The big story this morning is Labour’s analysis of Auckland property purchase data. It was just covered on The Nation, and features in no less than three articles in The Herald this morning:
Special investigation: Auckland house prices
Exclusive: Leaked figures support claims that Chinese investors are a big influence on Auckland’s overheated property market.
The first picture has emerged of Chinese buying patterns in Auckland’s pressure-cooker housing market — and it suggests a powerful, big-spending influence.
Real-estate figures leaked to the Labour Party, which cover almost 4,000 house sales by one unidentified firm from February to April, indicate that people of Chinese descent accounted for 39.5 per cent of the transactions in the city in that period.
Yet Census 2013 data shows ethnic Chinese who are New Zealand residents or citizens account for just 9 per cent of Auckland’s population.
…
It is not known if the Chinese buyers were based here or overseas.Labour housing spokesman Phil Twyford claimed the data, which represents 45 per cent of all Auckland sales over the three months, showed for the first time the scale of an issue that was pricing first-home buyers out of the market.
“It’s staggering evidence that strongly suggests there’s a significant offshore Chinese presence in the Auckland real estate market. It could not possibly be all Chinese New Zealanders buying; that’s implausible.”
Housing Minister Nick Smith attacked Labour’s methodology. …
Those are the facts. Naturally Labour will be attacked for being “racist” – stand by for a feral feeding frenzy! But Labour’s points here are:
(1) that this data is indicative only, the government should be collecting reliable data on overseas purchases,
(2) the solution relates to any overseas buyer (ban them unless they move here or build new here),
(3) many other countries, including Australia, have policies similar to (2),
(4) someone needs to stand up for Kiwis being priced out of the market.
While Labour is trying to stick to the facts, The Herald’s coverage is mixed. The first piece above covers the facts. The second, “We’ve got Chinese buyers”, covers the anecdotal evidence in support. But the third, “Why do you spend $100 on beer when you can save it and spend it on your house one day?” practically begs us to dislike the interviewee, not a helpful contribution to what is going to be a messy debate.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress