3. PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) Link to this
to the Minister of Housing
On what date was the investigation into the October 2005 to March 2006 subletting of a Māngere State house completed, and on what date was the file of Case No.320060053, detailing this investigation, sent to the Crown solicitor for consideration?
Madam SPEAKER
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing) Link to this
Yesterday, when this issue was raised in the House, I had not been given full information by Housing New Zealand on the details of the case raised by the member. I now have made extensive inquiries into this case and I have uncovered additional information that the member and this House are not aware of. That information does raise serious questions about the speed with which Housing New Zealand is dealing with serious tenant breaches of honesty. The information is as follows. An allegation about the tenant was received by the corporation on 24 February 2006. Relevant material was assembled and the case was allocated to an investigator on 13 May 2006. When the investigation was completed on 31 August 2006 the results of the investigation were considered, as is usual, by the next scheduled meeting of the investigation committee in October 2006. Subsequent to that meeting, it has taken until earlier this month to establish the $32,650 debt now owed by the tenant. Late yesterday the file was sent to Housing New Zealand’s legal team to prepare for forwarding to the Crown solicitor. Yesterday in the House, going on the information I had available at that time, I advised that the case had been referred to the Crown solicitor. This was not accurate. The case was referred only this morning—far too late, and a lesson has been learnt. I accept that Housing New Zealand has taken far too long to investigate this case and a number of other cases sitting in its investigations unit. I am determined that the situation will be rectified. I do want to stress to this House that the vast bulk of Housing New Zealand tenants are decent people, and that the actions of a few dishonest tenants should not reflect on everyone.
Gerry BrownleeThat was an extremely long answer. Although you did indicate that the Minister had asked for your indulgence in that regard, it was much longer than many of the other long answers you have allowed previously. What is worse is that it was in the nature of a ministerial statement. I think the House should be very, very careful about Ministers getting themselves into trouble one day, by misleading the House, then commandeering question time the next day to try to get themselves out of it, without the sort of scrutiny that the House might reasonably apply in that circumstance. I accordingly seek leave for there to be a ministerial statement debate forthwith on this matter.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Do you have a view on whether the Minister should have taken leave at the first opportunity to correct the mistake that he must have known late yesterday he had made in the House during question time?
I think the Minister did give a very full explanation. Certainly, the explanation, I think, did contain two issues. One was an explanation of what happened, and one certainly did refer to the fact that the information given yesterday was not correct, and the explanation for that was given. In future I—[ Interruption] Would the member just wait, please? If members wait until the end, not only when the Speaker is on her feet but also when people are asking questions and giving answers, then that would be a courtesy and would also inform the House better. I think that in this instance those two mixed explanations were given, but I would say that in future Ministers in this position should, in fact, make a ministerial statement if they had given information to the House that was not correct. That would have been the correct way to do it. [] Oh, I am so pleased that the member agrees! So could we please not have comments on whether the Speaker gets it right or wrong; I rule.
Can the Minister please explain to the House how he can give such a detailed explanation of Housing New Zealand’s failings in giving him the correct information yesterday, when the only information I and the media had yesterday came from the response to an Official Information Act request given to me by him, with his cover letter and his signature—or did he not read the information that I read?
First of all, the member alleges that I sent him a letter. Actually, I sent it to the National research unit, not to him. It was in the form of a large Official Information Act answer, which was put out some time ago. Ministers sign out information requests all of the time. I am glad that the member’s research unit got on to it. We made a mistake, we are on to it, and we are fixing it up.
Dave HereoraToday I have written to the chair of Housing New Zealand, requesting that the board review the corporation’s investigation process, with a due date for report back to me of 27 July. It is vital that New Zealanders can have confidence in Housing New Zealand, which performs a vital social service in housing 67,000 families. I am determined that all of our good work is not undermined by the sluggish investigations of a very, very few people who seek to deceive and defraud.
Now that the subletting rort investigation has been done, what investigations have been made into allegations by a neighbour, in March last year, that the tenant told her that he “knew someone in Housing”, and that was how he got the place, given that that constitutes a claim of corruption in Housing New Zealand?
I am as confident as I can be at this stage that Housing New Zealand did not know that the applicant was making a false declaration about his assets. As far as the matter is concerned of alleged insider-trading at Housing New Zealand, I can say that that matter has been looked into, and as yet no evidence has been found.
How can the Minister claim that that allegation regarding insider help from Housing New Zealand has been looked into, when that investigation has not been documented or even mentioned in the 8-page report that contains notes from all interviews?
I remind the House that the question I was asked yesterday concerned what confidence I had in Housing New Zealand. I had no evidence or information about this particular case. When I got back to my office, I ordered an immediate investigation. Included in the material that has come over to me today is information that is not in the Official Information Act request but which pertains to this case. That is the information I have given in my answer.
Will the Minister please supply the report on the allegations of corruption either to me, this House, or the media, since he is putting his hand on his heart and saying there were at least some interviews and some investigation into the allegations of corruption?
When this case has been fully investigated—and I remind the House it has been referred on to the Crown prosecutor for prosecution—I will reveal that information. But while a case is ongoing, where prosecution is going to take place, I am not prepared to discuss details of the case in this House.
Does the Minister stand by his comments on Radio New Zealand this morning that “I am confident the allegations of corruption have been dealt with.”, that “We have a comment from a neighbour which has been checked out.”, and “We’re on to it.”, when there is no mention at all in the papers that I received under the Official Information Act request that an inquiry into corruption has occurred at all?
The member was obviously not listening to my previous answer. When I got back from the House yesterday I asked for information on a case that I had no knowledge about before I came to this House at question time yesterday. I asked Housing New Zealand to give me a report on the case. Of course, included in that report is an extensive dossier about the investigations that have taken place. The question here is not has the corporation investigated it, but why it has taken so long to get to court. That is an issue—I concede it is an issue—we are on to it, and we are going to fix it up.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday in his answers to Mr Heatley’s questions the Minister stated that Mr Heatley had got it wrong. Do you think it would be appropriate in the circumstances for him to withdraw and apologise for that remark?
Well, I think the time for that has probably passed, and the Minister has given a full explanation for that.
Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, I am utterly prepared to say that I am glad the member has raised this case. I am glad his research unit plucked it out of the material, because it has given me an issue I have to deal with, which is the time it takes Housing New Zealand to deal with serious allegations and get them to court. So, yes, I thank the member for bringing it up in the House. It will hopefully have a good outcome.