Greens release rental stories collection

Written By: - Date published: 11:01 am, June 30th, 2023 - 127 comments
Categories: greens, housing, tenants' rights - Tags:

Green Party press release 27/6/23

__________________________________________________________________________

The Green Party has today released a collection of stories showing how dire the rental situation is in Aotearoa.

“We put the call out for renters’ voices nearly a month ago and have been overwhelmed with the response. Far, far too many of the 1.4 million renting New Zealanders have horror stories – and without policy intervention, they’re living in a state sanctioned nightmare,” says the Green Party’s spokesperson for renters, Chlöe Swarbrick.

“We heard stories of families forced to pay through the roof to live in cold, damp, and mouldy homes that make them and their children sick.

“We heard of landlords raising rents while refusing time and time again to fix people’s homes to bring them up to even the most basic of standards.

“Many of these stories have been shared on the condition of anonymity, reinforcing the point about the well entrenched power imbalance that Parliament has so far ensured comes with renting in this country.

“This suffering is a political choice. Enough is enough.

“The Green Party knows Parliament ignores renters at their own political peril. We started this campaign and share these stories so renters know these are not one-off, individual issues, but so clearly systemic – and political.

“The time is now to ensure everyone in Aotearoa has a safe, dry and affordable home,” says Chlöe Swarbrick.

Click here to read the stories.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Five of the stories:

When we moved [into] our current flat there was already mould
present on the ceiling, no heat pump and a malfunctioning water
mixer making the shower almost completely unusable.
During our first inspection, the property manager (tall 50’s M)
raised his voice at my flatmate (small, 20F) for not being able to
keep control of the mould that had become a [constant] recurring
issue. The Auckland floods only made these issues [worse;] the
shower broke down completely and the mould got so bad that we
had to evacuate the premises due to my flatmate coughing up
blood, only then did they install a heat pump.

We were told that they couldn’t do anything about the mould on
their end and it had to be on us to simply continue to “stay on top
of it” (a task which was requiring us to mould treat every internal
exterior wall, multiple interior walls, a large section of our furniture
and both our beds weekly at this point) or move out (but of course
we’d be expected to continue paying rent until another tenant agrees to take the property on.)

Dunedin student flat: Our upstairs shower would leak into the
downstair toilet through the roof. We asked the landlord multiple
times to fix it. After a few months he came in (not wanting to hire
a plumber) and said it was the gutters full of leaves, so he cleared
those. It continued and we continued to ask him. Not wanting
to call a plumber again he ripped the ceiling out of the toilet and
“attempted” to fix the plumbing himself. Again, he did not fix the
problem and finally called a plumber. The plumber came and said
that delaying so long actually caused more damage, but he was
able to fix. Because the landlord was cheap, he left the ceiling in the
toilet in the state that the plumber had left it and we are not sure if he has fixed it after we moved out 6 months later

In 2018, due to (what was assumed was) ongoing damage
from the Christchurch earthquakes, our flat in Ilam had ongoing
issues with plumbing. This came to a head near the end of
the year, when a toilet simultaneously blocked and started to
constantly flow. In the early hours of the morning, we woke up
to raw sewage flowing out of the toilet into the upstairs carpet,
running up and down the walls, and dripping down into the carpet
on the bottom floor. We were advised to turn the pump off at the
street level, but because we shared water access with 4 other flats,
we couldn’t keep the water turned off forever. By the time we had
a plumber in to stop the continuous flow of water and sewage, we
had lost a lot of furniture, clothing, documents, etc to the water.

We were expected to continue to not only continue living in the
house, but continue paying full rent, despite the fact that we were
instructed not to use any running water throughout the house at all
(no toilet, showers, kitchen or bathroom sinks, or laundry). Several
sections of the house were unlivable, as carpet had been ripped up
throughout the house leaving exposed nails pointing directly up.
The sewage filled carpet itself was left directly under the kitchen
and bedroom windows. The smell was indescribable. To dry the
house out, the common areas held industrial fans that ran every
day at considerable volume for several weeks. When asked, we
were told it was our responsibility to pay the enormous power bill.

All four residents came down sick within the week and stayed sick
until we moved out. Three of us could not move out until the end of
the lease, which took two months. Two of the residents had throat
swabs done, both coming back with lung infections of bacteria
primarily found in the intestines.

As far as I know, the house is still untenanted. I still have some
photos, receipts, etc from the (unsuccessful) Tenancy Tribunal
hearing if interested.

(In addition, at one point one of the bathrooms were slated for
renovations, but this work quietly ended prior to completion. We
later discovered that this was likely due to undisclosed asbestos
in the house (we walked past the next year and the house was
covered in signs warning about the asbestos removal). We have
no idea if any of these renovations or the other work done after the
incident exposed us to asbestos.)

I have been renting since I left foster care / CYFs at 16. I
couldn’t have my name on the lease til 18. Just like in care, I have
had to move houses constantly. I have had to navigate landlords
who won’t fix mould. When my son was born in 2014 we had to
navigate freezing houses that meant we all had to sleep in the
lounge with an open fire to keep warm. We have had countless
bonds taken for lawns I was unable to mow due to not affording a
mower, many were unjust – like a landlord not liking the fact my son
had played with chalk outside. We have had our maara kai ripped out from our gardens as the landlord hadn’t planted it.

All us renters have stories to tell, and I’d love to go to the
media with them, but we are often too scared to get blacklisted by
rental agencies forever. They always do a reference check, they
always want to call your former landlords. If one of them says “she’s
that girl that spoke to the media, she’s causing issues” then that
might mean missing out on a place to sleep and live. The power
imbalances created by our inadequate rental laws are the real issue.

Green Party Housing Policy

127 comments on “Greens release rental stories collection ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. tsmithfield 1
    30 June 2023 at 11:08 am

    I saw that request on twitter from Davidson I think. The request was for negative stories, rather than just stories generally. So, the stories are obviously anecdotal and highly biased towards negative stories for obvious reasons.

    So, it tends to make the whole exercise meaningless, because it will always be possible to get negative stories if they are asked for, regardless of how good the rental market is.

    • weka 1.1
      30 June 2023 at 11:40 am

      It's only meaningless if you want to pretend that we don't already know there is a huge problem with rental standards in NZ and with tenants being able to get issues addressed. It's not like this campaign by the Greens is their first, nor that it is the only source of information that we have about how bad things are. You can do your own research on that, but this is not a new issue.

      I also suspect that you are failing to understand the systemic nature of the problem. It's landlord culture, it's societal lax expectations including in the political and business classes, it's how tenancy law enables this, and how the tenancy tribunal fails tenants. NZ society prioritises housing as investment over housing as a right to a health, stable, secure home, which is why the argument has often centred around landlord rights vs tenant rights, as if somehow landlords are hard done by if they are expected to not let shit flow through their property.

      The point of the campaign isn't to produce a scientific study of how many houses in NZ fail basic standards, nor is it to highlight how many rentals are good. It's to give a human context to just about things are. Join the dots. How much does it cost the state in medical care from these substandard rentals? Or the economy from pushing people into stress and poverty.

      There is a human right to housing, there is no human right to investment housing. Landlord who cannot provide decent homes to people should sell to those who can. My preferences is sales to government, local government, non-profit NGOs and Iwi and to take those properties out of the housing market and make them long term rentals that meeting the standards that most NZ citizens would think was reasonable.

      • Belladonna 1.1.1
        30 June 2023 at 11:47 am

        we don't already know there is a huge problem with rental standards in NZ and with tenants being able to get issues addressed.

        If that is the case, then the whole Healthy Homes legislation (complete with penalties for non-compliance) is a failure.

        I don't believe that it is. I think that there has been a huge change in the 'livability' of rental properties over the term of this government.

        Is it perfect? No. Is it getting better? Yes.

        The issues now, aren't so much over the livability of rental accommodation – but over the fact that there isn't enough of it, and/or it's unaffordable.

        Seems to me the Greens are fighting the last war.

        • weka 1.1.1.1
          30 June 2023 at 12:25 pm

          It's both. We still have a rental shortage in many places. And, we still have people living in shitty, substandard rentals. I don't believe there's been no change with the rental standards laws and I'm not sure how you went to that. Obviously things can improve and still leave some problems. There's also a fairly obvious connection between rental shortages and shitty standards, hence Queenstown

      • tsmithfield 1.1.2
        30 June 2023 at 11:47 am

        When you say, "pretend we don’t know" I assume you mean there is research available now to make the point. So, why not frame the anecdotes within the context of that known research? That would give the accounts meaning.

        At the moment, it is entirely pointless because it is not giving any indication of the size of the problem. For instance, are the examples just outliers indicating a few really bad landlords, or is this a sample of a much larger problem with landlords generally?

        • weka 1.1.2.1
          30 June 2023 at 11:51 am

          again, it's only pointless for people that are ignorant of the situation that is well known (and yes, research has been done), and want to sit on blog comments denying there is an issue instead of going and looking up the long body of work already done on this.

          See my comment below, because I am about to shift into moderation mode.

          • tsmithfield 1.1.2.1.1
            30 June 2023 at 12:21 pm

            I am not trying to deny there is an issue. I am just saying a more effective point could be made by framing it within a research context.

            I think it is wrong to assume that everyone reading these accounts from tenants will be aware of the research. So, just pointing out some basic figures with a link or two would likely help a lot of people understand the point being made.

            And, isn't one of the worst offenders Kianga Ora? At the date of that article half of Kianga Ora homes didn't comply with the new standards and they had a longer compliance timeframe than private landlords.

            And, at least back in early 2022, the government wasn't keeping stats on how many landlords met the new standards.

            Perhaps they are doing that now, but if not, how can we possibly know if the standard of housing is improving ahead of expectations (hence the problem is on the way to being solved) or lagging behind (hence problems not being solved fast enough)?

            • weka 1.1.2.1.1.1
              30 June 2023 at 12:41 pm

              Great link. So, the Greens identified a number of issues with the new legislation, brought that to parliament, got some MSM coverage of those issues, and now are running an election year campaign off the back of that.

              Further, there are some MBIE stats in your link of problem rentals. Combine that with the story in the post about why so many tenants don't do formal complaints, and the general knowledge among renters, and research and previous campaings that have been done, and it's not hard to see that there is a problem here.

              I don't know how many people don't know these things, but when the Greens lay them out, your initial response is doubt that it's meaningful. I'd suggest this is part of why you don't know the issues despite them having been talked about a lot.

              eg. you say,

              Perhaps they are doing that now, but if not, how can we possibly know if the standard of housing is improving ahead of expectations (hence the problem is on the way to being solved) or lagging behind (hence problems not being solved fast enough)?

              The government not collecting data on how many rentals are compliant with its Healthy Homes Standards isn't the only way to understand the problem yet you are saying we are helpless to know and thus do anything without that data. Meanwhile, the GP know about the problem because they keep themselves informed and they're not sitting around waiting for Labour to sort its shit out.

              • tsmithfield …
                30 June 2023 at 1:05 pm

                …yet you are saying we are helpless to know and thus do anything without that data. Meanwhile, the GP know about the problem because they keep themselves informed and they're not sitting around waiting for Labour to sort its shit out.

                I think you are putting words in my mouth there. I didn't say we shouldn't be doing anything about the problem. Just that it is difficult to know the scale of the problem and how it is trending

                Weka, my view is that tenants should be entitled to live in warm, healthy homes. I do agree with the issues of poor health etc that can arise when homes are not healthy, and that this contributes to the load on the health system etc. So, you don't really have an argument with me there.

                Of course, when landlords have to meet those costs, it tends to create other problems such as that they will seek to recover the costs through increased rents.

                So, it is reasonably complex.

                But, one of the keys to understanding and fixing problems is good data. Without that data, it is difficult to know the scale of a problem. But that is not the same thing as doing nothing about it.

                • weka …
                  30 June 2023 at 8:07 pm

                  I didn't say you said we shouldn't do anything about it, I said that you appeared to be arguing that we cannot act because we don't know enough yet. This is just not true.

                  I also disagree that it's reasonably complex. Once you centre people (… he tangata, he tangata, he tangata), the whole problem changes. We no longer have to consider the rights of landlords alongside tenants, they become secondary. Rent caps, fund social housing across central and local government, NGOs, Iwi, Community Housing/Land Trusts. Support owner/builder and tiny homes. Change land use rules to allow collective ownership and extended family dwellings.

                  When landlord's cry about the injustice, they can't afford to fix their shitty homes, let any of the above groups buy them out.

                  Would you mind explaining what the problem is with house building outside of the market?

      • Incognito 1.1.3
        30 June 2023 at 1:12 pm

        Human stories are very powerful, which is one reason why so many political speeches, especially from party leaders at annual conferences, do include them. Whether they are real or fake doesn’t actually matter as long as they touch a string & resonate. The Greens are after real stories from real people who rent and who find themselves at the bottom of social and societal picking order. At least one party stands up for those people!

        • Phillip ure 1.1.3.1
          30 June 2023 at 3:19 pm

          It'd be two parties who 'care' about this issue…the greens and the maori party…which one are you referring to..?

          • adam 1.1.3.1.1
            30 June 2023 at 6:44 pm

            Te Pāti Māori.

            Only do it in full because I know it pisses off certain Tories.

            • Incognito 1.1.3.1.1.1
              30 June 2023 at 6:57 pm

              Why are you pretending to answer the question that was addressed to me?

              Why are you trolling under this Post?

        • adam 1.1.3.2
          30 June 2023 at 6:43 pm

          Mariameno Kapa-Kingi for Te Tai Tokerau

          Will She get your vote Incognito?

    • Belladonna 1.2
      30 June 2023 at 11:40 am

      I wonder how many of these are Kainga Ora tenants – who have been prominent in the media over the poor quality of the homes provided, and the …. unwillingness … of KO to fix issues in a timely manner (although, when they go to the media, magically someone from KO turns up to resolve the issue)

      https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/488731/you-cannot-get-rid-of-the-mould-kainga-ora-resident-says-flooding-houses-not-only-issue

      https://www.teaomaori.news/compensation-order-against-kainga-ora-after-tenant-forced-live-cracked-sinking-home

      https://www.goodreturns.co.nz/article/976519116/tribunal-black-mould-leads-to-substantial-compensation-order.html

      I should also like to know how many of these stories are retrospective – i.e. before the mandatory (in most cases) healthy homes standards for rental housing. Standards, by the way, that KO didn't have to meet until long after the rest of the rental housing sector (their deferred date is July 2024 – I expect that there will be a further deferral).

    • James Simpson 1.3
      30 June 2023 at 11:48 am

      I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of it as well?

      Next thing we will have ACT asking for anecdotes from people who have been the victims of retail crime.

      • Incognito 1.3.1
        30 June 2023 at 1:25 pm

        You raise an excellent point! (NB NACT policies on rental housing will skew things in favour of the landlords, but you already know this, right?)

        Housing has everything to do with retail crime, as you’re already aware of, obviously.

        The Green Party’s Golriz Ghahraman said her party would directly address the harm causing children to offend.

        ”Wrap-around support so those children, and they are children, can feel safe and not be out on the streets and committing crime.”

        She said keeping children in school, safe housing, secure incomes and community-based interventions should be used to address the underlying causes of youth crime.

        […]

        Secure housing and a stable income would also make a difference, she said. And children needed to be supported to stay in school. [my italics]

        https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300829626/what-is-the-solution-to-increasingly-violent-retail-crime-aggravated-robberies-and-ramraids

        • James Simpson 1.3.1.1
          30 June 2023 at 3:18 pm

          That's not really the point I was making – (but you knew that right?).

          Using anecdotes from selected supporters isn't really going to advance or persuade people in my humble view

          • weka 1.3.1.1.1
            30 June 2023 at 3:57 pm

            it's not selected supporters, it's NZ citizens living in substandard housing.

            The way this works is the Greens run a campaign on an issue, they present evidence in various ways including the above, they ask questions in the House, they do work on select committees, they develop policy and publicise it. The MSM picks up on that and people talk about it on SM, and the 'overton window' on that issue shifts because on issues like housing, because most people across the spectrumm, when faced with it directly, don't actually believe it's ok for NZ people to live in substandard housing.

            This is how change happens and the GP are very good at what they do in this regards. It's how they effect change despite the relatively small number of MPs.

          • Incognito 1.3.1.1.2
            30 June 2023 at 5:03 pm

            Get off the grass. Do you really believe that those 700 who took part in that self-selecting survey were all Green Party supporters? AFAIK, GP is strong among affluent well-educated people, so I doubt that many of those would have shared their stories.

            Given that you don’t seem to understand the rationale behind this awareness campaign your dismissive views are not surprising. I doubt that you’ve read the GP Policy on housing.

      • KJT 1.3.2
        30 June 2023 at 9:20 pm

        They do.

    • Incognito 1.4
      30 June 2023 at 12:00 pm

      Your memory is coloured & clouded. Why don’t you link to that tweet or did you make it up?

      This announcement might trigger your memory: https://action.greens.org.nz/housing_crisis_stories

      Are you after objective, balanced, neutral, non-anecdotal stories? They’re called ‘research’.

      You’ve created a feeble excuse for you to ignore and discard those real stories. Well done!

    • That_guy 1.5
      30 June 2023 at 1:19 pm

      because it will always be possible to get negative stories if they are asked for, regardless of how good the rental market is

      Sorry no.

      Honestly, a story about literal shit flowing through a house, all residents becoming sick, and then being forced to pay full rent and to pay for the power required for industrial-strength fans to blow the smell of shit out of the house, while also having no choice but to live in the house?

      No no no. Assuming the story is true, and the Greens will have done due diligence here, then this is not a story that occurs "regardless of how good the rental market is".

      In a "good rental market" this would not happen, in a "good rental market" people would not be living in mould and shit.

    • Tricledrown 1.6
      30 June 2023 at 1:24 pm

      Tsm the fact is that substandard to expensive housing is costing the NZ economy billions in lost productivity.overloading the health system .Educational outcomes .This multiplies as intergenerational poverty costs $billions more.Tsm perhaps you should read Don Brashes productivity commission conclusions.Since then NZ's housing crisis has got completely out of control to the point no government can fix it!Yet the banks 95% foreign owned continue to make record profits year after year proping up the monopoly formed by the big four cartel.Labours answer is another enquiry which will do nothing. Labour and National will continue tinkering and spinning. Ever since Jim Bolger introduced the landlord bankers subsidy housing has continued to be more unaffordable every year.Good on Marama Davidson the bravest person in our Parliament.

      • Phillip ure 1.6.1
        30 June 2023 at 3:28 pm

        I would have to question your wholehearted support of ms. Davidson…

        She has been invisible in her role as minister for the homeless…

        And as someone fairly close to that world…I can see nothing practical that she has done for those in that situation…

        And I think that I keep a reasonably close look at what is going on..and until recently I did not even know that ms davidson is the minister for the homeless..

        If someone has evidence that disproves my non-delivery contention..please prove me wrong…

  2. Ad 2
    30 June 2023 at 11:27 am

    Nothing like a good old name and shame of landlords not doing their job.

    Good on MP Swarbrick and the Greens for the initiative.

    • tsmithfield 2.1
      30 June 2023 at 11:38 am

      Except, I don't see any naming above. If the aim was to publicly shame bad landlords into good behaviour, I would see a point.

      But, at the moment, all that is being demonstrated is that there are some bad landlords. But, that has been the case ever since there have been landlords. So, it looks like a totally pointless exercise and doesn't mean anything.

      It would be more useful to point to statistics that demonstrate trends etc, say showing standards of accomodation, and whether that is improving or declining. Then use the anecdotal accounts as examples of some of the worst cases.

      • weka 2.1.1
        30 June 2023 at 11:43 am

        This was literally a 3 minute google search.

        Nearly 600,000 households rent in New Zealand, and New Zealand based research tells us that our rental stock is poorer quality than owner occupied homes. Research shows a link between cold, damp and mouldy homes and negative health outcomes, particularly for illnesses such as asthma and cardiovascular conditions.

        By improving the quality of rental homes, New Zealanders who rent will experience improved health, as well as lower medical costs and lower levels of hospitalisations. Warmer and drier homes are also less likely to have issues with mould or mildew damage, better protecting a landlord’s investment.

        https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/healthy-homes/about-the-healthy-homes-standards/

        This is a well known issue that has been discussed at length of a number of years, including on TS.

        If you want to run denialist lines, please make sure that comments going forward have something to back them up.

        • weka 2.1.1.1
          30 June 2023 at 11:47 am

          Seriously, what do you think the healthy homes standards and government policy/legislation have been based on? An abstract idea or that we had research showing that NZ has a high number of substandard rentals?

          I'm in my mid-fifties, have lived in the lower South Island all my life, and the first house I lived in since leaving home that was well insulated was about 12 years ago. That's not in any way unusual, and renters and low income people know this. So that's another point of the GP campaign, to wake up the people that don't know.

        • Belladonna 2.1.1.2
          30 June 2023 at 11:50 am

          So nothing has changed since the Healthy homes standards were introduced in 2019?

          The article you link to was the justification for the introduction of this legislation – not an assessment of how effective it's been over the last 3+ years.

          • weka 2.1.1.2.1
            30 June 2023 at 11:57 am

            I wasn't pointing to what's changed in the past three years, I was giving tsmithfield a basic opener to do their own research and get themselves up to speed on what is a well known issue.

            So nothing has changed since the Healthy homes standards were introduced in 2019?

            I think it's highly unlikely this is true. But some things changing, or some landlords improving things doesn't mean there aren't problems with other rentals.

  3. Ad 3
    30 June 2023 at 11:28 am

    The number of Queenstown vans and station wagons with mattresses in the back just parked on main roads is pretty unbelievable.

  4. Corey 4
    30 June 2023 at 1:24 pm

    I was going to add my story but never got around to it.

    In 2010, as a teenager, I rented out my first house, an old Victorian brick house converted into three flats. A horrible, damp cold crap shack with an ant infestation, mold, with dodgy af electric wiring.

    In the September 2010 quakes, the house was badly damaged (a gigantic crack spanning the ceiling and walls of all three flats) my neighbors left, and our property managers took them to the tribunal over it, I dumb and naive with nowhere to go, and seeing the confrontation my neighbors went through, I opted to stay.

    They told me they had engineers check the place, the engineers ended up just being their handymen who falsely told me the place was green stickered.

    At 3pm on February 22, I had a flat inspection so I spent all day cleaning the place, I had just finished, put some noodles in the microwave and was having a cheeky cigarette on my doorstep, the microwave went ding half way through my cigarette and unusually for me, I decided to throw the half smoked ciggy away, as soon as I entered my doorway, the quake started.

    Six feet of bricks from the fire wall above my house and the house next door (there was no fence, my drive way was bordered by the firewall of another house), fell like a waterfall, in the very spot I was standing literally a second prior and covered the entire driveway and blocked the one entrance to the house.

    The house ripped apart, the ceiling tore open, everything I owned was destroyed, I inhaled so much concrete dust from that house.

    The quake felt endless, and when it finally stopped, the bricks continueed to drop like a waterfall for about 5 minutes, as the falling slowed, I finally made a mad dash to get out, I took nothing, not a stich of clothing, or even shoes or Id, I just ran, fearing an after shock, being hit by bricks while fleeing.

    Despite the house falling down, the property management company demanded I pay rent, threatening legal action, they refused to give me my bond claiming that I'd done damage to the collapsed house that had injured me.

    They showed no interest in the fact the house had injured me and taken everything I owned and that I was homeless.

    They gave me bad references, trying to stop me from getting a new rental.

    And when I had to get help, I remember waiting in line for hours at an emergency center, and winz refusing to help me because I had no id and was now technically homeless.

    The cold-hearted cruelty from the property managers and the callous indifference from winz, more than anything was a political awakening for me and why I'm left wing.

    I've never forgotten the cruelty of John Keys government towards renters.

    My biggest regret, is that I spent all day cleaning that shit box, why couldn't the bloody thing fall down before I started.

    (Oh and the next landlord, didn't lodge my bond or tennacy with the appropriate department, never fixed anything and never did an inspection of the house in three years of living there)

    • weka 4.1
      30 June 2023 at 2:10 pm

      that's quite the story. Unfortunately not unusual for Chch. NZ just handles stuff like badly.

      I don't know if the Greens have done work on this, but I think Tenancy Tribunal could do with some tweaking at least.

      • Corey 4.1.1
        30 June 2023 at 6:03 pm

        Absolutely.

        You'd think on an island that has thousands of active fault lines, volcanos and areas prone to flooding, storms etc we'd have a far more flexible welfare system (not being able to access help because your house fell down was insane) and more protections for rentals.

        Ultimately Id really like to see a lot more state houses, we need. To double the percentage of state houses to overall housing stock, to drop demand on private rents and protect our working class and vulnerable and poor.

        I'd much rather see the billions we spend on accomodation supplements go to building state houses rather than subsidizing landlords insanely high rents.

    • Patricia Bremner 4.2
      30 June 2023 at 10:09 pm

      Corey your story resonates with me. Our son was promised 2 weeks free rent for cleaning, making drapes and putting handles on the cupboards and painting the kitchen cupboards.. His bond was lodged and two weeks later he was pinged with a 10 day notice for two weeks rent. Luckily he had a letter and had taken photos of before and after the work. The Tribunal ruled in his favour, but he lost a mornings work. There is no easy road for the poor.

  5. tsmithfield 5
    30 June 2023 at 2:55 pm

    One of the great pitys in all of this is that Labour's Kiwibuild promise was such a failure.

    If we were on track with that there would be a lot more housing in the market. It is true that it wouldn't have directly helped many of those renting. But, it would definitely have indirectly helped by increasing the total amount of housing stock in NZ, and thus putting downward pressure on rents, and also putting pressure on Landlords to improve the standard of their housing to attract tenants.

    If the housing supply had increased substantially due to Kiwibuild, the domino effect would eventually have lead to more housing becoming available at the lower end of the market.

    • SPC 5.1
      30 June 2023 at 3:04 pm

      They made the mistake of making it a first home programme – those whose first step was a flat or apartment could have made it their first family home. And empty nesters on a 1/4 acre section could have downsized to an easy to maintain new small house.

    • Incognito 5.2
      30 June 2023 at 3:07 pm

      Housing, and more specifically, Public Housing has significantly increased under Labour.

      https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/labour-delivers-12000-more-public-homes

      “These new builds meet the Government’s Healthy Home Standards for insulation, heating and ventilation. By July 2024 it’s expected that all public housing will meet the standards.

      “In addition to public homes, we’ve also delivered over 4,000 transitional homes with wrap-around social and health services.

      What planet do you live on?

      • tsmithfield 5.2.1
        30 June 2023 at 3:32 pm

        And that is great. But I was talking about total housing in the market. So, someone renting with a deposit via kiwisaver or whatever can buy a Kiwibuild home which frees up a rental for someone else etc. So, just having more houses in the market will make things better for tenants.

        The public housing is great to see getting built, but it doesn't make up for the kiwibuild failure. If that was going as planned, we would have the extra social housing and the kiwibuild housing.

        From the article:

        All of which brings us to KiwiBuild, the Arden government’s much-touted solution to New Zealand’s housing crisis. Like much about this government, KiwiBuild was nothing if not ambitious: the policy aspired to build or deliver 100,000 homes by 2028.

        Yet, as of May 2022, it had delivered a mere 1,300 homes, with a further 1,200 under development. This was not exactly what the former Minister of Housing Phil Twyford had in mind when he launched the scheme in 2018. The so-called “reset” in 2019 did nothing to change the overall direction of travel.

        So much for transformation.

        To be fair, Labour at least recognised that something had to be done. And they have made progress on a number of fronts.

        The National Policy Statement on Urban Development sets out the parameters for housing intensification and directs councils to get rid of overly restrictive planning requirements, while the Enabling Housing Supply amendment to the Resource Management Act enables developers to build up to three stories in urban areas without resource consent.

        Recent moves at Kainga Ora (the government’s Homes and Communities agency) to get new building materials approved have likewise been a step in the right direction, as has the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act which allows Special Purpose Vehicles to fund housing and urban development.

        Yet none of this atones for the tragedy of KiwiBuild.

        • weka 5.2.1.1
          30 June 2023 at 3:51 pm

          So, just having more houses in the market will make things better for tenants.

          This simply isn't true. Build MOAR houses for the open market and the first thing that happens is prices increase. Which means rents go up.

          Additionally, there are far too many people in NZ who have been making money out of capitals gains on extra houses they own. Those houses are being built but not made available to renters or low income buyers. Some of them are empty, some are made into AirBNB instead of rentals. That's why there are people sleeping in vans in Queenstown in winter. It's not an actual shortage of accommodation or housing.

          We've had decades of 'the market will fix this' and it just doesn't.

          The only way to build more houses and reduce housing costs is to build houses and keep them out of the market. Social housing.

          • tsmithfield 5.2.1.1.1
            30 June 2023 at 3:58 pm

            The law of supply and demand says the more that supply increases in respect to demand the cheaper it will become. We found that in Christchurch after the earthquake. There ended up being a glut of houses on the market, and the prices stayed flat in relation to the rest of the country for nearly a decade after that.

            I really don't understand how you can argue having more houses will make houses more expensive.

            And, to your point about capital gains, if houses aren't increasing in value as quickly due to more houses being on the market, the capital gains won't increase as much either.

            I agree that Queenstown is a bit of a problem. I am not so sure the problem is the AirbnBs so much. But, I think it is more of the fact that it is a tourist town with a wildly fluctuating population.

            It becomes a major difficulty for the resident population to fund the rates to pay for extra infrastructure to build more housing.

            But, yeah, it is an issue. Perhaps the businesses down there need to take care of that so they can ensure they have the workers they need. Perhaps by them building accommodation units for workers.

            • tsmithfield 5.2.1.1.1.1
              30 June 2023 at 4:14 pm

              A good article here on the effect of supply on house prices.

              • Incognito …
                30 June 2023 at 9:14 pm

                A 'good' article because of your confirmation bias. Plenty of articles that show the opposite – do some 'research' aka Google it.

            • weka 5.2.1.1.1.2
              30 June 2023 at 4:45 pm

              The law of supply and demand says the more that supply increases in respect to demand the cheaper it will become.

              That's not an actual law, it's a theory.

              I really don't understand how you can argue having more houses will make houses more expensive.

              Because that's exactly what has happened until relatively recently. Lots of. houses were being built, and housing prices kept going up.

              The only way to stop that is to build lots of houses and make sure they are for the people that need them and make sure they cannot be bought and sold on the open market.

              And, to your point about capital gains, if houses aren't increasing in value as quickly due to more houses being on the market, the capital gains won't increase as much either.

              The poor people making $50,000 instead of $100,000. It's still an increase and it still means rents go up.

              I agree that Queenstown is a bit of a problem. I am not so sure the problem is the AirbnBs so much. But, I think it is more of the fact that it is a tourist town with a wildly fluctuating population.

              Nope, it's just neoliberal greed and stupidity. They've had a housing crisis for a decade, and the council won't regulate. Queenstown has a busy summer and winter, and thus needs workers all year. It could easily have built quality seasonal accommodation as well as rentals for long term residents, but it chose not to. Because the market is supposed to fix those things only it doesn't.

              • tsmithfield …
                30 June 2023 at 4:59 pm

                Because that's exactly what has happened until relatively recently. Lots of. houses were being built, and housing prices kept going up.

                You missed the other half of the equation, that is the demand side. There might be lots of houses being built, but if the population is rising faster than that due to immigration or whatever, then house prices will continue to rise.

                Note that I said "house supply increasing in respect to demand."

                And, as I pointed out, an excellent case study for that is what happened in Christchurch.

                Immediately after the earthquake, there was a severe lack in housing compared to demand. So, prices for rentals in particular went through the roof.

                But then there was a massive building program. And, as often happens, the pendulum swung in the opposite direction, and we suddenly had a glut of new builds. Prices stayed stable for a long period of time.

                Now, our prices have gone up a lot over recent times because we were underpriced compared to the rest of the country, and we had a lot of internal migration to capitilise on that.

                Since then, of course, house prices have been dropping due to interest rates. But, if you look what has happened with the ChCh housing market, our prices have dropped much less than many other centres. Simply because they had been underpriced in the first place, and have now simply reached fair value compared to the rest of the country.

                • tsmithfield …
                  30 June 2023 at 5:13 pm

                  The other thing that obviously stoked the demand side of the equation was the very low interest rates over the last few years.

                  I would argue that if more houses hadn't been built, the effect on prices would have been more extreme due to the lower supply side compared to the demand side.

                  • Corey …
                    30 June 2023 at 6:12 pm

                    I agree it's a great shame that policy didn't work.

                    While we absolutely need a lot more houses overall.

                    1.9 million houses for a population of 5.3 million (and rapidly growing too, by about 90 k a year) is simply not enough.

                    Add to that the 100-200 k empty ghost houses … And shit is grim out there.

                    The one issue I have with the way NZ is building houses atm is we are building insane amounts of two bedroom town houses, everywhere, these won't house a family and their prices are insane.

                    Also the townhouses particularly in chch, get brought before they are finished and mostly sit empty. Its no good building houses for them to sit empty.

                    I really, really worry about nz's high immigration rates, low building rates.

                    Where are we going to house all these new people when the ones who live here can't afford to live here.

                    The future of housing in NZ looks so fucking bleak.

                • weka …
                  30 June 2023 at 6:47 pm

                  Since then, of course, house prices have been dropping due to interest rates. But, if you look what has happened with the ChCh housing market, our prices have dropped much less than many other centres. Simply because they had been underpriced in the first place, and have now simply reached fair value compared to the rest of the country.

                  Lol, spoken like a true capitalist. Meanwhile, the post is about people living in houses with shit in them, precisely because of the market dynamics you are talking about.

                  Yes, if we suddenly magicked up an excess of housing, something would change, but we don't have a magic wand. It takes time to build houses and we have a shortage of tradies which also bumps the price up.

                  So building mass amounts of housing will always be a process over time and because of that it will always follow the market (unless we regulate). And the market is designed for capital gains not providing health homes. We know that building more houses results in increases in prices in the short and medium term, because that's exactly what has happened in many parts of NZ. The only way around that is build housing outside of the market.

                  I just looked at rentals available in Chch city on Trademe. The cheapest 4 bedroom house is $525/wk. That's $131 per person. People on Jobseeker in their early 20s (ie likely to be flatting) get $294/wk in the hand. They might get Accommodation Supplement, which would give them an extra $32 towards rent. Because of how WINZ calculates Accommodation Supplement, that leaves them $196/wk for all their other costs: food, power, transport, clothing, phone/internet, medical costs, having a life.

                  But there are only 8 four bedroom houses on TM for less than $600/wk.

                  So while I understand what you are saying about Chch, it doesn't match reality for renters. You talk about house prices but that doesn't equally translate into what happens with rents.

                  • tsmithfield …
                    30 June 2023 at 7:17 pm

                    I am enjoying this discussion Weka. It is good to be chatting with someone who has a completely different perspective on issues.

                    It takes time to build houses and we have a shortage of tradies which also bumps the price up.

                    So… supply and demand then?

                    I do agree though. At the new build level, inflation on building materials etc will push prices up for new builds. And that will have an effect on prices of near new houses as well. That is, assuming there is sufficient demand for the houses to be built. So, not really contradicting the supply and demand "theory".

                    If there isn't enough demand, then new houses simply won't get built. In the subdivision I am in there are a number of new sections that have been sitting there a long time, whereas they were being snapped up at the top of the market.

                    And, housing does tend to be a bit more inelastic in its demand than, say, commodities. And, that is because people often don't need to sell there house. So, if they think they might lose money, they will tend to hold tight rather than sell. So, the supply and demand side of things tends to regulate itself. But, eventually, an excess in supply will result in prices dropping.

                    I suspect the same thing affects the rental market as well. Especially if the government makes it less attractive for people to rent out their surplus houses.

                    I think the answer is for the government to make it as attractive as possible within reason for people to rent out their houses. That should increase the supply and force rental prices down.

                    Another factor is the effect of government regulations. Going back to the Queenstown conundrum, it turns out that a lot of houses are sitting empty because houses don't meet the healthy living standards.

                    From the article, according to a local councillor:

                    Hundred of people were looking for a place to live while plenty of houses sat empty, including some council properties.

                    He said many of them did not meet the government’s Healthy Homes standards.

                    As the article points out, that includes 30 council-owned cabins.

                    So, the upshot is that people are living in overcrowded conditions, or in cars, at least partly because houses, that would be much superior to the conditions they are currently living in, are not accessible due to government regulations.

                    Don't get me wrong. I actually think accommodation should meet minimum standards for healthy living. But, this is an unintended consequence, I suspect didn't cross the mind of the government when they passed the law.

                    Perhaps the government should give some sort of dispensation in the case of Queenstown so this accommodation can become available given the absurdity of the situation.

            • Incognito 5.2.1.1.1.3
              30 June 2023 at 9:20 pm

              The ‘law of supply and demand’ applied to the housing market is simplistic at best and disingenuous at worst. You can apply it to eggs or vegetables but housing is an entirely different kettle of fish.

              Please treat TS readers with some respect and don’t insult their intelligence and do some research before you comment here on stuff that you obviously know little about.

              • tsmithfield …
                1 July 2023 at 2:22 am

                The ‘law of supply and demand’ applied to the housing market is simplistic at best and disingenuous at worst. You can apply it to eggs or vegetables but housing is an entirely different kettle of fish.

                I don't know if you read my post just above where I went into a lot of this.

                Sure, it is more complicated. And I said it isn't the same as commodity markets, which is one of the purest examples of supply and demand.

                Housing is different. And the impact of supply and demand effects can take longer for a whole variety of reasons. But, fundamentally, supply and demand will eventually have an impact. If there is too much housing, prices will eventually fall. And vice-versa.

                Here is a good link that explains some of the complexity that explains a wide number of factors that affect the supply and demand effect.

                https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/040215/how-does-law-supply-and-demand-affect-housing-market.asp

                Supply isn't just about the number of houses. It is also about the willingness of owners to put them into the market for sale or rent. Something the government should be thinking about when throwing various disincentives at house owners that discourage them from making houses available to rent.

                And demand isn't just about the number of people needing houses. It is also about factors such as interest rates, as to whether people are willing to enter the market at any particular time or whether they can afford to.

                When those factors are understood, then it is clear that supply and demand will eventually affect prices. But that the factors affecting supply and demand are more complex than say selling potatoes.

                • Louis …
                  1 July 2023 at 6:18 am

                  "Something the government should be thinking about when throwing various disincentives at house owners that discourage them from making houses available to rent"

                  Such as encouraging new builds, ensuring rentals are safe, dry, and livable, and that the rental market is fairer?

                  "Housing Minister Megan Woods says the tax changes have specific aims, which are to encourage new builds and to shift the balance back to first home buyers.

                  “Our plan is working, and we are seeing the green shoots of change with a massive upswing in construction of new homes, and government investment in infrastructure, such as pipes and roads, to enable more housing.

                  The strong level of construction will help keep rental inflation down.

                  Since 2018, regions with better supply, or higher levels of new construction relative to population growth, are more likely to have wage growth outpacing rent growth. This has been visible in Auckland and Canterbury.”

                  The Government is committed to turning around the housing crisis by increasing supply, including rental properties, she says. That is why it is exempting build to rent development from the interest deductibility changes.

                  Changes to tenancy law are intended to make renting fairer for tenants."

                  https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/property/131516567/cheatsheet-is-there-a-war-on-landlords

                • Incognito …
                  1 July 2023 at 1:05 pm

                  When those factors are understood, then it is clear that supply and demand will eventually affect prices.

                  No, it isn’t. Only a dogmatic believer would say something like this without doing any research to check and possibly find something that might contradict their confirmation bias. Using the same Investopedia article twice just underlines how your views are based on a narrow foundation of selected reading & limited understanding of the material.

                  No wonder that NACT’s housing ‘solutions’ are guaranteed to fail although they will succeed at one thing: benefit landlords and existing homeowners. And no wonder that some accept NACT’s talking points as Gospel: the free market will set us free!

                  • tsmithfield …
                    1 July 2023 at 1:23 pm

                    Using the same Investopedia article twice just underlines how your views are based on a narrow foundation of selected reading & limited understanding of the material.

                    That was just a quite well written, easy to read article.

                    There is plenty of other sources saying similar things. For instance:

                    https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_macroeconomics-theory-through-applications/s08-01-housing-supply-and-demand.html

                    https://thespinoff.co.nz/partner/14-09-2022/the-changing-tides-of-housing-supply-and-demand

                    https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/03/13/supply-and-demand-scale-tipping-in-housing-market/

                    And finally, a good piece of recent research:

                    https://www.motu.nz/assets/Documents/our-work/urban-and-regional/housing/Regional-Housing-Markets-in-New-Zealand-House-Price-Sales-and-Supply-Responses.pdf

                    From the research:
                    House prices respond to the forces of supply and demand for housing services. If demand increases in a certain region, we can expect to see upward pressure on house prices in the region until such time as demand pressures decline (due to the price increases) and demand is once again equated with supply.

                    And so far as direct knowledge about the real estate market, my wife was a real estate agent for around 10 years. My ex-brother in-law is one of the leading agents in Christchurch. So, I have gained quite a bit of insight in how the housing market works.

                    And, I have had the experience of seeing a city destroyed by an earthquake and rebuilt, and the effect that has had on prices.

                    I have at least put evidence forward to make a case. But I notice on both your responses to me you have just asserted what you believe to be true. How about supporting your assertions with evidence, then we can have a reasonable discussion.

                    • Incognito …
                      1 July 2023 at 2:09 pm

                      That was just a quite well written, easy to read article.

                      Indeed, it was well written in a compelling way. Yet, the author and you came to a conclusion that was pre-determined from the outset aka bias.

                      And so far as direct knowledge about the real estate market, my wife was a real estate agent for around 10 years. My ex-brother in-law is one of the leading agents in Christchurch. So, I have gained quite a bit of insight in how the housing market works.

                      All from the same PoV and the same song sheet.

                      And, I have had the experience of seeing a city destroyed by an earthquake and rebuilt, and the effect that has had on prices.

                      The ChCh housing market is more unique than others and hardly a textbook representative example of your Law of Supply and Demand. Of course, S&D are factors in the housing, but they don’t explain everything and thus do not provide an realistic solution to the longstanding housing issues – it’s simplistic, which is and has been my argument all along.

                      I have at least put evidence forward to make a case.

                      My criticism of your evidence so far was that it was thin and biased. I challenged you to do some (more) research and do (more) critical analysis of what you were reading. So far, you’ve been digging in & doubling down aka we’re going around in circles.

                      But I notice on both your responses to me you have just asserted what you believe to be true.

                      Nope, wrong, I’ve challenged your beliefs, not stated mine per se.

                      How about supporting your assertions with evidence, then we can have a reasonable discussion.

                      I would and I could but I’d be wasting my time [on you], as you have clearly made up your mind. I’ve suggested that you use Google, so start with this and let us know if/when you change your mind on the LoS&D.

                    • Incognito …
                      1 July 2023 at 2:21 pm

                      Here’s a good starting point for your research on whether the housing affordability problem is a housing availability issue.

                      https://www.newsroom.co.nz/why-building-more-wont-make-houses-affordable

                      Don’t ignore the comments under this article.

                    • tsmithfield …
                      1 July 2023 at 4:00 pm

                      Thanks. I will have a good read of that tonight and come back to you.

                    • tsmithfield …
                      2 July 2023 at 4:12 am

                      Incognito, I have had a read of that article. It appears to be a discussion around various options and strategies for new construction. And I fundamentally agree with the conclusion:

                      Governments could direct subsidies towards affordable supply outcomes rather than simply support property investment and regulate rental providers to ensure tenants are protected from unfair evictions, rent rises, and substandard accommodation.

                      Removing regulatory barriers to new and diverse housing production may be part of the solution in cities where supply constraints persist. But additional strategies are needed to fix the shortage of affordable homes.

                      The government is always going to be the landlord of last resort, and there will always be people, for whatever reason, find themselves locked out of the private market. So, I think a key social function of any government is to ensure there is an adequate supply of public housing.

                      But, the point not covered in the article is the major handbrake on new builds. That is the infrastructure deficit. That is a major problem not only for urban sprawl. But also for intensification. I think a major issue in NZ is that we don't think far enough ahead when planning our infrastructure. By infrastructure I am not meaning so much the specific infrastructure for say a new subdivision. But rather, the core infrastructure that those subdivisions are connected to. For instance, in Christchurch we would likely need to think about expanding our sewage treatment facilities at some point.

                      And those issues are not easy problems to solve. That is why I said earlier that:

                      Supply isn't just about the number of houses. It is also about the willingness of owners to put them into the market for sale or rent.

                      Existing houses provide the benefit of already being connected to infrastructure. Hence, infrastructure becomes less of an issue if existing housing resources can be unlocked to meet the housing need.

                      Hence, my argument that the government should be incentivising not disincentivising private owners to make their properties available for rent.

                      In my opinion, another major issue at the moment is unintended consequences of government policy that make the situation worse rather than better.

                      I already pointed to this earlier in the case of Queenstown where there is spare accommodation that could help meet the needs of people living in overcrowded conditions, or in cars, but the accommodation isn't available because it isn't up to the new healthy living standards yet.

                      Another area with the potential for substantial unintended consequences is Labour's stated policy with respect to new home buyers.

                      We’re making changes to help more first home buyers into their own place. We’ve lifted the income and house price caps on First Home Loans and Grants, meaning more people can access this support.

                      The aim to get people into their first homes is laudable. But it does come with unintended consequences that could make the housing situation worse.

                      Many first home buyers are already comfortably housed, flatting with friends, or living with their parents. However, when they move into a new house, the average number of people per house in NZ decreases, and thus, there is effectively less housing available than there was before.

                      So, it is a complex problem. And, I agree, it is difficult to develop any policy without there being unintended consequences.

                      But, given the infrastructure handbrake on new builds, I think finding ways to incentivising people to make existing housing available for sale or rent is a key part of the process.

                    • Graeme …
                      2 July 2023 at 11:32 am

                      Im not sure your Queenstown 'holiday home' example is valid.

                      Renting someone's crib isn't really giving you a stable roof over your head because the owners will want to use their crib for it's intended purpose from time to time and that will always be when it's most inconvenient for the tenant. Everyone I know here who arrived in 60's to 80's has a horror story of having to find accomodation for a long weekend or a week through peak ski season or summer. Holiday houses might be an 'empty house' but they are also a family standing on the street on Friday afternoon with nowhere to live for the weekend.

                      Reliable tenants avoid renting them because the tenure isn't secure, and the owners have a lot of chattels in the house so insist on reliable, permanent tenants. This becomes a mutually exclusive situation and the holiday homes ended up making a virtually insignificant contribution to the rental market.

                      Another aspect of the local holiday home segment is that most of these properties are designed to be occupied by a lot of people for a short time, so will have lots of beds and toilets but limited kitchen facilities and are horrid to live in for any period.

                      Rental demand in Queenstown is a multiple of supply, and my observation is that this multiple has been pretty constant for the last 50 years, and probably last 150. Also there's always at least 10% more houses this year than last (on average but more in last 10 years). So it's hard to say there's no supply, but the more that are built the more demand there is. That demand doesn't come from internal growth (people born here) but rather external, people moving here from somewhere else, usually for lifestyle rather than economic reasons. It's now very rare to meet someone who's been 'transferred' to Queenstown. People seem to just arrive and then try and find a job, farking easy, and somewhere to live, farking hard unless you've got a million or two in the back pocket.

                      The current publicity around this topic may be sparked by a few nat members who can’t keep up the payments on the crib and is being used to attack measures that are perceived to reduce landlords ability to fuck over their tenants.

        • Louis 5.2.1.2
          1 July 2023 at 6:01 am

          What are a failure and a tragedy is that the National government broke NZ's housing market and left a housing crisis. MBIE said there was a nationwide shortfall of 71,000 houses. This deficit has been significantly reduced due to the large scale building boom under the Labour government to the point that kiwibank is predicting a housing surplus.

          https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/mbie-figures-show-nationwide-housing-shortage-of-71000/55NUUYNFWZA3OJTTDCHF7W3T4I/

          https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/nz-will-have-a-housing-surplus-in-12-months-kiwibank/6ABPUEGRN4I4ZTVYDST2B7MTCI/

          “11,100 homes added in the March quarter, still near 12,100 record last year Nats' housing deficit of 70,000 homes now down to 5,000 However, RBNZ trying to strangle construction sector & booming immigration could see shortage grow Govt Build Programme key to keep building up”

          https://twitter.com/ClintVSmith/status/1645647401972305920

          Simon Wilson: In praise of the Government's KiwiBuild housing scheme

          https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/simon-wilson-in-praise-of-governments-kiwibuild-housing-scheme/SP5U4XGB4OAAFXEA6MAZ56I2OM/

          Fletcher building chairman's praise for Kiwibuild.

          https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/117846966/fletcher-building-chairmans-praise-for-kiwibuild

          Kiwibuild: https://www.kiwibuild.govt.nz/about-kiwibuild/

          “house building is at record rates and rent increases are half the rate of inflation – because of the improving supply situation. home lending to 1st home buyers now exceeds lending to investors. used to be lending to investors was twice that to first home buyers”

          https://twitter.com/ClintVSmith/status/1651848692792705024

          “An astounding 195,000 additional homes have been built in NZ since Labour came to power. In other words, 1 in 10 homes in NZ was built in the past 5.5 years. for comparison, 157,000 homes were added in 9 years under National & 216,000 in Clark's 9 yrs”

          https://twitter.com/ClintVSmith/status/1645648401944698880

          A point about the State housing waitlist. Unlike Labour that have not restricted people from accessing support, the previous National government removed people from it and made it harder to apply for public housing. The figures now show the true extent of the need that had existed under National, which persistently denied there was a housing and homelessness crisis.

          https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/thousands-to-come-off-housing-list/MI2RAMFK4VC2YX4M5VVFFDDLIY/

          We should also not forget the previous National government's meth(con) scam designed to remove state house tenants from their homes.

          https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/meth-testing-in-homes-dont-bother-says-chief-science-adviser-sir-peter-gluckman/GFI3H24BAFZ2YMRJNF6BAPIOEQ/

          “Housing New Zealand evicted about 800 tenants when their homes tested positive for methamphetamine. The test was later debunked, Housing NZ offering compensation and an apology”

          https://www.1news.co.nz/2018/12/29/meth-contamination-of-state-housing-leaves-tenants-homeless-months-later/

        • Louis 5.2.1.3
          1 July 2023 at 7:10 am

          What are a failure and a tragedy is that the National government broke NZ's housing market and left a housing crisis. MBIE said there was a nationwide shortfall of 71,000 houses. This deficit has been significantly reduced due to the large scale building boom under the Labour government to the point that kiwibank is predicting a housing surplus.

          https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/mbie-figures-show-nationwide-housing-shortage-of-71000/55NUUYNFWZA3OJTTDCHF7W3T4I/

          https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/nz-will-have-a-housing-surplus-in-12-months-kiwibank/6ABPUEGRN4I4ZTVYDST2B7MTCI/

          “11,100 homes added in the March quarter, still near 12,100 record last year Nats' housing deficit of 70,000 homes now down to 5,000 However, RBNZ trying to strangle construction sector & booming immigration could see shortage grow Govt Build Programme key to keep building up”

          https://twitter.com/ClintVSmith/status/1645647401972305920

          Simon Wilson: In praise of Government's KiwiBuild housing scheme

          https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/simon-wilson-in-praise-of-governments-kiwibuild-housing-scheme/SP5U4XGB4OAAFXEA6MAZ56I2OM/

          Fletcher building chairman's praise for Kiwibuild.

          https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/117846966/fletcher-building-chairmans-praise-for-kiwibuild

          Kiwibuild is just one part of a much larger building program.

          https://www.kiwibuild.govt.nz/about-kiwibuild/

          hud.govt.nz/stats-and-insights/the-government-housing-dashboard/housing-dashboard-at-a-glance/

          “house building is at record rates and rent increases are half the rate of inflation – because of the improving supply situation. home lending to 1st home buyers now exceeds lending to investors. used to be lending to investors was twice that to first home buyers”

          https://twitter.com/ClintVSmith/status/1651848692792705024

          “An astounding 195,000 additional homes have been built in NZ since Labour came to power. In other words, 1 in 10 homes in NZ was built in the past 5.5 years. for comparison, 157,000 homes were added in 9 years under National & 216,000 in Clark's 9 yrs”

          https://twitter.com/ClintVSmith/status/1645648401944698880

          In regard to the State housing waitlist. Unlike Labour that have not restricted people from accessing support, the previous National government removed people from it and made it harder to apply for public housing. The figures now show the true extent of the need that had existed under National that denied there was a housing and homelessness crisis.

          https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/thousands-to-come-off-housing-list/MI2RAMFK4VC2YX4M5VVFFDDLIY/

          The National govt's meth(con) scam to remove state house tenants from their homes.

          https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/meth-testing-in-homes-dont-bother-says-chief-science-adviser-sir-peter-gluckman/GFI3H24BAFZ2YMRJNF6BAPIOEQ/

          “Housing New Zealand evicted about 800 tenants when their homes tested positive for methamphetamine. The test was later debunked, Housing NZ offering compensation and an apology”

          https://www.1news.co.nz/2018/12/29/meth-contamination-of-state-housing-leaves-tenants-homeless-months-later/

        • Louis 5.2.1.4
          1 July 2023 at 7:23 am

          What is a tragedy is that National broke NZ's housing market and left a housing crisis. MBIE said there was a nationwide shortfall of 71,000 houses. This deficit has been significantly reduced due to the large scale building boom under the Labour government to the point that kiwibank is predicting a housing surplus.

          https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/mbie-figures-show-nationwide-housing-shortage-of-71000/55NUUYNFWZA3OJTTDCHF7W3T4I/

          https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/nz-will-have-a-housing-surplus-in-12-months-kiwibank/6ABPUEGRN4I4ZTVYDST2B7MTCI/

          “11,100 homes added in the March quarter, still near 12,100 record last year Nats' housing deficit of 70,000 homes now down to 5,000 However, RBNZ trying to strangle construction sector & booming immigration could see shortage grow Govt Build Programme key to keep building up”

          https://twitter.com/ClintVSmith/status/1645647401972305920

          Simon Wilson: In praise of Government's KiwiBuild housing scheme

          https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/simon-wilson-in-praise-of-governments-kiwibuild-housing-scheme/SP5U4XGB4OAAFXEA6MAZ56I2OM/

          Fletcher building chairman's praise for Kiwibuild.

          https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/117846966/fletcher-building-chairmans-praise-for-kiwibuild

          Kiwibuild is just one part of a much larger building program.

          https://www.kiwibuild.govt.nz/about-kiwibuild/

          https://www.hud.govt.nz/stats-and-insights/the-government-housing-dashboard/housing-dashboard-at-a-glance/

      • Louis 5.2.2
        1 July 2023 at 5:43 am

        “17,000 new homes completed under the government build programme, with another 7,600 under construction”

        https://twitter.com/ClintVSmith/status/1674514913509900288

        • Incognito 5.2.2.1
          1 July 2023 at 12:07 pm

          Thanks, but I cannot read tweets any longer 🙁

          • weka 5.2.2.1.1
            1 July 2023 at 12:26 pm

            how come?

            • Incognito 5.2.2.1.1.1
              1 July 2023 at 12:31 pm

              IDK, I need to log in or create an account and all that jazz, which I'm not gonna do. I could try a different browser or device.

              • weka …
                1 July 2023 at 4:13 pm

                just to clarify, you cannot see any tweet unless you are logged in?

                • Incognito …
                  1 July 2023 at 4:31 pm

                  Yup, and I’m not the only one – I have no Twitter account.

                  https://nz.news.yahoo.com/twitter-blocks-people-seeing-tweets-182248993.html

                  • weka …
                    1 July 2023 at 5:39 pm

                    thanks. That's really not good.

                    • Incognito …
                      1 July 2023 at 6:18 pm

                      Indeed. It could become a little awkward here when so many here rely on and include tweets in their comments. It seems the way things are going: behind pay-walls and subscription-only. However, it is ‘temporary’, supposedly …

                    • weka []
                      1 July 2023 at 7:37 pm

                      not great for moderating either.

                    • Incognito []
                      1 July 2023 at 7:56 pm

                      Certainly not for this Mod, who doesn’t have a Twitter account.

                    • weka []
                      1 July 2023 at 7:38 pm

                      maybe we need to require people to copy and paste the tweet content in the meantime. That won’t cover the images but will give some context at least.

                    • Incognito []
                      1 July 2023 at 8:09 pm

                      Context & commentary are crucially important in/for debate. A tweet is simply a link that can be checked & verified by others, no more, no less, e.g., the commenter did not make it up (but the tweeter might have). If it cannot be checked it is worthless in/for debate. In my opinion.

                    • weka []
                      1 July 2023 at 8:44 pm

                      sorry, didn’t quite follow that. If someone posts a twitter link, there are now a bunch of people that can’t see what that link is. Like a paywalled MSM link I guess.

                      When you say “if it cannot be checked…” do you mean that some people can’t see it, so someone else needs to check it? Or do you mean irrespective, someone needs to check if the content has meaning/accuracy/truthiness?

                    • Incognito []
                      1 July 2023 at 10:05 pm

                      If someone posts a twitter link, there are now a bunch of people that can’t see what that link is. Like a paywalled MSM link I guess.

                      These are not quite the same from my PoV. As it stands, I can click on a link to content with limited access and see that it exists, at least. I cannot read the contents. With a tweet, I cannot see anything, at present.

                      When you say “if it cannot be checked…” do you mean that some people can’t see it […]

                      Yes, that’s what I mean.

                      Including limited-access or (mostly) invisible content is not inclusive commenting behaviour.

                  • SPC …
                    1 July 2023 at 5:44 pm

                    I do, but only access twitter on chrome, not mozilla (my incognito service).

            • Incognito 5.2.2.1.1.2
              1 July 2023 at 12:36 pm

              Elon Musk, apparently

              • Louis …
                1 July 2023 at 1:16 pm

                That would be right.

                Had an issue with posts disappearing, so I reposted them. Apologies for the doubling up.

                • Incognito …
                  1 July 2023 at 1:46 pm

                  Yeah, I saw that, no worries, but I cannot be bothered to clean up this time. I suspect it was because they were caught by the SPAM filter because they contained too many links and then released by another Mod hence the duplication.

    • Louis 5.3
      1 July 2023 at 7:14 am

      One of the great pity's is that the National govt sold off and demolished state housing during a housing crisis instead of building homes. That is the failure in all of this.

  6. Drowsy M. Kram 6
    30 June 2023 at 4:47 pm

    Those tenant stories will tug at some heart strings – there but for the grace of God…

    The Auckland rental with no kitchen or working toilet [30 June 2023]
    “The benefit the tenant received in this tenancy was somewhere to sleep,” the ruling said.

    Some will also feel empathy for the many good landlords who are really struggling in these taxing and uncertain times. Just imagine having no choice but to sell a rental property – dreadful – there but for the grace of God…

    • weka 6.1
      30 June 2023 at 6:50 pm

      not a bad ruling for the tenant, but why are MBIE not prosecuting the landlord for the illegal rental?

      • adam 6.1.1
        2 July 2023 at 1:41 am

        MBIE is a sad joke. Who spend more time adding the ponzy scheme of rent rises through their web site. One more Tory fuck up in a collection of them that the last government.

  7. Sabine 7
    1 July 2023 at 8:39 am

    The biggest Landlord in NZ is the Government. The guys sitting in emergency housing don't even have tenancy rights.

    Can we expect press release in regards to the breaches by the Government and the Motel Millionaires such as Tiny Dean soon?

    And i don't say this to take away from the fact that rentals in NZ are bad, some really are, and i have rented my fair share of them and taken them to the Tribunal – winning btw.

    But the fact of the matter stands that the biggest housing provider in NZ is the Government.

    this here might be a good reason as to why not every rental is at that healthy home standard

    https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/11/22/govt-confirms-extension-to-healthy-homes-standards-deadline/

    The previous deadline meant all rental homes must comply with healthy homes standards by July 1, 2024. Private landlords have had to ensure their rental properties comply with the standards within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy since July 2021.

    It comes after it was revealed last week that Cabinet was actively seeking an extension for Kāinga Ora to meet its July 1, 2023 deadline due to Covid-19 and supply chain issues.

    Private landlords now have until July 1, 2025 to comply with the new standards. Compliance for a new or renewed tenancy will also shift from 90 days to 120 days.

    Meanwhile, Kāinga Ora and community housing providers will have its timeframe for compliance shift from July 1, 2023 to July 1, 2024.

    • weka 7.1
      1 July 2023 at 11:53 am

      this is a fair point. It doesn't explain the worst cases though, both the house standards and the way tenants are treated.

      • Sabine 7.1.1
        1 July 2023 at 12:45 pm

        When i called the Auckland council in regards to the rental that i lived in -, The roof was held together with silver duct tape, the door was moving away from the door frame, cracks appearing in every room we were advised to leave the building immediately – as they did not consider it safe. When i asked for someone to come and condemn the building i was told that the Council did not have enough inspectors and that if they were to condemn every building that was rubbish Auckland would no longer have rental housing. That was in 2005. I won that case against the real estate agency when i took them to the tribunal.

        They fixed the roof once we were out, but i would not rent that house.

        Not a single government in NZ – irrespective of ideological leaning will hire enough inspectors to make sure that rental properties are up to standard and so as long as they don't do that those that don't care will not do anything. And government is the worst offender imho – and consider that the rules come from government and that they should have 'purchasing power' in regards to building materials and the likes they no longer should have any excuse as to why their properties are still substandard.

        We will see next year if the government has met its own targets.

        Never mind to the slum landlords that made their run down cheap motels into long term accommodation for our homeless, such as Tiny Deane.

        And fwiw, us from Rotorua we have pointed out that trainwreck that that man is going to be, and the ill repute he will bring to the government that hired him so enthusiastically.

        Before people in government start poopooing others, they might just want to hold themselves to the same standards.

        https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rotorua-daily-post/news/rotorua-emergency-housing-motels-tiny-deane-and-security-company-found-guilty-of-misconduct/2UATTZN67JCQBL6PE7HDN2NR7E/

    • Incognito 7.2
      1 July 2023 at 12:29 pm

      From your link, which is dated 22 Nov 2022:

      “Pragmatically delaying the timeframes for compliance will ease pressure on landlords, however we do expect Kāinga Ora to aim to have as many properties as possible to be compliant by the original deadline of July next year. Projections indicate they could achieve around 95% compliance by the original date.” [my italics]

      From my comment @ 1.2.1 (https://thestandard.org.nz/greens-release-rental-stories-collection/#comment-1957266):

      [Associate Housing Minister Barbara] Edmonds said that as of May 31 [2023], 97 percent of eligible Kāinga Ora homes either met the requirements or had work in progress to meet them.

  8. Mike the Lefty 8
    1 July 2023 at 3:03 pm

    ACT's attitude to slum landlords is basically to pretend that they don't exist.

    Their solution to building more and cheaper houses is to scrap the Building Act and replace it with compulsory 30-year insurance.

    What a joke!

    That will increase house building prices and rentals even more as the insurance costs will immediately be passed on to the buyer and/or renter, plus the prospect of lengthy court battles as insurance companies deny pay outs on technicalities.

    A policy worthy of the McGillicuddys.

    • Belladonna 8.1
      1 July 2023 at 6:12 pm

      I've had many discussions with a Swiss friend of mine over the role of compulsory insurance in buildings in Switzerland. There, the builder/developer is legally responsible for the quality of the building – pretty much forever – and is required to have insurance covering this.

      https://iclg.com/practice-areas/construction-and-engineering-law-laws-and-regulations/switzerland

      I assume that there are still building regulations (that's not a topic we've discussed) – but he was utterly horrified about the leaky home saga in NZ.
      According to him, in Switzerland, the building insurer would have to pay out (that is the insurance company which has covered the building on behalf of the builder and/or development company). And the builder/developer would be unlikely to get insurance cover again (if it were a defect in quality of build or design) – and, therefore would not work in that industry ever again.

      Certainly, it would stop the continual cycling through of development companies – designed to complete one development, then wound up, so there is no further liability.

      I do not see why the community (through either rates or taxes) should pay the costs of the shoddy building projects that developers have made their money out of, and moved on without accepting liability.

      Anyone, with even the faintest acquaintance the the leaky building saga in NZ – will know that the diffusion of responsibility results in very a lengthy court case, huge expense, and often, very unsatisfactory outcomes (including massive public costs on Councils). I can assure you that everyone I know who was involved in a claim, would have much preferred to deal with a single insurance company. Of course, you probably won't get everything you want – but you'll get more than you do under the current situation – and with considerably less stress.

      If, and it's currently a big if, we are going to shift public opinion in the direction of apartments as a long-term 'home' (rather than a step on the home-ownership ladder, or a rental opportunity) – NZ needs to sort out building liability insurance. Because what we have now, is simply not fit for purpose.

      • adam 8.1.1
        2 July 2023 at 1:52 am

        Leaky homes happened because no one in this country has a spine. The first developer who produced a leaky home should have been stripped of all their assets to fix the mess. Then thrown in jail. Finally once out of jail, they should never have been able to own a business or trust ever again.

        All we got, oh well that was bad. Oh look you hide your money behind a trust. Ummm well theirs nothing we can do. With Tories leading the charge of "Nothing to see here – move along".

        We have the laws, we have the ability to deal with these issues. All we lack is the spine to stand up to these people and the business culture which says ripping people off is OK – coupled with political protection to keep getting away with it.

        Mind you liberalism is a economic system which encourages sociopath tendencies to rise to the top.

        • Belladonna 8.1.1.1
          2 July 2023 at 11:15 am

          Unfortunately, we don't really have laws to deal with this issue. Which is developers setting up a company to do a single development, winding it up (so there is no appeal); rinse and repeat.

          I'd like to see company law changed so that, if you wind up a company, you can't set up another one, doing any related activity for 10 years.

          Which would also catch a whole lot of the scammers – including this tiny house guy.

          https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/property/300754540/im-deeply-sorry-i-take-responsibility-director-of-tiny-home-company-gone-bust-is-former-bankrupt

          However, even seizing the assets of the company director is unlikely to retrieve significant amounts of money – it's pretty much gone by that stage. Which is why insurance companies are a better bet for ensuring that people get the repairs they're entitled to.