Auckland should be the last place anyone who isn't making it should want to be, but many obviously do want to be there. Unless they simply don't have the imagination to see themselves living somewhere else, or the means to remove themselves. That's where the Minister's idea gains some credence. Her offer of a small cash inducement to leave might be seen less as a bribe than as a helpful hand to shift to another part of the country where opportunities are more plentiful.
It's a bit of a stretch to suggest that those who are currently homeless in Auckland can expect to walk into jobs somewhere else even if an affordable home is found for them, but it's a start. And better ideas are not exactly queuing up to be considered.
Not all the critics are opposed simply for the sake of being opposed, as is so often the case. Herald on Sunday columnist Heather du Plessis-Allan took a more positive view than many, although she was a little unkind to Ngaruawahia, another of Ms Bennett's suggested destinations for Auckland's homeless, which she described as rotting, a place where discerning travellers were loath even to pause for a comfort stop.
She reckoned that Seek and Trade Me between them were currently offering four jobs there, meaning that homeless family sent to Ngaruawahia would have a home but no hope. And that's a fair point.
She didn't write the idea off, but suggested it needed more work. Like bypassing Huntly, Gisborne and Ngaruawahia in favour of, say, Blenheim, where the KFC drive-through had apparently been closed because people could not be found to staff it. Foreigners were still flocking there to pick fruit, she said, while Trade Me and Seek were currently offering 233 jobs in Marlborough.
If Blenheim didn't have the empty state houses needed the government should build more.
"You can't shift the homeless out of town without giving them something: a home, a job, hope," she wrote.
That was a more helpful response than most. The bulk of critics, who would rather stick pins in their eyes than concede that any National MP had come up with a good idea, pointed to issues like depriving the homeless of their support networks in Auckland. What sort of support networks does someone who's sleeping in a car have? If they had support networks they wouldn't be sleeping in cars, under bridges, in shop doorways or crowding into emergency housing.
This is just a refinement of the argument that people have the God-given right to live where they choose, whether or not they can support themselves. It's the latest manifestation of the view that people have the right to do as they like, and that it is up to someone else, usually the government, to provide them with the means of doing that.
Even the argument that the homeless people problem is worsening is open to debate. It seems coincidental at the very least that we were bombarded with stories about people who had nowhere to go in the days leading up to the government's budget. It is far from paranoid to suspect that all sorts of agendas were at play, even if those who were pushing a political barrow lacked credibility.
Enter the Labour Party, which invited everyone who could get their hands on a camera, a pencil and paper to an address in South Auckland, where they would meet Labour leader Andrew Little and see for themselves a lawn that had been covered in tents to provide some sort of accommodation for, if memory serves, 17 people. Turned out that the property was owned by a couple who had erected the tents to protect their furniture from the elements while they renovated. Whoops.
Everyone was then invited back to Labour headquarters for a cup of tea while someone hunted down a real example of hopelessness.
Then there are those good people who think the best they can do to effect change is to experience homelessness themselves. Just for one night, mind you. June 16. At last report more than 260 of these selfless souls had signed up to bunk down in their cars to show solidarity with less fortunate folk in Mangere.
The only common denominators are that all 260 profess to be Christians, and all have homes to go to on the morning of June 17. Apparently they are planning their brief excursion into Mangere's Slough of Despair to show that 'middle New Zealand' cares about the homeless. Again the timing is significant, one of the leading lights saying that the one-night car dwellers were a group of mates who had "seen this for a few years." Social consciences in Mangere can obviously stand plenty of prodding before they burst into action. If you could call such a patronising demonstration of 'solidarity' action.
Worse, the 'park-up' will feature music, sausage sizzles, portaloos and porridge for breakfast. Just another night for Mangere's homeless then. And the invitation to all politicians to get involved will no doubt be snapped up. It would be more effective if these people, politicians included, undertook to live in their cars until something is done to help those who have no alternative, without the music, portable toilets, sausages and porridge, but that would be taking solidarity a little too far.
A Papakura woman is doing much better. She's organised a group of people to actually feed families who are living in a park in Takanini. Amy Lorigan says she knows what it's like to struggle. A former beneficiary, she and her partner are both working and raising a daughter. So she and her mother-in-law went to the park, tapped on car windows, and asked the occupants if they needed hot food. Now around 150 people are delivering food, then leaving, most of the recipients staying out of sight until they've gone.
Amy Lorigan won't be sleeping in her car on June 16. She'll be labouring over a hot stove, doing something practical to help people in need. Pity some of those who could make a difference on a grander scale can't see past meaningless gestures and political profit.
