10. CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) Link to this
to the Minister of Housing
Does he stand by Housing New Zealand’s commitment that the Tamaki Transformation Programme will not reduce the existing number of State houses in the Tamaki area; if so, why?
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) Link to this
I stand by Housing New Zealand Corporation increasing the number of State houses across wider Auckland. The number of State houses in central and east Auckland, which Tāmaki is part of, will also see that increase. In the streets of Tāmaki, where State houses are at concentrations of 56 percent, numbers will decrease, as State house concentrations of 56 percent are far too high.
Moana MackeyDid he, or anyone in his office, instruct Housing New Zealand Corporation to remove this document from its website after questions were lodged this morning—a document that clearly states the corporation’s commitment that a Tāmaki transformation project will not reduce the existing number of State houses in the Tāmaki area?
No one in my office instructed Housing New Zealand Corporation to remove that document off the website. The document was on the website. I am advised it came from a policy under the previous Government where State houses were allowed to be on quarter-acre sections, State houses had concentrations of 57 percent, and State house tenants lived in old and cold and mouldy conditions. I was ashamed of that 2008 policy. I am glad it has been removed.
I seek leave to table the document from the Housing New Zealand Corporation website that was removed this morning.
Mr SPEAKERWhat has changed that means the commitment to not reduce the existing number of State houses in the Tāmaki area is being undermined, as evidenced by the northern Glenn Innes redevelopment, which will reduce the number of State houses from 156 to 78, and even with another 39 owned by other social housing providers the number is still only 117?
What has changed is the Government. I cannot defend State houses being on quarter-acre sections. I cannot defend concentrations of 57 percent. I cannot defend having tenants in old, cold, and mouldy houses.
When he said yesterday that he would expect the tenants from northern Glenn Innes to have the usual “bunch of options” like relocating back to their community, does that mean that this document by Housing New Zealand Corporation is wrong when it states that “all transfers will be permanent”; and can I tell the community that they have the choice to move back to their existing community if there is a suitable house for them to return to?
My understanding is that the document has been removed. It is based on old Labour Party policy of quarter-acre sections, 57 percent densities, and old, cold, and mouldy State houses. We are ashamed of the document. The document has gone and I am glad of it.
I wish to table this document, which is actually from this week from Housing New Zealand Corporation.
I would appreciate the member making it clear—she wishes to have leave to table this document. The document is?
The document is dated 26 September 2011 and is general questions and answers provided to me in a briefing by Housing New Zealand Corporation, which clearly talks about—
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder, in light of that clarification, whether the Minister wants to correct his reply—
That is not a point of order. The member has already erred twice today raising points of order where he has attacked various members of the House under a point of order, and I will not tolerate that.
Can he confirm that the Tāmaki Transformation Programme under the previous Government was also going to utilise existing land better and was also going to reduce the concentration of State housing, but that Labour made a commitment to the people of Tāmaki that the number of State houses would not be reduced; and when was he planning to tell the people of Tāmaki that that commitment has changed?
I can confirm that that was the Labour Party commitment in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. Unfortunately, nothing ever happened. We are not having high densities, quarter-acre sections, or old, cold, and mouldy houses.
What will he do to allay the fears of northern Glen Innes State house tenants that they are being squeezed out of their neighbourhood because it is now deemed too valuable for them to stay in, given the halving of State house numbers in their community, and in light of comments made by his recently appointed Tāmaki Transformation Programme interim board chair, Lee Mathias—who also happens to be Sam Lotu-Iiga’s National Party electorate chair—when she said “Glen Innes is lovely, it’s just a shame it was built for working families from neighbouring Mount Wellington.”?
The only fear that Tāmaki residents have is that Labour will get back into Government, and they will have to stay in their old, cold, and mouldy houses. We are not halving the number of houses in Tāmaki, but we are not putting up with quarter-acre sections, 57 percent densities, and, as I say, old, cold, and mouldy houses.