Keith Melville

To assume, as claimed by Beacon correspondent Jane van der Beek, (Wednesday, April 22) that landlords like myself are not in favour of state housing because of the threat that poses to the rental housing market, is false and unreasonable

After two recent Beacon letters in which I criticised the waste and excesses of Kāinga Ora in the previous two terms of Government, Ms van der Beek cynically claims my motive for that is greed and that I am protecting my own self-interest in the rental housing market.

For the record, I appreciate there is a strong need – a public good – in the provision of state and social housing but I do not accept that the state should be excused if it is wasteful and extravagant in attempting or achieving that goal.

I am well aware that there are thousands of people out there who need housing help. At the same time there is absolutely no need for the state through its housing agency, Kāinga Ora, to have a monopoly in the provision of state houses.

You only need to read some of the work by the business organisation, New Zealand Initiative, to realise how much waste the state housing sector has incurred in recent years, and the options available to improve it.

In a report for the organisation, Bryce Wilkinson says on indicative calculations the state housing cost structure appears “ to approach twice that of the private landlord benchmark”.

That is an alarming finding and suggests that taxpayers have been poorly served by the state housing agency.

Dr Wilkinson noted last October that the agency had neither been good at managing rent arrears nor dealing with troublesome tenants who were a threat to their neighbours or government property.

“The question is not whether the government should help vulnerable New Zealanders access housing. The question instead is whether large-scale government ownership is the most effective way to provide that help.”

Dr Wilkinson said options included selling state houses to community housing providers, iwi organisations, private landlords or current tenants.

“On the evidence it is plausible that both taxpayers and tenants would be better off if the Government were less dominant as a landlord and if its subsidies empowered tenants by giving them greater choice of landlord.”