Among the benefits mentioned of providing cash payments to ADF staff for accommodation were streamlined processes and motivating recruitment and engagement through better housing opportunities (as defence staff could use the accommodation allowance for a bond or mortgage repayment). However, the Glenn Report acknowledged that shortly after DHA`s inception, the JCFADT described the initiative as ”an important step towards providing acceptable service housing.” In supporting this assessment, the Committee found that DHA was able to provide a guaranteed level of funding, to be a single priority in the provision and management of defence housing, and to use businesses and expertise in this endeavour. [57] The quality of defence shelters remains so poor that, in early 1985, the Public Works Commission ordered specific information to the Ministries of Defence, Finance and Housing and Construction in order to assess the extent of the problem. The briefing revealed that about 12,000 of the nearly 23,000 defense houses ”cannot be modernized economically and should not be replaced,” and highlighted the important work of the ongoing Monaghan review in analyzing the provision of defense housing. [47] As a result, Defence Minister Brendan Nelson announced in March 2007 a new housing classification system, which would adapt the Terms of Use Agreement to provide housing with an increasingly high level of comfort such as its own bathroom, security features and indoor outdoor living space, meeting the Expectations of the Community. 4, called June 10, 2016. In response to these circumstances, NZDF switched in 2008 to a payment from Universal Accommodation Component (UAC), which is integrated into staff salaries in order to subsidize housing costs in the private rental market. The reasons for this new policy were twofold. First, it was argued that ”service personnel and their families should live in the municipalities they serve” and second, that the new policy would also ”reduce ownership costs related to defence housing” and allow the government to ”reinvest all sales proceeds in front-line capabilities.” [184] This is certainly something we are actively looking at.

At first glance, it looks like a radical change that could be made. But this is not easy, especially from a purely financial point of view, especially in the case of the Ministry of Defense. We have a large number of employees who do not benefit from their rights, especially with regard to the accommodation of the service family. For the most part, they live in the market without any subsidies or support from us for their own private housing. Moving to a situation where more general remuneration is made available to staff in order to allow the majority to have a greater choice may be quite expensive and difficult, but it is certainly on the table. There are different ways to make such an allocation work, at least in theory. [259] [97]. . . .