Frankly, it’s not surprising that the Housing Shareholders Advisory Group came to the conclusions it did. Despite its name, the group includes no state house tenants. It was a group packed with private social housing providers, hand-picked to deliver the conclusion that these groups should be given control of state houses.
I think the other major proposal, that HNZ should try to maximise the help it gives by getting the people in the most need into homes that are the right size for them, is fair enough. Reviewing the tenancies every 3, 5, or 10 years doesn’t seem like a big problem to me. But that’s the misdirection. The big proposal here is privatisation.
Phil Heatley is talking about giving houses to private not-for-profit organisations. What’s going to happen to the tenants?
It’s nice that the Salvation Army wants to get more into social housing but I see nothing to suggest that we should hand them millions of dollars worth of public assets and the homes of poor families. If National goes ahead with this, it will undoubtedly be a stealth move to cut the cost of helping the most vulnerable New Zealand families get housing.
PS.What’s up with Farrar referring to the Housing Shareholders’ Advisory Group as SHAG? Freud would chuckle.