Ryan Bridge: What's cruel versus fair in the social housing debate

Nicola Willis' Lotto comment yesterday was clumsy, but in the end, much ado about nothing. The politics of this housing thing are pretty simple. You've got 80,000 social housing tenants who probably weren't going to vote National, who now definitely won't vote National.  You've got 110,000 better-off voters who might soften to you. You've got a frothy media and opposition who will use this as a stick to beat the Government with until November. But here are the facts. If you're a voter worried about rent, they're now materially cheaper than they were under the last lot. The average is down $30 a week nationwide, from $660 to $630 in April according to Realestate.co.nz. They shot up for a couple of reasons, one of which was Labour's landlord-bashing interest deductibility shocker. Which didn't hit mega-slumlords, by the way, it hit mum-and-dad investors, many negatively geared, who couldn't afford to hold on to their retirement nest egg any longer, got hit with new tax and compliance costs, and got out. Shortages help push up prices. The bad news is Labour's more likely than not to do this again if they get back to the Treasury benches. The social housing waitlist was 25,000 in 2023. It's now 19,700. Labour was paying $1 million a day on motels. So, let's talk about what's cruel and what's fair, and what motivates these politicians. Let's play "who's more cruel". Willis and Bishop are changing rules to even the playing field. It's cost neutral. The Government's not saving money here. Hipkins and Co. were banking $1.8 billion in extra taxes that other legitimate businesses weren't having to pay. Just landlords. In which of these two scenarios are Kiwi renters better off, and in which are they worse off? If there's one thing worse than being cruel to be kind, it's being careless.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.