(21-05-2024, 06:27 PM)Oh_hunnihunni Wrote: This is another way of rewarding property developers. By handing social housing to the private sector they continue to enrich the few by exploiting the many, while they pretend social responsibility.

(21-05-2024, 07:59 PM)Olive Wrote: And underlying all of the lies from Luxon, Bishop et al is the belief that poor people, damaged people, disabled people and unlucky people have brought it all on themselves somehow and should just disappear.  Whenever any members of the present coalition are asked what do they think will happen to KO tenants who are evicted, they decline to answer.  Presumably the unluckiest evicted tenants (and their children) will somehow just evaporate.

(21-05-2024, 02:43 PM)Lilith7 Wrote: I forgot to mention that their 'study into social housing' was led by none other than one Biill English, so naturally. completely unbiased...

And I am Marie of Romania...

• Positive change across a person’s lifetime
  
• Impact across multiple domains such as housing, safety and income
  
• Estimates of what we know can be improved over time
  

(22-05-2024, 04:32 PM)Oh_hunnihunni Wrote: Better still, get rid of the electoral process and shoulder tap people with proven skills to represent the people in areas the government funds. That way we might get a better selection of people to do the jobs we need in running our communities.

Democracy is all very well, but when it is hijacked by the wealthy and the power seekers, it simply doesn't work.

(22-05-2024, 08:19 PM)Oh_hunnihunni Wrote: Why we expect MPs to suddenly become experts in areas they have absolutely no real experience in I have no idea. Our local MP for instance, was a paramedic. Useful occupation. Now he is the Minister for Climate Change.

Good god...

(21-05-2024, 06:27 PM)Oh_hunnihunni Wrote: This is another way of rewarding property developers. By handing social housing to the private sector they continue to enrich the few by exploiting the many, while they pretend social responsibility.

Quote:The scathing “independent” review of Kāinga Ora barely hit the table before the coalition government had acted on it. The entire Kāinga Ora board will be replaced, and a new chair (Simon Moutter) has been announced. Hmm. No aspersions on Bill English, but the public would have had more confidence in this “independent” critique of Kāinga Ora’s expanded building programme if it had been carried out by someone other than a former National Party leader.
In this case, it was carried out by the same National Party leader whose own administration’s inadequate housing build – and selling of state houses- had caused Kāinga Ora to embark on its crash building programme in the first place.
Supposedly, Kāinga Ora was “underperforming,” had “little accountability” and was on a “financially unsustainable” debt path. Really? While the coalition government has chosen to highlight the rising debt, it has deliberately ignored the rising value of the assets being created via that debt. This is called investment in the future. Alien territory, I know, for the National Party.
Frankly, a $9 billion debt looks acceptable in future, because:

(a) Kāinga Ora would be building housing assets on a debt pathway that as Labour’s Kieran McAnulty has pointed out, would by 2060, have generated assets worth in the region of $200 billion, against that debt of $9 billion. Along the way, McAnulty added, debt was estimated to be running at only 25% of the worth of the assets being created.

(b) Kāinga Ora would be receiving an income stream from its rents, and

© Kāinga Ora has the ability to borrow to service its debt at cheaper rates than anyone else.

Ultimately, debt is what you inevitably incur when you make the investments necessary to address a housing crisis.

(24-05-2024, 03:41 PM)Lilith7 Wrote: Claiming John Key as an unbiased source for a review is a bit much  for most to swallow; in fact so blatant is it that it gives the strong impression that this govt not only doesn't care about the welfare of those already strruggling, it also does not care to disguise to any great extent, its very clear agenda to widen the gap between rich & poor.
Impoverishing those already struggling while further enriching the already wealthy seems to be the only agenda of this govt.

https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2405/S00064/on-the-privatising-of-state-housing-provision-by-stealth.htm

Quote:The scathing “independent” review of Kāinga Ora barely hit the table before the coalition government had acted on it. The entire Kāinga Ora board will be replaced, and a new chair (Simon Moutter) has been announced. Hmm. No aspersions on Bill English, but the public would have had more confidence in this “independent” critique of Kāinga Ora’s expanded building programme if it had been carried out by someone other than a former National Party leader.
In this case, it was carried out by the same National Party leader whose own administration’s inadequate housing build – and selling of state houses- had caused Kāinga Ora to embark on its crash building programme in the first place.
Supposedly, Kāinga Ora was “underperforming,” had “little accountability” and was on a “financially unsustainable” debt path. Really? While the coalition government has chosen to highlight the rising debt, it has deliberately ignored the rising value of the assets being created via that debt. This is called investment in the future. Alien territory, I know, for the National Party.
Frankly, a $9 billion debt looks acceptable in future, because:

(a) Kāinga Ora would be building housing assets on a debt pathway that as Labour’s Kieran McAnulty has pointed out, would by 2060, have generated assets worth in the region of $200 billion, against that debt of $9 billion. Along the way, McAnulty added, debt was estimated to be running at only 25% of the worth of the assets being created.

(b) Kāinga Ora would be receiving an income stream from its rents, and

© Kāinga Ora has the ability to borrow to service its debt at cheaper rates than anyone else.

Ultimately, debt is what you inevitably incur when you make the investments necessary to address a housing crisis.

(28-05-2024, 08:49 AM)Oh_hunnihunni Wrote:

(24-05-2024, 03:41 PM)Lilith7 Wrote: Claiming John Key as an unbiased source for a review is a bit much  for most to swallow; in fact so blatant is it that it gives the strong impression that this govt not only doesn't care about the welfare of those already strruggling, it also does not care to disguise to any great extent, its very clear agenda to widen the gap between rich & poor.
Impoverishing those already struggling while further enriching the already wealthy seems to be the only agenda of this govt.

https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2405/S00064/on-the-privatising-of-state-housing-provision-by-stealth.htm

How many mortgages are only 25% of the value of the property?

Quote:https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2024/05/labour-leader-chris-hipkins-lashes-out-at-political-hit-job-k-inga-ora-review-by-sir-bill-english.html

Opposition leader Chris Hipkins is calling the review of Kāinga Ora by former Prime Minister Sir Bill English a "political hit job".  
Newshub revealed on Tuesday Housing Minister Chris Bishop appointed Sir Bill, the lead author of the $500,000 report into the Government landlord, two weeks before informing his Cabinet colleagues. The $500,000 used for the review came from the fund that pays for transitional housing. 
Text messages between Sir Bill and Bishop were also revealed, where the former PM offered to help and the Housing Minister replying, "Excellent, let's do that".  

Newshub political editor Jenna Lynch said it wasn't unusual for former politicians to be appointed to such roles as the Kāinga Ora review but noted the timing of the text messages was "interesting".
"Interestingly, I got in touch with the Public Service Commissions about this yesterday - to see if there are any rules around ministers appointing people to these roles," she said on Wednesday.  
"When it comes to these reviews, there doesn't seem to be any kind of guidelines or any kind of rules that they need to follow - basically, it is just the responsibility of the minister to handle the review - it is the responsibility of the minister to find someone to do it and they can just do that however they want.  
"It doesn't appear any rules have been broken in doing so."  

While no rules have been broken, Hipkins fired up about the review - saying the Government "dressed this up as an independent report". 
"It's not an independent report, this is Chris Bishop texting Bill English saying, 'I want a review on Kāinga Ora, I want it to say this, I don't want you to talk to Kāinga Ora,'" Hipkins told AM on Wednesday. "It's a political hit job, it's a piece of spin dressed up as an independent report."  
While Kāinga Ora's acting chair told Sir Bill in a letter there was "relatively limited engagement with our organisation, leading to some review conclusions appearing to be based on analysis informed by anecdotes", Bishop said that was "their perspective, not mine".

Kāinga Ora's letter to Sir Bill also took exception with a number of the report's findings, alleging there were many factual errors - their list of mistakes is three pages long.

(21-05-2024, 07:59 PM)Olive Wrote: And underlying all of the lies from Luxon, Bishop et al is the belief that poor people, damaged people, disabled people and unlucky people have brought it all on themselves somehow and should just disappear.  Whenever any members of the present coalition are asked what do they think will happen to KO tenants who are evicted, they decline to answer.  Presumably the unluckiest evicted tenants (and their children) will somehow just evaporate.