Good morning, and welcome to The Nation. I'm Lisa Owen. Today ` keeping our biggest city moving. I'll talk to Transport Minister Simon Bridges about congestion charging, government funding and why some roads are going ahead while other plans are stalled. Then ` why some people are still living in third-world conditions in this country. This is Aotearoa, New Zealand. No one should be living in a house like this. I can't understand why you've got... people that are allowed to live in this condition and it's ignored and nothing's been done. We look into why so many New Zealanders are turning to boarding houses like these and talk to some of those at the coalface about what the government needs to do to fix our housing crisis. Then we wrap up the political week with our panel, Sue Bradford, Simon Wilson and Chris Simpson and comedians Jeremy Corbett and Paul Ego. Copyright Able 2017 It's great to have you with us today. We do love hearing from you, so get in touch. Our details are on-screen now. If you tweet, you can follow along with our Twitter panel, Manawatu Standard columnist Liam Hehir and Greater Auckland's Matt Lowrie. Use the hashtag #NationNZ. With Auckland's fleet growing by about 800 cars every week, the government and the council have finally made a move towards implementing congestion charges. The Smarter Road Pricing will report back on options for road pricing that could keep more vehicles off the roads at peak times. So will it be the answer to the city's traffic woes? Well, Transport Minister Simon Bridges joins me now. Good morning. You've started investigation congestion charges, but it'll be at least two years before you get through that, let alone implementing it. So is that solving any of Auckland's problems now? Yeah, I mean, of course, right now, no, because at the moment all it is is an investigation, albeit a serious one, more serious than we've ever seen before. And I think we've talked about this before, but if you go back to the ATAP, Auckland Transport Alignment Project, fundamentally what we're trying to do with council involves a range of things. It involves really strong investment in transport. We've seen that. We've got a strong, growing economy, so we can afford to do that, frankly. We've spent a lot more, and we're going to continue doing that, and the Budget gives us that. But then I think it is also those other things you're talking about. Better network management and what they call demand management. But fundamentally looking at pricing. But businesses say that we cannot wait the 10 years, potentially, that it's going to take. By 2026, and you'd know this, 32% of time spent in traffic will be in severe congestion conditions. We can't wait that long, can we? I think the answer is... I appreciate the frustration, you know, and I'm up in Auckland all the time. I'm talking with Aucklanders all the time. If you appreciate the frustration, though, why not push things along faster? I think the truth is we are making progress. And what you've got to do first is you've got to make sure before you have the pricing, actually, you've got the viable alternatives. So we're investing in a range of projects. So whether it is Waterview opening tomorrow, which won't be the silver bullet ` there is no one project that will be a silver bullet ` but will make a significant difference. CRL, the Northern, the Southern Motorways. We were talking about it before, but actually very significant investment in bus lanes and cycleways. All of these things over time make a difference. The pricing is a more medium-term project, but I think it is important that we come to a decision on that, because it could be, and the experts agree, it could be a really big part of the answer to this. But even if you go ahead with congestion charging, it's not aimed at raising extra revenue, and you've said that. So Auckland Council says it's now $7 billion short in terms of its 10-year plan for infrastructure. So where do you reckon they should get that money from? Well, I think we just have to look at where that comes from, and basically what we've agreed is an indicative list of projects over the next decade through this ATAP process. You're talking about 24 billion or thereabouts. There's no magic to that. And Phil Goff is making the case. It's an important point. Phil Goff is making the case. Well, actually, given the strong growth, bigger than Stats NZ sort of said a year or two ago when we finished that part of our work together, look, it could be more, and he's making that case. My point to you would simply be this ` actually, through the Budget, also through other processes, we've got $32.5 billion of capital investment coming. So we can feel confident. And that's great, but you're still short. The city is still short between $4 billion and $7 billion, depending on whose estimation you take. So let's get some straightforward things clear on the record, and I'd like to get through some of these quite quickly. The government has said no to regional fuel tax, no to tolls, so do you think Auckland should sell some assets to fund the shortfall? Let me be very clear. It's worth going through it. $20 billion of the next decade. Actually, we're there on our conventional settings, what we've done historically. The rest, what I'm saying to you, is if you look at the strong economy we've got, you look at our books, we're investing, I think, $9 billion over the next four years in state highways, $32.5 billion in capital in infrastructure in general. I'm simply saying to you, actually, I think in terms of the government's part of the equation, we feel confident we've got a bit of headroom and we're talking to the council about the projects and the things we can do to look at that so-called funding gap. So are you going to pay for the shortfall? Or are you expecting that the council will come up with it? Well, I think on that front what you've got to say is we're really investing strongly. I mean, it's about two-thirds of Auckland's transportation ` we invest in about a third ` are council. As we continue to do more and more of that, of course, we also want to see the same sort of strong response from the council. I think they've just had a budget. So where is that money coming from, then? Do you think they should sell assets? It's a simple question. Could you give me a definitive answer? No, look, I think that's absolutely for the mayor and his council. What do you think, though, Minister? No, I don't think it is about what I think on these issues. Ultimately, what I'm saying to you is from the government's perspective, we appreciate the import` it's the fundamental importance to a city and to Auckland of transportation. We're doing a lot more than we ever had, and, actually, we're going to continue that. But if you cut off avenues of funding, if you say no to a regional fuel tax, no to tolls, congestion charges maybe in the future, you've cut off those options, so it's one of two things, isn't it? You obviously have a direction you think they should head in, or there's no plan at all. So which is it? No, we've got a clear plan, and the growing economy's giving us the ability to deal with it. I'm saying to you pretty simply` But it's for the council and that extra money. Where is that going to come from? So do you have a clear idea where they should get that from? Look, I'm saying to you pretty straightforwardly on this issue of funding of transportation, actually, on our side we're investing a lot more. We're confident, and I don't think we need to be too worried, we're confident that that gives us the headroom to do more, to invest in some projects. We're talking to Auckland about that. I'm simply saying to you it's not a mathematical formula. It doesn't mean they have to do this or they have to do that. But as we do more, of course we want to see the council do more as well. But how do they do that more? That's the side that` I understand everything you're saying to me, but this is the question that you still haven't answered. Where do you think their share is coming from? Well, let's go through it. They do have a range of options. They've just passed another budget. I don't have the details, but I'm very interested to see that. My sense is, though, they are investing more in transport. That's really pleasing, because I think you've had Steven Joyce and others on the show; we have been concerned about what looked like maybe going down, but it looks like they're looking to address some of that. I think it's not a matter of saying, 'This in; that out.' But I think it's a matter of saying, in principle, as we do a lot more, we also want to see that strong response from council. And I think it's also, Lisa, a question of having a sensible balance, really, between ratepayers and taxpayers, between Auckland and the rest of New Zealand with our transport investment, because, of course, Auckland's fundamental, but we've got a whole country that we're concerned about. Let's look at some of the specific projects you're funding. The Auckland East-West Link Road, approximately 8 K's of road that could cost around $2 billion. Now, the original cost-benefit ratio didn't meet what your government would normally expect of a standard. And you've told the council, and Steven Joyce has told the council, to be more efficient with its spending. So why aren't you taking your own advice? Because I think some of that is not correct, and, actually` Some of your advice is not correct? No, no. The benefit cost of this project is 1.9 now. And I think what we can say is` No, hang on, hang on. Is it 1.9 now? Because at the time in 2015 it was between 1.4 and 1.9. The cost of the project has gone up since then, so the benefits have gone down, and it's estimated below 1. No, I don't accept that. So what is the figure? It's 1.9. Of 2015 figures? Well, look, on today's sense of it. Will you release that information to us? Cos that's an issue too. Yeah, look, I think all of this is public information. But what I'll also say to you ` just remember this on the East-West ` that, actually, this is a project that for a very long time ` appreciate the Greens, for example, have a different view ` but for a very long time has been the council's priority, it's been the priority that's come through the Regional Land Transport documents, it's been the priority almost universally of business, whether you're talking about the Chamber of Commerce` It doesn't meet your own requirements for going ahead with a project. It doesn't meet the benefit ratio that you would normally set. So you're making an exception for this, aren't you? I simply don't accept that. What we're talking about is earlier iterations of business case. We've seen examples of that this week where again there's been these sorts of issues. But on the best business case, on the options that were put forward, it's a 1.9 benefit-cost ratio. And I'd simply say to you` On 2015 figures? Well, I'm not sure, 2015, 2017. Outdated figures, Mr Bridges. No, I don't think that's correct. Okay, so you'll give us an up-to-date cost-benefit ratio? You'll make that available to us? Sure. The latest benefit-cost is 1.9. But I think we got back` But there are cheaper options, aren't there? There are rail. A third main rail link in Auckland, Westfield to Wiri ` that project, the assessment of that says the forecast benefits significantly exceed the expected cost. It's about $58 million. Hey, it's cheaper than your other option. It's got better cost-benefit ratios. Is it just the truck lobby that's stopping this happening instead? I think, Lisa, that demonstrates, and I don't want to get very complicated on these things, but what we're talking about here, that's a very early business case. I happen to be in favour of that project. So the business case on that East-West project is right, but the business case on the rail is wrong? With respect, in relation to both, you're dealing with much earlier businesses cases than the final ones. I don't know what the final cost of the third main will be. I think it's potentially one of a range of projects we should fund. I've made that clear to KiwiRail. But I come back to East-West. Why don't you do that ahead of the road, then? Because the cost-benefit ratio and all the benefits from that seem to be a lot more than the road. Well, we may end up doing that. But I think you've got to go through the proper process` May or will? May. But I think when you're talking about the East-West, we've gone through a very strong process. It's been a priority for many, many years. And I think` Your critics would argue you haven't been through a strong process, that you pushed it through even though the numbers don't add up. I disagree. Quite simply, I disagree with that. And I think what's also worth saying about the East-West link is that this is a project into not just the industrial hub of Auckland, but of New Zealand. It's incredibly bad congestion there right now. And this project will make a really big difference. The rail option ` do you know how many hours that will save in congestion? Do you know? Look, I don't. Primarily that's about freight. Do you know how many trucks it will take off the road? But I think the point on that, Lisa` No, Minister, this is important. Do you know how many trucks that rail link would take off the road? You're talking about the third main line? Yeah. It would take 400 trucks, heavy vehicles, off the road a week. But, Lisa, the point is this ` I agree that's potentially a really important project. It's got to go through the same strong process that East-West did before we fund it. It will be a budget bid. It's in an early iteration. But as I say, I've made quite clear to KiwiRail and to others I think that is a potentially important project that we should fund. But it's got to go through the same strong process East-West has and come out through the other side. Okay. So, in a strong process, there should be a flow of information. Now, you've been told off this week by the Ombudsman. Your office has been given a serve for trying to influence KiwiRail and holding back information about the rail project we've just been talking about. So KiwiRail told you didn't want it out there because you were extremely uncomfortable with that information. So do you believe that kind of information should be held back, Mr Bridges? I don't accept your characterisation of it, but I think what is true is if you look at` Everything we've just talked about, you've actually demonstrated why` No, do you think information like that should be held back, or was that an exceptional case? It's been put out, but I think, actually` Only after the fact, Mr Bridges. And not in full. I think, actually, what we've demonstrated here is exactly why my office was right and within its rights to say, actually, it shouldn't go forward. Because what it demonstrates is it was a very early ` I think the earliest ` iteration of a business case. It was materially wrong in a number of regards. KiwiRail's lawyers looked at that and said there was no real reason for it not to be released. It wasn't going to prejudice any ongoing negotiations. I'm wondering, where is the clause in the OIA that says you should withhold information because of ministerial discomfort? It's section 9B. Ministerial discomfort. No, no. Ministerial discomfort. Because your office was uncomfortable with it. Firstly, I hadn't even seen` Is there a clause for ministerial discomfort? I hadn't seen the business case. I wasn't aware of any of this until very late in the piece. But I think` So you complet`? Can I just have a go at the substance of what we're talking about here? Because I think ultimately, Lisa, there are really strong grounds over a long period of time in terms of convention, practice and the law as to why my office, I think, was right to say, 'No, this shouldn't go out.' And funnily enough` So the KiwiRail lawyers are wrong? They were wrong? Well, I think, you know, there are many views on these things. They're entitled to their opinion. I think, though, the point of this is we were and are entitled to be consulted on this and entitled to our opinion. But can I just get to the fundamental`? Do you think that your office`? Can I just get to the substance of this? No, no, this is the substance of it. Do you think that your office overreached, and as a minister you overreached in this? No. And I think what has happened today is a really good example of why, in fact, with respect, we were right, even though it is out there now. And that's simply this. This was a very early wrong business case in terms of its numbers, in terms of much of what it said. I happen, as I say, to actually be in favour of the project in general. I think it's one that is part of a range of projects that may well come through. But in that area, I don't think we did anything wrong. We're out of time. Look forward to getting that other information that you said you'd release to us. Okay. Lots to talk about from that interview with our panel later, but after the break ` why are so many New Zealanders forced to live in boarding houses like this? And what can be done to solve the housing problem? Welcome back. There are growing calls for tighter controls around boarding houses. A shortage of social housing and cheap rentals means more people are turning to them as a place to live. But desperate tenants combined with a lack of enforcement of minimum standards means some landlords are exploiting vulnerable people. Caitlin McGee reports. The smell hits you first. Flies cluster, cockroaches fester, and the stench of human excrement is the main barrier to walking in. But that's because there are no doors in this house, barely any windows and no toilet. But there are people, and they're paying to live here. This is not a house for anyone to live in. No working toilet, holes everywhere, most of the glasses in the windows is not even there. It's freezing in here. It costs $230 a week to rent a room here; and a decrepit caravan in the front yard ` $250. Local MP Jenny Salesa discovered the house after one of the tenants came to her office looking for help. As I was just walking through, coming to go door-knock, what hit me first was really just the smell ` the smell that came out. I found out a few weeks later that it was because the toilet is no longer working. And, you know, the folks that live here, the closest toilet is about three, four streets away. And, you know, this landlord still gets a lot of money from these very vulnerable people that have no other place to live. One of the folks that came asking for my assistance said that she used to live on the streets and this is at least a step up. from living on the streets. But this is Aotearoa New Zealand. No one should be living in a house like this. She then lodged a formal complaint with Auckland Council but even after the council posted an insanitary notice on it in March, the landlord, Gurmej Kaur Singh, still charged rent. This particular landlord has four to five other properties, but that's just that one landlord. You know, folks who have boarding houses, they don't have to register that they have a boarding house. We know in South Auckland already that there are lots of houses that are not rented out per house, but they're rented out on a room rate with whole families living in one room. The number of people living in the house fluctuates. Sometimes it can be up to 10 people. Some are out of jail, some have mental health and addiction issues, while others couldn't find anywhere else to go. The tenants we spoke to didn't want to appear on camera or be named. Several told us Singh would often take their cashflow cards to withdraw money. And it was a similar story when we visited another one of Singh's South Auckland properties at 65 Great South Rd in Papatoetoe. With no running water and no toilet, it too had an insanitary notice from the council, but also had people still living in it, still paying Singh rent. So, does she sometimes take your ATM card and withdraw the cash herself, or, no, you just hand over the cash? When I first met her, she wanted to do that ` like, ask me for my PIN number ` but a few people gave the PIN number, and she withdraw all their monies. On the day council and Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment investigators came to inspect this property, Singh showed up. So, you own the house? Yes. So, you are the landlord? Yes. Are you Mrs Singh? Yes. Do you realise that the toilet is not working in that house and there is no running water? Yeah, but water, no... nobody... somebody to make the toilet. Do you realise that the house at 43 Church St, the toilet is broken? Oh, everything is broke. Yeah, so why are you still taking money off people for living there? Who pay me money there? Pay there? Who damaged the house? You know who damaged the house? Singh owns at least five properties, and the rent from some of her tenants who are beneficiaries is paid directly into her bank account by Work and Income New Zealand. We've asked the Ministry of Social Development how much taxpayer money has been paid to Singh, but they are yet to release us that information. Since 2005, the council says it has received 22 separate complaints about 43 Church St. They related to filthy conditions, rubbish and caravans on site. But the council says the issues were always fixed at the time. My understanding is if it wasn't for Jenny Salesa's office enquiring and following up repeatedly with the council, then the movement would not have happened in terms of any sort of enforcement for 43 Church. It had to wait for an MP's office to repeatedly enquire and basically reveal the absolute extremes of this property before anything was followed up on. Renee Joseph works for the Society of St Vincent de Paul in Otahuhu. It's third world, right in the middle of our city. I'm amazed at the state of some of the boarding houses and the rentals around just for the fact that ` Where is...? Who's watching? Who's checking up on these things? There is a regulation, so MBIE or the Tenancy Tribunal, there's paperwork, there are rules, but there's no follow-through. I'm just astounded at the state. This house in 43 Church has been like that for years. For years. And I can't understand why you've got people that are allowed to live in this condition and it's ignored and nothing has been done. She helps vulnerable people find accommodation, and she says these are examples of what's become a widespread problem in boarding houses. So, people are living in rooms that have bugs, either bed bugs or fleas. Sometimes they're on the floor. Sometimes they're on a mattress. Sometimes they're on crates. Boarding houses are one area of housing Joseph says operate in no-man's land. The guidelines are so loose and poorly policed, that landlords don't even need to register their properties as boarding houses. And too often the power in the relationship sits with the landlords, because they know the tenants need them. And inquiry into the state of boarding houses started in 2011 and took three years to publish its findings. Many submitters told the inquiry... Their recommendations included... After the inquiry came out in 2014, then Housing Minister Nick Smith said the government was considering broader reforms. But change has been slow. What changes has the government made to improve rental conditions for boarding house tenants? Mr Speaker. Hon Dr Nick Smith. Mr Speaker, the government has made five changes in toughening up the standards required of boarding houses from the 1st of July last year. They're required to have smoke alarms. Secondly, there's a specific requirement for them to declare the level of insulation and for all such residences to be insulated by the 1st of July 2019. Thirdly, we have tightened the electrical safety requirements. Fourthly, we have introduced the new enforcement regime with a tenancy compliance and investigations team. And fifthly, we have strengthened the retaliatory provisions to ensure tenants have the confidence to actually be able to hold landlords to account for meeting the housing regulations. Nothing's actually changed. The situation's still the same. It's a complaint-based system. People don't complain. I mean, even in Auckland now, there's clear evidence that the conditions in the boarding houses that have been in the media at the moment are substandard. However, there remains a lack of... you know, what is being done about it? I don't think there's any consensus on actually what can be done. Clare Aspinall wrote her master's thesis on boarding houses. She says the issue is clear. The issue is enforcement. The regulations are there. There could be improvements to those regulations. However, the ones that are currently in existence aren't enforced. Auckland Council says it's made... and says it receives around... The council believes there are... but it... Last year a new tenancy and compliance investigations team was set up in the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to enforce compliance with the Residential Tenancies Act. Both the council and MBIE have their own inspection teams and often work together. And there is a tension between the national level, so the Tenancy Tribunal and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment do have the powers to go into boarding houses and address these issues. Also the local government does have the ability to. However, those aren't being followed through currently. Aspinall says Canada trialled a system where boarding house inspectors were accompanied by health professionals and fire-safety experts so there was a wrap-around service. But she says there's no political will for that here. I think there's enough documentation now that shows and acknowledges the government is aware of how vulnerable people are and that there is an awareness that there's a housing shortage. I don't necessarily think that that's the issue. I think it's the action that's lacking. 43 Church St is empty ` for now. After the council deemed it insanitary, police told tenants they had to leave or be issued with a trespass notice. The squalor of some boarding houses is not new, but a lack of affordable housing, a lack of enforcement and the greed of a few landlords means boarding houses like these have been able to flourish. It's a toxic combination that sees our most vulnerable people exploited. and consigned to third-world living conditions in modern day New Zealand. Socially, I feel like the divide has gotten greater. You know, how can we be...? I will get emotional. How can we be offering tax cuts...? How can we be offering tax cuts when we've got beneficiaries or people that aren't on a benefit because they've fallen through the system and if they do get into a boarding house ` a good one or a terrible one ` they're paying at least two-thirds of their benefit. I don't understand how we can be offering tax cuts to those on a very decent wage when we've got people at the other end of the scale who don't have access to social services, they don't have access to the mental health side of things that they might require, they're paying more in terms of prescriptions for their medication. It's not rocket science. It's really simple. It's just heart-breaking. And coming up next, we'll discuss just how common this kind of accommodation is and why so many people need it with Hurimoana Dennis, Major Campbell Roberts and Peter Fa'afiu. But first, Jeremy and Paul look at Labour's immigration policy. The big question this week ` can Labour cut net migration by 20,000 to 30,000 per year? Oh, yes, absolutely. In fact, if the polls are any indication, Jeremy, it looks like quite a few Labour voters have already left the country. It's a good start. Labour did drop, but the Newshub Reid Research poll ` good for Winston Peters. An all-time high. Yeah, but that's only because he's off on that tour of the Pacific Islands. You know what us Kiwis are like. We only ever appreciate someone when they're popular overseas. And he is a lot more appealing from a distance. Even though this one's good for New Zealand First, Winston doesn't trust it. How reliable are these polls? Oh, look, very reliable. I mean, you name me one instance when polls have got the results wrong. UK election, US election, Brexit, The Bachelor. Well, if you're gonna give examples... Let's move on, then. Let's look at G-Mop. Oh, Gareth Morgan's Opportunities Party? Yeah, they've announced their Auckland Central candidate. It's Mika. The dolphin? The dancer. Oh, yes, he's a pretty cool cat. Could be awkward, couldn't it? Mm. And finally, have you seen the video our new US ambassador Scott Brown made to introduce himself? Yeah, it was weird, wasn't it? It wasn't shot the wrong way on a phone, didn't have a pizza recipe, and no walk-run in it. He and Bill are gonna have nothing to talk about. Welcome back. Before the break, we saw some shocking pictures from inside some of Auckland's boarding houses ` places you'd only live if you had no other option. So why are there no other options for these people? Well, joining me now are the chair of Te Puea Marae, Hurimoana Dennis; the Salvation Army's Major Campbell Roberts; and Peter Fa'afiu, a partner at the Navigator Consultancy. Good morning to you all. Good morning. Campbell, we saw before the break, Caitlyn took us inside some of those houses, how common are they? Is this the exception, or are there plenty of them? Unfortunately, it is common. They're not the exception. That's obviously a really bad example of it, but there are many situations that people are in, which really, we're just... you know, you're horrified by what the situation is, but the inability to actually do something about it is what's really stopping it, what's really hurting, at the moment. Hurimoana, have you seen some of these places yourself? Yeah, of course. Look, we had some of our whanau; we put them into lodges and boarding homes. We ended up pulling some of them out because of this sort of situation here, but there are a few of them that made themselves known to the marae, but we got a little bit smarter about who they were, what they were up to. But, yeah, it is pretty common, and we're still getting people coming to the marae either looking for food, clothes or shelter. You know, we closed our doors last year in September, and yet they're still coming, and now we're dealing with homeless tourists. So, you know, nothing seems to have abated anywhere, but at a marae level, we'll do what we can to try and help. But they are out there, Lisa. I want to talk a bit about that soon, but Peter, why do you think`? I mean, what's wrong with our system that these places are still able to operate and that as a society, this is allowed to happen? I think there were two important words in that piece. One was greed and the second was enforcement. So, I think that out of that whole formative piece, I think those are the two things that are lacking, and as the experts in that piece said, I mean, the enforcement, the laws are there, the regulations are there, but you've got in a situation where local authorities are either overwhelmed or struggling with the enforcement aspect of it, and then it's simple greed as well. And it's human nature that we have people in our society who are taken advantage of, of people's unfortunate and vulnerable situations. Yeah. Campbell, do we need a law change? Or do you think the laws are there, we're just not using them? I think it's been said, the laws are there but we're just not enforcing it. And I think some of that enforcement is a problem. You know, if you've got 30, 40, 50 people in a boarding house and you close it, where do you then put them? And already the government's, I think has budgeted for $4 million for motels. Two, it was. Two, yeah. 2 million, and now we're up to, sort of, 14, 15 million and 25 million for the year. I mean, the problem is that we've let this thing develop into a crisis situation, and now we're trying to deal with the crisis, and we just haven't got the buildings to put people into. Yeah. I mean, you're talking, Hurimoana, about the fact that you've still got demand, and we started having this conversation last year when we filmed people living in cars, people who were working. And then also, Te Puea opened its doors to people, so do you think we're better off now than we were then or not? No, no. In fact, probably going to get worse. I mean, there's a lot of unknown out there, now. There's a lot of families probably still living in overcrowded situations. But the sad thing is, Lisa, our leaders have known about this problem since 2010. Quite explicit papers have gone up to Cabinet, and it was very clear about, 'Be careful. This is what's coming ` high-needs families, lack of housing, 'the infrastructure doesn't work, we've got some issues, 'and 2017 is when this is all going to hit the fan.' And here we are, 2017, seven years later, and nothing's been done. You've got to remember too, we've got families who have been humiliated, separated, kids have gotten sick, and the worst this is, is we had agencies and funded agencies and NGOs dropping their clients off at our place. And then when we did open our doors, we were told, 'There's no crisis.' And then three weeks, there is a crisis. And then they said, 'We went out to have a look,' and, of course, they didn't. You know, it's just inexcusable to think that we're now talking about something that they were warned about in 2010. That report was done by the Housing Shareholder's Advisory Group, and it was very, very explicit. Well, let's bring Campbell in on this. Hurimoana says they were explicitly told and you say they were told as well, so has enough been done? Has the government done enough? Absolutely not. I mean, I was part of the Housing Shareholder's Group, and I think there is a clear plan there. There was a talk at that stage. The prime minister himself said to me, 'There is going to be a crisis.' The prime minister now, Bill English? Yes, that's right. But that crisis hasn't been dealt with. I mean, in Auckland alone, you've got a gross of... We've been` I suppose 20,000 or 30,000 houses in the last five years we're short of, in terms of people who have come in and houses that have been built. That situation is just intolerable, and the action has been too slow, and it's just not been focused enough. Peter, the government would say it's spending $6 million a day in various types of housing support, that it's going to have, by the end of this year, just over 2000 emergency beds ` it's budgeted $180 million in the budget just gone for those emergency beds. If none of that's kind of solving the problem, what's missing? I mean, the first thing is that emergency housing and transitional housing on the housing continuum, is the pointy end of the continuum, right? So you've got extra services that are required for people in those situations, so that's the first thing. So it's not just about housing individuals or families within an asset, it's actually the wraparound services that come with it. The second thing is, I think there has been some good pilots that have been undertaken by the government in the last 12 months. One, and no doubt Campbell knows about this one, is the one in Lukes St, you know, Otahu, that's housing New Zealand's first emergency housing, purpose-built development, right? And then there was the Housing First policy to help homelessness in Auckland, and, of course, you know, government announcement with more resourcing going into that space. The question I struggle with strategically is, you know, again it's the pointy end of the spectrum. So what do we need to do further upstream, particularly in that social housing space that was spoken about, to ensure that people are not getting to the point where they actually have no option but these boarding houses. So it's further up the spectrum. OK, so, what's the magic number for social houses, then? If you could wave a wand and build a certain number of houses, what would it be? That's where, I think, in my opinion ` I'm going in the opposite direction, Lisa ` while we do need some more homes, the bottom line is these people have got high-end social issue needs, and if you don't address those needs, all you're doing is moving the problem from left to right. And we saw that at the marae, but one of the biggest problems, I think, is there's been no sincerity, no manaaki, no aroha in the leadership in terms of the decision-making, because, as I said before, I think it's inexcusable to think that people know about these things and have decided to do nothing. And seven years later, we have an issue. I don't know how genuine it is in terms of moving the programme forward. There was no plan; there was no comprehensive plan. Everything was all higgety-piggety. No one could answer our questions. So whose failure is this? Well, for me, the starting point when it comes to homelessness situations needs to be whanau. I'm not a fan of the agencies' need to fix everything, because I don't think that's what they're there for. They need to be helping those who need the help the most. Whanau should've been there first and foremost, and agencies should've gotten behind those families to support them, to support others. That's the first thing. But I think in the housing continuum, there are some issues there that need to be addressed, especially around the transitional and social hou` That's where we are. We're a marae-level, transitional, indigenous homeless-service delivery model. Our kaupapa very much is built around our marae and the protocols, and it went well for us. Campbell, what do you think? Should there`? Yeah, I think there does need to be more building. There needs to be 500 houses in Auckland ` social houses in Auckland ` a year, but there needs to also be affordable housing. That's the problem. Government's now saying affordable housing's 650,000, yet the median income's 90,000, and they're building on that basis. Well, we reckon that we need 15,000 houses built under 500,000, so that's, sort of, affordable housing. 15,000 houses are needed in Auckland now which are priced under 500,000. Now, that's not possible. And then you have the situation where government sets a number, and particularly around Crown land and Housing New Zealand land, how many houses we're going to build per year, but then you actually get to the doing, and, again, it's about the doing, right? It's about the action on the ground. Now, if you talk to the 'doing' community ` the property developers, the building companies, they're struggling at the moment. I mean, you're short on gas fitters, electricians by 6000. You're short of truck drivers by 600. You're short on other apprentices by a couple of thousand as well, so they can't pull them out of the pipeline quick enough in order to build housing. And then on the other side of the coin, you've got immigration. So what do you do? What do you do, then? Well, it's a balancing act, and, unfortunately, it's a balancing act that the government of the day is stuck with. And it's a balancing act that's been built up over the last 30-plus years, and you've had other experts come on and say that. This has been around for a long time, and, unfortunately, this government of the day has got the responsibility for now to deal with the issue. But are they taking that responsibility seriously, in your view? Enough? I think there's a lot` My personal view, I think there's a lot more clarity with Amy Adams as minister. That's my view. Versus Nick Smith, you're saying? I think there's clarity with Amy Adams and what she says she'll do, she'll do. I mean, a good example is around releasing Crown land, Housing New Zealand land down in South Auckland and other parts of Auckland. It's a policy that has been in the pipeline for a while, and she had released it and done it. So that's the type of minister that I prefer to deal with and probably the type of minister that this kind of government currently needs. While there's clarity, I think there's not enough strategy. I mean, what's happening now is not enough, so there needs to be a greater strategy which actually picks up what demand we're talking about. So we need to identify those numbers, we need to identify the need and then we need to have a strategy to actually meet that. Now, I don't believe that strategy's in place. Now, the minister's` Let's acknowledge that more work is being done, but in fact, 150,000 people have come into Auckland in the last five years. That's the size of the city of Hamilton. Hamilton has 58,000 houses, and we've actually put 34,000 in place. Now, we need to have a strategy which says, 'If we're bringing in 150,000 people, 'we need to have those number of houses.' We haven't got that strategy. So, what, turn down the tap on people coming in if we can't house people? Because there is some population flow you can control. That's right. There is some. So it's got to be a mixed situation. It's many levers that are needed here to actually make sure that we actually move forward, but you need to have a strategy if you have` Peter's quite right; we haven't got the structure that's needed to do the building. Now, there's no excuse for that, because we identified this crisis five years ago, and now we're arguing about whether there's a crisis or not. And that's just ludicrous to be having that, when we have the sort of pictures that we had this morning, to say that that's not critical. Well, is that negligence on the part of the government, then, if you told them six or seven years ago? That's right, because when you get these` Do you think it is? Well, when you get these papers put up to Cabinet, one would expect some attention. So from June 2010 to November 2010, there was a flurry of meetings, papers and all sorts, so I'd love to see what happened after November, but clearly, because of what we're dealing with now in 2017, not a lot has happened. And that's simply because there's been no urgency around any of this, whether they're having discussions, buildings things infrastructures. And I come back to the leadership, Lisa. It can only be one thing ` whether it was sincere, genuine and honourable. Because, as I said, families have really suffered, humiliated, kids have been out of school, kids have gotten sick, humiliated in front of their own families, and that's just not good enough. Are you opening the marae again this year? Well, we would love to do our bit, and, look, our board of trustees, our marae committee, our beneficiaries, we have a very, very big social conscience, and we see people like this just about every day, and we would like to do more, because we think at a marae-level we can do more. But do you need money for that? And are you getting any funding? Well, everybody needs money to do all of those sorts of things, but I did say to the agencies we would like to help. But I'm not going to be asking our whanau to come back and volunteer their time when there is agencies out there who are getting paid to do this sort of thing and they're not doing it very well. Just on that, in order to support the marae and the great work that Te Puea Marae has done over the last 12 months, I put a challenge out to the Pacific churches, and the challenge is this ` over many years, you've had your congregation pay 10% to 15% of your tithing, right? I think there's an opportunity now, where the majority of people are of Pacific descent, to actually give some of that back, whether it be releasing some of that tithing or actually utilising the assets they've built up over the years. So that's the challenge I put out to the Pacific leaders and particularly the Pacific church leaders. Government will do its bit, but you need to come halfway as well. All right. We're out of time. Thank you, gentlemen, all for joining me this morning. Stay with us. After the break, our panel Simon Wilson, Chris Simpson and Sue Bradford. Welcome back. I'm joined now by our panel, Simon Wilson from The Spinoff, Auckland; strategy consultant Chris Simpson; and former Green MP Sue Bradford. Good morning to you all. Morning. Morning. Let's start off with the Transport Minister, Simon Bridges. Just wondering ` did you hear him answer a single question that I asked him in that interview? No, I don't think he did. The minister's in proactive, 'we're doing things now' mode, and it's a little bit disappointing, because what they're doing now, as you talked about in the interview, things like the Waterview Tunnel's about to open, the East-West Link. There's still this extraordinary focus on motorways. They're not addressing the ways in which Auckland's appalling transport situation needs to be fixed. Chris, I think the thing for me there is I'm wanting to know what the government thinks the council should be doing, because they've cut off a lot of funding avenues. Have you got a clear idea about what their expectations are? The government's expectations around council is actually stepping up and` you know, supplying to transport solutions. But that hasn't happened for 20, 30 years, so it's a matter of who's going to take the lead on that. And you're starting to see central government that normally has had a hands-off approach to local government now taking a bit of a step up on that, and that's what I was hearing from Simon today, so... But not identifying exactly what he expects them to do. Does he expect them to sell assets, raise rates? What is he looking at? Yeah, and great question. And that's always the dilemma between central government ruling over the top of local government, saying, 'You have to do this to free up the capital 'so that we can actually get things built and things moving,' and then local government going, 'Whoa, central government. Stay out of our patch. 'We know what we're doing, cos we got elected; we represent out constituents.' What do you think's going on with that relationship, Sue? Um` Council and government. Well, I actually think the real problem here is that neither council nor government is facing up to the actual crisis in Auckland Transport. And, I have to say, parties like my old party, the Green, have been saying this for a long time. But, actually, until there's a really serious and fundamental structural shift to supporting public transport` And there's lots of good projects, good ideas that have been costed and looked at over a very long time that could be released into action. Why don't we have a rail system right up on the existing rail tracks through to Whangarei, for a start, taking all that population through the west? Why don't we have a rail spur to Silverdale? Why don't we start on that second Harbour Bridge? Why do we not have a train to the airport? Why do we not release the fast public transport expressways through to the west? I mean, everyone that lives in these areas knows these are options and have known them for a very long time, but there's a refusal both locally and nationally to accept that we need to go on a serious footing about this. And I am aware of the cost. I mean, the implications are huge, but Auckland will continue to congest over and over again; every new motorway, every new tunnel, everything that's built just congests it more. Simon? I don't think the problem is particularly local in that regard. The Auckland Transport have made it very clear that they want an urgent start on light rail. Light rail is the key in terms of moving commuters. And the thing that gets lost in a lot of the conversation about this is it's not an argument about ` 'You have to stop driving your car and everyone has to get on a train or a bus now.' It's an argument about ` 'How do you make the roads more efficient 'by taking a sizeable proportion of people off them? 'Those who can; those for whom that is efficient and practical. 'And how do you give people alternatives?' And you can't do it by building more roads, because then there will just be more people driving, more cars. Yeah. Well, the government is asking the council to be more efficient and more brutal in its assessment of projects. Do you think that they're applying that same standard to themselves? The argument in this case being the East-West Road versus rail. You've written a lot on this. Well, they're absolutely not. It's very interesting to see the minister declaring that there is a business case for the East-West Link that he says is 1.9. 1.9, by the way, is not very high. For a project that is entirely purposed around freight ` in other words, something you can calculate its economic value ` it should be 3 or 4. But the real reason, I'm sure, that we haven't had that third rail link that you were also talking about, the case for that released was that that makes a mockery of the East-West Link. The East-West Link is going to be our most expensive roading project ever, which, remember, just will be even more expensive than the Waterview Tunnel project, which was the most expensive ever. Yeah. And we're talking about nearly $2 billion there. The rail link is $58 million. It's an absurdity that we're not building that rail link for freight instead of the East-West Link. This links, Chris, to flow of information, shall we say? And the minister, well, I'd argue, had a serve this week about his handling of OIA complaints and his office's handling of those. Should we be worried about that? Because critics would say he's trying to put the lid on information getting out. And I think in the world that we are ` in social media, Twitter universe and all of that ` is that you've got to be very clear, and you've got to actually have the information flow anyway, because we actually know what's going on. And so government can't hide that any more, so they have to be forthcoming about what is going on, what they have and actually share that, because the reality is is that, you know, here we are, sitting in Auckland, and it's 30 years of miscommunication, mismanagement, and we're having issues which we clearly knew we needed to deal with. And you only have to go back to Dove-Myer Robertson, who was very clear about setting up rail way back in the '70s. Sue, does it worry you about the OIA and the flow of information? Oh, absolutely. I mean, this has been going on for years now, but this was a particularly egregious example of it, of not releasing information ` for fairly clear purposes after seeing the interview just now. You know, he didn't want it out there. All right. And it's really unacceptable. We're out of time for the moment. But stick around. After the break, we'll look at some of the things that could be hitting the headlines next week. Welcome back. You are with The Nation and our panel. Also talked a lot this morning about situation of people who are forced into boarding houses, Sue. If we have the same degree of problem during this winter, we're going straight to the election at the end of the winter, how much could this hurt the government, do you think? I don't think it will hurt the government much at all. This has been going on for a very long time. I think it will be even worse this winter, because the homelessness crisis in Auckland and elsewhere, actually, is getting worse all the time. The motels are full. Work and Income and the agencies are still struggling every day to find anywhere for people to go, which is how you end up with people living in these atrocious conditions. That woman should be prosecuted. That woman should be banned now from ever, ever rack renting to anybody ever again. Why is that not happening? Why is there no enforcement? But in terms of the politics of it, middle, safe New Zealand, that doesn't know the reality of what's happening in our streets and communities right now, our safe New Zealand that has its holidays and its nice clothes and decent income and a house maybe with a mortgage, they just, on the whole, don't seem to know or care that the government ` this government and, actually, Labour before it ` will not treat this problem seriously, and even the opposition parties are not coming up with serious programmes to address homelessness at the level that it currently is. I don't think Labour and the Greens understand the level of it. They're certainly not coming out with policies that will actually deal with it structurally, which is what we need. Simon, what do you think? I was going to say I don't think it's right that people don't care. I think what we saw last winter was that New Zealand went, 'Oh my God, this is happening in our country. 'This is not the country we think we live in.' But what happened was there was no effective change in the polls. So they didn't care enough to say, 'I'm going to vote differently about it now.' That's why you're absolutely right that it may not have a big impact on September. The political issue here is that, you know, as Hurimoana Dennis and Campbell Roberts told us, 2010, the task force then identified the problem; nothing's been done. If you have poll-driven policy and this kind of thing doesn't show up in your polls, then you're not going to address real social issues, real social crises. Chris what do you reckon? It could become a problem for the government if we start hearing these sort of stories over the next 100 days during the campaign and it was seen that the government hasn't acted, then, yeah, all of a sudden it will get legs of its own. However, it's a matter of how do you actually address the issue? And at the moment, you know, coming back to the points being made here, it's things like how do you actually wrap round all the services rather than just providing a house? They may have a mental health issue, they may have a drug issue, they may have other issues. So how do you get whanau, how do you get the whole support around that? You only have to look at the Wise Group down in Hamilton with the People's Project that have actually brought something like that together. So the government's looking at that and saying, 'Actually, this does involve family,' and coming back to the points made before, it's very much from a right-wing agenda, from a National point of view, this is good where families are stepping up to come and help and it's not just the bureaucrats, the mandarins in Wellington who are making the decisions for them. So that's... You're right about Hamilton and the Housing First programme that's being developed for Auckland. That will do the same thing. Put people in a house and put the right services around them so they can stay there and become functional. These can be great programmes, but they're tiny. It takes time. It takes money. It takes a real commitment. Yeah, and they are small. They're just so tiny. I mean, great but tiny. Tiny. The depth of the need is what I don't think any of the political parties seem to understand. I mean, they sometimes say good things, but we need to go on a war footing to address the housing crisis. Look at the workforce needs. Look at our unemploy` Why do we have so many unemployed young people? Why aren't we feeding them through and training them into where the workforce is needed? Why aren't we building 10,000 state houses a year in this country? Not just in Auckland but across the country where housing's needed. It's all very well to talk about lovely social agencies with wrap-around programmes, and, yes, that's needed, but if there's no physical house to live in, and if boarding houses or the car or the tunnel or the park or the bus shelter is the only place you've got to sleep, what's most important is that you have that house, and that's why we should build 10,000 state houses a year until this problem is solved. This is where New Zealand's been caught on the hop. So, in 2008, John Key was standing up and saying, 'We're losing 45,000 people, same size as a stadium each year. Gone.' And going through the GFC, all of a sudden we've come out the other end quite strong, and New Zealand's a good place to be, and we've got a lot of immigration, we've got New Zealander's returning home. We've all been caught on the hop, and this is where the answers to building houses are a variety ` we need more people to build houses, we need council consent quicker so they can get the houses built, and then we've got to work with the social agencies to get the people into the houses. All right. I want to move on and talk about the polls because that was the other interesting thing. Worst result for Labour since the last election. They polled in Newshub's Reid Research poll 26.4%. Can they come back from that, Simon, and do you put much stock in it if Labour doesn't? I think one of the things we know from elections around the world now is that elections are now volatile. Use to be truism in New Zealand that whatever you're doing in February of the election year or whatever it was, would be how you'd do in the poll. I don't think anybody can rely on that kind of data now. They are volatile. That was a very bad result for Labour, and they will have been shrieking and tearing their hair out about it. Interestingly, they've released their own polling data just this weekend, and that puts them at 32% with the Greens at another 13%. But it's all kind of within the same spectrum, isn't it? Well, that's a much better result than the Newshub poll. Yeah. Yeah, and the reality is the polls are going to close up when we get closer to the election. That always happens. And you only have to look at when Bill English was the leader back in 2002 at 24% and how he's increased. So it happens, anyway, when we start seeing them actually on the hustings, and it will get a lot tighter. OK. Let's watch those numbers. But it's time now for a look at what could be making the news next week. Auckland's Waterview Tunnel opens today, the Reserve Bank reviews the official cash rate on Thursday and the National Party holds its annual conference in Wellington ` that's next Saturday and Sunday. That's all from us for now. We'll catch you again next weekend. Thanks for joining us. Captions by Imogen Staines, Desney Shaw and Julie Taylor. www.able.co.nz Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2017 This programme was made with the assistance of the New Zealand On Air Platinum Fund.