Sir Bill English: Former Prime Minister says government housing ownership like Kainga Ora is problematic.

A former Prime Minister's backing the view that large-scale government housing ownership like Kainga Ora is problematic.

A report by The New Zealand Initiative finds the Government's ownership of 77,000 state houses, has maintenance costs nearly twice that of a private landlord.

It finds it also doesn't respond quickly enough to issues like rent arrears, and troublesome tenants.

Sir Bill English told Mike Hosking his independent review panel into the agency found similar issues.

He says the point of social housing is to improve the lives of the tenants, so it means focusing on the people,  and who owns the houses,  is less important.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
New report this morning endo the cost of state housing
current seventy seven thousand kaying at Aura homes cost us
the taxpayer twice as much as the private sector. Basically,
it wants tenants to have a greater choice of landlord now.
Sibil English was part of the independent review of kying
A Aura and as whether Sybill, Very good morning to you.

Speaker 2 (00:16):
Good morning Mike.

Speaker 1 (00:17):
You've got some advice for Simeon. You've been Minister of health.

Speaker 2 (00:22):
Look, there's been a lot you know, sim and previous ministers,
including under the Labor government, put a lot of extra
money into health, and I can understand why it feels
a bit frustrated, and there's a lot of people need
care and it does look a bit political.

Speaker 1 (00:38):
Yeah, so broadly, just let me broaden it out before
we get to the specifics of this report. When you
went in to have a look at Kayeing Aura, what
did you find? How bad was it and what's your
view of the turnaround thus far.

Speaker 2 (00:50):
Look, I think they're doing a good job of the turnaround.
It's a big job. It's the biggest business in the
country by quite a long way, and a difficult one
to run because it so big, so Look, we found
an organization that had been following the directions of its
previous political masters and the previous labor government, and they

(01:11):
were spending very large amounts of money, running up very
large amounts of debt and getting some new houses, but
not near enough for the money that was going in.
But also there was a loss of focus on the tenant.
And the point of social housing is to change lives,
and that means focusing on the people more than the houses.

(01:31):
And it means who owns the houses is less important
than what you're doing to support the tenants?

Speaker 1 (01:36):
Is seventy seven thousand and too many? Forkying or to own?
And of seventy seven thousands too many? What's the right
ish sort of number? What's the split? What should it be?

Speaker 2 (01:46):
Well, you start from the start from the front life.
All solutions, how all housing solutions are local, and all
housing solutions are about individuals and families. So you know,
how many a many houses should someone own who is
supporting and understanding the needs of tenants and taking part

(02:08):
in the community. Well, do you need a bit of scale?
You know, probably a few thousand houses. I think Tomachy
Redevelopment Company has got about five thousand that looks about
looks about a good scale. What we found though, was
an impressive energy and innovation with everyone from Autism Zealand
to EWI and NGO's private developers who can do a

(02:30):
better job of this than kying aura that there's no
economies of scale the seventy seven thousand houses. In fact,
as the report shows, it's the opposite. The larger the business,
the more it's costing to do the houses. Now, the
current board will make the best of it. But the
best solutions we saw were with the ten or fifteen
thousand houses that are subsidized like state houses because the

(02:54):
government has to pay, but are run by people who
really understand the tenants, really to stand their community and
get great results from it.

Speaker 1 (03:03):
All right, let's see where it goes while we've got
you your thoughts this morning.

Speaker 2 (03:06):
On Jim Bolger, Ah, look it was I was wet
with Jim Bulger for many years in politics. He was
such an interesting mix. He was a conservative Taranaki farmer
who had the courage to kick off the Treaty settlement process,
took on his own party an election year in nineteen

(03:26):
ninety six to sign the Knight who and Tai Nui settlements,
so you know, underneath the political maneuvering was a will
of steel and some deep principle people forget. He was
also the guy who bought in MMP, made a promise
in the nineteen ninety election campaign to have a referendum,

(03:48):
oversaw that process, you know, accepting the will of the people,
although he didn't personally favor him MP, and then in
nineteen ninety six negotiated the first coalition. So he was
just a fascinating character. Such a mix of being true
to his background from Taranaki, his Catholic beliefs, his deep,

(04:10):
deep love of family on the one hand, and on
the other hand, executing some of the more radical changes
that New Zealand has seen. And I have to say
at the time didn't get much credit for it. And
I think his reputation has grown with the benefit of hindsight.
Our history is looking kind beyond.

Speaker 1 (04:29):
Jim Bolgia very well said, appreciate your time, So Bill English.

Speaker 2 (04:32):
For more from The Mic Asking Breakfast, listen live to
news talks that'd be from six am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.