Heatley looks set to make Labour’s housing policy workable

October 25th, 2010 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

outlined on Q+A some quite radical changes to , but they are changes that would help those most in need – and in fact are long overdue changes necessary to make the model of state reinstituted by Labour workable.

Some on the left will try and whip up hysterical opposition to them, but people should be aware the group that recommended them includes the Auckland City Mission Diane Robertson and Major Campbell Roberts from the Salvation Army. And also to her credit Sue Bradford, who was a panelist, seemed quite supportive. So I suggest people resist knee-jerk reactions.

National introduced market rentals in the 1990s. This was highly controversial and unpopular, ans was reversed by Labour who campaigned on a change back. I don’t want to defend the market rentals but explain why they were done.

The idea behind market rentals was that an income based accommodation supplement was a fairer way to assist low income people into housing. It could take into account your exact level of income, the average rental price in your area etc and most of all applied to every New Zealander on a low income.

The idea was that if two families lived next door to each other on identical incomes and identical family sizes and in identical houses, they would both get the same level of support. Up until then the person in the state house got huge assistance, and the person in private accommodation got very little. Unless the number of state houses was so large as to cover every low income New Zealander, then some families unfairly were getting much better assistance than others. And in fact (as this report shows) it was not always the family with the greatest need who was in the state house.

However the market rentals policy was hugely unpopular, for a number of reasons. One reason was the Government failed to sell it well. People thought it was about increasing rental payments from poor families, and there was almost no focus on the fact that the Government would be helping many more low income families than previously.

It also had the problem in that it created a large number of people (around 300,000) who were modest “winners” and a smaller number of people (around 70,000) who were quite large “losers”, and those who are disadvantaged by a policy change will fight against it, while those advantaged by it not so much.

To be fair there were also some unforeseen consequences also, such as private sector landlords pushing prices up, due to state houses doing the same. That was genuinely undesirable, and possible one reason National has not returned to that policy even though it is clearly less discriminatory.

So we’re left with Labour’s policy which is that if you live in a state house, you get a much higher subsidy from the taxpayer – the SHAG calculates it as worth $8,000 a year compared to $4,000 a year from the Accommodation Supplement. There are a limited number of state houses, and one can not change the number of houses in stock dramatically or quickly. So you want those state houses to go those most in need. But I have always said to do that you need to evict people from their state houses if a more needy family is on the waiting list, and you also need to move tenants from larger to smaller homes as their kids leave home.

The SHAG has recommended pretty much exactly that, but in a gentle way. Their recommendations are what you need to make Labour’s policy better for low income families. It means the greatest assistance goes to those with the greatest need.

SHAG’s report is here. Here are extracts from Q+A:

PHIL HEATLEY – Housing Minister.
Well, that’s certainly a recommendation in the report is that any new tenants coming on from now on would be under the understanding that they may just have the house for three years, five years or 10 years, and then we review that tenancy. So the tenancy wouldn’t necessarily end in that time, but we’d review the tenancy and see if their circumstances have changed.

This seems very sensible. Exiting tenants entered under a policy where their expectation is they can remain in the house for life so long as they are good tenants. I like the idea in future that you set at the beginning an expectation of review at a certain date. If their circumstances have improved and there are much needier families on the waiting list, then logically one would allocate to the family with the greater need.

MR HEATLEY So what would happen is& Well, a good example actually is someone’s in a state house – you know, they’ve had it for 10 years. When they first moved in, they had three kids, they were married, it was a four-bedroom. Now they’re alone or there’s just two of them. They just need one bedroom.

This is one of the real problems. The kids have left and now tenants are in a house with lots of spare rooms, while a family on the waiting list with three kids can’t get a house.

Some people will say the answer is just to build more state houses, but there is no way the state housing stock will increase from 70,000 to over 300,000 (the numbers on the accom supplement).

GUYON OK, the other big mismatch you’ve got is the type of houses that you’ve actually got. You’ve got far too many two- and three-bedroom houses. You’ve got a lot of people rattling around in houses that are too big for them. I think that you said there were 2700 houses with spare bedrooms, and about a similar number with crowded bedrooms. Are you going to have to engage in a large-scale selling and buying programme, in terms of selling houses you don’t need and buying ones that are fit for purpose?

MR HEATLEY That’s correct. In fact, we’ve got two types of mismatch, as you describe. The first one is that we’ve too many three-bedroom houses – in fact, 10,000 too many – and we haven’t got enough one-bedroom houses for very small families – obviously people living on their own – and certainly not enough four- or five-bedroom houses. So what we’re going to do is send a very clear signal that we want to realign all that, so we’re going to need to dispose of all our three-bedroom houses and buy smaller and larger ones.

No doubt some will call this privatisation! This does show the difficulties with the current policy – it is very hard to match the demand with supply.

GUYON Will the numbers stay essentially the same at roughly 70,000? Or will you increase it or decrease it?

MR HEATLEY What we’ve said quite clearly, and we certainly said to the people that drew up the report for us, is that we’re committed to state housing, we’re committed to Housing New Zealand&

GUYON On what numbers?

MR HEATLEY  &we’re committed to income-related rents.

GUYON Yeah, we’ll talk about that in a second. What numbers?

MR HEATLEY In terms of numbers of state houses, what we’ve said is we want to house more people in social housing. We want it to be a combination of state housing and combination of houses provided by others in the community-housing sector. So we are going to move away from counting the number of state houses we own or manage. …

GUYON That’s fascinating. So at the moment, there’s a ministerial directive that says you have to own just over 70,000 state houses by the middle of next year.

MR HEATLEY Um, no, the ministerial directive that’s happened over a number of decades under National and Labour, and it’s continued as they’ve gone in and out of government, is to increase the number of state houses.

GUYON OK, but roughly it’s 70,000.

MR HEATLEY That’s correct. And we’re saying&

GUYON So you’re abandoning that target? You’re abandoning any target or minimum number of houses that you need to own?

MR HEATLEY Yes, what we’re doing&

GUYON That’s a massive change.

MR HEATLEY It is, but what we’re saying now is that we want to increase the number of people housed, and we want to increase the amount of social housing in New Zealand, but we can’t do it alone. The government’s in no position to keep buying state houses the way we have been, so we’re going to slow down and probably stop and go to the community-housing sector, who have put up their hand, and they say this in their report, and say, ‘Look, we want to get into housing the most vulnerable.’ In fact, many housing organisations are specialist in their area – disabled, mentally ill, elderly.  ‘And we actually need capital, cash or houses for you as the government to inject into us to grow.’ And we’re prepared to look at that.

This is quite an important exchange. Shifting the focus from whether HSNZ has 70,000 or 70,500 or 71,000 state houses to a focus on how many people are in social housing, which includes the Salvation Army, some local authorities etc.

MR HEATLEY Well, no. What the panel says& And, you know, we had someone on the panel from Auckland City Mission, someone from the Salvation Army, someone from the New Zealand Housing Foundation. They’ve come back and they’ve said, ‘No, what we would like you to do is transfer a whole lot of housing stock or cash or land into our community-housing organisations, which are not-for-profit organisations&’

GUYON On that sort of level? 20%?

MR HEATLEY They’re suggesting moving very fast. If the ministers make a decision, we’re going to have to consider our tenants, not upsetting people’s lives. But the important thing I’d like to pick up on is this is not privatisation. This would mean a state house was transferred to a not-for-profit community-housing organisation who would have to retain the house. They couldn’t sell it, otherwise it would have to come back to us. And they would have to house the most vulnerable. They couldn’t just get, you know, anyone in that house.

As I said at the beginning, the members of SHAG who recommended this include reps from City Mission, Salvation Army etc. I think they have done an excellent job at analysing the problems with the current policy and proposing some changes which will provide better assistance to those most in need.

Tags: , ,

15 Responses to “Heatley looks set to make Labour’s housing policy workable”

  1. tvb (4,240 comments) says:

    I have serious doubts about the Salvation Army. They are deeply homophobic and would discriminate against gays in the provision of housing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    Ok, OK. This has to be said, given they’ve created an acronym like that….

    So what they are saying is that if we don’t agree to be SHAG’ed, then state-assisted housing is screwed?

    [Incidentally, it looks like a good plan and a better approach to measuring when and how to take action - along with the measurement of how successful and efficient state-assisted housing is.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. backster (2,120 comments) says:

    “Certainly not enough four- or five-bedroom houses. ”

    Maybe we should have the taxpayer also build and maintain nine or ten bedroom mansions for Muslim immigrant and refugee families…

    TVB……..Queers do not constitute families so how could they qualify for taxpayer provided and maintained housing.?

    [DPF: Queers do constitute families.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. bchapman (649 comments) says:

    About time someone has finally coming up with some ideas for housing. The report points out that we have had fifty years of total mis-management of state housing. The last Labour Government were almost the worst.

    The stats in the report are really interesting. 90% of the demand for accomodation over the next 15 years will be in Auckland- unfortunately this is where land is the most expensive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. James (1,338 comments) says:

    A Family is a subjective grouping despite what the hate mongers of religion may say.Same goes for a marriage

    People are often ignorant to the fact that the Sallies are a religious order.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. s.russell (1,580 comments) says:

    Good on Heatley for pushing along with this. And good luck to him. Labour will bitterly oppose any effort to make the system fairer, and emply any means to defend the interests of the privileged classes who have piles of dosh and cheap stste houses.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Viking2 (11,244 comments) says:

    Heatley can fix the 3 brm housing oversupply and the under supply of 4 & 5 bdrm very easily with a small amount of capital.
    Within a group of 15 sections already owned by HNZ and next door to a house of mine there are sections that are too small to subdivide but plenty large enough to add extra rooms and include even a garage and of course do what HNZ never do and that is provide fencing to keep young ones inside their own properties for their safety’s sake.

    If he wants to give me a call I’ll tell them where they are right in the middle of town.

    I can also give him the name of a couple of capable draftsmen and several builders who could knock up a plan and Council Willing (now that’s of course is an issue), they could be on the job in a couple of weeks.

    I won’t even charge him for information that’s been out there and obvious all while they have been buying up and renting other houses round town.
    The good thing about using these ones is that the people who live there like the street and its not bad at all. Just like they like the two schools round each corner.

    What about it Phil?
    Lets just get it done then.

    Timely policy.

    All you have to do now is allow Landlords to recover their tenants living costs. i.e. water and rate bills.
    But I don’t suppose you will do that either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Brian Smaller (4,025 comments) says:

    How about making a rule that if any state hosue tenant damages a state hosue in any way they never ever get to have one again. The low life dole-bludging scum who live next to my digs in Upper Hutt ripped all the copper spouting off and sold it a few weeks back. Apparently HNZ, after I rang them, are going to send them a letter. They wont get evicted, they wont even get sanctioned in any meaningful way.

    I know a glazier in Lower HUtt who spends almost all his time fixing broken windows on State Houses. He says that on a few of them he replaces every window at least once a year. Because people have no buy in to these houses they treat them like shit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. stuarts-burgers (101 comments) says:

    I agree with Phil in that it is not the number of house HNZ owns it is the number of households that are assisted.

    HNZ has a lease to run policy where it leases house off private landlords then install its tenants. Would these be counted in the 70K, HNZ or the Govt does not own them, how if Christchurch City Council, NZ’s the second largest landlord after HNZ,had HNZ manage its estate would these be in the 70K .

    In both situations social housing is being provided via HNZ it just does not own the property.

    We need to look at who and how many are helped and in what way and not who owns the bricks and mortar.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. PaulL (5,977 comments) says:

    Defence Housing Authority in Australia have a very interesting model. You can buy a house to rent to them. They guarantee the rental (no issues with finding tenants) for a fixed period, and they guarantee to replace all carpets, repaint the house inside and out, and repair any damage, at the end of the rental term – typically 5 years. They also do all management of the tenants, and all repairs, during the life of the lease. After all that, they often renew the lease anyway.

    It’s a good model for investors – pretty secure returns during the life of the lease, and a house in a known condition at the end. You get the capital gains, and no hassle. The security also drives the return down a bit – so they aren’t exhorbitant returns.

    For the DHA, it’s also a good model. They have no capital tied up in housing, and if their needs change, they can choose not to renew some leases. Most of the benefits of owning the housing, with a lot more flexibility.

    Admittedly, the DHA usually put officers into the houses, so you’re getting people who aren’t all that likely to trash the place. But there is no particular reason that the model couldn’t be used for welfare housing as well.

    I reckon a model like this could be a real game changer – it’s like a private model (so you get the flexibility of a bigger market), but it doesn’t have the risks of private landlords pushing up prices and all that carry on that the last model ran into – effectively you’re increasing the state housing stock, but you’re doing it without using capital.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Hagues (711 comments) says:

    What is wrong with housing large families in 3 bedroom houses? Sure its nice if everybody has their own room, but if you can’t afford nice, I’m not sure why I have to pay for it. One room for the parents, one for the boys, one for the girls. If you want a huge family and to spread them out over many rooms then make sure you can afford it. Otherwise just be greatful others are providing anything for you at all. Living off others is not supposed to be a lifestyle you know.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. grumpyoldhori (2,416 comments) says:

    Having been a landlord a few bloody facts.
    The housing supplement is not there to help the peasants,
    it is there to help landlords make a profit and so should be dropped.
    Cannot afford the rent, easy answer, share a house with another family and pay 50% of the rent.
    This of course will drop the demand for rentals and have landlords whom believe they are owed screaming when they cannot get the tenants they need.

    So, going to throw some old lady whose husband was a WW2 vet of of her state house Nats ? fuck that will be wonderful video.

    So, do people need to become a bible bashing member of the Sallies to help them get a house ?

    Jesus wept Nats, you not only point the weapon at yourselves but you load the fucker as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Rex Widerstrom (5,327 comments) says:

    there is no way the state housing stock will increase from 70,000 to over 300,000 (the numbers on the accom supplement).

    Okay so at present the government dips into everyone’s pocket to give money to a beneficiary or low income earner who then passes it to a property speculator in the form of rent. The speculator then turns round and says to the government “my investment property is negatively geared, so I’ll not be paying any tax on my other income, thanks”. Meanwhile the value of the property appreciates.

    What would be the economics of the government buying the housing stock it needs to accommodate those currently in receipt of the accommodation supplement, versus the savings accrued over time from ceasing payment of the supplement and having 230,000 properties not being used as tax shelters?

    As a beneficiary and then as a policy writer I could never understand the wisdom of the taxpayer subsidising property speculation, particularly when NZ is desperately short of investment in productive enterprise, especially venture capital.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Maggie (674 comments) says:

    DPF says: “Some on the left will try to whip up hysterical opposition…..”

    Great at building straw men is our David.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. KevinH (1,147 comments) says:

    A rationalisation of State Housing is well overdue. The disparaties quoted by Minister Heatley are partly resolveable by a re allocation of those resources according to need and other factors that require assistance.
    There have been many New Zealand families who have had a cradle to the grave experience with State Housing which was acceptable in our culture some 50 years ago, but is no longer affordable today.
    There is enormous pressure on the State and Social Services to provide accomodation to the many, the housing market place is in a state of change at present that both the govt and social services could look at to obtain new stock.
    The growth area in the next coming years will be in the retiring baby boomer generation who will require single accomodation, so some thoughts on multiplexes should be considered.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.