Everyone applauds Labour’s homelessness plan … except National

Written By: - Date published: 9:56 am, May 5th, 2018 - 133 comments
Categories: housing, jacinda ardern, labour, making shit up, national, phil twyford, same old national, spin, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, uncategorized, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags:

Labour Transport launch Jacinda Ardern Robyn Malcolm Phil Twyford

I am feeling a bit sorry for National.  Being in opposition means that you have to always be negative.  If Labour announced that it is was as a matter of priority going to cure half of the cancers people are suffering National would say that it is discriminating against the other half.

The announcement of Labour’s homelessness policy had that feel.

The venue for the announcement was perfect.  Two years ago Te Puea Marae in Mangere opened its doors to the homeless because the need was so great.  The sense of Manaakitanga was strong.  And the response from the public was heart warming.  From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

National, and in particular Paula Bennett, responded to the embarrassment caused by a small marae showing how inept the state’s response to the housing crisis was by smearing the head of the marae.  The following passage is something I wrote at the time.  I can’t recall feeling angrier about anything else that Government did.

So in the space of a week or so Paula Bennett has gone from potentially being the next leader of the National Party to the person who has leapfrogged Nick Smith on the list of Ministers most likely to be dumped.

I am sure that Judith Collins is smiling from ear to ear.

Because put to one side how evil it was for Bennett’s office to smear Hurimoana Dennis in an effort to denigrate Te Puea Marae’s efforts to house families in need it is also so stupid for Bennett’s office to smear Hurimoana Dennis in an effort to denigrate Te Puea Marae’s efforts to house families in need.

I mean what made her or her minions think that secretly attacking the chair of the Marae was a good idea because the Marae was embarrassing her government?  The cause of the embarrassment was not the Marae, it was because tens of thousands of kiwis are homeless and this Government does not care and the Marae is actually doing something to help.

The most important aspect of the attack is that it was an attempted sneaky under the radar attack using a staff member rather than the Minister herself to release the information.  Maybe it was all a crazy accident but in these post Dirty Politics days it does not feel so.

And onto the announcement.  Which attracted a really positive response from everyone.  Almost.

From Radio New Zealand:

The government has announced it will spend an extra $100 million over four years to increase the number of places available for homeless people to stay.

But the National Party said the money was only a third of what it had pledged in 2016 while still in government.

Housing and Urban Development Minister Phil Twyford said just over a third of the $100m would go towards acquiring 1500 extra places to urgently house people this winter.

That included transitional and public housing and motel units.

The Housing First programme would get more than $63 million, to help those who are chronically homeless or have complex needs.

The initiative would put those people straight into long-term housing and provide wrap-around support.

Groups that help the homeless community in homes have largely applauded the announcement, including Te Puea marae chair Hurimoana Dennis.

“It’s just taking it out crisis mode and putting into manageable mode,” he said.

“They’re putting the money where their mouth is and this is a government that I think has got a social conscience and we’ll work with anyone who’s going to help us.”

Scott Figenshow from Community Housing Aotearoa said groups were finally being acknowledged for their work, especially with Housing First.

“All of this is based on leadership that came out of the community housing sector with The People’s Project in Hamilton was put forward,” he said.

“What is significant here is that this is a time when government has actually partnered with the community housing sector to deliver on an initiative on a different way of organising things and we’re quite pleased with that.”

Emergency housing provider Monte Cecilia Trust said the announcement was brilliant but it wanted more emphasis on short-term housing.

Chief executive Bernie Smith said emergency housing was crucial to long-term sustainability.

“Thirty-four years of providing emergency housing and Monte Cecilia has only seen three or four of those families not go on to long-term sustainable housing,” he said.

The filming on Checkpoint was outstanding.

The $100 million is made up of a $37 million investment to urgently increase housing supply this winter, and $63.4 million of new operating spending in this month’s Budget 2018 to expand and sustain Housing First services over the next four years.

But wait.  National thinks that it did lots more for the homeless and Labour will actually be doing less.

However, National’s social housing spokesperson Simon O’Connor said the announcement was not as ambitious as the government made it out to be.

“National was promising to spend three times as much in this social housing space so it’s disappointing as the number of homeless goes up,” he said.

“The government is actually reducing what National was prepared to spend.”

I felt the urge to check up on Simon’s claims.  And I found this press release that at least on the surface validated what O’Connor was saying.

But wait.  The urge to actually check the accuracy of what he said got the better of me.

The $300 million figure was the spend over 5 years.  It was made up of:

  • $120 million in capital funding to build, buy or lease properties suitable for emergency housing. $100 million of this was a loan to HNZ.
  • $71 million in rental subsidies.
  • $102 million for private providers to support tenants into longer-term housing
  • $10.4 million for more dedicated frontline MSD staff.

What can I say about National’s claim?  Well the $100 million payment to Housing Corp was a capital payment and was only replaying to it what it had taken in excessive dividends, the rental subsidies were being paid to landlords, the $102 million was $20 million a year and the $10.4 million was $2 million a year.

Whereas Labour’s spend is on top of National’s carefully calibrated minimalist commitment and is for urgent work to occur now.

The country is facing a crisis.  It is good that the new Government recognises this and is prepared to do something about it.  And work with community providers not smear them.

133 comments on “Everyone applauds Labour’s homelessness plan … except National”

  1. Antoine 1

    Motels eh

    A.

  2. Draco T Bastard 2

    Well the $100 million payment to Housing Corp was a capital payment

    Actually, the $100m was a loan. HNZ would have to pay it back – on top of the excessive dividends that National would be taking out.

    • mickysavage 2.1

      Right you are. I have tried to post this comment three times but had technical difficulties …

      I wanted to make the point that the payment came out of capital and not out of operational payments.

  3. The Chairman 3

    $37 million investment to urgently increase housing supply, yet $63.4 million going to expand and sustain Housing First services. Shouldn’t it be the other way around?

    Housing First believes that housing people first is key, yet there is a massive housing shortage. Twyford said the public housing waiting list in New Zealand was now over 9000 and heading for 10,000. And with the majority of that money going to maintain services rather that increasing the housing supply, it’s no wonder the housing Minister was appealing to the public to assist with finding homes. Clearly he isn’t providing a sufficient number of them.

    • Draco T Bastard 3.1

      $37 million investment to urgently increase housing supply, yet $63.4 million going to expand and sustain Housing First services. Shouldn’t it be the other way around?

      No.

      • The Chairman 3.1.1

        Are you for real? Care to explain why not?

        • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1.1

          The $37 million is to build up capacity immediately while the ongoing $63.4m is to maintain that which is already built. I’m assuming that they’re projecting that they don’t need to build up any more next year or that the amount needed won’t be extraordinary.

          • cleangreen 3.1.1.1.1

            100% correct Draco.

          • The Chairman 3.1.1.1.2

            $37 million to build up capacity immediately is vastly insufficient considering the massive housing demand, approaching 10 thousand on the waiting list. And Housing First is largely duplicating MSD and HNZ, hence creating wasteful and largely unnecessary overheads. Moreover, not all maintenance will be urgent, thus could be deferred until more in urgent need were housed.

            • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1.1.2.1

              Ah, you’re talking out your arse again.

              There’s numerous things to be considered:
              1. How much capacity is available to build new housing
              2. How much maintenance is needed now? National have been underfunding things for so long it’s likely that more than normal maintenance is needed now
              3. What else the government is doing to also address housing shortages – see Kiwibuild

              The first is a major issue. Throwing $100m into it in one year isn’t going to build any more if the capacity simply isn’t available.

              • The Chairman

                Inexpensive, prefabricated or kitset housing is faster and easier to build, thus requires far less capacity than building traditional homes.

                If the Government acted with urgency as soon as they obtained power, they could have had at least 5000 of them ready to go by now.

                They just haven’t got the will. It was a struggle to get them to commit to building more than 2000 (state homes) annually.

                If current urgent maintenance demands are overly excessive, the Government should have budgeted for more. Once again, there is little Government will for this due to their Budget Responsibility Rules.

                Therefore, the hurdle here isn’t so much capacity or funding (as both could be met if there was a will to do so) it’s more to do with the Government’s will (or lack of it) to commit and invest to deliver on what’s required.

                • ropata

                  “The Government” is more than a few MPs … fixing National’s homelessness crisis requires a major top down change to the massively neglected public service. I hope you aren’t the chairman or manager of anything real, you’d be a horrible bully

                  • The Chairman

                    “Fixing National’s homelessness crisis requires a major top down change to the massively neglected public service.”

                    Perhaps, but first we require a Government that has the will to do more to address the crisis.

                    • Michelle

                      Before the newly elected government dives in head first to fix the 9 years of mess left by the national government I would do a comprehensive review isn’t this good/bests practise. Check the cupboards first and then plan how to fill and keep them well stocked. Cause like old mother hubbard there could be nothing in the cupboard (but spin)

                • Draco T Bastard

                  Inexpensive, prefabricated or kitset housing is faster and easier to build, thus requires far less capacity than building traditional homes.

                  And this government has already started doing that as part of Kiwibuild.

                  If the Government acted with urgency as soon as they obtained power, they could have had at least 5000 of them ready to go by now.

                  [Citation Needed]

                  They just haven’t got the will. It was a struggle to get them to commit to building more than 2000 (state homes) annually.

                  Probably not. They’re still stuck in the delusional concept of private ownership of homes hence Kiwibuild.

                  If current urgent maintenance demands are overly excessive, the Government should have budgeted for more.

                  They have. That’s what this announcement was all about.

                  Therefore, the hurdle here isn’t so much capacity or funding (as both could be met if there was a will to do so) it’s more to do with the Government’s will (or lack of it) to commit and invest to deliver on what’s required.

                  Have you got any idea of what happens in a market system that is already stretched and the government comes along with unlimited money? Unlimited inflation.

                  What this government has to do first is to build up capacity in the construction industry – which is actually what they’re doing but it’s not something that can be done overnight as you seem to think.

                  As I say, if you think about the economy in physical terms a whole lot changes to your PoV.

                  • The Chairman

                    “And this government has already started doing that as part of Kiwibuild.”

                    Yes, but they aren’t as committed when it comes to state homes.

                    “Citation Needed”

                    Labour has previously indicated that KiwiBuild will ramp up to 16,000 homes within their first term before building over 10,000 a year.
                    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/100007343/first-kiwibuild-homes-ready-in-mid2018-phil-twyford-hopes

                    Therefore it was a rough estimate based upon that, roughly around 5 thousand a year. More if they had hit the ground running from the get go. Nevertheless, whatever the exact number it would be far more than what they are currently offering.

                    “They have. That’s what this announcement was all about.”

                    Which is clearly insufficient, as I’ve highlighted.

                    I wasn’t advocating for “unlimited money” so save your strawman.

                    While I agree the Government will have to increase capacity in the construction industry to fully get on top of the crisis overall, they’ve yet to fully utilise our current capacity and can look offshore to shore up any local shortfall to meet this current urgent need to house the homeless.

                    • Draco T Bastard

                      Therefore it was a rough estimate based upon that, roughly around 5 thousand a year.

                      Wrong.

                      They have to get the processes and capability in place first. Can’t just make 5000 homes a year without the capability to do so.

                      Which is clearly insufficient, as I’ve highlighted.

                      Which is you being wrong as you’re ignoring reality.

                      I wasn’t advocating for “unlimited money” so save your strawman.

                      If there’s capacity for $30m to be spent then going in with $100m will cause inflation of 100% or more but doesn’t actually any more built.

                      they’ve yet to fully utilise our current capacity

                      You may not have noticed but the construction industry is in full swing.

                      So, yeah, still talking out your arse.

                  • The Chairman

                    “They have to get the processes and capability in place first”

                    Of course, I wasn’t implying they don’t.

                    “Which is you being wrong as you’re ignoring reality”

                    The reality is the waiting list is quickly approaching 10,000 and Labour are struggling to commit to building more than 2000 annually. Thus, vastly insufficient.

                    “If there’s capacity for $30m to be spent then going in with $100m will cause inflation of 100% or more but doesn’t actually any more built”

                    You overlooked local capacity shortfalls can be shored up from offshore, thus alleviating your concern.

                    “You may not have noticed but the construction industry is in full swing”.

                    We have an underutilised pool of labour to draw on as kitset homes require minimal skilled workers to erect.  

                    “So, yeah, still talking out your arse.”

                    Assertions as such don’t strengthen your argument.

                    • Draco T Bastard

                      The reality is the waiting list is quickly approaching 10,000 and Labour are struggling to commit to building more than 2000 annually.

                      Plus another several thousand for Kiwibuild which has plans for more than 10,000 per year itself.

                      You overlooked local capacity shortfalls can be shored up from offshore, thus alleviating your concern.

                      I didn’t overlook them. I considered them a bad move for the Labour Party to make politically and that doing so is only a short term solution – one that hasn’t really been working. Need to build up the training regime rather than ignoring it as has been the case for the last few years. Build up a long term solution that utilises the people here.

                      We have an underutilised pool of labour to draw on as kitset homes require minimal skilled workers to erect.

                      Only do that if you want the houses falling down pretty quickly. Utilising poorly trained people in the construction industry is causing problems according to people I know in the industry. That especially relates to people brought in from offshore to cover ‘skill shortages’.

                      Those people will need training and a career path (ongoing training). They’re not just cogs in the machine.

                    • David Mac

                      There is a company close to me that build houses under a huge roof and truck them to their sites. Last year they delivered 56 homes. Not a huge operation, about 1 footy field under the roof, the houses move through like cars on an assembly line.

                      Going from 1 a week to one a day is not a big ask. The people don’t need to be multi skilled for an operation like this. Once someone has mastered building a set of back-steps in a morning and do so for a few weeks they can learn how to install a kitchen in a morning over the following month.

                  • The Chairman

                    “Plus another several thousand for Kiwibuild which has plans for more than 10,000 per year itself.”

                    Kiwibuild itself is insufficient, Evident by the fact buyers will be required to enter into a ballot to purchases one. Therefore, coupled with growing demand, one can’t expect that to help free up rental capacity when it can’t even cater to current housing demand.

                    “I considered them a bad move for the Labour Party to make politically and that doing so is only a short term solution”

                    It’s a stopgap measure to address an urgent need, which is far better than the alternative, thus I see no problem with voter acceptance.

                    “Need to build up the training regime rather than ignoring it as has been the case for the last few years. Build up a long term solution that utilises the people here.”

                    Indeed. However, what have Labour done since in power to further utilise the unemployed to that end? For example, we have houses built by prisoners, we need more training schemes like that (for the unemployed) on the outside. If Labour had hit the ground running, there would have been an early investment in that (as a front-runner to Kiwibuild) thus more of these training schemes would be on the go nationwide.

                    No one is suggesting utilising poorly trained people. I was highlighting (as David Mac picked up on) as minimal skills are required for kitset homes, it takes little to train them up.

                • dukeofurl

                  “If the Government acted with urgency as soon as they obtained power”

                  Governments cant spend money that hasnt been approved by parliament- theres a limited ability to move money from one project to another within Housing.
                  The upcoming budget is clearly the starting point for spending ( is it
                  a few weeks early this year ?)

    • Incognito 3.2

      Clearly he isn’t providing them.

      The binary thinking that’s so typical of your comments here is coming through loud and clear. Providing services and sustainable (housing) solutions and appealing to the public for assistance are not mutually exclusive. In fact, to include the community into finding solutions is essential. After all, this is a major social and societal problem that cannot be solved by Harry Potter Phil Twyford or the Ministry he leads alone. You really seem to struggle with holistic approaches and display a level of reductionism that I find impossible to reconcile with your voting for the Green Party. Then again, us humans are walking contradictions through and through …

      • The Chairman 3.2.1

        I’m not the topic, Incognito.

        If Labour had a plan to provide a sufficient number of houses they wouldn’t need to appeal to the public for help.

        • solkta 3.2.1.1

          Its those fucking faulty magic wands again.

          • Incognito 3.2.1.1.1

            Faulty thinking, more like it 😉

            • solkta 3.2.1.1.1.1

              Do you really think this government has had enough time to build enough houses to solve the crisis?

              • jcuknz

                It like the Nationals have not really tried.
                Motels are a short term quick fix and a waste of money
                Building container homes would be a medium term approach
                Building ‘proper’ housing as well is the long term solution.
                Labour is all gab without any substance.
                Edit .. I read the Auckland Housing AcCord in *5 are on the ball with useful answers

              • The Chairman

                “Do you really think this government has had enough time to build enough houses to solve the crisis?”

                No. But they have had enough time to be offering us far more. See my comments below.

                National have lowered the bar so low it seems they now have a number of Labour supporters accepting and applauding minimal improvements instead of demanding more.

                National will be laughing at us.

                • Matthew Whitehead

                  It is absolutely possible to believe the government can be doing more to address the housing situation without believing that current supply of new build houses, whether kitset or not, cannot be dramatically increased in the way you propose- (and I’m with Draco etc… on this- increasing spending on new builds without bringing in more builders and resources for them will just cause inflation rather than help right now) that basically means you believe the government is ruling out solutions not related to increasing the housing supply incorrectly, such as a proper capital gains tax, and other measures to incentivize people to view houses as homes, not investments.

              • Incognito

                My comment was about The Chairman’s way of thinking and commenting here. Faulty thinking leads to flawed ‘solutions’ and counter-productive measures. That is the last thing homeless people need!

                To answer your question: no. And to expand on this, building houses per se won’t solve the crisis IMO. Being homeless is not a cause but a symptom & consequence of deep-rooted illness of our society that cannot be solved by simply (!) putting up houses.

                • The Chairman

                  You say building houses per se won’t solve the crisis.

                  Luckily the Minister disagrees.  

                  “If we want to reduce homelessness, we must build more state houses. If more state houses had been built in the past decade, we would not have the levels of homelessness we do today” – Phil Twyford

                  https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/101917599/Up-to-155-new-state-homes-for-regions-ready-by-June?cid=app-iPhone

                  I’m merely advocating for what the Minister has clearly acknowledged.

                  • dukeofurl

                    Those families who are homeless including living in a garage just want ‘a home’
                    Its that simple.

                  • Incognito

                    No, the Minister does not disagree or agree for that matter. The one who disagrees clearly is you and you presume to speak for or on behalf of the Minister. You’re often presumptuous in this way. You cannot even formulate a decent argument and hide behind links, preferably from a source of authority. Most of the time, I find your comments weak and pathetic and lacking in imagination, originality and boldness. Occasionally, you surprise with a solid and constructive comment …

                    I’m merely advocating for what the Minister has clearly acknowledged.

                    That’s irony, isn’t it?

                    • The Chairman

                      Let’s see.

                      The housing Minister says: “If we want to reduce homelessness, we must build more state houses.”

                      Incognito says building houses per se won’t solve the crisis.

                      I wasn’t speaking for the Minister, I quoted him. And his statement clearly disagrees with yours.

                      I supply links for various reasons (one of which is citations are largely demanded here) but I’m certainly not hiding behind them.

                      Moreover, why would I hide from you? It’s clear you struggle to formulate an argument without resorting to personal smears and innuendo. As much as you seem to want to make me so, I’m not the topic.

                  • Incognito

                    Let me see.

                    A quote is not an argument per se, not even when from a source of authority. It is rhetorical tool in order to persuade.

                    An argument stands (or falls) on its own merit.

                    An argument stripped from its context is a disingenuous tool used by intellectually weak and coward people.

                    Now, I made an argument and all you did was offering a quote, from a different context, claiming that the source was disagreeing with me. This cannot be true; at most, the quote is inconsistent with my argument (but context is crucial) – unless you are Phil Twyford your comment is nonsensical. It is up to you argue the case and you haven’t and you won’t, as usual.

                    This is all about you; how you refuse to engage into genuine debate and become evasive when challenged. Perhaps you like to defend Phil Twyford’s quote, in your own words and in the context of the discussion thread here on TS, or perhaps not …

                    Actually, I’m tired and bored with your comments so save yourself the bother.

                    • The Chairman

                      No, Incognito. This is about the Government’s announcement. And I have partaken in genuine debate.

                      The quote presented wasn’t presented without context. As you well know, a link was provided. Nor was it presented as an argument. It was to highlight a point – I’m advocating for what the Minister himself has acknowledged.

                      You didn’t present an argument. You made an opinionated statement, I presented you with a statement that disagreed. Albeit, from the Minister himself.

                      And I’ll happily argue the case.

                      If we want to vastly reduce homelessness, we need to increase the housing supply. To which end, unlike you, the Minister is correct.

                      However, you do have a point of merit. There are various underlying issues why people and families become homeless. Nevertheless, there is a far better chance of successfully addressing these underlying issue when people have a stable base (such as a home) to build upon. Which is what Housing First is all about.

                      Therefore, if we want to better help the homeless, we need more houses to be built pronto.

        • Incognito 3.2.1.2

          The topic is how to improve the situation and come up with solutions to be tried or, at least, to provide constructive criticism.

          That makes your comment relevant and subject to debate even though it contains little of any substance IMO.

          BTW, winter is around the corner so that will have to be one Hell of a plan by Labour …

          Any suggestions, Chairman?

          • The Chairman 3.2.1.2.1

            The topic is Labour’s announcement. And of course my comment was relevant, it was about the announcement. It is yours that are more directed towards me and not the topic at hand.

            I don’t know where you live but it’s freezing cold now. As for solutions, it’s clear more should have been done a lot earlier. It’s a crisis, yet instead of working on through, Labour pissed off on Christmas break.

            For the fix, Rosemary highlights how in her comment below.

            • Incognito 3.2.1.2.1.1

              Of course, my comment was directed at you because you were criticising the announcement and, as per usual, not offering any solutions in spite of the Minister asking for assistance from the public. In fact, you were scoffing at his request. Moreover, my comment @ 3.2 was not just about your lack of offering solutions but also included my view on the actual issue.

              Indeed, Rosemary tries to think about solutions and comes up with suggestions and I applaud her for that. You, on the other hand, always take a negative view of whatever this Government does or doesn’t come up with. As far I’m concerned this puts you in bed with the Opposition for all intents and purposes even though you voted for the Greens, or so you say.

              What has or hasn’t been done, whether something should have been done “a lot earlier” or not, is largely irrelevant – ‘I told you so’ may make one feel justified and superior but doesn’t change the facts – and what matters is what is being done now. For the record, I think the Government has it about right for now but nothing in the announcement appears to address the underlying issues and (therefore) I think that it won’t solve the housing crisis as an isolated measure.

            • dukeofurl 3.2.1.2.1.2

              So Chairman and Rosemary are a tag team now. Who knew concern trolls work hand in hand

    • lprent 3.3

      You prefer to not house people this winter? Let them die in the streets instead.

      I have to say that as a representative of the Chairman class you really are a heartless arsehole. I suppose your idea of efficiency (based on your comment) would be to kill as many as possible from exposure diseases to reduce demand.

      After all that was the National party policy.

      • The Chairman 3.3.1

        “You prefer to not house people this winter? Let them die in the streets instead.”

        Excuse me? I’m the one here advocating for more to be spent on housing opposed to sustaining Housing First.

    • The Fairy Godmother 3.4

      We appreciate your concern.

      • The Chairman 3.4.1

        Pity Labour didn’t act upon it earlier. Without urgent intervention, it will only worsen.

        • The Fairy Godmother 3.4.1.1

          Action was taken in the mini budget at the end of last year so Ministry of social Development could prepare for this winter. I say Labour is on to it and cares a lot more and is doing a lot more than you.

          • The Chairman 3.4.1.1.1

            One would certainly expect Labour to do a lot more than me, they’re in Government thus have vast resources at their disposal and the ability to fast track any required legislation.

            I’m not implying Labour have done nothing, it’s just National have lowered the bar so low it seems they now have a number of Labour supporters accepting and applauding minimal improvements instead of demanding more.

            National will be laughing at us.

    • mickysavage 3.5

      Hey the Chairman.

      Heard about Kiwibuild?

  4. Enough is Enough 4

    More money for Motels is hardly fixing the problem

    • solkta 4.1

      Yes, that’s right, they should only look at permanent solutions. So some families will need to spend the winter living in their cars or under a bridge, big deal. Actually, why bother with this issue at all?

    • AsleepWhileWalking 4.2

      When MSD merged/took over from HNZ the emergency housing throughout the country was immediately overrun.

      This will take time to undo, he nice the need for motels.

      Living in a car is stressful, expensive, and very demoralising. During winter there is more condensation to deal with even with windows slightly open.

  5. Rosemary McDonald 5

    Applause from everyone except National….and Auckland Action Against Poverty

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/356693/govt-s-use-of-motels-morally-irresponsible-housing-advocate

    “But the group Auckland Action Against Poverty said that was a drop in the bucket of what was really needed and using it for expensive hotel accommodation limited how far it would go.

    “Ultimately hotels are proft driven. They are an industry that is charging government a few hundred bucks per person per night when that money could be going into providing other forms of emergency housing,” said Ricardo Menéndez March.

    Hotels and motels did not have the other services that long term homeless might need such as budgeting, medical or mental health support, Mr Menéndez March said.

    Prefab homes could be built quickly and cheaply on public land and the government should invest in them instead, he said.

    “A couple of builders could put a prefab house up in say less than two weeks which would provide an asset to the government and a form of emergency housing.” ”

    What I am waiting to hear is that this government has somehow found a way of sourcing buildings materials at costs less than the hugely inflated ones we are expected to pay and get on with building houses.

    • The Chairman 5.1

      Indeed, Rosemary. Coupled with my post at 3 we shouldn’t be applauding this, we should be all telling Labour to do better.

      • lprent 5.1.1

        The problem is that there are so many things that they could be doing better on because National certainly didn’t even try to.

        But these all take time and resources to get started. And in the short term the Labour focus will be to reduce the disease and deaths from lack of roofs while they start building some.

        • The Chairman 5.1.1.1

          “But these all take time and resources to get started”

          Yes, but they clearly failed to act with urgency. They could have postponed their Christmas break and worked with urgency to construct or bring in ready made temporary stay container homes, cabins etc.

          • Incognito 5.1.1.1.1

            They could, they should, I told you so …

            Who is “they” anyway? Phil Twyford? NZH?

            What do you know about what “they” have been doing over the Christmas break? Why single out this period? To me you come across as bordering on vindictive towards this Government. Why?

        • Rosemary McDonald 5.1.1.2

          I guess what would be my ideal is to remove completely the involvement and influence of the “market”.

          Allowing the “market” to rule unfettered for the past three decades has brought us to this.

          The only way out is to remove that factor.

          If this results in some kind of real estate apocalypse…so be it.

          Those bastards claiming the corporate welfare of Accommodation Allowance sustained rents have fed from the trough for way too long.

          Off with their heads.

          Back to my knitting.

        • cleangreen 5.1.1.3

          Correct Iprent,

          We need to give labour time to ‘defuse all those grenades left’ by National’, as they are daily digging up more horrible funding gaps and holes left without any adequate funding by the last government as we saw over the lack of hospitals, schools rail and road funding deficits.

          ‘National promised a lot but never funded them’ simple as that.

          it was a ploy to gain votes and nothing else.

          Let Labour sort out nine years of “deferred maintenance on all our assets including housing’

          • The Chairman 5.1.1.3.1

            Seems it wasn’t only a ploy to gain votes, cleangreen.

            National have lowered the bar so low it seems they now have a number of Labour supporters accepting and applauding minimal improvements instead of demanding more.

            National will be laughing at us.

    • Ad 5.2

      Always love these nut jobs who think, hey this could all be solved if we all just gang together, y’know, a few mates on a Saturday, a few hammers, knock up a few shacks in a paddock, a tap here and a sink there and Bob’s you’re uncle … then at the end of the long day, laugh into the sun, clink their beers together, and let the tv cameras roll in like another great The Block/Kirstin Dirksen Tiny House special, and welcome one deserving smiling family of poor brown people in. Poverty solved, cheers.

      The ignorance in that kind of thinking of the scale this Minister is managing just bogglingly stupid.

      What the Minister is doing is starting to get his arms around is managing an entire housing rental market. Millions of people. That means rentals and rental costs, emergency accommodation, proper NGO support, accommodation allowances, peak demand management, rental quality reform, renter rights, Council engagement, truancy reform, drug addiction reform, prison reform – every element and every agency one could think of.

      If those serial complainers want to take Action Against Poverty in accommodation, they should resign and take their tools and their back-slapping beers over to Housing For Humanity and do some work building stuff.

      • Rosemary McDonald 5.2.1

        Oh…so tinkering around the edges while the developers get their shit together is the way to go Ad?

        That’s going to do it.

        • Ad 5.2.1.1

          Your problem is the same as a few others here. You’re impatient. Fair enough. Impatience is a good political thing, so long as you’re doing something not whining about it.

          But calling this governments’ action “tinkering” is just pathetic.

          Yesterday I had to spend a while assembling just a few of the housing announcements since the election in one place to some fool who couldn’t be bothered looking them up themselves.

          Unless you have a hammer in your hand, see if you can find all the initiatives done in the last 6 months at http://www.beehive.govt.nz and knit ad the same time.

          • Rosemary McDonald 5.2.1.1.1

            And yet, Ad…you completely fail to address my major issue which is the continued obeisance paid to the “market”.

            How much many more homes can be built for those who desperately need them, now, if one completely and utterly does this work without any profit being made by any person or company?

            I’m struggling to find any reports of new housing that is not in the hands of developers of some form.

            And Menedez March is right…paying hotels and motels is furnishing profit.

            I see where his disappointment is coming from.

            Oh, and Ad….enough with the “nutjobs” and “pathetic” eh? Insulting those who might not agree with you is simply rude and undermines your position.

            • dukeofurl 5.2.1.1.1.1

              “I’m struggling to find any reports of new housing that is not in the hands of developers of some form.”

              You havent been looking !
              ‘https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/103458716/first-18-kiwibuild-houses-under-construction-in-south-auckland

              This suburb has been running for some time under nationals format of ‘Socialising the profits’, where HNZ put in infrastructure and super lots were sold to developers who onsold new homes to private owners. ( Banks are extremely reluctant to lend to owners who build on their own land)

              Kiwibuild will select owners by ballot and sell direct

        • Louis 5.2.1.2

          so you dont want people to have some roof over their heads this winter Rosemary?

      • The Chairman 5.2.2

        “Hey this could all be solved if we all just gang together, y’know, a few mates on a Saturday, a few hammers, knock up a few shacks in a paddock, a tap here and a sink there and Bob’s you’re uncle “

        That sounds like you are referring to the public appeal in Labour’s announcement.

        I’m talking about having a Government with a robust plan of urgency willing to fast-track and invest in what needs to be done now. And this should have all began when they obtained power, instead of pissing off on Christmas break. Moreover, the groundwork should have largely been done in preparation, thus ready and in waiting while they were in opposition. They largely knew what they were going to be in for from the get go.

        • Rosemary McDonald 5.2.2.1

          “I’m talking about having a Government with a robust plan of urgency willing to fast-track and invest in what needs to be done now. And this should have all began when they obtained power, instead of pissing off on Christmas break. Moreover, the groundwork should have largely been done in preparation, thus ready and in waiting while they were in opposition. They largely knew what they were going to be in for from the get go.”

          This.

          They could have, should have hit the ground running.

          • Louis 5.2.2.1.1

            The new government also said it was far worse than they anticipated. Wow that’s quite an unreasonable attitude you have Rosemary. The new government don’t have unlimited resources and magic wands.

            And

            “pissing off on Christmas break”

            seriously!!??

            • The Chairman 5.2.2.1.1.1

              The Government was aware it was a crisis before it obtained power. And without urgent intervention they should have anticipated it was only going to get worse.

              While the Government doesn’t have unlimited resources, it is the Government thus has the resources to address this. What they don’t have is the will to give it the urgent attention it requires.

              • Incognito

                Representative democracy is such a wonderful thing: we elect our so-called representatives to solve all our problems for us and blame them for everything they do. And because we expect Governments to do what Governments are supposed to do they will always fall short of what they should do. It assumes a position of helpless powerless citizens who are dependent and easily victimised. No wonder our democracy is in such a bad state.

                I don’t even know why I bother replying to you because you have already said that you are a binary B & W kind of guy when it comes to politics and political promises. You remind me of my late grandmother, a bitter and judgemental woman, who always found fault with something and particularly with somebody; nothing and nobody was ever good enough.

          • dukeofurl 5.2.2.1.2

            “They could have, should have hit the ground running.”

            Thats coming from a person who hasnt built a thing. As opposition they dont have the resources to go beyond ‘running shoes’ let alone a complex operation like development.
            To let contracts you need plans, and consents, ( a notorious area for delays) and have contractors ready to start ( not easy in the current boom conditions)

            • Rosemary McDonald 5.2.2.1.2.1

              “Thats coming from a person who hasnt built a thing. ”

              Excuse me?

              • dukeofurl

                You are ignorant.
                I have been involved with developers, councils, construction etc over last 15 years.
                Your projects were ?

      • AsleepWhileWalking 5.2.3

        Nice.

      • Graeme 5.2.4

        “Always love these nut jobs who think, hey this could all be solved if we all just gang together, y’know, a few mates on a Saturday, a few hammers, knock up a few shacks in a paddock, a tap here and a sink there and Bob’s you’re uncle … then at the end of the long day, laugh into the sun, clink their beers together, and let the tv cameras roll in like another great The Block/Kirstin Dirksen Tiny House special, and welcome one deserving smiling family of poor brown people in. Poverty solved, cheers.”

        Mortgage porn has a lot to answer for…

        Add to that everyone’s favourite newspaper who’ve started a new section devoted to stoking the property market https://www.oneroof.co.nz/news?type=LatestNews

    • jcuknz 5.3

      +1000 to both Rosemary and The Chairman. Britain did this with their housing crisis after WWII…. a medium term solution while they build better housing which takes longer.

      • Louis 5.3.1

        Did what? try to use whatever resources we have right now to get roofs over peoples heads this winter?

  6. David Mac 6

    The real estate pages in the Herald have run 2 headlines on the same day, several times now.

    “First home buyer numbers rising’

    and

    ‘Rental Shortage and rising rents in X.’

    I fear our housing problems are going to get much worse before they get better. Purchase prices are easing, first home buyers are able to climb on the ladder. What can they afford? What are they buying? Hammered ex rentals. Talk to a property manager, their portfolios are shrinking.

    The government announced last week that they are going to outlaw what is known as negative gearing via an investment property. Fair enough. The equal and opposite reaction will be that it is one more reason for Mum and Dad to buy Metlife Care shares rather than invest in a home for somebody else’s family.

    The government would be wary of tying an albatross about their neck. Mass pre-fabricated emergency housing on public land in South Auckland has the potential to create ongoing front page news for all the wrong reasons.

    • Craig H 6.1

      Negative gearing won’t be outlawed, it just won’t qualify for tax breaks from unrelated income. Losses will still be able to be offset against other rental income or carried forward to offset future rental income.

      • David Mac 6.1.1

        Hi Craig, yes, fair enough.

        I don’t think the losses associated with my rental mortgage top-up should come off the tax bill for my milk round.

        My point is more: ‘Will this legislation increase or decrease the number of rental homes available?’

    • solkta 6.2

      “one more reason for Mum and Dad to buy Metlife Care shares rather than invest in a home for somebody else’s family.”

      Except that almost all of them don’t do this. They buy the same cheap do-up properties that first home buyers generally buy depriving a family of the opportunity to own. One more rental equals one less owner-occupier.

      • David Mac 6.2.1

        Hi solkta, I’m afraid I don’t understand the point you are making… I want to.

        My point is: If we make owning a rental property a less desirable investment option people will invest elsewhere and we will end up with fewer rental properties.

        The status quo doesn’t need to slide much to become a festering sore. 5% fewer rentals will see 1000’s of those considered the least desirable tenants without roofs.

        • solkta 6.2.1.1

          5% fewer rentals will see 1000’s of those considered the least desirable tenants without roofs.

          I’m trying to say it simple. There is no rocket science here.

          If those houses are sold to first home buyers who would otherwise be renters if those houses were not available for them to buy, then the net result is the same – except that more people own rather than rent. That is a good outcome.

          Investors selling houses does not make the houses disappear.

  7. Rosemary McDonald 7

    And it seems AAAP are not the only ones not clapping…

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/103660218/minister-rules-out-empty-homes-tax-to-battle-homelessness

    “The government has ruled out an “empty homes tax” to battle homelessness in Auckland.

    Experts have warned Auckland’s homeless crisis is set to spike to worse levels this winter than any previous year.

    Part of the blame is being put on a Housing NZ policy of boarding up state homes months in advance of plans to redevelop sections.

    As a result “there are people sleeping in cars tonight who didn’t have to,” said Salvation Army social policy analyst Alan Johnson.

    Meanwhile, Christchurch Progressive Network convenor John Minto was urging the government to consider an empty homes tax of the same kind adopted in Vancouver, Canada.

    It would penalise landlords in the Super City who are keeping homes empty.

    The government’s announcement on Friday of $100m of funding for homelessness, with $37m allocated to finding 1500 new places by the end of winter, was “poor use of taxpayer money,” Minto said.

    “It is stupid for the government to spend tens of millions on motel accommodation for homeless families when we have 33,000 empty homes in Auckland.”

    In June 2016 Auckland had 33,000 homes vacant – a vacancy rate of 6.6%, higher than any Australian city, he said.

    “An empty homes tax would mean large numbers of ‘ghost’ homes would be available to rent at a time when homes are desperately needed.”

    Housing and Urban Development Minister Phil Twyford said the government was not considering an empty homes tax at this stage.

    “The Labour-led government has a comprehensive plan to address the housing shortage including cracking down on offshore speculators and changing rules around negative gearing,” Twyford said.

    He also would not be asking Housing NZ to change its policy around leaving its homes empty months ahead of redevelopments.

    “Decisions around moving tenants while state houses are refurbished is an operational matter for Housing NZ.”

    Monte Cecilia Housing Trust chief executive Bernie Smith was one of the housing experts who had criticised Housing NZ’s approach.

    He said he supports HNZ’s policy of replacing single homes on large sections with higher-density housing, but said the way HNZ was going about it was worsening problems.

    It should stop demolishing homes until it was ready to build replacements for the old ones, he said.

    “There’s no point having sites all over Auckland where houses have been demolished or shut-up. It only creates further homelessness.”

    Hang on a minute…”Decisions around moving tenants while state houses are refurbished is an operational matter for Housing NZ”…wtf? Aren’t HNZ a government department? Aren’t YOU the government Phil? You tell them what to do, surely? And that’s not what the question was…it was about redevelopment not refurbishment.

    Sighs.

    SSDD.

    • Incognito 7.1

      Yes, something needs to be done about the high vacancy rate in Auckland but an empty home tax on Monday is unlikely to provide much-needed relief for the homeless this coming winter. I see it more as medium- to long-term tool.

    • David Mac 7.2

      I doubt old HNZ houses are insulated. In 12 months it will be illegal to let out an uninsulated house. Many families will need to leave Far North baches around me that they currently rent. Won’t matter if they have fireplaces and abundant firewood, all rentals where it can be fitted must have ceiling and underfloor insulation.

      • solkta 7.2.1

        Do you really think that landlords will choose to leave their properties empty rather than pay for insulation? That would be incredibly stupid.

        • David Mac 7.2.1.1

          No, they will do as they are doing now, sell them to first home buyers. Get out of the landlord business. Every week there is a new reason to ‘Sell that Rental’

          I was more referring to the abandoned HNZ places awaiting demolition. To let them out uninsulated: illegal.

          The baches I speak of are often owned by a number of family members, the bach their Grandad built etc. The owners don’t do much more than offset the costs of ownership by renting them out, they’re not really in the landlord business. The $200 pw keeps the lawn mowed and a lick of paint on the joint, many are rented longterm by local families. They will need to make other arrangements come July 1st 2019 and the owners will list on Bookabach to cover costs.

          There is no legislation stopping a family from buying a draughty uninsulated dump and housing their kids in it. That’s why it’s acceptable to sell old HNZ places that were not fit for tenants. Having a mortgage must create an invisible shield between babies and third world diseases.

          • solkta 7.2.1.1.1

            The maintenance on a small house in nowhere near $10,400 annually. They would have easily enough change out of one year to pay for the insulation.

            But if they DO sell to a first home then that is one less family renting.

      • dukeofurl 7.2.2

        You doubt ?

        “The Warm and Dry programme is tasked with upgrading all Housing New Zealand properties to ensure the home is as dry and warm as it can possibly be for winter. The programme initially targeted properties where we had vulnerable tenants with significant health issues; and is now in progress to address all properties across the country starting with Housing New Zealand’s older properties.
        https://www.hnzc.co.nz/about-our-properties/maintenance/

        probably like all nationals programmes they may have dragged their feet in the past

    • dukeofurl 7.3

      You must be the most ignorant person here for some time Rosemary !

      “Decisions around moving tenants while state houses are refurbished is an operational matter for Housing NZ”…wtf? Aren’t HNZ a government department? Aren’t YOU the government Phil?

      Ministers are forbidden by The State Sector Act from interfering in ‘operational decisions’ of government departments.
      Public servants wouldnt hesitate to tell them so as well.

      What they can do , is set policies priorities and of course nothing happens without funding , passed by parliament.
      Very little leeway to move money from nationals budget last year to spend on labours priorities after election.

  8. Turn John Keys white elephant conference centres into public housing.

  9. Ian 9

    Any politician that can get those bludging Bums off the street gets my vote.But they got to look after the mentally ill and the genuine needy at the same time.

  10. patricia bremner 10

    What this Government does will never be enough for some people on this site and elsewhere. ” May the Force be with them” because the moaners critics and soothsayers are not!! This IS about the homeless right?? Not point scoring shite!!

    • Rosemary McDonald 10.1

      “Not point scoring shite!!” Whoa there patricia bremner! We’re mostly on the same side here…but wherein the rulebook does it say that a different opinion or attitude is automatically ‘shite’?

      Who are the ‘moaners, critics and the soothsayers’ pb, the ones with the ‘point scoring shite’?

      AAAP?
      Salvation Army?
      Monte Cecilia?
      Christchurch progressive Network?

      These are the people on the ground. They have obviously given much thought to solutions. And do not need a scrying bowl to see what the outcomes are going to be. Clearly this government is not listening to these experts…so who are they listening to?

      • patricia bremner 10.1.1

        Rosemary, IMO we need to add to the assistance, not moan about it. I listened to the appeal to community, and personally responded. I hope others do.

        I believe that we all have contributed to this situation in a variety of ways, and there are enough “professional” self interested people putting this Government down without the amateurs nipping at their heels.

        This business of “they should have had a plan” . They did. They formed a Government much to everyone’s surprise. They hit the ground running. They are moving mountains bit by bit. It will never be enough though will it?? Or quickly enough??

        It is human nature to want more… but after Dirty Politics and the 9 years of nasty carry on, we should be aware that not every rotten thing left by the Nats can be cleared up in a term sadly, plus the previous Douglas influences.

        If this Government moved left too soon too quickly, international weight would be evident from vested interests. I admire many of the groups you name, but they have their political barrows to push as well. Co-ordinating them can be full of difficulties according to my cousin who works in that field. ” Herding cats” he says.

        By soothsayers, I meant the ones saying the Government won’t keep all their promises, and Winston will wreck the show, and the Greens are not Green, but Green/Blue. Muddying the waters.

        • Rosemary McDonald 10.1.1.1

          “If this Government moved left too soon too quickly, international weight would be evident from vested interests.”

          I don’t understand this….can you expand, please?

          • patricia bremner 10.1.1.1.1

            Any country which has moved left from the petro dollar world has not fared well.

        • Louis 10.1.1.2

          Spot on @ 10 and 10.1.1 Patricia

      • dukeofurl 10.1.2

        Where is Monte Cecelias answers ? They do a great job helping people . And have huge public support for that

        But clearly they to dont have the resources to provide housing themselves

        • Rosemary McDonald 10.1.2.1

          “Where is Monte Cecelias answers ? ”

          “Monte Cecilia Housing Trust chief executive Bernie Smith was one of the housing experts who had criticised Housing NZ’s approach.

          He said he supports HNZ’s policy of replacing single homes on large sections with higher-density housing, but said the way HNZ was going about it was worsening problems.

          It should stop demolishing homes until it was ready to build replacements for the old ones, he said.

          “There’s no point having sites all over Auckland where houses have been demolished or shut-up. It only creates further homelessness.””

          • Louis 10.1.2.1.1

            “SOLUTION WILL TAKE TIME”

            “Twyford said it would take time to stop the increase in homelessness and then reduce the number of Aucklanders who have nowhere to live.

            The Government inherited a “massive” housing crisis with a shortfall of 45,000 homes in Auckland alone, he said.

            “The state house waiting list has been rising steadily.”

            Twyford said the Government was “pulling out all the stops” to get more houses built faster, but “they don’t go up overnight and it will take time to ramp-up our building programme”.

            “We’re also working on other measures to get a roof over people’s heads in winter and we’ll be making announcements on those soon.”

            https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/103427824/experts-warn-homelessness-in-auckland-will-be-worse-this-winter

    • Antoine 10.2

      Hey Patricia

      You said “What this Government does will never be enough for some people on this site and elsewhere”, and so let’s “add to the assistance, not moan about it”.

      A good start…. Extend the same attitude to the Nats when they next get in, and you will have a very reasonable position!

      A.

      • patricia bremner 10.2.1

        Hi Antoine, I did. I gave to the charities they nominated, but didn’t feel the National Government was contributing to any great degree. This one is.. 1. acknowledging there is a crisis. 2. developing a plan AND implementing it.

      • solkta 10.2.2

        What a comedian. National on this issue has been like The Dog on Footrot Flats when Wal is trying to get him to kill the rats – running around all over the place trying to look like he is on the job but actually avoiding any real contact.

  11. Rosemary McDonald 11

    @MickySavage

    I don’t watch Checkpoint so I missed the the footage of the announcement of the 100m spend.

    So I watched it this afternoon, and as is the nature of you tube the very next clip was in a similar vein.

    Sort of.

    Pre-election, and and gives a strong indication to this Government where the hearts of the people who voted for them are.

    Just a friendly reminder.

    • Louis 11.1

      “Welfare officials have received an instruction from on high to be “flexible” and help the poor and homeless who seek special assistance grants this winter.

      Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced $37 million in urgent funding to provide accommodation for the homeless this winter and signalled a broader loosening of the welfare purse strings.

      The winter funding was not, she conceded, enough. Where further need was identified the Government would act on it.

      “We are telling our social services: ‘When people come with need, be flexible. Be flexible. Help them meet their needs. Our support network is there for a reason, so help them’.”

      https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2018/05/03/107289/govt-officials-told-to-try-a-little-kindness

  12. Venezia 12

    The Coalition government deserves credit for this policy. It holds out hope that there will be provision for those grappling with a very difficult housing situation over the winter months and while posters here may quibble over the details, it certainly shows up the moribund efforts of National over the last nine years. I am impressed with the appeals Jacinda has made to communities to cooperate in getting people housed, and to working with existing initiatives. There is now hope that children in particular will not be sleeping in cars, in tents or sheds when it is freezing, and then through the revolving door of paediatric wards because of the effects on their health. Those who are homeless through the failures of the health care system (in particular mental health needs) hopefully will have their housing addressed, and followup support as well.

  13. Rosemary McDonald 13

    So, after two days of ‘discussion’, does the statement “Everyone applauds Labour’s homelessness plan … except National” hold true?

    If so, where is the evidence that those who are not applauding as enthusiastically as other are, by definition, “National”?

    i.e.
    AAAP
    Salvation Army
    Monte Cecilia
    Christchurch Progressive Network

    • dukeofurl 13.1

      Oh dear. A full on Concern Troll…….

    • David Mac 13.2

      There are about 10,000 families on the HNZ waiting list.

      Lets build them super cheap mass pre-fab houses. They’ve got to cost 50,000 each.

      10,000 x 50,000 = I never promised you a rose garden.

      • dukeofurl 13.2.1

        Hahahahahaha.

        How many houses have you had built ?
        I have worked with people with no previous building experience who have taken on their own home. The plans, the consents, getting a builder, keeping an eye on things while building and finally moving in.
        I can tell from what you say, you havent even had a garden shed put up.

  14. David Mac 14

    I lived in Sweden for a while, they seemed better at this ‘Housing our people’ thing. It’s easy to forget that those Swedes love meetings, expressing their views, and they’ve been trying to get this house for everyone thing sorted out for 100’s and 100’s of years.

    We only got on this ‘How about a house for everyone?’ bandwagon when the Great Depression was biting hard and Michael Savage made it so, less than 100 years ago. We’ve done ok, we need to do better.

    • solkta 14.1

      We were doing OK but then we went all neo-liberal and threw away our achievements.

      • David Mac 14.1.1

        I think our current rental housing market is as least neoliberal as we could hope for.

        Most of our rent payments end up with people that own 1 or 2 rental properties. Regular folk like you and me. We are forcing those people out of the market and the void will be filled by the neoliberal corporations you despise.

        My current landlords will invest in a company that owns 5000 of the houses just like the one they used to own.

        I think we need to be wary of what we wish for.

        • solkta 14.1.1.1

          You might need to look up what neo-liberal actually means. It doesn’t mean everything owned by big business but rather markets that are left free from government intervention. In the past, since the depression, our governments have intervened greatly to ensure everybody was housed and that we had a high home ownership rate. This government would seem to be reversing that decline, long may it continue.

          As an aside, I’m not sure what you mean by “regular folk”. I’m unsure in what ways you and i might be similar, or how an irregular person would differ. You are certainly not talking about the majority of people as most people do not have the means to leverage a deposit for an investment property.

  15. Timeforacupoftea 15

    1 Billion is required !

    $100 million is a feeble amount over 4 years to fix this problem.
    This will only build 62.5 houses at $400,000 per year.
    or 125 houses per year prefabricated houses at $200,000.

    Better than buying or building houses they could buy some beautiful camper-vans at $200,000, mobile able to be shifted handy to work places, accumulate easy into less desirable farmland and somewhere near public transport.
    Endless opportunities.
    Vehicles available worldwide immediately.

    100000000 / 400000
    = 250

    100000000 / 400000 / 4
    = 62.5

    100000000 / 200000
    = 500

    100000000 / 200000 / 4
    = 125

    • Rosemary McDonald 15.1

      “Better than buying or building houses they could buy some beautiful camper-vans at $200,000, ”

      $200,000??? Bugger that! You can get a brand spanking new English caravan, sleeps four with separate loo and shower for $60,000.

      Older models going for about $20,000.

      https://uk-caravans.co.nz/product/brand-new-2017-elddis-chatsworth-550/

      As Brian Tan obviously realized…a good wicket with the right piece of dirt…

      These English caravans can be cosy as they are built for less temperate climes. OTOH, they are not built as robustly….so some are not really up to be dragged along some of our less smooth byways.

  16. mosa 16

    Don’t EVER feel sorry for National , never ever !!!!!!

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Membership: Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board
    The Governments of Australia and New Zealand have announced the membership of the Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board (ANZEIB) today. This is an important step towards implementing e-Invoicing across both countries to help businesses save time and money ...
    1 week ago
  • An end to unnecessary secondary tax
    Workers who are paying too much tax because of incorrect secondary tax codes are in line for relief with the passage of legislation through Parliament late last night. The Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Chatham Islands pāua plan approved
    Efforts to reverse the decline in the Chatham Islands pāua fishery are the focus of a new plan jointly agreed between government, the local community and industry. Fisheries Minister Stuart Nash says the plan was developed by the PauaMAC4 Industry ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Bill introduced for synthetics crackdown
    The Police will get stronger powers of search and seizure to crackdown on synthetic drugs under new legislation, which makes the two main synthetics (5F-ADB and AMB-FUBINACA) Class A drugs. The Government has today introduced the Misuse of Drugs Amendment ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Blasphemous libel law repealed
    The archaic blasphemous libel offence will be repealed following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill today, says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Coalition Government lassos livestock rustling
    New rules to crack down on livestock rustling will come into force following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Medieval law axed
    The ‘year and a day rule’ rule will be repealed following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill, says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Further steps to combat tax evasion
    Further steps to combat tax evasion Revenue Minister Stuart Nash has announced New Zealand is expanding its global ability to combat tax evasion by joining forces with authorities in 30 countries and jurisdictions. Cabinet has agreed to add another ...
    3 weeks ago