this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
39 points (100.0% liked)

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
top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Ozymati 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I'm sure if Nact is in power long enough they'll get around to criminalising vagrancy.

[–] Xcf456 2 points 8 months ago

Just in time to make sure they meet the quotas to fill private prison beds. And thus the cycle will be complete

[–] rimu@piefed.social 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Meh.

Ministers often don't get to set nitty gritty details like those the interviewer was fishing for. It's up to the ministry to implement the policy, not the minister.

As a piece of political theater/performance, Luxon did very well in this interview, only slipping slightly in the final seconds. He was on solid ground the whole time and he knew it.

[–] BalpeenHammer 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

This has nothing to do with nitty gritty details. When you propose a policy you are supposed to study the likely outcomes of that policy and set some targets and floors. He apparently designed a policy and he has no idea what kind of effect it will have. How is that rational?

[–] rimu@piefed.social 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Perhaps the minister for social development or minister for housing might have those details at their fingertips but the prime minister? Nah, no way. There's just too much going on.

I guess there will be a case-by-case determination of who has crossed some sort of as-yet-undefined line. Hard to predict where that's going to go.

Luxon made the point that is there is a long waiting list of people who who will be better neighbors than those he's seeking to kick out. Yes it might result in some people (potentially with kids) being made homeless but it will free up space so that an equal amount of currently-homeless people will have a home instead.

It's homeless-neutral, if you will.

[–] BalpeenHammer 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Perhaps the minister for social development or minister for housing might have those details at their fingertips but the prime minister? Nah, no way.

He is announcing the policy of kicking out people from public housing. He should have some idea of how many people are going to be left homeless as a result of this.

I guess there will be a case-by-case determination of who has crossed some sort of as-yet-undefined line. Hard to predict where that’s going to go.

Yes it will be completely arbitrary based on the neighbours, the case workers etc.

Luxon made the point that is there is a long waiting list of people who who will be better neighbors than those he’s seeking to kick out.

Yes. But he didn't answer the question of what happens to the now homeless family.

Yes it might result in some people (potentially with kids) being made homeless but it will free up space so that an equal amount of currently-homeless people will have a home instead.

Well those people might also be kicked out so who knows.

It’s homeless-neutral, if you will.

It's not though. I guarantee you this policy is designed to have less people in public housing in the end. This government doesn't believe in public housing.

[–] rimu@piefed.social 1 points 8 months ago

This government doesn't believe in public housing.

Agreed. That is the real issue, and it does make it very hard to take Luxon at face value on the subject of kicking out the worst tenants.

[–] Cruxifux@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

When they say badly behaving… he’s framing it like they’re threatening the neighbours. If I’m understanding this right then he’s framing it like they’re evicting government housing tenants that threaten other government housing tenants and destroy their property… which seems reasonable to me. I get the feeling from this suit that that isn’t what’s happening here though. I’m not from Europe, what am I missing here?

[–] BalpeenHammer 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

When they say badly behaving… he’s framing it like they’re threatening the neighbours.

He also said it's not up to him and he has no idea what effect will have or who will be kicked out or why or when. He said he has no idea how it will be enforced or what criterea they will use. None of that is written down apparently.

[–] Cruxifux@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Yeah that’s what bothered me. That plausible deniability speak always sets a precedent for things I find abhorrent.

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

Its a very complicated thing.

In NZ in the 2020s Kainga Ora's tenants tend to be people who have had generationally impoverished lives; ie they're at least the second generation living in the cuts to social services that started with the Ruth Richardson budgets in the early 90s, or it might even be mathematically possible that some of them are 3rd generation.

Its not always this cut and dried but a lot of people who struggle to maintain jobs, and their own private housing end up in Kainga Ora houses. They might have mental illnesses, be ex-convicts, have all sorts of social development problems, be gang members, or have family members who are - all sorts.

Then in many areas, there are whole streets which are entirely Kainga Ora houses, so whole neighborhoods of people who are struggling to get ahead, but might have a bunch of time stuck at home with not much to do; and very little supervision because its all just government provided housing - its not like a care facility or anything.

So yeah, perhaps unsurprisingly, there's been some cases where the folks haven't got on well with their neighbors, some when they're violent or abusive so that's part of what they want to "resolve" by kicking them out to no house. Then there's just people who for whatever reason don't take great care of what in some cases are pretty miserable flats or houses - often with longstanding maintenance issues.

The problem I have is that its an entirely punitive way of dealing with the problems.

  1. we should aim for 0 homelessness so instead of shuffling problem tenants out into cars we should build more social housing.
  2. there's very little day to day care given for a lot of these people, and almost none given at a whole community/neighborhood/collective way.
  3. NZ also has piss poor mental health support, so there's a decent chance folks are out there struggling on their own and then other folks have to try to contend with a neighbor who's not necessarily acting as stable as you'd want.
  4. Basically all this does is shift the problem; if these tenants are bad as tenants, they'll probably be worse as homeless, or if they're forced into getting housed with people who don't want them, or don't like how they live etc then there's all sorts of other harm that can come - eg we have these big "hostel"/boarding house type situations for similar people and they've got even less care around them and we've already seen a tenant burn one of them down with people inside last year.
[–] Cruxifux@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Yeah I get the whole “moving the problem” situation. In Canada we have an issue where homeless numbers fluctuate… because municipalities will give them bus tickets to just go to other municipalities. While cutting or destroying services like housing and safe injection sites. It makes it look like the current government is dealing with the homeless issues on paper. But that’s not what’s actually happening.