The State Housing review

20 comments on “The State Housing review ”

• Comments are now closed

1. rich 1

   26 October 2010 at 11:34 am

   The subsidies to state house tenants are tiny compared to the cash pumped into the Ponzi scheme of house and land price inflation. The billion dollars of SCF bailout, most of which has gone to the owners and developers of overpriced land, is just a small part of it.
2. Hilary 2

   26 October 2010 at 11:46 am

   Hints of Mission Australia, and the privatisation of welfare that happened under Howard. And why couldn’t they actually include some real state house tenants in their advisory group, who know from lived experience what security of housing means when you are poor and vulnerable?
3. the pink postman 3

   26 October 2010 at 3:06 pm

   This will put the religious righteous bigots in charge of state housing.
   Only the “deserving good ” will be given a state house. Its a return to so called Victorian standards ,so loved by the political Right. A return to the class system with all its unpleasantness. Another attack on working people and the under -priviledged . Its one of the reasons that political Left must win the next election.
   • A Nonny Moose 3.1

     26 October 2010 at 4:29 pm

     When I heard “not for profit” on the news, I immediately thought “charity” and my least favourite charitable charity The Salvation Army and their homophobic agenda. Would they stop gay singles or couples from renting? Would they stop gay families with children renting? Would a condition of renting include mandatory service attendance and/or visits to “enlighten” teh gais on their sinning wais?
     • Vicky32 3.1.1

       26 October 2010 at 6:44 pm

       ‘. Would they stop gay singles or couples from renting? Would they stop gay families with children renting? Would a condition of renting include mandatory service attendance and/or visits to “enlighten” teh gais on their sinning wais?”
       Don’t be silly. If you actually knew anything about the SA, you would not say such absurdities. Gay rights are not all there is to life! 🙁
       Deb
   • Vicky32 3.2

     26 October 2010 at 6:37 pm

     You’re wrong about that PP… at least as far as the Salvation Army goes (they are not “right” or “bigots” and your comment seems to me to be kneejerk anti-clericalism. That being said, I am against the privatisation of HNZ…
     Deb
4. the sprout 4

   26 October 2010 at 4:48 pm

   same.
   would the Christian Soldiers treat so called ‘devil worshippers’ like jews, muslims, hindus and buddhists the same as christians?
   would they be hostile to athiest or satanist tenants, and if so, is religious affiliation now a criterion for state assistance?
   would they be penalised for exploiting their landlord status to proselytize?
5. ghostwhowalksnz 5

   26 October 2010 at 6:26 pm

   Im allready aware of faith based social assistance groups getting the go ahead for government funded housing .
   There is also the Kiwi version of ‘mega churches’ in on this.
   For the people they help, its likely that wedlock is in ,and unwed mothers or abortion is out.
   Destiny Housing here we come!

   Of course the catch is the government only gives them say 80% of the cost of a new house and land.
   Remember the government funded retirement villages, when they got sold to private companies the Masons and Presbyterian Support walked away with multi millions for only a small outlay. Hows that for leverage
6. Rex Widerstrom 6

   26 October 2010 at 6:31 pm

   How active, if at all, is Habitat for Humanity in NZ? If they are, did they get any say in this?

   Their model, which eventually gets people into ownership, not renting, is a superior one anyway. And it allows the poorest of the poor to still contribute something (labour, sometimes expertise) to their home, and that of others, reinforcing a real sense of community.

   If the current paradigm is up for discussion, surely that’s the model that ought to be promoted?
7. Vicky32 7

   26 October 2010 at 6:50 pm

   Habitat for Humanity is active is New Zealand – a few years back, a couple of people from H for H came to speak at our church. Yes, guys above *our church*. You’re all confused I think, seeing NZ churches as being like American ones – the churches I am in, the Open Brethren and the Anglican, would in neither case be interested in pulling any of the stunts you say you fear in your Christian-bashing posts (not you Rex! 🙂 )
   The Anglicans are leftist, and the OBs would have no interest in getting involved in housing. The SA already are involved in social services, and they do not discriminate against anyone, which is more than I can say for you guys! Shame on you.
   Deb
   • Lindsey 7.1

     26 October 2010 at 8:34 pm

     Vicky,
     You may not remember 1985 when the Salvation Army decided that some people were less worthy of basic civil and human rights than other people. However, some of us still remember the hate filled rhetoric and the vicious campaign that was waged against the GLBT community. We will never trust the Salvation Army again and are very worried at the thought of them having any more power over anybody’s lives.
     • Rex Widerstrom 7.1.1

       26 October 2010 at 8:53 pm

       I do remember that and I was disgusted Lindsey. They seem, however, to have gained a little enlightenment in the intervening 25 years, as one would hope:

       A disposition towards homosexuality is not in itself blameworthy nor is the disposition seen as rectifiable at will. The Army is sensitive to the complex social, emotional and spiritual needs of all people including those with homosexual inclinations. We oppose vilification of, or discrimination against, anyone on the grounds of sexual orientation. No person is excluded from membership, fellowship or service in the Army solely on the basis of sexual disposition.

       Homosexual practice however, is, in the light of Scripture, clearly unacceptable.

       Still some way to go… they seem to have arrived at a variation of “don’t ask, don’t tell”, at least at head office level. However some of the work I do brings me into contact with the Salvos (more often though it’s the Uniting Church) and most of the “troops” on the ground seem to have a more realistic attitude – namely that if someone is living a life of crime, homeless, abusing drugs, is physically and/or mentally ill and happens to also be homosexual, then there’s far more pressing issues in their lives to deal with than who they’re having sex with.

       Unless someone is actively hostile to your beliefs (and sometimes, even if they are but are at least intelligent enough to have reasons for their hostility they’re willing to debate) then I find engagement is almost always preferable to ostracism.
       • Vicky32 7.1.1.1

         27 October 2010 at 5:27 pm

         I have to say I am wholly with the SA on that – “don’t ask don’t tell” seems eminently sensible to me!
         That being said, the SA you describe Lindsey, is not the Army I know..
         I don’t like the idea of Public Housing going to private concerns whoever they are. Frankly, I would fear a liberatarian housing charity far more than a religious one, they’re far more likely to do the “deserving poor” thing!
         Deb
8. Vicky32 8

   27 October 2010 at 6:36 pm

   I just now heard Phil Heatley on 3 News whining about State house tenants “rorting” the system, and receiving huge taxpayer subsidies… (Heatley has a truly vile voice, as does Fatty Garner, who said that he knew Heatley was giving “extreme examples” but he had to, in order to make his point against Labour… (Something Garner obviously deeply approves…)
   Heatley didn’t AFAIK, name these ‘rorters’ but TV 3 showed the houses where they live on screen!
   Who knows why one person lives in a 4 bedroom house and pays $47.00 a week? I pay $47.00 a week, it’s the rent for a person on UB. It’s likely this person has had family move out and they haven’t been able to get a transfer, so not *their* fault! But are Bob and Jan Average going to realise that?
   Deb
   • Carol 8.1

     27 October 2010 at 6:44 pm

     Labour’s answered in the House that tenants need to have somewhere else to go live if they lose their state house – ire issues about not being enough affordable housing etc.. I think they had some other apt responses. But of course Garner did what Heatley was hoping and latched on to the senstationalist eg.
     • Vicky32 8.1.1

       27 October 2010 at 6:47 pm

       Exactly! Heatley must love Garner….
       Deb
9. millsy 9

   27 October 2010 at 10:44 pm

   This is nothing but a big election bribe for private landlords. With the World Cup coming up next year, a shortage of rental housing, AND a whole lot of low income tenants been pushed into the private market, property owners will have the oppurtunity to hike their rents up to unimaginable levels.

   Remember, getting a house to rent is now like getting a job, you have to attend an interview and all sorts.

   Captcha: disadvantage – what the most vulnerable people are going to end up with.
   • Deborah Kean 9.1

     28 October 2010 at 5:55 pm

     “, getting a house to rent is now like getting a job, you have to attend an interview and all sorts.”
     You do? Thank God I am not having to go through that! (Although my son and daughter in law are, no wonder they’re so agitated..)
     Deb

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 25 October 2010 at 9:41 pm
2. Housing occupation not a stunt « The Standard: posted on 11 November 2010 at 7:34 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS