One gets the feeling that the National-led government, with the eager help of former PM Bill English, has simply resumed the destruction of the state's involvement in housing ownership and management that it began during its 2015-2017 term, unexpectedly interrupted by six years of Labour.
In an ideal world we wouldn't need social housing and while the growing need for social housing is the result of a multitude of reasons, it is a symptom of failures within society whether caused by unfortunate circumstances, government policies, lower education standards or poor life choices by the people themselves.
I see social housing as another ambulance at the bottom of the cliff but not one we can walk away from by any means. Until we start to deal with the causes, there will be a growing need for it. Sadly, there is no magic potion as its not a one size fits all solution to get people to a point where they can stand on their own two feet.
The most concerning part is that no matter which government starts to get it right (which will take decades), the next government will make ideological based changes that will probably make it worse and we will continue to kick the political football around rather than concentrating on fixing the issues.
The review was pretty damming on KO. Deservedly so in my opinion.
I think Bill English was a good choice to review it as he would have very aware of how they operated prior to 2017 and be able to compare outcomes without needing a year and millions of dollars....certainly no worse than using Cullen to review tax, given Cullens political leanings and biases and the way they measured "tax payer", the outcome was hardly likely to reach any other conclusions and to be fair, the KO review is probably the same.....although given their actions and inactions since 2017, it would be extremely difficult for anyone to positively spin it.
I take it that in making these comments you have read the Kāinga Ora's rebuttal, the (multiple) purposes of Kāinga Ora set out in its 2018 Act, and the June 2022 briefing by Kāinga Ora to the Ministers of Housing and Finance? Because you might then conclude, as I have, the the English report is not value for money - ideological reversion to getting rid of state houses being the underlying agenda.
KO's actions still resulted in a number of negative outcomes and if they had their hands tied due to the 2018 act then that is yet another thing that Grant, Jacinda and Chippy will deny responsibility for even though their fingerprints are all over it....a little like KO's responses. I have little doubt that while they were under instructions to increase the housing stock, they also would have value for money responsibilities....and they didn't achieve that by paying premiums for houses.
As for their rebuttal on financial stability, relying on rental inflation to right the ship is a dangerous route to take.......banking on unrealised revenue to save the day is much worse than naïve.
Can you let me know where this underlying agenda you have uncovered is?
This issue, along with so many others, needs to be disentangled from political partisan preferences. If the aim of any government is to ensure that housing ALL New Zealanders in appropriate, affordable, long term housing is an important priority then, parliamentarians should work collectively to achieve this. However when a new administration completes knee jerk reactions in the form of $2.9 billion being transferred from the public purse straight into landlords(sic) pockets and then produces a shonky review if the main state housing provider then its hard to believe that within the next two and a bit years this is ever likely to happen. To be fair Bill English's review was always going to diss state housing since he's made it abundantly clear during his time as housing minister where his preferences are.
Is it not equally 'ideological' to say that social housing has to be provided by the State, through one big government department? Or that the answer to a housing shortage is more state-built and owned housing?
One gets the feeling that the National-led government, with the eager help of former PM Bill English, has simply resumed the destruction of the state's involvement in housing ownership and management that it began during its 2015-2017 term, unexpectedly interrupted by six years of Labour.
January 2015;
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/65495215/government-to-sell-1000---2000-state-houses---john-key
May 2015:
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/next-steps-social-housing-reform-announced
February 2016:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/296918/govt-gets-power-to-sell-social-housing
May 2016:
https://www.greens.org.nz/greens-call-bill-english-stop-disciplining-housing-new-zealand
January 2017:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/322156/sale-of-christchurch-state-houses-criticised
In an ideal world we wouldn't need social housing and while the growing need for social housing is the result of a multitude of reasons, it is a symptom of failures within society whether caused by unfortunate circumstances, government policies, lower education standards or poor life choices by the people themselves.
I see social housing as another ambulance at the bottom of the cliff but not one we can walk away from by any means. Until we start to deal with the causes, there will be a growing need for it. Sadly, there is no magic potion as its not a one size fits all solution to get people to a point where they can stand on their own two feet.
The most concerning part is that no matter which government starts to get it right (which will take decades), the next government will make ideological based changes that will probably make it worse and we will continue to kick the political football around rather than concentrating on fixing the issues.
The review was pretty damming on KO. Deservedly so in my opinion.
I think Bill English was a good choice to review it as he would have very aware of how they operated prior to 2017 and be able to compare outcomes without needing a year and millions of dollars....certainly no worse than using Cullen to review tax, given Cullens political leanings and biases and the way they measured "tax payer", the outcome was hardly likely to reach any other conclusions and to be fair, the KO review is probably the same.....although given their actions and inactions since 2017, it would be extremely difficult for anyone to positively spin it.
I take it that in making these comments you have read the Kāinga Ora's rebuttal, the (multiple) purposes of Kāinga Ora set out in its 2018 Act, and the June 2022 briefing by Kāinga Ora to the Ministers of Housing and Finance? Because you might then conclude, as I have, the the English report is not value for money - ideological reversion to getting rid of state houses being the underlying agenda.
KO's actions still resulted in a number of negative outcomes and if they had their hands tied due to the 2018 act then that is yet another thing that Grant, Jacinda and Chippy will deny responsibility for even though their fingerprints are all over it....a little like KO's responses. I have little doubt that while they were under instructions to increase the housing stock, they also would have value for money responsibilities....and they didn't achieve that by paying premiums for houses.
As for their rebuttal on financial stability, relying on rental inflation to right the ship is a dangerous route to take.......banking on unrealised revenue to save the day is much worse than naïve.
Can you let me know where this underlying agenda you have uncovered is?
The agenda - see English report bottom of page 28 and page 37 second paragraph.
Sweet, i'll check it out.
This issue, along with so many others, needs to be disentangled from political partisan preferences. If the aim of any government is to ensure that housing ALL New Zealanders in appropriate, affordable, long term housing is an important priority then, parliamentarians should work collectively to achieve this. However when a new administration completes knee jerk reactions in the form of $2.9 billion being transferred from the public purse straight into landlords(sic) pockets and then produces a shonky review if the main state housing provider then its hard to believe that within the next two and a bit years this is ever likely to happen. To be fair Bill English's review was always going to diss state housing since he's made it abundantly clear during his time as housing minister where his preferences are.
Is it not equally 'ideological' to say that social housing has to be provided by the State, through one big government department? Or that the answer to a housing shortage is more state-built and owned housing?