National’s latest social housing announcements have left a lot of low-hanging fruit for critics. There is enough ambiguity for the Opposition to set the expectations of what good evidence-based reform would look like.
 
Unfortunately, the Opposition has gone straight for the rotten fruit on the ground: the ideological stance.
 
It was recently announced that state houses could be offloaded to Horizon Housing, an Australian organisation. In less sensational terms: An Australian not-for-profit was one of around 169 representatives to attend one of The Treasury’s "market soundings" meetings. Of course, the 168 New Zealand organisations receive no mention.
 
Both the Greens and Labour Party have argued it is the government’s obligation to provide housing for vulnerable citizens.
 
They talk much about the government’s duty, but less on whether it has proved itself fit for the task.
 
As with other social reforms, the Opposition does not seem to care whether external organisations can be more innovative and successful than their public sector counterparts. If they did, they would at least be open to measuring and comparing results between the two.
 
The Opposition also seem fixated on the belief that “once these properties are bought by overseas investors they will be lost from New Zealand forever.”
 
Either the Opposition is not aware of the contractual obligations attached to these sales (readily available on The Treasury website), or they are choosing to ignore them. Under all possible sale options, buyers have obligations to tenants; buyers must make the properties available for the duration of contract; and buyers must maintain the properties to an agreed standard. There are also local engagement requirements to meet the needs of tenants.
 
Those concerned about the outcomes of the affected tenants should be pressuring the Government to ensure that whatever contractual details emerge, that they protect vulnerable populations.
 
Such pressure would include questioning Horizon Housing’s track record, what services it intends to provide to New Zealanders, and how it will maintain local engagement.
 
The benefit of having a contestable market is that all contenders must make their case: How will they improve outcomes for social housing tenants?
 
An evidence-based response should be established by the contenders’ track record and the contracts they are bound by.
 
Of course, it is early days. But the fruit the Opposition is currently slinging does not protect the public interest. It simply protects the public service