"This could further divide communities and reduce the security of low-income tenants, as we have already seen in communities like Pomare in Lower Hutt and Glen Innes in Auckland."

"Shelter is one of our most fundamental needs, as people need to live in an environment which provides stability and a sense of belonging" she said.

"And as an essential collective good, state housing exists to meet the needs of the most vulnerable for affordable and secure homes."

"Caritas welcomes the expansion of social housing options in the community and private sector, as long as this complements state housing provision rather than becoming a substitute for it."

Hickey says Housing New Zealand has not been transparent about the possible criteria and conditions for the sales of state houses, and Caritas strongly believes that affected communities and social housing providers need the opportunity to have input in this process.

Both Bill English and Paula Bennett have raised the prospect that up to a third of state houses could be sold.

That would be more than 22,000 homes valued at over $5 billion.

They are said to be in the wrong place, or to be otherwise unsuitable.

But John Key said no decision has been made on how many houses will go.

He said the sale would not amount to asset sales.

"If at the end of the day, Housing NZ sells a few state houses, well, actually, that's happened for a long period of time. We often trade our stock.

"So if we sell some individual state houses, it's not an asset sale. If we sold Housing New Zealand or part of it, it would be, and we have absolutely no plans to sell," he said.

Key says that groups such as the Salvation Army would be offered the houses at a discounted rate.

"The question isn't about reducing the amount of housing, the question is about how do we more rapidly provide more housing," he said.

Key also said the number of state houses sold over the next three years would be "less than the numbers being banded around."

Building 1000 state houses would cost an estimated $500 million, while providing income-related rent subsidies to community groups would cost an estimated $12m a year.

Key said there was a legitimate question to ask about what happened to money from Housing NZ's balance sheet, from the sale of state houses, and if that would be reinvested in other housing initiatives.

"The answer is, we'll give you that answer very soon," he said.

Source

• Supplied:
• Radio New Zealand
• Radio New Zealand
• Stuff.co.nz
• Image: Stuff.co.nz

For, if nothing else, Maori interests and determination that rights issues must be addressed before asset sales proceed ought to tell us that this is a precious resource. And that we need to wake up and get with the programme.

We shouldn't have to be told, of course, but probably because water has always been abundant and free, and because most of us urban-dwellers are still relatively untouched by either shortage or quality decline, we continue to take plenitude for granted. Read more

Sources

• Simon Cunliffe in The Sunday Star Times
• Image: Miles To Go

Simon Cunliffe, a West Coaster by birth, was awarded best columnist at the 2012 Canon Media Awards.

The incoming National government chose to ignore this expression of New Zealanders' views, and has been taking steps to change legislation to allow the sales to go ahead. The call for a citizens' initiated referendum on the asset sales has been dismissed on the grounds that the 2011 Election was the poll, as if all who voted wanted every last promise of the National Party implemented, without the right to examine it further.

Several important drawbacks have surfaced since the election.

We were told that the money raised was to retire some of our public debt, or maybe to fund anything else we needed - a very elastic windfall, it seems. Now we are told that the amount likely to be raised will not be 7 billion, and, indeed, was only ‘a guess' by the Minister of Finance! ‘Counting your chickens' comes to mind.

Do we seriously trust our country's reputation and autonomy to people who seem hell bent on selling our assets - and land - to anyone with a deep wallet?

Another fish hook is the Maori Party's insistence on a clause in the sale process that will safeguard Te Tiriti rights, a factor which may well reduce the value for prospective foreign buyers, even if they are not constrained by it. Selling only to New Zealanders will not necessarily keep the shares in this country, either, because there can be no regulation forbidding the on-sale of shares to anyone else. Nor can there be safeguards to prevent a large shareholder selling off part of the holding, e.g. a dam. Nor is the government insisting on the buyers making a commitment to sustainable development - a serious omission in the case of Solid Energy, which wants to expand the mining of coal and lignite, adding to already high CO2 emissions for our fragile world.

It has been rightly said that even partial asset sales would be selling the goose that lays the golden egg, given the substantial dividends paid to the government by these energy companies, averaging 14.5% over the last 5 years. (From a recent Treasury report). A certain sum may be paid to the present government, but the next government would have nothing - no dividends, no capital assets.

Another sure result of selling energy companies would be a rise in electricity prices to the consumer. Shareholders require profits - at our expense - and the poverty gap widens.

Where is the fiscal sense in any of this? After giving tax breaks to the wealthy, we find that the tax take is much lower than expected. Is this what happens when a share trader runs the country, and the Finance Minister makes assertions based on guesswork? Is the government concerned only with the economy over next three years? Is this responsible governance? Tricia Kane

Sources

• Tricia Kane is a retired librarian and a grandmother
• Image: Werewolf