- Date published:
1:13 pm, November 18th, 2012 - 216 comments
Categories: david shearer, housing, labour, leadership - Tags: david shearer, housing, KiwiBuild, leadership, vision
Affordable housing is one of the huge issues facing this country. Owning your own home has always been central to the “Kiwi dream”, but nowadays it is out of reach. National released their own “affordable” housing policy recently, to near universal yawns. Today David Shearer and Labour showed them how it’s done.
Welcome to KiwiBuild.
If there is one thing your newspaper tells you every day about life in New Zealand it’s this: We have a housing problem. And it’s a deep seated problem. If you’re a young person today, you look at the cost of houses and you despair. For the first time, home ownership in Auckland has dropped below 60%.
It’s one of the reasons so many of our young people are giving up and going to Australia. The National government’s answer fell woefully short of what is needed. They don’t understand that the market has failed first-home buyers. The simple fact is we need more affordable houses.
It’s time for Government to step up. And we will.
Today I’m announcing that we will put 100,000 Kiwi families into their first home.
That’s the sort of big change we need to make a big difference to people’s lives.
We’ll oversee and invest in a large scale 10 year building programme of entry-level houses that Kiwis are crying out for.
Yes, it’s a big commitment and it’ll take a couple of years to ramp up, but we can do it. I won’t stand by while the dream of home ownership slips away from future generations.
At the peak of last decade, about 30,000 new homes were built a year. Now it’s less than half that. These are the missing rungs on the housing ladder. And it shows what an active and responsible government can do to help. The start-up cost of the building programme will be financed through issuing government stock called Home Ownership Bonds. The money we make from selling the houses will go back into the pot for building more.
The houses will be compact in size. Some will be stand-alone dwellings and others apartments. All of them will be good quality and energy efficient.
The homes will be sold to first home buyers who’ve saved their own deposit, like with KiwiSaver. We estimate that the maximum needed to be raised for a kick-start will be $1.5 billion.
It will quickly become self-funding though. And because it’s a capital investment, it won’t affect our commitment to balance the books and return to surplus.
I can already hear our opponents complaining that this is too bold. That the problem’s too big and there’s nothing we can do. I won’t accept that. I won’t give up on the Kiwi dream of an affordable home.
I have spoken to Auckland Mayor Len Brown to take up his offer of a partnership with Auckland council to make land available. In addition, we will introduce a National Policy Statement under the RMA to ensure that planning rules and consenting decisions support affordable housing.
We want to make a difference.
Building 100,000 new houses will create training opportunities for apprenticeships, more jobs and give a $2 billion dollar a year boost to the economy.
100,000 new entry level homes – from the policy Factsheet the price will be around $300,000 per unit. The biggest public building programme in over fifty years. Hope for young families and households. A massive boost to jobs and the economy. This is a historic policy.
So the policy is for government to become a developer? The banks will love it.
The government will oversea the process, working with the private sector. That brings huge efficiencies and economies of scale for this 10 year project. And the houses will be sold effectively at cost to build. It creates new efficient homes, jobs, and economic activity. What’s not to like?
What about a state housing programme for those who actually can’t afford a depost?
And if anyone thinks 10,000 houses a year will fix the underlying problems of the property market in this country, they’re in for a shock.
First home buyers from wealthy families will probably buy the things and hock them off for a better price. It’s called the market.
To be fair, there’s a risk of that. It happened when the state houses were sold in the 90’s. I guess the plan is to build enough to drive the market down. It could well work but I’d be interested to know if it’s been modeled.
First home buyers from wealthy families will probably buy the things and hock them off for a better price. It’s called the market.
From the factsheet:
What about a state housing programme for those who actually can’t afford a depost?
I agree that we need more state housing too. Let’s start with getting a government that will maintain the existing stock, and then work to “encourage” them to expand it.
And if anyone thinks 10,000 houses a year will fix the underlying problems
Might no “fix”. Certainly going to help.
I believe the Welcome Home Loan zero deposit limit is $200k. Up that to “around” $300k and the problem of “no deposit” disappears.
I guess that is why it is 100,000 not 10,000.
it’s 100,000 over 10 years = 10,000 a year.
Are you saying that Labour will adopt a public/private partnership after years of bagging it?
Whadya call Fletchers and Winstones going back 80 years dickhead ? Dunnokeyo’s pathetic PPP acronym/misnomer has you more bewildered than usual.
Actually financing the house building independently of the banks simply means that there will be more housing supply and thus lower upward pressure on property values. So the end result should be less foreign debt supplied through local banks to home buyers.
Having the private sector build houses for people with a deposit is hardly ground breaking.
What about those with no deposit? What about the underlying problems in the property market, and the inequality in society’s wealth?
It’s a PPP with a few bells. Nothing more.
So you don’t think that 100,000 new homes, built with economies of scale and sold effectively at cost, will make any difference to the country?
It’s third way crap. And no, it won’t do anything to solve our long-term housing problem. It’ll increase supply in the short term, and nothing more.
Worst of all. It does nothing for the poorest in our society. Nothing.
I guess those beneficiaries on the roof don’t deserve our help.
It’s a housing policy twisted, not a welfare policy. And if 100,000 entry level homes won’t “solve” the problem, it’s certainly going to help.
No, I think Twisted is onto something. We need a genuine change in economic settings, more power to workers, higher minimum wage, etc. This is tinkering around the edges.
Maybe Labour has those answers too. Cunliffe has made some pretty encouraging noises recently, but home ownership won’t hide the fact that the homeowners are working 50 hour weeks to scrape by while others have no work at all.
100,000 affordable homes is hardly tinkering around the edges One Tāne Huna. That’s a major policy that will give lots of New Zealanders the chance they wouldn’t normally have had to own their own homes. The social implications to that alone are huge!
I think twisted hive is wrong, and such policy will also help the poorest in society. Throwing cold water on Labour’s enlightened policy direction just because they aren’t proposing free housing for everybody is rather silly! You’re effectively asking Labour to commit political suicide and announce something that’s not currently achievable anyway.
You might have noted from the David Shearer speech that he does in fact talk about poverty and work as well. If Labour manages to properly address these issues, which it’s likely they will, their progressive housing policy will be even more effective… But I guess there’s only one way we’ll know for sure.
What about Christchurch?
From the factsheet:
So no mention of the earthquake at all, then?
Most was said in the context of Chch schools, yes, will link to the full text when it’s up on Labour’s site.
Two thirds in Auckland? What about encouraging growth in other parts of the country?
Well 2/3 of the population is in and Around Auckland, so…
And the remaining 1/3 is distributed all over the country – check out the factsheet.
Oh goody, “entry-level homes”, “housing ladder” – what we really needed was a Labour leader buying into the Robert Kiyosaki BS about property investment.
This was a chance to say “people just want a home to call their own, at a price they can afford now, not inflated by the short-term gains of speculators” and frankly it looks blown, to me.
So you’re opposed to 100,000 new modern entry level homes, built with economies of scale and sold at near cost?
I’m against Labour Party leaders (and leftwing bloggers) buying into the rhetoric of the right-wing. It weakens everything they try to do.
Put it this way: when we talk about “entry-level homes”, who are they for? For actual working-class people on the median wage, or property owners like Kate Sutton who get sob stories in the paper?
From the factsheet:
Nor will there be any income restrictions. On the whole, people will ‘self-select’, with those who can afford to move up the property ladder excluding themselves.
Oh, goody. Because the upper classes have historically been so willing to go without social support they don’t actually need.
They’ve also been historically willing to live in cheaper housing when they can afford mansions. Oh – wait…
So tell me QoT – is there anything about the policy that you actually like?
And they only ever use private hospitals because they “self-select” out of free healthcare. And they “self-select” out of paying less tax by not using trusts to hide their assets. Oh – wait …
Nah, you’re right. John Key won’t be fixing his finances to take advantage of this scheme. He’ll just pay Stephie and Max’s rent for a few years so they can “prove” they saved their deposits themselves and get into houses when they’re 24. While poor families who cannot afford to live, much less save, can just suck it up and sit on Housing NZ waitlists.
Yeah, this is totally the policy that’ll revitalise the left.
Do you know any young people trying to get their first home QoT? I do. They’re going to like this policy.
Fuck you, r0b, I was one a year ago. I also know a lot of very wealthy young people who are no doubt delighted that with a minimal amount of cheating, they can get into a first home with Mummy and Daddy’s help. And a lot of people who are barely making rent who will not be helped at all by this policy.
I hear the abuse, I hear the criticism. I’d rather hear better ideas…
People are already providing better ideas. Improve Housing NZ stock. Impose a basic limitation on the income of people who can use the scheme.
But here’s the thing, r0b. This is basically Labour’s flagship policy for 2014, and it has holes I could drive a truck through with 5 minutes’ thought. My apologies if I’m not going to jump up and down with joy over providing rich white kids – like myself – with a “start on the housing ladder” while people who are actually struggling are shut out and the party which is meant to be on their side keeps up the rightwing BS about “entry-level” homes.
I’ll repeat my comment 17.1.
The next government is going to be well buggered on spending. This was a way to make a big increase in entry level housing available, at the best price possible, in a manner which is self-funding. It’s not ideal, it’s the best that could be done in the circumstances, I think it’s a bloody good scheme.
Ooh, and here’s some better ideas:
Increase acquisition and building of state housing units by at least 3000 units a year for the next 3 years. Provide funding to third sector housing organisations for a minimum of 1000 units a year for the next 3 years, prioritising those with commitment to environmental and social sustainability. Create a legally binding duty on the public sector to ensure housing needs are met. Introduce a Universal Child Benefit that can be capitalised towards the child’s first home. Increase provision of low interest financing for low-income households seeking home ownership.
Increase acquisition and building of state housing units by at least 3000 units a year for the next 3 years.
Love to, hope they have the funding to do that too. But as above – whomever is the next government is going to be massively constrained on new spending. Similarly for the other items on your list – they are all good ideas – but none of them is self-funding.
This policy does the best it can in a cost-neutral form. It’s very clever, and it will do a lot of good. Do we need to piss all over it because its not a perfect policy in a perfect world?
Having said that – I think Labour should re-prioritise spending (kill some roads) to check some of the items on your list.
Do we need to piss all over it because its not a perfect policy in a perfect world?
r0b, if you’re not interested in actually reading what I’m writing, I’m happy to go elsewhere. It’s not because “it’s not a perfect policy”. It’s because it’s seriously flawed in ways which means it will not succeed at its stated goals.
None of your suggestions have been cost neutral QoT, and that’s the constraint that this policy was designed within. We could all do better policy with more spending. But within that constraint I think’s it’s bloody good stuff.
But I suspect that we’re never going to agree, so cheers & farewell.
Interesting that you think the policy that outlines an as yet unestablished system, that’s only been announced today, will be openly abused by those who don’t actually need help QoT. This looks like a complete fabrication in your own mind to me.
I think you’ve gone off the deep end by claiming Labour’s housing policy is only for rich white kids QoT.
Expecting the next left wing government to automatically fix the problems New Zealand faces that have taken decades to get this bad is particularly delusional.
r0b is entirely correct that the next government will have to operate on an oily rag because of Nationals mismanagement under the feckless John Key. Ignoring this reality isn’t particularly helpful.
claiming Labour’s housing policy is only for rich white kids
You’re welcome to point out where I ever said that, Jackal. Because pointing out that deliberately ruling out an income limit means this scheme will be used by rich white kids isn’t quite the same thing, you know.
Granted, you were generalizing, but you’re statement can be read either way QoT… It’s therefore my prerogative to take what you wrote literally… Especially when you’re so clearly wrong!
Tell me, what’s this penalty Labour talk about that will apply if people try to sell these homes before a preset date, and what is it designed to do exactly?
Could you also let me know how first time home buyers are going to work the system by getting money from mummy and daddy if they have to prove they saved their deposits themselves?
Could you also let me know how to rig a ballot (since you obviously know this), in order to ensure people can get houses where demand is high?
When Labour talk about household type, they mean the make up of the household ie homosexual couples will not be discriminated against. They are not talking about incomes and the policy is clearly targeted at those who presently cannot afford to get into their first homes.
Labour also acknowledge the fact that most people requesting assistance will actually need it, showing that they have faith in New Zealanders to do the right thing. That’s not an admission the system will have a lack of procedures to ensure honesty QoT, as much as your cynicism wants it to.
Exactly. If they’re going to intervene in the economy to do this build (which I think is a good thing) then intervene properly and ensure the target market is young first home buyers on low incomes. And shove in some social housing while they’re at it, then it sounds like a Labour policy should, imo.
Best news I’ve heard all year,
The goal being a single person on the dole can afford a mortgage of course ….
That is job loss security after all.
This is all good, but the missing element in this is a commitment to social/State housing. Or have I missed that bit?
Its interesting to read the cpmments of those opposed – no specifics, vague rhetoric, inappropriate criticism, and no alternative.
It is just what it is – a housing programme that will also providework and training opportunities for many years.
Win win win.
The “alternatives” are actually making sure the houses involved go to people who need them. See r0b’s excerpt above for very un-vague specific evidence of why that won’t necessarily happen.
From what I’m reading, it’s a win to the banksters but a loss to the country.
It’s a win-win for property developers.
Need some land? Of course you do – land is (artificially) scarce. Convince a block of these 1st time buyers to sell after the minimum period, knock their houses down, and build a luxury gated community. On cheap land. Nice fat margins.
Easy to design a system that makes this difficult or impossible. You’re grasping at straws pete.
Total bollocks. You cant buy houses on tiny sections and demolish them for the same value as greenfields.
How can yo have housing being sold at cost – whilst there is a “PPP” element to this. At cost implies no profit. I bet there is already plenty of “buy” instructions for Fletchers. How is it that this company always seems to win e.g. Chch EQ
“And because it’s a capital investment, it won’t affect our commitment to balance the books” – How is the interest funded? From operating funds. So it will have an affect on balancing the books, unless the govt goes for capitalising interest costs !!!
“I have spoken to Auckland Mayor Len Brown to take up his offer of a partnership with Auckland council to make land available” So it is the council who are at fault for not allowing land to be developed. FUNNY that.
Ant I cannot find ant body to this announcement, you know the devil in the details, from my search only this site has anything on substance to this, not even on the this site http://www.labour.org.nz/news.
Like we are rebuilding Chch where is the labour to be sourced from. Expats returning from Aussie??
!0 000 a year is roughly 27 a day for seven days a week. This could be a very good idea but will probably go down like a lead ballon
lupi batshit from a person who supports the do nothing right wing approach doing anything to solve the problem of under supply in Auckland particularly would go down like our economy is going.Which is holding back economic development as Don Brashes Productivity commission pointed out that housing is the number 1 thing holding New Zealand back!
Its pleasing to hear that Queenstown is also included ,the shortage of skilled and unskilled labour is holding back its economy!
Loopy your as thick as batshit!
Updated the post so that it links to the Factsheet.
Doesn’t this just increase the outbound flow of capital in the form of interest to Australian banks?
It won’t increase it. People pay mostly interest in rentals already.
If you have a way to solve that particular problem we need to hear it now! Otherwise – it’s called KiwiBank.
Kiwibank has only around 6% of the home loan market so the vast majority of lending under this scheme will still be done by foreign banks. 100,000 homes means 100,000 mortgages.
Unless you want to legislate to make KiwiBank compulsory, then consumers get free choice. You’re opposed to that?
But for those who want to keep capital in NZ – they can make that choice – Kiwibank…
Not opposed to choice but let’s say Kiwibank increased their market share to 20% of this new lending, over 25 years and using 5% deposit and current rates, that will result in $18bn of outflow. Now a lot of those buyers would end up borrowing anyway but this policy will actively facilitate a substantial loss of national wealth.
“Now a lot of those buyers would end up borrowing anyway but this policy will actively facilitate a substantial loss of national wealth.”
If we assume people need houses to live in, if there is insufficient supply it will push prices up. Higher prices mean higher mortgages and more money going offshore.
So if anything, this policy will reduce the amount of money going offshore through increasing supply and reducing prices.
From your linked post.
Affordable rental properties. Indeed DtB. But then, in a universe bifurcated along lines of those ‘deserving’ and those ‘undeserving’ where ‘deserving’ is marked by an ability to earn decent income and tracks upward in line with income – there ain’t no need for affordable rents. The ‘deserving’ deserve ownership. And the ‘undeserving’ are undeserving… and so not a problem.
The Government underwrites them all, the bank gets admin fees etc.
The NZ coffers would benefit from this approach profoundly.
seti govt bonds the big four will not like this policy one bit!
Great. How many can I buy? Can my kids and wife buy one each?
If you’re going to qualify it, then the first owners will certainly be tempted to buy n flick. To people like me. I’ll then rent it back to them.
Have Labour really thought this through?
Read the factsheet Pete, all quoted and linked to above.
So, looks like my kids and wife can buy one each?
Also, this “time period” before resale. How long? I’m guessing that period is going to have to be reasonably short, else this offer will look deeply unattractive to buyers who will fear they will get trapped. Then there are those people who fall behind in their payments forcing a mortgagee sale. There will likely be quite a few of those, as there is often a good reason people don’t qualify for mortgage finance now i.e. a poor risk.
BTW: 10K houses a year isn’t even enough to keep up with demand in Auckland.
10K houses a year isn’t even enough to keep up with demand in Auckland.
Hmmm – so you’re arguing to extend the scheme?
Just pointing out a fact.
Given demand will still exceed supply, you’re creating a strong incentive for the first owners to buy n flick:
(a) they are buying at cost, therefore below market value
(b) demand still exceeds supply, therefore there will be upwards pressure on price
That’s going to be rather tempting for Mr & Ms Young Couple to buy n flick, given they were thinking about going to Australia next year anyway.
You haven’t read the factsheet yet, have you.
Yes. For example:
“Eligibility to buy a KiwiBuild home will be kept as simple as possible to cut down on
administration costs. As with the current KiwiSaver homeownership features, the houses will be restricted to first home buyers. Buyers will need to live in the house for a period of time to be determined based on advice from officials. There will be a penalty applied if the house is sold ”
Please tell me how these conditions discount my scenarios.
They make it hard – possibly very hard we don’t know the details – to buy these things and flick them on quickly. I think you’ll find that there will be a lot of attention to keeping those rules tight and effective.
Sure, but as I say, if you make it too hard, you’ll put people off buying them. For example, if you make it many years before they can sell without penalty, what happens if people lose their job? Or are offered one in another city?
If you make the penalty amount low, then this is unlikely to put off the next buyer. If you make it high, you’re got the same problem of putting people off buying them in the first place.
The period will likely be in the region of a couple of years. Suits me fine.
If you’re selling things below market, then you create very strong incentives for the owner to sell it and move themselves up the property ladder i.e. they buy below market, sell at market, and pocket the margin.
Then you’re right back where you started.
What if there is a special limitation put on the title saying that it must not and cannot be used as a rental property, ever?
“What if there is a special limitation put on the title saying that it must not and cannot be used as a rental property, ever?”
Exactly. It’s done elsewhere. Caveats such as:
– Must be sole residence.
– Cannot own property elsewhere (or must sell within 6 months)
Absolutely harmless to owner-occupiers, but poison for landlords.
Doesn’t stop you taking on flatmates, but you’ve gotta live in it and own no other property.
If it’s not already stated, it should be a requirement that any home purchased becomes the purchasers primary place of residence.
10K a year is a start.
I’d just hope they put this together with some intensification and public transport initiatives to make the whole deal more compelling.
If it turns into thousands of crappy Skyline garage/homes on the city fringe then it would be a waste.
pete: Don’t be a dork. At least use your brain for a few seconds.
The number of houses is designed to help at least partially fill in the current shortfall on housing coming on the market and in a particular segment of the market, first home buyers – the part that the ‘free market’ doesn’t build for because of tight margins. I’m sure that the tacky and mostly useless McMansions at the edge of Auckland will continue to be built as they are cheap for developers and are ok for people trading up, as will the luxury house market.
Except in your imagination this is not a policy designed to do more than to start to fix a major flaw in the housing market. If more seed capital was available later then it’s scope could be increased. But this is enough to get it started.
Why do you want to expend more on the programme? I think it is about the right size to start the programme with. 😈
No need to be insulting.
There is no flaw in the market. The land price has been driven up by artificial constraint, namely smart growth planning. This expense means builing cheap houses is uneconomic.
Where is the state going to build these houses? Will new road capacity be required?
There is no flaw in the market but building affordable housing is uneconomic… Arrgh!
Better allocation and management of land appropriate to build on would effectively mean no increase in roading projects is required in Auckland. There’s lots of places to build those other 33,000 houses in New Zealand. Why don’t you get out and about a bit more Pete?
Are you saying you can point to land in Auckland for 65,000 houses that would not need additional roading?
65 square kilometers of land?
Actually there is. But not houses. Townhouses and medium density apartments fit well into existing low density housing plots and light industrial areas. The plot of land my apartment is on used to be for second hand housing parts like windows and doors. Now it has 60 apartments and 30 or 4O townhouses.
Your telling me its Labour Party policy to compulsorily acquire existing housing stock to then do a private plan change to build apartment buildings on brownfields land?
I only skimmed the announcement but I missed that bit!
It’s the government – they have no need to sell bonds. Doing so is just catering to the already wealthy.
No it won’t as the rest of the money to buy the homes will come from bank loans that will increase the amount of debt and interest that needs to be repaid but can’t be resulting in another GFC/Great Depression just a little bit further down the road.
No, it’s just more of the same. More government subsidy (the interest on the bonds that the government doesn’t need to sell) and propping up of capitalism (boosting demand) because the capitalist system itself can’t do it as it only ever results in a few people owning everything and the many existing in poverty.
No it won’t as the rest of the money to buy the homes will come from bank loans
Unless you have a way of making free houses DTB, that will always be the case. Should we give up on building houses?
and propping up of capitalism (boosting demand)
Well no it’s not a policy to bring down evil capitalism! As for boosting demand – that demand is already there. This is a policy to try and meet it. Folk want somewhere to live eh?
The demand was there, yes, but capitalism had effectively destroyed it by ensuring that people couldn’t afford to buy houses. This just lets that demand be met while continuing the wealth transfer to the few.
As a professional landlord, I certainly hope Labour goes through with this policy. There will be plenty of cheap rental stock coming on the market, rather than having to pay a developers margin.
Just wait for the mortgagee sales and/or the buy n flick youngsters, who might be convinced that selling for a slim margin is a “choice deal, bro!”.
You’re not just spreading deliberate mis-information Pete.
Just extrapolating out some scenarios, r0b. If you think they won’t happen, tell me why.
You buy it and rent it out instead of living in it: then you should be forced to sell it or forfeit it.
It’s not exactly clear in the fact sheet: “Buyers will need to live in the house for a period of time to be determined based on advice from officials.” but this should be sorted out. Perhaps a caveat on the title.
Only owner-occupiers, and the resale market should have the same restrictions.
It can’t be done? Already done elsewhere (with a lot more restrictions) so I can’t see why not.
And used to be done as well. My grandparents got their house in exactly that kind of deal way way back.
Ah, become a landlord! May as well do that straight away, at market rents. Nice arbitrage play.
Conditions on resale could be interesting. One hook there is these owners won’t keep up with the rest of the market, which won’t be subject to these limits on resale, so will increasingly be priced out of everywhere else. They might turn into ghettos.
The slum risk is the thing hardest to avoid in any area as the shine wears off the new houses and some become rentals. It will be a lot harder in any area built under this scheme as the houses will need to be built cheap and tiny and on tiny sections.
It’s not about making free houses, it’s about the source of the money. Make them government loans with no interest with the money being created by the government rather than the private banks. Then they become self-funding.
Yes, it is just more of the same.
They’re increasing supply in one area (Auckland) further destroying the regions as Auckland scales up. There are plenty of cheap existing houses – and plenty of land – in the regions, just no work to go to.
I think I pointed out the other day that there is no ecosystem of companies to develop and maintain export based jobs in most regions outside of tourism, farming and forestry. If you don’t have that then there are only enough jobs as can be used to sustain a service sector for tourism, farming and forestry with the limits on the types of jobs they need.
Tech jobs need a ecosystem and that tends to grow in larger cities. The houses are in the regions, but the jobs are unlikely to ever move there because they’d have too much overhead.
This is a historic policy.
That no-one is paying any attention to, because the Labour party is a complete circus.
Yeah the leadership stuff is a distracting mess, and that’s a pity, but it’s all good fertilizer for the tree of democracy eh?
Even so I think you’ll find that folk will pay plenty of attention to this…
Great to see Shearer fully endorsing Cunliffe’s strategies on the Reserve Bank and Capital Gains Gains Tax.
I do not feel he gets-it that the Economic policies that Treasury et al have followed for the past 30 years have to be replaced.
Whats wrong with just improving and increasing HNZ rental stock? Or is that just too left wing for them?
The next government is going to be well buggered on spending. This was a way to make a big increase in entry level housing available, at the best price possible, in a manner which is self-funding. It’s not ideal, it’s the best that could be done in the circumstances, I think it’s a bloody good scheme.
They could raise taxes.
I’m sure that they will. And they’ll have a million things to spend it on too.
What do you mean they are buggered on new spending.
As pointed out tax is the answer. Why can’t the obscene rich pay their way.
Will Labour introduce a fair tax system that pays for new state houses.
This is a bull shit policy that will benefit corporate developers
Tax all you like, I don’t mind, but you’ll never run out of ways to spend it on health, education, social policy.
So why not have a self-funding housing policy and spend your tax on raising benefits?
Yeah but who benefits? Isn’t it just another middle class subsidy paid for through the tax system. Nothing wrong with encouraging house construction, but those on the minimum wage will be locked out (again).
Raise the minimum wage!
true, this is middle class policy
It’s about increasing the supply of housing without increasing public debt .
Post updated with link to the full text of the speech.
This is typical Shearer Labour. He is trying to appeal to the mysterious centre while forgetting what the Labour Party actually stands for.
Who will build these houses and at what cost. Follow the money. Who is going to improve their bottom line if this daft policy ever sees the light of day
It’s a start………not enough to convince me to ever vote Labour again (after a lifetime of it). It’s a begrudging shift to the left and ONLY after their realisation (probably through reading blogs) that Labour supporters overwhelmingly are entirely pissed.
Still… the best Labour can hope for is to coalesce in order to form some sort of government – and I mean coalesce with more than the Greens – like one other.
Let’s hear more. I’m not sure we will though – I’ll bet this little effort meant they needed a decent lay down and a glass of Chardonnay to recover.
$300,000 per unit. This is middle class welfare. Yes, Shearer has made a start. But look at the underlying facts: $300,000 per unit, to eventually be sold onto the market.
Shearer is completely silent – completely – on the need for publicly owned State housing for the huge numbers of unemployed, and low income working kiwis where the $300,000 price tag is a distant dream.
I’d like them to be cheaper too. But that’s the cost of building them, and that’s the madness of the Auckland property market. Hope these things are priced differently in different regions – but the goal is to be sold at near cost, so as to finance further building.
Increased housing supply (ends the rise in property values) reduces rent for those unable to afford homes.
Good point. Reducing the cost of living for this group is a positive.
flying kiwi it will reduce the undersupply the market is failing to solve!
For a tasty, tidy profit. At taxpayers expense. Nice.
And those lucky enough to qualify in a popular location (ie Central Auckland) will ahve the opportunity to trade up when the qualifying period finishes for a nice profit.
Hobsonville Pt all over again.
Young, middle class voters will love it! Well, for a little while, anyway.
Just enough time to get them to vote for you for couple of terms. Perfect.
A beautiful plan. They can only hope many of their existing – older – base can’t do basic maths.
Actually, that’s probably a reasonable assumption.
Gosh imagine if you both spent as much time pointing out the positives of this policy as you did the negatives! Sorry, sorry – daft idea – carry on…
There are positives for Cindy and Jasper, upwardly aspiring middle class couple.
And new jobs, economic boost, a baseline set under the property bubble, the benefits are many…
You’re expanding the property bubble, just not at the low end. Cindy and Jasper have their eye on Epsom, not the low-income slum you’re about to build. They just need to buy n flick and they’re on the road to Epsom.
You’re not creating new jobs, you’re displacing building elsewhere.
The market signal is telling you something. Listen to it. It is saying demand exceeds supply. This policy does not solve that problem.
The answer, I maintain, is to redistribute demand around the country by incentivising business to move out of Auckland.
Costs taxpayers nothing pete – that’s the point.
Of course it does. There’s this think called interest…..
That’s a cost to they buyer pete, not the tax payer.
You’re issuing bonds to finance this, yes? Bonds pay interest.
Farrar has done a fairly effective demolition job on the the cost to the taxpayer.
(1) It’s money being spent here, not on “roads of national significance” (which the Nats would be paying interest on).
(2) Costs can be built in to the costs of homes over 100,000 units and 10 years…
a) How do people get to these houses? Where are they? Won’t this create extra demand on roads and infrastructure?
b) Costs built into the homes will include interest costs. Not so nice for taxpayers who aren’t hedging using a house bond.
Farrar has done a fairly effective demolition job on the the cost to the taxpayer.
No it just shows that he is a non plausible commentator.And is plucking numbers from his imagination eg using the arithmetic mean of total house sales he incorrectly inflates his costing by around 30% (this is a common fault of his )
A couple of issues here are
1)sovereign bonds will be fairly low in interest returns.
2) Affordable housing is just that,smaller footprints ( less bling such as tiles or polished benchtops)
3) This will be close to a zero sum game little cost to the taxpayer.
4)The use of gvt council partnerships for land use will eliminate building covenants,and hence the lower cost of building etc.9there may also be an opportunity for iwi etc.
It may be also a good use of available land held by the landbank.
The unanswerable problem is however that why create additional housing stock in AK greater then the creation of additional jobs
Yeah I just read that myself.
His ‘examples’ don’t seem to bear any semblance to reality. He is talking sale prices rather than build prices as far as I can see, and build prices for McMansions rather than something first home buyers would be interested in.
Quite simply he appears to be pulling the numbers out of his arse, and sniffing them until he finds the ones that stinks the right way. What is he doing? Panicking.
Right now there is a massive unanswered demand in Auckland for housing for it’s working population. The only other place in NZ with new housing issues is Christchurch.
The other policy of bringing houses up to liveable standards is designed for the regions with their surplus of unlivable houses.
While I agree his figures are on the high side, this will still cost the taxpayer billions in finance cost alone.
There is no such thing as free.
no no no you got it wrong, keeping the money and financing in NZ instead of flowing out to Australian banking shareholders will more than make up for it.
And just printing the money won’t have any interest at all. It also won’t be a government guaranteed income for a few people with millions of dollars sitting in the bank or, more likely, the banks printing money to buy the government bonds.
Inflationary. You drive up everyone’s costs.
Nope. If there is evidence of an over-inflationary effect you simply pull cash out of the economy from somewhere else.
Magic money tree getting plenty of fertiser, huh.
Taxes and higher savings rates + bank reserve ratios could be used to pull cash out of an economy if it overheats. Easy as, and quick acting.
Costs will stay the same or, to be more precise, it will have the same inflationary effect as the proposed spending that comes from borrowing it just won’t cost as much due to it not having any interest attached.
If the government is selling at cost (including cost of finance) then there is no cost to the government, just no profit.
I’ve been wanting a scheme like this for ages. It looks great – with one very important exception. The eligibility criteria. If such a scheme is put in place, rather than ‘save on administration costs’, I would prefer to bureaucratise the fuck out of it.
The criteria of being ‘a first home buyer’ – well, you can drive a truck through that one. Property in the name of parents/husband/company/trust etc and Bob’s your uncle – you’re a ‘first home buyer’ and can buy, hold and flick for a nice profit.
Property investor’s dream…come buy your ‘first home’ for $300,000, hold for the required period and then sell at market rates.
No effing way. If you’re going to do it, do it right. Make the person declare any and all properties held by their spouse/partner, in a trust they are a beneficiary of or a company they have an interest in. Make them declare their address history for the past ten years, who owned the property and what rent was paid. Put in a restriction that if the property is sold it must be sold back to the government at a fixed price to be put back into the pool of homes available through this scheme.
If this scheme goes ahead as is, every property investor in the country will vote Labour.
Indeed. They’ve got my vote!
And mine! Bargain houses for all and all you have to do is vote Labour. I’ll get one and so will all my family. We could make 1 million dollars in 5 years. Plus the Greens will print us another few thousand each. Planet Labour could be yours.
[lprent: Are you starting to troll again? You know what I do when I see people trolling.
Reduce the level of empty sloganeering please. Because I’m damned if I can see a actual point in this comment past it. ]
pete you have got to be joking this will help keep the bubble out of housing,speculators will vote do nothing national because the under supply will continue forcing prices up while homelessness will increase under national.
I would prefer to bureaucratise the fuck out of it.
Me too…I know they had a similar scheme in Ireland of assistance to buy your first home. My friend’s Dad got a house under her name, and two other siblings as well. All of the children in the house ‘owned’ a house. Look where Ireland’s at now, it did nothing but pump up their housing bubble.
This must be done strictly and there must be big penalties for fraud, the threat of jail will keep the property leeches away.
Was there anything in the speech about more government owned houses for rent? Also, I’d like to see the Government step up and help people who only own one property and have a longterm mortgage, and also tax the hell out of the leeches who own 4+ houses…anything about that?
They definitely need to look at the detail, and to answer questions like yours (which will go exponential on the blogs), I’d expect they will.
But to take your point about spouses/partners.
That is kind of daft bearing in mind the way that people have relationships these days. Lyn and I have been living together for about 4 years, and at this point are likely to carry on doing so until one of us (probably me) dies. But there is simply no way to tell if our relationship will survive the vicissitudes of life and some high probabilities that it will not. So we maintain separate finances and property just in case. The things that we do jointly are done from a household account. Otherwise one of the other of us pays.
So what do you want to know my property and finances for? They have no relevance for any transaction that Lyn is involved in except for the household account.
If she moves somewhere to fulfil a first home buyer requirement to she can get a property just in case, then I will go along with her. And I will be paying rent to the household account and so will she. This is exactly as both of us do right now in my apartment that I have had for 15 years, and exactly as we did in the rental property that we just moved from back into my apartment (we moved to a bigger place for 3 years so Lyn could get a film made and distributed).
I know damn near as many double income couples with no kids like ours as I do the more traditional double incomes with kids. You still have to have a place to live. So why put in an exclusion based on a myth.
And as for 10 years of rental history. I don’t know anyone who can do that. The reason I brought was because of irritating landlords. After I had to move 3 times in a year because of landlords selling properties and having to move the phone lines it became crucial. But I couldn’t remember most places I had lived beyond the last few. Why would I? Lyn would be the same.
Yeah Blue, and if you implemented all the bureaucracy you’re suggesting then you’d have only half the shit present day beneficiaries have to go through and you wouldn’t have the Plump One bad mouthing on the telly.
So why wasn’t the scheme predicated on building rental properties where income pegged rent payments return to the government and where said rental properties never hit the housing market and so never contribute to another ‘housing bubble’?
Because the policy was designed to increase the amount of housing available in the country because it wasn’t being built. Adding to the building stock of the type that isn’t catered for from the market (ie first home buyers) means that the prices for those types of units will decrease and relieve pricing pressure on the whole market.
This can be done by using a one time injection of capital to act as a seed fund. But it requires that after the building of a house or an apartment that the capital is recovered to use in the next build. The nett effect is that there is a reasonably rapid (over the years)m increase in the housing stock.
Building rental accommodation would require continuous capital injections for each new property built. The government coffers would run out before demand is met and prices reduce.
So how was the initial state building programme run out all those years ago? The property’s lifetime return on investment via rent payments will (assuming the houses are built to a good standard) far and away exceed any base line mortgage repayment, no? So government borrowing in the short/medum terms gets paid down by allocating a proportion of the rentals to debt. Or am I being too simplistic on that front (finances never has been one of my strong suits)
And while I can see the logic behind saying cheaper housing will relieve some upward pressure on house prices, my question would be – for how long? I’d guess, not very?
And what does it do with regards banks being steered away from investing in mortgages rather than in business? Anything at all? I can’t see how.
And meanwhile the whole bastard notion of NZ being comprised of the deserving and undeserving trundles along…
Other obvious point. If you are in one of these units and lose your job, then what? Apparently you can’t sell it if you only bought it a year ago or whatever. So you’re dog tucker, yes?
Yes. So? If we’d been steadily building say 1000 new houses a year for the last 25 years then the government would have a great capital asset. And the housing shortage in the cities for first home buyers would be a whole lot less. But it hasn’t.
The problem is that the amount of money required to do the numbers of apartments and houses that this program is meant to put into the housing stock would require something like at least 1.5 billion every year for the next 10 years rather than once at the start. But there are other demands on the governments ability to raise debt as well. For instance I’d expect that they’re going to have to put money into rail, internet cables, sewer systems (they need to help many more local bodies than they are), roads bridges, the existing housing corp housing stock, etc etc. To fulfil investing in housing they’d have to cut others.
The idea of this program is to build accommodation that isn’t getting built so people can buy the right type of property for their needs without sucking up too much government capital on the way through that may be needed for other purposes.
Can’t escape the feeling that the fundamental idea of this programme is less about housing and more about winning that (apparently crucial and actually existant) middle vote. But anyway…
As was the whole speech. Nothing for those doing it hardest. No change in tactics.
looks like the policy also addresses the dynamic of National having another turn in government and that purely rental state housing has been decimated because of policy that disenfranchised the poor from their homes.
Thousands of state houses have been sold on the free market which would have contributed to the current unaffordable housing crisis.
By promoting home ownership, Labour removes the ability of National to come along and legislate away people’s state houses from them. A more direct transaction and building at cost will also take some heat out of the housing market.
Building lots of houses would also relieve pressure on the lower end of the market and therefore reduce socially damaging things like overcrowding.
Appealing to the middle vote with well devised policy… How dare they.
Sound like a good idea, Bill. I don’t see anything much in Shearer’s policy for us lifetime renters. He did mention (as reported by Stuff, I think) that there will be pressure on landlords to make rental properties safer and healthier.
I can see that more housing stock, albeit for home buyers, will probably help keep rents down. But i expect that when landlords improve their rental properties, rents will rise. These are my concerns.
As I posted before, I was looking for a new direction with this affordable housing policy. Shearer’s outline isn’t that new direction. It still seems focused towards the middle-classes and private businesses.
I didn’t have high hopes that the housing policy outlined today would be totally what I was looking for. But I didn’t expect it to fall THIS far short. What about increasing the state housing stock? Why is the focus still strongly on home-buyers?
I think the LP is now looking a little schizophrenic. I think the remits Lynn described seem to be moving in a positive direction. But Shearer’s outline looks pretty right wing. Though, I should say, it’s still better than key/National’s latest plans.
Hopefully with the LP members having more influence on policy in the future, they can shift the LP caucus’s ideas in a more left-wing direction….????
Other issue other than the false comment regarding that it will not cost the tax payer. Crap
Is that I imagine there are over 10 years (excluding immigrants) that there is insufficient new home buyers to equate to 100k.
This has to be extended to cover more than 1st home buyers and from my rough calculation to enable this volume to be achieved.
I also doubt that there is sufficient green/brown field land available within Auckland to allow this. Also given NZTA historic opposition to any development within Auckland as to the effects to the motorway system. But at least this is advancing the topic and any real solution.
Also the $1.5b figure does not add up, given that land is to be purchased ( raw land if zoned takes at least 2+ years to be developed to a state that allows construction to commence) and the construction of dwellings. but at least it is a start.
Surely Cunliffe can offer 200,000 of these and a set of steak knives?
Poor effort from Shearer.
Better effort than Jokey Hen on The Nation yesterday Catcus.
Most of the arguments against this don’t seem to stack up.
On the right we have:
1. Yay! I’m rich and I’d jump at the chance to buy at cost rather than at inflated market prices.
Well, presuming you’re in the market for your first home then you will be reducing demand for housing on the private market if you are holding out for one of these.
Objective: more affordable houses. Tick!
2. This will do nothing to make housing more affordable.
Talk to your wealthy friends about #1 above.
3. It’s unaffordable. How can the govt possibly afford this. Where is the 40 billion coming from.
Talk to your property developer friends. They seem to be able to do the same, and profit, with a bare minimum of funding from their own pockets.
It’s not as if the govt has said it will build 100,000 homes overnight simultaneously and pay all the bills before the first home is sold. Surely you clever property types are not thick enough to suggest that.
And on the left:
1. It doesn’t help perpetual renters. It’s still unaffordable.
That it does not solve every housing problem at once is not a good reason to not take the step.
Just because it is not part of the scheme now: doesn’t mean a small percentage of houses built could be sold/transferred to Housing NZ if the efficiencies of scale permit.
2. It’s helping the middle class only
Yeah, well, people aspiring to own a home. Similar criticism was levelled at WFF. Does that mean it is also bad? Should it be repealed?
jbc – it’s not just this policy but still the main Labour focus is targeting the middle-classes. And there are other parties to vote for that put forward policies to make things better for those on low incomes.
Did you notice Metiria Turei’s attempt to get WFF extended to all low income people, not just the working poor?
Perhaps that is true. I wasn’t so much looking at it from a political perspective, although the arguments against it seem to be that way.
From the standpoint of addressing a problem that will help a lot of people into homes (many that might not otherwise be able to) – it’s not bad. It is something constructive at least.
And nor is it incompatible with having low cost rental accommodation.
But it begins with a focus from a middle-class perspective First something needs to be done for those most in need.
But, I guess that’s not a priority for those who are doing OK, and just would like things to be a little bit easier.
It’s not a policy that will benefit me either, and if it was as successful as I would hope – then it would reduce the value of a home I have some equity in.
But I still like the general idea. It seems positive for a lot of NZ’ers. It could help balance a market that is otherwise distorted.
2. It’s helping the middle class only
Yeah, well, people aspiring to own a home.
So … what, only middle-class people aspire to own homes? So the party which tries to brand itself as helping vulnerable New Zealanders shouldn’t, you know, put forward policy which helps vulnerable New Zealanders?
The argument isn’t “waa waa I hate the middle class”. It’s “this policy will not help the people it claims it’s designed to help.”
Agreed, QOT. And Sue Bradford has tweeted something similar in the last couple of hours:
As the first acknowledgement from Labour since 1984 that the cut taxes, shrink the State neo-liberal policies have failed and need changing, I think it is a good start.
Anything which increases supply at the lower end of the market has got to help lower income earners into decent housing.
Any attempt to build state houses means more public debt and debt finance pressure on the budget.
The number of houses built would not be enough to take pressure off the market – thus continuing high rents and many unable to afford to buy their own home.
This would mean the policy would appear to be without economic merit or of much practical use to most New Zealanders.
Whereas jobs building much more homes – 100,000 to be on-sold means
1. jobs are created
2. house prices are lower
3. rents are lower
This means dole cost falls, tax revenues rise. Accomodation supplement cost falls and renters and home buyers have more disposable income. Their spending stimulates the domestic economy creating further new jobs and the government has the financial capacity to spend more as well – such as via the Housing Corporation.
Good to see the focus on apprenticeships and training.
My daughter who is in her late 20’s will be pleased with this policy,she has a good income,is a
hard worker and single,but, i fear it is only in some centres and not all of nz,i had told her about kiwisaver for a deposit,but she didn’t want to go into her savings for retirement,so has given up her homeownership ideas.
I have my own home, that began with capitalization of the family benefit,a great labour scheme.
My concern with this policy is that it is a narrow focused one,it is aimed at those who have
the financial means to have savings for a deposit or using kiwisaver as a deposit.
A comprehensive one would have included the HNZ tenants being able to buy the homes they
live in, that stock replaced by building a new home in another part of the country.
The housing issue is dire for a great many people who are at present living in caravans or
sheds,children are also subjected to this way of living.
People loosing jobs and having to rely on benefits are the growing sector of this economy,
so more focus on govt homes for rent should have been included also.
I’m not damning the policy but i feel it hasn’t gone far enough for our NZ population.
It creates jobs when we have too few. And people are suffering lack of employment
It creates more housing when we have too little. And people are struggling to pay rent because of shortages, let alone buy a home of their own.
It is active government while National does little.
I missed the 6pm news on both TVNZ andTV3. How did they go for Shearer?
Didn’t see them (no TV) but understand the 3 News coverage was all leadership circus, no focus on housing. Disappointing first coverage, the housing policy is huge.
With the right wing shills out, it tells me that the Labour Party is finally getting it right.
Boy, you’ve sure got my number. 🙄
This right winger is considering a vote for Labour. Free middle class money.
Reading the speech it sound pretty good. I want to see the video though, and things may look less thrilling once the body language of Shearer shows.
This housing policy can make a difference, depending on the details of the policy and how it may be implemented. It could take some pressure off the market and lower prices across the board.
But naturally it only caters for some in need, those that are able to save up a deposit, that have jobs and that are first time buyers fitting the criterias set.
It will create jobs also, but surely only so many apprenticeships will be created, as mostly qualified builders will need to do the work. That may be a challenge, to have the qualified workers there to build the homes, as so many have moved to Australia.
There should be more of a spread across the country, I feel. Letting Auckland grow and grow is not what I would fancy. What about social housing for those that will never ever get a deposit together?
There is mention of apartments being part of it, so how will they look like?
It is a start, certainly sounding much better than the rehashed new plans for Hobsonville, which Heatley pulled out of the hat two days ago. So the devil will lie in the details.
Planned Resource Management Act changes need to be clarified too.
But more needs addressing than housing, so what about details all those other noble goals? Let me guess, we get more drip feeding, I suppose.
Presumably the intent is to have those unable to buy to pay less in rent as housing supply increases. And the economic growth generated from the building will flow into the budget revenues enabling more funding for Housing Corporation.
Got a letter re housing and accom supplement from Annette King a few months back: It was a total disappointment, full of vagueness and distraction, really saying NOTHING!
No, I do NOT trust Labour on this one.
So if the accom supplements get cut or abolished, the beneficiaries and poor are supposed to wait for years for rents to come down? You have to be out of your bloody mind! Sorry!
I just watched Shearer’s speech on video. It is not so bad, but it is highly “staged”, clearly visible that this is so, and it is an “artificial” Shearer I see, also talking at just above “mediocre” to a home crowd. So how is this going to run in an election campaign with media onto his tail and mouth 24/7?
No this man does NOT cut the curd, let alone a block of cheese.
I am convinced 100 percent: Shearer is NOT going to deliver the results Labour needs. Sorry, he has all good intentions, but he will not manage to keep it up, unless protected from media and the government rascals.
He has to rethink his career. Maybe minister of something, NOT PM!
The question I’ve got relates to Christchurch:
When this policy kicks in (I’m presuming from 2015 onwards) isn’t it going to coincide with the major Christchurch rebuilds?
This will mean that skilled builders will be at a premium forcing up labour costs.
This is turn will force up the cost price of these houses however if the government has set a fixed price on the sale of these houses won’t this difference just become a black hole that government has to pay.
Also won’t they need to adjust the price of these properties annually otherwise those who buy in the first year will be relatively disadvantage to say those who buy in year 5? (Due to inflation the value of the earlier homes will cost relatively more than the latter built homes)
Why not go another way and just reduce the RMA & Auckland Council restrictions on land development for new homes and/or encourage the building of greenfield urban hubs close to Auckland
Why not look at the causes of Auckland’s expected population growth and try and effect change there. (Why not direct new immigrants to settle say in Hamilton or Palmerston North or Whangerei?)
Lots of things could be worked on apart from the government making things more complicated than it needs to be
This is dumb, tired thinking from Labour. No joining of the dots, just idiotic vote buying.
Pete you must be worried to much trolling drives you insane!
labour is all about bringing more people into the middle class National has Squeezed so many out!
Jimmy there is a shortage of housing in Auckland now.
Not building more houses in Auckland means homelessness – people living in garages, overcrowding and health problems as well as rent costs rising and with them a greater Accomodation Supplement cost to government.
The government building the houses will help to free up land – and the upward pressure on labour cost applies whether government or anyone else is building homes in Auckland while the Christchurch rebuild occurs.
The cost of building the houses will increase over the 10 years – and so will the sale price.
So all I get from this thread is r0b is someone who works very closely with whoever thought this bullshit up.
[lprent: Nope. Wrong again. And please don’t invite me to ban you unless you really mean it. Read the policy again. ]
I’ve been waiting over a decade for a reason to vote Labour and finally they’ve come up with something that ticks all the boxes. It looks to need some fine tuning but it’s still totally awesome!
Personally I think Labour need to look at separating the land from the house; lease the land & let people buy/build their own house at market rates for the build. It would be easy to control speculation then; just up the ground rent if the house sells for more than replacement cost. But they’ve got plenty of time to work through all the issues, the important bit is they’re committing to it.
Farrar is full of it. We’re spending $1.3billion on accommodation supplements plus $billions more in welfare payments, most of which goes on rent to private landlords who pay naff-all tax in return. That spending provides next to no return to the taxpayer, it’s an expense that just further pushes up house prices and rents. Getting the housing costs down for those people would pay for most if not all of Labour’s plan, the extra economic activity would look after the rest.
If anyone wants to know how good this is just wait for all the slagging & squealing from the right and those who invest in residential property. They are not going to like it at all, despite what the ‘professional landlords’ might say. Boohoo to them.
I dion’t give a rats who the Labour leader is. Policy counts and this one looks a winner (if they don’t bollocks it up, which sadly is very possible)
Has Mr Shearer forgotten about the Christchurch rebuild? The additional pressure just will push up both skilled labor & supply costs.
And thus the private sector may balk at building homes in Auckland because there is no profit in it for them and thus a housing crisis deepens. All the more reason for the government to act.
It is two years to the next election. Surely even the National party can’t continue screwing up getting the rebuild going for that long. So as the rebuilding in ChCh winds down where do the builders go? Aussie?
Please engage brain and think on timing as well as resources
I like this policy.
Builders are not going to Chch from even as clse as a few towns away because those that have have comeback with shit stories of shitty conditions and all sorts of aggravation.
Sorry, good try, but it does not cut it, David Shearer.
It is not convincing enough to me. All is too vague, open to abuse and more on a grander scale is needed. You are trying hard, but no, you won’t ever convince me again.
Good luck, David Shearer.
These houses are going to be sold for $100k less than they are worth. How is the State going to decide which people it is going to give $100 grand to? Will they be the most deserving? If so, how are they to be selected? Or are they just going to be the lucky ones?
Perhaps he should rename it “KiwiLotto”. There is no easier way to make 100K than the state “selling” you something 100K below market value. So you have to wait a couple of years to collect (whilst you’re at Uni anyway)? Big deal. Get some “flatmates” in.
Every rich parent will be signing up young Cindy, Jasper and Zoe. You’ve got to be in to win.
This just in: Labour pledges to replace superannuation with $100,000 payments to 10,000 geezers chosen by ballot.
Makes as much sense as this policy.
Labour is used to giving away free money but $100 grand to people selected by ballot? That really is astounding.
And don’t just stop there…start backing that up by talking about the need to rebuild the caring society destroyed by Nact over the past 20 years…how we must make sure our most vulnerable can again participate in NZ society on the same basis as others…admit how Labour’s social welfare policies since 1999 were wrong…say how need to make sure we “look after those who can’t quite cut it”, and more. Get the picture, Mr Shearer? Your speech may have created what you describe as “euphoria” but fail to follow up with solid principles to back up your first hint at rebuilding a fair New Zealand and the euphoric experiences you’re currently having will be short-lived and you’ll be back on the receiving end of the same deathly cynicism that still threatens your future as leader. Don’t forget, Mr Shearer, that we’ve heard this sort of talk from Labour many many times over the past 20 years and each time it’s turned out to be hollow. Here’s your opportunity, Mr Shearer. Don’t stuff it up.
The government is already spending ~25 billion on welfare aren’t they? How much more “caring” do you want?
NZ will struggle coping with the Christchuch rebuild, which will go on for many years. NZ is a small nation. This rebuild is a massive, ongoing & challenging undertaking for us. Mr Shearers new housing proposal will only serve to hobble the industry during this critical phase. No rocket science here.
NZ will struggle even more if the National Government smashes trade training and trade funding at polytechs instead of doubling it.
Wait, which one has National decided to do?
NZ has over 100,000 unemployed people who want work right now, the rebuilding work is in Christchurch waiting to be done, how many more years are the Nats going to sit on their free market thumbs for?
So what part is state housing going to play in all this?
Im guessing this policy is going to get watered down in 2015 anyway.
I thought Labours policy about building 100,000 houses was excellent until I watched Annette King on TV. It is obvious Labour had not done sufficient homework on the policy. Annette King said houses would cost 250,000 and the land 50,000. You will not find land for that price in Auckland so where are the houses to be built? In Huntly?
If Gvt (central and local) land is to be used for his project then why not lease the land at a fixed price for a set number of years. I also question why it will cost 250,000 to build each house. If there were a fixed number of housing plans, prebuilt, the cost could be reduced even further. Finally, where local councils such as Auckland could help even further, would be to negotiate a bulk building permit price.
I just hope that Labour keeps developing this idea over the next couple of years so they have a definite scheme to present around election time and can start development the day after the election in 2014.
Don’t even call this a policy – it is a politicians desperate attempt to get some attention.
It fails on any test of economic reality or fairness. Even a year 1 NCEA economics student knows what the effect of a subsidy is on demand and price. Any subsidy just gets captitalised in to the price (failing the understanding economics test) and the gain is captured by whoever is lucky enough or connected enough to get the subsidy (failure of the fairness test).
And do the math: 1.5 billion divided by 100,000 homes = $15,000 per home. How does that equate with building new homes in the place we need them – Auckland?
False advertising to call this a policy. A desperate attempt by a desperate politician to capture the votes of stupid people.