The finance minister has compared social housing tenants to Lotto winners, but keen observers will pick up on some contrasts.

Nicola Willis reached gamely for a suitable metaphor when asked to justify her government’s plans to ratchet up rents on social housing tenants while diminishing their security of tenure. “People in social housing have effectively won the Lotto,” the finance minister told reporters at parliament.

Willis was trying to point out that social housing tenants often receive more government support than poor families in private accommodation, who face similar difficulties while paying more of their income in rent. But the analogy wasn’t all that effective, mainly because it turns out there are quite a few differences between social housing tenants and Lotto winners.

The contrasts, while subtle, can be picked up by those with a keen eye. For instance, a first division Lotto winner gets at least $1 million, and up to $50 million if they strike it lucky with their powerball numbers. To be eligible for social housing in New Zealand, a single person can’t have a weekly income of more than $832.73 after tax. Couples aren’t allowed to earn more than $1,281.12 combined.

Lotto winners are known for investing in expensive new possessions. Lou Te Keeti spent $6.3 million of his $10.3 million winnings in a year, with the bulk going toward 19 race horses and a luxury horse facility. Trevor Cooper spent his $27 million winnings on a $2.2 million mansion, several other properties and some luxury cars. Mark Lipsham bought an $880,000 Lamborghini with his $19 million prize. Social housing tenants aren’t legally allowed to own more than $42,700 in assets. 

Some Lotto winners aren’t quite as extravagant with their newfound wealth. They pay off their mortgages and clear debt, using their win to enjoy the freedom of not being financially beholden to anyone but themselves. Rent debt among Kāinga Ora tenants peaked at $21.6 million in January 2024. Many tenants are also laden with debt to other creditors, as their low, fixed incomes make it difficult for them to gather the financial reserves to deal with economic shocks or emergencies. They also don’t have mortgages as they don’t own houses.

Property journalists write whole articles on whether Lotto winners should buy a $25 million mansion or play it safe with a portfolio of apartments. They don’t write those sorts of articles about social housing tenants, which include single mothers who have experienced family violence or abuse, elderly residents with significant health challenges and people facing significant drug or alcohol addiction issues.

Perhaps twigging to some of these discrepancies, Willis later told reporters she regretted her comparison, adding that those in social housing do often face “difficult circumstances”. There is one group, however, that does benefit from state largesse when it comes to their housing arrangements. MPs are able to claim an annual accommodation supplement of up to $36,400 on top of their $180,000 salaries. That figure rises to $52,000 for ministers and parliament’s speaker. Though those numbers are bigger on their own than many social housing tenants’ entire incomes, some MPs have found ways to squeeze even more juice out of the system, claiming the accommodation supplement to rent their own houses and asking the Parliamentary Service to rent their buildings out as electorate offices.

It’s a great situation for those who can smuggle themselves in on a party list. Parliamentarians like Willis are showered with government support that the beleaguered, butter-starved general public could only dream of. If a social housing tenant got those same benefits, they’d probably feel like they’d won the Lotto.