29 May 2017
Housing Policy Debate – How do we ‘move the needle’ to see all New Zealanders well housed?
Wed 7 June 2017, 6-8p, Te Papa, Wellington
A group of national organisations are jointly hosting a housing policy debate, as part of the IMPACT
conference, at Te Papa (Wellington) on the evening of 7 June 2017.
Hosted by: Community Housing Aotearoa, New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services; Te
Matapihi; The Salvation Army; Platform; and PrefabNZ.
Purpose: To focus attention on what is required to significantly move the needle towards ending
the housing crisis, so that All New Zealanders are well-housed.
The format would be for a relaxed ‘back bencher’s’ style, where a set of lead questions is asked by a
respected moderator. Media coverage is welcomed.
Structure for the debate:
Moderator David Rutherford, Chief Commissioner, NZ Human Rights Commission will convene
and lead the session, setting out the ground rules for the debate. The session would start with one
or two short video vingettes of housing stories from tenants, families, making the point about
what’s working, and not working in housing from a persons perspective.
A panel of housing spokespersons from each political party that currently has seats in parliament,
or who has a stated housing policy (if not currently in parliament) includes:
Confirmed:
Peter Dunne, United Future
Phil Twyford, Labour Party
Metiria Turei, Greens
Dennis O’Rourke, New Zealand First
Geoff Simmons, The Opportunities Party
Invited but not confirmed:
Hon Amy Adams, National Party
(to be advised), Maori Party
Declined
Hon Alfred Ngaro, National Party
David Seymour, ACT Party
Marama Fox, Maori Party
The political spokespeople would engage with an expert commentator panel that includes:
 Major Campbell Roberts, The Salvation Army;
 Hurimoana Nui Dennis, Te Puea Memorial Marae;
 Stephen Selwood CEO, Infrastructure New Zealand.
1
The moderator would start the debate summarizing the problem statement, and kickoff with the
lead “what would move the needle” question, and offer each political party a 2-3 minute opening
response. The expert commentators would ask follow up questions, and stir the debate with their
views on whether the housing spokespersons response would ‘move the needle’ on the problem.
The evening would close with the moderator and each of the commentators giving their evaluation
of what would ‘move the needle.’
Problem Statement: The scale of the problem is getting bigger. Increasing numbers of households
are unable to transition from social rental to affordable rental and home ownership; the steps in
the housing continuum are broken. While supplying more homes is part of the solution, we are not
seeing a supply of genuinely affordable homes, of varying sizes that meet household needs today
and in the future. There is as yet no national housing strategy that sets out the actions to solve the
scale of the problem; the sector is building “Our Place” for exactly that purpose.
The community housing sector supports a housing continuum approach where there are realistic
and flexible options that minimise the need for emergency housing, and deliver adequate
quantities of social housing, assisted rental, assisted ownership such that households can find the
pathway to satisfy their housing needs. This approach requires housing that is ‘adequate’ –
meaning habitable, affordable, accessible, secure tenure and culturally appropriate.
Housing is a complex system with many moving parts – all of which are interrelated. A lot of the
work done so far has addressed overall housing supply, and delivered significant funding into the
emergency and social housing space. While these are not fully resolved, there is light at the end of
the tunnel so long as we can stem the tide of homelessness, and reduce demand for social housing
by improving overall affordability. What is clearly missing is actions that deliver for the
‘intermediate market’ – those interventions that open up the assisted rental and assisted
ownership space, where figures report there are as many as a quarter of a million New Zealand
households which struggle to find adequate housing.
Figures reported by Ministry of Social Development show that at March 2017, NZ spent $549.6
million in the first quarter of 2017 supporting 310,000 households with Accommodation
Supplement, Income Related Rent Subsidy, Emergency Housing supports and other housing support
products. This will likey reach $2.3 billion for the year. Of this spend, around half meets the test of
supporting “adequate housing” through the Income Related Rent Subsidy – for around 66,000
households growing to 72,000 over the next four years– it delivers affordability, and through
increasing regulation of HNZC and the Community Housing sector, delivers habitable, and secure
tenure homes.
However, for the other half – the Accommodation Supplement – received by around 285,174
households, it fails to deliver habitability as there are no standards on the quality of homes where
families can rent using their supplement. Nor does it provide affordability as it is not linked to their
household income. It also fails to deliver security of tenure – regardless of whether the household
has paid their rent they can be evicted under the RTA, with little ability to find a new place at a rent
they can afford. As a country we are not getting decent housing outcomes from this half of our
annual spend of around $1.1 billion per year. What would do better?
2
The Housing Shareholders Advisory Group report from 2010 set the path for the current reforms.
Have we delivered according to that plan? Could we be getting more effective delivery if we
switched to a cost-based housing delivery (rather than market rent?) Do we understand the full
costs of our current rental housing system?
The ‘Church Leaders Statement on Housing (May 2017)’ provides a scorecard review as at April
2017. The host organisations offer this report as a background document for the debate.
The big question is – how do we make sure we get value for money and improve housing with our
annual spend of $2.3 billion?
What would move the needle? Starting Questions:
1. Is the current policy of housing only “those with the greatest need, for duration of their need
only” the right setting? Is this contributing to homelessness and masking the range of
housing solutions needed?
2. What sort of national and regional housing policies would be required to activated the full
housing affordability continuum, to “meet all housing need, with the most effective tool”?
3. What would the interventions look like if they were to deliver on all housing need, with
affordability, habitability, accessibility, security of tenure and cultural appropriateness?
4. What best delivers the retention of affordability over time? What roles should the
community housing sector play? Local Government? Central Government?
5. Is addressing income inequality the way to address housing affordability and what
mechanisms would be best used? Would further income supports be an alternate to an
improved Accommodation Supplement, or would both be needed to work together?
6. How do communities take control of housing decision in their area so they get the best
outcomes?
7. What would you do to support households in the “missing middle” of the housing
affordability continuum? aspirational pathway for all social renters and providing motivation
to try to become more self-sufficient and more independent?
8. We know that housing quality – warm and dry homes- significantly improve health
outcomes. What investment do we need to make to raise the standard of all housing?
3