The Labour Party's followed through on its policy of banning overseas buyers of New Zealand houses by pushing a members' bill into Parliament.
The bill, sponsored by Labour’s housing spokesperson Phil Twyford, was put into the ballot for members' bills yesterday.
It would allow only New Zealand citizens and residents to buy any existing house, flat or apartment.
And while the chances of the bill ever becoming law are slight in the extreme - it first has to be picked from the ballot and then once given a first reading would likely be immediately torpedoed by the Government - any debate of the issue in the house would sure to be lively and emotive.
The issue of foreign ownership has become a heated one this year as house prices, particularly in Auckland, have headed skyward. Anecdotal tales have abounded about large numbers of offshore based buyers snapping up properties, but there is little hard evidence to either support or refute such tales.
Labour officially adopted a policy of limits on foreign ownership in July, when it was announced by then leader David Shearer.
Since then the Reserve Bank has, as of October, introduced its "speed limits" on high loan-to-value lending, principally to ensure financial stability, but also with an eye on dampening the housing market.
However, with the early evidence indicating that first home buyers have been largely knocked out of the market by the new measure, there have been suggestions that property investors could have a field day - and this would include buyers from overseas.
Twyford said his new bill was a "response to current housing market woes", which he said had seen the LVR limits drive first home buyers out of the market, "leaving a free hand to speculators both foreign and domestic".
He said Inland Revenue Department records showed that more than 11,000 overseas investors own properties in New Zealand that they don’t live in.
"An estimated 2,600 homes were bought last year by offshore property speculators that had no intention of living here. That’s a big chunk, given that just 4,700 new homes were built in Auckland last year."
Twyford said that "many other countries", including Australia, China, Singapore, the UK and Switzerland targeted overseas speculation in housing.
"New Zealand’s lack of regulation leaves the door wide open."
Twyford said the limits on foreign ownership would "reduce demand and help take some of the heat out of the [housing] market".
"It will put Kiwi buyers at the front of the queue. By itself this is not a silver bullet for housing affordability – but it is part of the solution."
127 Comments
That is the biggest Political Ploy without substance that has been floated so far....since it is going nowhere, so it's just advertising by the Labour.
Good political point scoring anyway since it has the ample political headling of Immigrant bashing....should get them a few points in the next election. Just enough to tip the election in their favour ?
BTW did I not just read in the Herald that the Census shows NZ needs more immigrants ?
When will the politicians finally man up and admit that their policies (MUL, RUB, Urban Density, Materials standards Monopolies etc etc ) are the cause of higher house prices and not immigrants ??
Fat chance our politicians admitting they are wrong !!!
Where's Winston?
Moving onto the next issue of serious importance;
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9479680/Peters-warns-of-immigr…
I just hope NZ First follows up and finds out under what immigration category these folks who can't speak English entered the country. As you'll note from the article above - they are all NZ residents .. so the question is how? Based on the 'Investor Plus' category, I suspect. Probably stated they intended to become importers :-).
Migrant crime, permanent residents and or citizens, working real hard at assimilating, cant speak english, working real hard moonlighting, making money instead.
How did they get into the country in the first place, and second how did the get the stuff past customs
Interpreters needed indeed. Next step is to watch for the loss of all their properties and cars under the proceeds of crime. Hit them hard where it hurts. Seize the lot, revoke their residency permits, cancel any nz passports, and deport them.
Kin
BTW did I not just read in the Herald that the Census shows NZ needs more immigrants ?
Thie editorial you refer to was one of the weirdest to come out of the Herlad in a while, with absolutely nothing to back it up they decided that what NZ needs is more people, why?
More people means cheaper labour, moer expensive property and less investment in productivity improvements. Immigration is in essence an attack on wage rates. Now you could argue- sure why not , drive wages rates down, but the bottom is very, very low, so low that NZ would not function in any way that we could recognise. So why not educate our own, invest in productivity and get on with the job of paying our own way in the world, instead of importing people to do the work for us. It is sickening.
This ideological nonsense is why Labour remains in the wilderness.
Who passes legislation on the fly when they dont have stats to even support the argument ?
We dont know
- How many non residents bought NZ property in the past year
- The extent to which offshore resident buyers are pushing up prices
- How many NZ residents with foreign citizenship bought property last year
- We dont know how many foreigners own rental properties
- Or how many actually live in them
- Or whether they are speculators
And now Labour just want to ban them .
I suspect that Labour has lost touch with reality , especially the rapidly changing demographics in NZ
Dont quote me , but something like 40 % of Auckland adults were born overseas , and if you add their offspring its around 60%, and as many as one in four Aucklanders are Asian .
Two irrefutables come from the reality
1) Labour runs the risk of alienating all of them
2) That makes us the most culturally diverse place imaginable
Boatman,
Your six points are just the reason for trying to find out the size of any problem.
Introduction of restrictions without knowing who is involved will at the very least help to throw light on any need to go even further.
The present National led government appears to be totally unwilling or unable to progress a solution so lets get on with it.
I would go further and give all those who pay little or no tax in NZ ( and that includes some with resident status) an ultimatum to get out and a time limit to do so and heavy penalties for not acting.
When I hear instances of those with recent resident status acting as a front for syndicated buying of rural and development land that should require OIO approval, I can believe that NZ will have great difficulty in retaining its No 1 status as the least corrupt country in the world
Basel Brush
Yesterday Boatman got a first-hand demonstration of how prices are set at the margin
Yesterday a few hundred OTD trades in MRP comprising a million shares, representing a mere fraction of the total free-float of 1.4 billion shares, set the price for everyone
It's the pricing power of the last-man-in who dictates todays price.
Wonder how Boatman is going with his MRP and MEL investments. Probably averaging down
Yes I totally agree. If we frighten the horses with the threat of a clamp down on housing investment, that may well be enough to correct the market.
The voters next year need to be educated on the need to rebalance investment markets away from residential property and even more the cohort of those aspiring to home ownership have got to realise it in their interests to vote for lower property prices, and to exercise that vote. They are the largest potential chunk of voters who can change the rules but I suspect they either do not know their power or have given up on trying.
I am a potential buyer in MRP and MEL but not at the silly float prices or even at current values. And yes I did register for both floats but never with any intention of fronting up.
Simple solutions are always best
All those who pay little or no tax in NZ including those with resident status ..
Agree .. I would re-phrase that as follows
All natural born kiwis of voting age will have an automatic right to acquire land in their own name with emphasis on "in their own name"
All non-natural-born New Zealanders, regardless of citizenship, must demonstrate they are of voting age, possess an IRD number, and have paid at least $30,000 in income tax in previous 5 years. Or alternativley they pay a non-refundable bond of $100,000. In other words they can't acquire land until they have established their bona-fides
Your suggestion ' TO INTRODUCE RESTRICTIONS " is analogous to peole in the 1800's wanting to ban electricity because it people could get shocked by it .
Why ban foreigners from buying houses in Auckland when we dont even know how many have done so, or are doing so , or whether they are the cause of a bubble or escalating prices ?
Ultimately regulations and/or the tax system have to even up the playing field between investors (of whatever status) and because owner occupiers do not have any deductibility for interest, then investors need to pay the price. In order to catch up with those who leave property vacant or own revenue nil land should have a nominal income assessed for tax purposes (a bit like the FIF regime). Writing that tax off against the actual tax (as now paid) would leave many investors with low or nil LTV borrowing unscathed
The Labour bill could not help here but it is well on the way to starting the ball rolling, I suspect.
The increase of interest rate does more harm than good.
The foreign buyers get funding from foreign sources which are unaffected by the OCR (and because they can wait, increases in local OCR just means a profit from the interest differential as Kiwi's would have to recover larger interest costs eg through rent or speculation)
The obvious first step, is the same as the US rules.
Make ALL income from NZ interests taxable whereever they are in the world, no kickback credits for foreigners. that way they can reduce the actual tax rate in NZ (half the rate, that produces economic growth, rather than the poverty policies we live with). So if a property is being rent out in auckland, tax the profit. If starbucks has a store, tax all profits AND fees going out of country (a bit like an "offshore GST for services" fee - to catch the dodge). IRD is having fun harrassing banks so they put their charges inc interest up to cover the bill, so I'm sure they would happily go after offshore transactions ...especially if they're looking to nickel and dime NZer's for GST when importing small items not available in NZ.
In the US, someone making a profit (eg from publish a blog with advertising profits) has to pay tax. This is worldwide.
And IRD...leaving the freaking banks alone...they're just passing on all those costs back to us. so while you think you're profiting...you're just losing out on NZ business and economic improvement.
Boatman.
The value of houses is determined by very few actual houses- the incredibly small number that actual change hands, so who cares how small the number is- it does not take that much to move the market.
Immigration is not actual an answer- ask an immigrant if you don't believe me, the last thing that a person from China or India or the UK would want is to compete for jobs, houses, space on the beach with the hordes of people from back home.
Do not wish millions more on us.
Plan B you are thinking like a Kiwi , not a migrant . You have no idea how wide the gap is between your cultural ideas and thought processes and those of migrants .
MONEY and WEALTH
We are individualistic when it comes to money , Asians, Muslms and even Africans have a communal approach to helping their kin financially . They buy houses in syndicates , or with extended family money.
Ever been to an Asian wedding and seen all those little envelopes as you go into the wedding ? Many young Asians get enough at their weddings to buy their first home. And its reciprocal
NUMBERS AND OVERCROWDING
Asians ( both Indian and Chinese ) see their strength in numbers , so they welcome their Kin coming here .
There is still lots of space here , so overcrowding is not in their reference .
Africans believe in having as many children as possible , wives are discarded if the cant produce kids .
COMPETITION FOR JOBS
Other cultures often dont expect to be given jobs. Ever been to Indonesia? . Everyone is doing something no unemployment benfits there . Go and check it out , they dont expect to be employed and are often self employed , often they actually prefer self employment .
WORK ETHIC
There is no such thing as a minimum wage or a 40 hour week in Asia , you work as much as you can . You employ family first and foremost , including Nana as long as she can stand up
Trade Unions? , there is no such term in Madarin
Not that I am agreeing with Labour and their policies but this will be a vote clincher, eventhough they signed up to the FTA with China. This will be like what Helen Clark did with the student loan free interest deal. National will have to come up with something similar soon.
@factboy ......When prices fall .....?
What planet have you been living on mate ?
How are prices going to suddenly fall when :
- We have 500 to plus buyers turning up at Auctions at the Bruce Mason centre when 20 houses are on offer ?
- When we have thousands of new migrants arriving every week ?
- When there is a land shortage in Auckland?
- Where it is cheaper to buy a house than rent it ?
- When those migrants can borrow at 2 to 3% while we pay 6% interest
- When a 4 bed house is cheaper in Auckland than a 40 m2 bedisit on 35th floor in Kowloon
Sadly the labour policy all promote the work and the workers profits... (eg living wage)
However the policies would slaughter most employers...and you can't have employees without employers.
Eventually the leaders of the Labour party admitted they'd never even looked at what their $15 minimum wage would have done to most NZ employers (or the flow on costs).
There is no point voting Labour (or the Watermelons), and National is right out. ACT is gone. NZFirst doesn't have what it takes to go beyond opposition. The minor parties have no effective major policy or ideas for running government. and that's where we're headed...
Can't see it being immeditately torpedoed by the Government - without the vote of John Banks, that is. It is also an issue which I believe a number of Nat members of the house might well be prepared to cross the floor on. After all, it's only saying that only NZ citizens and residents will be allowed to purchase existing residential building stock. Land (and I assume that includes farms) and commercial buildings, would I assume still be open to foreigners.
Ultimately it looks as if they are simply intending to can the offshore residential landlords - of which I am guessing the biggest number are Australians, and perhaps Asian Mums and Dads buying a rental for the kid(s) who might be studying in NZ. They can just as happily rent from a NZ owner.
Why is the government and labour department trying to destroy our small farms?
Just read the other day about hourly rates being enforced onto farms (usually per-day-rate or fixed per annum, due to low value of work, unusual time demands, and uncertainity and inability to control income).
That will stick my wage bill up about 50% (and I'm the primary employee). Where is the money coming from to cover this? Is Fonterra going to be forced to pay an extra 10% on a minimum 7$ payout so we can make sure the wage bill is going to be covered.
Most of the farm experts calculations ignore return of investment on plant & land (what a "nromal commercial operation" would consider rent) and don't factor in all hours of labour.
At the moment I get $40k for a 70-100hr week (7 days). Thats 3hrs morning milk, 2 hours evening, x 7 = 35hrs.
The big corporates get around the wage question by deliberately playing down their return (rent) on their assets/capital - so they can get product under competitive price. 40k is a good whack - median around here is 26-32k. But can't hire more staff without blowing out my second biggest budget item (rent then wages) because Fonterra payout is out of our control and unpredictable (even to them).
Why is this being encouraged?
National will be praying it is not picked from the ballet as arguing against it will be the nail in their coffin. I think it a disgrace that long time honest NZ residents have to compete in the housing market with this hot, cheap and very often corrupt new money. Shame on the Nats for their inactivity.
Firstly the expression is ... HEAR HERE !!!!! It means I agree and everyone should HEAR what this person is saying HERE .
Secondly , the previous Labour Govt under Ms Clark encouraged investment AND migration from Asia , so this is a sudden about -face on their part
FYI the National Government has actually made migration here more difficult and increased the points required to migrate here , unlike Labour who lowered them .
What National has done which is a bit dumb is encouraged INVESTOR MIGRATION by wealthy people , and this may have compounded the problem .
BUT we dont actually know because we dont keep the Stats .
I think it's a good idea - if we dont look after NZer's then what are our children and grandchildren going to do when they are looking for income and investments??
And for the sociopathically self-orientated... that means who is going to be paying your pension, borrowing and paying back on your sunset investments/perpetuities?
The only thing I'd consider change is allow such people to buy buildings (improvements) but not the LAND.
Have looked at that. It's really not worth the risk in NZ. Economy is too unstable, people are too clueless for finance or just outright untrustworthy. It's very difficult when the majority of people are in massive amounts of debt...or on the gravy train and don't understand why others are struggling.
Actually that's not a problem.
Being a NZ resident (citizen)l, that person would be entirely subject to NZ laws and policies. They would also have to stay in NZ, or if a NZ front-company, one of the directors would have to be in NZ all the time and accountable to NZ laws and policies.
That way if it doesn't take the pressure off the market, pressure and restrictions can be put on that/those individuals - eg minimum time resident, minimum holding time before non-emergency transfer, and holdable to account for any future "cooling off" policies if the market still moved beyond NZers' means.
The corollory to this legislation would be to tax foreign owned property about 2-3% of the capital value per year. If it is a tax paying, income earning investment, then the capital tax can be rebated against the income tax.
Overseas owners of property should be required to contribute to the running of the country for the benefits and privildge that they enjoy by owning property here. As they are contributing nothing, or worse damaging our ecconomy through their speculation, then there should be a premium added to their fair share of the tax burden. In any event there is no way that NZ citizens should be subsidising them.
I suspect that even a Labour Govt may not go as far as forced sales of foreign owned land. On the other hand you never know...
I thought that my plan at least clawed something back from a mistaken policy and could be quietly ratched up to a point where it is too painful for foreign owners to keep holding our land. Same effect, but less international political flak.
Steven
That thought crossed my mind also. In fact you could go further and include all forms of non residential property. If they are generating an honest tax paying income then they should be unaffected. If not..... Also, if you did this then foreign parties could hardly complain. Not that we should be too worried about them.
As some here know we have a FIF taxation system for which tax is payable on the NOTIONAL income level of 5% of the current value of a share investment where the shares fall outside a very narrow number of Australian listed shares.
This means you could be paying significant tax without any income being earned.
We could equally apply a similar system to investments by all property owning individuals and overseas controlled investment entities (i.e. 25% deemed foreign ownership)
Imagine a system where it was deemed that 7% is the income on the investment capital value.
Apply this for simplicity to a value of $1m
Then a residential property unoccupied would pay tax on $70,000 – say $21,000 with no deduction for any expense including rates.
The above would also apply to bare land.
A residential property in Auckland rented at $40,000 would pay as above though tax may have currently been only $12,000 if at 30%
A property in a provincial area may rent at $100,000 – 10% yield. This would still only pay on the deemed $70,000 rent giving a tax bonus to the owner.
Similarly industrial and commercial properties that yield above 7% commonly would be unaffected
Farming land (not the overlying business) would be liable to tax so that farm values may eventually fall to reflect the yield on land value.
The important incentive here is that ongoing business activities are affected by cashflow more than profits or lack of. A tax demand coming at the owner each and every year when income os low or nonexistent will affect capital value over time.
A tax of this nature should be made to fall outside double taxation agreements so that IRD gets full benefit.
Factboy completely agree with your comments except requiring existing foreign owned property to be sold. Banning new foreign buyers will probably cause a steady decline in prices and most foreigners to sell up anyway. Forcing mass sales would pop the bubble big time, I think letting about 40% of the air out over 3-4 years would be better for economic stability.
Are overseas owners really the cause of the problem? Do you have empreical evidence to support your contention ?
Or is it
- Land supply and subdivision constraints ?
- The RMA?
- An open immigration policy?
- The lowest interest rates in living history?
- Local Authority incompetence and rorting?
- Len Browns arbitrary city limits?
http://www.realestate.co.nz/2140418
This sets the benchmark for the taste of things to come. Put it all on the house.
Something only a true Kiwi could aspire to, if all goes National, not Labours way.
Also, sets the standards we should all aspire to and the makings of a fine old business, charging a mere 400 bucks to have a gander. Just a once over.
At that rate should pay for itself in no time at all. May never have to work again.
Also has no need of those pesky MRP power shares, as it is powered by the sun, the moon and the stars.
Maybe National were right?.
Who says National were not working in immigrants favour.
But this rude shack was probably Labours doing, started off in Helen's wa hey day.
This is Kiwi, through and through. Furnished accordingly.
Even somewhere to park the old Holden, the imported Lada, maybe even a cherry bomb or two.
A mere triffle, tongue in cheek.
Who says investing in houses was wrong.
Not I.
Just trying to sell the idea to the General, Hoi- Poloi.
Any takers?. General.
Please see the link, contained therein.
If ya get my drift.?
And before anyone starts saying it is not about the economy, or high finance, I tend to disagree.
Oh Get over it , your parents may have built a few State houses , but 40% of Adult Aucklanders are migrants , and if you add their kids , they make up 60% of Aucklands population .
One in 4 Aucklanders identifies themsleves as Asian .
AUCKLAND IS NOW A COSMOPLITAN , MUTI CULTURAL MULTI ETHNIC CITY , NO LONGER A WHITE KIWI VILLAGE
It's not for the first time I have to remind you that Labour are highly likely to NOT win the next election:
"If recent history is anything to go by, the 2014 general election result has already been decided. As the chart to the right shows, since 1998 the party leading the opinion polls in July of the year preceding the election has gone on to win the highest proportion of the party vote, enabling them to form a government.
Despite the current centre-left Labour/Greens bloc looking competitive, history tells us National should have the 2014 election in the bag, again.
Although David Cunliffe emerged from the Labour leadership 'primary' with all guns blazing, recent political history also suggests he will find it hard to make a sustained impact within the next 12 months. The MMP era is littered with major party leaders who have rolled their predecessors with the hope of doing better within two to three years of the next election, only to fall by the way.
John Key was the exception as leader of the Opposition for just under two years before he became Prime Minister; before that Helen Clark was leader of the Opposition for six years, and before that Jim Bolger was leader of the Opposition for 4.5 years. No one has yet gone on to lead a government within 12 months of assuming party leadership."
Pay attention now ..
While the legislators duck and weave ..
Nothing stands still .. it's getting worse .. a new breed of private investors has emerged as competitors to institutional investors for prime real estate
An article by Florence CHONG who has her ear to the ground ..
You people have such short memories, remind me, what happend with house prices last time Labour were in power in the naughties... Oh yeah, the biggest boom in NZ history.
And what is Labours policy regarding immigrants last time.... Open door. You don't have to worry about foreigners buying our houses, Labour will make them NZ citizens.
This is a political stunt, nothing more.
Happy 123
The question you have to ask yourself is - is the labour party the same labour party that you describe or has it changed- I think that it may just have turned back into an actual labour party - with a few rogernomics types still there but on their way out
A wise man once told me that an immigrant makes the best neighbour in the world when he is the only immigrant in your street. When you are the only non immigrant in the street your neighbour is the worst in the world.
Never thought I would be a Labour voter or even consider Winston but times are a changing. Labour's proposal leads me to think some one is waking up to smell the coffee but unless they win the next election significant areas of AKL will face the prospect of having powerful immigrant voting blocs when you consider the apathy normal kiwis have to making their vote count. For the North Shore of Akl I would think Labour's ship has already sunk.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11167626
"A members bill put forward by Labour's Phil Goff which would tighten up rules for foreigners buying rural land will be debated in Parliament after it was drawn from the ballot today."
It's just rural land over 5ha
C'mon people, get real . Think of "Farting against thunder" This law will never get past the first reading in Parliament
We have gone past the mark of stopping migrants from buying up Auckland, its simply too late to close the stable door .
- We have a city with the most migrants other than Toronto ,
- 1 in 4 Aucklanders is Asian
- We have invited them in to settle here .
- Our immigration policy is if your have money , you are in .
- If you have money , you dont even have to worry about the pesky little Question box on the IMMIGRATION FORM about speak ENGLISH. Hence the ESOL problem .
- Migrants can borrow money in Hong Kong or Shanghai for under 3% ( we pay nearly 6% for mortgages ), and prices here are a joke when compared with HK
- HSBC ( Thats Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corp for those that dont know ) one of the worlds largest Banks , with an NZ Branch located at 1 Queen St Auckland will even lend the money at 3% onshore if you have income/ investments in China
We cannot stop new migrants and their extended families from buying property here , this is not Apartheid South Africa , Israel or the American South or Midwest in the 1950's .
And finally , we dont have conclusive proof that non -residents are causing prices to escalate , simply because we dont have , or keep, the statistics .There are just too many variables to this problem to blame non -residents for our shortcomings in planning Aucklands growth.
IMHO Absolute rubbish!
The status quo is no excuse for avoiding change to allow us to assert becoming our own masters once more.
It is just like saying "We need more immigrants"
Do we really?
Others quote the same without any good reasons other than increased market size and efficiency. I would prefer to spread existing resources among those we have here now. Those resources are limited.
So I would vote for any government which is prepared to curtail the profligate granting of residency and citizenship while trying to incentivise our diaspora to return.
A part of me agrees with your sentiments , I think we have overdone the immigration thing .
Another part is more rational and recognises we have gone past the point of no return , so we need to accept that Auckland is no longer the white Kiwi village it was a generation ago , its now got 40% of its denizens being migrants , and when their kids get to voting age they will make up 60% of the city's population .
Mate , things have changed right under our noses while we we have been grinding our way to and from work in Aucklands traffic each day
Yep, but much of the developed world's central banks and the right wing pollies at least have a similar phobia of inflation....
In NZ we have been lucky, we didnt see a melt down in property aka the USA.
One counter balanace point though is we need to borrow money, hence with an OCR "excessively" high "investors" are happy to lend to us. Now if the OCR was say 1% and retail mortgages 3% would that still be the case? I suspect not....
regards
I accept the above BUT I also expect our Government to recognise the distortions presented by excessive immigration rates from whatever source. Regrettably the further the culture and language from our own the lower the rate we can absorb without difficulty. That is not xenophobia but just plain logic.
Hence my aim would be to capture our diaspora first and certainly not to allow money to dictate who we get as they are also likely to decamp again.
And a wise man once said, " Follow the money"
Sorry, It has to be repeated.
Wow , I never realised foreigners buying houses was such an emotional issue !.
We have got ourselves into this position , and banning them from owning property ( with some even suggestion retrospectively ) is just crazy .
Helen Clarke welcomed them here , we wanted their money , but we dont want them to compete with us
What kid of nonsense is this ?
We cant have it both ways
Gosh, chaps and chapesses, comin' into the site after coupla days slaving in the data mines of Takapuna, a bit cold after all this crappy Awkland weather, and then...
Open up this thread and Feel the Heat.
Not much light, mind yez.
But an uncomfortable thought strikes me, having warmed my hands over the glow of the Righteous Indignation here evinced.
Given that setting up a Company is straightforward, what's to stop an astute person setting up a shell, selling shares to all and sundry, buying entire streets, driving a dozer through the existing shacks, and flinging up a buncha dog kennels (oops I meant to say small but exquisitely formed homes), then selling the licence to occupy them to, say, a lotta Immigrants for whom 25 squares All ter Themselves is Paradise?
After all, that's exactly the retirement village schtick. Except the occupants are the Unwanted Doddery, not the Newly Arrived Hopeful.
- No ownership, so avoids the citizenship test
- Companies with majority foreign ownershiop are two-a-penny, politically unassailable, and just happen to run, apart from anything else, our banks, insurance companies, and other useful stuff
I think the next step is to ask ourselves the question:
'Is this piece of politicking gonna produce anything but the usual hastily flung together law (if it happens at all), with the usual loopholes and Monster Truck-sized gaps, (for a working example, see the Affordable Care Act in the USA) and with the bonus side effect of polarising the populace and poisoning the well of Community?'
For starters, it is very rude to refer to all the people living in retirement villages as "Unwanted Doddery". My mother lived in a retirement village for in excess of 20 years post-retirement and I can assure you she was never unwanted - and I'd have dared you to call her doddery to her face. She was very good at putting small-minded, cynical upstarts such as yourself in their place.
Secondly, what makes you think all our "Newly Arrived Hopefuls" want to live in a 25m2 box? Again, you're an arrogant stereotyper who thinks all immigrants are poor sods from third-world countries with no skills, nor prospects. Wrong (and rude) yet again.
Lastly, the strawman example sounds like a commercial business if it intends to offer said 25m2 properties on unit title. Any property developer who would build 25m2 single story unit titles on a central Auckland residential street would have to be someone intent on going broke. Otherwise, they'd be an apartment block developer - quite a different kettle of fish.
Sorry, chap - it's you doing the politicking. The Labour Opposition is just trying to assist aspiring NZers to achieve their goals of homeownership.
- Argumentum ad hominem doesn't cut it.
- Rude and cynical - yup. But read an Aussie paper, even the business pages, and you'll see worse.
- Licence to occupy is not a unit title. Ask the Christchurch retirement villagers who figgered all this out the hard way after the quake (e.g. Kate Shepherd).
- Give me a convincing ball-not-man answer as to why a company configuration would not avoid the Labour Lawz. The devil's in the details....and legal structures.
It wouldn't avoid the Labour Lawz - the intention as I read it is not to restrict new commercial development of apartments and/or retirement villages or whatever form of licence-to-occupy commercial development you refer to. It is to restrict the purchase of individual residential properties.
What do you mean cut the ad hominem .. I called you rude and cynical and you agreed!!! lol. Thank you for that affirmation.
Problem with confiscation and serious penalties; is that when you get some rule following butt kisser that wants to do well and doesn't have the Myers-Briggs to give a damn about anyone else, and thus only cares about *their* performance in *their* job appraisal, or is willing to walk over everyone else at the direction of "find more cash" (eg Morton Fork material) then those policies become "rule-by-law"...... very much the case of where the heds of IRD are at the moment. Gods know whose agenda they're serving because it sure isn't NZ's best interest.
Factboy - What is the point of having a law if all one has to do is change to a new type of entity or business structure to circumnavigate that law?
Anyone with any drive and determination will always find a way to get what they want legally........the people that don't have the same drive and determination will simply not do the necessary homework to get what they want and then cry its unfair.
Consciousness comes first then construction not the other way around. The people who recognise this are the first out of the starter box.........if your too slow in becoming conscious to the facts then you miss the opportunities and get left behind and then think the system is unfair and that is pretty much why we have the situation we have today.
Boatman,
you are mixing up the two categories of buyers together; immigrants and overseas buyers.
Immigrants are welcome to come to live in NZ and buy their houses
Overseas buyers; This is where people are having issues of them buying houses in NZ and then go back to their home countries
Dont get me wrong here , I share some of the sentiments regarding migration on this forum , and I do get the difference between foreigners buying up property who dont live here , and migrants who do live here .
The problem is we dont know if the non -residents are causing prices to escalate , because we do not have the statistics.
I have seen foreigners at the auctions , thousands of them , and assume they have some kind of residence status.
I have seen no statistical evidence that non-residents are the big players here.
The other issue is that in 2006/7/8 under Helen Clark most of us will recall , we had all the major Auckland Real estate agencies opening stands at trade fairs in China to encourage investment in Auckland property .
Labour wanted their money, they called it FDI , and now we want to ban them .
And what is the difference between foreigners buying shares on the NZX , Property , NZ Govt Treasury bonds or any other class of asset ?
It would be trivial for Barfoots or some government agency to collect data on the residency status of buyers.
The problem is the data would be dangerous and might put the ponzi scheme at risk, this is why it isn't collected. I've been to Auckland auctions, we all know that certain nationalities are massively over represented.
Phil Goff on Radio Live this morning was asked whether James Cameron would have been allowed to buy his property in Waiarapa under the new law.Goff said yes because Cameron had indicated that he intended to become a resident and spend more time here.
Problem solved for all new immigrants and overseas investors.He was also asked about the Crafar farm sale and he said no however if they brought new technology and created jobs it would be okay.
Nothing will change.
Rather in-consistant.
If the owner is resident and if the owner is paying NZ tax I have no issues. If its no to one or other then no, cant own property and they'd have to sell off property, eg Crafer farm(s).
Think that will catch out some land bankers as well, no biggee.
regards
That's a different members bill - one which has been selected from the ballot. It relates to farmland, as opposed to residential. See here;
http://www.labour.org.nz/media/bill-limit-rural-land-sales-overseas-buy…
I agree - doesn't look like it will make a great deal of difference. Don't forget, PG is the right wing of the Labour camp (a bit like Key in terms of being an incrementalist .. i.e., tweeker) - likely PG was very close to Cullen when they opened the flood gates in terms of amendments to OIO rules when they were in office. So this looks to me like a Phil Goff ballot initiative submitted before Cunliffe took the helm.
If I was a gambling person with some dosh to burn and knowing Labour/Greens might be the govt in 2014. I would go shopping for some good houses because there will be some frenzy buying before the govt outlaw overseas buyers.. But then I don't have spare dosh nor have a gambling habbit!
Yes as its an ownership thing going past the implimentation date of the legislation so its not really retrospective.
You would put in a proviso that they would have to sell within 12months or apply to a court for an extension showing why not. So if you had a property worth 1million and were asking 2 million, that wouldnt be an adequate case for an extension, especially if you had offers at $900k.
regards
And even if the legislation says you cannot move the property to another overseas owner or register a change in ownership in any way except to NZ control, or alter any mortgage source, that would be more than enough for most of them to try to sell up before the others cause a deluge of sales.
Example locally. What price are you willing buy Chorus shares at today?
'nuff said........ or Meridian.... or Mighty River Power?
Good point, however the idea is to stop residential / house buying and not actual companies or say farms. Really will individuals from overseas want to set up companies to buy houses? I suppose that is possible but starts to get complex. Also wouldnt that make the company liable for NZ tax?
Besides which does the FTA apply? Ive had a look at it and nothing really says they can buy houses here beyond "investment" or can Labour "simply" say no foreign ownership trumps the FTA? not sure there.
Also I assume you mean the Chinese <-> NZ FTA? so other foreigners wouldnt be able to buy.
regards
After having read the article 3 times and each of the 156 responses ,I have arrived at the conclusion that the housing issue is a ridicuously highly emotive topic among New Zealanders .
We have a predicament , brought upon by our various Governments actions for the past decade .
We are no longer able to control who owns Auckland , who buys houses here.
We have gone out of our way and encouraged migrants to overpay for terribly badly built wooden shacks in some cases .
Now we dont want them to do this anymore .
I guess this is how the Maori felt when they realised the Pakheas were here to stay and things had changed for ever .
History does what ...... ?
After having read the article 3 times and each of the 156 responses ,I have arrived at the conclusion that the housing issue is a ridicuously highly emotive topic among New Zealanders .
We have a predicament , brought upon by our various Governments actions for the past decade .
We are no longer able to control who owns Auckland , who buys houses here.
We have gone out of our way and encouraged migrants to overpay for terribly badly built wooden shacks in some cases .
Now we dont want them to do this anymore .
I guess this is how the Maori felt when they realised the Pakheas were here to stay and things had changed for ever .
History does what ...... ?
I have to say it Boatman, .....your ticks don't show it, but that was possibly the best post this year on the hysterical state of the N.Z. (particularly Auckland) property markets.
Not too far from here we will be asked where the line in the sand is, the Aussies have made their choice now subtley reaping the consequence of trying hard to close the door a little.
Still great post , and a fair reflection of how we got here......Oh I Oh and just bad policy written on the hoof.
That's another subject that chazzo can't or won't touch
When you consider that the group of which you speak now comprise 25% of the auckland population and auckland economy, that's a lot of cash economy, not subject to income tax, or paye tax, or GST, or compulsory super, you name it, but whichever way you slice it, it is un-taxed money, and where does it go? straight into adding to the pressures of pushing up auckland house prices. With a bit more money they can import more of their kin in for the skin-trade, more cash money, contactNT, more cash money, lotsandlotsofit
Spot on iconoclast.....the good news is there are levels of investigation now in progress, as one such immigrant or Foreign National just this week has become the first to forfeit purchased property and charged with money laundering.
Do we have the manpower to follow available leads , do we have the will to, time will tell.
One thing for certain that little story did no make front page news and came to me from a mouth very close to the horse. I was surprised, and asked whether there were ongoing investigations....the answer was yes.
It's not all beer and skittles in Australia in respect of the immigration flood:
People born overseas now make up 27.7 percent of the population, according to 2013 figures from the United Nations’ Department of Economic and Social Affairs. That compares with 14.3 percent in the U.S., 12.4 percent in the U.K., and 20.7 percent in Canada.
Immigration is “incredibly important,” RBA Deputy Governor Philip Lowe said Nov. 26 in Sydney. “They bring management skills, they bring technology skills, they bring a commitment to hard work.”
Along with stimulus, immigration has brought challenges. In 2009, attacks on Indian students in Melbourne dented the reputation of the education industry, the fourth biggest foreign-exchange earner.
Bob Carr, premier of New South Wales state from 1995 to 2005 and foreign minister from March 2012 till September, says a pro-migration business lobby has encouraged an expansive program even as it pressures the world’s most arid inhabited continent.
“Why is it in Australia’s interests to push immigration at the very highest levels?” he said in a telephone interview. “We know we’ve got problems with an erratic rainfall pattern, we know our rivers sometimes end up grudging streams, we know we’ve got a lot of land degradation and that we cling to the coast, a fertile coastal strip.” Read more
How I got it wrong on migration
by Rob Burgess, 6 Dec 2013, Politics National Affairs
What we are now discovering
90 per cent of migrants settle in our major metropolitan areas, the main concern is the housing and infrastructure demands they place upon public and private investment resources.
Many journalists - this one included - have assumed migration will sort out the ageing population problem. On that, we have been wrong
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.