8. PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) Link to this
to the Minister of Housing
Does she have confidence in the Housing New Zealand Corporation; if so, why?
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Acting Minister of Housing) Link to this
Yes; because the Housing New Zealand Corporation works hard to provide housing for New Zealanders with the greatest housing need.
Will the Minister continue to publicly support the corporation’s policy that the 6,000 market rent tenants have “no legal responsibility to advise … of … the purchase of an investment property”, and therefore support State house tenants being landlords themselves if they want to be, or will she change that policy?
That is a bit rich coming from a member of a party that established market rents as the norm. It was during the 1990s that the so-called “McCully tenants” were enrolled and given tenancies of State houses. Of the new tenants in State houses, 99 percent are income-related renters. For that member to grandstand in here, seeking a headline by talking about market renters, when his party put them in our houses, is a bit rich.
Gerry BrownleeI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you to consider the answer the Minister has just given. He was asked a very specific question: does the Government intend to change the policy that allows wealthy State house tenants to own properties that they then put into the rental market, thereby being State tenants and landlords at the same time? It was a simple question. The Minister made no attempt to answer it; he simply railed against all sorts of things that he imagined—
Madam SPEAKERThank you, Mr Brownlee; I have got the point. I must say it was difficult to hear all of the answer. The first bit did not seem to be very relevant, but I thought the Minister got there. If he would like to add to his answer, he may. I must say that risks are run. As members know, they cannot require a particular answer. But if answers are prefaced by comments that are not seen as relevant, then, obviously, members will raise this issue.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think that may have been a suggestion that Mr Heatley had introduced irrelevant material—
Please be seated. I was addressing the answer in terms of the point of order that I thought the member had raised. In other words, I was asking the Minister whether he would please like to add to his answer.
Mr Heatley and other members of this House know that once people are in a State house, they are there for as long as they want to be. Their assets are assessed, and they pay a market rent when they no longer require subsidised housing. The Housing New Zealand Corporation no longer puts market renters into our houses; it was Mr Heatley’s party that did that. They are the legacy we have inherited. We are actively trying to move them on. We have been pretty successful, but there are still a few “McCully tenants” left.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could you just clarify this matter going forward. Yesterday the Minister of Housing said that 91 percent of State house tenants were income-related tenants, meaning that there are about 6,000 market rent tenants. This Minister said before that 99 percent were income-related renters, meaning that there are only 1,000 market rent tenants.
That is not a point of order. Please be seated while I am on my feet, if you want to stay in this Chamber. It is not a point of order. If the member wishes to elicit further information, then there are supplementary questions available to do so. It is not for the Speaker to clarify the questions or answers of members.
Hon Steve Maharey Link to this
What steps has the Labour-led Government taken to meet the housing needs of New Zealanders?
We have taken many steps. We have introduced income-related rents to make housing affordable, and we have increased the number of State houses by 7,652 to make up for the 13,000 that National hocked off—mostly to its speculator mates. We have introduced the Welcome Home Loan scheme, which has allowed 3,231 people to buy their first home. Through the Housing Innovation Fund, working in partnership with local government and other housing organisations, we have created hundreds of new housing opportunities. We have retrofitted 15,993 State houses. We have spent millions of dollars on community renewal, transforming suburbs in Christchurch, Auckland, Wellington, and Rotorua. We have many more exciting projects like those in Hobsonville and Tāmaki.
Barbara StewartHow can the Minister have confidence in the Housing New Zealand Corporation, which advised a couple on one income with three young children who meet the criteria for obtaining housing assistance that no properties were available anywhere in Canterbury, and that when they become homeless next Monday their best option for finding accommodation would be a camping ground?
I anticipated that this question might come from New Zealand First, and I applaud the party for raising it. I would like to clarify the situation of this particular case. The information I have from officials is that the family applied for housing only yesterday, they have accommodation until 20 March, they appear to have sufficient income and funds to rent from the private sector, and they want a particular house in a particular suburb in Christchurch. They will be treated in the priority system, where they deserve to be.
Can the Minister confirm that average household income across New Zealand is about $70,000 before tax, or roughly $50,000 after tax, which is well above that of those low-income earners whom one would expect to see on the State housing waiting list?
I can confirm what I said earlier: 99 percent of our new tenants in Housing New Zealand Corporation homes are on income-related rents—that is, they require a rental subsidy because they are on a low income. It would be great if we could move out the 6,000 other tenants, whom Mr McCully and his mates put in our houses; then we would have a smaller waiting list.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I asked the Minister whether he could confirm that the average household income is about $70,000 before tax, or $50,000 after tax. I did not ask anything about market renters or income-related renters. Can he confirm that that is the average household income?
Yes, I can confirm that it is the average income, but I would also like to remind everybody that we have Working for Families, and, depending on how many children a family has, Working for Families would affect their income, as well.
Can the Minister confirm that despite the Housing New Zealand Corporation telling this young Christchurch family that they should consider moving to a camping ground, the corporation has a number of vacant State houses in the province set aside for refugee families as they arrive, and can she tell the House why this Kiwi family is being treated as second-class citizens by the Housing New Zealand Corporation?
I can confirm, if we are talking about the same case—and I would be happy to talk to the member afterwards about it—that that particular family applied for a house only yesterday, and that they have accommodation until 20 March. I am proud that our Government provides housing support for the 750 refugees we take every year as part of our international outreach to people who are very unfortunate. New Zealand is one of only 12 countries in the world that does that, and I am proud to be a Kiwi in a country that looks after refugees.
How does the Minister justify the Housing New Zealand Corporation renting to a couple in Glen Innes jointly earning a household income of $90,116 after tax, and the couple in Panmure together earning $95,212 after tax, when close to 10,000 very low income families are on the waiting list?
I assume those are two of “Murray McCully’s tenants”, and I wish they would buy a house and move on so that we could put other people into those houses. I also wish we had the 13,000 State houses that Mr Heatley and his mates hocked off to their developer mates; then we would have no waiting list at all.
How does he justify renting to the New Plymouth tenant who personally earns $89,544 after tax, to the Nelson household earning $127,348 after tax, or to the Papakura couple jointly earning a household income of $89,908 after tax; perhaps he would like to consider those households in light of the other household that is destined to go into a camping ground?
I guess we have just heard about a few more of “Mr McCully’s tenants”. I wish those people would move out of our houses and buy their own homes, so that we could put some people who have a real housing need into those houses.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We do not normally get too wound up about these things, but I think it is inappropriate for this Minister to continually refer to some people as “Mr McCully’s tenants”. The Labour Government has been in office for 8½ years. Those people are Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants. If he were to apply the strict measure of them all, they are the Minister of Housing’s tenants—if that is how this Minister wants to go. But might I also say that this Minister is being asked very, very specific questions, and his political comments do not help the House maintain the sort of order and decorum we should have, when he resorts to the sorts of silly comments he is making.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
The Standing Orders require a Minister’s answer to be concise. The Minister could, of course, have said: “Those tenants who were given State housing when Mr McCully was the Minister of Housing and any people, no matter what their income, could get a State house as long they paid a market rent.” But that is rather long; “McCully tenant” is a lot briefer and more to the point.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I seek to have the Minister set out the actual facts. The couple did not approach the Housing New Zealand Corporation a day ago; they have sought to see the corporation for the last 2 weeks, and I think that is a rather important point.
Well, that is a slightly different point of order, but perhaps the Minister can address it when he is asked a question. As members know, the Standing Orders do not actually require specific answers to questions; they require them to be addressed. I would also prefer that members, when asking and answering questions, respected other members in the House.
How did it ever get to the point that, after 8 years of a Labour Government, it will still house tenants earning $80,000, $90,000, or $100,000 a year after tax, and allow those same State house tenants to purchase their own rental properties if they want, when so many genuinely needy families languish on the waiting list with next to no chance of ever getting a State house?
We have got to this point because that member and his party filled up our houses with people who could afford to pay market rents. I find it quite cynical for him to ask a question like that.
I seek leave to table information from financial review questions on tenants with after-tax incomes of $80,000, $90,000, and $100,000.