Complementary Housing

Written By: - Date published: 6:52 am, January 25th, 2013 - 94 comments
Categories: greens, housing, labour - Tags:

It’s great to see the Greens’ new housing policy nicely complementing Labour’s affordable housing policy.

Labour’s policy would get a lot of middle-income people into homes, and reduce the costs for medium-to-lower-priced homes generally by greatly increasing the supply (prices in Herne Bay will probably be unaffected…).  With Labour still intending to noticeably increase State Housing numbers (as we do each time we get into government, before National then stops building / sells off), and looking to increase rental standards, renters were being catered for; but we are still working on ideas for poorer people to get to own houses.

And the Greens’ policy looks great.  The devil is in the detail, obviously, but from a first look it should help bridge that gap.

And it once again shows up the paucity of ideas National has.  Housing affordability is one of Aotearoa’s crises.  And – like Child Poverty, or creating jobs for Kiwis – National seem to only draw blanks.

So far all we’ve had is Bill English abusing councils for not committing to urban sprawl enough (as in Demographia’s study introduction).  By which he really meant Auckland… Which has more than 20,000 properties ready to build, if they could get developers moving.  Auckland Transport Blog covers Does Auckland really have a land shortage well.  As they demolish the study somewhat well too…  No thought to costs of added infrastructure or transport, or why prices are so high centrally (maybe because people don’t want to live miles from their work?)

So no solutions there.  Looks like we need a Labour-Green government…

94 comments on “Complementary Housing ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Bill 1
    25 January 2013 at 8:21 am

    Questions.

    1. What’s ‘affordable’ about Labour’s housing policy?

    2. Where has it been unequivocally and officially announced that Labour will build state houses and how many will they build?

    3. What (specifically) are the improvements in rental standards that Labour has announced?

    I ask because I’m not aware of any announcements on quaestions 2 and 3 beyond a vague ‘Oh it’s in the 2011 policy’.

    But anyway. Looks like, thanks to the Greens, there’s a solution now. Wonder how many people are now over the condescending and patronising attitude of Labour and are thinking we need a Green/Labour government?

  2. karol 2
    25 January 2013 at 8:32 am

    The Greens have coming up with the policy that the Labour caucus should have done first, if it is truly committed to returning to the values of the first Labour government in the 1930s and 40s, and to solid labour movement values. I’m not impressed that the Labour caucus are now trying to ride on the Greens’ bold policy announcement yesterday, as though it confirms the wonderfulness of Labour’s Kiwibuild policy. In fact, the Greens have shown how far the NZ Labour caucus has moved from traditional left/labour movement values.

    I am still pondering whether to party vote Mana or Greens in the next election, but this policy is giving me a very good reason to vote Green – and I am also considering a bigger commitment – participating in some of the leg-work for the Greens’ election campaign

    • bad12 2.1
      25 January 2013 at 9:38 am

      karol, just as an aside, Metiria Turei in an interview on yesterdays Morning Report is definitely intending that the Equity Ownership plans announced yesterday by the Green Party also include the Party’s intention to also build 3000 State owned rentals a year,

      Metiria said in that interview that the Green policy on ownership will have to be negotiated with Labours’ plans in conjunction with it’s KiwiBuild program,

      It really now behoves Labour to up the ante a little by saying that it (Labour) will have to increase the number of smaller affordable houses intended to be built so as to accommodate both sets of policy, in effect showing the public a coalition in the making that can make policy that compliments each Party,

      Annette King might have given us all a broad hint a while back when She pointed out in a discussion here on the Standard that once in full swing Norm Kirk’s Labour Government were building 30,000 State Houses a year,

      Given a 3 term Labour/Green coalition building 3000 State rentals a year is possible this would take the total HousingNZ portfolio close to the 100,000 homes which our population of some 4.4 million would dictate as being necessary,

      We will have to wait for the full :Labour housing policy,(perhaps we should all start singing the football chant why are we waiting),

      Labour of course now have a golden opportunity to show New Zealand a coalition in the making by finalizing their whole housing policy along with negotiating the numbers of all aspects of the total housing policy with the Green Party and announcing that total housing policy via a joint news conference,

      i have the sneaking suspicion tho that Labour is still pining for a coalition with NZFirst which they (Labour) feel would be far more ‘manageable’,(yes i am talking the Caucus and not the Party)…

      • Ben Clark 2.1.1
        25 January 2013 at 2:00 pm

        You may be surprised to know that the Labour Caucus doesn’t (officially at least) decide policy – that’s for the Policy Council (majority members), with its various Policy Committees (primarily of members with 1 or 2 from caucus) informing it. Although members of Caucus obviously have better opportunities for research (see Parker’s and Cunliffe’s economics trips to Europe) and a fair amount of input.

        As such Policy is carefully created and considered and not decided ad hoc. The Leader / Caucus can’t just suddenly decide on some new (uncosted) policy – it has to go through a process every election cycle. That’s why the 2011 manifesto is valid until contradicted.

        You can sing football chants all you like, but that won’t create good policy.

        I’m on the Social Development Policy Committee (responsible for Housing), so while I won’t be sharing any great secrets, I’m aware of various things that are in the pipeline – on rentals, State Housing etc… Even when policy is drafted there is always a difficulty of both when to announce policy for greatest effect, and the fact that it’s hard to be certain of any policy until it’s all decided as sometimes some things will have to be put off in preference of others once costing are taken into account. (The Greens seem to be able to get away without quite the same rigor of economic costings required up front by journos & National who assume they won’t be leading a coalition – it’s a nice privilege they have; they don’t have to announce that they’re dropping x whenever they propose adding y).

        Of course if the Leader did just come out with lots of policy up front there’d be those who would complain about how the members didn’t have input & weren’t informed, so I’d rather have the current member-led more considered if somewhat slower approach.

        And both Phil Goff and David Shearer have spoken about a Labour/Greens government regularly (including again at Ratana yesterday), so I don’t know that Caucus are pining for NZ First to avoid that…

        As for the Housing Policy – the Greens policy was designed to specifically dovetail with the KiwiBuild (you need to build the cheap houses before you can help people with the loans to buy them). KiwiBuild can deliver cheaper houses than ts’s parents as there will be a number of set designs that are pre-approved, on pre-approved council land, mass-production is cheaper etc etc. $300,000 houses are a whole lot more affordable than $500,000 median price houses currently, and when you massively increase supply all prices will drop making it more affordable. Combined with CGT etc to reduce investment property demand, it should massively help increase home ownership. Obviously we need solutions beyond that which is where increased state housing comes in (yes, js, the last Labour government left a lot more State Houses in the portfolio than when it started, but they had a lot of National-sold ones in the 90s to make up), and the Greens’ policy appears to fill a gap as well, in an area Labour were still balancing options.

        Righty – I need to do some of my day-job…

        • bad12 2.1.1.1
          25 January 2013 at 3:11 pm

          My my, SO, you helped design the Labour Party housing policy ‘KiwiBuild’???, perhaps you can tell us what particular income group the ‘design team’ envisaged could afford such a scheme such as you helped design,

          In the wide range discussion here on the Standard a figure of a household income of $60,000 a year was discussed by some having gleaned this figure from a web-site providing such a formula, would this in your opinion as one who helped design ‘KiwiBuild’ be the minimum earnings required by a successful recipient of a ‘KiwiBuild’ home,

          Did you also have a say in when the ‘KiwiBuild’ policy was to be released, it would seem that the release of KiwiBuild as the ‘flagship’ Labour Party policy while more work has yet to be done around the number of new State Houses has simply left Labour open to the criticism that it has received vis a vis ‘KiwiBuild’,

          Another interesting question seeing as you are close to the Labour Party housing planning strategy is of course besides your pointing out what you see as a flaw in the Green Party having ‘not costed’ their policy do you perceive any other flaws in that policy,

          As both you and i have now pointed out that the Green Party policy is one to ‘dove-tail’ with Labour’s announced ‘KiwiBuild’ i would suggest that the ‘costing’ has already occurred via the Labour planning committee you sit on,i would be interested in where Labour see extra costs occurring from within the Green Party policy,

          It is my personal suggestion that Labour now look again at the numbers to see if additional numbers cannot be added to ‘KiwiBuild’ with the added enhancement of the Green Party proposal and not a call i have seen from the Green Party it’self,

          Obviously if the number of actual ‘KiwiBuild’ homes to be built stays at 10,000 then the coalition negotiations after November 2014 only need focus upon where the split lies between the two Party’s policy, and the feeling here is that such a negotiation could easily be accomplished prior to November 2014 when your policy work is completed around the number of new State Houses intended to be built…

    • David H 2.2
      25 January 2013 at 8:11 pm

      Well I am so disgusted with Labour I am giving BOTH my votes to the Greens. And may it be a GREEN/Labour govt with all the dinosaurs gone.

  3. NoseViper (The Nose knows) 3
    25 January 2013 at 8:43 am

    She’ll be right mate. We’ll just bowl over the pesky regulations that stop our mates from having a money diet – see it, swallow it. Those slack, inefficient councils attempting to follow law and bring some planning controls against those of neo liberalism laissez faire are at fault.

    So we in the NACTs will follow the well-known and disastrous policy of deregulation. This is despite another pillar of their cracked edifice, the farmers, disagreeing with urbanism spreading into farmland, but the speculators see the most advantage and money for them while they sit weaving sticky webs and plotting their projects as their active work so they can catch excessive dollars.

  4. Skinny 4
    25 January 2013 at 8:46 am

    You have to commend the Greens for putting out a great complimenting housing plan.

     It’s disappointing Shearers average support of Labour’s future coalition partner. Certainly came across as condescending and rather churlish & a lackluster speech in support was another lost opportunity to come out hard hitting now people are refocussed on politics.   

  5. just saying 5
    25 January 2013 at 8:50 am

    With Labour still intending to noticeably increase State Housing numbers (as we do each time we get into government, before National then stops building / sells off), and looking to increase rental standards, renters were being catered for; but we are still working on ideas for poorer people to get to own houses.

    However, the net result of intermittent Labour and Labour-led governments, over three decades, has been fewer and fewer State rentals, and more and more living in need. The poor poorer, housing in ever shorter supply, and for those in need, of poorer quality.

    You’d have to say RESULT!!!…. edit (for National.) for the right – be they National, Labour, or whoever.
    FIFM

    • Skinny 5.1
      25 January 2013 at 9:08 am

      Well I wouldn’t say it’s a good result for National quite the opposite really. There is no hiding the fact that there is a affordable housing crisis, and a return to a property price boom because National have failed to address the issue at a time when the economy desperately needed stimulus in the building sector to get thing going. 

      A better approach would have been the leaders of both party’s, and perhaps Peters too?, putting their heads together and coming out with a media conference broaching the varies housing schemes from their respective parties. And announcing they will have a common policy by the time they take office next year.    

      • just saying 5.1.1
        25 January 2013 at 9:14 am

        You may have replied before I amended my comment, as above.

        As to your reply, it depends on who and what you believe the right (collectively) represents, wants, and is working towards.

  6. tracey 6
    25 January 2013 at 9:14 am

    ” Energy Resources and Housing Minister Phil Heatley said the policy was dangerous for New Zealand in terms of the world economic situation.

    “In the end they’re either going to have to print money, or borrow it – we’re talking about billions – and with the international economy the way it is it’s toxic to go into debt.””

    Um, remind me how much the govt borrows each week tomake up for its tax cuts and decreased tax take as a result???

    • Colonial Viper 6.1
      25 January 2013 at 9:40 am

      Exactly. The government only has three sources of money. The printing press, overseas loan sharks, or taxation.

      Pick your poison, Heatley.

      • aerobubble 6.1.1
        25 January 2013 at 3:36 pm

        Nitrogen fixing chemicals residues getting into milk! could harm our exports, force the dollar down, and so take the pressure off our risk interest premium currency. Farmers now have
        an out on river pollution, they are going to have a harder time keeping pollution out of streams!!!
        The high dollar has made it easier for NZ to pay off debt!!!
        But wait, the world is mired in debt, and has to work out some way of reducing it, and
        NZ will get to buy into whatever policy that is.
        Petrol prices will jump is the dollar comes down.

  7. Blue 7
    25 January 2013 at 9:22 am

    It’s great to see the Greens’ new housing policy nicely complementing Labour’s affordable housing policy.

    Actually, it’s great to see the Greens’ new housing policy totally outstripping Labour’s on every measure.

    It really does underline how far Labour has come from its roots when the Greens put up the policy Labour should have and Labour are trying to be the National-lite party of the middle class.

    My decision to vote Green at the next election has so far been more of a protest vote against the idiots running Labour right now, but with policy like this, I’ll be proud to give them my vote.

    • bad12 7.1
      25 January 2013 at 10:09 am

      Your vote for the Green Party is the best thing you can say to the Labour Caucus, at some point in time Labour must hear the message or the Green Party in terms of electoral support will overtake them,

      I am starting to view the political situation vis a vis Labour as something akin to comedy they, (Labour), give every appearance of being a dinosaur pursuing an eagle while uselessly flapping it’s stubby arms wondering why it cannot fly…

      • Skinny 7.1.1
        25 January 2013 at 12:30 pm

        It irritates me that some within Labour treat the Greens so shabbily. Having spoken to Shearer sometime ago, I know his & Robertson despise them. It’s about time Labour woke up & grow up, they aren’t going away!

  8. tsmithfield 8
    25 January 2013 at 12:42 pm

    The plans of both Labour and the Greens with respect to housing don’t stand up to analysis.

    Firstly, the plans for both are premised on building houses for $300000. At the moment, that doesn’t seem possible. For instance, my parents (red-zoned) just had a fairly modest three bedroom house with attached garage built on another section in Christchurch. The land was (500sqm) $185k. The house, including paths, drives, landscaping etc came to $320,000. Hence the total build price was pushing $500k. Part of the answer is to drive down land prices by making more available. However, it appears that National is focussed on this side of the equation already. So far as the cost of building is concerned, there is already a desperate shortage of tradespeople due to the Christchurch earthquake, pushing up building prices. So, it seems that the pressure on prices for building houses will be upwards rather than downwards.

    If the proposed houses turn out to be significantly more expensive than $300k, then the assumptions that flow from the budgeted price will also be incorrect.

    Secondly, so far as increased controls on landlords are concerned, these measures won’t make it easier for the poor to rent houses.

    If conditions move more in favour of tenants, then demand for renting will go up. If landlords feel the perceived risk of renting is higher, and the return is lower, then they will be much more cautious about who they rent to. If the demand for rentals increases, then landlords will be able to pick and choose who they rent to even more. Thus, rentals will tend to go to those most able to afford the rentals and who are perceived as lowest risk. This will disadvantage the poor.

    • One Tāne Huna 8.1
      25 January 2013 at 12:45 pm

      That’s your argument? “My parents house cost more than the ones Labour plans to build”?

      We need better wingnuts.

      • tsmithfield 8.1.1
        25 January 2013 at 3:32 pm

        Can you point to any new house in any of the main centres that is currently being offerred for $300000 including land?

        • McFlock 8.1.1.1
          25 January 2013 at 3:39 pm

          Even if you are capable of looking a real estate agent sites yourself, how many of the houses are built by a large-scale government construction programme?

          • tsmithfield 8.1.1.1.1
            25 January 2013 at 4:50 pm

            If you’re arguing that “economies of scale” will result, then construction prices should be falling in Christchurch where Fletchers are controlling the process. But they’re not.

            The huge increase in demand will have a much stronger upward effect on house prices than any gains through economies of scale.

            • McFlock 8.1.1.1.1.1
              25 January 2013 at 11:07 pm

              Funnily enough, simple economies of scale are never going to win a pissing contest against a sudden reduction in supply. Which is why the nats have fucked up the earthquake recovery.

              Fuck, you’re a massive dick for even using chch as an argument. Go have a shower, you’ve soiled yourself more than usual.

        • geoff 8.1.1.3
          25 January 2013 at 3:45 pm

          Hey wingnut, see this: http://thestandard.org.nz/medium-density-housing-is-now-the-auckland-way/

          Yes the quarter-acre dream is over for the main centres but really it should have died years ago.

          • tsmithfield 8.1.1.3.1
            25 January 2013 at 4:52 pm

            We’re getting that in Christchurch as well. There are subdivisions now that have section sizes as small as 300 sqm. These sections are still priced at approx 145k though.

        • bad12 8.1.1.4
          25 January 2013 at 3:46 pm

          Can you point out any houses that are currently being built off a standard set of 6-10 plans where the building company contracted to erect them is contracted to produce these houses by the 1000, the whole area of land has been purchased as a ‘block’ on which these houses are to be built and an agreement has been reached with the relevant council for the whole build to occur under the one resource consent???…

          • tsmithfield 8.1.1.4.1
            25 January 2013 at 4:52 pm

            A simple “no” would have sufficed.

            • McFlock 8.1.1.4.1.1
              25 January 2013 at 5:11 pm

              A: “I will grow an apple tree here”.
              B: “but cacti do not grow here”
              A: “?”
              B: “can you see any cacti growing here?”
              A: “do apple trees look like fecking cacti?”
              B: “a simple ‘no’ would have sufficed”.

            • bad12 8.1.1.4.1.2
              25 January 2013 at 5:39 pm

              So would a simple f**k off, but we have to try and remain polite for the sake of the retarded which you appear to be and a reasonably decent new 2 bedroom house can be placed on any site for around 100 grand,

              Being affordable the new owners could then in the future add to the house as they saw fit and as their equity and income dictated just like they have done so in this country for decades…

          • David C 8.1.1.4.2
            25 January 2013 at 8:00 pm

            The suburb of Dannemora comes to mind. Cept it was I think 7000 houses…

        • One Tāne Huna 8.1.1.5
          25 January 2013 at 3:51 pm

          Can you estimate how many houses your Mummy and Daddy would have had to have built for economies of scale to start kicking in?

          • David C 8.1.1.5.1
            25 January 2013 at 9:02 pm

            OTH. You probably dont know because i assume you have never done it but closely held builds usually run cheaper than large scale builds. Ma and Pa who monitor every penny get a cheap and solid job. Big outfits with employees who really dont give a fuck dont get that screwed down margin or exacting finish.

            • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.5.1.1
              25 January 2013 at 9:05 pm

              Big outfits with employees who really dont give a fuck dont get that screwed down margin or exacting finish.

              Would you call Fletchers a big outfit with low paid employees who don’t give a fuck?

              • geoff …
                25 January 2013 at 9:12 pm

                The poor buggers who work in Placemakers get paid fuck all. I suspect you weren’t talking about them though 😉

    • David C 8.2
      25 January 2013 at 2:50 pm

      IMHO for a house to come close to the $300K mark it will have to be built small and on a small site.
      One dbl bedroom and 2 singles. One bathroom. Kitchen, living, dining, family room all one space . All bedrooms come off living areas, no hall way as is done in Oz. No garage.

      Maybe 90M2 on a 400M2 site and very much fringe of city..

      • tsmithfield 8.2.1
        25 January 2013 at 3:33 pm

        Seems to me like you are describing the ghettos of the future.

        • bad12 8.2.1.1
          25 January 2013 at 3:53 pm

          Do you often masterbate publicly???, remember the supposed ‘slums’ of the past, rows of upstairs downstairs 2 bedroom connected to each other houses erected in the 1940’s on behalf of what is now HousingNZ,

          These supposed ‘slums’ are currently valued in the 350-450 thousand dollar mark, accusations of ‘slum’ dwellings are simply the province of the idle Tory wanker suffering penis envy that the peasants have a sea view for a mere 25% of income,

          Slums are the manifestation of rich pricks denying for too long occupants of certain areas the opportunity to earn a decent standard of living…

          • David C 8.2.1.1.1
            25 January 2013 at 8:04 pm

            having come back to check up on my earlier comment I am not sure where to start…

            no one has put up any numbers that can tell me how a house can be built bigger than 90 M2 on a tiny site for $300K…

        • One Tāne Huna 8.2.1.2
          25 January 2013 at 3:58 pm

          Seems to me that your prejudice is showing.

          • tsmithfield 8.2.1.2.1
            25 January 2013 at 4:54 pm

            It seems to me your ignorance is showing.

            Why do you think various governments have favoured “pepper-potting” state house developments for quite awhile now?

            • bad12 8.2.1.2.1.1
              25 January 2013 at 5:33 pm

              It seems to me your abject stupidity is on show today, National simply wanted to get it’s hands on as many of the State House portfolio as possible to sell to their mates as cheaply as possible in an effort to get the game of monopoly spinning as fast as possible,

              Such a sell off simply created demand for rental property and demand equates to increased rents to make the game of monopoly spin a few revs faster still…

        • Colonial Viper 8.2.1.3
          25 January 2013 at 6:04 pm

          If there are plenty of jobs, decent pay, and a strong social security safety net available, how can a ghetto develop?

    • geoff 8.3
      25 January 2013 at 3:56 pm

      Part of the reason there is a shortage of tradesmen in Chch is because of the Fletcher monopoly on wages. Many tradies left when they realised their wages would be much lower under the Fletchers monopoly system. Yet another benefit of your favoured fucked up system.
      Also land cost is only one part of the equation, another part is cost of materials. Once-again the Fletchers monopoly is the main cause of crazily high material costs.
      The whole thing is completely mad, the country gets screwed and national aggragate demand is held down just so that Fletcher’s shareholders can clip the ticket and have a holiday house in Queenstown, a flash car and send the snot nosed brats to a private school.

      • tsmithfield 8.3.1
        25 January 2013 at 4:48 pm

        Ah, yes. But, “economies of scale” should be kicking in, as pointed out above.

        • bad12 8.3.1.1
          25 January 2013 at 6:26 pm

          Still determined to display a mental status of retard i see, economies of scale only apply in such a build as what Christchurch will experience over the next 5-10 years when there is real competition between a number of building companies and a number of building supply companies,

          Allowing one company to ‘own’ the whole process of such a rebuild simply equates to monopoly capitalism and as anyone with half an ounce of thinking matter within their cranial cavity knows (obviously not you),monopoly capitalism snuffs out the competition which leads to over-charging through the whole chain of supply and economies of scale cannot be achieved….

      • David C 8.3.2
        25 January 2013 at 8:06 pm

        you dont have the first clue what your talking about do you?

        No didnt think so.

        • geoff 8.3.2.1
          25 January 2013 at 8:11 pm

          Strong rebuttal, David C. I competely retract all my statements.

          • David C 8.3.2.1.1
            25 January 2013 at 8:16 pm

            Geoff, Fletchers job is to drive down cost of labour. That is what the govt has hired them to do. All for the princley margin of I believe 2.5%.

            • Colonial Viper 8.3.2.1.1.1
              25 January 2013 at 8:27 pm

              Fletcher’s job is to pay NZ workers as little as possible, and if that doesn’t work out, importing foreign labour is cool too.

              All for the princley margin of I believe 2.5%.

              Bullshit. That may be the apparent top line figure. But Fletchers is making a margin on every stage of the process, from the surveying to the sourcing the building materials, to the project management and the hammerhand at the end of it all.

            • geoff 8.3.2.1.1.2
              25 January 2013 at 8:30 pm

              Did you read that in your last financial statement?
              No doubt they have driven down the cost of labour, and in doing so driven out most of the good tradies.
              Who has the government hired to drive down the cost of materials?

              • David C …
                25 January 2013 at 8:47 pm

                The price of double glazed windows in NZ (a house set) is 4 times the price of USA. Triple glazed is a few % more but NZ dosent know what they are yet.

                A jar of screws is $7 here. Its $0.99 in USA and in USA all SS no cadmium.

                Oak flooring is $35/M2 in USA here its $400

                • geoff …
                  25 January 2013 at 9:00 pm

                  Yes I agree, NZ material costs are very high, to a large degree because of Fletchers. So you agree with me now? good.

                  • David C …
                    25 January 2013 at 9:22 pm

                    No Numpty I dont.

                    Tell me why a Husqvarna chainsaw is $295 in USA amd $1440 here.. Has fuck all to do with Fletchers.

                    • geoff …
                      25 January 2013 at 9:25 pm

                      Sounds like you priced it at Placemakers, maybe try Bunnings.

                    • David C …
                      25 January 2013 at 9:31 pm

                      geoff, to quote a well learned chap..

                      >>you dont have the first clue what your talking about do you?<<

                    • geoff …
                      25 January 2013 at 9:50 pm

                      Seriously, what is your point with this price comparison drivel?
                      The big price differentials are probably due to sole distributor right which are incredibly common in NZ and are yet another sort of monopoly that NZer’s have to suffer from. You can usually however bypass this by direct importing yourself.

            • geoff 8.3.2.1.1.3
              25 January 2013 at 9:09 pm

              Yeah Fletchers is doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Nothing to do with all the materials they’ll be able to flog through Placemakers etc.

  9. Fortran 9
    25 January 2013 at 2:32 pm

    Do we have Builders who are not Gerry Builders to undertake this or did they b………. off to Brisbane after the floods a couple of years ago.
    It takes probably at least 6 years, after apprentiship, to create a Builder worthy of the Name.
    Leaky homes is a prime example of poor Builders, aided by crap regulations.
    This cannot happen again.

    • David C 9.1
      25 January 2013 at 2:58 pm

      Many very expensive leaky homes were built by very experienced older builders.
      They got a job to build a house from a set of plans from a flash architect telling them to use “innovative (read unproven) products so they built it.
      Look to the designers and the councils that inspected it before blaming the guy with the hammer.
      Monolithic claddings, no soffits, no flashings above windows or in corners where walls meet. Untreated timber. All brain dead ideas from from guys with shiney arses that have never picked up a hammer in thier lives.

    • bad12 9.2
      25 January 2013 at 3:58 pm

      Yup, Slippery has kindly offered to cough the kids up to 2 grand a time to enter the building trade as apprentices,

      You were obviously asleep for that particular piece of largesse but they should be half way through their training and ready to engage in the practical task of ‘KiwiBuild’ not long after the 2014 election….

    • One Tāne Huna 9.3
      25 January 2013 at 4:01 pm

      “Leaky homes is a prime example of poor regulations, drafted by crap Tories.” FIFY

      • tracey 9.3.1
        25 January 2013 at 7:40 pm

        David c, all those innovative products were branz approved and those tossers still run the show. Lets not forget the developers that key now intends handing land to… Relatively unfettered.

        • David C 9.3.1.1
          25 January 2013 at 8:09 pm

          So you blame the guy with the hammer for the end product?
          He is a worker paid to do a job as designed and ticked of and inspected by a bunch of shiney arsed well paid fuckwits. BRANZ included.

          • geoff 9.3.1.1.1
            25 January 2013 at 8:24 pm

            Who the fuck do you think has all the influence on the BRANZ spec? Fletchers does.
            Case in point is wall insulation. The standard wall thickness in combination with minimum required wall R value means that the only product which fufills the insulation requirements AND fits inside the cavity is pink batts. Pink Batts is owned by…………..Fletcher Building.
            If you not willing to admit that the entire building industry in NZ is stitched up to the detriment of the population, then you’re either a complete fucking mug or you’re a Fletchers shareholder. Which is it?

  10. Robert Atack 10
    25 January 2013 at 7:14 pm

    >And it once again shows up the paucity of ideas National has. Housing affordability is one of Aotearoa’s crises. And – like Child Poverty, or creating jobs for Kiwis – National seem to only draw blanks.<

    I'm going to gag while typing this (you know defending the wankers) The reason National are drawing blanks is that unlike the BS from the Greens and Labour they would have to put their money were their pipe dream was.
    The Greens and Labour can bullshit as much as they like, they don't have to pay for it. Or harder still find the resources.
    Just waiting for the suggestion that we hand carve Easter Island type statues, it would be a reasonable 'green sustainable' industry, which will push all ya buttons, we could use Oamaru stone.
    Then we could use it as a tourist attraction.

    • Jenny 10.1
      25 January 2013 at 7:22 pm

      The closest NZ analogy to building Easter Island statues is the huge expansion in motor way construction. The result of which will be the equivalent giant white elephants for our descendants to gawp and wonder at because of the sheer stupidity of the ancestors and their leaders.

      • Robert Atack 10.1.1
        26 January 2013 at 6:48 pm

        Agreed, but I was thinking of something for the Greens to promote, along with their housing ideas
        The roads are National’s Moi, except the Greens have a part to play in the roads as well, because they are part of what Kiwi Saver needs to make a profit ie suburban sprawl and growth – bugger the kids.

  11. QoT 11
    25 January 2013 at 7:36 pm

    It’s great to see the Greens’ new housing policy nicely complementing Labour’s affordable housing policy.

    Nice framing.

    • David C 11.1
      25 January 2013 at 8:12 pm

      I prefer to say that the Greens policy is so badly costed that it makes Labours policy look sound!

      • Colonial Viper 11.1.1
        25 January 2013 at 8:15 pm

        Greens policy pays for itself whats the problem?

        If there’s any short fall simply introduce a new top level tax rate at 45% and it’ll be sorted.

        • David C 11.1.1.1
          25 January 2013 at 8:20 pm

          Oh ya.. and the govt shares in Air NZ will do well as anyone who earns over $60 pa flees.

          and no the policy dont come close to paying for itself.

          What is the 25 year average cost of Govt borrowing?

          • Colonial Viper 11.1.1.1.1
            25 January 2013 at 8:32 pm

            Oh ya.. and the govt shares in Air NZ will do well as anyone who earns over $60 pa flees.

            Let them flee. Let them flee to instability, drought, 50% youth unemployment, forcing their kids to learn a new language, etc.

            Then we’ll know who is loyal.

            Idiots who uproot from friends and family for a few % points of income tax are…idiots.

            By the way, a tax on forex transactions of NZD offshore for non-trade purposes is pretty good at stopping capital flight.

            • David C 11.1.1.1.1.1
              25 January 2013 at 8:56 pm

              CV

              What is the 25 year average cost of Govt borrowing?

              • Colonial Viper …
                25 January 2013 at 9:03 pm

                Don’t need to know that because ZIRP has effectively been in force globally for the last 4-5 years.

                • David C …
                  25 January 2013 at 9:28 pm

                  and that will mean that we will pay historiclly low rates for the next 25 years.?

                  CV I respect you enuf to know you dont believe that spin.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    25 January 2013 at 9:32 pm

                    Cheers mate. Realistically, we don’t have 25 years of road left in our current economic and financial system. We’ll be fairly lucky to have 5.

        • Swan 11.1.1.2
          26 January 2013 at 7:36 pm

          The greens policy pays for itself? What about:

          Working capital? Or can they build these houses in a day?

          Rates? Maintenance? Depreciation? Insurance?

          What about a realistic cost of capital? What about risk of default?

          And where is the costing to show the can build houses for $300k?

      • QoT 11.1.2
        25 January 2013 at 9:51 pm

        Um, good for you? Relevance of your response to my comment … not found.

  12. tsmithfield 12
    25 January 2013 at 8:29 pm

    A political party could make a claim that they could build houses for $200000 (including land) through economies of scale. Any claim can be made without having to produce evidence.

    However, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Until we see the evidence that backs up the claims, building houses for $300000 is nothing but a pipe dream IMO.

    • David C 12.1
      25 January 2013 at 8:54 pm

      OMG! you expect polys to actually prove they can do the lies they spout?

      The Greens and or Labour have no more more chace of building $300K /appealing (non slum) house than I have of flying to the moon.

  13. Home builders 13
    5 February 2013 at 9:58 pm

    Labor-Green government is good to have. Thanks for sharing.