5. PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) Link to this
to the Minister of Housing
What is Quotable Value New Zealand’s latest “independent replacement valuation”, or market valuation, of each of the three Glen Innes State house properties—land and buildings—that have a rateable valuation of $2 million, $1.43 million, and $1.40 million respectively, as per his response to question for written answer 11513 (2006)?
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing) Link to this
The member appears to be asking two separate questions. On the one hand, he wants to know the replacement value of three small, old, modest State houses located in Glen Innes. I guess the value would be “not much”. On the other hand, he also asks for the market valuation of the land and buildings. These are the figures I have already supplied in my written answer. Actually, the value of one of these properties has fallen because it did not have the expected redevelopment potential expected at the valuation.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I had to prove to the Clerk’s Office that Quotable Value New Zealand had supplied Housing New Zealand Corporation with the market valuations, or replacement valuations, for land and buildings for these three State houses. I proved that to the Clerk’s Office. I asked a specific question about the valuations of these three properties—not the rateable valuation but the replacement or market valuation. The Minister had all morning and half the afternoon to prepare the answers. I want the market valuations of these three properties. Could I please have the answer?
Hon Mark BurtonThe member asked a question and the Minister addressed the question. That is what he is required to do. What the member wants is not necessarily what the Minister has to provide. The Minister addressed the question.
Madam Speaker, when you look at this question you will see that the member asked me for two valuations: the replacement valuation or the market valuation. I provided those two answers.
Gerry BrownleeMadam Speaker, you need to think very, very carefully about this particular question, I think, because much of this information is available publicly. Some of it is not, and it is the little bit that is not that we want the Minister to talk about today. Mr Burton might say that the Minister addressed the question. We all know that one can address a question by standing up and saying “rhubarb” and sitting down. Or a Minister can simply refuse to address a question. But I think there is significant public interest in this particular issue. It is a requirement under the Standing Orders that an answer is given consistent with the public good. Letting Ministers just misuse people’s good intentions like this is unacceptable. The Minister was asked for the independent replacement value. He must know that, and he must surely be able to give it to the House today.
I cannot be responsible for the quality of questions lodged by the member Phil Heatley. The question asks what the replacement values are. I have said that the replacement value on three old, small, State houses located on very valuable land in Glen Innes is not much. But if we take into account the member’s second question of what the market valuation is of each of the three properties’ land and buildings, that amount is quite considerable and I have given him that answer in my reply to his written question.
Madam SPEAKERThe information is in the initial question. These valuations are $2 million, $1.43 million, and $1.4 million. I did correct the fact that one of the values had dropped because the site was not, as expected, suitable for redevelopment. One of the valuations had actually gone down.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is exactly the problem. These are rateable valuations. Rating valuations are struck on mesh blocks. They are struck as an average across a block of properties. They are not struck particularly on any value. Anybody who buys real estate knows that they use the quotable value as a guide, but it very, very seldom reflects the actual market price. I think we are simply looking for the independent value on the replacement cost of these properties, which includes land and buildings. The Minister must know this.
We seem to be at cross-purposes here. The question actually asks two questions: “What is the replacement of these small old houses?”—not much. But what is the market valuation of those properties when one takes into consideration the valuable part of those properties, which is the land? It is considerable—and I have given the value.
Rodney HideI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This question has been down on notice and I do not know anything about it. But I am sitting here trying to understand it because this is question time, and it seems to me we have a problem. The Minister clearly does not want to give the straight answer and has come down here ill-prepared. We know that there is a valuation for these properties, and it will not be “considerable” and it will not be “not much”. Maybe the Minister could say, if he does not know and has not got the answer: “Look, I’m ill-prepared for this question, and I’ll get my office to have a crack after question No 12.”, because it is clear that it is not going to go anywhere. If the Minister of Housing, with a question on notice “What is the value of this house?” says “not much” or “a lot”, it is hardly answering the question.
I now understand what the issue is, I think, quite clearly. The Minister has addressed the question. He has not, obviously, addressed it to the satisfaction of members in terms of giving specific amounts, that is true. But he has addressed the question generally, so I will ask us to move on.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not want to challenge your ruling in a way that causes great problems, but I think we must have a bit of a look at this. For the Minister to, on the one hand, say: “The valuations are as provided in my written answer, the rating valuations.”, in answer to a question that specifically asks about independent market valuations; and then, on the other hand, to say: “Well, the land is worth a lot and the buildings aren’t worth much.”—surely if that is addressing the question, then we may as well just shut Parliament and spend our days reading fiction.
I understand. But it is not for the Speaker to judge the quality of the answer that has, in fact, been given.
Peter BrownI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The reason I have taken this point of order is that a week or so ago you took a point of order from my colleague Gordon Copeland ahead of me because he was faster to his feet than me. My colleague Ron Mark was clearly ahead of Gerry Brownlee. Standing Order 102 actually states that seniority prevails, and now I am asking you—and I accepted your ruling the other day—to please clarify whether we operate points of order by the Standing Orders or by your edict the other day when you twice sat me down in favour of Gordon Copeland?
No, it is who the Speaker recognises. In this instance I recognised that Gerry Brownlee was on his feet. But I have recognised the member ahead of Gordon Copeland, you will notice, this time.
Ron MarkIf members wish to remain with us for the rest of question time, then they will not intervene on points of order. I call Ron Mark.
I am raising this point of order in anticipation of a problem, in the hope that you will consider what has just happened. I am worried now, and I would like your view and your ruling as to whether answers such as “not much” by a Minister of the Crown will be accepted, because I foresee a situation where, if I ask my supplementary question, which is written down here, where a specific figure is known, and a specific expectation of the Minister exists to be on top of his portfolio and to know the detail, I might, too, now receive the answer “Not many.” I ask you to consider where this will lead the House if successive Ministers—of immigration, finance, or defence—answer the questions from other members of Parliament, such as “How many soldiers deployed to Bamian”, with “Not many.”
I have got the essence of the member’s speech. I just remind members that points or order are meant to be made succinctly. As members know—[ Interruption] I am on my feet, OK? As members know, they cannot require specific answers to questions. In this instance, as I ruled, the Minister addressed it. It is demonstrably clear that it was not considered to be an adequate answer to the question. However, that was the Minister’s judgment, and it is not for the Speaker to judge the quality of that answer.
Gordon CopelandI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I just wanted to speak to the points of order raised by both Gerry Brownlee and now by Ron Mark, which are similar. I point out, because I think it is helpful to you, and to the House, Madam Speaker, that the Minister is quite right. This question refers to three different valuations: an independent replacement valuation, a market valuation—that is two—and, three, a rateable valuation. I think the Minister’s point was—and he is quite right—that a replacement valuation and a market valuation are two different things, yet Mr Heatley has asked for them. So how can the Minister possibly answer the question, when the question itself is ambiguous?
What I was trying to demonstrate was that the replacement value of the small old houses was quite modest. To build a house of that size would cost about $280,000. I could have come down with that figure, but that was not the point I was trying to make. The point I was trying to make was that the member in asking his question is asking two different questions. One is the replacement value of the house, and the other is the actual total value. We have given him the precise answer to the total value. I apologise if the House found that my answer was too flippant. It is about $280,000 to replace those houses.
Hon Murray McCully Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I refer you to Speakers’ ruling 153/3—it is quite a well-known Speakers’ ruling—that Ministers should provide an answer if that answer can be provided consistent with the public interest. Indeed, there is in some of the surrounding Speakers’ rulings a clear process for Ministers who believe that it is not in the public interest to provide the information that is sought at question time. I suggest to you that, in the particular circumstances in which we find ourselves today, it seems likely that the Minister does, in fact, have particular figures that the member who asked the question asked for. It may assist the House if you were to seek confirmation from the Minister that he does, in fact, have the information, and were to ask him to provide it. I think that should be the way in which we interpret that Speakers’ ruling.
I thank the member. But I think to some extent it was just the way in which the question was phrased that may have led to some confusion. But the Minister has now, I think, specifically addressed the question with a specific figure.
Hon Tony RyallI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would ask you to consider the comments that the Hon Chris Carter has made in several points of order. He has said that he was asked the replacement value. He was not asked the replacement value of the properties; he was asked the independent replacement valuation, which—[ Interruption] Well, the important point is this, I say to the Minister, as he will know, every year Quotable Value New Zealand prepares an “independent replacement valuation”. A document with those words was provided to the Clerk’s Office to verify this question. An independent replacement valuation is prepared on high-value properties of Housing New Zealand Corporation every year. Those independent replacement valuations are the replacement valuation of the whole property. So for the Minister to stand up in the House and say that he is unaware of that difference, when yesterday he gave answers based on those independent replacement valuations, is quite wrong and he needs to be reprimanded.
I would like to stand and confirm what the Hon Tony Ryall just said. I went to the Clerk’s Office because I had to confirm with its staff the paperwork that showed that the valuation of the property—which was the land and the buildings—was called an “independent replacement valuation”. So that is what I asked for—the independent replacement valuation of the land and the buildings. I put in there, to help the Minister, the words “or market valuation”, because that is what New Zealanders generally know it as—and to help the public in understanding my question. My question specifically asks for the valuation of the land and the buildings—the replacement valuations. The Minister has simply given back—
I will be succinct. The Minister has simply reflected back to me the rateable valuations, which I have already provided to him in the question. I would like to confirm that Tony Ryall is quite right. The Clerk’s Office has confirmed this, and I would like the independent rateable valuations on all those properties.
Thank you. We understand your point. Is there anyone else from that side of the House, or anywhere else? Judy Turner would like to contribute. Is the member contributing to the point of order?
Judy TurnerHopefully, this is my last contribution on the point of order. The Hon Tony Ryall is not correct; Housing New Zealand Corporation has properties valued for insurance and rating purposes only if the buildings themselves are worth over a million dollars. These three little old houses in Glen Innes are manifestly not worth over a million dollars.
I thank all members for their contribution to this. I think we did get the question addressed; I would now like to move on with the supplementary questions, and I have Judy Turner in my sights.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is usual for the member who asks the primary question to have the first supplementary question, and I have not had it yet.
Oh, I am sorry. I felt, perhaps, that we had had a full discussion. But of course the member can have his question first, and I apologise for being distracted.
When in the exchange of points of order the Minister said that Housing New Zealand Corporation values properties only where the buildings are worth over $1 million, is he telling this House that there are 145 State house properties where the buildings are worth over $1 million; and could he please tell us what the land is worth on those 145 properties?
The member is once again being evasive with the truth. Independent valuations by Housing New Zealand Corporation are only of properties worth over $1 million. Many of the properties that Mr Heatley quoted in the House yesterday are huge blocks of flats or very large community houses; they are not actually homes.
H V Ross Robertson Link to this
Well, I did actually preface it with the word “Minister”, but I will do it correctly for Mr Brownlee’s sake. Can the Minister tell the House what reports he has received about the 145 properties worth more than $1 million that the honourable member Phil Heatley referred to in the House yesterday?
It would appear that Mr Heatley got his facts wrong, again. These valuations are mostly not for stand-alone properties; they are, in fact, for 145 sites on which there are 2,674 individual units. A housing complex, like the Dixon Street flats here in Wellington that has 119 individual units, is recorded as being only one property. He got it wrong.
What is the market value of the three properties in Glen Innes, which have a single house on them each, that have a rateable valuation of $2 million, $1.43 million, and $1.4 million; what is their market value?
Those figures have already been given to the member—$2 million, $1.43 million, and $1.4 million. But the $1.43 million property has fallen in value, because when its value was assessed we thought it could be used in more intensification of the site, but it proved unsuitable.
Can the Minister confirm that it is part of the Government’s housing strategy to own million-dollar - plus State houses, when he said yesterday in this debating chamber: “… just because a house is worth over $1 million that does not mean to say it does not have a valid place to be a State house.”?
When these properties become vacant, the corporation makes a decision about whether to retain the property, redevelop the site to make better use of the land, or even to sell the property. We are not having a programme of selling off 13,000 State houses, like the National Party.
If the Minister is unwilling to sell the high-value properties with current tenants in residence, is he prepared to look into rent-to-buy schemes for tenants paying market rents in State houses as a way of improving home ownership rates, and to free up capital for reinvestment in State housing so that waiting lists can be better addressed?
I am not prepared to have rent to buy, but what I am prepared to do, and what we are doing in Hobsonville, is to create new greenfield sites where it is possible for first home buyers to buy their property.
Hon Phil GoffCan the Minister confirm that it is not this Government’s policy to ensure that all State houses are congregated together in the lowest-income area, and that that failed policy of the National Party in the past is still causing problems throughout New Zealand?
I can confirm that that is Labour’s policy. What I can also say is that it is very disappointing that the local member for the Hobsonville area, John Key, is totally opposed to the project to create affordable housing in his electorate.
Can he please confirm parliamentary question No. 4110, that the $2 million Glen Innes property has a tenant paying $80 a week in rent and has been there since 1998?
I cannot confirm the rental, but what I can confirm is that the three properties that Mr Heatley asked about in his primary question have been tenanted for between 7 and 39 years. Perhaps Mr Heatley could tell this House why he wants to kick an old lady out of her house, where she has lived for 39 years.
Has Housing New Zealand ever proactively approached this tenant in the $2 million State house, explained the waiting list numbers, and offered the tenant another house in the wider area, or one of the five $400,000 properties that the sale of this house could buy; if so, what did the tenant say?
What I can confirm is that Housing New Zealand Corporation actively keeps tenants informed of home ownership opportunities, as well as encouraging people living in houses that are either too large or too small, to apply for transfers. I wonder whether the member is prepared to go and visit that tenant and explain why his party sold 13,000 State houses.
I seek leave to table the parliamentary answer that states that the $2 million Glen Innes property has been tenanted for 10 years to someone paying $80 a week.
I seek leave to table the parliamentary answer that gives the rateable value of these $1 million - plus properties.
I seek leave to table Quotable Value’s annual review in which it gives the market value of these $1 million properties.