What is meant by the “true waitlist”?

There is a hidden waitlist of people who are currently not eligible for public housing, but should be. We have a combined waitlist and transfer list of almost 30,000, but because of the restrictive criteria to even get on the waitlist, and the difficult process deterring people,(1) there are actually a lot more people who should have access to a public home. In addition to this, the previous National government removed categories from the eligibility criteria and reviewed eligibility to make the list appear smaller. (2)

While the data around housing need in Aotearoa is complex and in some areas lacking or overlapping, we can begin to gain a better understanding of the true waitlist by looking at the following: 

• There were 105,747 people considered in severe housing deprivation at the time of the 2018 census.(3)

• On top of that, we know that there are about 330,000 missing people from this severe housing deprivation analysis – largely people in the ‘sharing accommodation’ category who are likely staying with friends and family because they cannot access housing of their own. (4) 

• And finally, we have 346,998 people accessing Accommodation Supplement because they cannot afford housing costs without assistance. 1 in 4 renters currently spend 40 percent or more of their income just on rent. (5)

Though there will be cross-over in the data, this starts to paint a picture of a ‘true waitlist’ that could really benefit from more good quality public homes with affordable and secure rents. 

But people who aren’t in public housing are supported by Accommodation Supplement, right?

As stated above, there are around 346,998 people accessing Accommodation Supplement, and an increasing proportion of recipients receiving the maximum rate since its rate increase in 2018. (6) There are even more people who are eligible for AS but are not currently accessing it. (7) The Accommodation Supplement is a landlord subsidy which tops up people who simply cannot afford private rents and housing costs – these people and families should be in public housing. 

The Accommodation Supplement, which costs the government around $1.7 billion a year, was introduced following a 1991 Business Roundtable white paper, which was concerned with state rental housing not crowding out private sector provision. (8) Recent research concludes the Accommodation Supplement is not a housing allowance; it is a cash transfer and income support instrument with diminishing relative generosity over time. (9) In other words, the policy does not address the issue of unhealthy and unaffordable housing, along with a disregard towards any provision for homeless to access housing. (10) The state providing strong competition for the private rental market should reduce the cost and improve the quality of private rentals; none of which is addressed by the Accommodation Supplement.

Why 20% of overall housing stock?

Currently, the public housing stock in Aotearoa makes up just 3.8% of overall stock, compared to the OECD average of 7% – by comparison the UK is at 17%; and Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands all above 20%. (11) We are falling behind internationally in regards to the percentage of overall stock. Embedding a commitment to public housing in the long-term reaching a percentage of overall housing stock means that the public housing stock will keep up to date with population increases.

Countries with higher public housing stock percentages and more universal eligibility tend to have better outcomes. An OECD report in 2020 highlighted that construction of social housing can lead to a more sustainable, inclusive economic recovery; and more affordable housing.. (12) Spain and Portugal, who like Aotearoa both have less than 5% public housing stock, have decided to significantly increase their stock as a long-term solution to the crisis. (13)

What kind of public housing? 

An ambitious public housing programme would be able to clear the true waitlist and provide a secure, healthy and a truly affordable housing alternative to the private market. But, this is also about lifting the imagination about what public housing could be if it were properly resourced.  It could lift the standards on good quality housing by:

• Building beautiful, sustainable homes and enabling coordinated and planned innovation around climate resilience which is equitable.

• Fully accessible homes so disabled people and people of every generation can connect with each other and thrive.

• Culturally appropriate and multi-generational options that are a part of wider ecosystems of neighbourhoods, and connected to the whenua with thought put into its relationship to the place it's built, and the tangata whenua who come from there. 

• Creating more democratic housing with rents decided democratically rather than by the market, and creating tenant unions able to support housing decisions.

• Building and renovating at-scale to address the current and future need, and in collaboration with communities, providing security for people to live in their neighbourhoods, close to amenities and social connections without the threat of rising rents caused by gentrification. 

The Kiwibuild programme failed to build 10,000 houses, how do you expect the government will be able to build that many houses?

KiwiBuild was not a government building programme: it involved the government purchasing housing from the construction sector on privately owned or Kāinga Ora land. This is why we support a model that is purpose-built for the task at hand. One avenue for this is establishing a Ministry of Green Works to increase the capacity and coordination of large-scale housing and infrastructure projects. (14) With the right resourcing and culture, along with appropriate skills and expertise from the private sector, it is entirely possible for the Government to muster the capacity to deliver a mass public housing build. 

How would the government even pay for this?

The government has the capacity to pay for a mass public housing build and buy programme. This is largely a question of political will to actually address the housing crisis. The government borrowing now to build public homes will save money in the future.

Currently a huge amount of public money is being spent propping up the private housing market – this includes through Accommodation Supplement and Emergency Housing. $506.1 million was spent on Accommodation Supplement; and $79.1 million on Emergency Housing Special Needs Grants in the quarter ending 31 March 2023. (15) These mechanisms are expensive and don’t provide any long term solutions. They are ways that the government subsidises the profits of private landlords and moteliers who can charge exorbitant prices and raise rents and prices at will. While these are necessary systems while more public homes are built, these costs will be reduced and can be redirected into the public housing programme.

Paying up front for the construction of more public homes will save money in the future via no longer needing to subsidise the private market, and through building warm and dry housing saving on health budgets. We know that housing is one of the key social determinants of health, and right now the consequences of cold, mouldy and unhealthy housing is having a massive impact both socially and cost wise on the health system. Each year 28,000 children and 54,000 adults are admitted to hospital for potentially avoidable hospitalisations linked to poor housing. Estimates by the research group He Kāinga Ora suggest that damp or mouldy housing conditions result in 6,300 hospitalisations annually and $36 million in direct costs to the health care system. (16)

Alongside saving costs, a public housing programme could also scale up government-led apprenticeship programmes which would create jobs and boost the economy. (17) Another way of paying for this would be taxing wealth accumulated through housing, and redistributing it to create a more equitable housing system.

Why not just support private developers to build housing at scale to bring rents down?

At the moment the government is relying on private developers and construction companies to build our way out of the housing crisis. We do need more building of houses in the private sector, but developers building in a competitive market will tend to favour those able to afford more expensive houses, and are less likely to serve other needs (such as accessibility needs) unless there is market benefit. As stated in the Housing Assessment for the Auckland Region, “additional housing capacity does not guarantee that affordability will improve” (p. 121). (18) The value of public housing is it focuses on those facing unmet housing needs, and also can bring down the cost of rentals if built at a big enough scale.