11. PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) Link to this
to the Minister of Housing
Is he concerned that damage to State houses has increased 40 percent from $15 million in the 2004-05 financial year to $21 million in the last financial year?
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing) Link to this
Any increase in costs of repairs is a concern. However, more than half of the total damage bill was for basic expenses that all landlords face, like mowing lawns prior to re-letting, replacing locks and shower curtains, clearing drains, and replacing flooring, which are also included in the tenant damage category in some circumstances.
Will the Minister concerned confirm that this staggering blowout is not from regular maintenance, as he would have us believe, but is, in fact, “not a result of fair wear and tear”, but “results from the action or inaction of a tenant or third party,” according to the Housing New Zealand Corporation’s own definition; and what is he doing to curb this skyrocketing damage bill?
No, the member misrepresents what he is quoting from the Housing New Zealand Corporation. One of the reasons we are recording more tenant damage is because we are investing more in maintenance for currently tenanted properties, rather than waiting for them to become vacant before making repairs, and we are identifying more things that need to be fixed as a result.
Russell Fairbrother Link to this
What is the Government doing to recover the cost of damage to State houses?
The Housing New Zealand Corporation has a very clear policy. When damage is intentionally caused by tenants or other parties, we go after the perpetrators and seek to recover the costs. Last year the amount we recovered from tenants increased by 25 percent.
Pita ParaoneGiven the impact that damage to State houses is having on their demand, is the Minister satisfied that his Government’s claim that there are 5,700 more State houses than there were when the Labour-led Government took office is in any way adequate, considering the previous National Government reduced the stock by 13,000 during the 1990s; and has the Government any plans to restore the stock of State housing to the level available prior to National’s massive sell-off?
I can say with confidence that we have increased the number of State houses by over 7,000 to start to make up for the 13,000 that the previous Government sold—mostly to speculators, not tenants.
Judy TurnerDoes the Minister agree that the evidence is clear that people take greater care of property they own themselves; if he does, can he also see additional benefits in the rent-to-buy scheme for State houses, as proposed in a policy by United Future?
I can confirm that the Government does recognise that people owning their own house is the best possible outcome. That is why we have brought in things like Welcome Home Loans to help them do that.
Why is it that of the $21 million of deliberate damage, only half is recovered from tenants; and how many tenants have been asked to leave over the past year because of their ongoing disregard of State houses?
The member continues to misrepresent the figures. The two greatest causes of maintenance costs are the repair of broken windows and cleaning. Most of the cleaning takes place between tenancies.
Why is the Minister again budgeting $21 million in the next financial year to fix State house damage and vandalism if he thinks his softly, softly strategies will solve the problem; why is he budgeting the same amount if he thinks his strategies will work?
I remind that member, and the House, that most of that money goes toward repairing the houses through normal maintenance. We really value the State house stock. We want it to be in good repair because we want people to live in decent houses.
How does the Minister think the 11,500 families languishing on the waiting list feel when others abuse the privilege of a State home; what does he say to those needy families when others—who have caused $21 million worth of damage—are allowed to abuse the homes given to them?
I spend a lot of time explaining to people on the waiting list who come to see me that the previous National Government sold 13,000 of those houses.
Why is it that under this Minister, State house tenants can earn $95,000 before tax, can profit from four, five, or six paying boarders, and can now vandalise a place and still never be asked to leave, and all the while 11,500 needy families languish on the waiting list?
The Government continues to have tenants who pay market rents. Most of them are tenants who were brought in during Mr McCully’s time, when all State house tenants paid market rents.
I seek leave to table the Housing New Zealand Corporation’s own definition of this $21 million, which is used not for wear and tear but for vandalism and damage.
Madam SPEAKER