12. PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) Link to this
to the Minister of Housing
Is he confident that Housing New Zealand Corporation’s current investment in housing is returning the most it can for potential residents in need?
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing) Link to this
Housing New Zealand Corporation manages over 66,000 homes and has assets worth more than $11 billion. Of course, there will probably always be room for improvement. In the output agreement signed with the corporation this year, Ministers have asked the corporation to advise shareholding Ministers on ways to better utilise what is, in fact, the Government’s largest single asset.
Nathan GuyWhy has the Minister allowed Housing New Zealand to spend $8 million on consultancy fees to oversee the settlement of former Kimberley Centre residents, when that money could have gone into better housing and greater care for the residents?
That money has gone into improved care for the residents. Under the contract with the Ministry of Health, Housing New Zealand’s role is to acquire and modify homes for the ex-residents of the Kimberley Centre. This is a project worth $55 million. It is a complex project, and we have to get it right.
Georgina BeyerSince 1999 the Government has invested nearly $1 billion to acquire over 6,000 State houses and to assist families to buy or repair their own homes. In addition, nearly $2 billion has been spent on income-related rent subsidies and the accommodation supplement. Access to adequate, affordable housing is a key commitment of Labour Governments, unlike the Opposition, which extracted over $1 billion from hocking off Housing New Zealand’s assets—mostly to speculators.
How can the Minister justify consultants clipping the ticket at around $123,000 per property, costing a whopping 20 percent of the overall budget?
I am not sure whether the member is very good at maths, but I remind him again that the total project is $55 million. This is a very complex project—
Gerry Brownlee
Madam SPEAKERI know what the member is going to say. I remind Ministers to stick to answering the question without additional comments.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think he should withdraw that, because this Minister in particular dodges answers to questions with smart answers like this all the time. I would not be at all surprised if we will be expected to allow him to correct his answers later in the day, because that is his usual pattern.
That is unnecessary also. If the member who asked the question took personal offence, then obviously the Minister should withdraw and apologise. He did not. Can the Minister please just answer the question without these asides.
The member has alleged that 20 percent of the total project has been spent on consultancy fees. I remind the House again that this is a project that I understand will reach about $55 million; $8 million has been spent on consultancy, but we have to get it right. We are not talking about people buying and selling houses. We are talking about modifying extensively both existing and new houses so that people with very highly specialised needs can be accommodated.
Why were modern homes completely gutted and renovated, and which silver-tongued consultant got paid for those wonderful words of advice?
I remind the House again that these houses and residences have been highly modified for residents who have very specialised health requirements. This is an expensive process. We have done it so that the patients can have a better quality of life.
Has the Minister seen any reports of Housing New Zealand residents who have found that Housing New Zealand has in fact helped them in a time of need?
Yes, I have seen a report from a former Housing New Zealand tenant who said that he appreciated the safety net a State house provided. I quote: “I really couldn’t give the answer of what would have happened to us otherwise.” That was John Key.
Does the use of costly consultants mean that thousands of employees at Housing New Zealand Corporation are not suitable to do the job, and how does this fit with the Prime Minister’s statement that “we have strengthened capability [in the public service] by increasing numbers of permanent staff and seeking to reduce reliance on consultants.”?
The member who asked the question is, I understand, a local resident of the area where the Kimberley Centre is located. He must be aware, as some other members of this House surely are, that the residents of the Kimberley Centre are patients in permanent long-term care. This development at the Kimberley Centre—relocation of patients—is a highly specialised process where very specialised accommodation must be developed.
Does the Minister agree with a Housing New Zealand Corporation internal staff email released under the Official Information Act that it is hard to see value for these consultancy costs?
I am not aware of that email; I would really welcome the chance to look at it. I am aware that the member who asked the question comes from a party that hocked off $1 billion of Housing New Zealand’s assets.
I seek leave to table a reply from the Minister to my parliamentary question stating that the total cost for the consultancy work for this project is $8 million.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This point of order is in respect of the last answer given by the Minister. In the interests of orderly conduct in the House I do not think a Minister should be able to talk about the hocking-off of $1 billion of assets by a political party, such as National, without being able to prove it.
I ruled that part of the answer out of order. It was out of order in that context. But the Minister, of course, is entitled to table anything he likes, like any other member.
I seek leave to table a document demonstrating how much of the Housing New Zealand assets National sold off when it was in Government.
I seek leave to table an internal email from a Housing New Zealand Corporation employee released under the Official Information Act that mentions how it is very hard to see value for these consultancy costs.
I seek leave to table an address by the Prime Minister to Victoria University School of Government’s prize giving on 11 October 2005 where she states: “In the area of core public service we have strengthened capability by increasing the numbers of permanent staff and seeking to reduce reliance on consultants.”