Kerre Woodham: State houses are a launchpad, not a permanent solution

Fewer state houses, more private rentals. The New Zealand Initiative believes that giving tenants vouchers to spend on rent could help more vulnerable people and save taxpayers money.

And Sir Bill English agrees. In a rare interview on the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning, the former Prime Minister says providing state housing is not just about putting a roof over the head of a vulnerable family. 

You know, the point of social housing is to change lives. And that means focusing on the people more than the houses. And it means who owns the houses is less important than what you're doing to support the tenants.

All housing solutions are local, and all housing solutions are about individuals and families. So, you know, how many houses should someone own who is supporting and understanding the needs of tenants and taking part in a community? 

Well, you need a bit of scale, you know, probably a few thousand houses. I think Tāmaki Redevelopment Company has got about 5,000. That looks about a good scale. What we found though, was impressive energy and innovation with everyone from Autism New Zealand to Iwi and NGOs, private developers who can do a better job of this than Kāinga Ora. 

Well, yes, this is not new, but it's been spelt out fairly explicitly in the New Zealand Initiative report, “Owning Less to Achieve More”. In the report, the authors said the large-scale government housing ownership was problematic, wasteful, and not the most effective way to help people into homes. 

On the evidence, it is plausible that both taxpayers and tenants could be better off if the government were less dominant as a landlord, and if its subsidies empowered tenants by giving them a greater choice of landlord. That's according to the report author, New Zealand Initiative senior fellow Dr. Bryce Wilkinson. 

The report went on that state housing agency Kāinga Ora's maintenance costs were nearly twice that of a private landlord, and it had not been good at managing rent debt or dealing with troublesome tenants. 

We know that. We've heard from contractors during the Labour years of the absolute rorting that went on when it came to invoicing for work done. As soon as the job came in and you knew it was a job for KO, you simply inflated the invoice. Nobody was going to be checking. They told us that was going on all the time across every division of Labour. Matt Crocket, who's running KO right now, is doing a good job of getting back to basics, but the point remains that there will be people and agencies who can and do a much better job, not just of housing people, but as Bill English said, of getting people into a position where they can get into their own home, or when that's not possible, of helping them live truly meaningful lives. 

I remember Bernie Smith too, the former Monte Cecilia Housing Trust CEO, saying that the reason they didn't have as many problematic tenants in their social housing was because they had case managers who knew the tenants. Their case managers weren't overwhelmed with tenants and problematic tenants. They knew the tenants' trigger points, they could head off trouble before it started. 

The report says government issued vouchers for people to spend on rent would give people more choice and empower them. 

And according to the report, that way the government could help people without having to own the houses and give money where it was most needed. 

The report author says the person uses it to find the best trade-off for themselves. If they've got extra expenses for children with disabilities, they might choose a cheaper house at less rental and use the cash to help pay for their education or medical services or vice versa.  

Empowerment. Now, there's a thing. Choice. There's a thing. But it will come down to an absolute clash of ideology. The idea of giving vulnerable people choice and empowerment is completely alien to the previous ethos, which was, we will look after you, don't think for yourself, we'll make sure that everything is done for you. 

Which has got to be the most patronizing, expensive in terms of money and in terms of human potential, way of dealing with people. And I cannot see the current Labour government agreeing in any way, shape or form to going down that ideological path of actually empowering people and giving them choice, saying to agencies, okay, you do a great job. 

Here's the money, you house these people, you know them, you know what they need. You're passionate about seeing them live full and meaningful lives. Go for it. 

Personally, I think that's the way to go. I have not lived in a state house. My dad came from a state house, his siblings grew up in a state house. Nobody from that family ever needed a state house again. It was a launch pad for all of them, and for all of us, for the kids and the cousins. Nobody's ever needed it since, and that's the way it should be. 

Empowerment, choice, you're not a victim, you do not need to be looked after for the rest of your life. Yes, you might have had problems, yes, you might be going through problems, yes, you might have disabilities, it does not mean you're worthless. 

It does not mean that the state has to look after you for the rest of your life. You have choice. I love the message in this, but I can only see it lasting as long as a centre-right government in power. 

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.