12. PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) Link to this
to the Minister of Housing
Does he stand by the statement made on his behalf yesterday that “the subletting of State houses is not tolerated … Where there are allegations of it they are investigated and appropriate action is taken.”?
Hon CHRIS CARTERWhy does the Minister stand by that statement, when the Housing New Zealand Corporation told the Social Services Committee that 42 cases of alleged subletting were reported to it in the first part of this financial year but only 25 cases were investigated; why were only 50 percent of the cases investigated?
First of all, that has to be put into context. The Housing New Zealand Corporation participates in 66,000 tenancies. The number that the member has referred to is, in proportion to the total, very tiny. None of the 48 cases he has just referred to are the same, and they cannot be compared with each other. Some of them are cases where tenants have moved out, others are cases where tenants have gone into prison, and there are some other circumstances. It is not as simple as subletting.
Lynne PillayCases where Housing New Zealand Corporation staff have a reasonable suspicion that subletting may be occurring are referred to the corporation’s investigation team for a formal investigation to establish the facts. Between 1 July 2005 and 28 February 2007, nationally there were only 23 cases in which, as a result of a formal investigation process, the corporation concluded that subletting had occurred. I remind the House again that we have 66,000 tenancies.
Pita ParaoneTēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Further to the statement made on the Minister’s behalf yesterday that the Housing New Zealand Corporation allocation policy “should look after the needs of New Zealanders first,” why is the principle of looking after New Zealanders first nowhere to be found in the Housing New Zealand Corporation principles pertaining to the allocation of housing?
Madam SPEAKERYesterday my original question alluded to the fact that New Zealand First was not quite sure whether tenants of the Housing New Zealand Corporation were likely to be New Zealanders or non - New Zealanders; the question was whether, in fact, New Zealanders were given special preference.
No tenant of the Housing New Zealand Corporation can be a non - New Zealander. A tenant can be either a resident of New Zealand or a citizen. Our refugee intake each year is put into Housing New Zealand Corporation houses, but, of course, those people get a residence stamp when they come to this country.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question today was if that is the case, why is reference to New Zealanders being housed first not included in the list of principles articulated by the ministry?
It is absolutely implicit, because a person has to be a resident or a citizen of New Zealand to get a Housing New Zealand Corporation house.
Bob ClarksonHow can the Minister have the confidence to say that subletting rorts are extremely rare, when Housing New Zealand Corporation staff are not picking up such scams during routine inspections, and are investigating only half of those that are dobbed in?
If the member can come up with any cases that we have not picked up, I would be very grateful for that.
Can the Minister give us the details—as he is keen to break his own privacy rules on the scam involving subletting for 4 years—of the South Auckland tenant who rented out a State house for 2 years and the Hutt Valley tenant who rented one out for 15 months, both of whom were eventually evicted? How much money did they make, and what other details are there around them?
I am delighted to hear the member acknowledge that the Housing New Zealand Corporation has removed the tenancies of the particular individuals he has just mentioned. Should he care to put a written question down to me, I am sure that question can be answered.
Does the Minister regret last year describing the pursuit of subletting scamsters as a wild-goose chase and a waste of his staff’s time, in light of revelations that, by the Housing New Zealand Corporation’s own admission, dozens of State houses are being illegally sublet for cash for months and years at a time; if not, why not?
The member seems to have a very strange view of quantities. I remind the House again that between 1 July 2005 and 28 February 2007 only 23 cases, out of 66,000 tenancies, resulted in tenants losing their tenancies.
Who is telling the truth: the Housing New Zealand Corporation, which told the Social Services Committee that it has investigated only half the scams dobbed into the corporation; or the Minister, who says that it investigates all the scams dobbed into it?
I remind the House again that this member has a record of distorting the words of officials. Again, subletting has to be seen in context: some tenants just leave, others go to jail, and some die. We do not pursue in the courts people who have died.
I seek leave to table Social Services Committee documents wherein the Housing New Zealand Corporation states it has investigated only 25 of the 42 cases of alleged subletting—
I seek leave to table a copy of the Housing New Zealand Corporation principles pertaining to the allocation of housing wherein there is no reference to looking after New Zealanders first.