Labour’s new housing policy – Shearer on Q+A

Written By: - Date published: 9:27 am, July 28th, 2013 - 702 comments
Categories: david shearer, housing, labour - Tags: ,

David Shearer on Q+A just set out new Labour policy on housing. I haven’t found a write-up yet, but from what I can gather:
• there will be restrictions on non New Zealanders buying houses in NZ
• Australians will be exempt (because of reciprocal arrangements there)

Most countries, including large Asian countries, have such restrictions in place themselves, Shearer was careful to emphasise that Labour would simply put in place policy in NZ that reciprocates.

This policy won’t cure our housing woes, but combined with KiwiBuild to increase supply, and capital gains tax to dampen speculation – it will go a long way to help.

On the panel discussion afterwards Bryce Edwards (in pillock mode) did his best to portray this as a racist policy – Shearer’s “Orewa moment” – I was glad to see Matt McCarten rubbish this nonsense, as it deserved. There was discussion of leadership issues of course, but the consensus was that at the very least this policy would buy Shearer more time, and all panelists gave Shearer good marks on his presentation and argument in this interview.

Labour-blocks-overseas-buyers

Update: There’s a press release up on Labour’s web site now, which I will reproduce in full:

Labour to restrict non-resident purchases of homes
David Shearer | Sunday, July 28, 2013 – 09:23

Labour will restrict the ability of non-residents to purchase New Zealand houses, as part of its comprehensive package of policies to help New Zealanders get into their first home.

“I will restore the Kiwi dream of home ownership that has slipped out of reach for tens of thousands of Kiwis. I don’t want to see our kids become a generation of renters,” says Labour Leader David Shearer.

“House prices in Auckland have risen by 28 per cent since June 2009. The problem is clear – there are just not enough affordable homes. And overseas speculators are adding to the problem.

“That’s why the next Labour government will introduce restrictions so that non-residents will not be allowed to buy any existing house, flat or apartment.

“Many other countries, including Australia, China, Singapore, the UK and Switzerland target overseas speculation in housing. New Zealand’s lack of regulation leaves the door wide open for international speculators.

“IRD records show that more than 11,000 overseas investors own properties here that they don’t live in. An estimated 2,600 homes were bought last year by offshore property speculators that had no intention of living here. That’s a big chunk, given that just 4,700 new homes were built in Auckland last year.

“This policy will reduce demand and help take some of the heat out of the market. It will put Kiwi buyers at the front of the queue.

“By itself this is not a silver bullet for housing affordability – but it is part of the solution.

“It sits alongside Labour’s KiwiBuild policy to build 100,000 affordable homes over 10 years for first time buyers, and our plan to tax property speculation. Together these policies will increase the supply of entry-level housing and reduce speculation-driven demand.

“Labour’s comprehensive housing affordability plan will mean first home buyers get a fair crack at getting into the housing market,” says David Shearer.

702 comments on “Labour’s new housing policy – Shearer on Q+A ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Saarbo 1
    28 July 2013 at 10:02 am

    A really important policy, this will help increase supply of housing by reducing demand. I understand by 5% to 10%, that seems like a lot. This combined with Capital Gains Tax will help with housing affordability.

    The next policy that Labour needs to investigate is the interest deductibility of investment housing.

    • bad12 1.1
      28 July 2013 at 10:42 am

      i doubt that Labour or anyone else will go anywhere near ‘interest deductibility’ from rental investments, much of the ‘investment’ in rentals was fueled off of the back of being able to deduct mortgage interest from ‘rental investments’ from personal taxation,

      If your looking for a plan to shoe-horn those in the middle-class into ‘hone ownership’ that they currently find just out of reach then what Labour propose will serve to take some of the ‘heat’ out of particularly the Auckland housing market,

      That’s as kind as i can bring myself to speak of such a ‘plan’, and, will finish by asking Labour the one question,

      What of today’s ‘blue collar’, the workers who will never under this ‘affordability scheme’ be able to buy their own home,

      What of today’s ‘blue collar’, the low waged workers consigned to pay ever higher rent’s for life, never having the means to save for ‘home ownership’ but shut out of State rentals by a huge demographic who’s fixed income makes them even more in need,

      What of today’s ‘blue collar’ shut out of State rentals by what i am increasingly viewing as a deliberate rationing of ‘new build’ state housing to specifically address that ‘blue collars’ needs in favor of middle class home ownership schemes the beneficiaries of which will go onto to start a ‘portfolio’, saving for their retirement off of the sweat of that ‘blue collar’ trapped renting for life,

      My view of Labour’s ‘housing policy, ‘oh luvly’ IF your a middle income child of the middle class on the verge of having enough savings to buy a first home,

      For the ‘blue collar’ tho, the traditional vote of Labour ???, not a mention, nothing nada…

      PS, my defintion of 1 question has altered to the same extent…

      • Murray Olsen 1.1.1
        28 July 2013 at 6:16 pm

        I can’t see the problem being touched at all until the state intervenes by means of a massive accommodation building program, whether for rent or assisted entry to buying. Tinkering with market mechanisms will not help. Real estate agents, developers, and tax lawyers will always find ways to work around market rules. Why is modern Labour so scared of the state doing anything for anyone except the middle class? On this, as with other issues, Mana is leading the way.

        • s y d 1.1.1.1
          29 July 2013 at 12:27 pm

          The ‘price’ of housing itself is only a part of the problem. The main problem is the sharing of income – as pointed out by Bryan Gould in the NZH today.

          “As Treasury research shows, New Zealand households in the lower half of the income range had no increase in real incomes between 1988 and 2010; all the increase in national income over that period went, in other words, to those who were already better off. Although labour productivity in the private sector rose by 48 per cent over a similar period (1989 to 2011), the average hourly wage rose in real terms by only 14 per cent”

          • Murray Olsen 1.1.1.1.1
            30 July 2013 at 2:06 am

            Yes, wages need to go up as well. My idea is that the government can price accommodation as a certain fraction of income, which would help in the meantime. We have a long fight ahead to get our country back.

    • logie97 1.2
      28 July 2013 at 4:43 pm

      … and discourage existing house owners from owning more than two homes through some pretty hefty taxation measures.

      • Richard McGrath 1.2.1
        28 July 2013 at 9:17 pm

        Helen Clark would then have to sell some of hers…

        • Colonial Viper 1.2.1.1
          28 July 2013 at 9:29 pm

          So would every single National MP

        • Richard McGrath 1.2.1.2
          29 July 2013 at 6:16 pm

          She has four houses, and as such is one of David Shearer’s “more than 11,000 overseas investors [who] own properties here that they don’t live in”.

          • McFlock 1.2.1.2.1
            29 July 2013 at 6:22 pm

            pfft.

            Citizen status trumps residency. Unless you’re also rewriting immigration law to support your deluded counter-example.

            • logie97 1.2.1.2.1.1
              29 July 2013 at 7:52 pm

              Isn’t it amazing how the “experts” are waiting to drive holes through the proposal. One was heard to say on TV news tonight “What’s to stop a company listing on the stock exchange in order to purchase a portfolio of properties?”
              And another suggested “People could buy through a proxy”
              Sort of puts the stock exchange in a bad light, I would have thought. You have to also love the way conveyancing lawyers suggest loopholes would be found. Are these “experts” working for the good of New Zealand or the overseas speculators.

              Perhaps they could be seconded to help write watertight law to prevent the loopholes.

              • Murray Olsen …
                30 July 2013 at 2:19 am

                As soon as a new government gets in, they should arrest all the experts for conspiracy to commit crimes. What other name is there for their behaviour?

    • Shane Gallagher 1.3
      28 July 2013 at 7:18 pm

      Great to see Labour adopting YET ANOTHER Green Party policy. 🙂

  2. Akldnut 2
    28 July 2013 at 10:12 am

    It would be good if they mirrored all policies from each country that’s aimed against Kiwis reversing it back on the other country irrespective of who they are, including Aussie.

    An eye for an eye

    • srylands 2.1
      28 July 2013 at 1:03 pm

      Oh great – that worked in trade policy in the 1930s so well – got the world the Great Depression.

  3. Colonial Viper 3
    28 July 2013 at 10:15 am

    This is good policy and needed. But its also piecemeal: it does nothing to address banks fuelling spiralling house prices with debt, to move growth from Auckland to other regional centres, to stop people collecting portfolios of 5, 10, 15 houses.

    Auckland’s population is projected to grow at 30,000-35,000 per year if nothing else changes. Anyone who does the math will see that massive steps are required.

    The other thing is that Labour needs to create an insightful narrative that people can buy into. The press release explains the problem using completely circular logic. Need to do much better.

    The problem is clear – there are just not enough affordable homes.

    You see, that’s not the problem. That’s just the symptom. And stating the symptom does not reveal anything new.

    • Tamati 3.1
      28 July 2013 at 11:06 am

      That’s why Labour should also come out and support loan-to-value ratios. Getting a 20% deposit isn’t so hard if their are affordable houses under $400,000.

      • Colonial Viper 3.1.1
        28 July 2013 at 11:48 am

        That’s one tool; Steve Keen supports loan-to-likely-rental-income ratios. If a property can only be rented out at $25,000 pa, a ratio of 10x means that the maximum mortgage is limited to $250K.

      • QoT 3.1.2
        28 July 2013 at 12:55 pm

        I really hate that we’ve bought into the idea that “affordable house” = < $400k.

        A 20% deposit on a 300k house is $60,000. That’s just under the median household income in New Zealand.

        I don’t see why we’re meant to accept that that’s “affordable”.

        • Colonial Viper 3.1.2.1
          28 July 2013 at 1:08 pm

          http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10881119

          A house price to household income ratio of between 3 and 4 seems sensible.

        • just saying 3.1.2.2
          28 July 2013 at 1:14 pm

          Exactly.
          Servicing a 300,000 mortgage (with kiwbank) over 25 years, is currently 22,334 per year (not much less than the annual minimum wage) or about $430 per week. A 400,000 mortgage would cost $573 per week, almost exactly the minimum wage.

          Affordable my arse.

          • srylands 3.1.2.2.1
            29 July 2013 at 12:11 am

            It is not realistic that someone on a minimum wage will ever be able to service a mortgage for 80% of the value of any house in NZ’s urban areas.

            What are you suggesting? That we make houses affordable for purchase by those on a minimum wage? It won’t happen.

            • McFlock 3.1.2.2.1.1
              29 July 2013 at 12:23 am

              You’re amost getting the picture.

              Tweak the lowest range of affordable house prices down a touch by boosting home-building, increase the minimum wage to a living wage, and the two aren’t so distant after all.

              Rather than home ownership being a futile dream for large chunks of the population, as we have now.

              • srylands …
                29 July 2013 at 12:43 am

                I still see a fairly large gap. House prices can be moderated by increasing land supply. There is no short term solution on wage levels. It requires an increase in national income. You can’t just dial up higher living standards via Government regulation.

                Anyway most people on minimum wages don’t stay there forever. Students working at supermarkets earn min wage. They then go on to become high income earners. Why on earth do we care?

                For those on persistently low incomes we should top them up via the tax and welfare systems, esp. for those with kids – hence WFF. I think the Government also has a role in discouraging low income earners from having large families – i.e a one child policy. But I am getting off topic.

                Remember that a factor in the GFC was subprime lending for housing for folks that just could not afford it – that won’t be repeated here. But it does mean that for the bottom income earners we need to be realistic that quality welfare housing is what they are going to get. They are not going to service $300,000 mortgages. Even if NZ adopts more aggressive pro growth policies (and I dont see that happening) those kinds of incomes are 20 years away. So we should be thinking about policies that will get the children of current low income earners into housing in 2040.

                • McFlock …
                  29 July 2013 at 1:05 am

                  Anyway most people on minimum wages don’t stay there forever. Students working at supermarkets earn min wage. They then go on to become high income earners. Why on earth do we care?

                  That, right there, is why you’re a dick. What about the people who do stay at or near minimum wage? Not every person on minimum wage will be a high income earner. That is why we should care. And nobody has mentioned a short term solution, just that we should look for a solution.

                  Similarly, an average household price of $300k does not mean that some houses or apartments will be less than $300k.

                  I think the Government also has a role in discouraging low income earners from having large families – i.e a one child policy.

                  Oh, fuck off. You don’t want the government in markets, but you want them inside people’s pants. Despicable.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  29 July 2013 at 12:21 pm

                  House prices can be moderated by increasing land supply.

                  No they can’t. Sprawl costs more so the few thousand saved by increasing land availability is quickly eaten up in transport costs and increased rates. Also, what happens when we fully run out of available land?

                  There is no short term solution on wage levels.

                  It’s a better solution than making people poorer as you’ve suggested we do.

                  It requires an increase in national income.

                  We’;ve been doing that for the last 30 years and it’s not working. The people at the bottom have been getting poorer while a few sociopaths at the top get richer.

                  Anyway most people on minimum wages don’t stay there forever. Students working at supermarkets earn min wage. They then go on to become high income earners.

                  Ah, the illusion of social mobility. It doesn’t happen anywhere near as much as you’d like to think.

                  For those on persistently low incomes we should top them up via the tax and welfare systems, esp. for those with kids – hence WFF.

                  And you’ll whinge about that as well. But here’s a question: Why can’t the businesses actually pay a living wage instead of demanding government subsidies?

                  Even if NZ adopts more aggressive pro growth policies (and I dont see that happening) those kinds of incomes are 20 years away.

                  Actually, such wages for the presently low paid will never eventuate in the present system as proved by the fact that the present system has failed to supply them. No amount of growth will do so while the majority of the money goes to the few at the top. The only way to do it is a more equal distribution of wealth.

                  So we should be thinking about policies that will get the children of current low income earners into housing in 2040.

                  Which is pretty much what the idiots have been saying since Plato’s day, We can’t do it now, we’ll have to do it tomorrow and, of course, tomorrow never comes.

      • Phil Twyford 3.1.3
        28 July 2013 at 4:05 pm

        We do support Loan to Value Ratios…we’ve been calling for them for ages, as part of reforming monetary policy. We just think that to implement them now, in the middle of a housing crisis caused by the Government’s failure to build new affordable homes or tax speculators, is putting far too much weight on LVRs as a tool and will shut out first home buyers. Which is why we are calling for a temporary exemption for first home buyers, while other measures kick in (Kiwibuild and Capital Gains Tax).

        • Fair call 3.1.3.1
          28 July 2013 at 8:40 pm

          Phil I brought might house in Auckland 8 years ago in a run down suburb worked my arse off went hungry but feed the kids and now it’s worth 700k plus and did it on 65k. I have a great life and great family home. Now you want to destroy my life achievement …tell your bribe policy advisors to buy houses they can afford not what they desire. Thanks once a labour voter now gone. Stuff you for not thinking about the people who work hard. Soft soft soft

          [lprent: Already banned and now subject to an extra 8 weeks ]

          • Phil Twyford 3.1.3.1.1
            28 July 2013 at 9:25 pm

            I’m glad the Kiwi dream worked out for you. It did for me too, I bought in the 80s, but sadly a whole generation of Kiwis are pretty much locked out right because of the huge untaxed capital gains made by those who have owned property over the last 30 years. It is not sustainable – not financially (which is why the Reserve Bank is so worried about the property bubble bursting) and not socially (given that younger and lower income NZers have no chance of owning their own home). It is time we did something different. We need to make houses more affordable – even if that means you cannot rely on the rate of capital gain you and I have been enjoying. And we need an economic policy that focuses more on jobs, and better jobs so that we can reverse the growing inequality and poverty that is a big part of what is making houses so unaffordable.

            • Richard 3.1.3.1.1.1
              28 July 2013 at 10:00 pm

              Phil, people need to get a grip and start at the bottom of the property ladder. Just because you’ve been to Uni or got a Macca’s job doesn’t mean you are entitled to a Mcmansion. Just checked on Realestate.com and there are 51 pages of houses under $300,000 in the Wellington region. Got to be affordable if you are prepared to live in Wainui, Titahi Bay or in a 2 bedroom Wgtn apartment. We did that as did my brothers and sisters and now live quite comfortably in more up market suburbs. Two incomes even on relatively low wages will get you what you want and you may even find that the community spirit in some of the less affluent suburbs will give you a great lifestyle. You get out of life what you put into it.

              • lprent …
                28 July 2013 at 10:11 pm

                In Auckland you can find houses in those price ranges as well. They tend to require a expensive daily commute of two-three hours for most people and the maintenance of several vehicles.

                In case you hadn’t picked up on it, Wellington doesn’t have the problems with housing that Auckland and Christcurch currently have. So mouthing platitudes from a area without much work outside of the corporate headquarters and government to people that work in businesses isn’t exactly convincing.

                Perhaps it’d be better if those dicks in Wellington would stop getting between Aucklanders and a decent public transport system. But that won’t happen until at least 2020 according to this government…

                Basically I think you are a unthinking fool.

                • Rob …
                  29 July 2013 at 11:14 am

                  Lprent, not everyone works in the central city, so your theme of referring to massive commutes isnt exactly correct , is it?

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    29 July 2013 at 12:28 pm

                    Not everybody, just the majority. If we had multiple dynamic centres as we used to have it may be different but we don’t and the council seems to be working to make it even more centred upon the CBD.

                  • lprent …
                    29 July 2013 at 9:44 pm

                    Most of the housing shortage is concentrated in Auckland and Christchurch. Those are the places where a shortage of apartments and houses is causing the sharpest rise in costs.

                    So your point is? That we should look at Te Awamutu or Westport with ample and relatively cheap housing and no significant job creation to define the housing in NZ. Personally I’d prefer that to be the case myself.

                    However governments should be dealing with the reality of the current rather than living in Nationals fantasy fairyland that opening up greenfields on the outside of city will do anything.

                    But I live in the centre of Auckland city. This current job is the first one since I moved into my apartment in 1998 that is near the centre of the city. I have worked everywhere from Manakau to Albany. I live here because a commute from Browns Bay to Onehunga (like one friend does) every workday is intolerable.

          • Paul 3.1.3.1.2
            28 July 2013 at 9:29 pm

            Society is bigger than you FC.

          • karol 3.1.3.1.3
            28 July 2013 at 9:38 pm

            Fc, plenty of people work hard all their lives and still can’t afford to buy a house.

          • Arfamo 3.1.3.1.4
            28 July 2013 at 9:44 pm

            How is this policy destroying your life achievement FC? What am I missing?

            • chris 3.1.3.1.4.1
              29 July 2013 at 11:53 am

              You’re missing that he thinks he’s some kind of genius who should be rewarded for buying in an ascending market. We should all cower in awe of his hard work and resourcefulness.

              • Arfamo …
                29 July 2013 at 12:02 pm

                So he’s worked hard and got a house. How this policy destroys that achievement I’m stuffed if I can work out.

          • Mike S 3.1.3.1.5
            29 July 2013 at 4:27 pm

            You brought a house in a run down suburb and managed to do it on only 65k. Wow, what hardship you must have endured. You might be interested to know that 65k per annum would have put you easily in the top 10% of incomes. So if you had to buy in a run down suburb, worked your arse off and went hungry, imagine what it’s like for the other 90% of the population…

            • srylands 3.1.3.1.5.1
              29 July 2013 at 4:39 pm

              Stop distorting data. In buying houses ity is HOUSEHOLD income that matters. Average household income is over $80,000. In Auckland it is way over $90,000.

              http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/Households/HouseholdEconomicSurvey_HOTPYeJun12.aspx

              So if the dude bought a house on $65,000 and that was his household income, well yes he was struggling.

              So stop bullshitting.

              • Colonial Viper …
                29 July 2013 at 8:40 pm

                What’s the median household income?

                ie the income which is far more representative of the people in Auckland?

              • Mike S …
                31 July 2013 at 1:38 am

                I don’t bullshit. He didn’t say household income so why would I assume that. You know what they say about assumption, which is what you have done and low and behold, the poster has confirmed later in this thread that his wages were 65k you fool.

                Regardless, average household income means nothing, the median is far more helpful.

        • Fair call 3.1.3.2
          29 July 2013 at 8:36 pm

          [deleted]

          [lprent: Already banned and now subject to an extra 8 weeks ]

          • Colonial Viper 3.1.3.2.1
            29 July 2013 at 8:38 pm

            Wow that was a load of goobledegook

            $470K lift to $750K: that “hard work” was all done by the banks and property speculators, not your “hard work”.

            • Fair call 3.1.3.2.1.1
              29 July 2013 at 9:13 pm

              Will there was a 30% devaluation crash after the last bust..so I actually had more risk …so is that hard work too?

              Do you own a property?

              With over 500 responses on here that tells me even labour supporters are struggling to understand this policy and whether it’s all confusing

              [lprent: most of our commentators could only be described as Labour supporters if you have a drug induced imagination. The explanation is a lot simplier. It has been a while since there have been so many nutjob trolls to torment. They usually only show up when their pocket books are threatened or when Crosby-Textor are back in Wellington.

              I see that Captain Panic Pants has a new role – providing room? And I detect a bit of the paid astroturfers. I may start doing some judicious pruning of the idiots with a volume commission providing quantity without quality if I detect them. ]

              [lprent: Already banned and now subject to an extra 8 weeks ]

              • McFlock …
                29 July 2013 at 9:22 pm

                With over 500 responses on here that tells me even labour supporters are struggling to understand this policy and whether it’s all confusing

                Funny, it tells me that the tory shills are hard at work, among other things.

              • Fair call …
                30 July 2013 at 11:16 am

                joe public – no fees here – please apologys accepted

          • Arfamo 3.1.3.2.2
            29 July 2013 at 8:46 pm

            Now anyone that lives in Auckland knows that 375sqm is the subdivision size. Mine is 750 Sqm. Is the next step that labour makes me split my land by law.

            Dude, are you drinking? What the hell are you talking about?

          • David H 3.1.3.2.3
            30 July 2013 at 8:48 am

            FC said “Now anyone that lives in Auckland knows that 375sqm is the subdivision size. Mine is 750 Sqm. Is the next step that labour makes me split my land by law. ”

            Where, and PLEASE show a link was ANYTHING about introducing a law to make people subdivide their sections?.

            Hmmmm. Me thinks that he doth protest too much, and if you did divide and build, then you would make yet another 700k or so. What are you ? the latest in a long line of ungrateful, money grubbing, Tory trolls?

      • Lou 3.1.4
        29 July 2013 at 2:58 pm

        You are not speaking for most people when you say that, Tamati!!

    • aj 3.2
      28 July 2013 at 6:17 pm

      …and banks suggesting 1st time buyers use the ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’, securing higher loans against equity in parent’s homes….I was recently asked to do this and as much a I’d like to help my kids into homes, by doing so I’d be only helping extend the problem

  4. gobsmacked 4
    28 July 2013 at 10:15 am

    I watched the whole interview on Q & A. I’d have felt a lot happier if Shearer had taken a moment to state – unequivocally, no Winston language – that immigrants are not the target, will not be affected, and are an integral, welcome part of today’s New Zealand. Kill the xenophobia angle stone dead, right at the start. It was too fuzzy (deliberately? I hope not).

    The policy may be OK in the details (yet to study), but it’s the presentation and perception that matter. I don’t have much confidence in Shearer’s ability to make this sound practical and principled rather than a half-baked Winston. We’ll see.

    • Akldnut 4.1
      28 July 2013 at 10:30 am

      It’s only a matter of time before right wing commentators make major distraction and misdirection out of it being a racist policy and the msm picking it up and running with it in…….. three, two, one

      • gobsmacked 4.1.1
        28 July 2013 at 10:41 am

        Yes, that is entirely predictable. Therefore, Labour should have predicted it (as you have). Therefore, the press release quoted above is inadequate.

        “non-residents will not be allowed to buy any existing house, flat or apartment.”

        Non-resident doesn’t mean immigrant. Worries about xenophobia would have been eased by one simple sentence in that press release. I hope it’s not omitted by design (i.e. wink to Winston).

        • Tamati 4.1.1.1
          28 July 2013 at 11:02 am

          If he denied it, it would have immediately made the headlines and distracted from the actual policy. I think he did very well on Q&A though.

          • Arfamo 4.1.1.1.1
            28 July 2013 at 12:06 pm

            I don’t know exactly why, but it irks me when he says “I will… (make housing affordable for first home buyers, or do this or that or whatever when he is talking policy).”. More of the inclusive “we will…” would sound better to me.

            • Jimmie 4.1.1.1.1.1
              28 July 2013 at 1:47 pm

              Probably coz he has run out of ‘we’s’ that he knows are with him.

          • gobsmacked 4.1.1.1.2
            28 July 2013 at 12:15 pm

            He screwed up the soundbite on Radio NZ (just now). Talked about people “coming into New Zealand” … but the whole freaking point is that they DON’T come into New Zealand. That’s the crucial divide: speculator who never sets foot in the place versus immigrant/resident.

            He is so linguistically deficient that he cannot make a basic point without giving a gift to his opponents.

      • Sable 4.1.2
        28 July 2013 at 11:18 am

        Yep time to wind up the bullshit generator. Keep an eye on sites like Stuff in the coming days to see what news they can manufacture.

    • Saarbo 4.2
      28 July 2013 at 1:24 pm

      Yep, that is the problem. It is Labour and the Lefts MAJOR problem, but to be fair to Shearer, it seems that most of the constituency also struggle with complexity so I do understand what Labour are trying to do here, trying to keep the message as simple as possible I guess.

    • Tim 4.3
      28 July 2013 at 5:32 pm

      “I watched the whole interview on Q & A.”
      You did better than me the g! I usually can’t – except that today Chris Laidlaw was a bit wishy-washy.
      I wish I hadn’t bothered. Susan Wood simply reminded me why I shouldn’t bother: her WASP Rothesy Bayness not ever quite enough to get to the bottom of the issue.
      (disclaimer – I once lived on the edges of it.

      – e.g. she didn’t bother to ask the Zespri CEO whether Pro-Forma invoices clearly indicated if they were just that, and did not clearly indicate that they might not represent the true value of goods OR how long and from when they were using them – I almost found myself agreeing with that -indepth, investigative foreskin of the business 4th Estate affectionately known as Fran.
      – and watching Bryce Edwards was like watching an exercise in how the Muddle Class, when ‘comfort’ kicks in, become less questioning, less empathetic, less community aware & more ‘self’-aware.

      I’m wondering when it was that a 5-7 minute ‘in-depth’ interview became the norm in supposedly holding people to account followed by the same or more length of time with boffins pontificating.

      I’ll try again in a month.

      • David H 4.3.1
        28 July 2013 at 11:16 pm

        It has definitely gone down hill, since Paul Holmes departed this life.

      • Foreign waka 4.3.2
        29 July 2013 at 8:00 pm

        Pro Forma invoicing is illegal in Europe as it denotes fraud, hmmm…. allowed in NZ?

        I don’t watch the program anymore, Susan Ward is not worth going through agony. She is biased and one can almost get the feeling that she has one eye on the paymaster whether she overstepped the mark. How can that be mistaken for an interviewer looking for some clear and truthful comments?

  5. Pete 5
    28 July 2013 at 10:49 am

    Good. It should be applied to commercial land – farms, forestry and mines too.

    Hopefully the law can be drafted in such a way that it stops companies and trusts being formed in New Zealand to circumvent its intentions.

    • Tamati 5.1
      28 July 2013 at 11:10 am

      Their would invariably be ways around the law, but it would still have a short term effect.

    • Wayne 5.2
      28 July 2013 at 12:13 pm

      No international investment in forestry and mines (oil and gas as well?). Well, that is really going to help the NZ economy.

      Why not also say “no” to international banks, and “no” to international investment in manufacturing.

      In fact, lets close the whole economy off from international investment.

      Mind you I don’t expect that we would sell much overseas. That will do wonders for prosperity and opportunity.

      Even Labour has said international investment in farming is OK, if it has a demonstrable trade or innovation impact. On that basis Crafar farms would probably pass the test.

      • AmaKiwi 5.2.1
        28 July 2013 at 12:45 pm

        @ Wayne “lets close the whole economy off from international investment”

        People invest to make money, whether houses to rent, farms, forests, mines, or companies.

        For 30 years NZ has NEVER had a positive balance of trade, a dubious distinction we share with Greece.

        We export more goods than we import BUT it is the rental payments, dividends, interest payments, and other financial services that consistently put us in the red.

        Kiwi owned is critical. It means profits stay in NZ.

        The problem with foreigners owning NZ real estate is not just housing affordability. It is also the rent payments that go off shore.

      • Colonial Viper 5.2.2
        28 July 2013 at 12:49 pm

        No international investment in forestry and mines (oil and gas as well?). Well, that is really going to help the NZ economy.

        This country has hundreds of billions of financial capital within itself that could be used.

        Why do we always need to rely on overseas funding sources and overseas ownership of our assets?

        • Draco T Bastard 5.2.2.1
          28 July 2013 at 1:21 pm

          Why do we always need to rely on overseas funding sources and overseas ownership of our assets?

          We don’t. In fact, no country does as the resources already belong to them and basic education will see to those resources being utilised. No, the only reason I can see for foreign ownership is that it’s a way for the worlds wealthy to increase their rental income and political power. It’s always bad for the country that allows it.

        • Poission 5.2.2.2
          28 July 2013 at 1:31 pm

          Overseas investment is a euphemisms for overseas debt.A significant number of multinationals create a NZ subsidiary lend the equity as debt, decreasing its taxation liabilities to single figures.This is seen in the electricity distribution companies.

          http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/8616100/Overseas-buyers-come-with-hidden-baggage

      • Draco T Bastard 5.2.3
        28 July 2013 at 1:14 pm

        No international investment in forestry and mines (oil and gas as well?). Well, that is really going to help the NZ economy.

        Yep, it will. We have no need of foreign money to utilise resources we already own. The government just needs to create the money, spend it into the economy where needed and slightly raise taxes to take the money back out. This will develop our economy in ways that no foreign ownership can or will ever do.

        Why not also say “no” to international banks, and “no” to international investment in manufacturing.

        In fact, lets close the whole economy off from international investment.

        Great idea.

        Mind you I don’t expect that we would sell much overseas.

        Don’t need to but nothing said yet has any restrictions on trade.

        Even Labour has said international investment in farming is OK, if it has a demonstrable trade or innovation impact. On that basis Crafar farms would probably pass the test.

        That’s because Labour, just like National, are still wedded to the delusional free-market paradigm that’s seen massive increases in poverty in NZ while a few got very much richer. And, no, the Crafar farm sales wouldn’t pass that test as it’s still NZers doing everything. All that happens is that the foreign owners now get an unearned income from NZ workers.

    • srylands 5.3
      28 July 2013 at 1:58 pm

      You do realise that would breach our international commitments under the WTO and a raft of bilateral and regional agreements?

      http://www.treasury.govt.nz/economy/overview/2010/18.htm

      It will never happen.

      • Colonial Viper 5.3.1
        28 July 2013 at 2:03 pm

        Parliament is sovereign mate, and the housing needs of the people of Auckland are great.

        It will never happen.

        Then you can breathe a big sigh of relief, right?

        • srylands 5.3.1.1
          29 July 2013 at 4:10 pm

          Yes I can – I am worried about the changes in policy settings that WILL be made – not the fantasy ones like banning FDI.

      • ghostwhowalksnz 5.3.2
        28 July 2013 at 2:42 pm

        Your reference proves nothing !

        Clutching at straws ???

      • Draco T Bastard 5.3.3
        28 July 2013 at 3:17 pm

        Just more reason to drop those agreements. They’re obviously bad for us.

      • Murray Olsen 5.3.4
        28 July 2013 at 6:30 pm

        Yeah, when will us lefties realise it’s only international commitments under human rights and labour agreements that should be breached? Trade and finance are sacrosanct.

      • lprent 5.3.5
        29 July 2013 at 9:55 pm

        …breach our international commitments under the WTO and a raft of bilateral and regional agreements?

        Ah no. All those agreements has opt-out clauses for anything that is defined as being of strategic importance. For instance our agreement with the chinese, with the aussies, and even with the WTO.

        Any diplomat that manages to sign agreements without such devices to deal with the unexpected will traditionally be strung up and sent to console at a hot humid country with ample mosquitos. Or Wellington… Of course MFAT has been so castrated after dealing with McCully that they probably don’t have that tradition any more.

    • Dem Young Sconies 5.4
      28 July 2013 at 3:46 pm

      Personally, I’d like to see a 4% p.a. land tax applied to all land in NZ (excluding the family home). It would have an immediate effect on land values in NZ, and would raise a decent amount of income to fund social programs.

    • Phil Twyford 5.5
      28 July 2013 at 4:09 pm

      Rural farmland already has strong limits on non-resident ownership, under Labour’s policy. There is a similar underlying rationale – there is little or no benefit to NZ or New Zealanders putting farmland or homes into a global marketplace.

  6. BM 6
    28 July 2013 at 10:51 am

    Expensive housing is because of a greenie mindset within Auckland council.

    Remove that , which National is currently doing and the problem is 90% gone.

    • Paul 6.1
      28 July 2013 at 11:04 am

      Not busy today? Able to make a constructive comment without reverting to name calling like ‘greenie’ ?

    • Sable 6.2
      28 July 2013 at 11:11 am

      Insults seem to be all the far right has, well that and corporate boot licking right wing journalists.

    • bad12 6.3
      28 July 2013 at 11:24 am

      Rubbish, Auckland’s ‘problem’ is that as we artificially used immigration to ramp up the population from 3.3 million to 4.4 million in a compressed 20 year period when considered against the time frame it took for that population to get to 3.3 million,

      The biggest % of that immigration has settled in the Auckland area and the population there has been further boosted by internal migration to that city,

      Building records show that at this point the market failed, the demand for housing began to far out-weigh the supply NOT because of land availability issues but because the building industry first failed to ‘see’ the demand and second was unprepared to cope in terms of having the ability and man-power available to meet such a demand,

      National can ‘open up’ the whole of the upper North Island from Waikato to Auckland to allow suburbanization of everything and this will make not one iota of difference because there is still not a sufficiently trained workforce that could build enough houses to match the ongoing demand…

      • Ant 6.3.1
        28 July 2013 at 12:19 pm

        One of the main problems is that we still build houses with the same mindset and construction methods that we did 100 years ago. If we wanted we could be building green, safe, dry & efficient housing for a quarter of the price or less – and installing it in a week or two.

        • Colonial Viper 6.3.1.1
          28 July 2013 at 12:44 pm

          I think the thousands of leaky homes from the mid 90’s and early 2000’s showed that we are definitely not using the same construction methods as 100 years ago.

          • Draco T Bastard 6.3.1.1.1
            28 July 2013 at 1:41 pm

            If we were we’d have warm dry housing as the standards of 100 years ago were still built to the environment that England has to withstand. A lot of immigrants from northern climes say that our houses are cold and drafty.

            Our governments have been minimising standards instead of maximising them and thus decreasing the quality of our housing and any drive to boost innovation in building better houses.

            • Tarkwin 6.3.1.1.1.1
              29 July 2013 at 9:53 am

              A customer of mine has just built a dome house in Ruakaka. Had a bit of trouble getting it past council but got there in the end. They make it out of a type of concrete sprayed on to an infated dome. As they’re spaying the concrete they run a coil of alkathene pipe through it to help with the hot water. This system is becoming a lot more efficient due to improvements in the inflatable bag giving vertical walls and then a domed roof. I’ve been in the house when it was finished. Absolutely brilliant! Warm, cozy, no need for a heater and virtualy free hot water. This is in the middle of winter which contrary to popular belief isn’t that flash up here. The good news is these houses are earthquake proof, hurricane proof, fire proof well insulated and cost about a third of a normal house. Admittedly they aren’t for everyone, but they would be great for low cost initial housing. Google monolith housing if you want more info.

          • Ant 6.3.1.1.2
            29 July 2013 at 10:26 am

            The approach is largely the same. There has been shitloads of innovation in housing by architects, scientists and engineers but we still go for inefficient, resource and man-power intensive, bespoke builds. There are constant solutions to social housing being offered up but they are largely ignored in favour of the status quo.

            I’d liken our current approach to that of building more motorways to solve congestion…

      • BM 6.3.2
        28 July 2013 at 2:42 pm

        Just bring in tradesmen/women from overseas, problem solved.

        • tricledrown 6.3.2.1
          28 July 2013 at 6:59 pm

          blinkered monetarist just like wind bag Brownlie letting all the kiwi tradesmen leave NZ knowing full and well they would be needed for the rebuild!

          • Blue 6.3.2.1.1
            28 July 2013 at 7:10 pm

            You would force them to stay ?

            • Colonial Viper 6.3.2.1.1.1
              28 July 2013 at 7:11 pm

              Incentivise them to stay. It’s not hard if you can find a government which thinks more than 30 days ahead at a time.

            • Draco T Bastard 6.3.2.1.1.2
              29 July 2013 at 12:46 pm

              Nope, I’d just have ensured that they weren’t about to lose everything and that they had something challenging to do. As CV said, incentivise them to stay.

      • Jackal 6.3.3
        28 July 2013 at 4:23 pm

        Yes! A lack of apprenticeships, other training opportunities and low wages has ensured that there aren’t enough tradesmen available to build the 13,000 houses required each year in Auckland alone. Even with legislative changes to open up more land and fast track the consent process (which helped cause the leaky building in the first place) there will still be a shortfall of 10,000 houses per year. That’s 10,000 families that will have to live in overcrowded accommodation, move out of Auckland or become homeless, so the issue is pretty serious.

        However, it’s also the cost of materials being far more expensive in New Zealand compared to other countries like Australia. Even though we have an abundance of supply, much of what we produce is shipped overseas and the products that remain are overpriced because of a lack of competition. In my opinion, the government needs to also look at ensuring material costs are reduced as well as increasing training initiatives. You simply won’t build enough houses by relying on the “free” market or importing the workforce required. That simply means more funds going offshore. You do achieve the building of enough houses by removing natural monopolies and moving the unemployed into well payed jobs, whereby they can hope to save for a deposit.

        In regards to National’s response to Labour’s latest housing policy announcement, I think they will do their best to ignore it. Like it or not, such a policy will find support from many National voters, not because it’s racist, but because it’s what’s required. The government must move to reduce inflationary pressure on the housing market, not just because it will mean more New Zealander’s will become first time home owners, but because without an effective strategy those who have already invested are likely to lose their savings when the bubble bursts. Without such measures, there will undoubtedly be a collapse that will not result in more affordable housing.

        I think Labour should be commended for this initiative and clearly David Shearer’s performance on Q+A should not be criticized. In fact it was exemplary and without fault. Anybody who says otherwise is either a deluded fool or has ulterior motives.

        • Draco T Bastard 6.3.3.1
          28 July 2013 at 5:20 pm

          In my opinion, the government needs to also look at ensuring material costs are reduced as well as increasing training initiatives.

          That ones actually quite easy – a ban on exporting all raw resources.

          You do achieve the building of enough houses by removing natural monopolies

          You can’t remove natural monopolies – all that can be done there is for the government to own them.

          I think Labour should be commended for this initiative

          Russel Norman tweet.

    • Draco T Bastard 6.4
      28 July 2013 at 1:25 pm

      All that National will do with it’s green fields development and it’s focus on more roads is make Auckland’s problems worse. Aucklanders actually know this.

    • Lloyd 6.5
      30 July 2013 at 12:08 am

      Nothing National is doing will reduce the price of houses. All the arguments from National are of the “free the rules up on subdivision and it will reduce the cost of the land” type. Unfortunately for this argument there is considerable land which has consent and/or which the owners are quite happy to sit on – its called land banking. If you can afford to you will make lore money when demand rises, so you don’t develop the land you could develop now.
      It is not in a developer’s interest to build cheap houses. Private developers will always build the largest (= most expensive) house they can construct on any single piece of land. A government requirement for a house built to a price is far more likely to build a cheap house than any developer that is producing houses on spec today.

      Prices will only come down with:
      – a capital gains tax; and,
      – a large government funded cheap housing scheme.

      Will either of these policies be carried out by the Nats? Of course not. Neo-liberalism cannot provide housing for all in a population, it is a philosophy that must produce homelessness and destitution for some.

      It doesn’t take a greenie to realise the only way people on middle income or lower can afford to buy a a house in the next decade is with a Labour/Green government.

      • Colonial Viper 6.5.1
        30 July 2013 at 12:10 am

        there have to be steps to haul back on cheap bank credit flooding into the mortgage market place.

  7. Sable 7
    28 July 2013 at 11:09 am

    Good to see but Shearer needs to be more emphatic regarding spying legislation and freedom of access to information. To date he has not been firm in his opposition to Nationals draconian measures.

    I also don’t understand why he has not exploded much of the lies National has told. Many of them are utterly transparent and easy to disprove: levels of unemployment, state of the economy, health coverage. All he needs to do is get hold of official stats under freedom of information and then start asking questions about how that information is measured.

  8. Hami Shearlie 8
    28 July 2013 at 11:10 am

    Very good policy – unfortunately, one soft five minute interview does not a Prime Minister make – A tough interview will see David Shearer crumble once again. He just doesn’t have the fire in his belly to make people believe he could be a Prime Minister. He just doesn’t have enough conviction about anything. He always seems to be running on about 20 per cent power. And as usual, he’s BORING!!

    • Sable 8.1
      28 July 2013 at 11:14 am

      Yes I agree. Shearer’s just not tough enough, nor does he seem to be that politically astute, not a failing in itself unless you want to become PM. He needs to put the boot into Keys, not really much of a challenge as much of what Keys has said is easy to disprove and yet, nothing. Time to use the ammunition offered by National to good effect David.

      • Craig Glen Eden 8.1.1
        28 July 2013 at 12:23 pm

        Shearer reformable was again lacklustre he couldn’t beat Key if he had keys hands tied behind his back sadly.

      • Craig Glen Eden 8.1.2
        28 July 2013 at 12:25 pm

        Shearer was again lacklustre he couldn’t beat Key if he had Key his hands tied behind his back, sadly.

    • Tamati 8.2
      28 July 2013 at 11:15 am

      If you find Q&A boring, the Shortland Street omnibus is on TV2.

    • erikter 8.3
      28 July 2013 at 11:50 am

      When will most Labour supporters realise Shearer is not PM material? Too soft and unable to explain things or come across clearly.
      He has to be rolled before is too late and the damage too grave. Now is the time to bring a new leader: Robertson or Cunliffe?

      [lprent: Santi is now on a permanent ban for violating his ban. ]

      • Boadicea 8.3.1
        28 July 2013 at 9:57 pm

        Eriker is a Troll. Ban him

        [lprent: mods will make up our own minds about that. ]

    • Colonial Viper 8.4
      28 July 2013 at 12:00 pm

      He just doesn’t have the fire in his belly to make people believe he could be a Prime Minister. He just doesn’t have enough conviction about anything. He always seems to be running on about 20 per cent power.

      That’s because he is someone on the slow down towards the end of his career, not accelerating towards the peak. You cannot hide something like that. After his years at the UN I’m unsure why he hasn’t decided to semi-retire, and take a couple of plum corporate or NGO board of director roles.

      • erikter 8.4.1
        28 July 2013 at 12:05 pm

        That’s the point, CV.
        Why isn’t Labour’s rank and file forcing the issue? How does the old guard (Mallard, King, Cosgrove) keep controlling the process? What will happen next?

        [lprent: Santi is now on a permanent ban for violating his ban. ]

        • AmaKiwi 8.4.1.1
          28 July 2013 at 12:54 pm

          “Why isn’t Labour’s rank and file forcing the issue? How does the old guard (Mallard, King, Cosgrove) keep controlling the process? What will happen next?”

          If you can tell me how to force the issue I will gladly do it. The old guard have safe seats and or top list rankings and can’t be ousted from parliament. The smaller the caucus gets, the higher the ratio of old guard to “young and aggressive.” Some old guard hang on because they can’t get another job that will pay as well as their MP salaries.

          What will happen next is Labour will have another humiliating defeat in 2014. PM Key will be succeeded by PM Judith Collins. It’s a nightmare!

      • mac1 8.4.2
        28 July 2013 at 12:19 pm

        A wee bit agist, there, CV? I am sure there are a few older politicians who could show that there is still some fire in the belly at the advanced age of fifty plus. A bit of wisdom and a bit of residual youthful rage, an understanding of how the world works, of what (and who) can be changed or not changed, what is worth preserving and what is eternal against what is fashion and ephemeral; I’d say that a good career is fine training for leadership of a country.

        • Colonial Viper 8.4.2.1
          28 July 2013 at 12:34 pm

          Unfortunately I have to say that your claim of ageism is just a distraction, mac1.

          Churchill was 65 when WWII started. And it was clear to all that he was a politician who was just entering the prime of his career, not the long twilight.

          And Savage was 63 when he became PM. Someone with no doubts whatsover over what he wanted to accomplish for NZ.

          what is worth preserving and what is eternal against what is fashion and ephemeral; I’d say that a good career is fine training for leadership of a country.

          Training is for racehorses, not for finding the fire in the belly that every leader needs.

          • mac1 8.4.2.1.1
            28 July 2013 at 1:19 pm

            What I tried to say, CV, was that in a whole list of what makes a good leader there is wisdom, fire in the belly, understanding, values and also a good career which should have used, taught and built up these qualities.

            I would reply to your claim of “ageism is just a distraction made against me” is that your and others’ introduction of ABC (another bloody cavil) at Shearer when the thread is concerned with Labour Party policy is in itself a large distraction from a major announcement of policy on housing.

            I am growing rather tired of this continual carping, cavilling, constant criticism against Shearer, especially when every pretext is taken to promote this view even when at best incidental to the main issue of the post.

            I object also when an unfair and cynical use of ageism- saying Shearer’s past it and should be pensioned off with a token directorship or two- is used.

            FFS, CV, we know your views on this subject. As my old science teacher used to say about unwanted interruption- “Keep it down to a dull roar, boys!”

            • Colonial Viper 8.4.2.1.1.1
              28 July 2013 at 1:32 pm

              I object also when an unfair and cynical use of ageism- saying Shearer’s past it and should be pensioned off with a token directorship or two- is used.

              Oh bullshit mate. I gave you examples of two politicians, Churchill and Savage, who did their absolute best work in their mid 60’s.

              Now you may think that Shearer is still strongly building up to his career zenith. Good on you. I disagree.

              I am growing rather tired of this continual carping, cavilling, constant criticism against Shearer, especially when every pretext is taken to promote this view even when at best incidental to the main issue of the post.

              I was simply replying to HS. Again, if you think that Shearer is proving himself as the Leader that Labour needs, good for you. You might note that several commentators above disagree, not just me. Protip: if you don’t like what others are saying on the internet, don’t read it.

              • mac1 …
                28 July 2013 at 3:31 pm

                “Oh bullshit mate. I gave you examples of two politicians, Churchill and Savage, who did their absolute best work in their mid 60′s.’

                Only after I called you on it. What I would appreciate is some evidence that Shearer is not still strongly building up; I assume that being leader of the second strongest party in New Zealand is an increase on his old UN job, and that being a prospective PM would be even more so. My understanding from recent showings is that Shearer is improving his speaking skills and his recent outings at the Auckland rally and on Q and A are examples of this.

                My protip: repetition ad nauseam is simply that- nauseous, and self-defeating, as the time comes when one turns over from being an astute commentator to one who is seen as being too much focussed on one issue that boredom, predictability and ultimately turn-off happens.

                I’ve been long enough in the NZLP to know what single issue nutters look like, and I think you are far too smart to want to be seen as one of those. Generally, I have much respect for what you write.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  28 July 2013 at 3:45 pm

                  “Oh bullshit mate. I gave you examples of two politicians, Churchill and Savage, who did their absolute best work in their mid 60′s.’

                  Only after I called you on it.

                  Which was a diversion on your part to start with. Age wasn’t a factor in my call; it was a factor in yours.

                  What I would appreciate is some evidence that Shearer is not still strongly building up

                  I take it back; there are no valid questions over his recent greatly improved perfomance as Labour Leader.

                  My understanding from recent showings is that Shearer is improving his speaking skills and his recent outings at the Auckland rally and on Q and A are examples of this.

                  It’s good you appreciate the importance of learning the basics on the job.

                  I’ve been long enough in the NZLP to know what single issue nutters look like, and I think you are far too smart to want to be seen as one of those. Generally, I have much respect for what you write.

                  Mate, I hope it all pans out the way you want, and that Shearer is the excellent Leader that you seem to see him as.

                  And why are you directing all your attention at me? Half a dozen other commentators above made similar remarks about Shearer (including Sable, CGE, Ama, etc). Yet you only focus on me without responding to any others. Something personal?

                  • mac1 …
                    28 July 2013 at 5:07 pm

                    Don’t know you, CV. I don’t praise people against whom I have something personal. I reacted to what I saw as an attack on Shearer based solely on his age, above at 8.4. To that I responded because it seemed neither substantiated nor fair.

                    You’re right though that there is too much to focus on, regarding remarks made on Shearer, which is my other point.

                    • AmaKiwi …
                      28 July 2013 at 7:53 pm

                      CV, do you realize a lot of people skip through the comments and only stop when they see a comment by a certain or persons who usually have interesting things to say?

                      His/Her singling you is a compliment.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      28 July 2013 at 8:16 pm

                      Cheers fellas. I do appreciate the good work that both you and mac1 do.

    • Saarbo 8.5
      28 July 2013 at 1:26 pm

      +100

  9. Herodotus (CV Supporter) 9
    28 July 2013 at 11:45 am

    So in NZ there were approx. 74k of property sales in 2012, so is there 10,000 1st home owners entering the market each year ? Something tells me that this policy will require modification should it be implemented as the numbers don’t stack up. Still I support the policy in principle in what it is aiming to achieve, pity about the holes in the details.
    https://www.reinz.co.nz/shadomx/apps/fms/fmsdownload.cfm?file_uuid=22E27A12-9E20-3E19-4AAB-922283BF18B3&siteName=reinz
    http://unconditional.co.nz/blog/property-sales-have-clearly-turned-a-corner/

    “An estimated 2,600 homes were bought last year by offshore property speculators that had no intention of living here. That’s a big chunk, given that just 4,700 new homes were built in Auckland last year.” these 2,600 homes are not necessarily new and there is no evidence that these were all purchased in Auckland from the quote. from the link above that 74,000 homes were sold this is only 3.5% of all sales !!!
    Also as the GCT was to assist in funding the $5k tax free threshold and GST being removed from F&V what will this windfall finance ? Perhaps recapitalise the EQC fund.
    As an aside of the stupidity of the Auckland market here is a recent case in greater Botany.
    220m2 home B&T on 700m2 Built 1997. Originally sold approx $300k resold in 08 680k recently sold in the last few months $930+k. Est cost to rebuild $450-$475k. the market maybe beyond saving, but I am sure that we WILL save the banks should the bubble burst.

    • bad12 9.1
      28 July 2013 at 12:10 pm

      Good points, probably across the whole country there are 10,000 new home buyers in any year, Labour propose to shut out ‘non -resident property investors’ and that’s all well and good as such investors are simply speculating,

      Suggesting to Labour that the most effective fix for ALL the issues surrounding affordable housing is the same ‘fix’ that the first Labour Government and the others to follow used is pretty much futile as Shearer and Labour will live or die electorally on it’s present ‘flagship policy’,

      10,000 State rentals built in the Auckland City boundary and specifically targeted to Low Income WORKING Families would kill off the demand in the Auckland market immediately and by dint kill off immediately the house price over-inflation in that Auckland market,

      Neo-Liberalism is based around ‘picking winners’, Labour’s flagship housing policy picks the winners to be the children of the middle class and tells low income working families to go sing for a crust…

    • Colonial Viper 9.2
      28 July 2013 at 12:26 pm

      That’s a big chunk, given that just 4,700 new homes were built in Auckland last year.”

      Auckland population likely to go from 1.50M in 2012 to at least 1.84M in 2025 (latter figure pulled from Auckland Transport Blog). That’s between 26,000 and 27,000 population growth per year.

      As you say, in terms of a solution the math just doesn’t add up. 4,700 new homes a year doesn’t get anywhere close to the numbers required to sustain this growth, not by a long shot (unless of course we end up cramming 4 to 8 people in each new home built).

  10. Olwyn 10
    28 July 2013 at 12:25 pm

    I am not convinced, and my reason for not being convinced is this: whenever David Shearer is on the ropes he feints to the left, which of course shows up the difficulties he faces where he tries to follow Armstrong’s advice and ignore his left wing critics.

    Firstly, there was the leadership road-show. When it had become clear that Cunliffe was the favourite with the members, he jumped into his slipstream, purporting to hold much the same views. Having gained the leadership, he then came out with his roof painter speech, the reception of which forced him to put in an ambivalent appearance at the POAL picket. The first draft of the housing policy emerged at the conference, where he feared that his opponents would outnumber his supporters. The electricity policy emerged in time to trump the Greens releasing theirs, followed by an assurance that there would be no further market interventions. Now, with leadership challenge murmurings going up a notch and static polls, he has been forced to share a stage with John Minto at the GCSB rally, and up the ante on his housing policy.

    I will not be convinced so long as David Shearer continues to come up with piece-meal reactions to challenges, and avoids articulating, maintaining and defending a position that is consistent with Labour Party values.

    • Chooky 10.1
      28 July 2013 at 7:36 pm

      +1

    • Alanz 10.2
      28 July 2013 at 9:54 pm

      Mmm. That’s quite correct.

      Why is it that, since this guy came on the scene a while ago now, and even as recent as in today’s Q&A, it is so difficult to shake off the sense he conveys that he is not quite his own man?

  11. Herodotus (CV Supporter) 11
    28 July 2013 at 12:33 pm

    Also why not allow overseas ownership of property. with 1 stipulation all profits accrued / earned incur tax at the same rate as companies. These properties can be recored as all offshore investment must be registered at the office of either the OIO or at LINZ with the ownership being offshore. To allow efficiency all property to incur a GCT or company tax with property that is resided in by the owner at say 5% and a CGT for other property at the level that Labour propose 15%. So all property transactions are recognized. Also that where Sales and Purchase contracts are assigned all these movements are recorded so that where property is passed on to a 2nd purchaser any assignment fees or markups are also picked up and the tax is collected.- But there are plenty out there that would be able to refine (should these ideas have some merit ) these ramblings. 😉

  12. Blue 12
    28 July 2013 at 12:35 pm

    So far, I don’t like the taste of this one. The whole ‘foreigners stealing our houses’ thing has been given lots of press in recent weeks and this feels like Shearer desperately jumping on the bandwagon at the last minute to try to save himself.

    The numbers are unconvincing. 11,000 houses owned by non-residents out of NZ’s entire housing stock isn’t impressive.

    The real problem isn’t foreigners, it’s Kiwis. Kiwis borrowing up large to spend on multiple investment properties.

    • Colonial Viper 12.1
      28 July 2013 at 12:41 pm

      The numbers are unconvincing. 11,000 houses owned by non-residents out of NZ’s entire housing stock isn’t impressive.

      To be fair, the statement says that there are 11,000 foreign investors who don’t live here. Some will own several houses, not just one.

      • Lanthanide 12.1.1
        28 July 2013 at 1:02 pm

        Yeah, but it’s a crap number that doesn’t sound bad at all. So they should have made sure to find out the number of houses, not just the number of investors.

      • lprent 12.1.2
        28 July 2013 at 1:23 pm

        Having been around a few auctions in the last year for apartments, two out of three have been won by agents hanging on the phone for overseas buyers. By the sound of it, the agents were their property managers for their other properties.

        These are some of the few affordable apartments that fitted Lyn’s budget. Sensibly she is wanting to get into her own property in case we ever break up or I manage to drop dead. Her latest thoughts appear to be ignoring Auckland.

        • Lanthanide 12.1.2.1
          28 July 2013 at 4:19 pm

          “Sensibly she is wanting to get into her own property in case we ever break up or I manage to drop dead”

          In the case of a break up, legally she’s entitled to 50% of your property (including the funds in any bank accounts). You can of course come to other agreements as long as each party is receiving independent legal advice.

          In the case of you dropping dead, she’d have a claim of your assets, even if you had written her out of your will, she could contest it.

          • lprent 12.1.2.1.1
            29 July 2013 at 10:02 pm

            Oh she is my will. However my income doesn’t persist after my death (or breakup). Paying the interest and principal would be a lot harder on just her income. And she is picky…

            However she is also quite independent and not particularly inclined to be traditional. Makes a good match for the rest of the females in my family.

      • ghostwhowalksnz 12.1.3
        28 July 2013 at 2:44 pm

        Plus 95% will be in areas that are most affected by rising prices.

        Not much demand for houses in Southland that are owned by non resident investors

  13. Draco T Bastard 13
    28 July 2013 at 12:48 pm

    Now all they need to do is to realise that foreign ownership of anything in NZ does exactly the same thing to all other sectors as well. I won’t hold my breath though.

  14. Paul 14
    28 July 2013 at 1:04 pm

    “Plan to bar foreign buyers. Real estate industry commentators are questioning whether Labour’s new policy to restrict foreign ownership of houses will work.” NZ Herald.
    The corporate media fights for its owners’ interests.
    “Property commentator Olly Newland said the policy would not work.”
    No critical look at why real estate insiders might have a vested interest in this policy not working.
    This is his own bio on this website.
    http://www.ollynewland.co.nz/about-us/bio-olly-newland/
    “Olly Newland was born in Lower Hutt, grew up in Plimmerton, then Karori, Wellington and, as a teenager, in Auckland, New Zealand.In his books, The Coming Property Boom (1978), The Property Boom (1981), and Lost Property (1994, updated 2001, 2007) he correctly foresaw many of the coming market events. His The Rascal’s Guide to Real Estate (2002) is a real-world handbook for today’s property investor and in his book, The Day the Bubble Bursts this supremely experienced investor and dealmaker alerts investors about a coming market transition and gives advice about how to make the most of opportunities coming. Climbing the Property Ladder recounts some of Olly’s adventures as an investor.

  15. srylands 15
    28 July 2013 at 1:13 pm

    This is stupid policy. The problem in New Zealand is not enough zoned land supply. We need less restrictions on foreign investment. New Zealand has a current account deficit. That needs to be funded through borrowing or capital inflows. If you reduce capital inflows for housing, you will need to INCREASE capital inflows for something else OR increase borrowing OR reduce living standards.

    Aside from the basic economics being totally wrong, the ban on foreigners is easy to get around (just like it is easy to get around in Bali – foreigners can’t own houses there either, but many do – they do so through local nominees. You think that won’t happen here?

    This is just xenophobic populism (Foreigners are stealing our houses) next it will be “foreigners are stealing our jobs”. This is what you expect from NZ First because there is an ignorant underclass that laps it up. But at least in the last 30 years we should expect more from Labour. New Zealand deserves better in an Opposition.

    • Colonial Viper 15.1
      28 July 2013 at 1:20 pm

      Thanks for suggesting all the same style of actions which have been making NZers poorer over 3 decades.

      By the way, the Government is well within its rights to issue the currency of the country that it then taxes.

    • Draco T Bastard 15.2
      28 July 2013 at 1:53 pm

      More myths propagated by a RWNJ.

      The problem in New Zealand is not enough zoned land supply.

      Land supply is limited and no amount of zoning will change that. Also, suburban sprawl costs more than building cities upwards.

      We need less restrictions on foreign investment.

      Actually, we need to ban foreign investment so that NZ’s economy can work for NZers rather than the foreign owners as it does now.

      If you reduce capital inflows for housing, you will need to INCREASE capital inflows for something else OR increase borrowing OR reduce living standards.

      BS, we have no need of foreign money at all.

      Aside from the basic economics being totally wrong, the ban on foreigners is easy to get around (just like it is easy to get around in Bali – foreigners can’t own houses there either, but many do – they do so through local nominees. You think that won’t happen here?

      I’m sure that it will be tried, I’m also sure that laws can be put in place to stop it. One I’d suggest is that if such local nominees exist the house and land will be nationalised without compensation and the local nominee will spend a great deal of time in jail.

      This is just xenophobic populism

      Ah, the usual right-wing meme of xenophobia which they always pull out of their arse when their preferred way of screwing over NZers is threatened.

      Everything you said there was wrong.

      • srylands 15.2.1
        28 July 2013 at 2:01 pm

        “BS, we have no need of foreign money at all.”

        Have you been to North Korea?

        Sorry but your rantings are those of a complete nut job.

        • Colonial Viper 15.2.1.1
          28 July 2013 at 2:04 pm

          make a decent monetary argument please (if you can).

        • Draco T Bastard 15.2.1.2
          28 July 2013 at 2:44 pm

          Have you been to North Korea?

          North Korea’s problems stem from it’s dictatorial system, not it’s monetary system (although that probably has something to do with it as well). As we see increasing dictatorial systems in the Western World (caused by ever increasing accumulation in the hands of the few) we see the same problems happening here.

          Sorry but your rantings are those of a complete nut job.

          You’re not sorry at all so stop lying and as you’re the one who’s provided no argument it’s your rantings that are those of a complete nut job.

        • Murray Olsen 15.2.1.3
          28 July 2013 at 6:42 pm

          I’ve never been to North Korea. Have you?

    • Lloyd 15.3
      30 July 2013 at 12:53 am

      We have a current account deficit which is basically just to pay off the loans we have got from overseas money-lenders and to pay the dividends on shares owned by foreign investors.

      If we didn’t borrow any money for a few years, and nationalised those companies with high foreign ownership, we would have no current account deficit. Simple.

      Any one arguing that we don’t have enough land zoned for housing hasn’t looked closely at what is zoned for housing and then looked at which parts haven’t been developed. My guess is the majority of the undeveloped Residential zoned land is owned by National supporters. If we nationalised all undeveloped Residential zoned land in the Auckland Council area and had it all developed by a government housing department in town-house/terrace housing style, then the whole housing issue would go away (except for those persons who paid top dollar for their house before the market deflated) because the demand for housing was being met by the government on the existing Residential zoned land.

      • Colonial Viper 15.3.1
        30 July 2013 at 1:01 am

        We have a current account deficit which is basically just to pay off the loans we have got from overseas money-lenders and to pay the dividends on shares owned by foreign investors.

        NB 1 a sovereign nation can always pay debts denominated in its unit of currency by issuing additional units of that currency.

        NB 2 have you ever asked yourself how exactly overseas money lenders appear to be able to create NZD to lend to our government, for our government to spend according to its annual budget?

  16. srylands 16
    28 July 2013 at 1:16 pm

    P.S. Australia already has heavy restrictions on non-resident house buying.

    http://www.australianaustralia.com/page/Foreign_Investors_Buying_property_as_a_foreigner_or_Temporary_Resident_in_Australia/178

    Housing affordability in all of Australia’s eastern cities plus Perth is worse than in New Zealand.

    • Colonial Viper 16.1
      28 July 2013 at 1:22 pm

      That’s what you get for letting the banks inflate a massive housing price bubble, then adding government incentives for first home sellers to jack up the price.

      Housing affordability in all of Australia’s eastern cities plus Perth is worse than in New Zealand.

      evidence please

      • srylands 16.1.1
        28 July 2013 at 1:27 pm

        Affordability around the world:

        Housing market, median multiple

        Hong Kong, China, 13.5

        Sydney, Australia, 8.3

        Melbourne, Australia, 7.5

        Auckland, New Zealand, 6.7

        Brisbane and Perth are now slightly better than Auckland, but that is due to a rapid rise in incomes in those centres.

        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10860649

        • Colonial Viper 16.1.1.1
          28 July 2013 at 1:37 pm

          So Labour should suggest taking even tougher action than Australia, because their measures have proven insufficient?

          • srylands 16.1.1.1.1
            28 July 2013 at 1:54 pm

            Like what? Indonesia has a total ban on foreigners buying houses. I know two people with holiday houses in Bali. They do it through local nominee companies.

            Are you going to stop NZ registered companies owned by foreigners buying houses here? How exactly would you administer that? What about locally owned companies but with 49% stake by a foreigner?

            I could go on and on but you get my point – it is (a) stupid policy and (b) impossible to enforce if you try to do it without employing (another) army of public servants.

            • Colonial Viper 16.1.1.1.1.1
              28 July 2013 at 1:58 pm

              Of course policy is possible to enforce. Governments all over the world regulate property purchases every day. You’re just scared of good policy and good enforcement.

              Are you going to stop NZ registered companies owned by foreigners buying houses here? How exactly would you administer that?

              I mean, this is so piss easy its funny. NZ companies owned by foreigners have no reasonable commercial purpose in buying residential zoned housing.

              What about locally owned companies but with 49% stake by a foreigner?

              Same as above.

              (b) impossible to enforce if you try to do it without employing (another) army of public servants.

              We just happen to have an army of unemployed. Sounds like a good solution to a good problem.

              • srylands …
                28 July 2013 at 2:05 pm

                “I mean, this is so piss easy its funny. NZ companies owned by foreigners have no reasonable commercial purpose in buying residential zoned housing.”

                How are you going to figure out the shareholdings of every privately owned foreign company? There are so many ways to circumvent this policy.

                “We just happen to have an army of unemployed. Sounds like a good solution to a good problem.”

                I don’t see many unemployed commercial lawyers. Even if there were, you are thinking this is a good use of taxpayers money?

                • Colonial Viper …
                  28 July 2013 at 2:10 pm

                  There’s plenty of money about in the system mate. And plenty of unemployed who want good jobs. Its a perfect match.

                  PS you’ll need commercial lawyers to supervise the teams, but you won’t need many of them.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  28 July 2013 at 2:17 pm

                  How are you going to figure out the shareholdings of every privately owned foreign company?

                  Privately owned foreign companies have no commercial use for residential property so will not be able to purchase it.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  28 July 2013 at 2:57 pm

                  How are you going to figure out the shareholdings of every privately owned foreign company?

                  The companies register?

                  • srylands …
                    28 July 2013 at 3:15 pm

                    The companies register doesn’t tell you anything about the residency status of a shareholder

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      28 July 2013 at 3:21 pm

                      Well then, we change the law so that it does. Also, there’s IRD who will have to know so that taxes can be applied correctly.

                      You keep going on and on about these things as if they’re impossible but they’re not. They are incredibly easy to put in place and to administer once in place.

                    • srylands …
                      28 July 2013 at 3:34 pm

                      “Well then, we change the law so that it does.”

                      No we can’t do that. CER with Australia prevents it for a start. (I’m not sure about the other bilateral trade agreements – you might want to check) So all a foreigner needs to do is establish an AUSTRALIAN company to so the trust buying in NZ. Problem solved.

                      So I assure you it is not incredibly easier to administer. It would be impracticable.

                      Stupid policy. And impossible to enforce. Perfect storm of left wing xenophobic driven crazy babble.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      28 July 2013 at 3:49 pm

                      No we can’t do that.

                      Yeah, actually, we can. It’s what being sovereign means.

                      CER with Australia prevents it for a start.

                      Then we either renegotiate or drop those agreements. We really shouldn’t be keeping agreements that are detrimental to us.

                      So I assure you it is not incredibly easier to administer. It would be impracticable.

                      So, you’re telling me that all these multi-national corporations can’t administer their business? Yeah, didn’t think so.

                      You assume that something so basic just can’t be done and then mouth off as if that assumption is true when what you’re saying is an absurdity.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      28 July 2013 at 3:51 pm

                      Now you’re improvising silly stuff.

                      Parliament is sovereign mate, repeat after me.

                    • srylands …
                      28 July 2013 at 5:51 pm

                      “CER with Australia prevents it for a start.

                      Then we either renegotiate or drop those agreements. We really shouldn’t be keeping agreements that are detrimental to us.”

                      Dropping CER is a communist wet dream. We are not going to renegotiate CER under any future government.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      28 July 2013 at 5:54 pm

                      You do know that’s not what “communist” means, don’t you? Although I see that you are more than OK with pursuing capitalist “wet dreams”.

                    • Mike S …
                      29 July 2013 at 5:40 pm

                      Blatant plagiarism follows:

                      Privately owned foreign companies have no commercial use for residential property so will not be able to purchase it.

                    • tricledrown …
                      29 July 2013 at 5:47 pm

                      you can’t live in a share register

                • Phil Twyford …
                  28 July 2013 at 4:21 pm

                  Not that hard to administer. Purchaser’s solicitor has to declare at sale that purchaser is a NZ citizen or resident. If company or trust has 25% or more non-resident holding then it gets caught. (Same principle as currently in Overseas Investment Act.)

              • Herodotus …
                28 July 2013 at 2:14 pm

                Let foreign owned companies operate as commented above let them pay tax on all capital gains and enforce how these entities are funded related party finance arrangements eg how the banks were recently done for complexed tax arrangementsfor trusts stipulate who is residing eg benefactor or tenanted all these issues are easily fixed with a clear understanding of what is to be achieved and that there will always be some who find loopholes nothing will be 100% accept this and KISS

            • Murray Olsen 16.1.1.1.1.2
              28 July 2013 at 6:49 pm

              Do any of your friends obey the laws of the countries they live in, sorryhands? I’m starting to rethink my availability for your employment position. Can you assure me that you obey all the industrial and taxation laws relevant to your business? I don’t want to get mixed up in anything dodgy.

  17. tsmithfield 17
    28 July 2013 at 1:18 pm

    Sooo… If foreigners can’t buy houses, they will be renting them instead. This is going to push up the price of rentals, pushing tenants out of the market. Its the unintended consequences that get you every time.

    • Colonial Viper 17.1
      28 July 2013 at 1:23 pm

      These are foreigners who are not living in NZ. Please take a moment to read, ts.

      Its the unintended consequences that get you every time.

      Doing anything has unintended consequences. Not doing anything has unintended consequences. Life’s a bitch like that, right?

      • srylands 17.1.1
        28 July 2013 at 1:29 pm

        Please take a moment to read this:

        Good policy starts with clear objectives and a good problem definition.

        Objective = increase housing affordability (Big tick – I agree)

        Problem definition = the foreigners are taking our houses (Epic fail)

        • Colonial Viper 17.1.1.1
          28 July 2013 at 1:38 pm

          Well there is a bit of that and I’m not going to disagree with you. I have already said that a real plan needs to be much more comprehensive. It also has to deal with increasing the median income, not just reducing house prices.

          • QoT 17.1.1.1.1
            28 July 2013 at 2:34 pm

            And far be it for me to defend David Shearer’s explanations of policy, but he/his media release does explicitly say “this is not the silver bullet … but it is part of the solution.”

            • Colonial Viper 17.1.1.1.1.1
              28 July 2013 at 2:44 pm

              Indeed. However, I wonder what comfortable established middle class voters (and bankers) might think of a truly effective and comprehensive system to limit and cap property market values.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                28 July 2013 at 3:04 pm

                They’d absolutely hate it. Wouldn’t be able to scrounge as much unproductive profit out of housing if that were to happen.

              • QoT …
                28 July 2013 at 7:18 pm

                Probably not much – because it would never be well-reported in the media and the likes of Gower would pick the worst possible aspects to promote, making it look like they were the only things in the policy. Then Farrar would find some catchy rhyming slogan to sum it all up and the press would reprint it accordingly.

                Not that I think this is a reason not to pursue such a policy, I just think we’ve got a very disengaged population, especially among the better-off middle classes, and we don’t have a Labour Party with the strategic/media/communications nous to work the system well.

        • Mike S 17.1.1.2
          29 July 2013 at 5:53 pm

          Labour have stated that it is only a small part of the broader policies aimed at cooling the housing market so your problem definition is a)Not a problem definition for starters and b) even if it was, it would be incorrect, as it is simply one of the many contributing factors that have created the problem, as opposed to the problem itself.

          The problem definition would be something like “Buying a home has become unaffordable for a large percentage of New Zealand residents”

          Regardless, if it contributes to the problem, no matter to what extent, why wouldn’t you address it? What are the negatives for ordinary Kiwis in implementing this policy? I can’t think of any at all for home buyers (Note, I said “home” buyers, not rent seekers.). If it reduces demand even by a fraction then surely that is still a good thing and a step in the right direction?

          I can’t imagine why you would prefer non resident buyers to own houses in New Zealand rather than people living here. Oh, I guess you must be a rent seeker.

    • IrishBill 17.2
      28 July 2013 at 1:33 pm

      It’s a ban on foreign investors – you know foreign nationals who don’t reside in New Zealand. Could you please take the time to explain why corporations and high wealth individuals who are based overseas would want to rent houses here?

    • Draco T Bastard 17.3
      28 July 2013 at 1:58 pm

      If foreigners can’t buy houses, they will be renting them instead.

      Why would they be renting them? They’re not here in NZ.

    • tricledrown 17.4
      29 July 2013 at 5:56 pm

      tsm absentee tenants i’m sure they will rent houses where they never intend to live or take up residency no capital gain their!DOH
      tsm I think you have shot your self in the foot big time it must of been very hard as it was stuck in your big mouth!

  18. McGrath 18
    28 July 2013 at 2:27 pm

    The policy is Unworkable. Too many workarounds

    The simple option is to establish a trust and get the trust to buy the property. Short of requiring all trustees to to be NZ residents, this policy sounds nice on paper but unworkable in practice.

    While is not implicitly mentioned, it has the whiff of being anti-Chinese. Labour is further moving into Winston’s camp with the “yellow peril” policies…

    • srylands 18.1
      28 July 2013 at 2:39 pm

      Yes it would work just like it does in Indonesia – how many Kiwis own holiday homes in Bali despite the “ban” there on foreigners owning houses? I personally know two. (and they are magic places to go for a holiday – the kind of friends you want :-))

      But seriously there is no way to enforce it without breaching our other obligations on the free movement of capital.

      • Colonial Viper 18.1.1
        28 July 2013 at 2:46 pm

        But seriously there is no way to enforce it without breaching our other obligations on the free movement of capital.

        Plenty of countries have limits on foreign ownership of property. Your friends are breaking the law. It’s a shame to risk having your property confiscated by doing so.

        • srylands 18.1.1.1
          28 July 2013 at 3:16 pm

          No I assure you my friends are 100% compliant with Indonesian law.

        • RedLogix 18.1.1.2
          28 July 2013 at 3:17 pm

          Fascinating how the very first, instinctive response of most of these gutless, amoral right-wing types to any new rule is … “how can I scam it?”

          • Draco T Bastard 18.1.1.2.1
            28 July 2013 at 3:24 pm

            Yep. The sociopathy is blatant and yet it’s these types of people who have been directing our law making.

          • srylands 18.1.1.2.2
            28 July 2013 at 3:26 pm

            Thats what happens if you have stupid rules. World over.

            • RedLogix 18.1.1.2.2.1
              28 July 2013 at 3:35 pm

              Of course .. my mistake. If a rule is ‘stupid’ it just doesn’t apply to people like you.

            • Colonial Viper 18.1.1.2.2.2
              28 July 2013 at 3:35 pm

              I think your attitude reflects why rentier capitalists and financial speculators have to be gradually regulated out of existence.

              • McGrath …
                28 July 2013 at 5:44 pm

                Legislation needs to work in the “Real World” regardless of the proposing Political Party. What is the point of policy if it has holes big enough to fly a Jumbo Jet through?

                • Arfamo …
                  28 July 2013 at 5:47 pm

                  Like revenue shortfalls from unaffordable tax cuts? Loss of ongoing income from state asset sales? That sort of thing? The “holes” in this housing policy don’t seem to be very substantial.

                  • McGrath …
                    28 July 2013 at 5:59 pm

                    The holes in this policy are extremely substantial given that they make the policy effectively null and void.

                    The country’s books will be balanced by 2015 if the press is to be believed. Economic confidence is higher, consumer confidence is higher. By-and-large, the current policies are working for most NZ’ers

                    • Arfamo …
                      28 July 2013 at 6:17 pm

                      Maybe I need to read it all from the start again. I haven’t seen a so-called hole in this policy so far on this thread that someone else here hasn’t suggested a solution to. No one is suggesting it solves all NZ’s woes. And by and large the current housing situation is not working for a great many New Zealanders.

                    • Jackal …
                      29 July 2013 at 7:52 pm

                      Yep! With BRANZ finding in 2011 that residential rentals were overpriced by 43% and the OECD finding that 59% of New Zealand houses aren’t being maintained properly plus an ever increasing divide since National gained power between incomes and house prices, perhaps housing should be the main issue leading up to the next election. Personally I’d really like to hear what exactly National will do to fix the problem instead of just trying to create a moral panic about Labour’s solutions.

      • Draco T Bastard 18.1.2
        28 July 2013 at 3:07 pm

        Free-movement of money you mean and it is actually that which is the problem.

      • joe90 18.1.3
        28 July 2013 at 4:14 pm

        Of course you can own property in Bali – where, unless you’re a citizen of Indonesia, you are not able by law to own any property in Indonesia. And then you pay.

        You can of course for a fee use an Indonesian name holder to purchase property but every time you do anything to the property the name holder requires the fee to be paid again.And then you pay.

        And then there’s the quaint practice called a right of use or right of building lease where the holder may erect and possess buildings for a period of time of not more than thirty years.And then you pay.

        Anyhoo, good luck to your friends, they’re going to need it because those palm’s will multiply and every single one will need greasing at regular intervals.

        Oh, did I mention that you’ll need to pay.

      • Phil Twyford 18.1.4
        28 July 2013 at 4:24 pm

        “But seriously there is no way to enforce it without breaching our other obligations on the free movement of capital.”

        That’s just wrong, sorry. There are no treaty obligations in breach here. It is exactly the same policy as Australia has.

      • tricledrown 18.1.5
        29 July 2013 at 6:34 pm

        nothing a bit of bribery can’t fix

    • Draco T Bastard 18.2
      28 July 2013 at 3:06 pm

      Short of requiring all trustees to to be NZ residents,

      Considering that’s how NZ is being used as a tax haven obviously non-residents have to be banned from owning trusts in NZ as well.

      • srylands 18.2.1
        28 July 2013 at 3:23 pm

        I think that might have some unintended consequences.

        What is notable is that in Europe it is the right wing extremists that want to “ban” things and who are xenophobic. In NZ it is the left.

        When I visit other countries that put restrictions on the movement of people can capital it is a pain in the arse. Argentina is a good example. Its policies over the last 70 years have impoverished the country. Those polices have a strong common theme of “blame the foreigners”.

        If NZ goes down this path it just makes it easier for other countries to engage in an arms race of restrictions. We should be encouraging global liberalisation around people and capital movement. So when New Zealanders go and visit and live in other countries they are as free as possible. Most New Zealanders choose to invest, visit, or live in other countries at some stage. We should be setting an example in our domestic policy settings.

        • Colonial Viper 18.2.1.1
          28 July 2013 at 3:30 pm

          Argentina is a good example. Its policies over the last 70 years have impoverished the country. Those polices have a strong common theme of “blame the foreigners”.

          oh fuck off, the insidious activity of US policies and US corporations in South America is what has made the continent poor.

          If NZ goes down this path it just makes it easier for other countries to engage in an arms race of restrictions.

          They already are. We are being left behind.

          It really is amazing how you try and use fear to continue a situation which is hurting so many NZers, and helping out wealthy investors.

          Most New Zealanders choose to invest, visit, or live in other countries at some stage. We should be setting an example in our domestic policy settings.

          And? Other countries are sovereign and we should respect that. Why don’t you respect our own sovereignty?

          • srylands 18.2.1.1.1
            28 July 2013 at 3:37 pm

            “oh fuck off, the insidious activity of US policies and US corporations in South America is what has made the continent poor.”

            I think that says it all 🙂

            • Colonial Viper 18.2.1.1.1.1
              28 July 2013 at 3:40 pm

              And of course, it is the basis of South American antipathy towards US actions re: Edward Snowden and the forced landing of Evo Morales plane flight.

            • tricledrown 18.2.1.1.1.2
              29 July 2013 at 6:39 pm

              srylands wants NZ to be a puppet dictatorship they already have the puppet and the US pull the strings he and his Mignon’s go into spin mode!

              • Arfamo …
                29 July 2013 at 6:42 pm

                (minions, brave attempt though :))

                • North …
                  30 July 2013 at 7:20 am

                  No, “Mignons” adds that extra meaning. The already well off going into a spin when their elevated status seems under threat.

        • Draco T Bastard 18.2.1.2
          28 July 2013 at 3:36 pm

          What is notable is that in Europe it is the right wing extremists that want to “ban” things and who are xenophobic. In NZ it is the left.

          No xenophobia here. As I said to you before, that is just a right-wing lie.

          Its policies over the last 70 years have impoverished the country.

          Yep, they have, it was the same policies that you espouse. They turned things around a bit over the last few years by getting rid of some of those policies.

          Those polices have a strong common theme of “blame the foreigners”.

          Yeah, that’s probably because the foreigners caused the poverty – just like they are in NZ. Of course, it was the policy settings that allowed the foreigners to cause that poverty that was the actual problem.

          We should be encouraging global liberalisation around people and capital movement.

          Nope. It may have worked back when we had only 500m people in the world and all immigration could easily be sustained by all areas easily, it is not practical when we have 7b and climbing and immigration into a country could, and probably would, push it into being unsustainable.

          Most New Zealanders choose to invest, visit, or live in other countries at some stage.

          BS, I think you’ll find that most NZers never even get out of the country.

          • srylands 18.2.1.2.1
            28 July 2013 at 3:39 pm

            Draco T Bastard aka Winston Peters

          • DavidC 18.2.1.2.2
            28 July 2013 at 6:01 pm

            Draco. You seriously think “most” NZers never leave the country? really?

            • Draco T Bastard 18.2.1.2.2.1
              28 July 2013 at 6:29 pm

              Don’t know but I’m sure that The Great Kiwi OE isn’t as prevalent as the upper middle classes think.

              • TheContrarian …
                28 July 2013 at 6:36 pm

                “Don’t know…”

                If you don’t know why did you state so surely that “I think you’ll find that most NZers never even get out of the country.”

                Last I remember hearing 1/5 of New Zealanders lived somewhat permanently overseas and that isn’t taking into account those who travel for pleasure/holidays.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  28 July 2013 at 10:51 pm

                  Did you see the bit where it says “I think”? Here’s the thing, I can find out that about 60% of USians never leave the US with a simple Google search. I cannot find that information at all about NZ but given that the median wage is so low I’m figuring that it isn’t that much different. The majority of people quite simply cannot afford to.

                  Last I remember hearing 1/5 of New Zealanders lived somewhat permanently overseas and that isn’t taking into account those who travel for pleasure/holidays.

                  Yep, but what’s the percentage of people who never leave?

                  • DavidC …
                    29 July 2013 at 10:35 am

                    around 50% of NZers have an overseas holiday in any given year so I think its pretty safe to assume that “most” (like 90% !) NZers do leave the country at some stage huh?

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      29 July 2013 at 12:52 pm

                      [citation needed]

                    • McFlock …
                      29 July 2013 at 1:02 pm

                      I agree that a citation is needed for “50% of NZers have an overseas holiday in any given year”, but according to wikipedia “New Zealand has a passport possession rate of around 75% of the population”, so I reckon the truth is somewhere between you guys – i.e. my guess is most to half of NZers go overseas once in their lives (if only to aus or the pacific islands), but but a large chunk would never use their passports except to get into the pub.

                    • DavidC …
                      29 July 2013 at 9:23 pm

                      mcflock.
                      75% dont quite gel
                      512,000 passports issued in a year and at that stage most passports still lasted 10 years…. and no one under 18 needs a passport so that is 20% 0f the population?

                      I have been trying to think of a single person I know (not a sprog) that hasnt gone at least to Oz to soak up some sun. Cant come up with one.

                    • DavidC …
                      29 July 2013 at 9:31 pm

                      in 2008 1.965 mil people traveled overseas. 45% of them were from Dorkland 😉

                    • McFlock …
                      29 July 2013 at 11:29 pm

                      try putting links in. It would help people know what you are talking about (1.9mil – is that individuals, trips, or NZ individuals that we are interested in? I know a few individuals who take multiple trips each year to Aus or the pacific for work).

                      “512,000 passports issued in a year” – not according to Department of Internal affairs figures for 2012. They say roughly a fifth of that.

                • North …
                  30 July 2013 at 7:23 am

                  Where did you hear that ? I’d be interested to see the detail, the evidence. Apart from the brain/skills/labour loss to Australia.

      • srylands 18.2.2
        28 July 2013 at 3:25 pm

        “Considering that’s how NZ is being used as a tax haven”

        That is a joke – why would you choose to be a tax resident of NZ if you could avoid doing so?

        • Draco T Bastard 18.2.2.2
          28 July 2013 at 3:39 pm

          So as to be honourable and not rip the people of NZ off? Not paying taxes in a country from which you earn an income is theft.

          • srylands 18.2.2.2.1
            28 July 2013 at 3:42 pm

            Um no you are wrong. I earn money in the USA. But I am tax resident in NZ. I pay taxes here.

            Stop making stuff up.

            • Draco T Bastard 18.2.2.2.1.1
              28 July 2013 at 3:55 pm

              I didn’t make anything up. You should be paying taxes in the US because you’re using their infrastructure to make money. The laws may not reflect that but that’s due to poor law making.

              • srylands …
                28 July 2013 at 4:04 pm

                No I should be paying taxes where I am tax resident. Under your logic as NZ businesses expand into export of services (like I am doing) we should lose their tax revenue! Tax treaties simply are not constructed like that.

                Good luck with your lobbying efforts.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  28 July 2013 at 5:28 pm

                  Under your logic as NZ businesses expand into export of services (like I am doing) we should lose their tax revenue!

                  Yep. Please note, the opposite would also apply. Really, I see no reason why anybody should get to use another countries infrastructure without paying for it.

                  Tax treaties simply are not constructed like that.

                  No, they’re created to produce tax havens so that a few rich people don’t have to pay the taxes that everyone else pays.

                • tricledrown …
                  29 July 2013 at 9:27 pm

                  you will be paying some tax some where in the supply line

    • Herodotus 18.3
      28 July 2013 at 3:19 pm

      Beneficiaries or trustees reside in the property? No then commercial activity and tax it. Sure you don’t stop foreign ownership but then they contribute to the tax take. Refer to my comment 12:33above.
      Next problem ?

    • Phil Twyford 18.4
      28 July 2013 at 4:19 pm

      Not so easy. We will look through trusts and companies to beneficial owner of the trust or shares. If 25% or more owned by non-residents then they will be caught. That is the percentage that triggers rules under the Overseas Investment Act currently, and the principle which we have adopted for our policy on rural land sales.

      I completely reject this is anti-Chinese or xenophobic. You do yourself a disservice by suggesting this. More non-resident Brits buy homes here than Chinese do. Do you think this policy is racist against Brits? And since when is it xenophobic to have a policy that puts the interests of NZ and New Zealanders before overseas investors? Is it xenophobic to have a government procurement policy that gives NZ firms the first crack? Is it xenophobic to have an immigration policy that controls flow of immigrants?

      • srylands 18.4.1
        28 July 2013 at 4:21 pm

        “Is it xenophobic to have a government procurement policy that gives NZ firms the first crack?”

        No it is protectionist. Still bad policy.

        • Colonial Viper 18.4.1.1
          28 July 2013 at 4:25 pm

          Why is it bad policy to protect the interests of NZers struggling to purchase their first home?

          • Zaphod Beeblebrox 18.4.1.1.1
            29 July 2013 at 12:38 am

            Do you have any research or evidence to back up the claim that this policy will achieve much of an outcome for those struggling to purchase or is it a gut feeling? I assume Labour has some research to quantify how much his policy costs in compliance and how much it will lower housing costs, although they seem not to have produced anything yet. Or are we to trust our gut feel?i

        • Draco T Bastard 18.4.1.2
          28 July 2013 at 5:35 pm

          No it is protectionist. Still bad policy.

          Not really and no it isn’t.

          It’s not protectionist because the government should take into account all economic effects with their purchases and not just price. And it’s not bad policy because it will benefit NZ. Unlike the policy that you espouse which we’ve tried for the last 3 decades and it’s made us worse off. That’s what all that poverty is that we never used to have and wouldn’t have now if we hadn’t followed the sociopathic policy prescriptions of the Washington Consensus and neo-liberalism.

        • Rosetinted 18.4.1.3
          29 July 2013 at 9:06 pm

          So how does this simple thinking go?

          Is it wrong for police to wear flak jackets?
          Yes, it is protectionist. They must be open to all possibilities from every corner of the world.

          We could also have a larger number of police for the same total cost, if we brought in men from overseas willing to serve here at much cheaper rates. Same with economists. Could be an improvement, mightn’t be worse. But we would be open to all etc………….

        • tricledrown 18.4.1.4
          29 July 2013 at 9:36 pm

          srylands Australian states and govt do it the US does it China Japan the EU Russia are all protecting their economies we are the odd ones out so we are damaging our economy for the sake of being perfectionist financial fanatics !
          Free Markets are a misnomer a fantasy that the right follow blindly without question!

    • Mike S 18.5
      29 July 2013 at 5:59 pm

      You just make it a legal requirement that any purchaser of existing residential property must be resident in New Zealand, including trusts. So a percentage (or all) who have holdings in the trust must be residents or they get pinged. Simple.

      Why is it Chinese?? Please explain.

      ps – Did you notice the fairly relevant terms in my first sentence? “Residential” and “Resident”. Funny that.

      • srylands 18.5.1
        29 July 2013 at 6:35 pm

        How do you deal with Australian companies set up by foreign purchasers who have interests in the NZ Trust? We have no way here to check whether a shareholder in an Australian company is a NZ resident.

        To be clear – Australian citizens and companies are exempt from the policy. So a Chinese buyer sets up an Australian company. The company buys a NZ house through a NZ Trust. Problem solved.

        If Labour looks like winning the election, there will be law firms here marketing sophisticated ways of avoiding the law. Regulators will be like a dog chasing its tail trying to keep up 🙂

  19. Zaphod Beeblebrox 19
    28 July 2013 at 3:25 pm

    Surely restricting who can buy will result in less new construction not more. Same number of people wanting housing, less new investment makes the problem worse.

    • Mike S 19.1
      29 July 2013 at 6:07 pm

      *%#$ !!!

      Restricting who can buy in this case will mean more New Zealanders might have a chance of owning a home rather than having to rent from foreigners in our own country.

      Remember, foreigners will still be able to purchase property and build new homes which adds to the housing stock.

  20. Zaphod Beeblebrox 20
    28 July 2013 at 3:25 pm

    Surely restricting who can buy will result in less new construction not more. Same number of people wanting housing, less new investment makes the problem worse.

    • Colonial Viper 20.1
      28 July 2013 at 3:37 pm

      We encourage property development which has lower yield expectations, is geared towards providing properties for rent not for flipping, and include greatly increased state housing development.

    • RedLogix 20.2
      28 July 2013 at 4:20 pm

      As an investor who has built a portfolio of 8 units from new I can tell you the two simple things that prevent me from building affordable housing:

      1. High interest rates.

      2. Land price bubbles due to overseas investors (and that includes foreign banks) pumping up the local economy with excess credit.

      • Zaphod Beeblebrox 20.2.1
        29 July 2013 at 12:41 am

        Surely low prices are a disincentive to build and high prices an incentive? Or have the laws of economics been turned on heir head?

  21. tsmithfield 21
    28 July 2013 at 4:01 pm

    The take on the policy is here.

    Similar criticisms in that article to those made here:

    1. Australians are the largest non-resident group buying properties in NZ, but they are exempt.
    2. Plenty of work-arounds to get past the law.

    In short, it won’t work.

    • srylands 21.1
      28 July 2013 at 4:06 pm

      Yes and because Australians are exempt it is a simple matter for a chinese resident to buy NZ houses via an Australian company. Good luck with stopping that.

      This policy will never be implemented even if Captain MF wins in 2014.

    • RedLogix 21.2
      28 July 2013 at 4:07 pm

      Australians are the largest non-resident group buying properties in NZ, but they are exempt.

      True, but we could apply the same non-resident taxes that the Australian’s apply to us when we invest in their housing stock. Pretty simply to implement and it would even up the playing field.

      Plenty of work-arounds to get past the law.

      Another sociopath whose first instinct is ..”how can I scam this”.

      • tsmithfield 21.2.1
        28 July 2013 at 4:09 pm

        Just a comment on what happens, and what is shown to happen in other countries.

        • RedLogix 21.2.1.1
          28 July 2013 at 4:15 pm

          No you don’t get to weasel out like that.

          When some poor beneficiary bends the rules or tries to work a dodge you’ve no problem telling us how rotten and unfair this is. And when WINZ and IRD and other govt agencies run sophisticated data-matching schemes to catch them you’re happy to applaud their efforts.

          But when it’s people with money and privilege rorting the system you just tell us “that’s how it is”.

          • tsmithfield 21.2.1.1.1
            28 July 2013 at 4:20 pm

            The “poor beneficiaries” etc are generally being chased because authorities consider them to be acting illegally.

            In contrast, those seeking to work around laws about purchasing properties in NZ would be using legal means to achieve their goals, therefore wouldn’t come to the attention of authorities. If they weren’t acting legally, though, then I would support them being hauled over the coals as well, just as with beneficiaries who collect benefits illegally or whatever.

            I don’t have any partiality in that respect.

            • RedLogix 21.2.1.1.1.1
              28 July 2013 at 4:25 pm

              In contrast, those seeking to work around laws about purchasing properties in NZ would be using legal means to achieve their goals, therefore wouldn’t come to the attention of authorities.

              Once upon a time beneficiaries could get away with ‘working around the law’ because no-one bothered to check up on them too closely and they could fly under the radar.

              If the government wanted to it would be relatively simple to impose the kind of data matching and checking to ensure most if not all overseas owners were sufficiently discouraged from trying to scam the system. You don’t have to make it water-tight, just complex and risky enough to make it not worth the effort.

              This is how IRD works these days. If they deem your scheme to be ‘for the purposes of tax avoidance’ … they will dismantle it regardless of how ‘legal’ it might appear to be.

        • BM 21.2.1.2
          28 July 2013 at 4:19 pm

          Yep, it’s complete shit and will be publicly ripped apart over the next few weeks.

          Labour, once again will be made to look like complete clowns, really what sort of fecking idiot would vote for these ass hats, they’re not fit to run a corner shop dairy let alone a country of 4.5 million, fark.

          • Colonial Viper 21.2.1.2.1
            28 July 2013 at 4:32 pm

            Its a pretty good, although incomplete, policy and one which will be welcomed by many seeking their first home.

            • BM 21.2.1.2.1.1
              28 July 2013 at 5:03 pm

              That’s a pretty big problem then, Labour is going to get torn to shreds.

              Unless Shearer suddenly has had a new brain inserted he’s going to end up looking even more dense than usual as he tries to make policy on the fly and ends up tripping over himself.
              Really desperate stuff from the red camp.

              Also, yeah a couple of first home buyers may think it’s great, but I’d say the other 1.5 million existing home owners won’t be too stoked with Labour fucking with their most valuable asset.
              Gain a 1000 votes here, lose 10,000 vote there, dumb stuff.

              • Colonial Viper …
                28 July 2013 at 5:09 pm

                It’s time to rebalance the economy. There will be some pain involved, but it’s needed.

                • BM …
                  28 July 2013 at 5:28 pm

                  As long as it’s not you or the rest of the politburo, it’s all good then.

                  The only good thing is that the left will never get elected because you’ve isolated and pissed of the vast majority of voters trying to chase that elusive 5%.

                  The big reason why so many businesses fail, they forget about their old customers in the pursuit for new ones.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    28 July 2013 at 5:39 pm

                    As long as it’s not you or the rest of the politburo, it’s all good then.

                    And the “re-balancing” that this government is doing is hurting a hell of a lot of people but that’s alright because they’re not you?

                  • RedLogix …
                    28 July 2013 at 5:49 pm

                    Actually no. Most New Zealanders will see this as a sensible, commonplace and overdue policy change. They can see it is action over the ditch in Australia and can see for themselves that it’s hardly destroyed their housing market.

                    Indeed that very observation reinforces the point that restricting overseas ownership is only one relatively small part of an overall housing policy. It’s real value is that is signals to the electorate that Labour is serious about the problem.

                    After all while there are many kiwis who have benefitted from the housing bubble, they also have kids, family and relatives who have not. And this worries them. I’m in the same boat. While I’ve worked bloody hard and taken real risks to build a small portfolio over the last 13 yrs (from nothing I might add) … my daughter will never own her own home unless I help her somehow.

                    And while I had the pleasure of seeing some of our tenants over the years go on to buying their first home … there are others who precarious life and income situation will forever lock them out.

                    While there is a real and valid market for renting, for the majority of young couples or families it should be only a transitional phase. Increasingly we are seeing them get stuck renting and I don’t like it one bit.

                  • Mike S …
                    29 July 2013 at 6:15 pm

                    Of course the left will get elected, if not next year then in four years time. The percentage of voters who are not able to afford to buy a home of their own is growing rapidly. Add that to the percentage of your existing home owners who actually care about other people and future generations and you’ll have an easy majority if not now then in the near future.

                • srylands …
                  28 July 2013 at 5:55 pm

                  yes exactly

                  • Zaphod Beeblebrox …
                    29 July 2013 at 1:06 am

                    Abbott mentioned limiting NZers rights to work in Oz before the last election. If he is going to make a national emergency about 5k boat people trying to get in,, what do you think he is going to say about 70k kiwis turning up to work restriction free.

          • ghostwhowalksnz 21.2.1.2.2
            28 July 2013 at 6:00 pm

            Did pretty well over the nine years from 2000 to 2008.

            All the while nationals answers was to :
            1) Give away the surplus as tax cuts and borrow like tomorrow just like they did in Greece

            2) use the example of Ireland and become a South Seas version

            3) become a fringe financial centre and suck in all the fast money from around the globe , just like Cyprus

            4) Create oodles of jobs with a nationwide cycle ways

            And when all those run out- just borrow like mad and wait for a recovery to lift all boats

            • Colonial Viper 21.2.1.2.2.1
              28 July 2013 at 6:07 pm

              Don’t be too impressed with 2000 to 2008. Cullen used massive increases in private sector debt in order to reduce public sector debt and help people feel more wealthy.

      • Zaphod Beeblebrox 21.2.2
        28 July 2013 at 5:08 pm

        So why not just ban us from owning NZ property? As an Australian who inadvertently owns N Z property I have no quibble with what NZers want to do with land ownership. Thing is though, rents in Auckland are so high that selling at the moment would lose me a lot of income. I pay tax to both IRD and ATO so the amount of tax paid to NZ ( which isn’t much by the way) is irrelevant in the long run since I get it back via a tax credit. So an really confused as to why non Australians contribute more to speculation than us Australians. Is our money somehow different?

        • Draco T Bastard 21.2.2.1
          28 July 2013 at 6:34 pm

          So why not just ban us from owning NZ property?

          Has to do with existing agreements but I agree – should be banning Australians as well.

          • Colonial Viper 21.2.2.1.1
            28 July 2013 at 6:35 pm

            😈 banning Australians outright? 😀

            • Draco T Bastard 21.2.2.1.1.1
              28 July 2013 at 10:52 pm

              😛

            • Zaphod Beeblebrox 21.2.2.1.1.2
              29 July 2013 at 12:48 am

              Will probably happen, banning NZers welfare in Australia is the first step towards dismantling the TTA and I can see Abbott giving NZers less incentive to move here after he finishes demonising other would be immigrants. As the wage gap between he 2 countries widens so will the call to ditch cooperation.

              • srylands …
                29 July 2013 at 12:51 am

                “banning NZers welfare in Australia’ happened a long time ago – in 2001. It isn’t a first step to anything.

  22. RedLogix 22
    28 July 2013 at 4:04 pm

    The core of the problem here is this.

    For decades New Zealand has been running a current account deficit due to ‘negative investment income’ flows out of the economy. In other words, overseas owners expatriating local profits back into their home countries. This roughly amounts to about 7-9% of GDP every year.

    Now while the cash accounting of these transactions balances to zero, the value balance does not. Every year some 7-9% of the value of our economy is vacuumed out of it …. to benefit other people.

    Of course if this were not counter-balanced in some fashion the value of our money supply would rapidly diminish towards zero. The counter-balancing force has been the four big Australian banks happily and profitably printing money into our housing market. This is what has kept us afloat … real value being sucked out at one end, while imaginary debt money is pumped in at the other.

    Fiscally this is an unstable arrangement because eventually our ability to pay interest on the debt will be tapped out.

    Equally it is a socially unstable arrangement because it has driven a massively unequal distribution of wealth. Those with property have captured most of the ‘pumping up’, while those without have simply missed out.

    • Colonial Viper 22.1
      28 July 2013 at 4:18 pm

      Excellent synopsis of the problem.

    • Ad 22.2
      28 July 2013 at 4:51 pm

      Nice work there Red

    • Zaphod Beeblebrox 22.3
      28 July 2013 at 5:16 pm

      Think you will find same thing happened in Ireland, Spain and Greece but to greater extent. Not sure NZers are ready to do what Argentina did in the early 2000s yet though.

  23. George D 23
    28 July 2013 at 5:13 pm

    Since Shearer’s release is reproduced in full above, I thought it would be useful to post Norman’s response:

    >>>

    The Green Party today welcomed David Shearer’s announcement about restricting overseas buyers access to the New Zealand housing market.

    “We welcome Labour getting on board with another Green Party solution that will make housing more affordable for New Zealanders,” said Green Party Co-leader Dr Russel Norman.

    “This is a sensible measure that will help reduce demand and lower prices meaning more New Zealanders can own their own home.

    “We were very pleased when Labour adopted our policy about a capital gains tax excluding the family home, and likewise we are pleased that Labour have got on board with this policy. This is about making housing affordable for New Zealand families.

    “Housing shouldn’t be a place for speculators it is a place where people live.

    “Many other countries like Australia, Hong Kong and Singapore have similar policies.

    “Restrictions on overseas buyers are a good first step but by itself will not fix the problem.

    “We need a suite of measures both to restrict speculation but also measures to help New Zealand families into their own home.

    “Our Home for Life package delivers meaningful changes that will move more New Zealand families into an affordable home and provide better housing for those who rent,” said Dr Norman.

    >>>

    Personally, I’m glad we’re moving away from the orthodoxy of unrestricted markets, and glad Labour is making moves in this direction. Time will tell if this direction is sustained and goes deeply, or is limited and specific and only addresses certain issues such as housing.

    • Phil Twyford 23.1
      28 July 2013 at 7:31 pm

      George, thanks for the supportive comment and I hate to look a gift horse in the mouth, but I would have thought that using the Crown balance sheet to build 100,000 affordable homes, and legislating to make it mandatory for landlords to provide warm dry homes was pretty good evidence in a housing policy of a committed move away from hands off free market policies. Put that alongside a jobs and modern manufacturing policy that includes rewriting the Reserve Bank Act, a government procurement policy that puts Kiwi firms first, R&D tax credits, a Capital Gains Tax, and raising the top tax rate for >$150K. Add that to a commitment to do away with the Bradford electricity reforms and introduce a single buyer model, a promise not to sell any state assets, and a commitment to strengthening collective bargaining (rather than weakening it as National is doing). I know it won’t satisfy everyone at The Standard but policy-wise that all adds up in my view to a pretty decisive break with the old orthodoxy.

      • Colonial Viper 23.1.1
        28 July 2013 at 7:50 pm

        Hi Phil – only one additional thing: benefits should be returned to survivable levels, so that people can live in some decency until the job creating effects of those other policy initiatives can kick in.

        • srylands 23.1.1.1
          28 July 2013 at 8:17 pm

          Most of those policies are job destroying unless you count more public servants.

          • Colonial Viper 23.1.1.1.1
            28 July 2013 at 8:20 pm

            Of course, you are completely wrong, we’ve followed the neolib prescription for long enough and gotten sicker every year.

            And yes, more public sector employment is crucial to NZs future.

            • srylands 23.1.1.1.1.1
              28 July 2013 at 8:26 pm

              “And yes, more public sector employment is crucial to NZs future.”

              I assume you are taking the piss here?

              • Alanz …
                28 July 2013 at 8:44 pm

                Public servants are better value for money than corporate managers.
                As well, there is greater accountability and transparency with public servants.

              • Colonial Viper …
                28 July 2013 at 9:03 pm

                When the private sector has shown itself unable or unwilling to create jobs, then the government must.

                its very simple.

            • srylands 23.1.1.1.1.2
              28 July 2013 at 8:38 pm

              Well I would back the Treasury over you knowing more about the likely impact of higher marginal tax rates on all positive economic indicators. What happens when the wealth leaves the country as a result? Or are you going to stop people leaving at the border and force them to stay and pay up?

              Most of the commentators here are advocating a “ban” – the favourite word on foreigners owning assets here. Also I have read people openly advocating an end to free capital movements. Well the next logical step is to ban the free movement of people – simply stop New Zealanders leaving with their money. It would not surprise me.
              _________

              “Raising personal income tax, whether by fiscal drag, tax rate changes, or adding a
              payroll tax, is likely to be very inefficient with adverse effects for labour force
              participation and (except for the payroll tax) savings and investment.” The Treasury, January 2013

              http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/longterm/externalpanel/pdfs/ltfep-s3-02.pdf

              • Colonial Viper …
                28 July 2013 at 9:05 pm

                What happens when the wealth leaves the country as a result? Or are you going to stop people leaving at the border and force them to stay and pay up?

                Let it go; more currency can always be issued.

                “Raising personal income tax, whether by fiscal drag, tax rate changes, or adding a
                payroll tax, is likely to be very inefficient with adverse effects for labour force
                participation and (except for the payroll tax) savings and investment.” The Treasury, January 2013

                Unemployment was lower in 2008 while taxes were higher back then.

                So Treasury is proven wrong yet again.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                28 July 2013 at 10:56 pm

                Well I would back the Treasury over you knowing more

                Everything that Treasury knows about the economy is pure delusion.

                What happens when the wealth leaves the country as a result?

                It won’t be the wealth leaving – only the rich pricks. The wealth in the form of our resources and working people will still be here and they’ll be better off.

          • JK 23.1.1.1.2
            28 July 2013 at 8:42 pm

            To Srylands – you are in cuckoo-land. The policies Phil Twyford has just reminded you about are the very policies which will CREATE jobs for New Zealanders – not destroy them as this NAct govt is currently doing.

            • srylands 23.1.1.1.2.1
              28 July 2013 at 8:52 pm

              No they won’t. They will create a giant deadweight cost of taxation, drive the wealthy out of the country and do nothing to solve our core problem of low productivity.

              You will find no serious economist in the world that would look at this package and say “snap” a package for job creation – wow lets have this – gee I’ll recommend this to my client governments – those smart people in NZ have the answers…

              It is total madness. You only think it is normal on this blog because you are surrounded by like minded people that think the answer is “hands on” government and higher taxes.

              • Colonial Viper …
                28 July 2013 at 8:58 pm

                You will find no serious economist in the world

                95% of economists are jokes with false theoretical assumptions who have proven unable to deliver on any of their promises in reality. Ask the Irish, Greeks, Spanish and Portugese what I mean.

                They will create a giant deadweight cost of taxation,

                Nice repetition of Republican metaphors from the 1990’s and 2000’s.

                Of course, you’re being idiotic. Spot quiz: funds which are taxed out of the private sector are then spent by the government sector back…where? Yes, you got it! Back into the private sector!

                You only think it is normal on this blog because you are surrounded by like minded people that think the answer is “hands on” government and higher taxes.

                More ridiculous US right wing memes. Government has a strong role to play in the economy. And only government can create the regulations and fair trading frameworks needed by markets to operate.

              • Colonial Viper …
                28 July 2013 at 9:23 pm

                No they won’t. They will create a giant deadweight cost of taxation, drive the wealthy out of the country and do nothing to solve our core problem of low productivity.

                Still repeating meaningless right wing memes?

                The wealthy can leave the country, its fine, they don’t provide any of the labour which actually adds value to the economy.

                Taxation is extraordinarily useful for creating a fair and equitable society, as well as preventing the hoarding of capital. Now I know you don’t like that but that’s too bad.

                As for low productivity, you’ve gotta be kidding me. Your idea of improving Kiwi productivity is paying them Bangladeshi wages.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                28 July 2013 at 11:00 pm

                You will find no serious economist in the world that would look at this package and say “snap” a package for job creation

                The average run of the mill economist wouldn’t know what an economy was if they tripped over one – which they do, quite often.

                The economists are wrong – period. The theory that they propagate isn’t an economic theory but an enrich the few theory.

          • tricledrown 23.1.1.1.3
            29 July 2013 at 9:46 pm

            Srylands it has cost this govt $200 million to save $20 on public servants.Civil servants cost a lot less than the droves of consultants national replace them with!
            National party hacks and when they don’t agree with Nationals policy they get pushed aside
            like Don Brash who at least had the guts to publish his findings on housing affordability!
            Had brash continued his research would have shown up this govts policy settings right across the board1

      • Saarbo 23.1.2
        28 July 2013 at 8:22 pm

        Thanks Phil Twyford, what a good summary of Labour policy….you guys need to more of this on Blogs, cause NZ Herald and Fairfax aren’t going to help you out. More please!

        • Saarbo 23.1.2.1
          28 July 2013 at 10:00 pm

          Phil, Just pondering on this, in my view (and I have stated this often on TS), Labour has good policy, but it has 2 major problems 1) Shearer is absolutely hopeless, simply not up to it…I’m sure you know this and 2) Some of your older caucus members who were responsible for putting Shearer in as Leader need to move on, and I’m sure you know who these people are also.

      • George D 23.1.3
        28 July 2013 at 11:15 pm

        Thanks Phil. Of the housing policy, I’m convinced; that certainly wasn’t a jibe at your portfolio. I’d only add that the Green’s financing package, which essentially leverages people into their own dwellings, is an excellent addition to these otherwise entirely compatible visions.

        It’s the limited interference of the 5th Labour Government in other market failures which my comment refers to, and I express a hope that you as a caucus have moved on. There’s reason to believe so, and occasionally reason not to (ambivalence rather than opposition to the TPPA, for example).

      • Mike S 23.1.4
        29 July 2013 at 6:26 pm

        Phil. A really helpful policy that should have been done from the creation of Kiwibank is that Kiwibank should exist not to make a profit but to benefit Kiwis. Kiwibank should only cover it’s costs by way of fees and nothing more. It should make use of the fractional reserve banking system to provide very low or even no interest loans to first home buyers. Because the bank is creating “money” out of thin air by way of bank credit, inflation is irrelevant from the banks perspective.

        The “profit” generated would be in a form other than cash profit, such as first home buyers spending more into the economy instead of paying interest, or using the extra cash to expand their small business, etc,etc,etc.

  24. TheContrarian 24
    28 July 2013 at 6:37 pm

    I think this policy is good to be honest. It strikes me as odd the someone should hold on to property here without actually residing in the country and if Chine, UK et al. have similar policies then it makes sense to align our policies.

  25. Brett Dale 25
    28 July 2013 at 8:16 pm

    Yet another racist policy by labour.

    • Colonial Viper 25.1
      28 July 2013 at 8:18 pm

      Yet another complete miss by Brett Dale.

      • Arfamo 25.2.1
        28 July 2013 at 8:38 pm

        As expected. The blatant misrepresentation & muckraking has started already.

        • srylands 25.2.1.1
          28 July 2013 at 8:39 pm

          Oh boo hoo – what did you expect given such a mad policy?

          • Arfamo 25.2.1.1.1
            28 July 2013 at 8:43 pm

            I expected what you’ve linked to, given any policy Labour announces. It’s not a mad policy, that’s why the lying and crying from the right is ramping up already.

            • srylands 25.2.1.1.1.1
              28 July 2013 at 8:46 pm

              It is not lying and crying. It is mockery. More seriously, as a professional economist, it saddens me that this is what passes for mainstream public policy in NZ. The people deserve a lot better.

              • Arfamo …
                28 July 2013 at 8:49 pm

                It’s lying and crying. Mockery is what you get when you post here. It saddens me that you are a professional economist. I think you owe the country an apology for that. It just means you have an opinion other economists will disagree with.

              • McFlock …
                28 July 2013 at 9:03 pm

                You’re a professional economist?

                Narrows down what your imaginary job might be. Just another shill continuing the con that brought us the global financial crisis, among other ills.

              • Colonial Viper …
                28 July 2013 at 9:08 pm

                If you’re a serious economist, you have no concept of money or debt. So please go away.

                • Arfamo …
                  28 July 2013 at 9:09 pm

                  He’s not a serious economist. Look at his comments. He’s a piss poor comedian.

              • Mike S …
                29 July 2013 at 8:02 pm

                “as a professional economist”

                😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 !!!!!

                fool.

              • North …
                30 July 2013 at 7:37 am

                Professional economist, wow !

                As we all know that does not exclude hubristic shill.

      • Saarbo 25.2.2
        28 July 2013 at 8:49 pm

        This policy has certainly brought out the RWNJ’s….interesting.

        • srylands 25.2.2.1
          28 July 2013 at 8:58 pm

          This policy has certainly brought out the LWICLs….interesting.

          • Saarbo 25.2.2.1.1
            28 July 2013 at 9:14 pm

            srylands, are you aware that annual GDP growth is on average nearly a full 1% higher under Labour governments than National governments. Imagine what NZ’s GDP would be if we only ever had Labour governments….we would probably be a very wealthy little nation.

    • TheContrarian 25.3
      28 July 2013 at 9:26 pm

      In what way is it racist, Brett?

      • Brett Dale 25.3.1
        28 July 2013 at 10:06 pm

        Its trying to appeal to the anti asian crowd in the labour party.

        This is the type of policy that if nzfirst mentioned it, people here would
        be up in arms.

        • TheContrarian 25.3.1.1
          28 July 2013 at 10:13 pm

          Well, not really when you consider the nations involved actually have the same policies where NZ is involved. It brings our policies into line with theirs.

          If NZ was doing this while other countries were not you might have something. But not as it stands.

          • srylands 25.3.1.1.1
            28 July 2013 at 10:34 pm

            So you give a high priority to “Policy Alignment”. So you are happy to align NZ’s economic policies with those of Australia?

            Back to the start – if we had enough houses we shouldn’t care who buys them. It is a SUPPLY problem, especially a land supply problem – one created by government, esp. local.

            If you want to look at the solutions to housing affordability I suggest you read this. Funny it doesn’t say the problem lies with the evil foreigners!

            http://www.productivity.govt.nz/inquiry-content/1509?stage=4

            The Commission has found that taxation was not a key driver of the recent housing boom.

            “We carefully considered the claims that housing is tax advantaged, but concluded that any advantage is much smaller than often suggested” said Mr Sherwin.

            Containment policies such as ‘Smart Growth’ and Auckland’s Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL) were also found by the Commission to have an adverse effect on housing affordability by limiting the availability of land for housing.

            “Pressure on land prices needs to be reduced and the Commission has recommended that there be an immediate release of new land for residential development in high demand areas such as Auckland and Christchurch”.

            • TheContrarian 25.3.1.1.1.1
              28 July 2013 at 10:43 pm

              Who said anything about evil foreigners?

              Do you consider China, UK, South Africa etc racist towards NZer’s for not allowing us to purchase their land as overseas, non-resident investors?

            • McFlock 25.3.1.1.1.2
              28 July 2013 at 10:53 pm

              Um – if we have insufficient supply in a product, then surely reducing demand (by limiting overseas ownership) will at least partially go some way to counteracting the inflated prices? According to standard economics, of course. I mean it’s all bullshit, but you could at least apply that bullshit consistently.

            • Poission 25.3.1.1.1.3
              29 July 2013 at 9:34 am

              Containment policies such as ‘Smart Growth’ and Auckland’s Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL) were also found by the Commission to have an adverse effect on housing affordability by limiting the availability of land for housing.

              it also states that migrations is the most significant driver of AK house prices both in the past and the now,but you seemed to have overlooked that part.

            • Poission 25.3.1.1.1.4
              29 July 2013 at 9:38 am

              It is a SUPPLY problem, especially a land supply problem

              There is no supply problem in NZ ,it is a distribution problem,there is ample existing infrastructure such as hospitals schools services in the heartland (where things used to be made) as opposed to the consumption economy of AK.

              • Colonial Viper …
                29 July 2013 at 10:24 am

                Having 35% of the country’s population packed on 0.22% of the country’s land is never going to work very well.

            • Bearded Git 25.3.1.1.1.5
              29 July 2013 at 9:57 am

              It’s not a land supply problem-that’s a complete myth.

        • Arfamo 25.3.1.2
          28 July 2013 at 10:42 pm

          Its trying to appeal to the anti asian crowd in the labour party.

          Firstly, there wouldn’t be any point in targeting it at “anti asian” people in the Labour party. Labour party people are already going to vote Labour. Secondly, it has been made clear – very clear – it is aimed at foreign house buyers, the majority of whom are not asian.

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 25.3.1.3
          29 July 2013 at 8:18 pm

          Brett Dale, the largest share of non-resident owned property is owned by who again? Not the Chinese is it? So why are you bringing them up?

          I think you’re the racist. You’re certainly stupid enough.

    • Draco T Bastard 25.4
      28 July 2013 at 11:04 pm

      That is just a right wing smear and you know it. This policy has got nothing to do with racism Brett.

  26. Jenny 26
    28 July 2013 at 11:02 pm

    Not a single mention of state housing.

    There would have been a time when no New Zealand Labour leader would ever expound on the topic of housing without mentioning this jewel in the crown of state provision of housing, founded and championed by the Labour Party.

    It is a simple fact that $300,000 “affordable houses” are way beyond the reach of the majority of working class New Zealanders. Meaning that they will either have to rent in the public or private sector or live on the streets. With the running down of state housing stock through privatisation and evictions, in the future most of those who need homes will have to rent in the unregulated private sector. Unlike most countries, (even the US has rent control), New Zealand does not have rent control law and bylaws. Mainly because the private rental sector had to stay competitive with state housing, and so there was no need for rent control.

    With the continual shrinking of the state housing stock and the disappearance of this bottom line, this glaring omission will need to be redressed.

    Again this issue wasn’t raised.

    This housing policy does nothing for me. I would have to give it a fail.

    • jcuknz 26.1
      29 July 2013 at 8:59 am

      BUT … didn’t he promise 10,000 houses a year for the following ten years? Judging from what I saw in my younger days if we had more state housing with rents at a reasonable proportion of people’s income then most would enjoy a much better standard of life and living.

      My personal solution was to build my own house which meant that I never had a very large mortgage … in fact the largest mortgage was when I used my house as security for money to pay for an extended oversea’s trip. I was not in the building industry I will add.

      Even today the cost would be a fraction of buying an existing house. I never owed more than 5T. Perhaps 80T in today’s market.

      • bad12 26.1.1
        29 July 2013 at 10:12 am

        Yes that used to be Labour party policy, intent, and, action, there’s heaps of us ‘State House kids all’ even Slippery the Prime Minister enjoyed the protection of a State house,

        Neo-solutions have Labour firmly fixated upon the children of the middle class being able to BUY a house and the blue collar workers, the Mene Mene’s of this world trapped, Him, Wife, and 3 kids all crammed into 1 room in a boarding house,

        There are Mene Mene’s by the 10’s of thousands out there, trapped paying 50%+ of their income to rent anything, even 1 room, the ‘Flagship’ from Labour looks to them like a sinking one…

  27. Phil Twyford 27
    28 July 2013 at 11:05 pm

    Jenny, the reason David didnt talk about state housing today is that he was announcing a different housing policy. It might have got a little confusing if he had. As housing spokesperson I am constantly talking about state housing and social housing. Google if you doubt it. We are developing policy on making renting a better option, the future of state housing, and expanding social housing provision in the community sector, and will announce those policies before the election.

    • Mary 27.1
      28 July 2013 at 11:58 pm

      “We are developing policy on making renting a better option, the future of state housing, and expanding social housing provision in the community sector” sounds like ACT Party policy: forcing people out of home ownership and into renting, selling off state houses and pushing responsibility for social housing on to the voluntary sector.

      • Arfamo 27.1.1
        29 July 2013 at 12:09 am

        Hmmm. Yeah. I must admit my hackles were rising a bit when I read that and pondered on its fuzziness and the jargon. Would like a slightly more layperson’s description of what that actually means, really.

        • mac1 27.1.1.1
          29 July 2013 at 12:40 am

          Arfamo- Twyford invited us to google him at 27 above. Here’s what I found- nine plus pages of press releases on housing, seemingly readable . http://www.labour.org.nz/portfolios/housing?page=1

          • Arfamo 27.1.1.1.1
            29 July 2013 at 1:11 am

            Cheers. Still a bit vague though. Wooo – just had a 4.7 shake in Welly. Seddon again. Felt that one.

            Edit: Geonet taken it up to 5.4.

            • mac1 27.1.1.1.1.1
              29 July 2013 at 1:17 am

              Felt that one too over the Strait from you! Plus a 2.2 just after.

              • lprent …
                29 July 2013 at 1:23 am

                Damn. Looks like lots of aftershocks. I suspect you’re going to have a shaky time tonight as that same fault area as the last series looks like it is repeating.

                Ok – think me heartless. But don’t drop into the pit overnight because I’m heading to bed…

                • Arfamo …
                  29 July 2013 at 1:28 am

                  Heartless bastard. Geonet’s raised the 2.2 to 3, Mac1. I thought it was a brief wind gust, house just creaked.

                  Actually, there’s quite a bit of detail in Shearer’s speech in those links. Thanks for that mate.

      • bad12 27.1.2
        29 July 2013 at 10:02 am

        Actually i seen this weird looking bloke announcing the very same stuff about State housing on my TV a few weeks back,

        The name of the weird looking bloke, Nick Smith and his party??? National…

    • Jenny 27.2
      29 July 2013 at 12:00 am

      Thank you Phil. Love your work. Have put favourable comments around my networks.

      Cheers Jenny

    • just saying 27.3
      29 July 2013 at 12:08 am

      …expanding social housing provision in the community sector,…

      Who and why exactly?

      Sounds like outsourcing essential services to me.

    • bad12 27.4
      29 July 2013 at 9:51 am

      Firstly a big ups to Phil Twyford for engaging with us here at the Standard, and for quite a large chunk of his day at that,(careful Phill you might get hooked, debating here can become quite addictive),

      i will try and make this comment as brief as possible, but doubt that mission will have any great success,

      What you have so far said gives the impression, vis a vis State Housing, that you will continue what National are in essence doing with the State housing stock, in a word Tinker, is there or has there been a Need an overt calling from the ‘Social Housing sector’ to gain more of the State Housing stock which they would then control,

      Tinkering with the States housing stock might give Labour and those Social agencies a flush of the warm touchy feelies but how does this increase the woeful numbers of state rentals,

      For a population of 3.3 million souls we had a State housing stock of some 75,000 thousand, for the current population of 4.4 million it is what???, 67,000 and falling????,

      IF Phill, you or anyone else is suggesting that the % of the 4.4 million population that NEEDS State housing is any less than the % of the 3.3 million population that did then probably the conversation should stop right here,

      i would suggest to you that the % of the current 4.4 million population that NEEDS state housing is the same if not more, considering the stagnation of pay rates in the past 30 years for low income workers, as the % of the previous 3.3 million population that had State housing,

      To simplify the numbers, for a population of 3.3 million there were 75,000 state houses, for a population of 4.4 million a mere 67,000 and falling state houses,

      Those numbers alone Phill, would scream at anyone that the current NEED for state housing is in the vicinity of 100,000 State houses….

      • just saying 27.4.1
        29 July 2013 at 10:01 am

        +1
        I’d really appreciate Phil answering these questions.

        • Olwyn 27.4.1.1
          29 July 2013 at 10:11 am

          So would I. The concept of “social housing” as a sort of add-on to some unstated conception of “proper, real-people’s-housing” also rings alarm bells with me, especially in a place with very low wages in relation to costs.

          • bad12 27.4.1.1.1
            29 July 2013 at 11:01 am

            Olwyn, yes, what you say ‘seems’ to be the underlying theme of today’s view of State Housing, ooooh the poor peoples houses in other words,

            i was born into a State House, as were my 4 brothers and sisters, of the 5 of us, 2 a brother and a sister openly and vocally abhor ‘State Houses’ looking down upon them and preferring to either rent or own,

            This ‘seems’ to also be the prevailing political view of the moment and has been for quite some time,

            Quite bluntly, and rudely i might add, is f**k such a view, those with middle class incomes and aspirations who with previous help in many cases from the State have found the comfort of the middle class, and that movement into the middle class has been one of previous blue collar employees, wharfies, nurses, teachers etc,

            Having said that, the ‘blue collar’ has not shrunk in numbers and it is this blue collar in the main that is ‘trapped’, simply having a job these days mostly disqualifies them from access to State Housing,(HousingNZ will simply show them the private sector rental ads if they apply),

            In Auckland in particular, but not specifically, it is the middle class that have piled into ‘rentals’ as an investment’ and the ‘shrinking’ of the HousingNZ stock means that demand for such ‘rentals’ will remain, (shoehorning the children of that middle class onto the ‘ownership ladder’ will simply result in 5 years time those that have been being able to turn their growing equity into a 2nd house as a ‘rental’),

            The political party’s in the main concentrate their efforts on producing policy that pleases that middle class, Labour appear to have formed the opinion that to build 10,000 extra State rentals in Auckland, to be particular, would not please the middle class who with their addiction to the property ladder would struggle to keep their rentals tenanted if the ‘blue collar’ had access to State rentals at 25% of income as the rent,

            That is my perception, garnered from what i have heard and seen so far, i would love to be proved wrong, but that could only happen when the political party’s provide the housing solutions to those MOST IN NEED, and i don’t see that solution to be shoehorning the children of the middle class into home ownership…

        • Mary 27.4.1.2
          29 July 2013 at 5:47 pm

          A lot of people would appreciate Labour answering a lot of questions about a number of social policies it purports to have, some we’ve heard absolutely nothing on for a number of years now. I guess their silence has worked because people have given up asking.

      • Mary 27.4.2
        29 July 2013 at 10:38 am

        “…but doubt that mission will have any great success.”

        That’s the trouble with Labour. Take its welfare policy, for example. Try getting Labour to talk about that. It won’t, and has not since it was questioned over its neo-liberal reforms of 2007. That’s almost two terms ago. Twyford’s ambiguity is alarmingly familiar.

      • Phil Twyford 27.4.3
        29 July 2013 at 8:48 pm

        bad 12, just saying, Olwyn, Mary et al

        On state housing:

        1. Labour believes it is the fundamental responsibility of the state to provide a decent roof over the heads of our most disadvantaged citizens, and to ensure everyone else can get there on their own. We believe Housing NZ, as a government owned and run social housing agency providing income-related rental housing is a vital part of that.

        2.Labour will announce policy on state housing before the election. I am on record that we will increase the housing stock. Currently Housing NZ houses 4-5% of the population. If we want it to be a safety net for people who struggle to get decent housing in the private rental market then in my view 5% is too low.

        3. Labour will rebuild and revitalise Housing NZ. Under National the organisation has been run down. Its restructuring has been a fiasco: 24 offices closed, 121 full time staff laid off, and tenancy officers replaced with an 0800 number. Tenants wait for weeks and months to get basic maintenance done. Rent arrears are up. National redefined the eligibility criteria slashing waiting lists at the stroke of a pen. The number of vacant houses has soared while thousands of people who would previously have been eligible for a state house have been forced into overcrowded and substandard accommodation in the private rental market. Housing NZ has botched three redevelopment projects (Glen Innes North, Maraenui and Pomare) dividing communities and treating their tenants with contempt.

        4. Labour wants to see a bigger role for the community housing NGOs. They do a great job, they are innovative, they are motivated by a social conscience – we want to see them working in a partnership with Housing NZ and will go into the election with a plan to achieve just that. Unfortunately National’s neoliberal approach is to strip Housing NZ of its functions, hand over its stock to the NGOs and leave the remains of Housing NZ to compete with the NGOs as just another tenancy manager.

        5. There are a number of other things we must do to ease the hardship caused by a perfect storm of market failure and poor regulation:

        * Labour will legislate our Healthy Homes Guarantee, amending the Residential Tenancies Act to make it compulsory for landlords to ensure their properties are warm and dry, meeting minimum standards for insulation and efficient heating.

        * We need to fix the the housing market :
        – solving the supply problem by building 100,000 affordable starter homes (Kiwibuild)
        – taking the heat out of the market by taxing the speculators through a Capital Gains Tax, and restricting overseas speculators
        – tackling the various cost drivers that make new homes so expensive (poor productivity and lack of scale in the building industry, land supply problems in Auckland, lack of competition in the supply of building materials, prohibitive cost of preparing raw land for development, planning rules that impede good development).
        These things will go a long way to fixing the market failure that has the worst impacts on the poor.

        * Currently about a third of the population are in the private rental market. We need to make renting a better option and can learn from plenty of overseas countries. More security of tenure would be a good start.

        * Central government needs to be much more hands-on in enabling urban renewal. I intend that we will use urban development agencies to undertake large-scale projects building and revitalising mixed-income, mixed-tenure and mixed-use communities around public transport infrastructure. These will provide the settings for much of the state, social and affordable housing we want to build.

        • weka 27.4.3.1
          29 July 2013 at 9:25 pm

          This would make a good guest post.

        • Mary 27.4.3.2
          29 July 2013 at 9:42 pm

          “Labour wants to see a bigger role for the community housing NGOs. They do a great job, they are innovative, they are motivated by a social conscience – we want to see them working in a partnership with Housing NZ and will go into the election with a plan to achieve just that.”

          I’m assuming here that you mean you’ll be investing more into NGOs being able to provide housing to specific groups such as disabled people, women’s refuge etc i.e. the relatively rare but important situations where the community sector is in fact better equipped to deliver the service?

          “We need to make renting a better option and can learn from plenty of overseas countries.”

          I’d like to think that you really meant to say: “For those renting, at any given point in time, and when it’s the most appropriate option, issues such as housing standards, affordability, security of tenure and tenants’ rights need to be lifted to adequate standards.”

        • Draco T Bastard 27.4.3.3
          29 July 2013 at 9:43 pm

          4. Labour wants to see a bigger role for the community housing NGOs.

          And thus adding complexity and cost.

          land supply problems in Auckland,

          There are no land supply issues in Auckland. What there are is lack of will by the council and interference by central government that prevents intensification.

          prohibitive cost of preparing raw land for development

          That’s a physical cost and thus noting that can be done about it through regulation. R&D into better machinery may help.

          planning rules that impede good development

          That would more likely be poor regulation that allows poor development.

          More security of tenure would be a good start.

          Total government ownership of the rental “market” with life time leases. Get rid of the rentiers.

        • Olwyn 27.4.3.4
          29 July 2013 at 11:42 pm

          Thanks for the reply Phil. I see what look like some good ideas in there, most particularly those which involve increasing the stock of state houses and security of tenure for renters. I am still not sure as to how broadly affordable the affordable housing will prove to be, or what the role of NGO’s will be in this mix, though I assume by your criticisms that it will differ from what it has become under National.

          • bad12 27.4.3.4.1
            30 July 2013 at 1:51 am

            Thanks for the reply Phill, (Owlyn i tacked this on as a reply so it sits in the queue in line with the time it was written),

            Phill, this conversation has been going around for quite a few ‘posts’ and quite some time now, and, in this post i have been saying to you much the same as i said to Labour’s previous spokesperson who gave much the same if a more guarded response as you have,

            Don’t take that as a criticism as i thank both you and Annette for taking the time to actually engage here at the Standard,

            What i would like to add is this, there has been a major change in the demographic of tenants who can gain a HousingNZ tenancy, i think you will agree with me that the beneficiary class,(and yes class is an ugly word to use, but class is what Neo-Liberalism has divided us, again, into), is now the predominant tenant of HousingNZ,

            Having said that, HousingNZ is housing those who it was originally supposed to, ie: those most in need,

            However, in my parents time, yes State house tenants, when the unwritten social contract had us all striving as a nation for full employment the majority of State House tenants were the low waged blue collar workforce,

            That low waged blue collar workforce, who can never really hope to own a home are still out there but now forced to rent in the private sector, their NEED i would suggest is as great now as was the need back in the days when my parents first gained the luxury of paying 25% of their low income to the State for rental of a State house,

            i would suggest to you that the numbers of State Houses needed by the beneficiary class of tenant is about right and it is in fact the low waged blue collar working families which are in just as much need as those same low waged blue collar workers were in my parents time,

            This NEED felt more in the same cities as the affordability issues around buying a home simply leaves that demographic locked out of affordable rental housing and locked into paying 50+% of their income to the private sector as rent,

            IF Labour has any intention to rebuild the HousingNZ portfolio to any extent where the numbers reflect the reality of the real NEED in our society,and i have commented upon that in my other comment so wont get into repetition, then i would ask Labour to consider a gradual shift in emphasis which bases allocation of State Housing as (A), those most in need and a beneficiary, and (B), those most in need and a low waged working family,

            That is probably a curved ball in terms of thinking thrown your way from way out in left field, but IF Labour intends to rebuild it’s HousingNZ stock by any substantial amount then a gradual mixing of both the (A) and the (B) categories from above would in the time of such a rebuild which reflected the ‘real need’ of affordable rental housing, see HousingNZ be put in a position of being able to offer a home to a beneficiary as they do now based upon need, AND, offer the next available home to a low income working family based upon the fact that they are the lowest income working family in the application file,

            Lolz, in answer to your comment above i could go on all night, but better bring this ‘comment’ to a close befor it becomes a book, stick around tho Phill, perhaps offer up to the Standard the different bits of your comment above as ‘Guest Posts’ there’s way to much detail there to be considered in the one post,

            i would befor i close tho, after having watched the end of a Campbell Live show tonight suggest you add SAFE to your healthy homes legislation,(could swear that bloke Campbell is some sort of Socialist, set the damn GCSB onto him that’s what i say),

            Disclaimer, lolz, i am not a low waged blue collar worker with a family…

            • bad12 27.4.3.4.1.1
              30 July 2013 at 3:45 pm

              As a brief add on to my previous comment, i listened to the economist Rob Oram today on RadioNZ National, (He has a regular 11 o’clock slot on a Tuesday),

              His critique of Labour’s move to ban foreign speculators from purchasing existing property was favorable in terms of the economics discussed,

              Rob refuses to discuss economics in terms of politics even going so far as to castigate the nine to Noon host when she has attempted to lead Him on,

              Rob also spoke well about the issue of ‘affordable housing’ pointing to a study,(sorry i forgot the authors), which in a nutshell says this:

              ”Going back 30 years we find that at that time 30% of housing built was dedicated to housing the demographic earning the lowest 30% of income”,

              Today we find that house building dedicated to the demographic earning the lowest 30% of income is PRACTICALLY ZERO”,

              Now while that isnt a direct quote from the housing study Rob Oram was quoting from it is the gist of what He said while Rob says it in terms of ‘studied economics’ i say it in terms of people, we are in fact saying exactly the same things from the perspective of our different world views,

              Big UP’s to Rob for his clear and concise economics and always providing the justification for the views He puts forward…

  28. Rosetinted 28
    28 July 2013 at 11:31 pm

    srylands is an economist? Well, perhaps they are downsizing in his silo? So he’s got all this spare time to dally with the proles. Try spending more time in your veg garden, according to what we hear that will be a useful practical hands on type of activity that will be more healthy for you than that spent in your own virtual world.

    • srylands 28.1
      28 July 2013 at 11:40 pm

      “Try spending more time in your veg garden, according to what we hear that will be a useful practical hands on type of activity.”

      That reminds me eerily of Pol Pot.

      • Colonial Viper 28.1.1
        28 July 2013 at 11:44 pm

        You should have gone with the Chairman Mao example of the Great Leap Forwards.

      • Rosetinted 28.1.2
        29 July 2013 at 10:38 am

        srylands
        You realise that Pol Pot’s government took charge of people’s lives, decided they were of no value intrinsically, ordered them out of their homes, forced them to move where they wanted them to work, broke up families, used violence and death and armed government organisatios against them, denied democratic government and rights – all things that have happened in recent times in NZ and continue to expand and grow.

        The torture chambers were an example of ‘Absolute power corrupts absolutely’ mixed with fundamentalist ideology. You might check where your beliefs are taking you and whether you assess yourself as having respect for all people, and goodwill and desire to be kind where you can and not harsh and callous where you don’t feel kindness is deserved. Because that approach is what a relatively harmonious and happy world grows from.

  29. vto 29
    29 July 2013 at 8:29 am

    hmmmph, missed all the commentary above. Imhumbleo this is great news. Foreign buyers make up something between 5 and 10% of the market and that is significant. This will have a positive effect. It is one of the problems with our high housing costs. There are others too so if each of the problems is dealt with then eventually the problem should, hopefully, get resolved.

    Wouldn’t it be grand if houses were around $150-200,000. You know, about 3 times the average wage.

    Imagine what we could do with the extra money….
    Instead of paying it to banks……
    We could use it for our lives instead…….

    And then later watch when this phenomenon catches up in the corporate world and those conservative types in there (who are always followers) realise that if similar policies were enacted there then prices for their farms, their factories, their yards would all come down too and they too would have lots more extra moola in their pockets.

    Great move Labour.

    Foreign landlords are only negative.

  30. jcuknz 30
    29 July 2013 at 8:48 am

    Of course it is zenophobic … just like the controls the other nations are establishing … but two or more wrongs do not make a right.
    The trouble is the pre-occupation of Kiwis in owning their quarter acre section and house … incipient capitalists at heart. The bankers are laughing all the way to the bank at the profits they make from mortgages.

    • vto 30.1
      29 July 2013 at 8:51 am

      Of course it’s not xenophobia.

      It is a form of community strengthening – rather a different beast, egg.

      • jcuknz 30.1.1
        29 July 2013 at 4:17 pm

        VTO with this and subsequent postings illustrates that he is of the foolish Labour supporter type that holds back Labour from the treasury benches. Vacant from the neck upwards?, unlikely, but full of ideological nonsense and bitterness.

        As for trickledrown you may be correct but you ignore the stable families of the original state houses who worked hard and had a good life, much better than I at that time, with cars etc while I just managed to get an old motorbike. That was before so many solo parents came on the scene to give welfare a bad name …. but from my experience of boarding an unemployed person for a short period I know it is an unfortunate ‘game’ of each party trying to beat the other or ‘do them down’. I struck the different beaurocratic mentality’s when I shifted from Auckland to Dunedin. … Auckland worked hard to provide me with what the rule book suggested was my due, which Wellington cut back on, while subsequently I found Dunedin acted as if it was their money they were handing out.

    • tricledrown 30.2
      29 July 2013 at 10:42 am

      j whatever owning our own property is a family strengthening base !
      that gives families a stable community in which to bring up mentally stable and physically healthy children, children who go to the same school and not change schools don’t change doctors,
      do better educationally and health wise home ownership brings that stability!
      The only reason the banks are laughing is because speculators are making it easy for them to make more money in a relatively unproductive sector.
      Cynicism is your tool to undermine a good policy!
      The English Chinese and other foreign speculators don’t let us buy any property so why should we let huge powerful economies with vast amounts of money ruin the Kiwi Dream !
      The speculative bludgers who add nothing to our economy except debt(debt to individuals who have to raise a higher mortgage because of speculation govt debt because many of these speculator don’t pay tax therefore bill English has to borrow more damage to economic growth by reducing the amount of money that would flow into the productive sector) are up in arms and will stop at nothing to undermine this policy!
      It makes me spew the amount of tax my wife and I pay in tax every year while these speculators drive round in flash cars use all the infrastructure ie roads hospitals police schools university etc and many are multi millionaires just big bullying bludgers you lot are!
      Its good to see the Pope and head of the church of England speak out about this selfish individualistic greed culture that is destroying community!
      The Archbishop of Canterbury said their are few people rip off the welfare system but their as just as many wealthy people ripping the system off the poor get the book thrown at them the wealthy get off when the finger is pointed at you!

  31. King Kong 31
    29 July 2013 at 9:16 am

    I find it hard to dislike this policy.

    Like Labour, I also hate the Chinese and don’t believe that the policy will have the slightest effect on house prices, so my capital gains are safe.

    Now all we need is a “corner dairies for Kiwis not Nargs” policy and I think there are a lot of NZ First supporters who would seriously think about voting for Labour.

    • mac1 31.1
      29 July 2013 at 11:02 am

      A great slogan, KK, but what the fuck is a ‘Narg’? Please enlighten me so that I may know the full extent of your pathology.

      • Lanthanide 31.1.1
        29 July 2013 at 1:22 pm

        North American Rock Garden Society, apparently.

        • mac1 31.1.1.1
          29 July 2013 at 4:22 pm

          “It’s also a town in Iran.

          A geek.

          A toy.

          A homophobic term.

          An irritating person.

          A swear word.

          A curt dismissal.”

          According to Urban dictionary.

          Hmmmmmm, do some of these apply to KK? Is it in effect an electronic Freudian slip? Are we being told more than we want to know? Does KK ever go back over his comments? Take a bough, big man!

      • jcuknz 31.1.2
        29 July 2013 at 3:58 pm

        Very good Lanthanide. Personally I find the Chinese very nice people and happy to have them running my local dairy and chip shop ….they also serve chinese which is a refreshing change from the plain old F&C.

        • Colonial Viper 31.1.2.1
          29 July 2013 at 4:07 pm

          I like Chinese, they only come up to your knees, yet they’re wise and they’re witty and they’re ready to please

          • King Kong 31.1.2.1.1
            29 July 2013 at 4:46 pm

            Don’t get me wrong.

            I like Chinese food.
            The waiters never are rude.
            Think of the many things they’ve done to impress.
            There’s Maoism, Taoism, I Ching, and Chess.

    • bad12 31.2
      29 July 2013 at 12:33 pm

      You should take your racist drivel elsewhere, dare i suggest if you ‘hate’ the Chinese so badly you find a country free of these people to inhabit,a sub-Antartic Island would probably best suit you…

  32. Wayne (a different one) 32
    29 July 2013 at 9:48 am

    This is great Policy from Labour.

    I think they should extend it further – you know go the “whole hog”.

    For example; lets ban all immigrants from buying electricity – that will help Labours worries around the price of electricity for all “NEW ZEALANDERS”.

    Oh, and while we are at it, lets ban the sale of NZ produce to foreigners – that will bring down the food bill for all “NEW ZEALANDERS”.

    Why dont we just shut up shop – and say “get stuffed” to the rest of the world and, go climb under a rock with the “Greens”.

    Bring it on Labour “the party for the people” – yeah right!

    • vto 32.1
      29 July 2013 at 9:53 am

      Oh you mean like how this far right government goes the whole hog with its welfare mentality, handing out gigantic great dollops of welfare to greedy business people who can’t make a fist of it on their own?

      John Key – biggest welfare provider ever in the history of NZ. Looking forward to drug testing for business people in receipt of handouts.

      • srylands 32.1.1
        29 July 2013 at 10:03 am

        I assume you are taking the piss? This is not even a right wing government. New Zealanders would never support a “far right” government. Do you even know what they look like? Do you get out much? A “far right” government would not be polling close to 50% in New Zealand.

        On business transfers, New Zealand has the lowest levels of net transfers to business of any country in the OECD. You must be in a time warp.

        You are living in a damaging fantasy land.

        • vto 32.1.1.1
          29 July 2013 at 10:12 am

          You’re a fool rylands. How much voter support did h1tler gain during his rise? What d you think those germans thought at the time? They would have posted just like you. Fool.

          What I laugh at is how this far right government extols the virtues of free market forces and then instantly abandons them (Ecan, Chch rebuild, diary irrigation for just 3 examples) to hand out handouts.

          Fucking corporarte bludgers. Piss off and earn your living.

          • srylands 32.1.1.1.1
            29 July 2013 at 10:15 am

            So you are saying (seriously) that the policies of the New Zealand Government are analogous to the Nazi Party in the 1930s, and, just like then, nearly 50% of the New Zealand electorate has been seduced by a mad person? 🙂

            • vto 32.1.1.1.1.1
              29 July 2013 at 10:19 am

              Idiot

              Re-read. The people thought like you is what I said. Nothing else.

              • srylands …
                29 July 2013 at 10:24 am

                ” The people thought like you is what I said.”

                What on earth does that mean?

                • vto …
                  29 July 2013 at 10:32 am

                  ffs. It means that the good german people who overwhelmingly supported that mad man would similarly have laughed at any suggestion their government was a far right one, or at least heading very strongly in that direction.

          • srylands 32.1.1.1.2
            29 July 2013 at 10:16 am

            I suggest you piss off and use some data to form your judgements.

            • vto 32.1.1.1.2.1
              29 July 2013 at 10:20 am

              Stop being a bludger

            • Mike S 32.1.1.1.2.2
              29 July 2013 at 8:25 pm

              Speaking of which, do you have a source that backs up your statement about business transfers in NZ being the lowest in the OECD?

              Would be interesting to see what forms of rent seeking are and are not included in your source data. I bet anything you like there’s a whole heap of rent seeking activities that have been excluded.

          • srylands 32.1.1.1.3
            29 July 2013 at 10:23 am

            OK VTO – here is the data on agriculture transfers. Still think NZ is the bastion of “corporate welfare” ? You should get out more.

            http://www.economist.com/node/21563323

            • Colonial Viper 32.1.1.1.3.1
              29 July 2013 at 10:26 am

              Its time to take the welfare away from the corporates before they get addicted to it.

              • burt …
                29 July 2013 at 10:31 am

                Right… only corporates get addicted to it …. Not individuals… 35% support for Labour tells us probably 35% of individuals are also addicted to it….

            • vto 32.1.1.1.3.2
              29 July 2013 at 10:30 am

              Who said anything about corporate and farmer bludgers in other countries? Not me. You should learn to read properly.

              $2.5billion gone into corporate bludgers in Canterbury alone during the term of this government.

              I’ll say it again – stop bludging. Stand on your own two feet like grown men. Wussies, holding onto nanny’s hand…

        • tricledrown 32.1.1.2
          29 July 2013 at 10:47 am

          srylands facts and figures please!
          We are one of the only countries in the OECD that doesn;t have land taxes or CGT!
          Maybe the govt would be able to afford to spend some money on developing our economy instead of letting lazy unproductive speculators stifle our economy to Quote Don Brash your free market super hero!

          • jcuknz 32.1.1.2.1
            29 July 2013 at 4:32 pm

            How do you distinguish between the “unproductive speculators” and the people who work hard and deprive themselves of instant gratification as they buy a second or third house to provide a bit of extra for their retirement?

            A Capital Gains Tax might shift the emphasise from house owning to the share market but house owning appears the safer place to put one’s nestegg. So though it wouldn’t bother me ;personally I don’t think the CGT as as good an idea as at first it seems.

            House owning is the golden dream of the kiwi but by the time you add up all the interest you pay on the money the bank lends you it doesn’t compare that favourably with renting. The way I did it became a multiple plus that I paid quite little to the bank, I had income to spend on a quite good life for my family [ whikle others were crippled by the high interest rates during the ’70 Labour Government], and at the end it sold for a good price after providing me with low cost housing for thirty years. The crux of renting is having a good landlord and sadly there are not that many around.

            • Mike S 32.1.1.2.1.1
              29 July 2013 at 8:38 pm

              “the money the bank lends you”

              😀

              In order to lend something, don’t you actually have to have the thing that you’re lending first?

              For example. If you want to borrow a hammer off me and I don’t have a hammer then I can’t lend it to you can I?

              If you give me a cheque to buy you a hammer and I take the cheque to the hardware store and use it to buy your hammer for you, are you borrowing the hammer from me? Did you borrow the cheque from me?

    • tricledrown 32.2
      29 July 2013 at 11:18 am

      wayne telling porkies the overseas investors can’t use that electricity unless they have a very long electrical cord!
      Another lie is this is not targeting immigrants you naive idiot its targeting absentee investors this policy would benefit immigrant making property cheaper for people living and working in NZ .
      You are supporting those who are pushing up house prices and taking money out of the country without any added benefit other than to other NZders who speculate and pa y no tax!

  33. tricledrown 33
    29 July 2013 at 10:04 am

    KK peanuts for diet peanuts for brains
    overseas investors by your implications don’t match the facts
    read carefully peanut brain!
    largest overseas speculators in no 1 position are the English who make up the largest number!
    Australia no 2 property speculators!
    Followed bt the Chinese at no 3!
    you are incapable of being honest just like john Key!
    As for your idea that it will not effect your tax free capital gains if it is not going to affect you why all the worry !
    it will effect you thats why you are telling so many lies ,trying to spread cynicism to undermine a good and popular policy!
    Remember that bastion of the free market Don Brash.
    Rodney hide set up the productivity commission chaired by Brash the only ruling they made in their very thorough investigation was that housing affordability was the biggest hurdle for economic growth in NZ but referring mainly to Auckland!
    Key canned the funding of the commission because so many National supporters are non tax paying property speculators free loading bludgers like your self primitive primate you and your racist implications are as pathetic as your pathetic name!

  34. erikter 34
    29 July 2013 at 10:11 am

    This is Green not Labour Party policy! Who convinced Shearer to adopt it?
    It will never work and will only be used to attack him. very foolish.

    [lprent: Santi is now on a permanent ban for violating his ban. ]

    • Arfamo 34.1
      29 July 2013 at 10:30 am

      Just did a search for your previous comment history. Why don’t you just crawl back under the bridge you live under?

    • BM 34.2
      29 July 2013 at 10:30 am

      The guy with his arm up his arse

      Russ the Oystralian Norman.

    • srylands 34.3
      29 July 2013 at 10:31 am

      The policy will have a very tiny impact on house prices because at the margin it will deter some buyers. But it does not past any cost benefit test. The cost of running it will be high and it will be open to widespread avoidance.

      There will also be unintended consequences. Short term residents on work visas will now need to rent rather than buy. But they still need to live in a house, and they still need to pay for it. Someone needs to own it and they are still displacing a New Zealander.

      The problem is not enough houses being built, and not enough land is being released. There is no shortage of land. I can see lots of it outside my window right now. There are cows on it. Ditch the cows and build houses.

      • Poission 34.3.1
        29 July 2013 at 10:38 am

        The cows pay for the ability to borrow funds to build the house.

      • vto 34.3.2
        29 July 2013 at 10:40 am

        Subtract between 5 and 10% of buyers from a market and see what happens. Sheesh.

        Do you even work in a market?

        • DavidC 34.3.2.1
          29 July 2013 at 11:06 am

          Your statement is 100% fact free.

          Where do your mythical 5 to 10 percent of buyers live if they dont buy?

          That is right…they live in rentals that have been purchased explicitly for the purpose of housing rich soon to be NZers.

          Or they just rort the new “law” via any one of a hundred possible ways.

          • vto 34.3.2.1.1
            29 July 2013 at 11:11 am

            Your statement is 100% brain free.

            “Where do your mythical 5 to 10 percent of buyers live if they dont buy?” They are foreigners i.e. they don’t live here at all. Keep up.

            “Or they just rort the new “law” via any one of a hundred possible ways.” Sure, there are always scammers and bludgers and criminals when it comes to any law. The vast bulk of people tend to comply with the law. But I can see how you come to that view given that this far right government breaks our laws at will and with no consequence. Your argument isn’t one.

            • DavidC 34.3.2.1.1.1
              29 July 2013 at 11:40 am

              Ok just for you since you seem to be more than a little slow on the issue…

              These mythical “speculators” that are buying up all the houses …… who is living in the house that they buy? There isnt as far as I know 10% of NZ housing stock sitting empty somewhere is there? maybe there is and I just missed 100,000 or so vacant houses scattered around the place?

              You really are astroturfing up a storm over this silly policy arent you?

              • Arfamo …
                29 July 2013 at 11:44 am

                How on earth do you reach the conclusion anyone’s saying speculators are only buying up empty houses? What are you smoking?

                • DavidC …
                  29 July 2013 at 11:50 am

                  I didnt.

                  VTO seems to think if you take one class of investor out of the market then there will be less demand.
                  People still need to live somewhere.
                  Unless these mythical evil speculators are buying and holding empty houses there will be no change in housing demand as other investors will buy up the housing stock to satisfy the demand for tennants.
                  Rents will probably climb as less investors control more housing so less competition but that isnt my problem.

                  • vto …
                    29 July 2013 at 11:53 am

                    “VTO seems to think if you take one class of investor out of the market then there will be less demand”

                    less buyers equals less demand.

                    the rental market is a different thing. if you think about it.

                    • DavidC …
                      29 July 2013 at 12:06 pm

                      the rental market is a different thing?
                      OMFG yes of course I should have known.

                    • vto …
                      29 July 2013 at 12:07 pm

                      yes but you clearly dont

                    • DavidC …
                      29 July 2013 at 12:12 pm

                      Any answer to a simple question?

                      Where will the tennants live?

                      Or your just happy to have a vapid and vacuous viewpont just to push the Standards comment count up a little?

                    • vto …
                      29 July 2013 at 12:22 pm

                      In the same houses.

                      Which are now worth less.

                      And which an investor may be prepared to accept a lower return on i.e. less rent

                      lower values and lower rent

                      kapiche?

                    • felix …
                      29 July 2013 at 12:29 pm

                      Oh, he kaphiches alright.

                      That’s why he’s so worried.

                    • DavidC …
                      29 July 2013 at 12:32 pm

                      IN THE SAME HOUSES!

                      amazing.

                      So there is no change in housing availability and you have entrenched the power of a few Landlords to raise rents as they have less competition, actually you have ensured that rents will rise as the remaining pool of Landlords have only more expensive funding sources so they must depend higher cash returns.

                      Good work!

                      Now explain.

                      Where are the extra houses for people to buy?

                    • vto …
                      29 July 2013 at 12:36 pm

                      Oh deary me, it has all gone right over your head.

                      Answer your own question fool …. when the next bust comes along in the property market in the next several months and values have crashed where will all the people live?

                      ffs

                    • DavidC …
                      29 July 2013 at 12:48 pm

                      VTO, vapid, vacuous, viewpoint.

                    • vto …
                      29 July 2013 at 1:06 pm

                      Answer the question DavidC. I indulged your same question so now return the favour…

                      Where will all the tenants live when less investors buy the rental houses in the next bust?

                      You should easily be able to answer it – it is the same question as yours.

                      Will they live under bridges again?

                    • DavidC …
                      29 July 2013 at 1:12 pm

                      VTO. They live in the same houses paying greater rent.
                      Wait till banks increase mortgage rates, rents will skyrocket.

                      Now back to the basics.

                      Where are all the extra houses comming from?

                    • vto …
                      29 July 2013 at 2:24 pm

                      oh they live in the same houses.

                      not under bridges then

                  • Mike S …
                    29 July 2013 at 9:02 pm

                    Ummmm

                    Less buyers = less demand = lower prices.

                    If you have 100 buyers and reduce this to 90 buyers then demand is decreased. Not sure how you get from less buyers to same demand????

                    It doesn’t matter that supply is still less than demand, demand has still decreased.

                    So cutting foreign investors who do not live here or intend to live here means you are decreasing demand regardless of by how much.

                    Then add on the fact that the foreigner can still buy land and build a new house on it and you are not only decreasing demand but you are also potentially increasing supply.

                    Can’t see any negatives in that for home buyers.

              • vto …
                29 July 2013 at 11:49 am

                Measured stats aint mythical.

                And your entire point is barmy. It doesn’t make any sense. Why would there be 10% of houses sitting empty? Under any scenario

                • DavidC …
                  29 July 2013 at 11:54 am

                  I know its barmy and yet that is the only way your argument works.

                  If the evil Chinese speculator is buying to rent the house to a family then that family will just rent the same house of a different Landlord if your evil Chinese speculator isnt in the market.

                  Same house, same price, higher rents, less landlords, no more affordable houses.

                  Fail Mr Shearer.

                  Again.

                  • vto …
                    29 July 2013 at 12:05 pm

                    “If the evil [foreign] speculator is buying to rent the house to a family then that family will just rent the same house of a different Landlord if your evil [foreign] speculator isnt in the market.”

                    duh. This is about the value of housing to buy, it is not about rent. Did you not realise? You should read more closely

                    • DavidC …
                      29 July 2013 at 12:18 pm

                      Where will the tennants live?

                    • felix …
                      29 July 2013 at 12:27 pm

                      In the same house.

                      But now that house won’t have been be bought and sold so many times and for so much profit by so many speculators, thus over time lowering the overhead (relative to the counterfactual) and therefore the market rent.

                    • DavidC …
                      29 July 2013 at 12:34 pm

                      Felix.
                      What?
                      Rental investors dont sell houses. That triggers tax. Tax is bad.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      29 July 2013 at 12:38 pm

                      Tax keeps the money train rolling around. Tax is good. If you are being taxed a lot, it is because you are making a shit load of money. Good, right?

                  • tricledrown …
                    29 July 2013 at 12:41 pm

                    David Cynic your racist rant is full of holes get your facts right!
                    No one not even shearer has said which ethnicity!
                    Less investors means less speculation!

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    29 July 2013 at 1:48 pm

                    Same house, same price, higher rents, less landlords, no more affordable houses.

                    Wrong. The problem is that the foreign investors push up the price because they have more money to bid with. Take that extra money out and the price drops.

                    • DavidC …
                      29 July 2013 at 7:01 pm

                      Wrong.

                      Demand is unchanged. Tennants still need house.

                      If anything prices rise because average cost of capital has gone up.

                    • tricledrown …
                      29 July 2013 at 7:06 pm

                      DC as said many times before more owners = less tennants

                    • McFlock …
                      29 July 2013 at 7:14 pm

                      But the increase in the cost of capital would still result in a house price lower than the prices we see with overseas absentee owners in the market.

                      Otherwise the absentee overseas owners wouldn’t be outbidding people now.

                      And that’s without the reserve banks flexing its automatic muscles regarding the price of capital.

                      Think about it this way: currently the highest bidder for property X is an overseas investor offering $400k through an agent. If the investor is out of the picture, residential purchasers might have to drop their offer from $395k to $390k because higher interest lowers the sticker price they can pay by $5k. But they’re still the highest bidder. The sticker price drops because the previously highest bidders are no longer in the market, and people are still working on the same budget (“what I have” + “what I can borrow and repay”).

                  • Mike S …
                    29 July 2013 at 9:05 pm

                    Fail David C you mean don’t you.

                    Potentially, the family you mention will be able to buy the house instead of renting as less buyers = lower prices.

                    Your argument doesn’t work full stop.

                    • Mike S …
                      29 July 2013 at 9:17 pm

                      Hehehehe 😀

                      On planet David C – Less buyers means demand unchanged 😀 😀 😀

                      On planet David C – Less buyers means prices go up 😀 😀 😀

                      Give up Dave.

          • tricledrown 34.3.2.1.2
            29 July 2013 at 11:37 am

            from 2’500 out 25’000 houses sold in Auckland every year is 10%
            No wonder you lazy bludging speculators are running scared!

      • Arfamo 34.3.3
        29 July 2013 at 10:48 am

        How many short term residents on work visas are there now who’re buying houses rather than renting?

      • richard 34.3.4
        29 July 2013 at 10:52 am

        Without you providing supporting data to support your assertions, I can only conclude that you are talking utter nonsense.

        The policy will have a very tiny impact on house prices because at the margin it will deter some buyers. But it does not past any cost benefit test. The cost of running it will be high and it will be open to widespread avoidance.

        Where’s your supporting data?

        There will also be unintended consequences. Short term residents on work visas will now need to rent rather than buy. But they still need to live in a house, and they still need to pay for it. Someone needs to own it and they are still displacing a New Zealander.

        This doesn’t make any kind of sense.

        The problem is not enough houses being built, and not enough land is being released. There is no shortage of land. I can see lots of it outside my window right now. There are cows on it. Ditch the cows and build houses.

        Try reading a geography 101 book, or even a high school geography book. In any of these you will find that human settlements occur on the most productive land.

        • srylands 34.3.4.1
          29 July 2013 at 10:57 am

          “Try reading a geography 101 book,”

          Try reading this:

          http://www.productivity.govt.nz/inquiry-content/1509?stage=4

          • srylands 34.3.4.1.1
            29 July 2013 at 11:01 am

            “An immediate release of land for residential development would ease supply constraints and reduce the pressure on prices. This could be achieved by bringing significant tracts of new residential land on the urban fringe (greenfield) and urban land that could be redeveloped for housing (brownfield) land to the market.”

            Funny there is nothing in there about foreign speculators being the problem. Huh.

            But I guess David Shearer knows more about the housing market than these guys.

            http://www.productivity.govt.nz/sites/default/files/Cut%20To%20The%20Chase%20Housing%20-%20Final%20Report%20Single%20Pages_0.pdf

            • tricledrown 34.3.4.1.1.1
              29 July 2013 at 11:06 am

              the cost of green field development is exponentially higher than developing existing areas with existing infrastructure facts right!
              Why should we allow massive economies swamp our housing market when they don’t allow us the reciprocal rights

              • srylands …
                29 July 2013 at 11:17 am

                “The cost of green field development is exponentially higher than developing existing areas with existing infrastructure facts right! (sic)”

                So why are houses expensive? If green fields developments carry external costs you charge for them. The market can determine where people want to live.

                “Why should we allow massive economies swamp our housing market when they don’t allow us the reciprocal rights”

                They are not.

                Anyway reciprical rights is debunked – we don’t follow that line in our trade policy. Do you think we should “recipricate” by having huge subsidies for dairy because the USA and EU do? Do you really want to “recipricate” all the policies of other countries, no matter how dumb?

                How about we “recipricate” USA corn subsidies? It would be just as stupid as recipricating stupid house ownership policies.

                • tricledrown …
                  29 July 2013 at 11:30 am

                  srylands Explain that to Don Brash at the productivity Commission!
                  A tradeble commodity is different from a place where kiwi families and workers have live idiot Don Brash’s research at the productivity commission was dismissed by your great liar sorry leader because the National party rely heavily on funding and propaganda from the speculators and the super profitable banks that lend money to these speculators!
                  Don Brash got the sack as the productivity Commission was disbanded because of this!

                  • srylands …
                    29 July 2013 at 7:05 pm

                    The Productivity Commission has not been disbanded. And Don Brash never had any connection with it.

                    What are you on about?

                  • Mike S …
                    29 July 2013 at 9:25 pm

                    That’s one of the main problems with economics and economists (If Sryland is one). There is no room in the market economic model for social relations or responsibility. People and their welfare are not deemed important other than they are producers and consumers. Take any of the free market model calculations or measures and you’ll see none of them have the welfare or stableness of society as part of the equation. The family and their ability to survive are not considered as relevant in terms of inputs into calculations.

                    The productivity commission is made up mainly of economists (I think)

                    ’nuff said.

                • vto …
                  29 July 2013 at 11:35 am

                  “So why are houses expensive?”

                  Cartels in the building sector e.g. cement
                  GST
                  Council development contributions.
                  Foreign buyers.
                  Land supply at times.
                  Lumping all community costs with new subdivisions onto the first owners rather than spreading it across generations.
                  Greed and speculation.
                  Banks making shitloads from their printed money pushing more and more into the market.
                  Increasing regulation e.g. replacing ladders with scaffold has just now added another $4k to a new house.
                  Lack of taxation on all forms of money-making i.e. CGT.

                  … the reasons are multiple and the response needs to be multiple

                  wake up fulla

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  29 July 2013 at 1:57 pm

                  If green fields developments carry external costs you charge for them. The market can determine where people want to live.

                  The developers are already complaining about how much the councils charge for consents. What do you think will happen when they not only go up in price but that the price is also variable in relation to how far away from the CBD?

                  • DavidC …
                    29 July 2013 at 9:08 pm

                    Already happens. Been that way for many years. DC’s are based on zones. its just a cost. Its passed on to end user. Big deal. Yawn. Try some facts before typing next time.

          • richard 34.3.4.1.2
            29 July 2013 at 11:04 am

            Written by the guy who cut New Zealand’s biosecurity staff numbers when he was in charge of MAF and assured us that it wouldn’t affect NZ’s ability to prevent biosecurity disasters.

            • srylands 34.3.4.1.2.1
              29 July 2013 at 11:28 am

              So you know what the “right” number of biosecurity staff is?

              • richard …
                29 July 2013 at 11:38 am

                mmm let me see

                2009 – Federated Farmers has come out in support of Progressive Party leader Jim Anderton’s slating of MAF’s decision to slash border control staff.
                Source: http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/feds-slate-maf-dumping-biosecurity-staff-105063

                2010 – Psa was first detected in New Zealand in the Bay of Plenty (Te Puke) in November 2010.
                Source: http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/pests/kiwifruit-vine-disease

                Even the most ardent neo-liberal apologist might see some connection between the two events

              • tricledrown …
                29 July 2013 at 11:51 am

                Srylands more rather than less several very expensive incursions have happened after national cut funding and staff numbers!
                ie painted apple moth came into the country after national cuts of the 1990’s cost to us tax payers $450 million directly plus ongoing health care for those who suffered health consequences!
                More recently kiwifruit under National cuts were made of a few million dollars and 29 staff, loss to the economy of over $1 billion and ongoing!
                minister of agriculture on finding out immediately reinstated funding and staff Funny that!

  35. Wayne (a different one) 35
    29 July 2013 at 11:27 am

    “man ban” now “chan ban” – god forbid what’s next Labour?

    A policy dreamed up on the hoof clearly, with no facts, nor any evidence whatsover that it will impact the value of our housing stock. Which it won’t

    Unbelievably dumb arse politics – which will ulimately bite Shearer and Labour in the backside, big time.

    • vto 35.1
      29 July 2013 at 11:30 am

      Do you understand the law of supply and demand and their effects on pricing?

      Do you know how many buyers will be excluded by this?

      Can you do simple maths?

      • DavidC 35.1.1
        29 July 2013 at 11:44 am

        Please do explain about supply and demand.

        The demand side is unchanged because you are not (yet) advocating sending the Chinese back to China so are you increasing supply?

        Please do explain.

        • vto 35.1.1.1
          29 July 2013 at 11:51 am

          Sheesh mate, your post here is about as loopy as the one just further up.

          This is about foreign buyers not people who live here.

          It seems like a brain-free day in Rightwing World today

          • DavidC 35.1.1.1.1
            29 July 2013 at 11:55 am

            So where will the tennants live? under bridges?

            • tricledrown 35.1.1.1.1.1
              29 July 2013 at 12:30 pm

              David the Cynic I suppose they could form the tennents and trolls party!
              Renters will be able to own their house rather than renting! DOH

        • tricledrown 35.1.1.2
          29 July 2013 at 11:57 am

          david the cyniscist you are lying NZ residents and citizens what ever their nationality are not affected in any way other than their house values will go up as fast!
          absentee investors will be !
          Poms make up the largest numbers of absentee speculators!
          so why haven’t you acused us of pome bashing you are the RACIST by implication!

          • DavidC 35.1.1.2.1
            29 July 2013 at 12:03 pm

            Well LP/Greens didnt have much to say when they allowed 100,000’s of Ha of land to be sold to overseas intrests in the early 2000’s but when Crafar farms came up on the block to be sold to the evil Chinese then yes the racist screams came from both those parties. I dont see this as any different.
            Shearer must have found it difficult to talk on RedRadio with that dogwhistle jammed so firmly in his mouth.

            Nice the way you dont mention the Ozzies who are excluded from this daft policy btw.

            • tricledrown 35.1.1.2.1.1
              29 July 2013 at 12:43 pm

              David the Cynical the Ozzies allow us to buy their land and houses other countries don’t!

            • richard 35.1.1.2.1.2
              29 July 2013 at 12:54 pm

              but when Crafar farms came up on the block to be sold to the evil Chinese then yes the racist screams came from both those parties.

              WRONG!

              The reason the Crafar sale caused such a stir was that it was one of the only land sales to foreigners which got any publicity before the OIO rubberstamped it’s sale. So for the first time New Zealanders’ had a chance to say that “we don’t want our land to be owned by foreigners”. In nearly every other instance of land sales to foreigners we find out the OIO has rubberstamped the deal, the sale has been done and we can go suck a kumara if we are upset about it.

              The issue of the prospective buyers being Chinese was a convenient red herring to divert people from the real issue at stake. (Given New Zealand’s appalling treatment of Chinese people and the guilt we should all feel about it, the red herring proved very effective)

              • Draco T Bastard …
                29 July 2013 at 2:04 pm

                +1

              • DavidC …
                29 July 2013 at 6:55 pm

                So you are saying that the LP and the Gweens did not red flag the other sales, literally 100,000’s of Ha of land, that was sold to overseas while the LP was in office because they did not know it was happening?

                So when Harvard that purchased 170,000 Ha’s that was widley reported in the media here and in USA the ruling LP and the Gweens (backbenches still) didnt notice it?

                Really?

                • wtl …
                  29 July 2013 at 7:24 pm

                  The Overseas Investment Office (OIO) recently gave approval to Harvard University in the United States for the purchase of Big Sky Dairy Farms in the Maniatoto district.
                  …
                  Green Party co-leader Russel Norman said it was disappointing the Big Sky bid got the green light, and had the party been aware of the application and run a campaign around it, the result might have been different.

                  Source: http://www.3news.co.nz/Approval-of-dairy-farm-sale-frustrating-say-Greens-/tabid/421/articleID/180216/Default.aspx

                  Labour’s agriculture spokesman Damien O’Connor said today it appeared National was frightened by reaction to the Natural Dairy bid but considered the Big Sky sale wasn’t as contentious.

                  “But the issue has never been about China or any other country of origin,” he said. “It’s about having rules that work effectively and that can be clearly understood by everyone.

                  Source: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10679083
                  Regardless of what either party may have done further in the past*, recent evidence indicates both are opposed to land sales to ALL foreigners. In any case, these articles further highlight the fact that the reason the Crafar farms received widespread attention was the publicity regarding their sale. This was not the case for other land sales and therefore these flew under the radar and only received condemnation from both parties after the sales are approved.

                  *You can harp on about with the ‘they did it too’ excuses as much as you want, but no one really cares. The fact that Labour may have done it in the past is irrelevant to what needs to happen now – the land sales need to stop and Labour is now on the right track.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  29 July 2013 at 7:27 pm

                  Time to look to the future mate, stop living in the past.

                  • DavidC …
                    29 July 2013 at 9:04 pm

                    so reconcile your coment with richards at 12.54 and they seem to be at odds.

                    But hypocritical lefties…who woulda thunk it.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      29 July 2013 at 9:13 pm

                      Oh diddums mate get over it.

                    • wtl …
                      29 July 2013 at 9:20 pm

                      It’s hypocritical to have a comment that is at odds with a comment from someone else? who woulda thunk it?

                      Anyway, you should really learn how to spell. Tennant is an actor who played Dr Who. A tenant is an occupier of a leasehold estate.

        • Draco T Bastard 35.1.1.3
          29 July 2013 at 2:00 pm

          The demand side is unchanged because you are not (yet) advocating sending the Chinese back to China so are you increasing supply?

          How could we send people residing in China back to China?

          Moron.

    • tricledrown 35.2
      29 July 2013 at 1:05 pm

      Wayne the unoriginal one not very subtle race baiting your posts could trigger race relations authority complaint!

    • erikter 35.3
      29 July 2013 at 2:44 pm

      A dreadful policy mistake, no doubt.
      You wonder: who is advising Shearer to embrace this lunatic policy that could only come from the green party? Is Shearer being set up to fail?

      [lprent: Santi is now on a permanent ban for violating his ban. ]

    • Mike S 35.4
      29 July 2013 at 9:31 pm

      If as you say it won’t affect house prices at all, then you would support the policy wouldn’t you?

  36. Steve Wrathall 36
    29 July 2013 at 11:49 am

    Labour say they want to create jobs- for lawyers in this case

    • DavidC 36.1
      29 July 2013 at 11:57 am

      Lawyers and Accountants. Just like having the personal tax rate above the trust rate, free money for bean counters!

      • Colonial Viper 36.1.1
        29 July 2013 at 12:44 pm

        Yeah that trust rate needed to go up

      • tricledrown 36.1.2
        29 July 2013 at 12:54 pm

        SWDC shifting the blame again!
        Trusts no longer provide any advantage but lawyers still sell them at grossly inflated prices who do these greedy lawyers and Accountants vote for Nactional! so SW&DC you should be applauding your own observation ironic that!
        But Silly and the Cynic your rant has nothing to do with this thread!

      • Rosetinted 36.1.3
        29 July 2013 at 9:31 pm

        erikter and Steve Wrathall and DavidC
        What a pretty bunch of cheerleaders. Jump together, arms up, wiggle your bottoms, flip your skirts up and down. You don’t need to bother to say anything intelligent, that’s not your thing is it. And you are as co-ordinated as synchronised swimmers.

        Cheerleaders or swimmers? What do you think? Should we take a poll on this important distinction? This is the sort of conundrum that you are so suited to discussing.

    • tricledrown 36.2
      29 July 2013 at 12:45 pm

      Don’t forget to blame it on global warming as well!

  37. johnm 37
    29 July 2013 at 12:04 pm

    Just My opinion 🙂

    The Housing Rort should have been stopped like climate change 30 years ago with punitive capital gains taxes for capital gain speculators and prevention of foreigners buying our housing stock.
    It’s now too too too late and we have totally ruined the housing market for the most important people, our young people because of GREED. Labours policy is 30 years too late. The horse bolted the open stable doors 30 years ago now they propose to partially close them.We’ve become a greedy little pig island no wonder 150,000 of our most employable have f@ck*d off to Australia where at least they pay you there decently! 🙁

    • Colonial Viper 37.1
      29 July 2013 at 7:24 pm

      Labours policy is 30 years too late.

      Well, 20 years too late…

      Wait for a very large number of young brown adults to express their views on this in the next 15 years. Today’s middle classes and upper middle classes are in for a demographic shock.

  38. travellerev 38
    29 July 2013 at 12:09 pm

    I personally think people should only buy a house to live in. I think speculation or profit should not have a place in housing (other than when you sell a house to move and buy another one). This of course would not suit a lot of house owners here who love to rip off vulnerable tenants such as those charging huge prices in Christchurch in the aftermath of the quakes I’m just stating this just so you know where I’m coming from.

    What get’s me that David Schearer does not address this as a socialist indicating that it is OK for Kiwi’s to rip off other Kiwi’s. He just objects to foreigners doing this so here is my 2 cents on it!

  39. Wayne (a different one) 39
    29 July 2013 at 12:13 pm

    Labour has just lost the Asian/immigrant vote, which will have a huge impact in places like New Lynn, Mt Roskill and Mt Albert, for example.

    Keep up the good work David – we just love you over here on the right!

    • vto 39.1
      29 July 2013 at 12:16 pm

      Betcha it hasn’t Wayne. Immigrants are not stupid. They can see that our house prices are absurdly high. They can see that anything that helps bring down the amount of money they have to pay for a roof over their heads is good for them.

      I don’t imagine they care too much about foreigners wanting to be absentee landlords.

    • felix 39.2
      29 July 2013 at 12:19 pm

      “Labour has just lost the Asian/immigrant vote”

      How? The policy has exactly ZERO to do with immigrants.

      • tinfoilhat 39.2.1
        29 July 2013 at 12:41 pm

        Correct but unfortunately the woeful launch of this policy, which is a eminently sensible one, has allowed it to be framed as anti asian anti immigrant etc……. the sad thing is it should have been easy to sell this policy and remove any accusation of xenophobia if it had been done correctly.

        • felix 39.2.1.1
          29 July 2013 at 10:08 pm

          I dunno about that. The Lusks and Slaters and Hootons and Farrars and Keys are going to make up bullshit regardless.

          I reckon it’s high time everyone on the left stop worrying what those cunts think, tell them to shut the fuck up, call their bullshit for what it is and get on with the job in the real world.

    • Winston Smith 39.3
      29 July 2013 at 12:21 pm

      Also most other people who own homes probably won’t like the value of their investment dropping

      • vto 39.3.1
        29 July 2013 at 12:41 pm

        Yes well that Winston is one other reality in the voting scheme, rather than the lard that Wayne has posted.

        Hopefully those such voters will see that in the long term they will end up with a more healthy society with greater home ownership and less money going into housing, allowing more for food, education, fast cars, children, corporate bludgers, pretty much everything.

        • Winston Smith 39.3.1.1
          29 July 2013 at 3:22 pm

          Naah they’ll probably think thats what we pay taxes for and we did we struggle to get to this stage just so L:abour could come along and wipe out our investment

          Human nature always wins

          • One Anonymous Knucklehead 39.3.1.1.1
            29 July 2013 at 3:33 pm

            That must explain the 46% support on Stuff’s straw poll, and the further 29% who think it’s only going to affect a small number of house sales.

            Or does it in fact explain that you’ve nfi about human nature? That seems more likely.

            • Winston Smith 39.3.1.1.1.1
              29 July 2013 at 4:18 pm

              A click on a web page is one thing, going to your bank to re-mortgage or borrow to start a business and be told your house isn’t worth as much as it used to be is quite another

              • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                29 July 2013 at 4:24 pm

                Citation needed. Is that what happened in the other countries that introduced this kind of legislation? Or are you just grasping rhetorical straws?

                • DavidC …
                  29 July 2013 at 6:46 pm

                  OAK.
                  Are the dozens of Leftard wanker comenters elsewhere on this thread that say this policy will drive values down “grasping rhetorical straws” ?

              • Colonial Viper …
                29 July 2013 at 10:21 pm

                A click on a web page is one thing, going to your bank to re-mortgage or borrow to start a business and be told your house isn’t worth as much as it used to be is quite another

                Avoid debt and for godssakes don’t use your house as an ATM might be a good start.

      • tricledrown 39.3.2
        29 July 2013 at 12:56 pm

        But they will applaud the chance it gives their children a better chance to get into a stable house/ home

    • mac1 39.4
      29 July 2013 at 12:38 pm

      Only if the Right continues with its Labour is xenophobic, racist, anti-immigrant falsely attributed campaign. But the wise and aware among us can already see that giving Labour’s policy these false attributes will only rebound on the accusers. It’s the age old battle between lies and the truth, between self-serving psychopathy and fairness to all.

      Hint: truth will out. Kiwis prefer fairness.

  40. Wayne (a different one) 40
    29 July 2013 at 12:23 pm

    Vto, Felix – what can I say other than, “yeah right”

    Just watch this space.

  41. Jester 41
    29 July 2013 at 1:34 pm

    Free Trade Agreement seems to be trending on Twitter.

  42. Cant remember my username 42
    29 July 2013 at 1:40 pm

    As a self confessed righty I think this great policy.

    The debate that ‘ex aussie foreigners’ only account for a small % of house purchases is misleading and ignores a key tenant of economics….that of the marginal bidder

    They may be a small percentage of demand but they still indirectly ‘set’ the higher prices….in other words they may win a small % of auctions but they bidding up the prices

    Remove this demand signal and prices will fall to what the next category of marginal bidder is willing to pay

    That being said other than this and labours ‘raise the retirement age’ policy you are still a bunch of fruit loops

  43. SHG (not Colonial Viper) 43
    29 July 2013 at 1:47 pm

    Also trending on Twitter is an accusation that Labour’s “numbers” (i.e., scribbles on the back of a napkin) to justify the policy mistakenly include properties owned by NZ citizens who are presently overseas. Which would be, you know, a bit of a muppet-level fuckup. If it were true.

  44. burt 44
    29 July 2013 at 1:53 pm

    Is this a Green policy or a Winston policy ?

  45. BLiP 45
    29 July 2013 at 2:37 pm

    ‘

    Heh! What a festival of tr011 FAIL. Great work Standardistas.

    That meme about this policy losing the asian vote is going to be pushed more and more, I think. TVNZ is already on-board. As well as headlining this perfectly sensible and internationally accepted policy as “radical” and “very controversial” before its even got off the ground. The report last night featured the “xenophobic, race-card” fallacies and included this comment . . .

    “The reaction from the Chinese community will think that this is race related and is targeting just the Chinese because if it is about curbing the foreign buyers’ investment it should ban everyone, not just the Chinese, and should include Australians as well,”

    . . . from Bevan Chuang of the Chinese Community Centre but without letting the audience know Bevan is a National Ltd™-linked candidate in the up-coming local board elections.

    The TVNZ news report eventually cuts across to Political Editor Corin Dann “live”, but breathless in his “analysis” which, basically, avoids actually discussing the policy and instead goes for the ad hom in repeating the “David Shearer leadership” media fantasy. Dann then concludes his “live” segment with a virtual apology for John Key’s stunned-mullet reaction to the announcement.

    Meanwhile, Bevan Chuang’s Facebook Page is running riot with over the top claims of racism and xenphobia, and this is filtering out into the Chinese community.

    Frustrating as all get out to see both the MSM and Tory politicians working hand in hand but, judging by the reactions from both, this housing policy has really got them frazzled and, IMHO, exposes both as lacking worthy pinciples.

  46. sweetd 46
    29 July 2013 at 3:30 pm

    Another labour party policy fail.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10904966

    Labour’s housing policy to restrict house sales to foreigners could be at odds with New Zealand’s Free Trade Agreement with China.

    The policy, announced by leader David Shearer yesterday, would bar foreign non-residents, except Australians, from buying existing houses in a move to reduce house prices.

    Constitutional lawyer Stephen Franks said that under Article 138 of the NZ China Free Trade Agreement, Chinese house buyers must be treated the same as New Zealanders after acquiring residential property but the protection did not extend to prospective buyers.

    Article 139 requires that Chinese investors be treated no less favourably then investors of any other country.

    Mr Franks said Labour’s policy was a direct breach of Article 139 in treating Australian investors more favourably than Chinese investors.

    “Chinese would-be investors do not get direct rights to insist on investor equality, but they can’t be treated worse than Australians,” he said.

  47. SHG (not Colonial Viper) 47
    29 July 2013 at 3:31 pm

    If I were involved with the National Party I’d be popping corks off champagne bottles right now, because in accordance with standard Labour operating procedure a completely mismanaged communications clusterf*ck has conveniently distracted everyone just when National was on the ropes about something (the GCSB bill).

    Every time. Without fail.

    • srylands 47.1
      29 July 2013 at 4:46 pm

      I have a question. There are more than 1 million New Zealanders resident offshore. Some of them have been gone for years, or decades buy they own lots of houses here. Should they be required to sell their houses? They are off living in Sydney and London collecting rents from the poor under class in NZ. Evil.

      • Arfamo 47.1.1
        29 July 2013 at 4:53 pm

        More than 1 million New Zealanders resident offshore? Citation?

        And what do you mean by “New Zealanders”? New Zealand citizens?

        Are you gonna be much longer inventing fanciful objections or have you just about run out of ideas?

        • srylands 47.1.1.1
          29 July 2013 at 5:31 pm

          Stop being a dickhead. I don’t have serious objections to the policy because it will affect my personal interests. I am objecting because it is being swallowed by gullible people like you as a solution to a problem that I agree is very real. It just won’t work. So it will be a deadweight cost on taxpayers – more public servants for example.

          I want my kids to be able to afford houses too – I want policy action. But this is bad policy.

          It will do NZ’s reputation no good and will marginally damage it. It is in the country’s interests to promote free flows of money and people. Whatever the number, New Zealand has a very high proportion of its citizens offshore and predictably they are the best educated and successful.

          Policies that impede international connections have no future, and will fail.

          So I am not worried because my house price is going to crash. I am worried because this is another example of snake oil. Just what we now expect from New Zealand First.

          • Colonial Viper 47.1.1.1.1
            29 July 2013 at 5:40 pm

            Policies that impede international connections have no future, and will fail.

            That’s just ideology. If you don’t understand the importance of sovereignty, you couldn’t have said it any clearer.

          • tricledrown 47.1.1.1.2
            29 July 2013 at 5:41 pm

            sryland it hasn’t affected Australia the UK just about every other developed country has restrictions on absentee foreign home ownership!
            snake oil is what trolls live on!

          • Arfamo 47.1.1.1.3
            29 July 2013 at 5:44 pm

            The policy to restrict foreign buyers resident offshore from purchasing houses is not racist, common elsewhere around the world, and attempts to portray it as such are dishonest.

          • Mike S 47.1.1.1.4
            29 July 2013 at 9:47 pm

            How is it in the countries best interests and the best interests of kiwis who want to buy a home of their own to allow foreigners who don’t live in NZ to buy houses here ahead of our hard working kiwis and then force us to pay rent which sends money offshore?

          • North 47.1.1.1.5
            30 July 2013 at 8:10 am

            You’re bullshitting Sryland. Your fearful imagination sees disaster for the haves. You are a have. So you’re screaming. I do not hear your entitled elitist screams. Fuck off and be a professional economist hahaha oh how we (should) worship your shit.

            J.K. Galbraith – “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”

            Sums you up mate.

        • Tamati 47.1.1.2
          29 July 2013 at 5:36 pm

          It’s a reasonable point.

          The Australian census estimated there were 647,000 New Zealander Australians. This includes people born in Australia of New Zealand parents though.

          A wild guess is there is probably about 100,000 in the UK. A few more in SE Asia and North America and we’re getting close to 1,000,000.

          All these people have, or are eligible for a New Zealand passport. But should they have the right to own a property?

          • Colonial Viper 47.1.1.2.1
            29 July 2013 at 5:45 pm

            And those are just NZ born Kiwis. Once you take into account the children that they would have had here instead of overseas, we’re probably looking at the equivalent of a 1.25M reduction in NZ population.

  48. jcuknz 48
    29 July 2013 at 4:55 pm

    If you folk can spare a minute or two from your slagging I suggest you go to Kiwiblog and read the statistics that Tony Alexander came up with back in May this year …. it tends to make the policy completely pointless.
    One inferance was that o’sea owners were selling to other potential o’sea owners but the total o’seas buyers were without Aussie just 3.2% of trades. 4.6% o’seas owners selling. …. interesting I thought.

    • lprent 48.1
      29 July 2013 at 5:14 pm

      There are no particularly good stats for these types of overseas buyer residential type sales. Everything is inferred and/or “voluntary” like the MRIENZ surveys (like they don’t have a vested interest). For instance most of the overseas buyers actually have shelf companies here that do the actual purchases for various tax, ownership, and hide from their own tax authority reasons, so tend not to show up as overseas owners. I have seen two sales out of two that did exactly that.

      So any analysis based on current data is very likely to be completely wrong. The enforcement regime for such a policy will generate the required data.

      However even if this was the case, then lets just run with the policy and see what happens eh. If Labour is right then there will be an effect and an effective reduction in the rate of rise of house prices. If Kiwiblog and other National suppositories are, then nothing will happen. 😈

      In the meantime the screaming from the right is kind of amusing

      • Colonial Viper 48.1.1
        29 July 2013 at 5:48 pm

        However even if this was the case, then lets just run with the policy and see what happens eh.

        Exactly. And if the results show that the steps need strengthening in future, that can be done too 😈

  49. Lefty 49
    29 July 2013 at 5:11 pm

    Jeez!

    Labour and the Greens will do anything rather than simply committing themselves to building enough houses so every person who needs to be housed is.

    The problem of affordability would simply disappear then (and supply as well of course for those who think it needs a market solution).

    But multiple house owning MP’s and their middle class mates would lose money.

    • bad12 49.1
      29 July 2013 at 6:02 pm

      Yes insert 5000 New state rentals a year into the Auckland market directly targeted at low income WORKING people in that city based upon the greatest need being the first in and there will be way less demand for rental accommodation thus there will be less desire for the middle class to be landlords and more supply for those wishing and able to buy,

      Labour’s solution to shoehorn the children of those middle class landlords into home ownership is anathema to blue collar socialists on to many levels to address in the one comment…

  50. Jagg 50
    29 July 2013 at 6:03 pm

    Because everyone should be able to afford a first home in Mt Vic / Roseneath.

  51. Jagg 51
    29 July 2013 at 6:03 pm

    Because everyone should be able to afford a first home in Mt Vic / Roseneath.

  52. McGrath 52
    29 July 2013 at 6:09 pm

    I’ve been watching the MSM coverage, and by-and-large it’s all about how anti-Asian this policy is. Unless Labour gets on the front-foot ASAP, this policy (rightly or wrongly) will be condemned as both desperate and racist towards Asians (esp. Chinese)

    • Arfamo 52.1
      29 July 2013 at 6:13 pm

      FFS. The screaming of “racist” is coming from Key and the Right. Just another lie. The MSM has lost all credibility lately.

    • Polish Pride 52.2
      29 July 2013 at 6:39 pm

      And its so easy to combat.
      Nope not racist at all…. Any Asians or any other people of any ethnicity can buy as many houses as they like. They just have to live in New Zealand that’s all. Simple.

    • Polish Pride 52.3
      29 July 2013 at 6:39 pm

      And its so easy to combat.
      Nope not racist at all…. Any Asians or any other people of any ethnicity can buy as many houses as they like. They just have to live in New Zealand that’s all. Simple.

    • Herodotus 52.4
      29 July 2013 at 6:48 pm

      And was the reaction unexpected ? Perhaps only by the strategists of labour, as they should have had a play book prepared and commenced to roll out the responses to give confidence that this is a well thoughtful policy and not a shotgun approach of throwing out all and any ideas and by chance a few take.
      Is this fail to plan then plan to fail by labour think tank?

      • SHG (not Colonial Viper) 52.4.1
        29 July 2013 at 7:22 pm

        [deleted]

        [lprent: You are still under a ban until the 12th. Don’t comment until then. ]

  53. Polish Pride 53
    29 July 2013 at 6:36 pm

    This policy is sending the right into a batshit crazy frenzy!! I know you fellas prefer not to get dirty on Whaleoil but Cam is so worried about it 10, that’s right 10 of his topics today are covering this policy.

  54. Polish Pride 54
    29 July 2013 at 6:36 pm

    This policy is sending the right into a batshit crazy frenzy!! I know you fellas prefer not to get dirty on Whaleoil but Cam is so worried about it 10, that’s right 10 of his topics today are covering this policy…… 🙂

    • erikter 54.1
      29 July 2013 at 6:41 pm

      Polish, do you believe Labour need to about Green fringe policies? No, following them will only cost Labour votes. Since when the tail wags the dog?
      Cam is playing his game. Forget about him.

      [lprent: Santi is now on a permanent ban for violating his ban. ]

      • tricledrown 54.1.1
        29 July 2013 at 6:48 pm

        what fringe policies labour have tended to follow Nationals policies but around housing they have gone back to traditional labour policies which the greens have been taking the limelight!

      • Polish Pride 54.1.2
        29 July 2013 at 7:43 pm

        Personally I don’t thing policy supported by over 60% of kiwi voters based on a 3 news poll back in Feb on this is Fringe.
        I think this policy is a game changer and will win Labour many votes.

    • Saarbo 54.2
      29 July 2013 at 6:46 pm

      Yep PP, great indicator that it is an awesome policy!

    • srylands 54.3
      29 July 2013 at 6:48 pm

      “This policy is sending the right into a batshit crazy frenzy!! ”

      Really?

      • wtl 54.3.1
        29 July 2013 at 6:58 pm

        “This policy is sending the right into a batshit crazy frenzy!! ”
        Really?

        Says the person who has posted 70-odd comments on the policy…

        • McFlock 54.3.1.1
          29 July 2013 at 7:01 pm

          lol

          “bu’ am I bovvered? Bovvered, me? Do I look bovvered?”

        • srylands 54.3.1.2
          29 July 2013 at 7:11 pm

          I’m not from the “right” and I am certainly not in a frenzy.

          The current Government is not a right wing government. It is a slightly saner version of a left wing government. I’d call it “Labour-lite”. Basically a left of centre government without the crazy edges around free trade xenophobia and the greens.

          But it is still left of centre upholding all the fabric of the welfare state and a large public sector. How on earth could you call it a “right wing” government?

          • srylands 54.3.1.2.1
            29 July 2013 at 7:14 pm

            BTW New Zealanders simply would not support a right wing government. National is riding high in the polls (close to 20% points ahead of Labour). Why? Because National leads a left of centre government.

            Of course the cluster fuck that is MMP means that they could still lose the 2014 election.

            • Colonial Viper 54.3.1.2.1.1
              29 July 2013 at 7:20 pm

              lolz sure, if by “centre” you mean where the US Republicans are, therefore yes National is “left of centre”

              Its getting moronic in here now

              • TheContrarian …
                29 July 2013 at 7:33 pm

                “lolz sure, if by “centre” you mean where the US Republicans are, therefore yes National is “left of centre”

                Oh please, the democrats are further to the right than National.

              • srylands …
                29 July 2013 at 7:39 pm

                “Asked if he had a socialist streak he said “absolutely” and pointed to Government programmes to help people during the global recession.

                “I’m a product of the welfare state.””

                http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5509870/Wikileaks-Key-said-Kiwis-have-socialist-streak

                I repeat we will NEVER have a right wing government in New Zealand (well not in the next 30 years). The right need to get used to that. This is why so many of the right wing policies that have merit in NZ – reducing minimum wages, a flat tax rate, genuinely smaller government – will never gain traction. All the current government is doing is making baby steps in the right direction. They can’t do any more because they would lose office.

                • Mike S …
                  29 July 2013 at 9:57 pm

                  So you’re “not from the right” yet you think dumbfuck policies such as reducing the minimum wage and having a flat tax rate have merit??

                  (sigh)

          • McFlock 54.3.1.2.2
            29 July 2013 at 7:24 pm

            I’m not from the “right” and I am certainly not in a frenzy.
            “Yes you are” and “good impression of it, either way”, respectively.

            • srylands 54.3.1.2.2.1
              29 July 2013 at 7:42 pm

              It is only the left that get in a frenzy – constantly and over nothing. I am watching the ocean view between posts and am totally relaxed 🙂 (well I was but it is dark now)

          • Mike S 54.3.1.2.3
            29 July 2013 at 9:53 pm

            So the recent changes in employment laws you would classify as left wing policy?

            😀 😀 😀

        • Polish Pride 54.3.1.3
          29 July 2013 at 7:48 pm

          Read the post – I’m not making Cam post it as a topic let alone 10. I have simply spent all day defending the fact that it isn’t racist and whatever other BS is being spouted about it. Personally this is a policy I have wanted to see for years.
          But yep try to attack the messenger nit the message. That’s what generally happens when people have nothing eh wtl…..

  55. srylands 55
    29 July 2013 at 6:46 pm

    Looks like this could be a show stopper. The policy may be in breach of the FTA with China.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10904966

    • Arfamo 55.1
      29 July 2013 at 6:50 pm

      Then again, it’s probably not. It’s a very vague & tentative-sounding opinion.

      Shearer will be on Campbell live tonight I think I just heard.

      • Arfamo 55.1.1
        29 July 2013 at 7:08 pm

        (Sorry, must’ve misheard – doesn’t look like Shearer’s on Campbell Live.)

    • tricledrown 55.2
      29 July 2013 at 6:57 pm

      srylands your out of date already, Mae Chen constitutional lawyer free trade lawyer said our agreement only has to treat China fairly equally to what we do with other countries!
      so if we make a law it just has to be fair!
      ie like China doesn’t allow us to buy land or houses in China so that would completely stuff your pathetic spin!

      • srylands 55.2.1
        29 July 2013 at 7:07 pm

        Stop being a dickhead – it is not my “spin” – I am simply drawing attention to an article in the Herald.

      • srylands 55.2.2
        29 July 2013 at 7:23 pm

        This is the key extract from Article 139:

        1. Each Party shall accord to investors, investments and activities associated with such investments by investors of the other Party treatment no less favourable than that accorded, in like circumstances, to the investments and associated activities by the investors of any third country with respect to admission, expansion, management, conduct, operation, maintenance, use, enjoyment and disposal.

        That suggests that favourable treatment of Australia vs. China would be in breach.

        trcicledrown can you post a link to the Mae Chen opinion?

    • BM 55.3
      29 July 2013 at 7:07 pm

      Even if it’s doesn’t, there’s always this

      http://voices.yahoo.com/the-concept-face-chinese-culture-566703.html?cat=69

      Wonder what sort of “face” Shearer would have.

  56. Tamati 56
    29 July 2013 at 7:06 pm

    Leading the 6 o’clock news two nights in a row! At least DS isn’t getting ignored.

    • Arfamo 56.1
      29 July 2013 at 7:09 pm

      What actually led 3 News was John Key telling a lie that Labour’s policy is racist.

      • srylands 56.1.1
        29 July 2013 at 7:15 pm

        🙂

      • McGrath 56.1.2
        29 July 2013 at 7:22 pm

        Its another example of the media focusing on the race aspect of the policy. Labour had the up-front initiative but is losing ground having to fend of accusations of racism.

        As they say, explaining is losing.

        • wtl 56.1.2.1
          29 July 2013 at 7:35 pm

          Lets say you support the policy and John Key calls it racist, when you know it clearly isn’t. Will you then:

          A) Decide that John Key is right and it is a bad policy.

          or

          B) Decide that John Key is a fuckwit because you can clearly see that the policy is not racist. Further, you are now pissed off that Key is suggesting you are racist for supporting the policy.

          Hmm….

          • McGrath 56.1.2.1.1
            29 July 2013 at 7:47 pm

            There has been lots of talk recently about how Asians are pushing up property prices. Suddenly a policy gets released implicitly targeting that ethnic group. By that definition, you could argue its racist.

            How would you feel if you are Chinese (or any other Asian nationality) and are now being told by a mainstream political party that you are bad for New Zealand? Its not exactly a vote winner…

            • wtl 56.1.2.1.1.1
              29 July 2013 at 7:59 pm

              Most immigrants are smart enough to know that the policy applies to foreigners and doesn’t affect them one bit.

              ps. How do you know I’m not Asian?

              • McGrath …
                29 July 2013 at 8:45 pm

                I don’t, but what difference does it make?

                • wtl …
                  29 July 2013 at 8:49 pm

                  You implied that Asians would see this policy in a certain way. I’m saying you don’t speak for all Asians.

                  • McGrath …
                    29 July 2013 at 10:13 pm

                    And you are correct. I don’t speak for all Asians, though neither do you.

                    • Arfamo …
                      29 July 2013 at 10:23 pm

                      Perhaps it might be good idea to not speculate on what any ethnic group thinks on the grounds that they’re probably quite capable of thinking & speaking for themselves, and they may even have different views amongst themselves. Being intelligent human beings and that sort of thing.

                    • wtl …
                      29 July 2013 at 10:30 pm

                      Yes, agreed. I don’t, I never said that I do.

                    • Arfamo …
                      29 July 2013 at 10:33 pm

                      I wasn’t so much thinking of you… 🙂

      • gobsmacked 56.1.3
        29 July 2013 at 8:09 pm

        Unfortunately what also led the news (TV3) was Shearer saying …

        “This is against all foreigners”.

        Now, we know (coz by now, we all have advanced diplomas in Shearer translation) that’s not really what he meant to say. But … he still said it.

        Doesn’t matter how much we on here go to and fro about this policy, if the guy in charge is stuffing it up, it won’t make a scrap of difference.

        • McGrath 56.1.3.1
          29 July 2013 at 8:42 pm

          Shearer is not exactly “Mr Clear and Precise Communication”… Charges of racism, xenophobia etc. also make for good headline grabbers. Those two are a bad mix.

        • wtl 56.1.3.2
          29 July 2013 at 8:45 pm

          I don’t get your point. It is against all foreigners, not those from a particular country. Those who live here (permanent residents and citizens) are not foreigners. People who were born elsewhere but now call NZ their home don’t see themselves as foreigners when it comes to policies like this. Instead, what they really resent is people considering them foreigners just because they talk with a different accent or aren’t white.

          • gobsmacked 56.1.3.2.1
            29 July 2013 at 10:19 pm

            Presumably he meant to say “it applies to”, not “against”. And “non-resident” would be better.

            You might think it doesn’t matter, but 99% of voters are not reading long threads on The Standard. They’re watching the six o’clock news, or catching the headlines.

            Watch the story (it’s on TV3 website). Contrast Russel Norman (positive message) with Shearer (defensive). He lacks basic political nous (e.g. never accept your opponent’s framing). That will kill Labour in the election campaign.

            • McFlock 56.1.3.2.1.1
              29 July 2013 at 10:25 pm

              aye, true. I don’t think it particularly matters. But I like that this comment is actually a bit more constructive than your 8.09pm comment.

              • Colonial Viper …
                29 July 2013 at 10:44 pm

                aye, true. I don’t think it particularly matters.

                Ah, of course, Shearer’s specific performance is not particularly consequential, so don’t worry.

                • McFlock …
                  29 July 2013 at 11:12 pm

                  not down to those nuances when the real problem seems to be editing like that tonight, no.

          • McGrath 56.1.3.2.2
            29 July 2013 at 10:35 pm

            You’re correct in that those who hold Resident or Returning Resident Visas are not foreigners per se as they have earned the right to be here. The crux of the issue is that the policy implies that Asians who buy houses are all “foreigners” stealing houses from Kiwis. Since the policy was announced a day ago, the majority of news articles have focused on race.

            For me, the key to the success of this policy will hinge on the next few days. If Shearer can move the debate away from race and focus on hard, concise facts (i.e. “x” number of homes are sold to non-residents per year driving up the price by an average “of y” dollars per house), he may have a winner. Otherwise, this could cost Labour should the debate remain on race.

            • wtl 56.1.3.2.2.1
              29 July 2013 at 10:43 pm

              The crux of the issue is that the policy implies that Asians who buy houses are all “foreigners” stealing houses from Kiwis.

              This policy does nothing of the sort. It is the media and opponents of the policy who are implying that. And I firmly believe that this approach will backfire on those using it – people will see Shearer saying that this policy is to stop foreign ownership of property. All foreigners. Not residents or citizens. Immigrants will also see TV3/Key/you saying that immigrants should be upset by this because they might be considered foreigners. But you see, the only people suggesting that they (the immigrants) are foreigners are TV3/Key/you, not Shearer, so it is TV3/Key/you who are racist, not the Labour Party, not the policy.

              • McGrath …
                29 July 2013 at 10:51 pm

                Perception is power. It is why National is losing the battle on the GCSB and Kim Dotcom. The early perception on this policy from the MSM is that this policy is aimed at Asians. And if by saying that means I’m racist in your eyes, then so be it.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  29 July 2013 at 10:58 pm

                  Labour has continued to play directly into the racism nonsense, and implicitly accepted the Key/MSM framing of the debate space.

                  • McGrath …
                    29 July 2013 at 11:03 pm

                    Which is why Labour needs to go on a clear and concise offensive. Bury the racism accusation with cold hard facts.

                • wtl …
                  29 July 2013 at 11:14 pm

                  The MSM was always going to portray this as an anti-Asian issue, simply because it is an easy way for them to “sell the story” plus those opposed to it always push that line.

                  But I don’t accept that the story portrayed by the MSM is an indication of how the issue is being perceived by people. While it can influence people’s thinking, people are still able to think for themselves, and can think past such obvious spin.

                  Anyway, MSM portrayal is an indication of public perception, surely National is winning on the GCSB and Kim Dotcom battle? Most of the media seem to be happy to portray the line that nothing is really wrong with the GCSB bill, and only pay lip service to those opposing the bill.

        • McFlock 56.1.3.3
          29 July 2013 at 11:09 pm

          Holy fuck, I just saw the report on TV3 nightline. To call the editing “heavy” is insufficient, to say the least. Compare the length of the bites Shearer got versus Key. No idea what got cut out – do they put the full interviews online?

          If key got that treatment, I reckon their comparative performance would be about even.

  57. ak 57
    29 July 2013 at 8:39 pm

    Dear oh dear. The “One Law for All” party and it’s “Cannibal Tuhoe” leader calling Labour racist.

    One honestly does not know whether to laugh or cry: a pathetic and desperate Natsy lie that is a simply massive vote winner for Labour darling, but not really the kind of voters one wants.

    Oh bother it all, yes one will laugh. Put a bottle of the good stuff on ice for the next Morgan, Oliver, there’s a good chap.

  58. r0b 58
    29 July 2013 at 9:23 pm

    I believe, and I hope lprent will correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that this is the most commented on post on The Standard to date. Astonishing. Keep up the good work Standardistas!

    • wtl 58.1
      29 July 2013 at 9:24 pm

      And no even one post from gosman…

      • tricledrown 58.1.1
        29 July 2013 at 10:01 pm

        wtl the tag team trolls take turns at spieling the same boring propaganda word for word !
        its goosemans turn to have break they send in another lot of clowns to take over!
        just like pro wrestling its fake !

        • wtl 58.1.1.1
          29 July 2013 at 11:44 pm

          Yeah, I was remembering some of the hobbit posts which had a couple of hundred comments, half of which were by Gosman, but seems that these don’t really feature among the leading posts by comment number.

    • QoT 58.2
      29 July 2013 at 9:52 pm

      Gods, just imagine if Pete George were still around, the thread could stretch for miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiles.

      *checks the admin page*

      Unfortunately we’re still 100 off this epic RedLogix post, and have only just surpassed my own on Chris Trotter and abortion.

      … Damn.

      • r0b 58.2.1
        29 July 2013 at 10:11 pm

        Ahh – thanks. Where do you find that admin page – under Jetpack / Site Stats? I’m looking there but it just hangs if I try and view All.

        • QoT 58.2.1.1
          29 July 2013 at 10:17 pm

          If you go to “posts” you can click on the labels across the top to sort by them. Annoying it sorts “79” as higher than “738” but there’s clearly nothing in the 800/900 range so I’d be surprised if there were anything in the 1000s.

          Our lord and master admin might have a better method though!

          • lprent 58.2.1.1.1
            29 July 2013 at 10:29 pm

            I do. But it involves using SQL and having direct access to the database. Your technique is pretty effective.

            There is a plugin that used to do it. However I killed it during one of those bursts of efficiency seeking. I’ll locate it and turn it back on. Dashboard WP-stats

            10 Most Commented Posts

            The harsh reality of climate change – 1,346 comments
            Treachery – 703 comments
            Labour’s new housing policy – Shearer on Q+A – 615 comments
            Shrieking harpies to abort Labour’s election chances – 604 comments
            Being tenants in our own land now OK by Key – 585 comments
            Jackson’s bad faith posturing – 516 comments
            Shearer confirmed – 511 comments
            Leadership meeting – the outcome – 472 comments
            Nats steal Labour donor data – 433 comments
            Hatin’ on the left – 432 comments

            The top is some maniac who put in a pile of pingbacks (which are stored as comments).

            Update: Looking at shoving some more capacity at the server. Setting up for it now. We have been persistent on the webserver at about 50% CPU for a few hours now. Database is running at less than 20%. Any comments on what it feels like?

            • tricledrown 58.2.1.1.1.1
              29 July 2013 at 10:58 pm

              iprent is their any plans for an app for smart phones because trying to do anything like posting or reading it keeps cutting out and given nearly 60 % of kiwis are using smart phones it might be worth looking at!

              • lprent …
                29 July 2013 at 11:09 pm

                There is a brand new version of the mobile code that I got before samoa that is meant to break up the comments and handle threading. Unfortunately it didn’t go straight in on the first attempt.

                I’m aware of the problem – my low grade phone doesn’t like it either (HTC One V). I will clear some time to play with it outside normal hours. There is another one that looks pretty good as well.

                There are a few app’s around. But most of them don’t like handling quite so many messages in threaded.

                But I do start writing code for a android app next week (SDK damnit – would have preferred the NDK or HTML5). So I will be keeping an eye on it for how to use it. And I guess I could overcome my aversion to Apple’s ever changing Objective C frameworks.

          • karol 58.2.1.1.2
            29 July 2013 at 10:37 pm

            Hmmm… if I go to “posts” I just get my own posts.

            [lprent: looking. weird. ]

            • r0b 58.2.1.1.2.1
              29 July 2013 at 10:39 pm

              Ask lprent to bump you up from Editor to Author.

              [lprent: Editor should have more than author. Looks like a capability issue. This could explain why I haven’t been able to detect why karol can’t use the editor editing. ]

              • karol …
                29 July 2013 at 10:54 pm

                Ah. Thanks for looking at that. I cope with the lack of edit function OK – just reply to myself with the correction.

                • lprent …
                  29 July 2013 at 11:11 pm

                  It is odd. I logged in as AncientGeek as Editor and got the posts page with all posts as read only apart from my own (none). Looked at your capabilities against mine, and they were nearly identical – now they are identical.

                  Can you see the list of other authors posts? Be able to view the posts but not edit them? That is what you should be able to see in the list of posts – all 13053 items. Is there a filter on at the top?

          • r0b 58.2.1.1.3
            29 July 2013 at 10:37 pm

            Doh! Because that header was an icon (and all the others are text) I never tried to click on it. Thank you for solving that long-standing mystery for me!

      • weka 58.2.2
        29 July 2013 at 10:25 pm

        “Unfortunately we’re still 100 off this epic RedLogix post, and have only just surpassed my own on Chris Trotter and abortion.”

        Linky please?!

  59. srylands 59
    29 July 2013 at 10:53 pm

    The line being spun “all other countries do this” does not stack up. In the OECD only four countries have restrictions on foreigners buying residential property.

    Of the now 34 members of the OECD:

    – 24 have no restrictions (or restrictions of such a minor and limited nature as to pose few hurdles)

    – 7 allow foreign ownership (but there are certain processes and procedures to be followed and some land categories exempted)

    – 4 impose outright bans on foreign ownership (Denmark, Switzerland, Czech Republic and Australia – Kiwis are exempt from the ban and foreigner acquisition of newly built properties usually always receives government approval).

    So we would be joining a small club. Sure China does it but China does lots of stuff that we would never emulate.

    The point is that NZ’s current policy is the OECD norm.

    http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/

    • McGrath 59.1
      29 July 2013 at 10:58 pm

      Good research!

    • Colonial Viper 59.2
      29 July 2013 at 11:00 pm

      The OECD norm isn’t working for NZers so let’s change it.

      • srylands 59.2.1
        29 July 2013 at 11:12 pm

        Lets go the whole hog and leave the OECD.

        80% of the countries with restrictions are poor, undemocratic and not the countries that NZ compares itself with on social or economic norms.

        The countries with no restrictions are generally free in other areas.

        Which club do you want to be in?

        Policy making has a signalling effect. Make no mistake this policy would be signalling to our trading partners a direction of travel quite at odds with the last 20 years. If that is the case, Labour should be upfront about that, but Shearer is implying instead that we are changing policy to be “like everyone else”. Actually the proposal is to be like China and Australia.

        Do we want to adopt China’s stance on border economic and people flows? No didn’t think folk here would like that.

        So the cheerleaders here want to be like Australia. Really? Because Australia has such a good record at housing policies that work for the working class. Would you like to be a worker buying a house in Sydney or Melbourne? No didn’t think so.

        The Standard cheerleaders have been sold a dog. So for the sake of the country please stop mindless cheerleading and look at some evidence. Otherwise you really are no better than a bunch of New Zealand First fucktards.

        • Rosetinted 59.2.1.1
          29 July 2013 at 11:21 pm

          “80% of the countries with restrictions are poor, undemocratic and not the countries that NZ compares itself with on social or economic norms.[in the OECD]”

          That is a very good point. It has been apparent for a long time that the ambitions of NZ pollies have been highly inflated and that their eyes fixed on the USA, UK, or Oz as exemplars. Of course it is inappropriate to have few ideas of our own, but we do want to keep up with the big boys and share their toys and secrets. And it seems that most pollies would sell most of us at knock-down prices to advance themselves with those glamorous beings from across the sea.

          • Colonial Viper 59.2.1.1.1
            29 July 2013 at 11:25 pm

            The “freedom” of the USA, the “wealthiest” country in the world….where almost 50m people are on food stamps, and 80% at some stage live near (or under) the poverty line, struggle with joblessness, or rely on benefits. No thanks.

        • Colonial Viper 59.2.1.2
          29 July 2013 at 11:22 pm

          Lets go the whole hog and leave the OECD.

          What are you talking about? You yourself said that a number of OECD countries restrict property ownership. I’m happy to join them.

          80% of the countries with restrictions are poor, undemocratic and not the countries that NZ compares itself with on social or economic norms.

          The countries with no restrictions are generally free in other areas.

          Which club do you want to be in?

          We can be a wealthy, democratic country which looks after the housing needs of its own people first. Come on man, its not that hard.

          As for “freedom”, you do oppose National’s pushing ahead of the GCSB bill, right?

        • lprent 59.2.1.3
          29 July 2013 at 11:35 pm

          Actually the proposal is to be like China and Australia.

          http://www.stats.govt.nz/~/media/Statistics/browse-categories/industry-sectors/imports-exports/global-nz/jun-12/global-nz-jun-2012.pdf Table 1.2

          Who curiously enough happen to be in strong trade agreements with us and are our first and second largest trading partners by a good margin. The next two USA and Japan together roughly equal China.

          So who exactly should we be like? The US with its obsessive border controls, continuous wars, and a population running under extreme surveillance – not to mention a mortgage market that absolutely sucks.

          Japan, a country that has been in permanent deflation for most of my life?

          So ignorant fool. Are there any other totally obvious answers that you’d like to drag out of me. Or can you be safely trusted to start reading some actual data on you own rather than consulting a mythic view of an ancient and forgotten world?

          Basically you sound like a stupid fuckwit who can’t think…

          • srylands 59.2.1.3.1
            29 July 2013 at 11:44 pm

            Looks like we will be like China and Australia then. Congrats on your trade data. I had no idea which countries were our leading trading partners. Who would have thought.

            • lprent 59.2.1.3.1.1
              30 July 2013 at 12:03 am

              That is what google is for… So explain why you think that we should make our laws conform with our junior trading partners – and why?

          • srylands 59.2.1.3.2
            30 July 2013 at 12:03 am

            Looks like my data struck a nerve 🙂 Good

      • Arfamo 59.2.2
        29 July 2013 at 11:15 pm

        Switzerland doesn’t seem to be suffering from having such a policy:

        http://www.weforum.org/issues/global-competitiveness

        A policy of giving NZ citizens and residents preferential access to housing stock is just basic good democracy.

        • srylands 59.2.2.1
          29 July 2013 at 11:36 pm

          If Labour wins the next election they will have a mandate for this change.

          What pisses me off is that it is being portrayed as us joining a commonly applied policy stance internationally. The evidence I have posted shows this to be a lie. Shearer should issue a clarifying statement that refers to the countries in the world that we will be joining, and critically all of the OECD countries that we will be walking away from. Otherwise the electorate is being lied to.

          • wtl 59.2.2.1.1
            29 July 2013 at 11:47 pm

            I thought you were totally relaxed about this policy and not in at frenzy at all?

          • felix 59.2.2.1.2
            29 July 2013 at 11:50 pm

            Nah, I think we’ll just keep pushing this sensible policy and not give a fuck what you think.

            Thanks for the concern though.

          • Colonial Viper 59.2.2.1.3
            29 July 2013 at 11:53 pm

            The evidence I have posted shows this to be a lie.

            Many developed countries have similar stances. What’s the problem?

    • insider 59.3
      30 July 2013 at 1:29 am

      Interesting that Denmark has the most unaffordable housing in Europe despite banning foreigners. Czech Republic is one of the most expensive too. They also both have capital gains taxes on residential property investment.

      http://www.housingeurope.eu/www.housingeurope.eu/uploads/file_/CECODHAS%20Observatory%20Briefing_Housing%20Affordability%202012.pdf

      • Arfamo 59.3.1
        30 July 2013 at 1:49 am

        Imagine how much more unaffordable houses would be if they had foreigners bidding up the prices added to the mix.

      • bad12 59.3.2
        30 July 2013 at 2:27 am

        i do not have a problem with non-residents being shut out of speculating in the New Zealand housing market,

        i do tho have some doubt about the beneficial effects of doing so as we are still allowing the neighbours from across the ditch to indulge,(correct me if i have read that wrong),

        The problem i do see is that the buyers from places other than Aussie might have to a certain extent been out-bidding even them and we may find that by forbidding others while allowing the Aussies we have more of the Aussies bidding in the market by dint of them knowing that it is the Australians with the bigger bucks when compared to what NZ residents in many cases can afford…

        • insider 59.3.2.1
          30 July 2013 at 7:58 am

          Best price doesn’t always win. Freakonomics did a piece on this. They found people who were willing to wait often got better prices. Timing and sale conditions play a role. A lower price with no conditions can beat a higher one and a three month wait for settlement. My suspicion is foreign buyers are more prepared to settle sooner because they need certainty on finance and probably won’t have houses to sell first.

  60. vto 60
    30 July 2013 at 8:25 am

    It will be fantastic that the workers and locals in the Wakatipu Basin should soon be able to afford to buy a home for them and their family.

    There a boatload of foreign-owned homes, especially the mega ones. I imagine the market for them will shrink heavily. Watch the next bust and this little corner of the world…….

    Good job. There is no benefit to absentee ownership or foreign landlords.

    • Ad 60.1
      30 July 2013 at 10:56 am

      Great throwaway line there. Yet any policy should evaluate its unintended consequences. Consider how reliant we are on foreign capital. More often than not people choose to invest here precisely because of what New Zealand has to offer on top of the commercial benefit: lifestyle.

      Investors very often get hooked on us with a holiday, which turns into a holday home in Wanaka or Queenstown or the Bay of Islands or Cambridge, which becomes a reasoned package with their decision to take a slice of the business they are acquiring.

      A quick list of four gives an idea of the industries – and all jobs within them – that would be damaged if they were told by Labour to pack up and sell because they weren’t citizens:

      Duchess Henriette Bedford: livestock and horseracing industry. estimated worth $1.1billion

      Julian Robertson: three luxury lodges, and of course the best modern art collection in the country estimated worth: $3 billion

      William P Foley II: Property, finance, wine industry estimated worth: $1.7 billion

      Alexander Abramov: steel, property, investment group. Estimated worth: $5.4billion

      We certainly don’t have to lilke them, and we can all shudder in our socialist boots, but we need them and the welcome mats that our holiday destinations provide. I generally like the new Labour policy. But I can easily see the streets of Wanaka and Queenstown turning bleak, boarded up and lonely for their vulnerability to this. And with those holiday homes goes major capital. Sorry, we can’t do without them.

      • vto 60.1.1
        30 July 2013 at 1:55 pm

        We can do with significantly less of them.

        You see, it is in fact very simple. The more capital there is chasing the limited assets in NZ the greater the value of those assets…

        … means people have to spend more money to simply own the asset (i.e. ridiculous interest costs to banks ha ha, aint they laughing) rather than spending the money on income producing. A classic example of this of course is dairying…

        … take a farm that makes, say, $100k net pa. It might require a young kiwi farmer to pay, say, $1M to buy (interest costs $90k pa, deposit required $300k). Now with the ridiculous demand being placed on farms by foreigners that young farmer now needs to spend $2M to buy (interest costs $180k pa, deposit required $600k)…

        … so the young kiwi farmer instead gives up and works for the foreigner.

        …or alternatively the young kiwi farmer instead spends twice as much paying bank’s usurious interest costs.

        Where is the benefit?

        Genuinely, we do not need them to anything like the extent is made out. Most of them, and especially the likes of your list there, are solely interested in the lifestyle – business comes a distant second. Far easier to keep active and useful investing in other lands. Just keep a place in NZ for holidays, a farm for the green grass and mountain backdrop, and a bolthole for when the world melts down. Meantime, all asset values get driven up. High asset values are only of use to the merry-go-round Ponzi scheme banking system – nobody else.

        Where is the benefit?

  61. KJT 61
    30 July 2013 at 8:59 am

    Wonder how long the Herald poll, which shows 61% in favour of Labour’s policy, will stay up?

  62. woodpecker 62
    30 July 2013 at 9:30 am

    Wonder how many absentee owners bidding by phone are actual crims, drug bosses etc. Do the nats know? Do they care? ( just a thought, I have red most comments but not all).

    • srylands 62.1
      30 July 2013 at 3:47 pm

      I don’t think the Government does know how many crims are buying houses, but I agree that it stands to reason that many overseas based buyers of NZ houses are crinminals – or at least some. Stopping these purchases could be a is a useful part of the war on drugs. As you know I am sceptical that it will bring down house price inflaion, but if it reduces crime, it is probably worth a try.

      • Mike S 62.1.1
        31 July 2013 at 1:59 am

        There is no useful part to the war on drugs.

        Where have you been? Didn’t you know that the war on drugs was lost?

  63. erikter 63
    30 July 2013 at 10:34 am

    A huge error of judgement by the Labour Party that will backfire. The polls will hardly improve and this will only cause more unease among the leadership.
    It will cost David Shearer the leadership. Robertson to the fore. Time for him to step up.

    [lprent: Santi is now on a permanent ban for violating his ban. ]

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.