Care of State houses

Press, 19 February 1986, Page 18

Care of State houses

By grumbling about tenants who do not pay their rent or who damage property, Mr Goff, the Minister of Housing, is showing a landlord’s reasonable concern to protect an investment. The point he is making is fair enough. The State is by far the biggest holder of rented properties in New Zealand and is therefore more at risk from indifferent or unscrupulous tenants than any other person or organisation. A Housing Corporation tenant who does not pay rent or maliciously damages a property is not acting merely against the Housing Corporation but against other tenants and prospective tenants; and ultimately against the interests of the whole tax-paying community of New Zealand. Mr Goff was careful to put the whole complaint into perspective. Of the 57,500 or so tenants of State housing in New Zealand, between 1 per cent and 2 per cent are behind with their rents at present. That is a good record. The real problem is confined to damage done to properties by a comparatively small number of people: about 2000 people owe the Housing Corporation about $500,000 for damage. Like other owners of rented properties, the State must accept fair wear and tear on its properties; and the Housing Corporation should have vast experience by which to judge fair wear and tear. Mr Goff’s complaint is not about normal wear, but about malicious or careless damage. The Housing Corporation demands a bond of only $2O from a tenant. Since a number of those who rent a State house first do so' at a

time of financial distress, it would be impracticable for the Housing Corporation to demand a burdensome bond. Part of the State’s purpose in providing State housing is to relieve distress. The ultimate sanction left to the State is eviction or refusal of a further application if a previous tenancy was unsatisfactory. That is both businesslike and fair. Problems may come with children; but a tenant should not use the presence of children to expect to be excused bad behaviour as a tenant. The design and general planning that has gone into State housing recently has improved considerably. Designs are more diverse and some of the housing is in clusters, which enables the development of communities. Some is provided according to what is known as a pepper plan: that is, a State house is set in a group of non-State houses. This does away with the older system of whole suburbs being devoted to State housing. Much greater use is now made of the skills of town planners and other social scientists. The present Government has abandoned the sale of State houses. It therefore sees itself as the continuing owner of a large stock of houses. Mr Goff, in his appeal and warning, has given notice that the State wants to be a fair landlord, but one that will not allow its houses to be abused. When many State tenants are paying rent well below the market rate, and when housing amounts to one of the State’s biggest group of assets, a fair but firm line will be widely approved.