Category Archives: Government

More on cold, damp housing

A lot has been written in the last few days about sub-standard housing in the wake of the deaths of Emma-Lita Bourne and Soesa Tovo. Today I’m just picking out a few of the more interesting things that have been said.

From Judith Collins, government minister, who has never, as far as I can tell, known what poverty is like:

I think the best place to start is in social housing. This area provides housing for the most vulnerable New Zealanders who realistically have the least choice of all when it comes to housing. If Parliament expects private landlords to improve their houses, surely Parliament and Government should lead by example, rather than by law.

Tell me, how many landlords are going to look at well-maintained social housing and go ‘look, they’re doing it all right and getting bugger in rent. How about we increase our standards and accept low rent too!’. They’re not going to do it. Leading by example only works when people have some motivation to follow you. There’s no motivation to spend money that can conceivably be held on to until the last possible moment, for no real reward other than ‘yay we did what the government does’ and possibly ‘yay our tenants are happy’ . . . or not, when you hike the rent to cover the cost of the renovations. Leading by example just isn’t going to work. There needs to be some incentive.

From one Against the Current blog, rather left-leaning I would say:

The answer cannot be just to wave our fists at Nick Smith but to campaign for the nationalisation of the power companies so they can be managed as social utilities providing affordable power to all. They should be brought back into public ownership, and run democratically in the interests of workers and consumers. Then, prices can be controlled, bills made affordable, and profits invested in cheaper, cleaner and safer energy supplies, rather than in shareholder dividends.

I don’t know if public ownership with the right solution, but the way it’s put here sounds pretty bloody tempting really. Running it as a social enterprise and knocking prices down to where people can actually afford to run their heaters sounds like a very good idea right now, as one in ten face a winter where they will not run their heater at all. It’s five degrees out there in Wellington right now. Ten percent of people out there, give or take, are shivering through it. It’s not good enough. Maybe public ownership is the answer, maybe some sort of regulation is better, I don’t know, but the price of power is just too high, and the current model is not working.

Finally, Pete George of YourNZ, a right-leaning blog that claims to be ‘Reason, Reasonable, Robust’, has this gem for us:

But no matter what the Government does they cannot ensure everyone heats their house adequately, or ventilates their house adequately, or keeps their carpets and beds relatively free of allergens, or budgets effectively, or the many other things that can contribute to a family’s well-being.

Can we stop blaming the victims of economics for their own deprivation? It’s not a matter of choosing to run your heat pump and dehumidifier, or vacuuming, or watching your pennies. If it were, then there are a whole lot of people who were a whole lot healthier! These people. Cannot. Afford. To. Run. A. Heater. I suppose that the government really can’t ensure that everyone runs their heater – because there are people who look at whatever heating is provided in their home and laugh bitterly, knowing that it will never be turned on. They live in damp areas where opening your windows every day will do precisely nothing for the damp, except maybe exchange your inside, slightly warmer damp, for outside, slightly colder damp.

Keeping their carpet and bedding ‘relatively free of allergens’ has got to be one of the more ridiculous things I’ve seen. Ho do you keep your carpets free from allergens? Well, you vacuum  with one of those HEPA thingies, right? That required owning a vacuum cleaner, and bags for it, and so on. Those that can afford such things use them at about the same rate as richer people, I would wager – some just don’t but many do. But vacuum cleaners are luxuries. And what about the bedding? You keep that allergen free by washing sheets often – which poor people do as much as they can, but getting the only set of sheets you own for the bed washed and dried in one day in winter is a challenge sometimes. A dryer is WAY out of the question, and a trip to the laundromat to dry them off can mean no milk for breakfast that week. Then there’s the blankets and duvets and so on – things which need dry-cleaning. Ha! That’s bloody expensive. It just doesn’t register as high on the needs list as food and rent and power.

And then, there’s ‘budgets effectively’. If I had a penny for every person that has blamed poor people’s budgeting for their poverty, I would start a programme of insulating homes, and get a good way through the crappier areas of Wellington without blinking. How do you get it through people’s heads that you cannot budget effectively without the first tool of budgeting – money. When your money runs out before the end of the list of essentials, you cannot budget for the less urgent things. You just don’t have the resources. You can ask any budgeting advisory service in the country what they see most, and they will tell you – people whose money runs out before their needs do, who don’t even get into their list of wants.

There has been some sensible dialogue around this issue, and some stuff that just makes me rant. I think there are some people that need a short sharp dose of reality around this.

Advertisements

A cold response

Over the last week, it has come to light that at least two, and probably more, people have died partly as a result of cold, damp Housing New Zealand houses. It’s pretty shocking that it’s happening in a country with the resources to prevent that. We’re not a third-world country! We can and should do better.

Our housing minister doesn’t think so, though. His response, when questioned on the issue?

People dying in winter of pneumonia and other illnesses is not new.

How can he be so callous? It’s true that people have been dying of preventable cold-related illnesses right through the history of human existence, but that is not the point. The point is, we have the capacity to help, to prevent these occurrences – they are called preventable diseases for a reason – and we just aren’t.

Who are we if we take the minister’s stance? We are cold, we are heartless, and we are not fit to run a country. Especially not one that is supposed to support those down on their luck. Leaving them to die in the cold is reprehensible.

A couple of nights ago here it was cold, about 5 degrees. I needed many blankets to stay warm enough to sleep – I couldn’t sleep through the cold. I thought of all the kids with not enough blankets – poor people aren’t usually investing what money they have in lovely thick warm blankets – and not enough money to turn the heater on. They’re not sleeping well. What blankets they have are damp from their dreadful housing. There’s no hope of drying them in the sun in the depths of winter. It’s bleak.

We. Can. Do. Better. We’re not spending the full amount allocated for HNZ maintenance. 60%, Bill English boasts, is being spent, like this cost saving is a good thing instead of something that is literally killing New Zealanders. We’re spending on flag referendums, on subsidies to conference centres, on things that Don’t Matter. How about we spend on something that does matter – spend the money that’s already budgeted for it. It’s not a hard concept.

The pressures NGOs face

Yesterday I wrote a bit about NGOs providing essential social services. Today, I’m looking at the rest of the article I referenced there, on the funding issues that NGOs currently face. This government not only pushes essential social services off onto NGOs – it also underfunds them. Badly.

The author, Richard Wood, notes that even services which are ‘fully specified’ (which I think means fully funded for the services specified in their contracts, but it’s a piece of government jargon that Google wasn’t keen on giving up the definition of) are underfunded. If the government is short-changing the services which are supposed to be fully funded, how is it for partly-funded services? Pretty dire, would be my guess.

None of the funding for NGOs has been inflation adjusted since 2009, and even further back the inflation adjustment has not kept pace with actual inflation (which is about 30 percent in the last 12 years!). As the services struggle, and fall further and further behind, the government gets to look at them and tut-tut over their budgeting and fiscal responsibility. It’s rubbish.

At the same time as this government underfunding, philanthropists have signalled to the government that it’s not their job to fund essential social services, that these should rightly be funded by the government. So, with not enough government funding and little philanthropic money, core services are struggling badly.

Why on earth are essential and critical social services being treated like this? I suspect that it’s because the government doesn’t see them as essential or critical. They see them as a money pit that brings no tangible returns – despite the billions that mental and physical illness, criminal behaviour, homelessness and the like cost the economy annually.

We’re talking about social needs in economic terms again, and it’s wrong. It’s a people cost, and people are worth more than money. Perhaps the next government will see some sense.