent health and safety job is lodged and when the work is actually completed? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: As I outlined Housing New Zealand Corporation requires certain types of urgent or non-urgent maintenance to occur within a time frame. For example for urgent health and safety work the work has to be done within 4 hours. If it is done in 2 hours or 3 hours or 4 hours Housing New Zealand Corporation does not necessarily have visibility on this because that is the subcontractor’s job more often than not. What it has visibility on is whether it is completed within the 4-hour time frame. So you cannot measure an average time. What you can measure is whether a contractor directly has met the standards that Housing New Zealand Corporation has set. If they have not Housing New Zealand Corporation wants to know about it and I want to hear from the member so I can pass that on. 
Hon Annette King 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] Very good. I am going to talk about lino. Is he aware that it took 4 years— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My colleague on my right just made an outrageous suggestion about one of our colleagues and I think he should withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Speaker did not hear it and the member is lucky. 
Hon Annette King 
: Is he aware it took 4 years to have the hole in the lino replaced before he did not visit Symonds Street Auckland and is that the standard he expected when he campaigned in Opposition against slum landlords? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: As I made out—as I made clear yesterday as far as I am aware the member made up—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I apologise to the Minister. I say to the Labour front benches on this occasion that that noise is unnecessary. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: As I said yesterday in the House as far as I am aware the member made up the idea that I visited Symonds Street and she made up the idea that there has been no maintenance. So I do not think this House or journalists can take the member at her word in any scenario. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet—I am on my feet. To suggest that a member’s word cannot be taken is out of order. I ask the Minister to withdraw that and to now actually come closer to answering the question. If I recollect correctly the Minister was asked about the time involved in getting this famous piece of lino laid at this particular location and I do not think the Minister even approached answering that. I would ask the Minister to withdraw that comment and answer the question. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I withdraw and apologise. I have no confidence in the information that the member is giving the House and so I cannot comment.