7. PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) Link to this
to the Minister of Housing
Can he confirm his statement yesterday that “Already in the last year we have moved 303 tenants into smaller houses, thus saving the taxpayer $300 million”, later corrected to a saving of $280 million; if so, how exactly does the taxpayer save $924,000 on average by shifting a tenant into a smaller State home?
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing) Link to this
The member was not in the House last night when I was granted leave to correct the figures I gave during question time. I will attempt to clarify the figures for the member now. In 2006 and 2007 Housing New Zealand Corporation saved an estimated $280 million, both by encouraging market rate tenants into private rental housing or homeownership, and through shifting small families occupying large houses into smaller homes. In 2006 and 2007 the corporation saved an estimated $36 million by shifting those 303 tenants occupying large houses into smaller ones. This figure does not include the impact of shifting market rent tenants. This morning I have obtained cumulative figures for the last 2 years that show that we have saved over $600 million through shifting people into smaller houses, and shifting people on market rents into the private sector.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. To put this question on the Order Paper this morning I had the Clerk’s Office confirm to me that the Minister’s statement last night said that he had corrected the saving made from shifting 303 tenants to “$280 million”. Consequently, that is exactly what I put in the question. The Minister has not answered the question as to why shifting 303 tenants saves $280 million—the figure that the Clerk’s Office confirmed he said last night.
Madam SPEAKERI think the Minister did give a full answer to the question, but the member has a supplementary question.
Does the Minister stand by the claim he made in this debating Chamber that in the last year, by shifting 303 State house tenants into smaller homes he has saved the taxpayer $280 million; does he stand by that statement or not?
By a very active programme in Housing New Zealand Corporation of shifting people out of bigger houses they no longer need, into smaller ones, and by moving market renters into private accommodation or into buying their own homes, we have saved over $600 million in the last 2 years.
Russell Fairbrother Link to this
What reports has the Minister seen about alternative approaches to housing policy?
Last night National’s associate housing spokesperson, Bob Clarkson, mesmerised this Chamber with his proposals for the Government to withdraw completely from social housing. He also suggested that mixed communities, such as the one we are planning for Hobsonville, would “offend” people. One can only assume he felt happier with the less-well-off living in their own areas. Perhaps “Bob the Builder” has finally revealed National’s long-awaited housing policy—no State housing, and ghettos for the poor.
If members wish to stay in the Chamber, not only will they be seated when I rise, but also they will keep quiet. The Minister made an inappropriate reference to a member, so I will ask him to withdraw that comment.
Pita ParaoneTēnā koe, Madam Speaker. If the Government is to continue saving New Zealanders money in the housing portfolio, when will it finally commit to making State housing available to confirmed New Zealand citizens?
State house tenants must be residents or citizens of New Zealand. If the member has any information to the contrary, could he please let me know.
If the Minister is really saying he can save almost a million dollars by shifting a tenant into a smaller State house, or save a million dollars, or hundreds of thousands of dollars, by shifting on market renters, why does he not just pay these thousands of tenants and boarders half a million bucks each upfront to buy their own home, free up the State house for a needy family on the waiting list, and pocket the other half-million dollars for the Housing New Zealand Corporation?
Gerry BrownleeI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister stood, because he wanted to answer the question, but that answer surely cannot be considered as addressing the question. He is the one who has put the figures into the arena. He is the one who has told us today about his achievements. Now here is a simple question: why on earth would the Government spend so much moving people around, when it could just give them a house in the first place?
I am pleased to report, as I have already in the House today, that we have saved the taxpayer over $600 million in the last 2 years by moving people around.
Can the Minister confirm his answer to question for written answer No. 2998 where he says that there are 1,578 underutilised houses with two or more spare bedrooms, and that they have been underutilised for 5 years now; if so, why has he moved only 303 of those 1,500 tenants into smaller houses in the past 5 years, when apparently he could have saved the taxpayer billions of dollars?
It has never been Labour Party policy to throw people out of their homes, nor has it been its policy to sell State houses—unlike the previous National Government, which sold 13,000 State houses.
I seek leave to table an answer to a parliamentary question that states that there are 1,500 houses with spare bedrooms.
I seek leave to table an answer to a parliamentary question that states that there are 7,000 houses with spare bedrooms and boarders.
I seek leave to table an answer to a parliamentary question that states that only 46 of these 8,500 tenants have been moved on.
I seek leave to table a parliamentary question that shows that Mr Heatley yesterday rounded out a figure of 6,931 tenants to 6,000 tenants.