Families will suffer under Nats' housing plan - Goff

Email
Print

Sat, 01 Oct 2011 6:13p.m.

Now the state landlord Housing New Zealand hopes to renovate nearly half of its 31,000 state houses in Auckland

Now the state landlord Housing New Zealand hopes to renovate nearly half of its 31,000 state houses in Auckland

By Jenny Suo

Housing Minister Phil Heatley has admitted that many already finding it hard to get by will be hit even harder under the National Party’s new state housing plan.

The Government wants to build 1400 new state houses in five years and re-categorise those already living in houses and on the waiting list by need.

Tenants classed in the lower categories will be pressured to leave but if they move to private dwellings they will be losing out by around $80 a week.

A third of South Aucklander’s live in state houses and a fifth live in over-crowded homes.

“New tenants who come in will be reviewed every three years and if their circumstances improve they’ll move out of state housing,” says Mr Heatley. “Current tenants who were in state housing when we came into government, we're not moving those ones yet in any compulsory way.”

But those tenants will be pressured to leave and if they move into private dwellings they would no longer pay income related rents.

Instead, they would get the accommodation supplement, which sometimes works out to only half of the savings compared to what they were getting

Labour leader Phil Goff says families will suffer.

“They’ll be forced into an ever shrinking private market, where they will be forced to pay well above their means.”

The planned 1400 new state houses will see 850 built in South Auckland where there are 1600 in serious need on the waiting list.

In 2006 the Labour party built 692 state houses whereas last year the National Party built 166.

3 News

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

16 Oct 2011 08:42p.m.

katrina wrote:

Johnmillan, you are so wrong, I have never lived in a state house, no members of my family have ever been on a benefit or lived in state housing. We were all brought up to work hard for everything we have. I had my first house at 24yrs. I worked my butt off with no less that three jobs at a a time. I have never had new flash furntiure and I have never had an OE. I have never been to university, my parents could not afford that but we were taught the basics of survival and independence.

03 Oct 2011 04:47p.m.

johnmillan wrote:

Mike I like what you have written?(Tax being used by the right people who need it)You have hit a nail right on the head but it bent over like your story as it is so weak.The only BIG spenders of our taxes are your TORY mates,Yes those TORYS who spend millions on trips over seas,Yes Key takes 20 body guards with him,What cost is that to the country every time he takes off<2-3 trips every 2 months.Then his lavish departments food wines etc etc.Wake up Torys why powder his arse with glory,he is only a leader?a leader too send NZ into bankruptcy which is a follow on with all the businesses that have gone too the wall lately.AMP, Finance companys,insurance companys,large and small busineses that have gone bust,just because Key traded in money does not mean that he has the skills to run the country.As he said he would leave National if he lost these elections,too me he believes in himself alone,and is like a very very spoilt child that never grown up.

03 Oct 2011 12:33a.m.

jan.. wrote:

Our children of Aoteroa New Zealand must have jobs to fullfield their trust in education learnings skills and able them to look after our own country called the Aotearoa New Zealand.. I read many article on this issue of the natives trusted Helen Clark but she retired finding her place in America covering her arse from what she blindly took from the native countries such Aoteroa New Zealand were blind folded by the one they thought they could trust and Key was her alibi the rich little boy that has no idea how to run our country but produced bloodsheds to more crimes, everthing turned to bloodshed since Helen Clark..

02 Oct 2011 07:07p.m.

Me wrote:

Im a solo mum of 3, not a choice I would have made if there was any other way. I do collect a benefit due to health issues that Im working hard to resolve so I can move on to something better. I probably qualify for a state house but I never took the time to find out as Im already not happy about being on the benefit and dont feel its right to just receive handouts. I wanted to be responsible for something!

The house I live in is old and the heating doesnt quite cut it, (I ended up buying a couple of econo heaters to help us get through the winter), and its in desperate need of some repairs. But all in all its a good stepping stone while I sort myself out.

But here is what gets me. Why is it that I struggle each week to pay my rent and feed my kids and a family I know gets to live in a brand new state house... in Rototuna (the newest sub-division in the north part of Hamilton)? I hear there are a few state houses there, all worth over 400k. Is that really necessary? They told me that on moving in they were told not to act "state housey" so the neighbours wouldnt complain!

State houses may serve a purpose, but there are some serious flaws on the system it seems!!!

02 Oct 2011 03:12p.m.

Hamish wrote:

Clarke is correct, National always make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Chris does not have an argument so has to throw insults, you lose Chris.

02 Oct 2011 02:24p.m.

M3N78L wrote:

Agreed Katrina, but could you tell David, Cluck and twist? They see it as an inalienable right and lifestyle choice. Cluck, if there's "red" on anyone's neck mate, it's yours comrade.

02 Oct 2011 01:28p.m.

James J.REad wrote:

As a pensioner, I'm less than impressed at being asked to subsidise 1,400 more state houses, in addition to the 66,000 current ones. The Housing minister Phil Heatley has pointed out that on average, the rent on these properties is subsidised by $8,000 each house per year. Before Santa Claus adds the cost of the new houses, that is $528 million in rent subsidy a year, the taxpayer is having to find.

02 Oct 2011 01:19p.m.

johnmillan wrote:

Katrina,How did Key get bought up in a State house??when his parents were well off?My guess that you were also bought up in one,the way you down grade your own people who were never fortunate,like those who had assets and came here in ship loads who pleaded poverty got houses and jobs given too them by the then National government.It was the Labour Government that introduced the state houses in the early 1950s,since then the Nats have taken over as if they started the state homes off,Just like the RWC was gained by the Labour government when they were in power and National go about as if they got it.They bleat like idiots when ever Labour come up with better ideas than them,and say it wont work.What has worked in the 2-3/4 years this government have been in??exactly nothing just made the country far worse off.And who created the last very poor rating?Yes the Nat government once again.And it is so sickening to hear from the National government that Christchurch caused the down turn,that is a lot of crap,the country nose dived on their first budget and has gone down more every week since.The only skills Key has, is how too bull shit his way through life.Clarke you I do agree with,also david.I would say the tory supporters are very upset that they voted for more and ended flat on their guts.

02 Oct 2011 11:37a.m.

Oliver I wrote:

Who's Phil Goff? what does he do? why is he commenting on the issue?

02 Oct 2011 11:06a.m.

Christopher wrote:

@Clarke,

I hardly comment here, but allways see your comments. Whilst I used to be quite pro-benefit and looking after everyone. my veiws have very much changed after myself getting cancer earlier this year. I still like that we look after everyone, but too many people are milking the system.

Yes some of us will need to take time off to work things out, some may never be able to work again. But I found for the last half of my treatment I was able to continue working partime and studying. So I don't buy many stories of people stuck on the benefit for years.

In my veiw state housing should be a temporary solution, not a life long living arrangement.

I think my biggest lesson for this year is that lifes all about attitude. Quite a few of the people who find themselves stuck in shitty situations I've nottice deffinitly lack the right attitude.