7. KATRINA SHANKS (National) Link to this
to the Minister of Housing
What critical issues in the housing portfolio has he had to recently address?
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) Link to this
I have had to address the issues surrounding the $2 billion deficit in State house maintenance that occurred during the previous Labour Government’s slum landlords tenure, where it diverted depreciation money away from upgrades, leaving the State housing stock in a sorry state. Yesterday’s announcement of an additional $104 million in the next 18 months will go a long way to making sure that families, our current tenants—many of whom have kids—will live in decent, healthy conditions. Phil Goff and his team should be ashamed of themselves.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to the extreme length of that answer. Yesterday we had one answer that was about 2 minutes long. That was a very long answer. The Standing Orders are quite clear that answers should be concise. The Hon Phil Heatley’s answer was not a concise answer.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I just point out to you that the first two questions today took nearly half an hour. The main reason for that was the length of questions being put forward by the Hon Phil Goff. If we are going to infrequently have long questions, that would be OK if it were just infrequently, but if we are going to have a restriction on answers, then, Mr Speaker, please apply it to questions as well.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
If the member had objections to the length of questions asked in question Nos 1 and 2, he should have raised that at the time. The fact that the question may have been overly long at question No. 1 is not a reason for an answer to be overly long at question No. 7.
Mr SPEAKERBoth members have raised a relevant point of order. I am troubled by the length of time some answers are taking. Some Ministers are very good at very succinct answers, but likewise some questioners are taking far too long trying to put far too many points into supplementary questions. I have let it go, but if members want me to curtail both questions and answers a little, I am prepared to do that. So I stress to members that if it goes on too much longer, I will stand and cut a Minister off if the answer to a question goes on too long—and likewise for a questioner.
I have had to address yet another unmet Labour Government commitment. As Phil Goff said, Labour had committed to build 650 new State houses this year. Unfortunately, the statement of intent that came out early last year from Housing New Zealand Corporation said it would have to reduce this to 530 houses because it did not have the funding. My understanding is that the corporation would have had to reduce it again to 475 houses because Labour never funded it for even 530.
Hon George Hawkins Link to this
Why has the money appropriated in the Budget for 650 new State houses, and reflected in the Housing New Zealand statement of intent, been cut by his announcement yesterday, and how honest is it to package a cut as an increase?
Housing New Zealand Corporation was never funded for 650 new houses; that is why last year it put out a statement of intent saying that it would have to drop it to 530 houses, and why it has informed me as the new Minister that it has funding for only 475 houses. George Hawkins and his team never funded 650 houses, or 530 houses, and barely 475 houses.
Tim MacindoeHon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member did not start with a question. We are going to be very picky about these things; we have to be picky all the way.
What is the new National Government delivering in this financial year, in light of yesterday’s announcements?
Let me be crystal clear. There will be a net increase of roughly 540 houses this financial year: 154 under Labour and 390 under National, which will include the 69 that we announced yesterday. Labour funded 154 and we are funding 390. How is it that we are doing better for State house tenants than it was?
Hon George Hawkins Link to this
Does he agree with the statement made by John Key describing State housing as “economic vandalism”; and how can New Zealanders take National’s commitment to State housing seriously when “National’s MPs inherently don’t have a desire to expand the level of State housing in New Zealand. It’s not an issue that is dear our core constituency.”, as Tony Ryall said?