7. PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) Link to this
to the Minister of Housing
Does he have confidence in Housing New Zealand Corporation; if so, why?
Hon CHRIS CARTERIs the Minister at all concerned that the corporation allows 7,064 of its tenants to rent extra rooms to paying boarders—1,740 of whom are renting to non-family boarders—when thousands of large families on the waiting list are struggling in cramped conditions; if so, what is he doing about it?
The ability of Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants to allow boarders in their houses has been a long-standing practice. It is one, I believe, that existed right through the 9 years of the National Government, and for very good reasons. Many of those boarders are young people who are starting work, or older people who are living with families. We provide that provision so that people can have a normal family life.
Russell Fairbrother Link to this
Is Housing New Zealand Corporation delivering on the Labour-led Government’s manifesto commitment to provide affordable, good-quality housing for those on low or modest incomes?
It certainly is. For example, in the last 7 years we have added more than 7,000 new homes, and indeed we had to, because Murray McCully and his National mates sold off 13,000 of them, mostly to developers. We have introduced fair and affordable rents, whereas in the 1990s State house tenants were forced out of their homes by high rents and replaced by the very market renters that Mr Heatley now wants to throw out. Finally, we have been funding local authorities and organisations like Abbeyfield to develop their own social housing complexes—groups that National continues to ignore.
Why is there a tenant in Māngere with five paying boarders, when the waiting list in Māngere has 280 families categorised as having “severe and significant housing needs” who are probably all living in cramped and unhealthy conditions, and all of whom could do with this larger home with five boarders living in it?
For the reason I explained earlier, which was perfectly acceptable to National in its 9 years in Government, State house tenants are allowed two boarders. For every boarder over that they pay a market rent that is assessed as part of their income. I would think those boarders would be really, really grateful for some of the 13,000 houses that that member’s party sold off.
Is it still the case that State house tenants can charge boarders what they want to, even if it is over the rent that they pay, and what is more, that they do not have to pay extra rent to Housing New Zealand Corporation until they have three or more boarders; if so, does the Minister think it is right for them to profit from their spare rooms while large families languish on the waiting list?
Once again, the member deliberately tries to mislead the House. State house tenants are allowed two boarders, as they have been since the 1970s. It is something the National Party never changed because—like the Labour Party—I assume it thought it was good for young people in employment to stay with their parents or for older people to stay with their families. For any other tenants above that number, State house tenants pay a market-related rent, because their income from rent is assessed as part of their income. Again, I remind this House that if National had not hocked off 13,000 houses, we would not have a waiting list.
Why is it that when he and Mr Bridgeman of Housing New Zealand Corporation promised, in 2005, that they were going to review the boarder problem there were 6,931 State boarding houses and now, 2 years later, there are 7,064?
We do not have a problem with people allowing boarders to stay in their houses. I have already explained twice today in this House why State house tenants are allowed to have boarders, and why they are allowed to have two boarders without that being assessed as part of their income. It is so that families can stay together. We would not have a problem about a waiting list if National had not sold 13,000 State houses, mostly to the speculator mates of its members.
What is he doing to shift at least the 1,700 State house tenants who have non-family boarders into smaller houses, so that desperate families on the waiting list can live in less crowded and healthier conditions?
Already in the last year we have moved 303 tenants into smaller houses, thus saving the taxpayer $39 million and releasing new housing opportunities for people on the waiting list. Quite frankly, it is hard to listen to the questions from that member—a member of a party that sold off 13,000 houses when it was in Government.
I seek leave to table estimates questions that show 7,000 tenants rent out extra rooms, many of them to three, four, or five boarders.
Madam SPEAKER