6. 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 CARTER (Minister of Housing) Link to this
Yes, I do have confidence; because under the Labour-led Government, Housing New Zealand Corporation provides affordable homes for almost 200,000 people. We have turned Housing New Zealand from the real estate agency it was under National to a vital social service, working across the country to securely house needy families, repair substandard rural houses, help Kiwi families in their first home ownership, support local authority and community organisations to develop social housing—the list goes on and on.
What action did he take following revelations last year via his answers to parliamentary questions that damage by tenants and their guests to State houses had risen by a staggering 30 percent, from $16.5 million to $21 million in only 12 months; and was the action that he took successful?
Statistics have to be looked at in their context. We house almost 200,000 people living in New Zealand. The average tenant debt is just $370, and we take all reasonable steps to recover that debt. But it needs to be pointed out that it is rare among our tenants. Only 9 percent of properties have any damage to them.
If he is so successful at managing the housing stock, why has tenant damage and vandalism, and the damage caused by tenants’ guests, risen again this year, to $23.3 million—now a 40 percent increase over the last 2 years?
A very active reaction to damages is one of the reasons why the statistics have gone up. But I remind the House again that the most common form of damage is actually broken windows, which can be caused by the most minor thing.
How is allowing a current tenant in Henderson to run up a damage bill of $11,762, and another in Waitakere to run up a damage bill of $10,439, addressing this problem; what does he say to those 10,000 people languishing on the waiting list who would value the State homes that these vandals still live in?
What I would say to people listening to this question time today is that the average tenant debt is $370. What I would also say is that the 13,000 houses that were sold under National could easily have addressed our 10,000-person waiting list.
Sue MoroneyHousing New Zealand Corporation has continued to expand its range of services, reflecting the Labour-led Government’s strong commitment to ensuring that all New Zealanders have access to affordable, sustainable, good-quality housing. In the past year alone we have increased our social housing stock by 1,923 homes, housed nearly 3,000 more tenants, retrofitted 2,000 homes, helped more than 1,000 people to buy their first home, and supported the development of 384 social housing units by local government and community providers. There is more to do, and this Government can be relied upon to continue investing in social housing—unlike National, which, true to form, wants to start selling State houses again.
What was the point of recording the vandalism debt of $11,762, or the Waitakere vandalism debt of $10,000, when Housing New Zealand Corporation, according to answers this Minister has given, has written off $2,478,000 worth of damage debt owed by tenants, just in the last year?
I remind the House again that the average size of debt for damage is $370. The two cases the member has plucked out, to try to demonstrate his argument, actually show, in the context of Housing New Zealand Corporation’s 200,000 tenants, how incredibly small this issue is.
If the Minister is saying that it is just a few individuals who are involved, and the corporation clearly knows who they are, why does he let them run up huge damage debts, then write off the debts, all the while allowing them to remain in their State houses, while thousands of genuinely needy families languish on the waiting list?
Yes, it is a great pity they are on the waiting list. If his party when in Government had not sold off those 13,000 houses, we would not have a waiting list. Much of the debt the member is alluding to is of a very trivial nature. Often it would be more expensive for the corporation to pursue the cost of repairing a couple of broken windows than it would be to wipe off the debt.
Madam SPEAKER