NZ Politics

563 readers

1 users here now

Kia ora and welcome to the NZ Politics community!

This is a place for respectful discussions about everything that's political and kiwi

This is an inclusive space where diverse opinions are valued, but please don't be a dick

Other kiwi communities here

Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Dave

RaoulDuke

Government confirms emergency housing plan shake-up (www.rnz.co.nz)

submitted 8 months ago by Dave to c/politics

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The government has announced its new top-priority approach for families with children in emergency housing, while signalling a stricter approach for those accessing it.

The Priority One category will mean families with dependent children in emergency housing for longer than 12 weeks would automatically move to the top of the waitlist, from April. Bishop said the policy was expected to prioritise about 800 of the roughly 3000 families on the waitlist.

However, Upston signalled it would come alongside a stricter approach to allowing people into emergency housing in the first place.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Dave 9 points 8 months ago (2 children)

For anyone looking at the election promise to gut Kaianga Ora and also clear the waiting list for emergency housing, wondering how they could do both, now you have your answer. Let less people onto the emergency housing waiting list.

[–] TagMeInSkipIGotThis 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yeah sounds very much like resolving the strain on emergency housing by letting more people be homeless.

[–] Dave 6 points 8 months ago (2 children)

They asked in the article:

Asked if it would mean more people living on the streets, she said "the really important thing here is what's the end goal, so the end goal is we don't want children in motels".

However, she said she would not be comfortable if more children ended up homeless under her watch.

"I'm not saying it is going to be perfect, what I am saying is that we will have fewer children in motels and that is what we are out to achieve."

Basically "we don't like it, but yes, people will become homeless".

[–] TagMeInSkipIGotThis 7 points 8 months ago

Fewer children in motels, more in cars; winning!

[–] liv 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Wait so she said she specifically wants to take accommodation away from children ?

This is nightmarish.

[–] Dave 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It's the weird belief that if they cut support then the government saves money. Instead of recognising that it just moves the cost into (among other places) the healthcare sector, one that is struggling already, which they recognise because they promised more funding in healthcare.

[–] liv 2 points 8 months ago

You're right. It's like how our high rates of child respiratory illness translate into a long term burden on health system. But kids being homeless is a worse version. Unless their aim is to save money by the kids actually dying??

I don't know if social macroeconomics is a discipline but if it is then governments should have to take mandatory classes in it.

[–] Ilovethebomb -2 points 8 months ago

We really did have a giant douche VS turd sandwich election, didn't we?