As at April 2012, this is one of three "Doorways" publications I have provided 100% of the writing and layout on, for Community Housing Aotearoa, initiated under my direction and directly allied to strategic communications.

1. #
A publication of Community Housing Aotearoa
Focus on Housing affordability
If the community housing sector had just one Clear answers to
dollar for every time those two words - housing that question have
affordability - have appeared in the heading of a featured in the
report or media coverage we would be a rich sector! work conducted by
the Productivity
The term “housing affordability” has a slippery quality Commission in the course of its housing affordability
to it. In a mainstream sense more often than not it’s all inquiry, starting with chapter 11 of its rst draft report,
about the state of the real estate market, mortgages, the opening sentence of which made the obvious
interest rates, home buyers and the substantial yet observation that “Housing affordability issues tend to be
diminished home-owner segment of society. But where most acute for low-income households”.
does “housing affordability” bite hardest?
READ MORE INSIDE
Opening Editorial / 16 April 2012 What made the Commission’s April pronouncements all
the more signicant for the community housing sector
Timely reality check provided was that we were once again prominently agged as
having a “unique and valuable role to ll”. Mr Sherwin
by Productivity Commission rightly dismisses the notion that our sector is possessed
of deep pockets, and rightly notes that allocations from
Following closely in the wake of the Productivity Government, be that to the Social Housing Fund (or
Commission’s inquiry into housing affordability*, indeed to CHA) are “well short of what is needed”.
this issue of Community Housing Aotearoa’s agship
publication, Doorways, intentionally seeks to pick up His conclusion: “Helping the community housing sector to
on and amplify some of the key points in the report. expand must be at the heart of addressing the current hole
in social housing policy”.
The Commission has done a real service by holding up a
mirror to the Government’s housing policy and openly In what will hopefully not be a rare piece of further
stating what it saw: “the lack of a clear and coherent commentary and analysis in the media, respected business
way of thinking”. That quote is directly from an editorial journalist Pattrick Smellie focused his summary of the
opinion piece written by Murray Sherwin, Chair of the inquiry report on its recommendation about a juiced-up
Commission, as published in the DominionPost under the accommodation supplement targeted for tenants of
headline ‘A hole at the heart of housing policy?’ community housing organisations. Pattrick described this
as “an invitation to the kind of social policy innovation the
In all my time at CHA - through the twists, turns and
Government says it wants across the state sector”.
hopeful dawns of reports such as the Housing Shareholder
Advisory Group’s call for a major shift in direction for As Pattrick says, let’s hope someone’s listening.
social housing investment - I can’t think of a more timely
reality check, calling into question as it does the coherence
of the policy framework and its current implementation.
The challenge to the levels of thinking and rhetoric around
how best to address “greatest need” is doubtless overdue.
David McCartney, Executive Ofcer
(* as released on 11 April 2012, one year after the establishment of
the Productivity Commission, an independent crown entity) of Community Housing Aotearoa
Doorways Published in April 2012 by Community Housing ISSN 2230-214X (Print) ISSN 2230-2158
Doorways is published by Community Housing Aotearoa.Aotearoa – www.communityhousing.org.nz (Online)

2. Commission cuts to the chase
In what may have been a surprise to many,
the Productivity Commission’s recently
released report on affordable housing called
for a reconsideration of current social housing
reforms.
A major nding of the “(The Fund) set up to
Commission’s inquiry, as help the community
highlighted in its ‘Cut to the housing sector grow is
chase’ summary publication
not equal to the task
was its independent
demanded of it”.
determination that the Without a sufcient
current approach to social funding package for the
housing reveals some community sector to
potentially awed thinking. expand “as is needed” - page
237 of the report - the
The Commission was
only alternatives would
particularly concerned
be for costly Government
that the introduction of
expansion of state housing
reviewable tenancies by
or a “steep increase in
Housing New Zealand
might involve the very
household incomes” (both FUNDAMENTAL FINDINGS
unlikely). The absence of any clear demand projections or
real risk that not everyone
who is judged ready to The Commission helpfully objectives setting out what a sufcient social
“move on” will be able to reinforced the role that the housing response would be.
nd somewhere to move community housing sector Robust projections of unmet demand and future
to. In issuing a caution as a whole lls in providing demand for social housing that will not be met through
against “excessive reliance below market rents, security increasing or realigning the state housing portfolio, are
on the private sector rental of tenure and wrap around essential for an honest assessment and conversation
market to accommodate services for those whose about what needs to be done, at what pace, and with
former HNZC tenants”, needs “run well beyond just what resource.
the Commission was affordable housing”. The way the Accommodation Supplement (AS)
also cautioning against abates hinders the ability of community housing
The Commission put a
an assumption that the organisations to improve housing affordability for
high value on the trust
community housing sector their clients.
that community housing
can magically “make up In the current environment of scal restraint one
organisations build up when
the difference” on top of option is to reprioritise/ reduce the eligibility for AS and
they are adequately funded
meeting other unmet needs. use the money this ‘saves’ towards funding the growth
to provide services.
“The number of tenants of the community sector. One caveat being that
whose circumstances “Damaged trust signicant modelling and analysis would be required
may improve enough (through under-funding) to prove this option viable. Where community housing
to no longer need a may well undermine any
future reforms”. organisations provide reduced rents to their clients, a
state house far outstrips
the annual increase in denite recommendation put by the Commission to the
Addressing the issues Government is that a market rent level AS be provided
community housing
likely to be achieved identied by the (broadly comparable to the Income-Related Rents
through funding from Commission poses subsidy received for state house tenants).
the Social Housing Unit”. a challenge not just
for central and local ALL FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
The media release issued
government agencies, but The Productivity Commission also made ndings and
with the Commission’s
for all those involved in recommendations on: The role of taxation; Urban
nal report highlighted the
the business of housing in planning; Paying for infrastructure development; The
insufciency of the Social
the non-government and performance of the building industry; The private rental
Housing Fund as another
commercial sectors as well. market; Social housing; and Maori housing.
aw in the current reforms.
Published in April 2012 by Community Housing Aotearoa – www.communityhousing.org.nz

3. Auckland occupies centre stage
According to the Productivity Commission’s
report on housing affordability the challenge
of providing adequate housing for New
Zealand’s future population is largely an
Auckland one.
The reason being that, while a complex web of demographic
inuences are at work in New Zealand, the outcome overall
is that household formation is concentrated in and near
Auckland, and is likely to remain so for the next few decades.
According to reported gures the decrease in home ownership
since the end of the 1990s has been particularly marked in
Auckland, where 42% of households rent (including those
who rent state houses), as opposed to 32% for the rest of
New Zealand. Another trend seen particularly in Auckland is
that rental affordability has become an issue further up the
income distribution – in the $50k-$70K income range.
In the long run, the Commission concluded, better options
for long-term renters on low incomes are likely to come
through the growth of the community housing sector. But
in the short to medium term, they expect demand to exceed
Auckland Plan cleared for landing
supply, particularly in Auckland. Now adopted by the Auckland Council (on 29 March 2012)
a nal copy of the Auckland Plan will be available at
A divergence between house prices in Auckland and the rest www.theaucklandplan.govt.nz from June. The Plan’s
of the country now appears to be entrenched, and has been directives for housing - under four priorities - are:
particularly pronounced at the lower end of the housing 1. Increase housing supply to meet demand
market. Between 1995 and 2011, the difference between • Develop and deliver on a multi-sector Housing Strategic
lower quartile house prices in Auckland and the rest of the Action Plan to achieve the required increase in housing
country increased by over 260% in real terms. supply, including options to increase affordable housing
supply for rst home buyers
Conversely, the share of new dwellings in the lower quartile • Improve access to rst home ownership through advocacy
has fallen from around 30-35% to 5%. As such, the majority by Auckland Council to central Government
of new dwellings built in Auckland and the rest of the country 2. Increase housing choice to meet diverse preferences and
are currently not targeted at the affordable end of the market. needs
• Encourage a mix of dwelling types within neighbourhoods,
In its submission to the Commission’s inquiry Auckland across Auckland to reect changing demographics, family
Council related the severity of housing affordability in structures and age groups
Auckland to “widespread and persistent overcrowding and 3. Improve the quality of existing and new housing
an escalating shortage of housing accessible for people on • Encourage and incentivise retrotting of existing housing
low and modest incomes”, adding that 28% of all Auckland stock, and require new housing to be sited and designed
households pay more than 30% of gross household income to meet best practice urban design and sustainable
housing principles
on housing costs. 2011 data on new bonds held by the
4. Improve housing affordability and the supply of
Department of Building and Housing shows rents in all areas affordable housing
of Auckland have increased, particularly in South Auckland. • Auckland Council commits to working with others to
PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS urgently investigate and use the whole range of possible
housing development vehicles, policy and regulatory
• Auckland Council should look to collaborative models tools to increase the supply of affordable housing
for the process of identifying, assembling and releasing • Explore all options to reduce homelessness in a partnership
between the Auckland Council, central government and
large-scale tracts of land.
the community sector
• Auckland Council should show in its nal Auckland Plan • Support Maori to achieve affordable, healthy and
how it has considered and reconciled affordable housing sustainable housing which meets their specic needs
alongside its other priorities • Increase housing supply and choice that meets Pacic
people’s specic needs
Published in April 2012 by Community Housing Aotearoa – www.communityhousing.org.nz

4. INVESTMENT IN SIX CREDIBLE
QUESTIONS
SOCIAL HOUSING When Community Housing Aotearoa
contributed to the nal stage of the
When the semi-autonomous Social Housing Unit (SHU) was brought into Productivity Commission’s inquiry on
existence in July 2011 one of the clear directions in its terms of reference Housing Affordability (see front page
and inside pages) we concentrated on
was to deliver a draft social housing investment strategy.
two main areas of impact: the impact of
Such a strategy should, said the terms of reference agreed by Cabinet, outline urban planning and the impacts of what
how the SHU “will go about growing third party provision of social housing”. might best be called un-affordability.
Given the shared imperative that goal creates for the role of community We commended the Commission for
housing organisations, individually and collectively, any opportunity at all to the number of vital questions it had put
participate in a strategy-based planning process has been keenly anticipated forward, but in making our submission
by Community Housing Aotearoa (CHA) and its members. Speaking at a - available with 87 others at www.
recent CHA member forum in March, the SHU’s Director, Michael Pead, productivity.govt.nz - we also made it
provided an update indicating that internal work within the SHU, the clear that our answers about the viable
Department of Building and Housing (DBH) and other agencies such as MSD role to be played by the community
was underway towards preparing a pragmatic Social Housing Investment Plan housing sector in helping to meet New
(SHIP), rather than a strategy as such. Zealand’s affordable housing needs
were having to rely on some basic
This process has not, as it transpires, involved any formal / transparent assumptions; assumptions that would be
consultation. In fact in an e-newsletter distributed last month, the SHU best debated in the context of the Social
explicitly stated no “wide scale consultation” would be undertaken. Housing Investment Plan (SHIP).
Hence CHA’s growing concerns that this important level of policy setting and In the absence of that debate taking
development - responsibility for which actually sits most squarely with the place through wide scale consultation,
DBH - needs to be debated widely and not counterproductively limited Community Housing Aotearoa has
(see righthand column). determined it has a responsibility to
CHA is well aware of the path the SHU is following, as its own internal advance the debate itself.
budget spend increases in order to employ the expertise for such broad At the very least there are a set of
functions as the development of a ‘social housing market’. However under- six starter questions that should be
resourced it might be as a peak body, CHA is fortunately also able to call on a central to the development of a credible
complementary network of expert knowledge possessed among its collective investment strategy and/ or plan for
grouping of community-focused members and supporters, and is committed social housing. They are:
to drawing more extensively on that network of knowledge during 2012. • Need - Forecasting for the future,
how big will the housing shortfalls
CHA’s priority in relation to the ‘social housing market’ about to be shaped by be?
the SHU’s funding decisions, is to continue to question what regard is being • Subsidy models - What is the best
given to the enduring role and place of all community housing organisations way to assist households to gain
within that ‘market’ - a role they have long played as providers of housing- affordable housing?
related services, options and new assets. In addition to working within new • Scale - What is a viable and
desirable scale for the community
funding scenarios as they unfold, the challenges ahead include: housing sector?
• reafrming that community housing has, by its very ethos as a housing • Sector growth - What level of
movement that responds to need, always set out to offer solutions that nancial support is necessary to
seriously underpin the long-term
broaden public understanding of ‘social housing’ and that deliver much growth of community housing
more than a convenient substitute for state or public housing organisations?
• preserving the fundamental identity of a community housing sector • Institutional - What other changes
so that it isn’t lost under the non-government provider (NGP) catch-all are necessary to see a dedicated
community housing programme
being promoted by the SHU, and to mitigate the risk of community included in the SHIP?
housing organisations (CHOs) being relegated to the margins of policy
• Funding - Based on a reasonable,
making, planning, funding allocations and implementation debated set of assumptions what
• continuing to act as a ‘catalyst for change’ in ways that an agency such would a realistic Budget gure be?
as the SHU can never fully replicate, through being a champion for well- The question put by the Productivity
informed policy making and community-aligned decision taking Commision was this: Does the size of the
Social Housing Fund t future demand?
FOLLOW THE ISSUES Their modelling, based on HNZC data,
If you don’t currently receive this publication and would like to follow the issues produced an estimate that the annual
featured here, please send us an email with PLEASE SUBSCRIBE ME build of community housing has to
in the subject line, to: be more than doubled to at least 275
doorways@communityhousing.org.nz houses a year.
Published in April 2012 by Community Housing Aotearoa – www.communityhousing.org.nz
Published in April 2012 by Community Housing Aotearoa – www.communityhousing.org.nz