Opponents of 'Nanny State' are being given fresh cause for criticism over the Government’s latest mothering, or smothering proposal.
It starts from the premise that young people are not competent to decide whether they should rent a flat or house, or buy a property of their own.
Housing New Zealand’s solution is to 'educate' potential first-time homeowners about the differences — not by leaflet or pamphlet, if that were necessary, but by running home ownership education courses.
Funds were provided for the proposal in this year’s Budget, and Housing New Zealand has now embarked on the appointment of 'education delivery service providers'.
These will be people with experience and qualifications in managing and/or delivering skills workshops in local communities.
And so a new sub-empire — presumably costing hundreds of thousands of dollars — is created in Housing New Zealand, with first courses to be held next January in Invercargill, Timaru, Dunedin and the West Coast; then to be extended nationwide.
Like so many well-intentioned bureaucratic initiatives there is a superficial plausibility in what is proposed. But there are alarming undertones in the proposition that young adults need 'educating' on the benefits and costs of home ownership and that this needs to be done by the state.
Taxpayers might reasonably ask if this is the thin end of the wedge. Are we to be 'educated' by Nanny State in life’s other pitfalls such as the pros and cons of leasing or buying a motor car? Does the state need to train us on determining our sexuality, particularly now the school curriculum is going to include values education.
Do we need courses on whether marriage is a better option than living together — or a civil union?
Where does it end, and do we really need bureaucratic guidance on things people have traditionally decided for themselves? To those who are fed up with state busy-bodies it is over-protective, interfering and patronising.
Need help or
support?
