Support party exposes National’s lie – government in disarray!

Written By: - Date published: 10:19 am, February 10th, 2017 - 56 comments
Categories: accountability, act, housing, humour, spin - Tags: , , ,

Naughty ACT Party, exposing one of the National Party’s many lies. Contradicting the Nats on this explosive issue, what was ACT thinking? Interim PM Bill English is unable to maintain the control exercised by his predecessor. With this vicious infighting exposed the government is clearly in total disarray. Unfit to govern.

#IfItWasLabour

56 comments on “Support party exposes National’s lie – government in disarray!”

  1. Infused 1

    Yeah, this ‘humor’ isn’t really working…

  2. riffer 2

    All depends on how you use your statistics really. Both parties are possibly right. On the one hand, expressed as a percentage of population, it’s not the largest ever building boom.

    On the other hand, in terms of actual numbers of houses, I’m not so sure.

    It’s still really badly handled either way so I’m sure as hell not giving them a pass mark.

    • AB 2.1

      “All depends on how you use your statistics really”
      No – depends on whether one’s use of statistics is intellectually honest or not. Joyce’s use of statistics in this case clearly isn’t. They do the same thing in the health service claiming to have increased spending when they effectively haven’t.

      When you have a political elite so corrupt that they seem almost congenitally wedded to lying, the groundwork is being laid for a nasty public reaction some point down the road.

  3. Brendon 3

    House building peaking in 1974 is interesting because that matches the last time we had population growth this fast.

    Check this out from http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/estimates_and_projections/NationalPopulationEstimates_MRAt30Jun16.aspx

    “New Zealand’s population grew by 97,300, or 2.1 percent, in the year ended June 2016, Statistics New Zealand said today. This is the largest annual increase ever. New Zealand’s estimated resident population was 4.69 million at 30 June 2016.

    “Annual population growth over 2 percent is high by New Zealand standards,” said population statistics senior manager Jo-Anne Skinner. “The last time we experienced population growth over 2 percent was in 1974. And before that, at the peak of the baby boom in the 1950s and early 1960s.”

    So the reality is NZ’s housing boom is not as big as NZ’s immigration boom.

  4. Brendon 4

    Here is what the Salvation Army have to say about Housing in Auckland in their recent State of the Nation report.

    HOUSING AVAILABILITY
    Auckland is short of 18,000 houses for the past five years.
    Despite record housing building activity in Auckland, that
    region’s housing shortage grew by an estimated 5,000 units
    over the year to September 2016. The main reason for this
    paradox is immigration. Figures illustrating this are offered
    in Table 25.

    During the year to 30 September 2016, almost 10,000
    consents for new dwellings were issued in Auckland. This
    is a 12-year record high and has been celebrated as proof
    that Auckland’s housing problems are being resolved by
    the market. Seen in a slightly longer context this record is,
    however, not remarkable. During the 10 years 1994 to 2004,
    an average 9,500 consents for new dwellings were issued
    annually in Auckland, so 10,000 new houses in Auckland is
    not exceptional historically.

    Table 25 provides an estimate of the shortfall in housing in
    Auckland based on an average occupancy of three people
    per dwelling—the occupancy rate at the time of the 2006
    and 2013 Censuses. Based on this standard and given that
    Auckland’s population grew by an estimated 45,000 people
    for the year to 30 September 2016, accommodating this
    number of people required 15,000 additional dwellings.
    Consents for new dwellings over the same period lagged this
    number by 5000.

    Over the past five years, the cumulative shortfall in new
    housing to cater for Auckland’s population growth is
    estimated to be almost 18,000 dwellings.

    • Keith 4.1

      I kind of feel this subject is howling at the moon and rather frustratingly pointless. Yes there is an awful lot wrong but it appears there is no political will by some in Labour to present themselves as a party to lead an alternative government that is ready and willing to do what it takes to fix this. It needs long term planning by a team willing to stick together for the good of all.

      Nationals unofficial immigration policy, hastily conceived to keep wages flat, and working conditions at a level that don’t resemble the law that are supposed to protect workers has caused this problem. Along with an exploitable workforce competing with each other to keep the rich man rich.

      The housing crisis that exists in this country and especially Auckland associated with the government selling off of state houses and quietly dismantling Housing NZ can its blame laid squarely at the feet of National.

      But the thing is given the main opposition party appears to be coming apart means we going to be having this conversation in 4 years time, only worse and this time under the ideologically out of date Bill English government.

      Best we can do is run a “Situations vacant” ad to look for a political party who is willing to come together to do that for all New Zealand!

      • Brendon 4.1.1

        Keith I think Labour’s comprehensive housing plan is quite good. http://www.labour.org.nz/housing

        I would want a bit more information on infrastructure and more details on HNZ -State house building -exactly how many -what rate per capita -that sort of thing. Also some sort of immigration policy is needed to reform away from this artificial population growth ponzi economy -we need a population target or something like that.

        I think these missing gaps will be debated in the election campaign proper. Because it will complete Labour’s otherwise excellent housing package.

        Labour’s KiwiBuild plan is excellent -years ahead of the game. There plans on getting rid of speculation and land banking on the urban periphery are economically sound. As are its acknowledgement that restrictions on building our cities upwards need to be eased. Using targeted rates and municipal bonds so developers pay the full cost of development is a good idea. Making foreign buyers build a home -not buy existing homes is sensible too. Extending the bright line test to 5 years and signaling tax changes to stop negative gearing are all good too.

        So Keith most of it is all there. What Labour needs to do is fill in the gaps and promote it more. They need to fight…..

        Meanwhile Steven Joyce/Bill English are floundering around in a leaderless vacuum. Do they enact housing reforms so more houses can be built? Do they cut immigration? Or do they give us spin and lies -basically continuing with John Key’s policy choice of denying there is a housing crisis?

        Of course it will be the third option, which will be why this election will be dirty and nasty and full of misinformation.

        • Brendon 4.1.1.1

          Also we need to accept for many renting is a long-term reality -even with extensive housing reforms many kiwis will spend all or significant parts of their lives renting. So renters should be given more security of tenure -they need housing that allows them to be part of community too.

          Successful housing reforms should be about building communities not just building houses.

          • Jenny Kirk 4.1.1.1.1

            + 100% Brendon. And with your other comments above.

          • Siobhan 4.1.1.1.2

            +1 …..This is by far the most important point Brendon.
            Labour better start rattling their dags and make some move on this.

            And I don’t mean more landlord subsidies for their overpriced and not fit for purpose investments, like accommodation allowance and subsidised insulation.
            I mean rent caps and long term tenancies, and State Housing for more than just those in the most dire situation.
            For starters (beyond the very vulnerable groups) working families with children, and life time renters heading into retirement need a secure place to call home. Something that is just not happening in the world of private Landlords who are busy playing Monopoly and regard their customers as some sort of adversary at best, necessary evil at worst.

            But strangely that’s not a conversation we are having.

            • red-blooded 4.1.1.1.2.1

              Siobhan, Labour’s committed to returning Housing NZ to public service (as opposed to SOE) status. That shifts their focus and means they won’t be required to turn a profit anymore. they’re planning to build up the stock of state housing considerably and to require all rental housing to be warm, dry, well-ventilated, to have decent drainage – ie, to be healthy places to live. That seems like a pretty good set of policies to me.

              http://www.labour.org.nz/housing

            • Antoine 4.1.1.1.2.2

              I honestly don’t think you can get elected promising “rent caps and long term tenancies”

              A.

          • greywarshark 4.1.1.1.3

            Brendon
            You have been putting a lot of thought into NZ housing situation.
            Also we need to accept for many renting is a long-term reality -even with extensive housing reforms many kiwis will spend all or significant parts of their lives renting

            I can’t see why we have to accept that as an unchanging situation beyond any possible intervention from anyone. It is quite possible for regions to start housing groups, set up an advisory body, a training body, areas of land that are suitable for housing ie near transport, integrated with schools, services, shops, and get people trained and building their own houses. From top down macro stats it would like a bunch of ants running around.

            From grassroots viewpoint, face to face, it would be positive steps, with trade training, a lower-cost house (bought on long-term mortgage to the government and unable to be sold into private hands, but back to a special government entity not the terminally skewed housing department of whatever name they have now, and definitely not a private-public partnership.) This would require some new policy, designed by NZs and not imported from the States or UK, and a definite move to use sweat equity etc. and would be useful to Maori as well for papakainga, they would retain their land, the government would loan money over the building – another smart move forward enabling government and Maori to combine practically.)

            It takes will and vision, and can start small in the first year of LabourandGreen and grow exponentially. Other innovative moves would be brought forward, examined, critiqued, polished and offered under criteria that would be reasonable and enable access to many, and at the same time other schemes would operate in the macro sphere, hopefully bringing into the present the lessons learned in the 1970’s when many new subdivisions were erected with no heart, no services, transport, ‘Nappy Valley” was the term then and isolation and depression was common.

            Of course, now the mothers would not stay home and be depressed, they would be too stressed to be depressed, just running from task to task, to meet deadlines, timetables, requirements, to catch transport, to cope with unachievable government demands. The government has embraced the idea that it is bad for all women to be able to choose to be home with their young children and good for little ones to leave them with anyone else than their mothers, who must join the working poor for their own and their family’s good.

    • mac1 4.2

      “During the 10 years 1994 to 2004, an average 9,500 consents for new dwellings were issued annually in Auckland, so 10,000 new houses in Auckland is not exceptional historically,” says Brendon above.

      Another way to see the shortfall in housing over the last 13 years is to understand that NZ’s population has increased by 18% since 2004.

      Indeed, if we increase the average new consent figure by 18% the figure of 9,500 becomes 11, 210, which is what 2017 should be achieving in new housing consents, an increase of 12%.

      However, the best year’s result this government can achieve in 12 years is less than the average of 1994-2004, a decade shared equally by Labour and National governments, as it happens.

      What’s this government not good at to achieve this under-achieving result?

      What we are good at, it seems, with this government is selling off NZ land to foreigners. Last year, 7,103 hectares of land in Marlborough alone were sold to foreign buyers; 56% of the sales of the last five years (over which period 12657 hectares were cleared for sale to foreign buyers) occurred in this one year. That sell-off rate is quickening.

      Marlborough Express Friday Feb 10 Page 7.

      • Antoine 4.2.1

        > What’s this government not good at to achieve this under-achieving result?

        It’s not central government’s job to issue new housing consents?

        A.

        • mac1 4.2.1.1

          Why, then, does this government trumpet its success in housing by quoting numbers of new housing consents?

          Because this it does, to answer critics of its housing policy.

          Therefore, we challenge the validity of the figures quoted by comparison with previous governments, of both stripes.

  5. Antoine 5

    OK, so Steven Joyce’s quote was a pretty accurate reading of this Stats NZ publication:

    http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/industry_sectors/Construction/ValueOfBuildingWork_HOTPMar16qtr.aspx

    Critically, Joyce and Stats NZ were talking about the combination of residential and commercial building, in real $ terms. (Guess it’s not surprising that commercial building is at a high level, given the ChCh rebuild.)

    ACT’s ‘refutation’ was focused on residential building only, and was in terms of number of consents rather than $ value.

    So I’d say it is not much of a ‘refutation’, adding that ACT’s three policy points all seem a bit bizarre and extreme (“take cities out of the RMA”, really?)

    A.

    P.S. This is also a pretty good graphic – http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/industry_sectors/Construction/ValueOfBuildingWork_MRMar16qtr.aspx – showing a dramatic increase in residential building between 2012 and 2015-16. Particularly in Auckland and ChCh, of course.

    • Brendon 5.1

      Bullshit and misinformation. We have a housing crisis. Not enough affordable homes are being built. The numbers are quite clear.

      If you are not prepared to engage with the topic truthfully why should we bother engaging in debate with you.

      If you said that to my face I would tell you that you are full of shit and walk away, because there is no point in discussing with people who deliberately misconstrue facts.

      • Antoine 5.1.1

        > Not enough affordable homes are being built

        Here I agree with you

        A.

      • michelle 5.1.2

        I will support you on that Brendon and the tories are putting people up in motels using our taxes when they should be in social housing but they are selling these to corporations.
        The mentally ill are being shafted and treated like dirt they are also being put in motels. How do I know my sister is about to be put in a motel until they can find her a hnz house they said they are full bullshit! I see with my eyes plenty of empty places bloody liars and thieves the tories as they are busy hocking of our assets to their rich mates

        • Brendon 5.1.2.1

          Michelle the government should get on and allow affordable homes to be built. Those houses can be State houses -we have a whole department called HNZ that has expertise and institutional knowledge on how to do that. Of course the government has spent 8 years undermining HNZ by sucking out $1/2 billion of dividends. New affordable homes could be KiwiBuild houses. New affordable homes can even be built by the private sector, if we enacted some reforms to get rid of the speculators and land bankers. The Gnats need to get off there asses and do something.

          The Gnats say it is all about supply -but in reality they have supplied bugger all in comparison with what is needed.

          Instead they have Amy Adams down in Christchurch playing ideological experiments with transferring ownership of State houses from HNZ to community organisations. What a waste of time and energy. She should be up in Auckland where the housing crisis is the worst -sorting her department out -so HNZ can help build more houses.

  6. Pat 6

    “The number of new houses built dropped from a record 34,400 in1974to24,200in1978.Althoughthe economy improved in the 1990s and early 2000s, housing completions have seldom reached the rate of new household formation.”

    https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwji39HyjoTSAhXKopQKHa9pB0oQFghPMAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fnzinitiative.org.nz%2Fdmsdocument%2F36&usg=AFQjCNHeRudK7-6QC-WA6lu8i9etpXptDQ&sig2=uuojo4MCZwRlyBS4fjRGAQ&bvm=bv.146496531,d.dGo

  7. saveNZ 7

    Forget the number of ‘consents’ – no one can live in a consent!

    Actually look at the amount of ready to move in residential dwellings – and my guess is, there is not that many built!

    The ‘market’ and ‘government’ seem as interested in tearing buildings down as building new dwellings.

    Kinda reminds me of American Red Cross in action ‘helping’ people…

    The Red Cross’ Haiti disgrace: Half a billion dollars spent, six homes built

    http://www.salon.com/2015/06/07/the_red_cross_haiti_disgrace_half_a_billion_dollars_spent_six_homes_built_partner/

  8. saveNZ 8

    Count the number of new residential Code of compliances to see how many have been built last year to get the new build figures. Take off those COC’s just for renovations.

    And do it in Auckland where we have the biggest crisis and have had the biggest meddling from government and Auckland council to ‘solve’ it.

    The resource or building consents issued do not determine liveable houses built that year – the COC does.

  9. David C 9

    The pressure needs to go on to open up more greenfields land.

    Until section prices come down house prices will continue to rise.

    • Muttonbird 9.1

      ‘Open up greenfields land’ is an easy soundbite often employed by housing crisis deniers who seek to blame local government while ignoring the responsibility of central government.

      It can’t be done just like that without infrastructure and robust transport planning. Developers refuse to pay for the infrastructure, and central government refuses to be counted on for transport planning, especially public transport.

      • Brendon 9.1.1

        Also it doesn’t account for how intensification can be part of affordable housing reforms. It has the stink of ‘not in my backyard’. The likes of David Seymour (C?) who only advocate for freeing up building restrictions on the periphery of our cities not in inner city areas where demand for housing is high are just continuing the NIMBY thinking which is part of the housing problem.

        The reality is we all have to be more open and constructive. We all need to be more accepting of people being free to build in our cities. If we do not make that cultural shift then we risk losing important cultural values like egalitarianism, everyone having a fair go, New Zealand being a good place to have children……

        • saveNZ 9.1.1.1

          Actually the housing crisis could be more about the 70,000 new people coming into the country each year that need housing and the 180,000 work permits for new and temporary residents who also need housing – it’s all part of Bill English’s plan for our low wage economy, built on construction, agriculture, oil exploration, dodgy degrees and tourism…

      • David C 9.1.2

        It is simple and true.

        It all starts with local councils, they do the 10 yr plan stating direction that they wish to go in and the maps and zoning changes to follow that.
        They then need to borrow and build that infrastructure so its ready and waiting but they never do.

        Here, there is a large area of residential land held up because the stormwater drain has not been done by council. The plan change and designations were done in 2010 but it was never followed thru.

        Development contributions per site are around $70,000.

        Now sections that can be developed are closely held and selling around $300k. try building an affordable house on that.

        • Muttonbird 9.1.2.1

          How does a council plan for a surge in net immigration 10 years out? They are not responsible for opening the floodgates. Central government, not local government, needs to back up their desire for cheap labour and students-of-questionable-value with the infrastructure spend to sustain it.

          • David C 9.1.2.1.1

            NZ population growth is about static at 40K per year , high some years low in others. Its just Auckland that is off the chart.

            Councils are meant to be looking at 50 years or more ahead.

            Private plan changes do fill a gap when councils drop the ball tho.

    • saveNZ 9.2

      Thanks David C, bought to you by the Business Roundtable rebranded NZ Initiative, ACT, National….

    • Siobhan 9.3

      That doesn’t help renters.
      I know of a number of Landlords who have owned their properties for 10-20 years plus, but still put the rent up every year, or even every 6 months, without doing any improvements. Infact one lot even put up the rent for the last 6 months of the tenancy, before the house was demolished. Well, demolished/rotted into the ground.

      You really think these sort of people are ever going to stop milking that particular cow? How many houses would need to be built, seriously…

    • lloyd 9.4

      The problem is that when developers get hold of greenfield sites they waste the land by building single residential houses to the maximum size allowed by the District Plan rules.
      What is needed is an understanding by all New Zealanders that if we keep increasing our population we need to build housing MUCH MORE DENSELY. We must change our housing styles, which will remove the need for using more land for stand-alone boxes, Well designed and well built town houses and terrace houses can produce much better living conditions than the stand alone boxes with little gaps between them that are being built in the SHA areas generated to develop new land around Auckland.
      Throwing out the RMA won’t solve this.
      We need National Standards for residential zoning that will have precedence over the nimby approach from local right-wing politicians that has kept the likely density of Auckland under the new Unitary Plan far too low to really improve both housing and transport in Auckland.
      We also need a proactive government housing developer in the market.

      The really interesting thing about ACT’s attitude of “we will solve the housing problem by getting rid of the RMA”, is that it is the ACT supporters in local government have generally been the stick-in-the-mud nimbys who have prevented significant change to solve the problem under the present rules. In generational terms the oldies who own the large houses have resisted infill and high density redevelopment of Auckland and are preventing the young marrieds of today from gaining affordable houses.

      A new house on the outskirts of Auckland which might have a lower up-front cost than an inner city apartment will cost its owner much more than the apartment over the long run, generally the increased cost will be transport. If you add in travel times as a cost the greenfield sites in outer Auckland are an economic disaster and should be left to grow cabbages , potatoes and onions or maybe ACT supporters (they are about at the same intellectual level).

      • Antoine 9.4.1

        >The problem is that when developers get hold of greenfield sites they waste the land by building single residential houses to the maximum size allowed by the District Plan rules.

        Well then is the solution to change the District Plan to forbid single residential houses?

        > What is needed is an understanding by all New Zealanders that if we keep increasing our population we need to build housing MUCH MORE DENSELY.

        I don’t think this is a matter for _all_ New Zealanders, this is primarily an Auckland issue isn’t it? We don’t need much denser housing in Invercargill or New Plymouth do we?

        > We need National Standards for residential zoning

        Again, do we need a *National* Standard?

        A.

  10. saveNZ 10

    One of my favourites solutions was government hack Leonie Freeman, thrown in who’s claim to fame was she once set up a real estate monopoly website decades ago … her 4 Step plan was hilarious called the action plan, had zero action. … brings me back to some sort of touchy feely fucked up workshop when the company is about to go under, bought in some useless consultants, fires most of the staff and then gets a process driven workshop going on how to progress… hoping to buy time so hopefully nobody notices that there is zero plan to fix it, because not only are they fucked, but they are so off course that they should write a paper on The 2 second Executive guide to Zombie housing – how to guide people into the new age of process of meaninglessness.

    Step 1: Create a vision for the city.
    Step 2: Raise home ownership levels to 65 per cent by 2025
    Step 3: Create a Housing Framework,
    Step 4: the action plan.

    “Step 4: the action plan. She hasn’t got that plan yet, because that’s not how the process works. Housing Connect and its constituent groups have to create it and own it, not her.”

    P.s I’m not joking that was the action plan for step 4 as listed in spinoff.

    this was 2016, a decade into the housing crisis.

  11. Michael 11

    Perhaps Seymour is making an overture to Labour? He’s certainly made more of a hit against the Nats than anything we’ve seen from Labour for a while. Anyway, there’s no honour among thieves. Long may it continue.

    • David C 11.1

      Yeah the cluster fuck Little made of bringing Jackson into the tent would pale into insignificance if Little invited Seymour into the “broad church”

  12. tc 12

    You want to bring the cost of building down then sort out the price fixing monopoly and oligopolies that dominate the materials supply side.

    • Antoine 12.1

      If the Govt just launches into building houses without sorting the materials supply thing first, it’s going to get ripped off, isn’t it?

      A.

  13. Skeptic 13

    As a former HCNZ employee I can confirm the stats in the graph – then what happened in 1975 – oh yeah – that Piggy chap started NZ entry into trash politics with “reds under the bed” cartoons – since then our trust in politics and politicians has gone into the shitter. Also our housing program took a nose dive only starting to recoup when Clark took office, but never enough. All our housing woes started when the HCNZ plan for a centralised State and Private co-ordinated design & build plan was trashed first by National and then shut out by the ACT governments under Lange and Bolger – you know the “market forces” brigade. Now we’re belatedly trying badly to catch up five decades of shoddy band-aid housing policies – a dollar short and a day late. Only thing I slightly agree with from ACT poster is sharing the GST on building with councils. We’ve all seen how reliable insurance schemes are in the building trade unless they’re run by Govt – total rip-off – Chch EQ is proof of that. As for removing RMA – what part of leaky building syndrome did that stupid arsehole miss? – what planet was he living on? Building homes is a great way to build an internal economy – the first state house scheme pulled us partly out of the 1930s Great Depression. It also brought about an equality and fairness to NZ society from 1945 to 1985 that has been unequaled. If we started a similar program tomorrow, my Grandchildren might see some benefit – it’s too late for my children though – they’re stuck with the dumb “free market” model – and are paying through the nose for it. Yeah, our generation did a real great job of instilling the benefits of a controlled economy into our children – didn’t we?

  14. NZJester 14

    Cutting the red tape as they like to call it, just leads to substandard homes getting built that cost the country more in other areas like health costs and possibly in education costs from those kids always getting sick getting left behind.
    If all those raw logs did not get shipped out of the country, a lot of the cost of timber would go down.

  15. saveNZ 15

    Part of the problem is the people who seem to post most about this seem to have little understanding of construction – in fact a lot of people seem to be renting and therefore have zero knowledge even of owning a house – let alone the issues of constructing housing.

    The issue in Auckland is due to immigration. Even the Sally’s have got around to acknowledging that.

    You need to halt or slow immigration to allow the housing to catch up.

    Having a market driven solution to building will mean that the developers will be building houses to make a profit. You do not make a profit building houses for the ‘affordable market’ – why would you when you can build luxury housing and make more profit.

    Apartments cost more than single level housing to build. So they are more costly to build.

    Even if you did manage to build a lot more houses, there is also a major transport issue and wastewater and infrastructure issue around having the third largest immigration policy in the world. Unlike other countries NZ never invested in proper public transport and in fact seems to be more interested in destroying it by getting incompetent and slow people to be in charge of it more interested in fleecing money off the state and public than actually getting public transport working.

    Although we have been using immigration for years to ‘help the economy’ there is evidence to suggest it has not worked at all. We are actually the same or less productive by creating more of a low wage economy here but it has forced down wages and created housing and transport and infrastructure issues which have to be paid for, at the same time those coming in are mostly on lower wage jobs or work offshore, so it’s not working.

    At the same time, the best and brightest are leaving so they can get a job that actually pays them what they are worth – migrants and Kiwis. So we are exporting talent and replacing it with fruit pickers and chefs and questionable building staff and wondering why NZ is not becoming more prosperous and our buildings are leaky and falling down, everything takes so long and we seem worse off and actually have to take on more debt.

    At the same time we could be helping people like refugees to come here that actually need a new place to live – but we disgusting levels of refugee quotas here.

    Does not make sense apart from the people coming seem to be carefully selected to be wealthy blue collar workers from non democratic and more corrupt countries that do not have a welfare system, and National has reaped the benefit of their voting habits (and probably donation) habits.

    The other issue with people renting is, there is a shortage of rental properties. Kiwis used to rent surplus housing out, but because we have such positive immigration flows and the people are wealthy enough to buy property in most cases, then the houses are becoming owner occupied and not rented out.

    So you can put in rent controls, secure rentals, WOF or what have you, but people are selling the rentals to new people who live in the house and don’t rent the house out.

    If anything more rental criteria will lower the amount of people who rent out houses. And we have a government that is actually selling off the housing NZ houses. In Sweden it is practically impossible to rent a house because of the shortage and they have massive taxation on houses and rent controls, so if your problem is a shortage then this does not increase supply.

    We have a housing and rental shortage and major public transport and infrastructure problem and growing pollution problem.

    You need to either limit immigration or build thousands of new houses, construct and spend billions more on public transport, construct and spend billions more infrastructure and then borrow or tax billions more to pay for it.

    Which sounds easier and less costly?

  16. nukefacts 16

    re saveNZ: hear hear, agree totally. Housing is an issue subject to constraints that restrict our available range of options for solving it, and immigration is a huge population constraint on our housing and transport systems. As it’s an intentional constraint caused by successive governmental immigration policies, it can be changed through future policy decisions. Wishing away immigration as a causative factor in the housing crisis is just not going to remove this particular constraint – something needs to be done and now!

Recent Comments

Recent Posts