The Greens take a stand on the housing bubble

Written By: - Date published: 3:04 pm, July 27th, 2016 - 264 comments
Categories: greens, housing, human rights, Metiria Turei, tenants' rights - Tags: ,

Metiria Turei spoke the unspeakable on RNZ this morning. Here’s the Green Party press release explaining what they intend,
Responsible house price reduction needed to avoid bubble bursting

Auckland housing is unaffordable and a responsible Government would have a sensible plan to reduce house prices over time, while protecting families with mortgages, the Green Party said today.

“The simple fact is that housing in Auckland is totally unaffordable and if we don’t take action to bring house prices down, we will have a whole generation of people locked out of ever owning their own home,” said Green Party Co-leader Metiria Turei.

“In around 10 to 15 years’ time, we’d like to see families on the median household income buying their first home for about three to four times that income – not 10 times like it costs now.

“I want to be very clear that we are talking about a responsible, carefully managed reduction in house prices over a period of time like 10 to 15 years.

“The Green Party is putting together a plan for how to reduce house prices responsibly and gradually, and that will include making sure people who’ve recently taken out big mortgages to buy a home are safe and secure.

“We know housing isn’t affordable for families now, so the only way to protect people from market instability is to lay out a plan using every tool we’ve got to slowly bring down house prices to a reasonable level.

“Nobody, including the Green Party, wants to see the housing market crash and equally nobody thinks the current situation can go on like this.

“It’s a fundamental part of Kiwi values that people who work hard should be able to afford their own home.

“Our plan for more affordable housing will include building more houses, a capital gains tax (excluding the family home), and restricting non-resident foreign buyers,” Mrs Turei said.

It would be good to see some discussion on how this will affect tenants too, and what else should be done for people that rent.

264 comments on “The Greens take a stand on the housing bubble ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Sigh 1
    27 July 2016 at 3:06 pm

    Political suicide. Not so much for the Greens, but for Labour by association.

    [your comment appeared in less than a minute from me putting up the post, did you even read it? If you want to be critical of the policy or announcement, then make an argument. Low tolerance for party bashing today – weka]

    • Anno1701 1.1
      27 July 2016 at 3:11 pm

      “Political suicide. Not so much for the Greens, but for Labour by association.”

      concern troll is concerned !

      • jcuknz 1.1.1
        28 July 2016 at 9:17 am

        It is how she said it that is the problem .. reading the release was more helpful and building houses is a slow process and would produce the result slowly … and with compensation for the fools who recent jumped in … it could work.

        • Sigh 1.1.1.1
          28 July 2016 at 3:58 pm

          That’s not how markets work. They can’t be managed down slowly. Metiria’s policy would trigger a crash. That would likely leave massive injustice for people who’ve bought their first home and trigger an economic collapse. Voters instinctively know this, which is why it’s lunacy.

          • Pat 1.1.1.1.1
            28 July 2016 at 4:13 pm

            will Metirias policy (the details of which are unknown) cause anymore of a “panic ” than Labour’s stated policies?

          • mikes 1.1.1.1.2
            29 July 2016 at 2:16 am

            It wouldn’t trigger an economic collapse, our top 4 Australian banks have been stress tested and could easily withstand a 40% drop in house prices.

            It would probably trigger a crash though because who in their right mind would buy a house, knowing that it is going to steadily lose value over the next 15 years?

            The only way (the only..) way to return Auckland house prices to affordable levels is by way of a massive crash, whether that happens by way of the market or policy or a bit of both.

            I do think she’s trying to save votes from house owners with the way this is worded and to me that is dishonest. Why try and bring prices slowly down over 15 years? How is doing it over 15 years going to help anyone?

    • Siobhan 1.2
      27 July 2016 at 4:08 pm

      I suspect it would take less than a minute for at least half the population to react to Metirias announcement.
      They don’t need to read the fine print, but, you never know, maybe it is slowly sinking in that a Million dollar house should be the price of a mansion, not a dismal hovel in Mangere.
      Though it is an interesting conversation when the Green Party are sharing a stand with Don Brash. The poor old granny Herald won’t know if its Arthur or Martha on this one….
      ps just heard on National Radio a statement from Labour assuring everyone they have no intention of having house prices go down. They just want to build affordable houses…because, you know, $500,000 is affordable.
      And sure, when you have Million Dollar average houses, you can fill the rest of the street with “affordable’ houses, which I’m sure will stay affordable because their owners won’t want to sell them on for more after a couple of years..(sighs…deeply)

      • srylands 1.2.1
        27 July 2016 at 4:15 pm

        “ps just heard on National Radio a statement from Labour assuring everyone they have no intention of having house prices go down. They just want to build affordable house…”
        _____________________

        And there you see the problem. Gutless politicians selling snake oil.

        If Auckland house prices don’t go down, how are they going to be ‘affordable’?

        • Rosemary McDonald 1.2.1.1
          27 July 2016 at 4:32 pm

          Here’s the link….http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/309551/greens'-house-price-talk-irresponsible-labour

          to the comment from Andrew “Oops I did it again” Little calling Metria’s plan “irresponsible”.

          Way to go Andrew…

          • weka 1.2.1.1.1
            27 July 2016 at 4:51 pm

            It looks like a fairly classic centre leftie vs greenie approach thing.

            “We’re two parties with independent views, they haven’t been discussed with me but we have a very clear plan, it is not about crashing house prices… We don’t want to cause undue economic harm to those who have in good faith bought properties, entered into mortgages, that’s not a responsible approach.

            1. The Greens want to prevent a crash. That’s part of the point.

            2. They’ve also stated clearly that they will look after people who’ve recently taken on a mortgage.

            3. There is no plan yet, so it’s hard to say if it’s a useful or useless thing.

            • Rosemary McDonald 1.2.1.1.1.1
              27 July 2016 at 5:03 pm

              I could be being a little harsh on AL…there is the MOU with the Greens. Perhaps there should have discussed this in private?

              Or maybe they did, the idea was dismissed, so Meteria went public anyway?

              Who knows with this lot?

              Anyway, the idea has been pushed of the wharf, let’s see if it floats.

              I don’t really care about house prices for those who (foolishly :-)) choose to live in Auckland…but the madness is now affecting house prices in other (saner) parts of the country.

              So there really needs to be a long term plan.

              • weka …
                27 July 2016 at 5:12 pm

                I’ll be interested to see how Auckland specific the plan is.

                Little reckons they weren’t given a headsup, which is a mistake on the Greens’ part.

              • Leftie …
                27 July 2016 at 5:27 pm

                Andrew Little said: “There are plenty of people who have entered into mortgages and a house price crash is going to destroy them. And we’re simply not going to do that.”

                @1.2.1.1.2 for article & link.

                • weka …
                  27 July 2016 at 5:47 pm

                  yes, and Turei said,

                  “The Green Party is putting together a plan for how to reduce house prices responsibly and gradually, and that will include making sure people who’ve recently taken out big mortgages to buy a home are safe and secure.”

                  and

                  “Nobody, including the Green Party, wants to see the housing market crash and equally nobody thinks the current situation can go on like this.”

                  It’s pretty clear they’re not going to do anything rash, and that they will protect the more vulnerable home owners. So Little’s comment doesn’t make much sense really. The Greens aren’t talking about crashing the market.

                  • Leftie …
                    27 July 2016 at 10:00 pm

                    Yeah I know, I read that. Little’s comment does make sense, the Greens are saying the same thing too.

                  • mikes …
                    29 July 2016 at 2:22 am

                    “The Greens aren’t talking about crashing the market”

                    Yes they are. They’re just trying to say it in a way that won’t cost them as many votes. Nobody is going to buy a house knowing that it will steadily lose value over the next 15 years. No buyers = market crash.

                    • weka …
                      29 July 2016 at 2:32 pm

                      Do you really believe that people only ever buy houses because it’s going to make them money? Seriously?

                      Anyway, consider a car that hits the end of the road at 100km/h vs one that starts slowing down several kilometres out and by the time it gets to the end of the road it’s about to stop without hitting antying. Would you call the first thign a crash? What about the second?

                    • mikes …
                      30 July 2016 at 4:48 am

                      “Do you really believe that people only ever buy houses because it’s going to make them money? Seriously?”

                      No of course not. I certainly would by a house to live in and woudnt care a jot about resale value. However, I would say (just my opinion) that most people, especially the over 40% speculators and ‘investors’ wouldn’t want to buy into a $800k mortgage with all the interest that entails, knowing that the property will only have a resale of $400k in 15 years time.

                      That aside, would a bank sign up to a mortgage for an asset that is going to steadily decline in value?

                      regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the Greens, (I agree that prices must come down at least 50%) it’s the getting there over 15 years without causing a crash that would seem insurmountable.

                      Also, for the co-leader of the Greens to disregard the MOU just after it has been agreed upon isn’t just a silly little mistake like some are suggesting, in political terms it is a very big biggie and will put issues of trust and competence to the fore.

                      Weka your thing about the car is a very poor analogy for a number of reasons if you think about it.

                • mikes …
                  29 July 2016 at 2:19 am

                  So he is saying that the Labour party doesn’t want affordable housing in Auckland.

                  • Leftie …
                    29 July 2016 at 10:33 am

                    No, that’s not what he is saying. Labour DO want affordable housing in Auckland and through out the country. The Greens do want that too.

                    • mikes …
                      30 July 2016 at 4:52 am

                      So Labour DO want affordable housing but they DON’T want house prices to drop? Weak…. Trying to keep everyone happy will bite Labour on this one.

                      At least Turei has stated she wants house prices to drop to 3 or 4 times the median income. (which is a drop of over 60% not 50%)

          • Leftie 1.2.1.1.2
            27 July 2016 at 5:23 pm

            Labour and Greens at odds over fifty per cent house price drop

            Political allies Labour and Greens are at odds over whether house prices should be deliberately reduced to help more families get into homes.

            Labour leader Andrew Little said today that he disagreed with the Green Party’s proposal to gradually cut prices by 50 per cent.

            “It won’t be happening under a Labour Government,” he said.

            If in power, Labour would aim to stabilise, but not cut house prices, he said.
            This would be achieved by building 50,000 affordable homes at a fixed price, and by banning non-resident purchases.

            “We think those measures would stabilise house prices and we don’t think there’s any such thing as a managed reduction over 10 to 15 years,” Little said.
            “There are plenty of people who have entered into mortgages and a house price crash is going to destroy them. And we’re simply not going to do that.”

            Little said there was “no conceivable mechanism” to reduce house prices as the Greens had proposed.

            Labour and the Greens have signed a formal deal to work together until the election.

            Little denied that the issue would strain their relationship. The Memorandum of Understanding between the two parties allowed for disagreements, he said.

            “We are the only ones prepared to say it out loud,” Turei said today.

            The Greens are developing a policy which would aim to cause house prices drop to between three and five times the median income if the party was in Government. It would involve a capital gains tax, restricting non-resident, foreign purchases, and removing tax exemptions for property investors.

            “Do prices need to come down? The answer is obviously yes,” Turei said.

            “The next question becomes ‘What’s reasonable?’ And reasonable is three, four, five times the median household income.”

            “If we don’t have a plan for bringing down house prices then we are going to have a crash. And nobody wants a crash.”

            New Zealand’s median household income is $85,745, and the median house price is $500,000 – a ratio of 5.83. In Auckland, the ratio is 9.1.

            Turei acknowledged the political risk in wanting house prices to fall.

            “But frankly, everybody is thinking this. It’s just that somebody’s got to be brave enough to put it out there so we can have a rational conversation about what the plan looks like.”

            Turei said cutting house price prices was now a “common conversation”.

            The Reserve Bank’s former governor Don Brash and former chairman Arthur Grimes have both called for prices to be cut by 50 per cent.

            – NZ Herald

            <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11682323

            • Wayne 1.2.1.1.2.1
              27 July 2016 at 9:34 pm

              So long as there is significant population growth in Auckland coupled with very low interest rates, there won’t be a large price fall.
              However we must be pretty much at a price peak, so if there is an increase in house supply there will be at least a price plateau and probably a reduction of 10 to 20%. That has often happened over the last 40 years.
              But a 50% reduction would only happen in a dramatic recession – population outflow, a reduction in total economic output, high unemployment.
              Hmm that is actually a pretty good description of Green economic policy, so if the Greens were the government I imagine they will get a 50% reduction in house prices.

              • Stuart Munro …
                27 July 2016 at 10:02 pm

                40% of properties are now held by investors. A properly punitive treatment of these parasitic vermin could see prices fall relatively quickly.

                • Richard McGrath …
                  28 July 2016 at 8:50 am

                  “40% of properties are now held by investors. A properly punitive treatment of these parasitic vermin could see prices fall relatively quickly.”

                  So you would like to see no rental properties at all?

                  • Stuart Munro …
                    28 July 2016 at 9:15 am

                    Well you know, no-one has invited me to design a policy, and it ought to be a little better than off the cuff.

                    But for home ownership to increase, the low end of the market must be permeable – at present landlord/speculators compete fiercely for these resources.

                    In Korea, a popular retirement plan has been to build a 3-4 story apartment block. The landlord occupies the top floor, and rents the apartments below. This is a fairly good market based solution for retirement income – and it doesn’t compete for housing with new entrants. A limited exception to landlord rules for older folk might prove reasonably sensible.

                    The housing/rent ‘market’ NZ has at present is tremendously destructive of other sectors of the economy. Nothing offers a remotely comparable return, and that calls for regulation in and of itself – you’d expect that basic economics courses cover the downsides of property ‘booms’ and that their negative effects would be known and avoided. But clearly recent governments have let things go to hell.

                    But to be more direct – rents and capital gains on property should not be the path to wealth. Productive enterprise benefits society considerably more. The current situation could be readily amended and the bubble deflated by properly taxing capital gains, and some form of rent control. The obvious first rent control mechanism would start as a rent freeze – it doesn’t expose landlords to costs that would crash their mortgages. But over time proper tax measures should render renting and speculating inferior to other forms of investment so that they reassign their capital to more productive sectors.

                  • Lanthanide …
                    28 July 2016 at 11:46 am

                    The properties don’t cease to exist, you know. Instead of being occupied by renters, they are occupied by their owners.

                • Chooky …
                  28 July 2016 at 11:20 am

                  +100…agree Stuart Munro

                  …imo the Greens are thinking in the correct direction on the housing issue….New Zealanders MUST take back their housing for New Zealanders and the next generation of first home buyers

                  …the Greens will certainly get one of my votes on this issue alone

                  the other issue is to retain existing state owned and built up Housing Corp stock and NOT privatise it …but renovate it ( this could be done in conjunction with employing young Maori and Polynesian and teaching them building skills and fitting them into carpentry apprenticeships)

              • Pat …
                27 July 2016 at 10:07 pm

                so you wish to exclude a substantial proportion of the population from the possibility of home ownership…..well I guess at least with National you can say they are honest about that fact.

              • locus …
                28 July 2016 at 6:57 am

                The Greens intentions for tackiling the burgeioning housing crisis that has been created by this government don’t come a minute too soon

                If this government had any skerrit of intelligence they’d look at the tried and tested controls used in other countries – who btw have highly successful economies

                For example:

                – apply a 30% capital gains tax to every investment property
                – put maximum rent controls in place, say $30 per square metre per month
                – make non-ŕesidents pay an annual levy of $15,000 for every property they rent out
                – reclassify central city zones to enable higher density housing to be built
                – combine the above measures with a concerted effort to build more state rental housing in cities.

                If they really had courage the government would develop a long term strategy to house 50% of the population in cities in state controlled rental properties by 2040

                – I’ve seen how well these policies work in Austria and other European countries. Property investors are still plentiful, and can earn around 4% ROI which is not too bad for unearned income
                http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Europe

                • srylands …
                  28 July 2016 at 7:13 am

                  How does a capital gains tax reduce house prices? I don’t see how that would boost housing supply.

                  BTW you can’t impose a levy on Chinese investors. The FTA would disallow it.

                  • Pat …
                    28 July 2016 at 7:16 am

                    you can apply a levy on all non resident purchasers …..and control that residency

                  • Stuart Munro …
                    28 July 2016 at 3:41 pm

                    A strong CGT on third and subsequent properties that would render them a marginal or non-performing investment would see speculators cash up and look for a new bubble. The pressure to sell would be controlled by the tax regime – a strong tax regime would see more properties returned to the ownership market and thus depress prices. You’re not much of a RWNJ if you don’t know this.

        • jcuknz 1.2.1.2
          28 July 2016 at 9:19 am

          Wages go up and bankrupt the country? The MOU is obviously a joke.

        • save nz 1.2.1.3
          28 July 2016 at 10:07 am

          Yep, apparently the unitary plan has ditched the affordability criteria. Hmmm so government forces council to open up land so that rich mates and developers can profit, but removed the affordability criteria….. oh all this is to solve the housing crisis? sarc.

          Note to people – sounds like more houses being built are not designed for local Kiwis to be affordable – it is to sell to other people with cash coming in. People who will probably vote National.

          Due to the fact that rich people no longer pay any taxes through helpful legal loopholes, the Greens would be better to put forward a stamp duty not capital gains because a capital gains will NOT stop rich people buying up property as investments but will probably scare 64% homeowners off a change of government. Capital gains gets less taxes, unlike stamp duty which is not only instant but discourages flipping as you have to pay taxes everytime you do so.

          Personally think the Greens have made an error on this one. The people who like the Greens and renters will still vote for them no matter what, but the middle NZ home owners who will control the election outcome will not like it, because capital gains taxes are not the right tax to stop speculation and migrants are buying property as their home to live in, therefore will be exempt.

          So all in all, without any real policy on migration – none of the Green or even Labour policy will work. Yes non resident investors are an issue on housing, but migrants are more of an issue due to 67,000 years figures. I have not heard of any politician promising 67,000 new houses per year so something has to give… or how we can afford to pay the superannuation and health care of the new residents…

          I

        • Skinny 1.2.1.4
          28 July 2016 at 10:46 am

          I am all for rolling Little after that gutless interview.

          • Chooky 1.2.1.4.1
            28 July 2016 at 11:24 am

            +100 Skinny…Little Labour too little too late…and they had the nerve to take out Hone and the Mana Party which really is a working class party for working class New Zealanders

            • Leftie 1.2.1.4.1.1
              28 July 2016 at 11:54 am

              Chooky, Hone took himself and Mana out, and he’s doing it again by sucking up to the tory Maori Party.

              Skinny7.1.1.2
              19 June 2016 at 6:50 pm
              “He is dreaming if he thinks he beat Davis and he won’t get the required 5 % of the party vote.
              The the Maori Tory party are exactly that. They won’t deal with him. Give it up Hone a one trick pony isn’t going to cut it.”

              <a href="http://thestandard.org.nz/mana-2-0/#comment-1191062

              • Chooky …
                28 July 2016 at 3:38 pm

                nah Leftie…Labour by contesting the seat with Kelvin Davis took out a real Left party Mana/Internet with the possibility of Laila Harre, Annette Sykes and John Minto in Parliament ( it also took out and wasted the votes of many who voted Mana/Internet)

                and there was also dirty tricks at play in taking out Hone Harawira …which I hope Labour wasnt involved with

                http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/201779410/dirty-politics-players-back-in-the-frame

                • Leftie …
                  28 July 2016 at 9:44 pm

                  Nah Chooky, and Labour made no secret that they were going after all the Maori seats, just like the tory Maori party said they were. No one made any deals, except for Hone when he teamed up with Dotcom, and it backfired on him. And now Hone is doing it again by sucking up to the tory Maori party. Don’t think John Key will put up with that, do you?

                  What person in their right minds would believe liars from John key’s black ops crew? It’s their job to lie and smearmonger National’s opposition. After all National’s cohorts in crime lost face and were heavily defeated in all but 1 Maori seat, and that one was bought by National’s cabinet club dinners.

                  I think it’s pretty awesome that Laila Harre has endorsed the Labour party for the 2017 general election.

                  From TDB: “What I think with Labour’s announcements in the weekend which was so important it may well start to drive the behaviour itself, I mean I’ve certainly said to people I know in that house buying generation that rather than work longer hours to pay an excessively high mortgage and put their deposit out there in an overheated market that they would be better to invest their time and any additional money in helping Labour to change the government it’s a far better investment for them make in getting their first home than anything else. “

    • Richard McGrath 1.3
      28 July 2016 at 8:48 am

      “Low tolerance for party bashing today…” – does that include National and ACT?

    • Michelle 1.4
      28 July 2016 at 9:14 am

      When you say ‘by association’ what a load of bollocks we trade with countries that kill there own people and take their organs. We turn a blind eye to many human rights issues globally and within our own country. ( high Maori incarceration rates ) And when it comes to trade we don’t care about these human right issues. Yet we put the boot in when it comes to social and economic issues in our own country. (baby killing and beating ) What a bunch of hypocrits many NZers are. Cameron Slater comes to mind here and the pnats hit man who all of a sudden was gone from our sight what was his name ?

  2. Sabine 2
    27 July 2016 at 3:23 pm

    that would be the time it takes to get that 100.000 houses build as per the Labour/Green understanding.

    But frankly as long as we advertise our housing stock for sale overseas as per the new arrangement with Ray White etc, there will be no reduction.

    We can’t build enough houses in this small country to accommodate all those that would come from overseas and out bid us at every turn.

    Unless we of course stop that. And that would only happen with a Government that would be a Labour/Green government with hopefully the support form NZF.

    National has no interest in clamping down on runaway migration and all that cash.

    • Rosie 2.1
      27 July 2016 at 3:43 pm

      I would be surprised if Ray White AREN’T alone in their marketing towards overseas buyers. If there’s no market regulations stopping them , then estate agents will go guns blazing to get the market share they want. As far as they are concerned they will believe they “are doing the right thing for their client” (and their incomes!) They will never self regulate for ethical reasons which comes back to your point:

      “National has no interest in clamping down on runaway migration and all that cash.”

      If they did, they wouldn’t allow this form of marketing. I would add offshore investment to runaway migration

    • weston 2.2
      27 July 2016 at 8:07 pm

      Yep the new gold rush is on and as long as foreign money keeps flowing in and nz is seen as a special place its bound to continue .Go to auckland son thars gold in them thar streets

  3. te reo putake 3
    27 July 2016 at 3:23 pm

    Excellent politics! Politicians are supposed to show leadership, even if that includes occasionally saying what some people don’t want to hear. It’s really simple, NZ. The rise in house prices is unsustainable. It must stop.

    And if this slack arse government don’t want to make the big calls, I’m glad we’ve got an alternative leadership waiting in the wings who will make the changes our country needs.

    • billmurray 3.2
      27 July 2016 at 3:53 pm

      This latest load of bollocks from Metiria Turei is a cop out from the truth of the matter.
      In 2008 the Helen Clark Labour government signed a Free Trade Agreement with China of which articles 138 and 141 allow for Chinese people, whether they are resident in NZ or not, the right to buy residential real estate in NZ not less favourably than local NZ investors. It is a breach of the 2008 Agreement to stop them.
      Metiria Turei and Andrew Little are well aware of this agreement and both are telling pure porkies about how they will resolve the housing crisis in Auckland.
      Only when this agreement is changed or when the Chinese people stop buying houses will the house prices stabilise and even fall.
      The Chinese government will never forgo this gift from Labour, WHY SHOULD THEY ?.
      In a statement made in the last 48 hours Andrew Little has said he will put restrictions on overseas people buying our houses, If he is Prime Minister he could probably do that BUT HE WILL NOT as NZ would be savaged in International Trade Courts and the Chinese Government would stop trading with us, which would put the country into insolvency and a Financial depression.
      This is a plea to the Labour and Green political parties leaders, PLEASE TELL THE PEOPLE OF NZ THE TRUTH ABOUT THE HOUSING CRISIS, YOU ARE BUILDING UP FALSE HOPES BY YOUR CONTINOUS LYING.

      • BM 3.2.1
        27 July 2016 at 4:22 pm

        National needs to raise this in Parliament.

        I’d be interested to hear the reply

      • Garibaldi 3.2.2
        27 July 2016 at 4:41 pm

        If this is so then I am disgusted by such incompetent negotiating. Wasn’t Tim Groser by any chance was it? Only NZ citizens should be allowed to buy property (along with close scrutiny to prevent people getting around that).

        • BM 3.2.2.1
          27 July 2016 at 4:53 pm

          Seems to be the case, Stephen Franks blogged about it a while a go

          http://www.stephenfranks.co.nz/house-buying-ban/

          Does rather cast a rather large amount of doubt on the integrity and honesty of Andrew Little and Metiria Turei.

          • weka 3.2.2.1.1
            27 July 2016 at 5:37 pm

            Would be good to have an opinion that doesn’t come from ACT.

            • srylands 3.2.2.1.1.1
              27 July 2016 at 5:40 pm

              Come on shoot the messenger – is that the best you can do? Read Articles 138 and 139.

              • weka …
                27 July 2016 at 5:50 pm

                Nope, I’m not a lawyer. I want to see a range of informed opinions from people with knowledge and experience in addition to the one with a vested interest in not restricting the housing market or FTAs.

                Funny that you think saying Franks is from ACT is shooting the messenger though.

            • jcuknz 3.2.2.1.1.2
              28 July 2016 at 9:24 am

              Why Weka …it is the common sense party remember?

        • srylands 3.2.2.2
          27 July 2016 at 5:23 pm

          It is quite clear from reading the NZ-China FTA that a government cannot prevent Chinese citizens buying New Zealand residential property.

          This is Article 138:
          ___
          “Article 138 National Treatment

          Each Party shall accord to investments and activities associated with such investments, with respect to management, conduct, operation, maintenance, use, enjoyment or disposal, by the investors of the other Party treatment no less favourable than that accorded, in like circumstances, to the investments and associated activities by its own investors.”
          ___

          And it was not “incompetent negotiating”. If by “incompetent” you mean that Phil Goff as Minister signed off an outcome he was somehow unaware of.

          This agreement was signed off by the Cabinet.

          EDIT:

          Just read the Stephen Frank blog on the China FTA. It is worth quoting him in full:

          “The list [of protections in Clause 138] does not include “acquisition” or similar words. So under that provision a Chinese house buyer must be treated the same as a New Zealander after acquiring residential property, but the protection does not extend to prospective buyers. Whew for Labour!

          But wait – another Article (the most favoured nation clause) commits New Zealand not to pass law that discriminates against Chinese investors in comparison with other overseas investors (such as Australians).

          Article 139 requires that investors of [China] be treated no less favourably than investors of any third country [Australia] “with respect to admission, expansion, management, conduct, operation, maintenance, use, enjoyment and disposal” of investments. ”
          ___

          So what does that mean? It means you CAN ban Chinese from buying residential property. So long as you ban Australians too. Good luck with that.

          • Stuart Munro 3.2.2.2.1
            27 July 2016 at 6:45 pm

            Banning all foreign property investment will be necessary anyway – or the fake racist cries would get too shrill. It probably won’t be enough on its own however, and swingeing taxes on investment properties (= one you’re not living in) are long overdue.

            • srylands 3.2.2.2.1.1
              28 July 2016 at 8:16 am

              Can you please explain how taxing investment properties will reduce residential property prices in an environment where demand exceeds supply? Both the RNBZ and NZPC disagree with you.

              • Stuart Munro …
                28 July 2016 at 8:33 am

                Of course they do.

                Owning investment properties has been profitable because of the ability to evade taxes on capital gains and rackrent tenants who have no other recourse.

                Rent caps to stop rackrenting, and puntive taxes on multiple property ownership would encourage speculators to divest themselves of investment properties – rapidly cooling the market. Of course the slumlord can retain the properties if the like – but government can push the tax up until the market behaves as desired.

                If Labour/Greens are smart they’ll impose them incrementally so as to deflate rather than burst the bubble.

                It really isn’t difficult for a party in government to solve this problem – but they have to want to.

              • Pat …
                28 July 2016 at 8:37 am

                an effective CGT on investment property impacts price by reducing demand for said property….and is why the RBNZ do indeed advocate changing the tax treatment on property.

                “The Reserve Bank says house prices are “particularly stretched” in Auckland, and is calling for the Government to look at untaxed capital gains on property.

                The Reserve Bank would like to see “fresh consideration” of possible policy measures to address the tax-preferred status of housing, especially housing investment, Reserve Bank Deputy Governor Grant Spencer said in a speech about housing at the Rotorua Chamber of Commerce.

                “Investors are often setting the marginal market prices that are then applied to the full housing stock within a regional market,” he said.

                Spencer’s call to look at tax on property has been quickly backed by the Manufacturers and Exporters Association and the Green Party.”

                http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/67768129/reserve-bank-call-to-look-at-untaxed-property-gains

          • Pat 3.2.2.2.2
            27 July 2016 at 10:25 pm

            its not clear and is why even Franks poses it as a possibility….and I also note NZers are unable to own land in China

        • DavidC 3.2.2.4
          28 July 2016 at 7:56 am

          You think Tim Grosser negotiated a trade deal for the labour Party?

      • Ed 3.2.3
        27 July 2016 at 5:25 pm

        billmurray, I believe you are wrong about the provisions in the NZ China agreement.
        From memory they are entitled to no less favourable treatment than citizens of any other foreign country – with some entitlements being improved when the National-led government entered into an agreement with South Korea. Doubtless someone more knowledgeable can educate us both.

        • srylands 3.2.3.1
          27 July 2016 at 5:42 pm

          “From memory they are entitled to no less favourable treatment than citizens of any other foreign country”

          ____

          Yes you are correct. So New Zealand could ban all non-residents from acquiring property. That would need to include Australia. Is that labour party policy?

          • Macro 3.2.3.1.1
            27 July 2016 at 7:12 pm

            Australia (quite rightly IMHO) has restrictions in the form of extra purchase taxes on non citizens (including NZers) acquiring property. So I see no problem there.

          • Sabine 3.2.3.1.2
            27 July 2016 at 7:43 pm

            what about Non resident is hard to understand.
            Non resident australian,
            non resident german
            non resident chinese
            non resident us american

            etc etc etc

            in fact considering how Nz’lers in OZ are denied rights despite having residence status and paying taxes why would NZ grant Non-resident Australians rights that it would deny other Non Resident nationals?

            • weka 3.2.3.1.2.1
              27 July 2016 at 7:55 pm

              Turei just confirmed,

              i think we can restrict residential purchases to permanent residents & citizens.

              https://twitter.com/metiria/status/758205472327348224

              • BM …
                27 July 2016 at 8:24 pm

                She thinks?

                Maybe she should ask Phil Twyford , he seems to have all the answers.

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

                • Sabine …
                  27 July 2016 at 8:31 pm

                  See here:
                  Labour will ban non-resident foreign buyers from buying existing New Zealand homes.

                  However they can build houses should they want to and thus increase NZ housing stock and hopefully this will add in the decrease of house prices over time.

                  So there, 🙂

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

                  just for you mate. 🙂

                  • BM …
                    27 July 2016 at 8:33 pm

                    So they’ll ban everyone? even Australians?
                    Hows that going to work?

                    • Sabine …
                      27 July 2016 at 9:12 pm

                      how is it working for Oz to kick out NZ’lers that have lived their all their lives.

                      oh yeah, our Prime Minister does not give a flying fuck and i would assume that the OZ PM does care equally about some OZ Schmuck Non Resident not being able to purchase an EXISTING house in NZ.

                      they can however build a new house in NZ. There, see how that is going to work. And to boot they would increase our housing stock.

                      Win win. they get a house in a country they don’t live, and we get a house for someone who lives here.

                    • mikes …
                      29 July 2016 at 2:34 am

                      “Hows that going to work?”

                      Simple. If you want to buy a residential property here then come and live here. Houses here should be for New Zealander’s to live in, not for foreigners to make money from.

                • weka …
                  27 July 2016 at 8:46 pm

                  “She thinks?”

                  It was a tweet, and a reply to me asking specifically about the FTA thing, which now looks like an ACToid storm in a teacup.

              • Sabine …
                27 July 2016 at 8:29 pm

                i think both Labour and the Greens can work this out.
                We can increase housing, and have prices drop over time without causing the end of the world.
                However it will take time, guts, and determination.

                See here: Labour will ban non-resident foreign buyers from buying existing New Zealand homes.
                However they can build houses. So there, 🙂

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

                i do think that both parties need to work on their communication skills. 🙂

                • Leftie …
                  27 July 2016 at 10:05 pm

                  +1 Sabine.

                • Pat …
                  27 July 2016 at 10:11 pm

                  the issue is if Labour build the number of houses they claim and restrict foreign ownership the prices will fall significantly….if they don’t understand that they are incompetent and if they do they are dishonest….do we need any more of either?

                • Karen …
                  28 July 2016 at 10:26 am

                  +1 Sabine

              • billmurray …
                27 July 2016 at 9:53 pm

                she thinks?, she should know this is in breach of the FTA China. You are being lied to.

                • weka …
                  27 July 2016 at 10:04 pm

                  I read your comments elsewhere on this. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but if you want to state that the GP and/or Turei are lying as fact you need to provide evidence of that i.e. something that demonstrates they are lying as opposed to them disagreeing with you and having a different interpretation of the FTA and what is possible.

                  I followed the other convo a bit and from what people were saying, the only thing stopping a NZ govt from restricting house sales to residents/citizens was the thing about Australia. But if the restriction applies to NZers alone, then by definition it excludes Australians along with all other nationalities. That’s my guess for what Turei is meaning.

                  I also don’t see them as being people who lie anyway, and fail to see what motivation they would have in this instance.

                  • billmurray …
                    27 July 2016 at 10:44 pm

                    l understand your concern, both LABGREEN are desperate for poll , they see the housing crisis as saviour.
                    RMorgan has spooked them both.
                    both leaders fighting for their lives.

                    • weka …
                      27 July 2016 at 10:57 pm

                      Even if that were true, I seriously can’t see the Greens lying about a policy that they know they will get caught out on.

                      Turei and Shaw are doing well, both of them, no fighting for their lives.

                • jcuknz …
                  28 July 2016 at 9:33 am

                  And we are worried about a trade war over talking about sub-standard steel? Restricting the Chinese would be much more certain.

      • save nz 3.2.4
        28 July 2016 at 10:24 am

        @BillMurray Exactly they need to address the China free trade agreement. Also most migrants coming in from India, so do they have automatic rights too?

        In the old days, we mostly had European migrant deals, so that Europeans could come to NZ and Kiwis could go there, that worked because Kiwis gains valuable experience form this exchange. Also Europe is a social democracy so they also understand social welfare and why you have that system.

        My concern is that our current migrant exchanges are useless for Kiwis apart from for .1%, , Kiwis don’t want to live in China, you can’t buy land there, you don’t want to live in India but the reverse is true. The countries we have the most migration from these days don’t have social welfare systems, the same level of human rights, the same level of corruption, or environmental concerns (although Asia seem to be changing on this while NZ goes in the reverse).

        There was no benefit for NZ by allowing migrants to access our social security system and welfare via residency and citizenship while they don’t have the same systems and Kiwis by and large don’t want to live in Asia.

        In addition if 1 million people from China came to NZ it would totally change the demographics in NZ, while if 1 million Kiwis went to China it would make little difference to Chinese demographics. But none of this was looked at in the free trade agreements and Kiwis living in tents and not able to afford power seems the price the government was prepared to trade away to get some milk powder sold (which has now changed to dairy farms).

    • srylands 3.3
      27 July 2016 at 4:17 pm

      Metiria is hardly “alternative leadership” is she?

      Andrew little has just come out and said that Labour wants to maintain house prices at their current level.

      How is that leadership?

      • Leftie 3.3.1
        27 July 2016 at 5:45 pm

        Well no, he didn’t say that Srylands. He said : “If in power, Labour would aim to stabilise, but not cut house prices, he said. This would be achieved by building 50,000 affordable homes at a fixed price, and by banning non-resident purchases.”We think those measures would stabilise house prices and we don’t think there’s any such thing as a managed reduction over 10 to 15 years,” Little said.
        “There are plenty of people who have entered into mortgages and a house price crash is going to destroy them. And we’re simply not going to do that.”

        • Chuck 3.3.1.1
          27 July 2016 at 5:55 pm

          Leftie mate… You have quoted Andrew Little saying “but not cut house prices,”

          How does that not have the same meaning as srylands comment (below)?.

          “Andrew little has just come out and said that Labour wants to maintain house prices at their current level.”

          • Leftie 3.3.1.1.1
            27 July 2016 at 6:05 pm

            You posted the link to the NZ Herald yourself Chuck, didn’t you bother to read it properly with a dose of comprehension?

            • srylands 3.3.1.1.1.1
              27 July 2016 at 6:15 pm

              So “stabilise’ means what?

              Houses are unaffordable. But the solution to unaffoedability can’t involve reducing prices.

              Can’t you concede the bind Labour is in here. They will just tie themselves in knots. Because they know they have nowhere to move. They are trying to please two groups with different interests.

              • billmurray …
                27 July 2016 at 7:01 pm

                srylands, sorry I should have said 138 and 139 in my original post.
                I agree that both Labour and the Greens are in a bind about Labours (Helen Clark) FTA 2008.
                What I find detestable about all of the statements from both parties is that they are building up false hopes to thousands of New Zealanders about home ownership.
                Phil Twyford, who I concede can speak well, far better than Little and Turei. Is a charlatan of the highest order in constantly and purposefully trying to destroy people who are attempting to bring some order and stability to this awful situation. Lies and lies again slip of his greasy tongue to an extent that it makes people believe in him, he cares little for their future, he and Labour just want to get elected.
                I am not a member of ACT, I stopped believing in Labour several years ago.
                They and the Green party are proving they are a lot less than honest.

                • Gabby …
                  27 July 2016 at 8:50 pm

                  Examples? Out of either side of your greasy mouth.

                  • billmurray …
                    27 July 2016 at 9:34 pm

                    gabby, be honest with this matter and yourself , read articules 138 &139 of the 2008 FTA which Labour negotiated with the Chinese.

                    • Leftie …
                      27 July 2016 at 10:14 pm

                      That National voted in favour of when the Labour government took it to parliament and put it to a vote back in 2008.

                    • Chris …
                      28 July 2016 at 9:38 pm

                      Fuck leftie, there you go again. It was fucking Labour that introduced it yet all you want to do is blame anybody but Labour. What’s making you defend Labour so stridently regardless of overwhelming evidence that Helen Clark and what remains of the Labour party in NZ are a bunch of neo-liberals? You’re no leftie, leftie. True lefties aren’t scared to say that Labour are a bunch of right-wing gits. You’d be happier if you joined NZ First. I will pay your first year’s membership.

                      [please stop with the windups, and stick to the politics, thanks – weka]

                    • Leftie …
                      29 July 2016 at 12:42 am

                      What blame? I just stated a fact, that you cannot dispute Chris. Do facts hurt you? Well, you’ll just have to suck it up. And I don’t think a Nat shill like yourself is in a position to judge anyone on how left or not they are.

                      You must be a stalking troll Chris, how is it you seem to appear just to hurl pointless abuse.

                      [please focus on the debate and make points, and scale back the personal abuse, thanks – weka]

              • Leftie …
                27 July 2016 at 10:11 pm

                Disagree Srylands, and the only ones in a bind here are the Nats. I think you and Bill are straw grasping in your panic.

  4. Rosie 4
    27 July 2016 at 3:37 pm

    For you weka.

    http://thestandard.org.nz/metiria-speaks-the-unspeakable-house-prices-should-fall/#comment-1210229

    I should point out I don’t live in Ak but I think ALL NZer’s need to show solidarity. We’ve been too uncaring and selfish for far too long. It’s high time to turn that around.
    Housing should never be a contest in a fair and equal society.

  5. UncookedSelachimorpha 5
    27 July 2016 at 4:35 pm

    Good to see some leadership and debate created by the Greens.

    I expect we will see an immediate “That’s INSANE!!” from Key, then at some time in future National will either shift to some similar position as the Greens – or else do their usual and just continue to drive us into the ditch. But in either case, the classic Crosby Textor cheap shot within 48 hours, while they work out what to do.

  6. Guerilla Surgeon 6
    27 July 2016 at 4:48 pm

    Whatever we do, we can’t keep building houses on decent farmland. Not considering that’s one of our main export earners. There’s got to be a better way :-).

    • Richard Christie 6.1
      27 July 2016 at 7:29 pm

      +100%

      Real political leadership would put a cap on Auckland expansion and its population growth and seriously develop alternative port, industrial and urban centres elsewhere (eg Tauranga).

      Auckland’s historical dominance has been insane, the city is badly sited, with a shallow harbour and because it is built upon an isthmus it renders efficient transport networks almost impossible to build.

      • Sabine 6.1.1
        27 July 2016 at 7:45 pm

        Yes.
        Cap Aucklands expansion and its population growth.
        Pretty much that.

        But hey we can build high rises in Kohimarama and Mission Bay and in twenty years time when sea level rises are not being denied anymore we get to bail out the investors that build on sand.

  7. weka 7
    27 July 2016 at 5:02 pm

    Interesting that the Greens made this announcement before they have the plan ready. Is that to coincide with the Unitary Plan?

    • Chuck 7.1
      27 July 2016 at 5:28 pm

      Maybe weka…possible the Greens strategy team (I assume they have one!) made a case for it.

      Or maybe this far out from the election the Greens wanted to dip their toe into the water…see how the next couple of polls react to this announcement. If it goes pear shaped they still have time to pull back from it (say something like Labour is not ready for it).

    • alwyn 7.2
      27 July 2016 at 5:44 pm

      “before they have the plan ready”.
      It is probably because they haven’t the faintest idea on how to do it without ruining the people who have taken out a large mortgage in the last year or two.

      Incidentally the idea that you have a Capital Gains Tax on everything except the family home merely serves as an incentive to put all your money into a house. That way you can avoid the tax. It serves to increase, rather than reduce, house prices.

      There are perfectly good arguments for a CGT. However they should be on everything, not excepting things like your family home. They also are quite unfair in an economy where inflation is rampant. Luckily we have a Reserve Bank system that is working very well at avoiding high inflation. We just have to keep economically illiterate politicians like Winnie from getting near the positions of power.

      • weka 7.2.1
        27 July 2016 at 5:56 pm

        The Greens making an announcement of a plan development that they have no idea how to implement is a scenario only in your Green-hating brain alwyn. Everyone else knows the Greens are pretty smart, both in policy development and in how they present to the world. Try making an actual political argument instead of going straight to the ad homs.

        • Leftie 7.2.1.1
          27 July 2016 at 6:00 pm

          +1 Weka.

        • alwyn 7.2.1.2
          27 July 2016 at 6:36 pm

          I shall await the announcement of the specific implementation details of the policy with great interest then. Just when will they appear?

          I fear that they will never show up and that, unfortunately, Andrew is right. Inflation is very easy to accomplish. Handling deflation, as any economist will tell you, is quite a different matter. That was why Britain was in a state of depression from the end of the first war to the start of the second. They were trying to get the exchange rate against the US dollar back to pre-1914 levels even though inflation in Britain during the first war had been much greater than it had been in the US.

          I fear it may take as long to come up with details as the Labour Party announcements about their fabled UBI. Remember that? Just where did that go to?

          I suspect that any fully worked out plan will not appear before the next election. It will probably remain in the same rather airy-fairy state as the Press release.

          • weka 7.2.1.2.1
            27 July 2016 at 7:04 pm

            “I fear it may take as long to come up with details as the Labour Party announcements about their fabled UBI. Remember that? Just where did that go to?”

            Labour published a background paper on the UBI and made it public for discussion as part of its Future of Work project. It wasn’t a Labour policy announcement.

            http://www.futureofwork.nz/background_paper_a_universal_basic_income_for_new_zealand

            If you’d like to point to a couple of examples of where the Greens have announced policy with the intention of developping a plan next, and then failed to do so, please tell us about it. Otherwise stop with the disingenuous party slagging.

      • Rosemary McDonald 7.2.2
        27 July 2016 at 6:42 pm

        “…without ruining the people who have taken out a large mortgage in the last year or two.”

        I don’t mean to be unsympathetic, but, but, how sensible is to have mortgaged yourself stupid for a residential property in Auckland under the current, insane climate?

        And I’m talking about first home buyers here…not the speculator/landlord types who surely understand about investment risk and are obviously happy to take the fall with the rise. (And good luck to them…they deserve everything they get)

        I feel sorry for those families who may find themselves with lower equity….but they should have understood about the natural laws of gravity.

        Oh, and unless there is a plan to reduce the house prices overall…then ‘building more houses’ alone could inflate prices even more. And wouldn’t the property developers just love that…

        • Chuck 7.2.2.1
          27 July 2016 at 6:55 pm

          “I don’t mean to be unsympathetic, but, but, how sensible is to have mortgaged yourself stupid for a residential property in Auckland under the current, insane climate?”

          Rosemary, it will not just be people who have brought in the last year or two…it will be kiwis you have borrowed against the increased equity in their homes. They may have owned the house for 3/4/5 years+ will also be caught out.

          Maybe you are right and they deserve to feel some pain?

          • Rosemary McDonald 7.2.2.1.1
            27 July 2016 at 8:25 pm

            “Maybe you are right and they deserve to feel some pain?”

            At some point, folk living and owning (or aspiring to own) homes in Auckland must have wiped the slime (residue of drooling at the thought of unearned mega wealth) from their chins and thought….

            “Shitballs…this capital gain is simply too good to be true (or sustainable)…we’d better taihoa until sanity returns…”

            Most will have had the time for such thoughtful contemplation while stuck in traffic….

        • John Schmidt 7.2.2.2
          27 July 2016 at 9:50 pm

          You do realise that this will also bring down mums and dad’s who have helped their children into homes. Often that help is in the form of a mortgage on their own home so it’s not like they are rich people or people who can survive such a loss.

          • Rosemary McDonald 7.2.2.2.1
            27 July 2016 at 10:28 pm

            I know it will be near impossible for anyone even peripherally associated with home ownership in Auckland to get this….but every time someone has bought a property in Auckland over the past 5-10 years at a price that though may have been ‘market driven’ was obviously vastly over valued, fuel has been poured onto the fire.

            ….and as for mums and dads helping kids into homes…why Auckland? More bang for buck practically anywhere else…unless its a wee retirement fund flutter for the parents? And why not? Everyone seems to be doing it.

            Mum and Dad can invest in a modest motor home, hand the house over to kids (for nominal rent), kids save more for deposit on home while Old People see the country before fossil factory booking.

            And don’t give me ‘the jobs are all in Auckland’ line. They aren’t. Smart businesses will move.

            Now, what was Meteria saying about long term plans?

          • Pat 7.2.2.2.2
            27 July 2016 at 10:31 pm

            the majority of non investor home owners have sufficient equity to ride out a substantial realestate value reduction….their increased wealth has been a paper gain and their loss will be the same….as they know

            • DavidC 7.2.2.2.2.1
              28 July 2016 at 8:06 am

              Pat.

              What?

              You have some proof that investors have in excess of $500,000 spare they can throw away on each and every house?

              • Pat …
                28 July 2016 at 8:14 am

                property values in Auckland have increased by 52% since 2013….technically anyone who entered the market prior to that point (and hasn’t further leveraged) is not throwing away anything with a 40-50% value reduction…..let alone 500K.

                It is an on paper gain and loss

          • mikes 7.2.2.2.3
            29 July 2016 at 2:44 am

            No it won’t. A house price drop doesn’t mean that their mortgage increases, they will still be able to pay the mortgage they took out won’t they? Yes, the house might not be worth as much but does that matter if you’re living in it rather than selling it?

            Besides, it’s not as if people haven’t been getting any warnings is it?

      • weston 7.2.3
        27 July 2016 at 8:53 pm

        I seem to remember winnie fighting tooth and nail against both the sfo and ird to expose dodgy practices and shady companies in the winebox affair you can call him illiterate alwyn but a more principled stand would be hard to find then or now .im supprized you didnt mention he smokes ?

  8. dave 8
    27 July 2016 at 5:14 pm

    the politicians can say all they like not to scare the horses but with half trillion dollars in debt a crash cant be avoided facts are the facts with housing at 10x income those debts will not be able to be repaid.
    i don’t like brash but he is right on this one.

    • Leftie 8.1
      27 July 2016 at 5:58 pm

      Would rather deflate the bubble than pop it. What will a collapsed economy achieve? We all know who the winners will be.

  9. adam 9
    27 July 2016 at 6:17 pm

    The greens just did what Ad suggested yesterday. Which was a great suggestion by the way Ad.

    That the Greens or Labour take a giant step into national territory. This the Greens have done, and done well.

    Bold, and out maneuvered the twiddle your thumbs approach taken by this government.

    Good Job Turei

    • weka 9.1
      27 July 2016 at 6:21 pm

      How is this a step into National territory?

      • adam 9.1.1
        27 July 2016 at 7:07 pm

        Talking economics, and to the myth national are good for the economy.

        This hits straight at the heart of the issue, and cracks the myth about national being good at/for the economy.

        Again, great move by the Greens.

        • weka 9.1.1.1
          27 July 2016 at 7:15 pm

          Ah, yes, I agree (don’t think that’s what Ad was referring to though).

          • adam 9.1.1.1.1
            27 July 2016 at 7:30 pm

            I think you are right.

            Bold, smart and visionary by the Greens.

          • Ad 9.1.1.1.2
            28 July 2016 at 4:18 am

            It’s the hit they needed to make. I suggested tax as the field, but property is just as big a target.

            All power to them. Go hard.

        • Chuck 9.1.1.2
          27 July 2016 at 7:28 pm

          “Again, great move by the Greens.” repeat it x1000 adam and convince yourself.

          You say the Greens are “honest” so tell me how are they going to achieve a orderly reduction in house prices over the next 15 or so years??

          Its not possible, even their MOU partner is saying its BS…

          Honest has just gone out the window…

          • adam 9.1.1.2.1
            27 July 2016 at 7:40 pm

            They said they have a plan, if that approach to policy is good enough for Key and co, then it’s good enough for the Greens.

            Did’nt see you kick up a fuss yesterday about the eradication programme, so nope can’t take you seriously about costs.

            Plus I know you Tories love the dirty way of doing politics, is that why it hurts so much, and you cry so hard, when someone does not play in the mud with you?

            • Chuck 9.1.1.2.1.1
              27 July 2016 at 7:50 pm

              “They said they have a plan, if that approach to policy is good enough for Key and co, then it’s good enough for the Greens.”

              Thank you for admitting the Greens play politics like all the rest.

              • weka …
                27 July 2016 at 8:00 pm

                lol. Ok so you are saying that National deceive. I don’t think that’s what adam was meaning, but good to have that out in the open.

          • weka 9.1.1.2.2
            27 July 2016 at 7:59 pm

            You say the Greens are “honest” so tell me how are they going to achieve a orderly reduction in house prices over the next 15 or so years??

            Its not possible, even their MOU partner is saying its BS…

            Honest has just gone out the window…

            They haven’t released the plan yet, so how could anyone here say how they are going to achieve it? What we can say is that the Greens are very good on policy, and it’s extremely unlikely that they would have made this announcement if they didn’t know what they were doing. You can critique the plan when it comes out, and disagree with it, but in teh meantime you are just slagging off for no good reason.

            Little isn’t in any more of a position to say it’s bullshit than you are.

            So where is the dishonesty exactly.

            As adam infers, I think you are so used to Key and National lying about policy and manipulating the public that you are misinterpreting the GP’s behaviour.

            • dave 9.1.1.2.2.1
              27 July 2016 at 8:15 pm

              there is no way to stop a crash NZ is already over the cliff housing is no different to a ponzi scheme first make the money last in get wiped out

              • Pat …
                27 July 2016 at 8:18 pm

                there’s one way….but it involves housing becoming ever more unobtainable for local income earners

                  • Pat …
                    28 July 2016 at 7:08 am

                    no bubble lasts forever but it can be maintained for a considerable period if it remains available to a disconnected market……bad luck for those that are restricted to local incomes however.

                  • Murray Simmonds …
                    28 July 2016 at 7:30 am

                    Dave’s right on this one.

                    All bubbles pop – I’ve never yet seen a bubble deflate slowly. It would be nice if they did do that, but they don’t.

                    If the housing bubble doesn’t pop of its own accord because of over-inflation in house prices, its pop will be brought on by a general global recession.

                    Either way, the idea that there can be a slow deflation, politically engineered or otherwise, is “academic”.

                    • Pat …
                      28 July 2016 at 8:00 am

                      the recorrection rate depends entirely on the players reactions….announce a rebalancing of supply and demand over a period and the investors have a choice …..remain or leave, how fast and how many determines the rate and amount of the correction….in that,it is impossible to control or predict however as it is indisputably a bubble (10 times median income) it must recorrect at some point…better it is at a time of our choosing (even if we have left it far too long)

                    • Dave []
                      28 July 2016 at 3:12 pm

                      History proves there usually a rush for the exits all at once compounding any crash the panic sets in by then it’s to late.

                    • DavidC …
                      28 July 2016 at 8:12 am

                      Murray.

                      What is the largest % decrease in house prices over say a year you can document in NZ?

                      Is it as much as 8%?

            • Chuck 9.1.1.2.2.2
              27 July 2016 at 8:26 pm

              “They haven’t released the plan yet, so how could anyone here say how they are going to achieve it?”

              Because they don’t have a magic bullet that will allow a “orderly price reduction over 15 years”. No one has…its impossible to control (to the level that will be required) how people / banks / markets react.

              Sure they will say xwy…and that will achieve abc…dress it up. At the end of the day its called being dishonest.

              I reference adams remark due to his belief that the Greens are “honest”.

              At least the Nats have put a rider on the Pest Free NZ policy….”New Zealand’s committed to a new goal of becoming completely pest-free by 2050″

              Please note the word “goal”.

              But hey as you say weka, lets see the Green plan 🙂 maybe they will also insert the word “goal” !

              • Pat …
                27 July 2016 at 8:30 pm

                it may be impossible to control with any confidence however the reality is it happens at a time of our choosing with semblance of control or it happens anyway….and anyone with half a brain knows it and Labour have just discredited themselves no end with their stance.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                27 July 2016 at 8:44 pm

                Whether or not such a price reduction is possible, your objections are nothing more than reckons.

                Government spending accounts for ~33% of the economy. Denial of that market force accounts for much of the witless vandalism of the last thirty years.

                Send a man to the moon, like solutions to NZ’s housing problem: one giant leap for humankind, and far too hard for a wingnut.

              • weka …
                27 July 2016 at 8:53 pm

                I doubt they’re talking about a magic bullet, so your pre-emptive criticisms look more and more like anti-Green rhetoric.

                I’ve just seen someone elsewhere make very strong claims that the Greens are liars (promising to restrict house ownership to residents/citizens when a FTA with China prevents it), a whole subthread happened, and in the end it was all bunk. So when you can put up some concrete criticisms that can be examined I’ll take it more seriously.

                • Chuck …
                  28 July 2016 at 3:20 pm

                  I say “Magic bullet” because that is what will be required. Sure a raft of polices can be implemented to instigate a housing bear market no great issue there.

                  What can’t be controlled is an orderly reduction in values of say 3 – 5% pa over 10 years let alone 15 years.

                  So yes the Greens need a “silver bullet” to achieve “orderly reduction”.

                  But hey lets see what they came up with…

                  PS: I hope they don’t come up with a “Ministry of Housing Buy Back” Which could act as a market maker…they step in and buy all houses at specific times to control the fall in values. 🙂 I jest…but its the Greens after all! sorry weka.

  10. Booker 10
    27 July 2016 at 6:19 pm

    Genuinely surprised to see someone talking some sense and thinking about the long term game plan. Everyone knows that Key and Co. would just leave it to ‘the market to decide’, which would be a crash and huge effects like the US subprime mortgage or Ireland fallout happening here. (If anything, I’m surprised it hasn’t already happened). Key has even openly warned NZers that markets don’t always go up. So he’s put his cards on the table and is apparently happy to see a crash take its course. As Metiria says there’s a huge number of NZers who can’t afford to live in NZ now. So what options do we have? A managed reduction is really the only option that would enable a socially harmonious change. It’s the unspoken glaring truth – the price drop will either happen in a way that feels like it’s happening ‘to us’, or can be done ‘by us’. And which is going to be better?

    • Johan 10.1
      27 July 2016 at 9:18 pm

      It is obvious to most New Zealanders, they haven’t a show of owning their own homes in Shonkey’s low wage and high cost goods economy. Good on Metiria Turei, to have the balls to front up and tackle a huge problem. Next let’s have someone in gov’t tackle the runaway immigration crisis, or is that too difficult as well.

  11. Pat 11
    27 July 2016 at 8:00 pm

    Labour have shown their true colours on this….there are only two ways to make housing affordable for working NZers and they have just ruled out one..what plan do they have to increase wages twofold in the next few years?

    • weka 11.1
      27 July 2016 at 8:02 pm

      and benefits and super 😉

    • Paul 11.2
      27 July 2016 at 8:04 pm

      They won’t raise wages.
      Labour hasn’t represented the working class for 30 years.
      Their neo-liberal stain has not been washed out.

      Chris Hedges “The Liberal Class Failed”

      • Pat 11.2.1
        27 July 2016 at 8:10 pm

        had hopes that Labour may have learnt a lesson or two but this shows they haven’t….mind numbingly stupid and/or dishonest

    • Sabine 11.3
      27 July 2016 at 9:06 pm

      mhhh that reminds me of one of the Auckland Councilors who when she ran for Council last time around she ran on a “living wage” platform and when she was elected she ‘reconsidered’ and decided it was not do-able. (these were her words on an fb post to one of the comments calling her out on her ways.

      this lady is of course from the National Party and is often seen parading around with dear Alfred Ngaro. 🙂

      but then National is all about Goals, just to sad that hey don’t have Andrew Mehrtens on the team.

    • Skinny 11.4
      28 July 2016 at 10:38 am

      I would now support rolling Andrew Little after that weak gutted interview on RNZ this morning. Any attempt his my support. Disgraceful!

      • Pat 11.4.1
        28 July 2016 at 10:43 am

        rolling him won’t make any difference….its systemic within the Party…..very disappointing

        • Skinny 11.4.1.1
          28 July 2016 at 10:56 am

          You can not going promoting working closer together with the Greens and than abandon them. He should have made noise around the affordability and deflected on to that other experienced people are calling the prices are way overvalued. He has lost my support.

          • Pat 11.4.1.1.1
            28 July 2016 at 11:03 am

            it appears the Greens screwed up by not giving Labour a heads up, but my main issue is Labour continue to pretend their own policies won’t cause property price deflation

  12. DavidC 12
    28 July 2016 at 8:33 am

    Ok People.

    I have just read 100+ comments on this thread and not one person has actually talked about HOW prices could be lowered.

    Sure you can (try to )reduce pressue on the demand side but unless you are going to force people out of NZ you are not going to create any excess stock, and you need more houses that there are buyers (actually you need lots of empty houses) for prices to drop.

    Replacement houses will be at the same price or more that existing newish houses unless something is done about input costs. Land is the biggie, but materials here are very expensive because we live at the bottom of the world and we like tailor made houses.

    Auckland is a train wreck, poorly managed and geographically quite challenging. Hard to just rezone 100 sq Kms of flat land adjacent to infrastructure for houses which is what is needed.

    Rezoning land that is in fractured ownership and made up of $5 mil lifestyle blocks isn’t going to lower house prices any time soon.

    • Pat 12.1
      28 July 2016 at 8:41 am

      “I have just read 100+ comments on this thread and not one person has actually talked about HOW prices could be lowered.”

      you haven’t been paying close attention then….

      • DavidC 12.1.1
        28 July 2016 at 8:49 am

        I did pay attention as it is of extreme interest to me.

        I just read a bunch of people wanking on and playing politics led by weka who is just spouting party lines.

        Pat tell me.
        How are prices going to be forced down?
        why will people sell up and accept 50% less than they paid?
        Why will anyone sell and accept 50% less than the house down the street sold for a year earlier?
        Why will anyone sell up for 50% less that it will cost to rebuild new?

        • BM 12.1.1.1
          28 July 2016 at 11:45 am

          Kiwi build is supposed to be that mechanism.

          Basically the government( lab greens) will grab as much land as needed at whatever they decide price using the public works act.

          Once the land is secured kitset homes will be built and moved to site as required these new houses will be 100’s of thousands of dollars cheaper than the existing housing stock thus bringing down house prices.

  13. Brian Smith 13
    28 July 2016 at 8:55 am

    The opposition need to address the root cause of the ‘out of control’ house prices- the current government’s immigration policy! I know that this is a sensitive topic that everyone wants to avoid but this is the elephant in the room. We all know the reasons why the government have opened the floodgates on immigration- to increase the supply of cheap labour and drive down wages; to pump up the property market (and all it’s associated, parasitic industries) because our economic outlook is bleek but this creates the short term illusion of wealth. Of course, the repercussions for NZ as we know it (or knew it) will be that of a lifestyle more like how people live and work in asian countries. Just look at the new Auckland Unitary Plan- this would not have been necessary if we had a sensible, controlled immigration policy which promoted the growth of provincial centres in NZ. Thanks to 30 years of neoliberalism and, as a consequence, globalisation, this is to be our “Brighter Future”. I admire the Greens for having the courage to come out with this plan but they will need some cooperation from the banks- good luck with that! Labour, on the other hand, just keep confirming that they are National lite- clearly, the Party needs a purging of the neoliberal element.

  14. Pat 14
    28 July 2016 at 9:09 am

    “How are prices going to be forced down?”

    a rebalancing of supply and demand….why do you think everyone is bent out of shape over the Greens announcement?…even the mention of useful action has the potential to reduce demand. As with Labour”s announcement that if in Gov they will build 10,000 additional houses and price restrict them will impact prices from both the supply and demand side, there is also the ability to limit who can enter the market and how the investment property market is treated by taxation….and there is the planning restrictions. plenty of tools. just no will

    “why will people sell up and accept 50% less than they paid?”

    many won’t, because primarily it is their home and the capital gain is secondary, but some will have no choice and others will see better use for their funds….if the incentives are there.

    “Why will anyone sell and accept 50% less than the house down the street sold for a year earlier?”

    see previous

    “Why will anyone sell up for 50% less that it will cost to rebuild new?”

    you assume it will and it is a false assumption….you can currently build new in Auckland and make a capital gain the day the property is completed..i.e. sale price higher than construction/land cost but in the past that was not necessarily so …there is a price incentive on older properties as a rule (can be altered by location for various reasons)….why would you pay 50% more for a new house on the same street when you can get a perfectly suitable existing one for half?….its called over capitalization

    It is simply supply and demand…..and they will be rebalanced one way or another

    • DavidC 14.1
      28 July 2016 at 9:38 am

      Wow Pat.

      A lot of empty words.

      Where are you going to buy a set of windows for 50% less than current pricing.?

      Where are you going to get a section for 50% less than current pricing?

      Are the Greens going to reduce the wages of carpenters/plumbers/bricklayer by 50% ?

      Yes there is a % profit on a new build but it is in the low single figures. You are not going to find your 50% there.

      • Pat 14.1.1
        28 July 2016 at 9:41 am

        good grief…..go and do some research

        what you a describing are fundamentals….i.e the costs of construction in a given market…a bubble by its very existence ignores fundamentals and is why it cannot be supported indefinitely and must recorrect….think about it, a property that costs say 700k to construct /land price is worth what on completion in current market?…900+K?…..after everyones margins have already been accounted for, and every week you delay selling that property it increases by an additional 3k….forget about your material/labour costs

        • DavidC 14.1.1.1
          28 July 2016 at 9:49 am

          Pat.

          Tell me, what is the largest ever price drop in housing in New Zealand?

          • Pat 14.1.1.1.1
            28 July 2016 at 10:10 am

            I have no idea DC…though the recent irish bubble produced an over 60% fall…..how do you think it relevant given the circumstances we currently face are unprecedented?

            • weka 14.1.1.1.1.1
              28 July 2016 at 11:09 am

              It would be bloody useful to know how this has worked in other countries and what the impacts where.

              Did it crash in Ireland or di the govt intervene?

              • Pat …
                28 July 2016 at 11:28 am

                it crashed…but the role of government cannot be ignored, the policies and oversight(or lack of) had a direct impact on both the growth of the bubble and the subsequent crash….and how the aftermath was dealt with, but then they also had the complicating factor of the EU.

                There are plenty of other examples, and it is important to remember that a bubble bursting doesn’t necessarily impact all areas of the economy.

          • Pat 14.1.1.1.2
            28 July 2016 at 10:27 am

            largest property value drop in NZ history 40.3% 1975-1980

        • DavidC 14.1.1.2
          28 July 2016 at 9:59 am

          Pat.

          Pulling numbers out of your arse adds nothing to this discussion.
          30% profit on a build is total bullshit.

          How are you going to drive house prices down by 50% ?

          • Pat 14.1.1.2.1
            28 July 2016 at 10:11 am

            lmao….you just dont grasp it do you?

            • DavidC 14.1.1.2.1.1
              28 July 2016 at 10:24 am

              Pat.

              I actually do get it, which is why I own real estate.

              The fundamentals are simple. People need somewhere to live. While population increases at around the same rate as housing gets built, while bank rates are low, while land prices remain high, while materials remain costly, while NZ is clean and safe and attractive to immigrants , while all of those things stay the same of close to the same prices will never plummet. Prices may stabilize or even drop a few points but 50%? LOL.

              This talk of a 50% drop is a political lie by the Greens. Poorly thought out and empty. Simple as that.

              • Pat …
                28 July 2016 at 10:31 am

                ah , one of this who believe the myth that property only ever increases in value…..despite all the warnings from those in the industry and finance…good luck with that, and if you truly believe that then go and buy some more …by the way found the largest property value drop in NZ history 40.3% nationwide….imagine there were some regional variations,,,some greater.

  15. Observer Toke 15
    28 July 2016 at 10:06 am

    . There is only one message to be noted from this past 8 years in New Zealand.

    That is, that this Government and its supporters have Shipwrecked Finance; Housing; Rentals; Assets and Morals (mostly dishonesty but also corruption and cronyism).

    They are the worst ever managers of a once fine nation.

    • save nz 15.1
      28 July 2016 at 11:16 am

      @Observer Toke

      If the Natz were managers they would be under investigation from the SFO for fraud as well as fired for gross incompetence.

      Kinda like the rogue traders that crash the banks with their bad punts.

  16. save nz 16
    28 July 2016 at 10:54 am

    Why the Greens can’t concentrate on the outrageous sales of state housing instead of going for a negative for homeowners on housing (prices must fall!).

    They need to put their personal peeves aside, and have some sort of political strategy to win and in real terms they have put the boot into Labour at the same time – their partner! Really stupid!

    “The Government and Horowhenua District Council have unveiled a plan to sell 364 houses across Horowhenua and Kapiti, including 151 Housing New Zealand homes in Levin, 21 in Foxton, 70 in Otaki and seven in Shannon.

    Almost all of the houses are occupied and their tenants are mostly elderly, single people or single parents.”

  17. save nz 17
    28 July 2016 at 12:38 pm

    In short, if the Greens really want to help housing then they have to get elected. To do this they must collaborate with Labour and others. That means not trying to alienate large chunks of voters. There are SO SO many things the Natz are doing wrong, why make it about taking something away from voters (that vote!!) ….

    Last election, labour should have won, but the voters did not like longer retirement and falling house prices and more taxes from Labour. I’m pretty sure that has not changed. The greens still going on about falling prices and more taxes…

    We all know National will try to bribe votes with tax cuts, they have added something like 4.5% of recent voters since last election through migration who will probably like the sound of that too, so what are the Greens and Labour got to offer, falling house prices so that newcomers and renters may be able to get into a house when the current homeowners get bankrupted. Doesn’t sound like a winning strategy to me.

    In the daily blog one of the commentators said about elections, The Democrats and Labour should always win based on demographics. But his comment was, if it rains, then expect Republicans….

    • weka 17.1
      28 July 2016 at 12:58 pm

      “why make it about taking something away from voters (that vote!!) ….”

      Probably because from the social justice perspective of the Greens, the policy is giving something to people.

      “so what are the Greens and Labour got to offer, falling house prices so that newcomers and renters may be able to get into a house when the current homeowners get bankrupted. Doesn’t sound like a winning strategy to me.”

      That’s not the strategy though. The Greens have been doing work on a wide range of housing issues, not just this one. We’re over a year from the election, so comparing National pre-election bribes with current GP work doesn’t make sense.

      Falling house prices will enable lower income people who already live here to afford to buy a house. That’s going to appeal to many people who have faced the reality of never owning a home. Plus they would restrict home ownership to people who live here permanently (so not short term migrants), and they want to match migration to NZ’s needs around work and housing. Those are all good things.

      • BM 17.1.1
        28 July 2016 at 1:12 pm

        Falling house prices will enable lower income people who already live here to afford to buy a house. That’s going to appeal to many people who have faced the reality of never owning a home

        How is that going to win the 2017 election for the left?

        Or is this strategy more about growing the green vote than actually winning the next election?

        • weka 17.1.1.1
          28 July 2016 at 1:19 pm

          Why wouldn’t it be part of why people vote left? If you can’t afford to buy a house then the parties that have policies to change that are going to be attractive. And of course, it’s only one part of a much large policy platform and approach.

          It’s the right thing to do, and it’s honest, which is also attractive to some voters.

          • BM 17.1.1.1.1
            28 July 2016 at 1:37 pm

            You seem to be under this illusion that every left voting person is poor and rents, now this may come as a bit of a shock but there’s actually a large number of left wing voters who own their own houses.

            I’d bet money none of them want to end up in a situation where they’re upside down in their mortgages.

            • weka 17.1.1.1.1.1
              28 July 2016 at 1:44 pm

              I’m not talking about every left wing voter.

              How about you present some stats on swing voters and left voters and non-voters who own homes who would end up with an upside down mortage from the GP policy. And then offer some analysis as to how their lives would be affected. And then explain how they think they are going to avoid the housing market crashing on its own in the next ten years. And then separate out the ones who would vote against a govt with the Greens in it based on this one policy.

              Methinks it is you who is treating voters as one lump.

            • Psycho Milt 17.1.1.1.1.2
              28 July 2016 at 3:00 pm

              “Left-wing voters” who’ve mortgaged themselves to the hilt for “leverage,” huh? That’s a pretty tiny subset, I would have thought.

          • save nz 17.1.1.1.2
            28 July 2016 at 1:48 pm

            The problem Weka, is that falling equity is not really attractive to Labour’s voters and Nationals voters who are homeowners….. so in an election there needs to be a majority. I’m on the Green’s side, but I actually want them to win and get in power and this strategy is not a good one.

            Instead of crashing prices how about increasing wages and having more job security.

            Metiria can pray every night for crashed house prices, but going out and saying it publicly, is not a good idea.

            Not everyone is fortunate to have a government job over $100,000 and massive perks and a castle in Dunedin in one of the lowest house price cities in NZ.

            If she lived in a million dollar dump in Auckland with a big mortgage and was on the median wage, and could lose their job at any time, she might not vote for crashing house prices.

            • weka 17.1.1.1.2.1
              28 July 2016 at 1:58 pm

              Sorry, but I’m getting sick of this. The GP policy is NOT to crash house prices, and their strategy is NOT to use this one policy to spearhead going into the election.

              They ALREADY have policies and ongoing work on increasing wages and job security. If you don’t know these things I really have to wonder what is informting your commentary. By all means criticise the policy, but please don’t misrepresent what the GP do.

              Not everyone is fortunate to have a government job over $100,000 and massive perks and a castle in Dunedin in one of the lowest house price cities in NZ.

              Turei doesn’t develop policy on her own. She doesn’t get to go out and make announcements off her own bat. This is GP policy developped by many people. Trying to make out that this is some failing of Turei’s because of her privilege is really off the mark.

              The Greens have been intimatedly connected with the housing crisis in Auckland, including with people who are living in cars and garages. If you think they are elites disconnected from reality, you really don’t know them at all.

              Anyway, I’ll calm down now 😉 Maybe you could tell me where you get your information from, because honestly what you are saying doesn’t match what I know about the party and what they do.

      • srylands 17.1.2
        28 July 2016 at 1:20 pm

        The Greens and Labour could do so much to win the next election. I don’t have much faith in the Greens after yesterday’s fiasco, but the following ideas could apply to either or both of them:

        1. Promise smaller, more efficient government. End corporate welfare.

        2. Increase retirement age to 70 over the next 20 years. Introduce compulsory savings (what Australia did in 1988).

        3. Tackle 2 environmental policies with definitive policies (climate change and water). e.g on climate change make private car use MUCH more expensive (tax on petrol cars of 100% and a car park tax, and make petrol $4 per litre), and accelerate electric car adoption in a very big way.

        4. Say that they will implement ALL the NZPC recommendations on housing affordability in Year 1. (Why on earth doesn’t Andrew Little carry this report around with him?)

        5. Change early childhood funding policy to direct MUCH more assistance to low income and disadvantaged families.

        See how easy it is? Doing these five things would make NZ a much better country and they could all be written on a pledge card.

        • weka 17.1.2.1
          28 July 2016 at 1:26 pm

          🙄 Concern trolling, and idiotic concern trolling at that. Pretty sure you don’t even know what GP policy or strategy is.

          The Greens want change not power, when will you understand that?

          • srylands 17.1.2.1.1
            28 July 2016 at 1:34 pm

            I don’t know what concern trolling even is.

            “The Greens want change not power, when will you understand that?”

            Well that is good because based on yesterday’s fiasco they will never be in Government. And if they are not in government they can’t change anything.

            Aside from your childish remarks, I note that you did not address any of my substantive policy suggestions. The point is that the current policy formulation process is a disaster. The Greens will simply take Labour towards another election loss. Andrew Little knows that based on his sharp smack down of his Green colleague yesterday.

            There are so many policy fronts where the current Government needs to do much better. New Zealand deserves a competent Opposition.

            • weka 17.1.2.1.1.1
              28 July 2016 at 1:39 pm

              “I don’t know what concern trolling even is.”

              Feel free to look it up. You don’t have to know what it is to do it though.

              “The Greens want change not power, when will you understand that?”

              Well that is good because based on yesterday’s fiasco they will never be in Government. And if they are not in government they can’t change anything.

              And yet they’ve achived change by being in parliament.

              Aside from your childish remarks, I note that you did not address any of my substantive policy suggestions.

              That’s because neoliberals, yourself in particular, don’t understand Green politics, so your suggestions about what would be successful for the GP are irrelevant.

              The point is that the current policy formulation process is a disaster.

              The Greens have one of the best policy development processes in parliament. I think their only misstep here was in not giving Labour a headsup.

              The Greens will simply take Labour towards another election loss.

              So says the rightie meme. Labour lose elections because of Labour.

              There are so many policy fronts where the current Government needs to do much better. New Zealand deserves a competent Opposition.

              Lol, the current govt that keeps getting forced to adopt left wing-ish policies.

              Sorry mate, but you really are on a losing proposition if you think you can promote neoliberal ideas for the GP on a left wing site, esp to someone who understands what Green politics are.

              • srylands …
                28 July 2016 at 1:42 pm

                So my suggestions to adopt urgent and comprehensive policies to improve water quality and address greenhouse emissions are “neoliberal”?

                • weka …
                  28 July 2016 at 1:45 pm

                  The GP already have those policies, and far far better developped than anything you’ve been saying. But yeah, you appear to be putting a neoliberal slant on those as well.

                  • srylands …
                    28 July 2016 at 1:53 pm

                    No. No. No. The current Green policies on climate change are nowhere near sufficient to reduce carbon emissions by the amounts required.

                    The central Green Party policy is to introduce a $25 per tonne carbon tax. It will increase carbon based energy prices by 1.7%. Big deal. That is nowhere near enough to achieve the required demand response.

                    So yes I am highly familiar with Green party climate change policies. They are totally inadequate.

                    (Apologies for this moving off the topic of the thread.)

                    • weka …
                      29 July 2016 at 1:23 am

                      I’ve just been watching Kevin Anderson, one of the few scientists speaking out on what is really needed for CC mitigation. He makes the point that scientists and the public need to be much more brutally honest about CC than politicians. This is my position too. Politicians and political parties are completely dependent on the voters. It’s just not real to expect them to lead the way on this. The people need to do that and the politicians will follow.

                      If the Green Party came out and said hey we’re going to have to go to zero growth within 40 years, they’d get slaughtered in the media. Just look at what happened this week when Turei told the truth about the housing market (that it’s unsustainable). Haven’t you yourself made the argument that she will have scared people? What do you think will happen if the Greens were bold on CC?

                      The best way to get the Greens to go more radical on CC is to increase their vote. Get them into government with 20% of the vote and they are much more likely to effect change and be empowered to shift their position.

                      “The central Green Party policy is to introduce a $25 per tonne carbon tax. It will increase carbon based energy prices by 1.7%. Big deal. That is nowhere near enough to achieve the required demand response.”

                      That was from a discussion paper (it’s on their policy page, but I’m not sure if it’s formal policy or not). Did you give them feedback?

                      Besides, it’s part of their policy. Their CC policies cover the core overall CC policy (beyond the carbon tax) and are structured into other policy outside that portfolio as well. You can’t look at it in isolation, let alone one part of it, if you want to understand it.

            • BM 17.1.2.1.1.2
              28 July 2016 at 1:41 pm

              I just had a look at the MOU between Greens and Labour

              This point here stuck out like a sore thumb

              2. Working together

              d) We agree to a “no surprises” policy that means we give each other prior notice and the details of major announcements and speeches.
              This includes matters where we may disagree.

              Looks like Metiria Turei just does what she pleases, bugger any agreement or working together.

              Labour must kicking themselves for being so stupid.

              • weka …
                28 July 2016 at 1:48 pm

                “Looks like Metiria Turei just does what she pleases, bugger any agreement or working together.”

                Looks like in this one instance, Turei didn’t abide by that part of the MoU.

                FIFY.

                As I’ve been saying for the past few days, I htink that was a mistake on the Greens’ part. I don’t think it’s the end of the world though.

                Anyway, I’ve had a enough of the righties trying to undermine the Greens today. It’s getting boring.

                • srylands …
                  28 July 2016 at 1:54 pm

                  I am not a “rightie” thanks very much. And I am not trying to undermine the Greens.

                  • weka …
                    28 July 2016 at 2:02 pm

                    I was replying to BM 😉

                    Your politics come across as right wing. There are good reasons why I’m not interested in debating your numbered points. Partly because the Greens have a long history of people telling them what they should do but out of self interest when those people really don’t understand Green politics. If I saw you making an attempt to understand what Greens politics is (Irregardless of whether you agree with it or not), I’d take your comment more seriously.

                  • McFlock …
                    28 July 2016 at 2:03 pm

                    Well, you make a damned good show of imitating it.
                    and
                    Well, you make a damned good show of imitating it.

              • save nz …
                28 July 2016 at 1:54 pm

                But on a good note, hopefully this far out of the election they can practise the MoU with the training wheels of partnership, before the lead up to the election where it will bite them more than now.

                Most people, even the righties want affordable housing in my view. Her heart is in the right place.

                • weka …
                  28 July 2016 at 2:05 pm

                  I agree about the MoU. It’s a new thing, I’m sure there will be teething problems, and practice is a good thing this far out.

                  “Most people, even the righties want affordable housing in my view.”

                  Honestly, I think a big part of the problem is that too many people actuall don’t care as long as they’re alright Jack.

        • Psycho Milt 17.1.2.2
          28 July 2016 at 3:04 pm

          1. Promise smaller, more efficient government. End corporate welfare.

          Damn straight! Why should the Greens languish on 10-15% in the polls when they could adopt the kind of policy that’s enabled ACT to reach a dizzying 0%?

  18. srylands 18
    28 July 2016 at 1:12 pm

    “Falling house prices will enable lower income people who already live here to afford to buy a house. That’s going to appeal to many people who have faced the reality of never owning a home.”
    ______________________

    No it won’t appeal. It will terrify them. Because the ensuing chaos of the price falls required to make Auckland homes “affordable” will have wider economic consequences. Also many of the (young) people who can’t afford to buy houses have parents sitting on millions of dollars worth of real estate. Do these people want to wreck their inheritance? They would be better off forgetting real estate and investing in mutual funds, and waiting for their parents to die.

    • weka 18.1
      28 July 2016 at 1:23 pm

      Translation, people like you are scared.

      What chaos will ensue from Auckland prices dropping over 15 years?

      “Also many of the (young) people who can’t afford to buy houses have parents sitting on millions of dollars worth of real estate.”

      Care to quantify that? The numbers of young people in that situation (presumably their parents have big mortages, so not all parents with Auckland property), and those that would let that dictate their voting choices. Then those who that is never true for (inheritance options).

      “They would be better off forgetting real estate and investing in mutual funds, and waiting for their parents to die.”

      Wow, just wow.

      That is such a good example of why people with your politics, world view and values simply don’t understand what the GP are on about.

      • srylands 18.1.1
        28 July 2016 at 1:46 pm

        “Translation, people like you are scared. ”

        No. I am scared about the consequences of current housing policies. As I have commented before, I think that the housing policies of both this Government and the last Labour Government since 2002 have been a disaster for New Zealand.

        I am scared about education under-achievement, and about climate change and about fresh water.

        I am not scare about how much my house is valued at.

        You are quick to make baseless judgements it seems to me.

        • weka 18.1.1.1
          28 July 2016 at 1:59 pm

          I said people like you.

          • srylands 18.1.1.1.1
            28 July 2016 at 2:05 pm

            No the people that are “scared” are not people like me.

            The “scared” people are those that equate prosperity (rationally or not) with the valuation of their homes, and their expectations of those values in the future.

            Yesterday, about 5 percent of these scared voters latched on to National for the 2017 election.

            Yesterday will be one of those moments that historians will say in the future, won the 2017 election for National.

            • weka 18.1.1.1.1.1
              28 July 2016 at 2:09 pm

              “Yesterday, about 5 percent of these scared voters latched on to National for the 2017 election.”

              Is that an actual thing or did you just make that up?

              By people like you, I meant people with your values and politics.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 18.1.1.2
          28 July 2016 at 4:22 pm

          I am scared about education under-achievement.

          Then you need to start selling policies that raise household income for the bottom quintile. That’s the short version. Do you need citations?

    • Psycho Milt 18.2
      28 July 2016 at 3:07 pm

      Also many of the (young) people who can’t afford to buy houses have parents sitting on millions of dollars worth of real estate. Do these people want to wreck their inheritance?

      Much of that inheritance consists of bubble. If these people imagine they really do have a multi-million dollar inheritance, they’re greedy and stupid enough to vote NACT – Green Party policy won’t be relevant to them.

  19. save nz 19
    28 July 2016 at 1:34 pm

    Weka – I’m not sure scaring people is the way to go to win the election in the hearts and minds of NZ.

    Economic insecurity will help the vulnerable the least! When things go south, then banks tighten up lending, people stop hiring and instead start letting people go, so people who don’t have jobs, and also can’t borrow don’t get to buy the houses.. they just get poorer when they lose their job.

    During the depression, the GFC etc, the poor did not suddenly get a house to buy, quite the opposite…

  20. Brutus Iscariot 20
    28 July 2016 at 1:55 pm

    Little talks about “not wanting to destroy people”.

    I would suggest that it’s getting to the point where a 40% drop in AKl prices, would only take them back to the level where they were in 2012-2013. So really we are talking about a tiny minority of owner-occupiers who would experience large paper losses and end up in a negative equity situation.

    Now compare that number, with people who have been locked out of the market by insane price rises.

    • weka 20.1
      28 July 2016 at 2:07 pm

      Thanks for that. It would be really good to see some figures on what the actual problem might be. I suspect that much of the anxiety and rhetoric this week comes from incorrect assumptions.

      • Brutus Iscariot 20.1.1
        28 July 2016 at 2:44 pm

        Yep – shouldn’t be too hard to find.

        Every payment day that goes by, the mortgage does down, while the house prices have been rising to provide a nice buffer. I’d say we are only looking at a meaningful problem for people who have bought since the start of 2015.

        Consider someone who bought a house for 800K in 2014, 100k deposit. It’s probably worth 1.1m now (could be more). In the meantime they’ve probably paid off 20k of principal mortgage.

        If prices drop 40%, their 1.1m house is now worth 660k. Remember they borrowed 700k, now owe 680ish, so it’s line ball equity situation, rather than an irreparable blow to their net worth.

        Little and Key have been sensationalising massively about the economic repercussions.

        Different story for investors, but i don’t care about them – it’s buyer beware.

        • save nz 20.1.1.1
          28 July 2016 at 3:34 pm

          @Brutus Iscariot

          What has been happening in my view is that Kiwis have not been paying off their home loans and instead increasing them. People’s wages are not increasing with the cost of living, so the people use their house as a way to top up their wages. So that hip operation, that holiday, new kitchen, insulation, heat pumps, school fees and donations, day to day expenses they can’t meet, deposits and guarantees for their children to get their first house etc has all gone on the house.

          Even if you have paid your house off completely, in NZ due to traditionally no real savings options, the house also operates as financial savings and security for when you need something.

          So in my view very few homeowners are going to like the sound of free falling house prices.

          Funny, we don’t hear about Metiria talking about hoping share prices will fall so that new people can get cheaper shares in the market.

          Or bank rates fall so that savers can have less money.

          It is just not a good idea for a politician to publicly announce that she wants a huge chunk of voters to have less money so that someone else will get something for less. Especially when the split is 65% homeowners to 35% non homeowners, less say than 10% on the Maori role so around 25% of the population renting on the main electoral roll, many so vulnerable they may not vote at all, or be in a position that house ownership will not be contemplated at all as a possibility.

          Quite a few lefties on this site, comment often, they would not want to own a house.

          And quite a few people I know vote Green or contemplate voting Green, and own houses.

          Look at the numbers!!! Housing is not a very good ‘left’ issue to go rogue on, because the only saving grace of NZ is that we have relatively high home ownership levels.

          • Psycho Milt 20.1.1.1.1
            28 July 2016 at 4:02 pm

            Funny, we don’t hear about Metiria talking about hoping share prices will fall so that new people can get cheaper shares in the market.

            That’s because shares are discretionary expenditure and housing isn’t. Everybody requires a house of some description, even if they’re only renting part of one.

            • save nz 20.1.1.1.1.1
              28 July 2016 at 6:56 pm

              Not really. Plenty of financial speculation in the share market sector, look at Dick Smith in NZ and BHS in the UK. Both companies accounts were manipulated and the result was that jobs were lost, pensions were lost, consumers were not guaranteed, IRD lost money and investors lost money.

              If the goal of the Greens is to have one house per person/household that is a different goal than to want to crash prices due to housing requirements.

              If they think there are too many people and not enough houses, I have seen no sign of the Greens wanting to decrease migration levels.

      • DavidC 20.1.2
        28 July 2016 at 2:48 pm

        2012 till now (Auckland only) would be approx 120,000 houses.

        • Brutus Iscariot 20.1.2.1
          28 July 2016 at 2:55 pm

          Subtract all sales to investors, foreigners, and sales to existing homeowners.

          It’s only those FHB’s who have bought during the late bubble that we should be concerned about.

          By saying that housing is now grossly unaffordable, we are basically saying that the previous few year’s price rises are illegitimate. Everyone who already owned a house before the recent bubble is then on a level playing field, as a correction is only subtracting paper wealth gains that they should never have had anyway.

          • DavidC 20.1.2.1.1
            28 July 2016 at 3:20 pm

            why would you remove existing home owners and or investors? are their lives worth less?

            There is a significant group of people that have purchased second houses simply because bank rates are so dismal and a little bit of rent is better than SFA% less tax in the bank.

            • save nz 20.1.2.1.1.1
              28 July 2016 at 3:49 pm

              @DavidC

              exactly – and these investors are probably the ‘blue collar’ and middle class workers that used to vote Labour like the police, teachers and nurses that are frightened by the 1980’s and were instructed in the 1990’s to buy a house as an investment so as not to be a burden on the state…

              Oh course families should not expect to own a bach, that is too capitalistic.

              Also existing homeowners are being told to shove off, NIMBYS because someone in government decided we needed more people and more cars and more houses…. and traded it for milk powder.

              Wonder why these messages do not seem popular?

            • Psycho Milt 20.1.2.1.1.2
              28 July 2016 at 4:04 pm

              …people that have purchased second houses simply because bank rates are so dismal and a little bit of rent…

              You seriously think the property investors busy inflating Auckland’s bubble are doing it so they can get “a little bit of rent?” Some of them aren’t even bothering to let the place.

              • DavidC …
                28 July 2016 at 4:43 pm

                Psycho.

                I know a fair few people who own a house or three and I couldn’t name one of them that would leave a house empty for any extended period. Its just nonsense. You would be asking for vandalism. I doubt standard insurance would cover you. You certainly would have to have power and water turned off. No power , no alarm = no insurance.

                Even if you were really relaxed about low return you would just put it into management and pay the 8% fees or whatever.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  28 July 2016 at 5:18 pm

                  Nonsense! 🙄

                  • save nz …
                    28 July 2016 at 6:58 pm

                    The ghost houses are a cultural thing. Chinese do not like to rent houses.

                    Again cultural differences in home ownership are at play here.

                • srylands …
                  28 July 2016 at 5:35 pm

                  That is not convincing. Provided you check the house periodically you can leave a house unoccupied. I own a flat that has been empty for more than a year in Wellington. I occasionally stay there but have gone 6 weeks going there. It is fully powered up.

                  • McFlock …
                    28 July 2016 at 5:43 pm

                    On Planet Key, the Renfields of the 0.01% all have a discrete pied-à-terre in every city they visit on their pestilential quest to suck the life out of the country for their masters.

                    Fucking tories.

                • weka …
                  28 July 2016 at 6:04 pm

                  Tourist towns are full of empty houses that only get use once or twice a year. Those houses are insured, and have connection to utilities. Some have property managers, some don’t.

                  • save nz …
                    28 July 2016 at 7:00 pm

                    If you want to ‘sell’ NZ as a tourist destination and have no controls over non residents or occupation on our housing, then that is what you should be expecting.

                    • weka …
                      28 July 2016 at 7:33 pm

                      Historically most holiday houses in NZ have been owned by Kiwis. There is definitely an issue now with foreign ownership of holiday houses, but my point was really to show that it’s relatively normal for houses to sit empty and be fine. What’s not normal is that people can make money out of that especially if the house isn’t even a holiday house (which at least has a purpose).

            • Brutus Iscariot 20.1.2.1.1.3
              28 July 2016 at 5:33 pm

              It’s not the government’s job to underwrite investment returns from any asset class.

              There is no solution to the current dilemma that won’t leave a group of people worse off, either in relative or absolute terms.

              That’s the truth – swallow it.

              A correction in property prices is the lesser of two evils.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                28 July 2016 at 6:31 pm

                Those homeless erstwhile property speculators had better hope for a government that knows how to house all its citizens.

  21. dave 21
    28 July 2016 at 6:54 pm

    automation you move construction from the site to a production line
    https://youtu.be/Tz_wuZXRW-c?list=PLKhUBSyyV_EdoZzx4IO9rURl0VjZlqNHv
    people keep thinking guys on site that is obsolete

    https://youtu.be/bcHGQCWKm1I
    there even brick laying robots
    https://youtu.be/4YcrO8ONcfY
    https://youtu.be/MVWayhNpHr0

  22. Observer Toke 22
    29 July 2016 at 8:55 am

    .
    To those who Love New Zealand
    .
    There is only one message to be noted from this past 8 years in New Zealand.

    That is, this Government and its supporters have Shipwrecked Finance; Housing; Rentals; Assets and Morals (mostly dishonesty but also corruption and cronyism).

    They are the worst ever managers of a once fine Nation.

    The managers are: Nationals, Act, Maori Party, United Future.
    .

    • Leftie 22.1
      29 July 2016 at 1:32 pm

      Heaps of plus 1’s Observer Toke, and may I suggest a word change?

      “MISmanagers” are: Nationals, Act, Maori Party, United Future.

  23. Leftie 23
    29 July 2016 at 1:39 pm

    Greens relationship strong: Little

    NZ Newswire on July 28, 2016, 8:36 am

    Despite an agreement with the Greens that there will be no policy surprises, Labour leader Andrew Little says the first he learned of a potentially world-first policy to reduce house prices was in the news.

    Greens co-leader Metiria Turei revealed on Wednesday that her party wants to see property prices reduced by the government over the next 10 to 15 years.

    But Mr Little says it’s not a policy Labour would ever support.

    “I’ve never seen anywhere in the world where property prices have been managed down over a 10 to 15 year period,” Mr Little told RNZ of the “mystery policy” first made known to him through the media.

    “The next Labour-led government won’t be taking any measures to interfere in prices that it has never, ever controlled before. Central government simply doesn’t do that.”

    As part of their co-operation agreement, both Labour and the Greens promised not to surprise each other with policies.

    Mr Little, who first learned of the policy via a radio interview, wouldn’t directly answer questions about how the shock announcement affected that agreement.

    He his party’s relationship with the Greens was as strong as ever and despite differing views on this policy, they had shared understandings on building more affordable homes and keeping speculators out of markets.

    But Prime Minister John Key said while the parties were “in bed together” a policy of the Greens was a policy of Labour.

    “That is a future government policy to reduce your house by 50 per cent. Personally, I think it’s barking mad,” he said.

    <a href="https://nz.news.yahoo.com/top-stories/a/32170500/greens-relationship-strong-little/#page1

  24. Smilin 24
    30 July 2016 at 12:28 pm

    I heard this on why there is so many houses not being rented including by Housing NZ which is just the end of any credibility for the govt
    These houses are not being rented because the maintenance costs are greater in letting than what they can make by sitting waiting for the market to rise by leaving them empty
    As for HNZ being involved in this practise is why the law and the govt are becoming an untenable entity to be governing the assets owned by the govt
    Really someone should be jamming this so far up Keys nose that he cant take a breath to tell another lie