KEY POINTS:
National has accused the Government of letting 145 state tenants live in $1 million-plus grandeur while 11,000 others wait and "ordinary hard-working New Zealanders" struggle to save for their own homes.
This forum debate has now closed. Here is a selection of your views on the topic.
Orakei
What outrageous jingoism, from National and the Herald, to say people are living in "$1 million plus grandeur "while others wait and struggle to save for their homes. I live in Orakei, we own our modest home. But if you have ever been inside one of these houses you would know that no one is living in "grandeur", and quite frankly some houses are substandard. And if nothing is done to maintain these houses they will fall down and national's friends the real estate developers can move in and make their money. Its unfair to blame Orakei residents for the housing waitlist. Many of the state houses in Orakei are tenanted by Ngati Whatua residents because that is their tribal home. Where else are they to go? They are also "ordinary, hardworking New Zealanders" who would like to own their own homes. The blame for waitlists lies with National who sold off as many as possible to their real estate friends. And on a final note, can the Herald please not assume that every house that looks like a state house is one, when in fact many of those houses are now owned and maintained by Ngati Whatua O Orakei as a means to provide housing for their beneficiaries.
Le Fox
A majority of people who work, work in the cities. It doesn't make sense for people who are relying on workers taxes to be living in the city when clearly they can live elsewhere,in premises which are cheaper to maintain in the suburbs. If Councils got rates for government houses, a house in the city will give the council about $3,000 -4,000 per year. So, get rid of taxpayer funded housing in the cities & place them where they cost the tax payer the least amount of money. By placing taxpayer funded housing out in the suburbs, that will actually reduce our taxes & keep trade moving(grocery & clothes shops, electricity, phones, petrol stations, etc). I heard the argument in Sydney, when dole bludgers were able to get harbourfront apartments, it was said that they would never be able to afford to live there unless they were in government housing, well my view is why should they be able to live there when most taxpayers can't afford to live there?I want government to use my taxes to get the best dollar value from my 100 cents, instead of costing me $200 per $1 paid.
Matt Pilott
National are shown up as clueless incompetents again. I guess they still want to sell these units, and blocks of flats, because they're worth over one million? Despite the fact that they house multiple families? Let's boot 'em all out for a buck! National should do the research before putting out these pathetic smears - according to them HNZ should evict a tenant of 39 years because their property value has increased. Everyone gets a fair deal with National right?
Help, not hinder
Not everyone in a state house is a beneficiary, I know families living in Orakei state houses who are employed and work damned hard for their money and they still barely make ends meet. They dont have any luxuries and they certainly dont bludge from the system. If you make things harder for them, what choices do you leave them? Why should they be uprooted just because the market decides the area they live in is worth something? What the heck will you do when the market changes its mind again? So many people make unfair judgments and forget about the people who will be affected the most, the ones who work hard, live their lives honestly and pay their taxes just like everyone else.
Digby
The Government should be leveraging off these properties. Keep them and borrow against them to build or buy more where the land value is a lot cheaper.
East Auckland
This is just further ammunition for Helen to get the social welfare vote! Everyone knows that those on benefits vote for Labour as their cushy deal is promised to get cushier! I agree with John - .sell the prime real estate and put the state tenants into housing that reflects their rent. I am sick and tired of driving past state homes (all over Auckland) and seeing flash cars in the driveway, Sky dishes on the roof, bags of KFC been taken in the front door and the front lawn littered with empty beer bottles. No wonder these people need government assistance for housing as all their hard earned dole money has gone on the necessities in life!?! There are genuine cases of poverty but in a society where all you have do is ask for more money and it is given to you there is no real excuse. The work force is crying out for workers but they get paid more on the dole so why work? A complete shake up of the social welfare system including state housing is long overdue. I challenge anyone else to have a valid reason why people need to be so reliant on the social welfare system.
Ms Auckland
It just goes to show that housing valuation is rather unrealistic and a load of hogwash.
Heather
I thought state houses were just a temporary option whilst families saved enough to either rent or buy their own place. But it's more like a permanent arrangement now - you read of people living in their state houses for 30-40 years! I suppose if you are only paying a few piddling dollars a week in rent, what incentive is there to move? And if the government starts making noises about moving you on, simply either a) have another few kids, or b) invite your rellies to live with you so you can't be kicked out.
Bruce (Whangarei)
Seventy years ago the policy makers in Government and the Director of Housing Construction, the late R. B. Hammond, could not have anticipated the surge in land prices recently. Critics should try buying a dairy farm on the coast in the North Island. The dwellings themselves are probably worth less than $80,000 without the land. A solution is to remove the dwellings and re-site them elsewhere, a practice common in Whangarei. The dwellings are solid, though fairly small. Weatherboards on the exterior walls are usually heart grade timber. The sites in the "desirable" locations, bare, could then be sold to those prepared to pay current market prices and meet annual Rate Demands. I am a retired quantity surveyor.
Edward Ethrington
Interesting that the land these houses are on was originally gifted by Maori for the building of churches, schools and housing for the poor. Now of course National have their corporate eyes beadily attached to them. The whole of Bastion Point, and the surrounding suburbs were 'gifted' and look what happened there. Maori had to virtually wage war to regain occupancy. What troubled short memory times we live in. Does anyone remember the wholesale eviction and raising to the ground of Maori settlements in Orakei so the Queen wouldn't have to see those squalid natives? Can the whole site not be redeveloped and kept for low income or perhaps the elderly? Is it so wrong for state house tenants to have a view?
Thomas
What an opportunity! You could sell one $1 mil house and buy 4-5 houses in Mangere, and instead of one family, you could house more! It's win / win for everyone!
Nats from Auckland
First of all whether the government sell these houses or not lets all of us face reality that it's not to benefit us, state housing, or for even those waiting to get into a state house. It is so the greedy government can have more money in their pockets. Secondly we all know that if they are worth millions and millions of dollars they wouldn't belong to state housing anyway. If they did me and my partner would stop working our butts off pretend we were handicapped, go on a sickness benefit so that we too would be eligible for one of these grandeur Hollywood homes in beautiful Orakei!
John
It's not necessarily the case that state house tenants aren't working and what sort of market rent could someone on a pitiful $11.25/hr before tax pay?
State housing
Why should people living in state housing be any different from someone living in a privately rented property? If the landlord gives 6 weeks' notice to move, you've gotta to go. If these people want to live in state houses close to the city because they want to find a job, that is quite acceptable. Government should have policy in place that if they don't get a job within, say 12 or 18 months, they've got to go and move to a state house that is away from the city in some small town. The govt do have a responsibility to utilise state assets to the best of its usage. Putting beneficiaries into a state house for life in a prime area certainly isn't it! If these guys are not going to work for life, as long as they are provided a proper shelter over their heads by the tax payers, they should not complain about location, that's not their choice! You get a choice for free things.
Disgusted at National
Get a grip National. The Orakei state houses werent worth $1 million when they were first set up, and it was with no thanks to you that they're worth that much now. You sold off so many state houses, charged market rents to those who couldnt afford it and forced children into poverty. Get the $$$ signs out of your eyes and start thinking about helping people not running them into hard times.
Emma
How is it the fault of the tenants, who are clearly there because they need housing, that the local area has risen in land values? It's a bit rich to suggest that poor people don't deserve to live in what are now nice areas. you can't say to people ' hi your poor, this is an area for rich people, now shove off'. Orakei was always a bit of a dive, but sitting on the fringes of the wealthier Mission Bay/Remuera suburbs, this article negates the fact that many of these homes could be occupied by long-term families and this is where their life is. Get kicked out on account of the patch of dirt being pricey? No way. Leave them where they are. This smacks of elitism gone nuts.
Luke
The government has put minimum wage to $11.25 an hour, there is no reason people shouldn't be able to afford to look after themselves and rent now days. I don't understand why people would stay on the dole and let the government dictate where they can live and how much money they get each week. Sell the houses put the money into getting the tenants in the house into work. The harder or smarter you work the better your lifestyle gets.
Kathryn
Even if the so-called '1 million dollar' houses are sold, surely each sale will only fund the purchase of 2 other homes with prices the way they are. I don't believe these tenants are living in luxury. Many people go through hard times and it's good that there is support to help people who are in desperate need. The lack of affordable first homes seems to me to be a separate (and much more alarming) issue.
If I would be living in a state house
I would probably paint this myself, fix broken windows, latches etc myself, I would build a dog house myself, I would ...you name it...instead of crying oh how bad is my position I live in my bad (area, house, room.. you name it what is problematic)state house, then perhaps all others (rich mates(immigrants)?..yeah right) NZrs would not cry sell it! They would be more selective in this crying then. They would see that John from Statehouse St have tried to paint and keep in order what he got from the rest of the country which works hard enough to put this for him in the form of the state houses ..and one more thing - it is all us ..immigrants(?) fault that we came here and prices went up for these houses which in the 21st century are all required insulation to be installed (!) Do not sell it - give it for free then prices will drop and we are all will be motivated to go and live in the state owned houses and if your child misbehaving he can be put in the state care as well! as you...scary...thought..huh?
Dave Purvis
I'd have to agree to Tane Wilton's comments except I'd like to ask who you are referring to when you say a decent/quality home? Surely not the State (even though it is in their mission statement)! Maybe quality land but definitely not the homes! Yes obligations are being met in long-term stability but at what cost? As far as specialization goes, well we only need to ask Phil Heatley who his mates are! Clearly if the greedy companies put our wages/salaries up as fast as house prices we wouldn't be having this conversation or having people in an unobtainable home buying situation.
Rossnz
Politicians are clever at diverting attention from the real issue. The state housing shortage is caused by long-term tenants who once qualified for a state house, but whose financial circumstances have now improved to the extent that they would not even get on a waiting list. The cowards who govern us will not ask the wealthier state tenants to make way for the desperately needy. The media is also guilty of being sympathetic to the existing tenants over the continued suffering of those who can't be housed. Selling a million dollar house and buying five replacement housing units with the proceeds is only part of the answer. The result would be one unhappy small family replaced with five happy large families. The media would of course concentrate its attention on the one family being evicted. Shame on you all.
Margot
To the writers and readers who believe that the taxpayer should give you a free hand out, I think you need to take a good look at yourselves. Do you have no sense of pride? This is why us that work (I'll say the word again - work) must pay such incredibly high tax. No other country is this easy. Perhaps we should be like Canada and have a cap on the length of time any individual may receive a benefit.
Ian
National is absolutely right. Why should state tenants be in a US$1m home when many others desperately need homes. Any other landlord would have either upped the rent to reflect value or given the tenants notice. That's what should happen. It is obvious that state homes were built in areas that suited state homes years ago. demographics and socioeconomic circumstances have changed and now the areas are not appropriate for state homes. Labour needs to get with the times, be realistic, and see the need of those it supposedly represents Labour should realise that no state home should be above the average value for a home in the suburb. Housing NZ represents the public and should have stock in appropriate areas, with appropriate tenants and at appropriate rents. Labour should stop being politically correct. To say we can't do anything about the home until the tenant moves out is a real cop out. Wake up and smell the roses
Grant
Maybe we should ask New Zealand's highest paid state house tenants to move out and rent somewhere else. Is it really necessary that the New Zealand taxpayer pays salaries to our politicians, and then also has to pay to house them? Perhaps if we sold up the Ministerial houses in Wellington and told our elected representatives to find their own accommodation (as everyone else in a job does) then they might be more in touch with the housing market.
John (Auckland)
Wow! I have just decided to give up my job and paying my hefty rent in Mt Eden and will apply for one of these amazing properties. What a great deal. I shall spend my days cutting out coupons for food. Who needs to work?
Luke
I love the fact that I pay over $1000 a month tax and pay a huge chunk of my wages to live in a small flat. If I quit my job today in 13 weeks I can be getting paid by our government and if I wait long enough on the dole they will pay for a house to live in. Cut peoples dole and housing off after 5 years,Use the money saved to develop industry to employ people. Our grandparents didn't live off hand outs why should we be able to. Sell a few of the 1M houses build multi- level Units on the property where the rest are. Like they said its the land that's worth the money, It cost the same to build housing where ever it is.
Million dollor Orakei of course darling
Like Lottie says: You are paying for where you live, not for what you live in. Am in total agreement with this statement as can assure any one that is in private rental accommodation paying market rent that you are onto a good thing even if it feels like a strain on your finances. Either way it is the land values estimated by QV at question here isn't it! Pity the prejudice from surrounding owners put on the HNZ residents in Orakei and other high valued HNZ land suburbs. So what Phil Heatley is really saying is lets line our pockets and we really know who he supports - speculators/ developers. He has no idea of the stresses that HNZ tenants have to endure. I'm not saying there isn't a problem with the waiting list and the fact that a lot of HNZ stock is becoming too costly to keep in line with the RTA(the waiting list was a lot higher a couple of years ago Thanks to Chris Carter and his team this has changed)There are some HNZ tenants paying market rent and some not for what they live in, not where they live - after all we are all paying for what we get in the rent dollar. National needs to get over it for the time being, I guess that will all change in the next government!
Arron
Ridiculous having these bludgers live in some of the best areas of Auckland in large houses when most hard working skilled people are struggling to get by. The state shouldn't be a landlord, sell the houses and make these people take on some personal responsibility.
Dam
Sell Them. This is a no-brainer. It is logical to help more families than less.
Sam Dixon
We can't have poor people living in rich peoples' areas can we? Send them to the ghetto! This argument that if only we could free up the capital in these houses we could build a whole lot more is rubbish... Housing NZ has an aggressive building and improvement program on, it is not complaining that it can't get enough money from the Government to build all the houses it wants. Its just going to take time to replace all the houses the Nats sold off. Pushing people out of these homes won't make it any faster. Anyway, as Carter said, just because its the title is worth a million+ doesn't mean its a single state house worth that much. Many are multi-apartment titles or women's refuge centres.
Anna
Sell them , as long as the money is then used to buy more houses. There is no loss , only gain!. And as long as the families in these homes are provided with the same quality of housing as they already have then whats the big deal!
Hannah ( I live in one of those houses)
Ahh how little respect people have. I live in a state house on one of the forementioned streets and while the area might be worth that much my house is not it is in a bad state and has not been re decorated since the late 70s, it takes approx 3 weeks to get anything done by the government We had a lock break and it took 3 weeks for them to organize a locksmith. I live in a state house because my husband and i have 4 children and he has a disability which only allows me to work (50 hours a week for minimum wage). If you want to buy one of these house be prepared to spend at least $100,000 on doing it up so it looks nice. Oh yeah, a window cracked (not my fault) last month and because its not urgent I will have to wait 6 weeks for it to be replaced. Well done, Helen.
Maddy (Auckland)
I believe we should all live in million dollar+ homes and am glad to see the government finally on my side. Clearly, if our crappy wages wont get us there, the government will. Best news I've had all week. Who pays for the moving boxes?
Tane Wilton
The fact is that the whole waiting list problem was caused by National's decision to sell off 13,000 state houses to their developer mates. Every Kiwi has the right to a decent home, and if we as a society can't provide that then we have an obligation to provide them with one. That means providing long-term stability, not throwing people out on their ass whenever we feel like it. And for those who dispute the right to a home, you should first ask yourself whether there really should be a right to speculate and drive up land prices.
Lynn (Papakura)
I totally agree with Mary, state houses should have a time limit on them. Allow them 5 yrs to save get on their feet and the move on and pay the same as everyone else whether it be on a mortgage or private rental. Its just like our justice system, inmates get to live of our taxes for nothing and get payouts when they have done their time. Toughen up NZ or us the ones that actually work and pay mortgages that pay the price.
John Robb
Phil Heatley's real agenda is to get the 'peasants' out of the desirable suburbs and back onto the state housing reservations where they rightfully belong. I mean if these houses are really worth $1 million then surely they should be occupied by the effete and fatuous, not by working class riff-raff. There goes the neighbourhood. Just look what's happened to Grey Lynn and Ponsonby etc. since the exit of the working class, Polynesians and students, sure you can get a good cup of coffee, but the community spirit has moved out.
Andrew Atkin
I'm sure all those people currently living in garages and caravans would agree that it's better to turn a single million-dollar home into 3 or 4 cheaper homes.
State-ing the obvious (Auckland)
Sell them. sell them sell them sell them. The fact this has come about reinforces the unsuitability of the state as a landlord. How can the government purport to be giving first homebuyers a chance when they're holding the top of market down. They should free these properties for the market and use the proceeds to buy / build 4 times as many more suitable homes for the low income families they're intended for. This isn't about the rights of the few privileged enough to have hung onto these mansions, but about the many more who are trying to get any suitable state housing, and were we to rationalise and manage the portfolio better, they would have housing, and we as a nation would have change in our pocket. The fact that the govt doesn't want to relocate these tenants to more suitable premises is ridiculous. No real landlord would stand a 0.1 per cent yield, yet the govt is now making moves towards shared equity, one can only imagine how well that will go.
David Hanson
These homes should be sold to allow funding for new state housing to be built on less expensive land. As per your article this could end up being some of the most expensive land in Auckland. There are new upmarket homes scheduled to be built in Ngake Street this year on site of former state houses,so the improvement has already started.
Lottie
Having lived for a year or so in one of the areas that I know will have US$1 million plus homes in it, believe me the house itself would not be worth that money - in fact most of them from the outside look like they haven't had any work done by the landlord (aka the government) for quite a long time and I'm not sure they would get tenants paying a retail rent in them. So, the only reason why they are worth that is the location and in some places the spectacular view. Which pretty much sums up the problem of the NZ housing industry - you are paying for where you live, not what you live in.
Auckland
These houses were originally built by the Government to house families who were not in a position to buy their own homes and today, people have even less chance of achieving that dream. For this reason,they should remain just what they are - state houses. Why should the fact that housing values in Auckland which have rocketed to a ridiculous all-time high, have any bearing on it at all. It is irrelevant. The only reason Phil Heatley is making a song and dance about it all, is because many of the properties are now in much sough-t after areas. Tough.
Margot
Hi, I don't believe that the government (i.e taxpayer) is responsible for putting roofs over the heads of anyone. Sure, I wish I was not paying $600 a week for my mortgage and had a free house paid for by someone else, but I would have to have no sense of pride! If I rocked up to Samoa, got off the plane and asked the local authorities for a free house and free income what do you think the answer would be? New Zealand needs to be tough. Too many years of providing hand-outs has created this dependency. Just another reason to move to greener pastures.
Annette
Desirable areas and house and land values come and go. 60 plus years ago when many of the state homes in these areas were built and tenanted , it was cheap land and lower socio economic suburbs. Tenants often wished to by their homes in those days and these suburbs became settled and gentrified. Many Kiwi grandparents lived in homes and places such as these. Hence the desire to live there today by this generation. Mission Bay and Orakei had holiday homes and blocks of seedy flats even in my time. Inner city suburbs were the regarded the same way and had much state housing, now sold off and in high demand. In those days Manurewa and Mangere were where it was at. Otara was seen as a bright new light, people who could not afford there bought in Pakaranga and Cockle Bay. Could the government have predicted that change and planned ahead 60 years , possibly , but should an 86 yr tenant be booted out for some young turk who wants to buy and develop her home of 60 years.
Tony
May I suggest that these lucky state tenants be approached in a private manner to induce them to vacate/shift to another state property at the earliest suitable time. This could be achieved in a manner to their advantage like eg. 3months rents free to vacate and also impress them that they are doing/contributing help to others who are in desperate situation. Off course this million dollar properties will then be sold and proceeds used solely to build more state properties to ease the shortage Please "no consolidated fund" hands off. The holding cost of these million dollar properties do not make economic sense as it stands. Please Labour I think you guys do have some common sense - do the right thing after all I did stand up for your working for families policy though like all else as it evolves needs some fine tuning.
Charlotte
I think that they should be sold if their value is over US$700,000. as you could buy 2 or 3 homes for people who need them. Instead of having one family living in the US$700,000+ properties... They are stupid to keep these high value properties when there are New Zealanders who really need help from the government but are put on waiting list' for homes because there are not enough of them!
Ammy
Alternate accommodation in form of apartments should be made on an SOS basis where not only people from these expensive house be shifted but also many more could get.I t will also bring down the maintenance costs considerably. I think Government should not be waiting for such things to be pointed out by the opposition and should have their own set of some brilliant MBAs from say University of Auckland and not typical bureaucrats.
Tom
Regarding the $1M homes... I must admit I would not want to 'make a go of it' if it meant me leaving my 1M pad and getting a mortgage for a horrible house in a bad part of town. I would just chill out in my state house!
Revan
Million dollar state houses should be sold and the outstanding amount owed for back-rent and repairs promptly paid. Whatever amount is left could subsequently be used to build low-cost housing in more cost effective areas.
Mary Evans
There should be a time limit on state housing so everyone can have their chance to save and get on their feet. It should not be a lifestyle as has been in the past for some people. There should be no exceptions at all after five years the tenants should be advised that they have to move out. As for the million dollar views, the government should sell these houses and use the money to fund other cheaper more affordable accommodation. I also feel that people should take responsibility for their own lives and not expect the government to help them all the time. Personally I dont think the government should fund any accommodation for anyone nor provide cheap accommodation or state funded loans. The money should be invested in projects for all New Zealanders not just a few.