Written By: - Date published: 11:15 am, December 1st, 2008 - 54 comments
Categories: health, housing, national/act government -
Tags:
Good housing is a foundation of a healthy society, and it is something that New Zealand has long lacked. Despite leading the world with our state housing in the 1930s, we have fallen behind. Housing in most other first world countries is much warmer and drier than here.
That has important consequences; a study by the NZ Business Council for Sustainable Development shows our one million under-insulated homes (two-thirds of the housing stock) leads to 50 admissions a day for respiratory illnesses, costing $54 million a year, 180,000 work days lost to sickness a year, and an annual national power bill half a billion dollars more than it needs to be. Poor housing leads to diseases of poverty, like glue-ear; to save on construction costs, we have paid an insidious, often invisible price in quality of life.
So, what’s to be done about it?
Labour made a good, if typically timid, start by insulating State houses and improved insulation standards for new buildings that are now coming into force. The Greens-Labour deal for a billion dollar insulation package would address under-insulation in older, non-State houses but it seems National is intent on scrapping that package for no apparent reason.
The NZBCSD points to the successful use of a mandatory house rating system in Seattle as another option. Home buyers don’t value insulation at present because they are often unaware of the insulation a particular house has or lacks, and they aren’t aware of the costs of under-insulation, both in health and money. A housing rating system informs buyers – increasing prices for better-insulated homes relative to under-insulated ones – and that encourages people to invest in insulation.
I think that’s a good idea but it’s never going to make a difference for the people who face the worse effects of bad housing – poor families renting from private landlords. Out to squeeze what money they can from the country’s worst and cheapest housing, the last thing on these landlords’ minds is investing in insulation from which they stand to see no direct monetary return.
So, a housing rating system is not solution in itself. To build a healthier housing stock, we need more government investment – more State housing, more subsidisation of insulation in private homes – and higher standards for existing as well as new buildings.
National/ACT has talked a big game about more efficient, productive government spending. Well, housing is a perfect area to walk the talk. Every dollar spent on insulation in under-insulated homes (according to a government study in the 1990s) saves two dollars in health costs alone. Add to that, lower power costs, higher productivity, more employment (perfect for a recession) and better education outcomes for healthier kids, and we’re talking great value for the taxpayer’s dollar.
So, will we see a bold series of housing initiatives from the new government? Now, that really would be a brighter future.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
PB,
Very droll.
SP,
Where do I hand in my membership card?
JanetDecember 1, 2008 at 5:38 pm
said ‘Mary on Checkpoint is trying to hold Phil Heatley to account on the new policy of capping state house numbers, quoting his words from September back to him…’
I heard that too – the behaviour of an arrogant, condescending little minister in an arrogant (small g) government. What I didn’t hear or see was any mention re state housing on the television news on any free to air channel (correct me if I’m wrong). News blackouts to protect government perhaps?
I consider this latest change a far-reaching policy reversal by National, yet there was no targeted visual coverage to reach people who don’t read the papers, the very people who will be most affected by National’s do up and sell off of state housing stock.
The million dollar homes will be handed over to the well off, the poorer state house tenants squatted into boxes and the divisive plans of Nact will progress, unhindered by New Zealanders who are still busy saying ‘give these guys a chance’.
Anne Tolley refused to answer a question on education – arrogant disregard for the public, via media, enquiry. Is this the future? Remember the Douglas 80s? The sped up policy enactments, happening before NZers knew what was happening to them. We didn’t know better then. We have no excuse to let it happen a second time.
Cutting Agenda which would have given future illumination on the current government’s actions and plans. TVNZ dumbing down still further…leaving just… Volkner .
The difference between Labour and National will always be:
Labour works positively and is inclusive. The result over time means a better life for all.
National works negatively and is divisive. The result over time means the good life for some and a cheap desperate labour pool for the rest to sink into.
SP said:
Well I think they should give a crap about it, SP. I’ve seen some tenanted properties with rising damp and I’m just appalled that anybody would live there. Frankly I think that kind of housing is just unsafe. I don’t know how people live in them. That is obviously a different issue to proper insulation but I suspect real construction faults are as much a cause for illness and energy wastage than insulation issues. Should we subsidise landlords who want to treat rising damp as well?
I don’t think so. I think it’s better for the state to identify housing safety issues and enforce them. I’m not comfortable with across the board, mandatory insulation rules because some parts of the country are warm enough all year round to not need it. In my home I’ve never used a heater (I don’t actually have one in the house).
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head, here. The state should be concerned about the poorest families living in sub-standard housing, and require those landlords to bring those properties up to scratch. I don’t think you need to spend a billion dollars to do it. Just a five-year phase-in period with severe penalties if they don’t comply.
Steve
No-one reads Engels anymore. another of those failed policies of the past
Tim
Why doesn;t the Govt contract standards with landlords? Guarantee a certain level of rent in return for specified standard of housing. That way the landlord has the certainty to invest and the stock of housing gradually improves, particularly at the bottom end.
Labour works positively and is inclusive… National works negatively and is divisive.
Ah, so that explains all those successful coalition arrangements between the MP and Labour, and why National refuses to work with them – thanks for clearing that up!
Phil: we’ll have to wait and see with the MP. Making a coalition is trivial compared to keeping it.
However look at NZF with National between 1996 and 1999 and the contortions that the Nats did to stay the course. Sure the Alliance fractured between 1999 and 2002, but that simply resulted in an early election.
So far it looks like the Nats operate like spagetti, limp and extremely flexible when wet. However I think that their coalitions will fracture like dry spagetti when they get a bit of a load on them. Certainly how they operated with NZF in the 90′s
LP, I don’t think your position is credible, frankly. You point to one example of National managing under MMp–it’s only example. Bolger also brought together a coalition in 1995 with United and the Conservatives, which was reasonably successful. Bolger also managed coalition negotiations pretty successfully with NZ First. Things turned to custard at about the time Shipley took over, but I don’t think that the “contortions” that National put up with, vis-a-vis NZ First, were any more wild than what Labour put up with this year from NZ First.
I think Helen Clark’s reputation as a master of MMP took some pretty heavy body-blows this year. She pu tup with far too much from Winston for the sake of holding together a government. If there is ever an example of wet spaghetti, then that was it.
Helen Clark put together a stable government from 1999-2002. During this time the Alliance collapsed, but Clark’s government’s authority remained strong. I think that was a good example of sound political management from Clark.
In 2002 she had the opportunity to build an agreement with the Greens, and refused. In 2005 she turned down the chance to work constructively with the Maori Party. I think in retrospect her policy of building the minimum agreement necessary went against her.
Key has built on Clark’s habit of more flexible coalition arrangements, open to a range from full coalition on everything and cabinet positions (the position from 1996-1999), coalition with agreement to disagree on some things, and full cabinet (99-02), confidence and supply with ministers outside cabinet, confidence and supply with no ministers, and agreements to abstain. It’s hard to see where else arrangements might evolve, but Key’s advantage–and Clark can take a lot of credit for developing these things–is that support options aren’t limited.
Where Key’s fresh approach is not to go for minimum cooperation, but to go for maximum support. Key isn’t happy with 62 votes out of 122, as Clark was. That’s why he’s gone wider. Time will tell if it will lead to a less fractious parliament, but I think your predictions of brittleness are about as credible as the cold water you poured on political opinion polling before the election.
Insider:
Yes people still do read Engels but don’t necessary draw the conclusions that SP does about more state intervention.
However, right now, old Fred would probably support state housing for obvious reasons. They are a small step towards socialism.
Red Logix refers to one aspect of it. Leasehold was a huge movement in the 19th century but it collapsed in the face of the great second Land Grab from Maori during the Liberal adminstration of the 1890s. Of course from that point on capital gains taxes were a big no no. In fact the reverse, for example high country land that has remained leasehold is now being converted to freehold.
But housing is something that can be tackled right now. State housing keeps land out of private ownership and takes a step towards socialism. It also forces all those landlords who get tax breaks and need more tax incentives to upgrade substandard housing out of business. Good riddance. Except of course Heatley is the Minister and not Engels. To Engels Question Heatley answer is: cap!
RedLogix:
I don’t agree that investors didnt contribute towards the housing boom of recent years. That’s because I include all those proverbial ‘mums and dads’ who dabbled in second or third houses, or went into doups to augument their low wages. Or who simply traded up several times. But add to this already overheated market the subprime loans that started to blossom over the last few years (Aussie banks leading the way).
Jum:
I agree with you Nats are shaping up for a blitzkreig under the pretext of the financial crisis with 3 years for a new round of shock and horror.
Back to Engels SP:
The answer is not to pin ones hopes on state housing (as this is a reform incapable of meeting workers housing needs) but rather advocate workers occupations and expropriations of vacant public and private housing.
“As it is not our task to create utopian systems for the arrangement of the future society, it would be more than idle to go into the question here. But one thing is certain: there are already in existence sufficient buildings for dwellings in the big towns to remedy immediately any real “housing shortage,’ given rational utilization of them. This can naturally only take place by the expropriation of the present owners and by quartering in their houses the homeless or those workers excessively overcrowded in their former houses. Immediately the proletariat has conquered political power such a measure dictated in the public interests will be just as easy to carry out as other expropriations and billetings are by the existing state.”
TE: The point I was making to Phil was that forming a coalition is the easy part. Keeping it together (as you’ve also pointed to examples where it hasn’t) is pretty damn hard.
Balancing the expectations of the MP and Act, plus the internal policy divisions inside of the Nats is going to be hard
Back on topic – the sniping about who’s got a better coalition can happen in another thread.
Indeed. It’s a policy intervention that needed to happen yesterday. The Fifth Labour Government may eventually have gathered the courage to do it, but it was down the list of priorities unfortunately.
I do accept that taking on a large number of landlords, even with the support of a large part of the electorate, is something that no government would take on lightly, and could be difficult. For that reason I’m not averse to a sweetner such as low interest loans to accompany regulation. We shouldn’t be paying the full price in subsidies however.
It might also be rolled out from the deep South upwards – Southland, Otago and West Coast in the first few years, then Canterbury, Marlborough, Nelson etc. It would also be good to see these loans tied to the property, so that someone selling does not lose the value of improvements – this is part of the ‘California model’ that seems worth adopting.
(and as an aside, it seems that California is racing ahead of many places including NZ in many areas of policy. We’re not the ‘world leaders’ that Helen Clark constantly claimed.)
Off topic again.
3 pm RNZ news John Key says has no idea what to do about the stranded tourists in Thailand. Phil Goff has to tell him – ring the Ozzies – work with them.
Did you ever see Helen Clark less than confident and decisive on any such issue?
Off topic again
Very sad news – long time staunch left activist Raewyn Good died this morning. A huge loss for the many circles she was active in.
EBP
Why should the Govt even consider stepping in to get people out of Thailand? Is there some danger in having your holiday extended? Did we race to get people out of the US after 9/11 or the UK after the tube bombings? There are other international airports operating in Thailand. This is nanny statism gone mad. Travel insurance should cover getting them out or their airline/travel agent.
On topic, I found this interesting comment re home heating from a story a few months ago:
“Christchurch Hospital respiratory physician Michael Epton said there was growing scientific evidence that people’s houses affected their respiratory conditions.
“What was not clear was whether targeted intervention, such as insulating homes, cut hospital admissions for respiratory conditions. This work needed to be done, Epton said. ”
SO if admissions don’t go down, the medical cost savings argument becomes a bit tenuous making the investment in insulation less attractive from a national benefit.
Highly publicised 2007 University of Otago research show that there are substantial health benefits. It also quantified the benefit, and found close to $2 benefit for every dollar invested.
The Otago press release is worth reading.
George
I know that’s what the publicity said but when you look at the study the benefit was actually 1.73, which to me is quite a bit lower than 2. He uses a long and low discount rate – 30 years and 5% when Treasury says 6% and 20 years, while on the other side Chapman says he has not included some benefits which could improve the equation. Seems to me there may be a lot of scope for argument about the c/b conclusions.
the health benefits looked ok on the surface but even the researchers said the change in hospital admissions was not statistically significant (which is one of the major benefits being claimed for insulation by the NZBCSD).
Many of the other benefits were self reported reductions in days off and well being, which may have been artefacts of the study (something noted as having happened in other studies apparantly) ie people thinking they are warmer and drier even though the temperature changes were not that great IMO.
One example was people said they had less mould yet the mould spore counts did not actually change, and GPs reported no significant change in visits despite a massive self reported change (which to me casts doubts on the other self reported improvements).
I agree with you that the study wasn’t perfect (and as most good research does) left a number of things unanswered.
A later editorial acknowledges the shortcomings, but the results are clear enough. It is important to note that only 30% of those who saw improvements were given the full insulation package, and that even the full insulation package offered was far less than comprehensive. The actual effect seen in raised temperatures was not substantial – approx 0.6 degrees higher mean temperatures to 14.2 degrees. This is still well below the WHO recommended minimum of 18 degrees. To take an uninsulated NZ home up to European standards would take substantially more than the $2000 spent. This is why we need a policy intervention that enables more than simply minor roof insulation but instead proper whole house renovations where necessary.
As you mention though, the benefits were quantifiable, and statistically significant in some areas – particularly respiratory symptoms and days off work and school . Not all areas of wellbeing saw such and improvement however, and the data on GP visits was unclear. Nevertheless, the BMJ and others think that the benefits of such an intervention is well justified.
Similar results were found in another NZ study that looked at an intervention to provide heating, and effects on asthma. The effect was quite substantial (BMJ, subscription, PDF) in terms of days off school, sickness, and asthma. We’re a sick nation, needlessly.
I’ve also just re-read the study and can’t find a figure that corresponds to 1.73. The article says “tangible health and energy benefits outweighed the costs by a factor approaching 2″. It might be there, I just couldn’t see it.
And of course, that is just the tangible benefits. Warm, cosy people are happier, and more likely to care for others, new research suggests. More reason for the left to support an insulation policy
Less likely to want to go to Queensland either…
This is why we need a policy intervention that enables more than simply minor roof insulation but instead proper whole house renovations where necessary.
Apologies for the product placement here, but I’ve already done up one house with
this product and I’m really impressed. Totally eliminates the need to reline walls and works much better than I expected.
Thanks George.
It’s completely intuitive to me that warmer homes are better for people. I know from experience with an asthmatic son. Though what really sets him off is getting a cold or sometimes Wellington’s cool strong northerly.
The surprising thing to me is that, despite the trumpeting of proof, the evidence doesn’t necessarily back that up. My suspicion is warmth is an aggravating factor not necessarily the prime driver of some illness, so we need to be slightly cautious in deciding solutions and who should pay particularly when the savings (like hospitalisation) don’t appear to be occurring.
Oh and the c/b analysis of 1.73 came from a separate but related paper by Ralph Chapman here http://www.otago.ac.nz/wsmhs/academic/dph/research/housing/publications/Insulation%20benefits%2031oct042.doc