HOUSING:

1. Housing is a right guaranteed by the government
2. Government, through Housing NZ, will ensure that there is a 1 to 2 percent over supply of homes in all areas
3. Rent for government supplied housing will be set as a percentage of household income high enough to cover maintenance and no more (Really, the government doesn't need to make a profit)
4. If people so choose they can sell their house to the government at present market rates and turn it in to a government rental
5. All government rentals come with a lifetime lease
6. All government rentals will be kept up to a high standard including good insulation, solar power and solar water heating

Thanks for your comments Colin.
My response would be:

1. So why are there so many folk not living in a house.
2. Why are there not enough houses supplied in all area's
3. Why are so many government/ council owned houses not maintained is a healthy way
4. If families strike unfortune such as job lose why are they not selling their homes back to the government so they can stay in this home on a more manageable income % rated rent.
5 Do all government retails come with a lifetime lease
6. Where is the high standard of healthy and cost effective standards that should be included in government rentals.

@colinengland here are my takes on your proposal :

Government, through Housing NZ, will ensure that there is a 1 to 2 percent over supply of homes in all areas
- this is problematic so long as housing is allowed to be sold to non NZ & Aus residents.

Rent for government supplied housing will be set as a percentage of household income high enough to cover maintenance and no more (Really, the government doesn't need to make a profit)
- this is problematic so long as government supplied housing is frequently abused and smashed by tenants, this would result in relatively high rents in order to cover the significant damage caused by rotten tenants. (Yes, this also happens in the private rental market, but they tend to have that information shared by landlords.)

If people so choose they can sell their house to the government at present market rates and turn it in to a government rental
- I disagree with this on a practical basis, as they would have no incentive to own their house.

All government rentals come with a lifetime lease
- this must not mean that a house for life is supplied as a government rental, for example when a family grows up and the children have left, the parents should be moved to a smaller house rather than outlast the larger house a younger family needs.
Additionally, a family that has finally acquired enough income to buy a house must not be allowed to persist in state housing when there are people who actually need it.

All government rentals will be kept up to a high standard including good insulation, solar power and solar water heating
- this should also include double glazing a dehumidifier and basic heating powered by the solar panels.

in response to the first comment :
So why are there so many folk not living in a house.
- this varies between mental health issues, to parental ejection for non compliance with house rules.

Why are there not enough houses supplied in all area's
- there actually is enough houses in Auckland, the problem is that it is easier for foreign investors to simply buy a house and keep it empty and profit from the capital gains in valuation rather than rent it out.

Why are so many government/ council owned houses not maintained in a healthy way
- this can vary between simple dampness (which can be fixed by a dehumidifier) to problem tenants having rowdy parties. An obvious solution would be having regular 6 weekly inspections, or even weekly checks in the case of elderly tenants.

If families strike unfortune such as job lose why are they not selling their homes back to the government so they can stay in this home on a more manageable income % rated rent.

• you could argue that from the perspective of a friend of mine who was a coal mine engineer, but then why should he demand that he not redeploy to another engineering job where the demand for his skills is going to last more than 5 years ? 5 Do all government rentals come with a lifetime lease
• No, and they should not come without conditions on life changes such as children leaving home, ability to get a mortgage, etc.

Where is the high standard of healthy and cost effective standards that should be included in government rentals.
- You'll have to vote this lot out in 2017 before that'll have anything other than lipservice.

this is problematic so long as housing is allowed to be sold to non NZ & Aus residents.

I think offshore ownership needs to be banned outright.

this is problematic so long as government supplied housing is frequently abused and smashed by tenants

The idea would be to set it to cover normal wear and tear with anything over that being charged at high rates to dissuade people from abusing the house

I disagree with this on a practical basis, as they would have no incentive to own their house.

That's the idea. Private ownership is actually the problem, not the solution.

this must not mean that a house for life is supplied as a government rental, for example when a family grows up and the children have left, the parents should be moved to a smaller house rather than outlast the larger house a younger family needs.

I would certainly encourage parents to move to a smaller house when their own kids have moved out but I wouldn't force them. Forcing them would be going down the path of dictatorship

Additionally, a family that has finally acquired enough income to buy a house must not be allowed to persist in state housing when there are people who actually need it.

See above.

A great solution to the housing problem Colin but the government clearly don't care about the struggles of NZ'rs when it comes to housing them.

Colin, you've suggested a great solution. How different is it from the old state housing scheme? As Pamela has pointed out, the government doesn't care about NZers' housing needs. Would her privately funded(?) scheme be the answer?

How different is it from the old state housing scheme?

Really couldn't say. I know that the old state housing scheme was better than it is today because the politicians have been cutting it back over the years so as to increase profits for private rentals.

Would her privately funded(?) scheme be the answer?

It may help but I think it would be too slow to catch on to help as much as needed. I also think that privatisation is what's led us to the point of having so many societal ills and so I don't think that more privatisation is the answer.

I agree with you, that privatisation has brought us to the sorry state of housing in NZ, among many other societal ills. I would like to know more about the scheme Pamela has suggested, as it seems to be collectively-managed and more about helping home owners than making profits for investors or developers - the residents themselves are the shareholders. A system like this might avoid the problems of abuse of the system that were common in the old state housing scheme.
The inertia of government is such that any government scheme would take a very long time to implement. Maybe, if a collectively-managed private scheme were initiated, the government may be persuaded to contribute to it?

My question is, in regards to state/privatised social housing.

Does legislation exist that supports the formation of a social housing tenant's union?