The exciting sexy selloff of our State housing

Written By: - Date published: 8:18 am, November 1st, 2014 - 78 comments
Categories: housing, national, paula bennett, phil twyford, same old national - Tags:

National has a plan to sell off at least some of the state’s emergency housing.  This is a plan based in doctrine rather than reality.  The intent appears to be to that by divestment of the housing stock to other organisations these organisations will be able to provide enhanced housing services to the country’s poor.  The intent is based on hope than rather than analysis.  Government owned emergency housing has worked well ever since the first Labour Government.  Society has not changed that much to suggest that the original model is no longer relevant.

At least this is what reality should be telling our leaders.  But it is clear that the Government is more concerned with slogans than reality.

The policy was not given any prominence during this year’s election campaign.   As that liberal bastion the Herald has stated:

It is a bold step and one that ought to have been flagged in the election campaign. The Government obviously had this reform in mind many months before the election when the Social Development Ministry was given control of Housing NZ’s income-related rent subsidies. The plan can fairly be called a privatisation of state housing and it would have been a hot issue. That was no reason to keep it quiet. John Key went to the previous election with a programme of partial asset sales and it did him no harm. Why did he say nothing about this one?

Paula Bennett is the flag carrier for this policy.  She was interviewed on Morning Report this week and as usual made no sense at all.  She thought that the state divesting itself of social housing will mean that the problem will be addressed.  I always thought that more and not less emergency housing would be the solution.  She agreed that camping grounds should not be emergency housing places and that families using camping grounds for housing are doing so because there is nowhere else for them to go.

She also thought there were developers who can do some pretty exciting sexy stuff that will suit people much better that what Government has been doing.  I am intrigued.  Can anyone, anyone cite an example where a private developer has done more for people needing emergency housing than the State?

Bennett also complained about housing that has not been looked after or maintained. Her lot have been in power for six years.  They should start wearing failures of the state rather than blaming others.

Bennett thought that the market and freeing up community housing providers will solve our problems.  Letting private entities build up their balance sheet will let them borrow money and provide more houses.  Funny thing is that the Government is well placed to build more houses.  Robust balance sheet, an ability to borrow money at cheap rates, why should the Government exclude itself from providing social housing and instead rely on a group of community organisations to solve problems?

The market does not work.  The Ranui Caravan Park that was referred to by Bennett for instance has been described as “a mix of tiny one-bedroom units and decrepit caravans, and is home to 300 semi-permanent residents.”  Is this what Bennett has in mind when she talks about developers and investors finding solutions?  Because in a market driven economy where the focus is on cost this is exactly the sort of solution that is normally delivered.

And the proposal is so Victorian.  The policy is based on a premise that the State should not do anything about poverty but we should rely on private charity instead.

National’s refusal to accept that the State can own property which attracts a market rental is bizarre.  Why not house a young family and when they get themselves on their feet financially charge them a market rental?  The profit can then be put into new social housing.  Why let the private sector reap the benefits but insist that the state bears the losses?

On Wednesday afternoon in Parliament Phil Twyford was able to question Paula about her obvious sexual excitement caused by the prospect of weakening the State further. The video makes interesting viewing. Twyford’s questions were direct and pointed. Bennett’s responses were frankly nonsensical.

This particular policy shows the Government’s current modus operandi. They have learned that they should not say what they think. They should instead do what they always do, and try to weaken the collective, while at the same time talk as if they care about the problem.

78 comments on “The exciting sexy selloff of our State housing ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Dont worry. Be happy 1
    1 November 2014 at 8:56 am

    Who will be the first MP from the Left arrested at a sit in to stop forced evictions from privatised State Houses?

    • Paul 1.1
      1 November 2014 at 8:58 am

      Hone Harawira has already been arrested for resistance in GI.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 1.2
      1 November 2014 at 12:28 pm

      It technically wasnt a state house privatisation.
      Old houses on large sections were removed to allow MORE state houses on same area. This happened near me while under Labour, weatherboard houses were removed ( for use elsewhere) and two level terrace type houses were built. The end result was more homes.
      I understand HNZ were having some privately owned houses in that mix that Hone was arrested over.

      • Murray Rawshark 1.2.1
        2 November 2014 at 3:37 am

        Hmmm. 156 state houses removed and 78 new ones will be built. The rest are a gift to developers. Are you using the same logic that says the power company sales weren’t privatisation either?

        • ma rohemo 1.2.1.1
          2 November 2014 at 9:46 am

          The houses were in Glen Innes.
          It is a pleasant easterly facing slope that runs down to the Tamaki estuary.

          It is a geographical extension of the very exclusive Glendowie/Point England area. Property prices there are high.
          Glen Innes is way too nice a location for state house tenants, when it could be owned by rich bastards who don’t give a toss about housing the poor.

          Of course we have to go through the good cop/bad cop routine where Blinglish announces a 5000 house sell-off followed by a weekend release from Bennett saying that they are considering selling the more poorly maintained ones.

          It is the same old BS. What a pity only half the country can see it.

    • johnm 1.3
      1 November 2014 at 1:07 pm

      Only Mana would do that and Labour outed him from parliament. No labour mp will do that, they’re not really left at all, but right with a more human face.

  2. someone else 2
    1 November 2014 at 8:57 am

    Hi Mickey.
    Are you using the terms “state housing” and “emergency housing” interchangeably, or are you talking about two different things?

    I hope the words “emergency housing” aren’t a strategic term that the Labour Party will use to debate the privatisiation of state housing. Because if it is, it will be just like the term “child-poverty” in place of “poverty” – a total buy-in to right-wing framing. National relies on this kind of shit. The wealthy and powerful rely on it.

    • mickysavage 2.1
      1 November 2014 at 11:30 am

      Kia ora SE

      I am using them interchangably. But I believe there is a role for the state to provide emergency housing and also to provide long term rentals to people.

    • Murray Rawshark 2.2
      2 November 2014 at 3:40 am

      +1
      I also think we should be careful with our terminology. Emergency housing is only a small part of state housing.

  3. Manuka - Ancient Order of Rawsharks 3
    1 November 2014 at 9:01 am

    Five and a half thousand families on the waiting list for housing, — Of course they have to sell off a third of State Housing to provide homes for them! Mate, what’s not to understand? Besides, there’s a fleet of new ministerial chauffeur driven limousines to pay for, remember. And a flag referendum.

  4. ankerawshark 4
    1 November 2014 at 9:07 am

    Well done Phil T

    What a sarcastic c.w Ms Bennett is?

  5. Heather 5
    1 November 2014 at 9:35 am

    Phil Twyford did an excellent job in the house trying to question an over excited, strange and often nonsensible women. Paula I think is out of control some of the time, she is so unbelievable in her comments, it is childish.
    The suggestion that this person may be the Prime Minister of New Zealand is unthinkable.
    New Zealand’s proud history of housingb for those that need is slowly been eroded. I have little believe that the Government will build new houses, they have lied before and will continue to lie.
    We have lived in Housing New Zealand accommodation on 2 occassions and the homes were strong and well built.
    It is the present Government that deliberately allowed for the exisiting stock to fall into disrepair, it is nothing short of outrageous.

    • tc 5.1
      1 November 2014 at 9:45 am

      After the GE result and kiwis preference for smiley wavey shonky why not Bennefit for leader. She just needs more training and experience the bought estate will take care of the rest through its many tendrils.

      • Manuka - Ancient Order of Rawsharks 5.1.1
        1 November 2014 at 10:12 am

        Quote from her, mid-vid: “The angrier you get with me, the better my career seems to go, so that’s fine.” At 5.56 min.

        • ankerawshark 5.1.1.1
          1 November 2014 at 10:27 am

          Manuka – Ancient Order of Raw Sharks @ 5.1.1

          Yes what a give away about Ms Bennetts true concerns and (self) interest.

          • Manuka - Ancient Order of Rawsharks 5.1.1.1.1
            1 November 2014 at 11:52 am

            Parliamentary Haute Couture, or at least window dressing. She’s displaying the shimmering fabrics of the Emperor’s newly clothed state housing policy. Saying, “See how beautiful it is!” when in reality, there’s nothing there.

            • Tracey 5.1.1.1.1.1
              1 November 2014 at 11:56 am

              remember when she was pretending to be a proud westie, and how quickly she became a proud upper harbour person.

              • les …
                1 November 2014 at 12:25 pm

                I notice her dress sense is improving,maybe Boagy is advising her on Upper Harbour couture.

                • ghostwhowalksnz …
                  1 November 2014 at 12:38 pm

                  It baffles me that she is seen as some bright shining star for national.

                  I suppose Crosby Textor think she can ‘grow the vote’ and they certainly have worked hard to turn her into a bright shining lie.
                  Meanwhile traditional tory women like Tolley, who actually achieve something in portfolio are kept out of the spotlight.
                  Others like Melissa Lee who was soup du jour 6 years ago have been kept on but are invisible

                  • les …
                    1 November 2014 at 12:48 pm

                    Tolley ,sure doesn’t impress me.Not many of the Natz do…one with a future is Jamie Lee Ross.The dearth of talent is probably the reason Bennett is touted as a future leader and the reasoning behind the Team Key strategy.

                    • karol …
                      1 November 2014 at 12:55 pm

                      Bennett has been promoted as potential leader since the demoting of Collins.

                    • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark …
                      1 November 2014 at 1:31 pm

                      The actress. Remembers her lines. Sometimes.

                    • ghostwhowalksnz …
                      1 November 2014 at 2:21 pm

                      JLR a future ? Hes part of the Whaleoil, Collins, Williamson , Lusk faction.
                      hes been a full time polly since he was elected councillor at 18. Has no tertiary qualifications either. hes just a stooge for those who cant be patient enough to sit through endless meetings.
                      he wouldnt even be an MP if it wasnt for Lusk

                    • phillip ure …
                      2 November 2014 at 9:24 am

                      pimping ross..?..now that is fucken hilarious…!

                  • Murray Rawshark …
                    2 November 2014 at 3:45 am

                    I think they promote her exactly because she is simple, self-interested and has neither ideology nor philosophy. She acts to please what she sees as the powerful men around her. She’ll be great at taking orders from Hollywood and Wall St. She’s too bloody thick to even see what will be happening around her.

                • finbar …
                  1 November 2014 at 3:50 pm

                  I will take that as hehe,and rightly so.Seen lovely Michele,and her couture as she was walking into court the other day with her ‘SQUEEZE”I thought middle age had the tag of give back my youth.Possible our age longevity has moved it along to sixty with wealths arrogance.Michele,Kermit on Acid,with boots.

  6. Kevin M 6
    1 November 2014 at 9:57 am

    Bennett/Boyd & co as usual can be proven to be dead wrong. Still awaiting Candice Haakma Winz staffer apology letter on the “emergency housing” scenario bullshit from 6 years ago, still awaiting the answers for the power bill payment failure of Winz for invalids who get abused at Winz($5.00 per week for power), still awaiting answer on why the rape victim in Invercargill was turned away by Winz staffers when seeking aid. Winz/Bennett/Boyd/Winz staffers etc have declined a public open debate on there unfounded lies & accusations towards those they manage, they also declined intervention of a media crew to showcase there abuse towards clientele. Failed policy caused recent deaths, not good governance at all. Winz decline aid to rape victim. Donations welcome. http://www.givealittle.co.nz/cause/freedomtolive

  7. adam 7
    1 November 2014 at 9:58 am

    Please Micky, you sound soft. This is the thing, you present another slow bow down, as you change the language to appear to moderate. This when the VRWNJ’s have taken the debate so far into, right wing wet dream ideological lala land.

    Micky, you raise some great points, and put up some good arguments, then you try to be moderate. When the middle ground has been ripped from under your feet, why do you bother – this is why people say labour is national lite.

    This is a policy of stupidity in front of overwhelming evidence that the country as a whole benefits from social housing. Again we have a national party so far off the reservation they can say any old bat shit and people rush to make it appear reasonable.

    Liberalism, a bankrupt ideology – which now is so far into lala land, it’s going to let more people die for ideological purity. I’m trying to think of other ideological pure times when working people got shafted – Oh that right – the Gorta Mór and the Great Famine of 1876–78.

    • dave brown 7.1
      1 November 2014 at 10:57 am

      The dinosaur in the backyard here is the global crisis of capitalism as it goes down the historic drain into climate chaos and human extinction.

      This doesn’t leave any room for ideological purity or ideological grandstanding just survival instincts.

      The reason why the NACTs have an agenda to smash the unions, drive the surplus army of unemployed into misery, and terrorise us to death, is that they have little time left to rip off the rest of the wealth in NZ before they pull up the drawbridge against the seething rabble.

      Screwing the last 10 minutes of labour power from workers, selling off state housing, contracting out the state functions and so on, is all rational when viewed as the emergency plan of the ruling class.

      Such is their drive for the preservation of their wealth this is misconstrued as an arbitrary war on the poor driven by bloodymindedness and ideological mania.

      Which leads to the delusion that if we lock them up in the madhouse we can save ourselves.

      No. Nothing arbitrary about it. This is the reason of classic liberalism. Freedom of the class that owns private property and un-freedom of the class from which the private property was expropriated.

      The survival instinct of the dispossessed is to repossess this property as the means of subsistence and species survival.

      We are the vast majority and have the power to take control before it is too late. The only thing missing is our consciousness of this fact.

      • karol 7.1.1
        1 November 2014 at 11:24 am

        I do not think the majority of right wingers who promote and/or lead such policies, actually think in terms of a long term self-preservation plan: nor that they are involved in such a vast rightwing, well-planned and orchestrated conspiracy.

        Their thinking appears to me to be far more short term and self-serving.

        I think you may be confusing a possible outcome, with the main intent of such right wing policies.

        • dave brown 7.1.1.1
          1 November 2014 at 12:11 pm

          Karol
          The “emergency plan of the ruling class” does not need to be a “vast, long-term …orchestrated conspiracy”.
          It need only be short term, as in, say, each electoral cycle and NACT parliamentary agenda.
          The main reason that this plan can be entrusted to the political representatives of that class is that the dominant ideology of capitalism already prevails in the general population, so no conscious orchestrated conspiracy is necessary to justify the existence of capitalism.
          The “emergency plan” as I use it here is a short-hand for the daily profit drive when facing a global crisis of falling profitability so that what David Harvey calls “accumulation by dispossession” becomes a reflex.
          This explains cutting wages (hence extracting more unpaid labour), selling off state houses (profits into speculators/cronies pockets) and every other policy the NACTs force through to make the working class pay for its crisis.
          Capitalists are individually motivated but collectively organised to advance their class interests. They delegate to the state the function of defending their interests.
          One does not need a ‘conspiracy theory’ to explain an actual conspiracy.

          • karol 7.1.1.1.1
            1 November 2014 at 12:43 pm

            I still think you are confusing outcomes with intent.

            yes, the daily profit drive and support of capitalism is a very conscious driver. But that does not mean they are consciously doing this:

            The reason why the NACTs have an agenda to smash the unions, drive the surplus army of unemployed into misery, and terrorise us to death, is that they have little time left to rip off the rest of the wealth in NZ before they pull up the drawbridge against the seething rabble.

            • dave brown 7.1.1.1.1.1
              1 November 2014 at 4:12 pm

              If capitalists intent is to maximise profits, and they act in such a way as to do that, how are their intentions not related to the outcomes?

              You seem to be suggesting that attacking workers, destroying nature and suppressing social resistance to the point of the destruction of humanity is an unintended outcome and that if we point out this mistake good-intentioned people will stop it.

              I call this reactionary utopianism because you create an illusion of the possibility of change that at best will delay any real solution, and at worst will lead to our demise as a species.

              I know this is the philosophy of the Greens. But its naive and dangerous.

              I suggest we expect the worst and act to stop it.

            • finbar 7.1.1.1.1.2
              1 November 2014 at 4:22 pm

              Capitalism and its profit blood is its drive.Why they punish Unions is they are a threat to their productive expendature profit.Why has their anti union philosophy and pillory been successful within N.Z. The Kiwi birth dream,we can own our own home.A dream now,lost for our children,yet got for their parents and their do as we are told,our Kiwi can do,and unions had no place for the majority in that.Only did voluntery unionism give them the wage for servicing their home,not their attitude to Unions.Only a serious excuse to their employer,i have to belong its the law.Never one ever turned down a pay rise that the UNION,fought and won for them.

              Today our children, ignorant of Union and its cry,or our government pillory
              of that cry,get the pin number,their saftey net,of being part of us,most penuary existance, as their parents lay back in their home ownership and rubbish the Unions,forgetting their wage at their childrens age they earned from the hardship of the Unions steadfastness.

  8. Brian 8
    1 November 2014 at 10:36 am

    When did this govt start “caring about people”?

    • karol 8.1
      1 November 2014 at 10:42 am

      When Bennett began with strangling people with her caring “wrap around” policies and programmes.

  9. fisiani 9
    1 November 2014 at 10:41 am

    Sell 100 state houses to efficient housing charities for say $200,000 each. Houses that are worth $300,000.
    Result- housing numbers the same and the government now has $20,000,000 to build another 50 houses each worth $400,000.
    Result – Housing numbers have increased by 50.
    Housing charities sell 50 of their new stock to the occupants for $250,000 each and they generate $12,500,000 to build 41 houses worth $300,000.
    Housing numbers are now increased by 91
    20 of which they sell to occupants for $350,000 generating $7,000,000.
    So 100 state houses turns into 191 affordable houses.
    Take the ideological blinkers off and see how innovative thinking can virtually double the number of affordable houses.

    • Mark 9.1
      1 November 2014 at 11:07 am

      You must have been on the weed this morning. I read fairytales to my grand chrildren but am surprised to find an adult having an Alice In Wonderland approach in real life.To have an adult espouse such utter crap as you have above makes me worry about your mental state.

      • fisiani 9.1.1
        1 November 2014 at 2:26 pm

        Care to dispute the arithmetic rather than spout personal abuse? The Left are being left floundering as National think about the people and the Left are concerned with who owns the houses. Three years from now there will be another tens of thousands of people living in comfortable houses grateful for the government largess.
        Two elderly people living in a four bedroom state house whilst a family of four lives in a garage is unacceptable. National will house the family in the state house and the elderly couple can move to an apartment. If you cannot see this as a good thing I despair. There would probably be a post here headed National bastards evict elderly couple from the house they raised their family for 40 years.
        National are freeing up hundreds of acres of land and have consents for thousands of homes. The phenomenal housing growth in the next six years will astonish people.
        This is the 21st century and modern thinking needs to apply. Private developers are encouraged and the building industry is booming. The brighter future is here folks. Just look out your window.

        • fisiani 9.1.1.1
          1 November 2014 at 3:47 pm

          Labour actually wants families to live in a garage so they can blame it on National and garner their votes. The poor and disadvantaged have finally woken up to the fact that Labour simply want them as protest voting fodder, National want the housed and thus one day become National voters.

        • Mark 9.1.1.2
          1 November 2014 at 6:32 pm

          For a troll you are either exceptionally thick or just ignore what is staring you in the face. The Nats are planing to put the funds from the sale of state houses into the consolidated fund. No new housing, just fob the problem that is social housing off to the NGOs and then it is not their problem anymore.
          According to the Nats,there were going to be 9000 new homes built in Auckland this year. How are we tracking on that. I can give you an update if you like but you don’t need any of those zeros for the current figure.

      • Paul 9.1.2
        1 November 2014 at 5:34 pm

        He knows it’s nonsense.
        He’s just a paid tr***.
        Ignore him.

        • fisiani 9.1.2.1
          1 November 2014 at 6:11 pm

          I have cogently pointed out how to turn 100 houses into 191 houses,
          70 house owners who no longer pay rent. The government owns 50 and the housing charity 71. What part of that is nonsense? It’s a win win win situation for all and a near doubling of the housing stock.

          • felix 9.1.2.1.1
            2 November 2014 at 6:17 am

            It’s a lovely fantasy but Key is not building any new state houses.

            The current stock are to be sold and the money put into the consolidated fund.

            It will be spent on the day-to-day running of the country so that Key can keep cutting taxes for the rich.

    • miravox 9.2
      1 November 2014 at 11:10 am

      Don’t be silly fisi. Nobody in government wants poor people to own houses. They want big corps (or NGOs) to own houses. .

    • Tracey 9.3
      1 November 2014 at 11:23 am

      english said they wouldnt be replacing the houses they sell, has this changed? what will the charities be paying on their lending

      “… Finance Minister Bill English says the proceeds from selling state houses are unlikely to be spent on new state houses and may go into the Consolidated Account.

      “I mean, if we want less stock, there’s not much point in rebuilding stock with it,” he said in an interview with Herald journalists yesterday.

      “So it might go into other forms of housing support or whatever. Some of it could go into the Consolidated Account. We just haven’t made a decision about that.” …”

      • Manuka - Ancient Order of Rawsharks 9.3.1
        1 November 2014 at 11:42 am

        Twyford makes the point at the opening of vid above, in his first q to Ms Bennett: “Without building any replacement housing”. At no point does she deny or dispute that. It seems unlikely Fisiani even played the video before commenting – It’s so far off the mark.

    • Brendon Harre 9.4
      1 November 2014 at 6:25 pm

      Fisiani it might work if the National government adopted the Labour party’s KiwiBuild policy. But this government doesn’t have a policy to build homes. Bill English has said the proceeds from selling off State Housing will go to the Consolidated Fund.

      By the way the government can solve the affordable housing problem anytime it likes. It just needs to favour first home buyers over crony capitalists.

      “…the Government needed to play a more active role to help solve the city’s housing problems,…” Manji said. (CCC Councillor)

      “The Government should just buy out waves of rural land on the outskirts of the city . . . and build 5000 to 10,000 homes on it. The price of the land would be at rural prices and that’s where you get your affordable housing.”

      Land rezoning led to “huge windfall capital gains” for the owner, but did not reduce house prices, Manji said.

      “The first shot has been fired at councils – that’s fair enough – but now we need to all sit down together to see how we’re going to get houses finished for $250,000.”

    • Murray Rawshark 9.5
      2 November 2014 at 3:57 am

      You’ve never run a business, have you? Washing the boss’s car and reading his discarded copies of NBR hasn’t given you much of an idea at all. Your rubbish makes as much sense as pyramid schemes.

    • Treetop 9.6
      3 November 2014 at 4:59 pm

      The government cannot even manage, managing the transfer list approx 1500. A single person in a three bedroom state home and a family of four in a caravan park. This example is how the government think, the problem is they do not think.

  10. RedBaronCV 10
    1 November 2014 at 10:44 am

    The legacy of this arrogant government will be the creation of massive slums. So Paula wants to drive people into slum housing. The only reason I can see for no state housing is that everyone can afford to buy build one of their own.

    Repeat the words slum, housing & arrogant as often as possible.

    • BassGuy 10.1
      1 November 2014 at 1:12 pm

      In her mind, I think she’s imagining whole suburbs of affordable housing while the values increase for owners in the other suburbs.

      You know, it occurs to me that we’ve gone from a country with our own national identity and turned into pseudo-America.

  11. Ad 11
    1 November 2014 at 11:23 am

    What is left of Savage’s legacy once they are gone?

  12. Tracey 12
    1 November 2014 at 11:25 am

    less houses more new limousines
    flag chat instead of brekkie in school

  13. Stickler 13
    1 November 2014 at 11:29 am

    Read a little history.

    Try reading Papers Past, for starters – catch up with how the market actually engendered slum creation in New Zealand from 1840s-1930s. And how charities could not cope with the social and medical and criminal side-effects, so that government involvement was eventually seen as essential. And what a painful slog it was to achieve those slum clearances and to build decent accommodation for the less well-off.

    And that was when churches and charities were strong.

    We never learn, do we? Looks like we’re condemning ourselves to recycle some of the saddest history this country has known.

  14. Goodsweat 14
    1 November 2014 at 11:35 am

    A small percentage of families that have nowhere else to go require state assistance. Due to histories of rent arrears, wilful damage, gang affiliation, multiple pets etc 100’s of people find it impossible to secure homes through private channels. Meeting the needs of these people that the private sector turns down is difficult and expensive. It’s hard and tricky work, not stacks of money for nothing. It’s business that greedy capitalists walk away from. I can see why any party would want to slide the task sideways to community help providers.
    If a problem gambler with a history of chronic rent arrears is renting a house that belongs to an agency that specialises in helping problem gamblers, I can see benefits.

    • Tracey 14.1
      1 November 2014 at 11:54 am

      but that is a service to society but we are making THEM borrow money to provide it. govt could peppercorn rent the homes to such groups to manage

  15. Ad 15
    1 November 2014 at 1:03 pm

    Hey Mickey very apposite post given the opening of Lopdell House today.

    Takes four or five electoral terms and massive community support to fund, build and open something.

    And just a year to sell so much intergenerational wealth off.

    Can’t think of a better illustration between Left and Right politics.
    May your efforts to build continue.

  16. Draco T Bastard 16
    1 November 2014 at 1:16 pm

    Why let the private sector reap the benefits but insist that the state bears the losses?

    Because that’s the only way that the private sector can make a profit.

  17. CnrJoe 17
    1 November 2014 at 1:22 pm

    I can’t stand her voice…..is it just me?

  18. Sable 18
    1 November 2014 at 2:56 pm

    Bennett and sexy, two words that do not belong together….

  19. Mooloo magic 19
    1 November 2014 at 3:50 pm

    Paula Bennett is just obnoxious and plain nasty, it’s a travesty that this evil woman is a cabinet minister as she is unworthy to hold such a position. No empathy or compassion. If Phil Twford spoke with such venom and sarcasm as Bennett did the Mainstream media would have vehemently attacked him yet Bennett is left unchallenged by the media.
    Carter is clearly out of his depth as a Speaker

  20. Paul 20
    1 November 2014 at 5:27 pm

    2011 National does not campaign on Charter Schools
    2014 National does not campaign on selling more assets.

    “Thousands of state houses could be put on the market despite the Government earlier ruling out selling off more state assets after this year’s general election.”

    Hope the muppets who voted for National feel good now.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11351788

    Looks like we’re following England’s tragic model.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/great-council-house-selloff-scandal-righttobuy-council-houses-leave-nowhere-for-poor-to-live-9832339.html

  21. RedLogix 21
    1 November 2014 at 6:38 pm

    Having been pretty closely associated with Housing for Humanity some years back it should be understood that they are not in the business of providing a complete social housing safety net. They have their place – but they themselves would be the first to say they they could never be the whole solution.

    In my experience there are three main groups of people in the housing market.

    1. About 60% are homeowners.

    2. About 20% will be renters in the private sector because either they are not yet ready to move into group 1 or they are at a transient stage of life where owning makes no sense.

    3. The final 20% are either people whose income is too low or precarious to rent reliably in the private sector, or some other issue that prevents them from accessing a mortgage or tenancy. Or retired people who for one reason or another have reached the end of their working lives without owning their own home. This is the social housing group.

    People will move from one group to another, but typically between adjacent groups only.

    The two big charities, the Salvoes and H4H specialise in moving people from Group 2 to Group 1. They do not typically target moving Group 3 into Group 1 because it’s too big a reach for the individuals and too big a risk for the charity.

    • karol 21.1
      1 November 2014 at 6:42 pm

      2. About 20% will be renters in the private sector because either they are not yet ready to move into group 1 or they are at a transient stage of life where owning makes no sense

      Or there are some of us who choose to rent and never buy, even when we had the income to take on a mortgage.

      NZ differs from many in European countries, in that there is a major promotion of the ideal of everyone owning their own home.

      • Karen 21.1.1
        2 November 2014 at 10:27 am

        Karol, I think the difference between Europe and NZ re home ownership is that here tenants have no right of tenure as they do in places like Germany. So many of my friends who do rent have been forced to move house many times. Even though the landlords initially assured them it was a long term rental, they always seemed to change their mind and decide to sell. One friend used to keep all her boxes with the contents listed as it seemed easier. She has now bought somewhere as she got sick of establishing gardens only for her landlord to get the benefit.

        The situation for those with children is harder. I have a niece on DPB who had to move herself and 5 children many times before finally getting a state house. This has serious implications for schooling and support networks. It is the reason I want more state houses, not less.

        • karol 21.1.1.1
          2 November 2014 at 10:31 am

          Yes. NZers would benefit from having such rights of tenure for renters.

        • RedLogix 21.1.1.2
          2 November 2014 at 1:28 pm

          Even though the landlords initially assured them it was a long term rental, they always seemed to change their mind and decide to sell.

          We have never done that to anyone. The biggest problem we have is a few tenants who get badly behind in the rent (sometimes months behind) and we are too damn soft and slow in dealing with it. Usually ends with us well out of pocket.

          Point is Karen – there are plenty of horror stories from both sides of the fence. Making all landlords the enemy makes as much sense as demonising all tenants. It’s just not true – and obscures the real problem which is an inadequate and weak regulatory regime.

          • Karen 21.1.1.2.1
            2 November 2014 at 3:27 pm

            I do not think all landlords are bad and all tenants are blameless, but in all the cases I was referring to the tenants paid the rent on time and kept the property in good order, yet still were forced to move. For someone with kids on a limited income this is a very serious problem, for others it is still a major inconvenience.
            For these reasons I believe that tenants should have some guarantee of tenure (provided they pay the rent) and there should also be a big increase in the number of state houses and pensioner flats.

  22. Skinny 22
    1 November 2014 at 8:57 pm

    Don’t be fooled the Austraian Banks are set to profit handsomely by these latest assets sales. Deja Vu our power assets. Key is a lying son of a bitch by deceiving the public saying “there will be no asset sales”.

    The next sell off is carving up our Railways.

  23. Rodel 23
    3 November 2014 at 9:09 am

    The sell off of State houses- the sell off of Maori TV.& John Key says he’s not selling assets. And the public falls for it. NZers are so gullible.

    Watch this space.

    It’ll be something like. ‘We’re not selling Kiwibank-just outsourcing it to make it more competitive and efficient.

  24. Treetop 24
    3 November 2014 at 2:04 pm

    1.2 billion is paid out in accommodation supplement (AS) per year for rental and mortgages. A percentage also apply for temporary addition support (TAS) which has to be renewed every 3 months. TAS is considered as being a last resort and a person is expected to reduce their costs. Crazy as rent goes up and never down and the AS is not adjusted annually. State house tenants do not receive an AS, if on a benefit.

    Why is there no detail given for community housing?

    I am begining to think that the cost is going to be much higher with less housing than were the government to stick with state housing. Bennet has stated that a person could receive up to $250 a week for social housing in Auckland, $13,000 a year.

    In the early 1990s under National when market rental was introduced for state housing this caused hardship for some tenants and the Labour government in their first term after the 1999 election charged a state tenant 25% of their income in rent. Amazing that the National government left the 25% figure in place.

    The National government need to wake up and see that the 1.2 billion paid in AS and reducing the state housing stock is not housing many vulnerable NZers (5500 on the state house waiting list). Had the government built 5,500 homes there would be no one on the state house waiting list. The next thing that would require addressing would be an increase in AS.

    • Treetop 24.1
      3 November 2014 at 4:42 pm

      1500 of the 5500 figure are wanting to transfer.

      Since Work and Income took over placing people in state houses about 18 months ago the waiting list has risen 10 fold. Work and Income are probably crunching the dollars paid out in rent trying to reduce what they pay or they are doing a better assessment than HNZ did.

      I reckon that some carvans need to be set up in the grounds of parliament for the MPs who need to stay in Wellington during the week. There is a pool in parliament, showers, a restaurant and they could install a laundry and a few washing lines.

      Re Finbar below. I have made the comment about a year ago that the government are more interested in being a land agent than an affordable housing provider.

  25. finbar 25
    3 November 2014 at 2:53 pm

    Bubbley Paula,is the corporations land agent.She has been charged with selling off State housing and like all land agents full of promise and endevour,a endevour unlike the market land agent uncertainty for their cut of the sale,for they will be sold under Paula. smart is that,pretty inteligent,for her ignorant usury.that she may get going to be a leader of the National Party,doubt it,wrong side of the fence,and intelectualy lacking.