4. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) Link to this
to the Minister of Housing
On what date did he make the decision to reverse the previous Labour Government’s commitment to the Tamaki community that the Tamaki Transformation Programme would reduce the concentration of State housing in Tamaki but not reduce the existing number of State houses?
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) Link to this
I do not direct the Tāmaki Transformation Programme board; it is a partnership between the Government, the councils, and the community. It does not direct the Housing New Zealand Corporation, which is a separate entity. However, the Tāmaki Transformation Programme does support the corporation’s moves, and so do I. Subdividing large sections, upgrading brand new houses, and reducing the concentration of State housing in Tāmaki to below 56 percent is sensible. So is increasing State house numbers by 1,400 right across Auckland, including central and east Auckland.
Has a decision been made to renege on the commitment made by the previous Labour Government to not reduce the number of State houses in the Tāmaki Transformation Programme area?
It is very clear that a decision has been made by the Housing New Zealand Corporation, which I support, to increase the number of State houses in Auckland by 1,400; in Tāmaki, to reduce concentrations of State houses below 56 percent, so that one in every two houses is not a State house; and to rebuild State housing in Tāmaki and elsewhere. We are reducing the number of State houses in Tāmaki, we are subdividing sections, and we are reducing the concentrations.
Then why is the commitment to not reduce the number of houses in Tāmaki still on the Tāmaki Transformation Programme website, in a document dated 19 March 2009, when he was Minister, stating that although the proportion of State housing would reduce, they would be “retaining at least the absolute number” of State houses—why is that still on the website today?
That might be exciting for members of the Opposition, but I have been saying for the last few days—and just so that people are clear—that we will no longer have quarter acre sections in Tāmaki, we are reducing State house concentrations below 56 percent, we are increasing the number of State houses across Auckland, and we are getting rid of the old, and cold, and mouldy ones. Have I made myself crystal clear about Tāmaki and Auckland?
Does he realise just how much time and effort went into consulting Tāmaki residents to develop a comprehensive plan that they were comfortable with, that reflected their vision for their community, which was handed to him on a platter at the last election; if so, why has he arrogantly reneged on that commitment to not reduce the number of State houses?
It was the previous Government’s habit for years to consult year in and year out, and do nothing. Essentially, in Tāmaki we are building new State houses on subdivided sections, first-home buyers are able to buy other sections, and community housing organisations will also get involved in Tāmaki. But we will no longer have excessive numbers of quarter acre sections in Tāmaki, and we will no longer have State house concentrations of 56 percent.
Why, then, did the National candidate, Sam Lotu-Iiga, promise before the last election in the East and Bays Courier that “the aim is not to reduce the number of state houses but the percentage.”?
Right across Auckland we are increasing the number of State houses, including in central and east Auckland, where Tāmaki is. I think the member has to realise that we have a difference of view here. We do not believe that State houses should be on hundreds if not thousands of quarter acre sections, in concentrations of 56 percent. We believe that State housing stock needs to increase in Auckland, and it will. And we believe that it needs to be upgraded, and that is what we are doing. If those members do not support that, that is fine. Let us go to the election with that view, and let us go to Tāmaki with that view.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was somewhat surprised that the question was allowed to go through, but your having ruled that it was in order, I think there is a requirement on the Minister to address whether he supported the current member’s commitment before the election.
Mr SPEAKERNo, no. The Minister said it was his policy to increase the number of State houses in Auckland, and I believe that was part of the question. No, it might not have mentioned Auckland; it did not mention any area, if I heard the supplementary question correctly. Where it referred specifically to concentrations of number of houses, it did not actually mention an area. The Minister, in my view, answered that.