6. TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) Link to this
to the Minister of Housing
What reports, if any, has he seen in support of the policy of sales to State tenants?
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) Link to this
I have seen a number of reports, including a statement that the policy will “give long-standing tenants whose houses have become their homes the opportunity to buy the properties.” Additionally, “The sale of those houses and the purchase of replacement properties will assist the Housing Corporation to house more applicants off the waiting list.” These quotes are from the one-time Minister of Housing Phil Goff.
One report I read noted that the policy would “allow the corporation to manage the rental housing sector better. The policy of the Government, however, will continue to see an increase in State house rental housing. It will not result in a reduction of State housing numbers.” This is sound policy, and I thank the current leader of the Labour Party, Phil Goff, for signalling it so well in advance.
It would appear that the sales being at the discretion of the corporation is also supported: “There would be restrictions on the sale of individual units in flats or blocks.”; for example, if this was strategically important. I again thank Phil Goff.
I was intrigued and saddened to read yesterday that Moana Mackey was concerned that some of the replacement houses would be 10-year leases. Interestingly, a parliamentary answer from the former housing Minister Chris Carter says that he signed up 572 new leases in 2005 and 468 new leases in 2006. Although buying only 268 houses in 2007, that year he signed up 420 leases.
Mr SPEAKERTim Macindoe. [ Interruption] Members must show some respect to their colleague seeking to ask a supplementary question.
Far be it from me to give advice; however, I suggest that people who are confused about the policy seek a briefing from me—
—from Phil Goff, or from the former Minister of Housing Chris Carter. I personally believe that a coordinated approach to housing policy might be quite useful going forward.
Moana MackeyIf one of the Minister’s aims for this policy is to stimulate the building industry during tough economic times, as he said yesterday, when will the first replacement homes be built, given that the scheme does not start until September and he has no idea what the take-up will be amongst the very small number of State tenants who can afford it, and given the process that the Housing New Zealand Corporation will need to go through to identify or purchase land for the replacements?
Although I have the option to pass the answer on to Phil Goff or Chris Carter, who support the policy—
—I inform the House that the Housing New Zealand Corporation will be increasing the number of State houses by about 1,550 over 4 years. As part of the increase, which we have planned for, we will build, buy, and lease houses to replace those bought by State house tenants, who, for once in a decade, will have the opportunity to go into homeownership.
Let us see whether he will actually answer this question. How does that policy help reduce Housing New Zealand Corporation waiting-lists, address affordable housing issues, or stimulate the building sector, when the Minister is promising to maybe build an unknown number of houses sometime in the next few years, yet, on the other hand, has stopped the building of 500 State houses and stalled the building of 500 affordable homes in Hobsonville?
We have been very intrigued by the Hobsonville policy, which was first announced in 2002 by the Labour Government. It was announced about a dozen times, including three times in the 2005 election year and three times in the 2008 election year. When we came into Government, do members know what we found? There were no consents, no spade had hit the ground, and no house had been built. Members will be pleased to hear that the National Government has obtained consents. We are about to start the earthworks, and we will build some real houses in Hobsonville. [ Interruption]
There is no way that anyone can hear the honourable member seeking to ask a supplementary question. I ask for a little bit of order from the Government benches, please.
It is interesting that State houses are not real houses. How can the Minister be taken seriously on the issue of helping low-income families into their own homes, given that his No. 1 election promise for housing affordability was to ease the burden of mortgage repayments through an ongoing programme of personal tax cuts, and how will extensive tax cuts for the highest-income earners help low-income families pay their mortgages?
Although the member could access it herself, I would be happy to pass her the phone number of the Governor of the Reserve Bank, who will mention to her that interest rates are actually coming down.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We all appreciate the court jester routine, but the Minister did not answer the question.
I can understand the member’s concern. In fact, in a roundabout way the Minister did answer it, in that he indicated that lower interest rates make houses more affordable. I invite the honourable member to ask her question again, because the House was so rowdy that it was hard to hear the question, and I must say the Minister’s answer was not particularly well directed.
Thank you. How can the Minister be taken seriously on the issue of helping low-income families into their own homes, given that his No. 1 election promise for housing affordability was to ease the burden of mortgage repayments through an ongoing programme of personal tax cuts, and how will extensive tax cuts for the highest-income earners help low-income families to pay their mortgages?
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, not wanting to go to the substance of the Minister’s attempts at a response, it does appear that he is confused between rates and rates. Interest rates are set by the Governor of the Reserve Bank. Tax rates are set by the Government. [ Interruption]
There will be silence. The member has made his point. I think, in fairness, the question related to affordability of housing—it was a fairly long question—and I think the Minister in his answer identified a couple of areas, including tax cuts, that he argues have made housing more affordable. I accept he has answered the question.
I seek leave to table a statement from the new face of the Labour Party, Phil Goff, that is a quarter of a century old.
Points of order should be made seriously and should not contain that kind of language. The Minister will not continue in that vein, or he will not continue with his point of order.
I seek leave to table a document titled “Ban on Sale of State Houses to be Lifted”, from the Evening Post.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We on this side of the House get homilies when we attempt to do that, and you have not given a homily on either the attempt to table the Evening Post clipping or the attempt to table Hansard. I would like some evenness on this.
I will ignore that last comment. Can I just make certain, for the benefit of the House, that it is a document that the member is seeking to table?
Well, a parliamentary question is already on the record of the House. I accept that it is a few years back. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.
I seek leave to table the 2008 National Party policy promising tax cuts as an answer to housing affordability.
Having sought leave for the Hon Phil Heatley’s tabling, let me seek leave for that as well. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is none.
Hon David ParkerI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to address the issue of tabling documents that was raised as a consequence of the Hon Phil Heatley’s seeking leave to table various documents. I want to defend the right of Phil Heatley to do what he did. Mr Speaker, yesterday when you addressed the issue of tabling documents, you referred to the report of the Standing Orders Committee. Arising out of that report, a change was made to the Standing Orders to require that documents be tabled when leave is granted for them to be tabled—and I congratulate the Speaker on enforcing it. Another way in which the Speaker has improved the tabling of documents is to make sure that the document exists rather than is going to be created, and I congratulate the Speaker on that.
But, Mr Speaker, in respect of your desire to dissuade members from seeking to table documents that are already a matter of public record, I suggest that what the Hon Phil Heatley did was within order, just as earlier practice by the Opposition was in order. I refer the Speaker to the report of the Standing Orders Committee, because its wording was quite careful. It states: “The primary purpose of … seeking leave to table documents is to inform debate …”, and that is why, as a general rule, we should not always be referring to documents that are on the public record. I think the wording of the Standing Orders Committee was quite careful. It referred to that being the primary purpose, but it is not the only purpose. There is a proper political purpose around the tabling of documents. It ought not to be abused by members coming to the House with long lists of historical documents that are of marginal relevance, but the Hon Phil Heatley did not do that then, and the Opposition has not being doing it in previous weeks.
Mr Speaker, I think the balance to be found is that if people waste lots of time with long lists of documents, then you should intervene. But where an occasional political point is being made, the best way for the Speaker to handle it, in my submission, is to let it flow. Members have the right to refuse leave. It will be political, but this is a political place. The business of the House should be allowed to flow.
Hon John CarterMr Speaker, although we would not disagree with the comment that has been made, I draw the House’s attention to the very fact that your rulings on this matter have been very good. Indeed, you put to the House the last application by Mr Heatley to table a document on the basis that it was a historical rather than a recent document. Your rulings have been that we are not expected to table documents that are newly created. It makes a farce of the parliamentary system if we seek leave to table documents that appeared yesterday. In that sense, your rulings have been very even and very fair. You have not ruled out our seeking the leave of the House to table historic documents—I do not think I have seen you do that—but you certainly have suggested to the House that the last thing we should want to do is to table, for example, yesterday’s Hansard, as that brings the House into disrepute.
Could I speak for just one further moment on the matter. What I am saying is that we in the Opposition find that some of the imputations that are being made as to whether our conduct is right in seeking leave are offensive. We should not abuse the privilege we have in this House by seeking to table a long list of documents and wasting the time of the House. It is proper that we do occasionally use the tabling process to make a political point. So, with respect, Mr Speaker, I do not think that the criticism you made of Phil Heatley was justified. If he was seeking to table a great big list of documents and was unduly wasting the time of the House, it would have been justified. That is my submission.
I appreciate the honourable members’ points on this matter, because it is an important issue. The tabling of documents is an important part of our House procedures. The Hon David Parker referred to the review by the Standing Orders Committee, and I will quote from the report so that the members of the House are aware of what the Standing Orders Committee said. The review stated: “It is not desirable for members to seek to table documents that are already available as part of the House proceedings, such as replies to questions for written answer, parliamentary papers, select committee reports, Hansard, or the Standing Orders.” I have also made it very clear that I have considered it inappropriate for members to seek to table current newspaper articles or press releases that are readily available to members. But at the end of the day I accept that it is up to the House, which is why I may at times express my frustration at certain things being tabled. I do not believe I criticised the Hon Phil Heatley; I just sought, following on from the point of order from the Hon Trevor Mallard, to establish exactly what the Minister was seeking to table. It seemed that it was a record from 2 years ago. I then put the leave. The House had a clear understanding of what the document was—it was a document, we established. I then put it to the House for its decision on the matter.
I accept the point the honourable member is making, which is that I need to be careful not to make too much comment on these matters. But that was what the Standing Orders Committee said, and I believe that it was sound advice from the committee. I also think it is unhelpful for members to seek to table press statements from current newspapers, unless they are newspapers that the members of this House do not normally have access to, such as foreign newspapers and that kind of thing.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The only point I will draw to your attention is that the paragraph you read from was the same paragraph I read from. The prior sentence in that paragraph states: “The primary purpose of the procedure … is to inform debate …”. The Standing Orders Committee was acknowledging that that is the primary purpose but there are other legitimate purposes. I am just trying to draw the line in a little less of a black and white manner than the Speaker has been drawing it. I have no further contribution to make.