By Greg Ninness
The Government’s plan to ban overseas investors from buying residential property is already drawing howls of anguish from property developers, real estate agents and lawyers, who claim it will hinder new property developments and worsen the housing shortage in places like Auckland.
And that, they say, would push up both prices and rents, making life even more difficult for ordinary, hard-working New Zealanders, exactly the opposite of what the Government is trying to achieve.
Of course all of those groups are well known for setting aside narrow self interest in favour of the broader public good. But while their protests may be well intentioned, they are probably wide of the mark.
The changes the Government is planning are contained in the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill, which in a nutshell, would ban overseas investors from buying existing dwellings or residential land. It would, however, still allow them to be residential property developers and add to the housing stock, provided they sold down the new dwellings they created within 12 months of them being completed.
There are separate rules for migrants coming to New Zealand who want to buy a home.
One of the main objections being raised by developers is that it would hinder their ability to pre-sell units in apartment or other multi-unit developments, to overseas investors.
Under the new rules overseas investors would still be able to buy residential properties off the plans, but they would be treated like developers and have to on-sell them within 12 months.
That would likely see them caught by the Bright Line test which would see them taxed on any capital gains.
It has been common for developers of large scale housing projects such as apartment blocks to promote them to overseas buyers. And in many such projects, overseas investors have made up a significant proportion of the buyers. However, this is something developers are usually coy about discussing, typically preferring to stress the “high number of owner-occupiers” who have bought into a development in their marketing material.
For many developers, overseas investors have been a relatively easy sell.
There are well oiled sales machines promoting overseas property investment operating throughout the world, although this trade has been dominated by investors from China.
But this flood of money into our residential property market has had unintended consequences.
It came at around the same time as immigration surged to a point where construction of new dwellings couldn’t keep up with demand, while at the same time interest rates were plunging.
Those two factors combined to push up prices.
And the Chinese weren’t like most other investors.
For many, their main motivation to buy overseas property was to get their money out of China and away from the scrutiny and control of Chinese government officials.
And they were less worried about the price they paid than local buyers.
New Zealand property prices seemed cheap to them and they could see that property prices here were already rising strongly, so they could park their money in this country and enjoy handsome capital gains.
As the river of Chinese money started flooding in, property prices that were already in overdrive became turbocharged.
And that skewed the market.
Developers responded to this rush of cash with bigger and better dwellings and the cost of new homes inevitably skyrocketed.
That left them with two main customer groups.
Overseas investors, and local buyers on high incomes and/or with a decent chunk of equity, most likely from an existing home that had also appreciated in value.
People on average wages who didn’t already own a home started to be locked out of the market, especially in Auckland.
However that model has served developers well over the last few years and they and their partners such as real estate agents and lawyers have all had a good feed from the profits.
But the market has now turned.
The Chinese Government has clamped down hard on the ability of its citizens to send money abroad, and that has dramatically curtailed the number of overseas investors buying residential property here.
And prices have started heading sideways.
With the prospect of capital gains starting to dry up and rental yields often at minuscule levels, the idea of stashing some cash in this rocky outcrop at the bottom of the Pacific suddenly doesn’t look so attractive.
Which leaves developers to duke it out with each other for the limited pool of local buyers who can afford to buy their product.
There is no shortage of people in this country who want to buy the houses and apartments developers are producing.
But there is a limited supply of local people who can afford to buy the type of dwellings they are providing.
That is something that is unlikely to be lost on the banks, and it’s probably one of the reasons they are being so cautious with their lending on new developments.
The explanatory notes to the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill state very clearly the outcome the Government expects it to achieve: “The Bill will ensure that overseas persons who are not resident in New Zealand will generally not be able to buy existing houses or other pieces of residential land. This will lead to a housing market with prices shaped by New Zealand-based buyers.”
If property developers want to secure their futures they need to stop whingeing and wishing for a return to the halcyon days of a year or two ago and accept that there is a limited market for the upmarket type of properties they have been turning out, and it’s probably getting close to saturation point.
The growth opportunities now are in providing more modest dwellings that more people will be able to afford.
In a video interview with interest.co.nz in November, Housing Minister Phil Twyford said this:
"We are going to be building so much, there are going to be opportunities for New Zealand companies, but we are not averse to the idea of overseas companies that are used to working at scale, coming in and acting as a disrupter and I think possibly shaking up and improving some of the supply efficiencies and doing some of these big projects," he said.
"And by tendering construction work at scale, at say thousands of homes with multi-year contracts, companies will be able to scale up and invest in offsite manufacturing - build factories that can build quality homes at a more affordable cost."
Developers should take note.
If they don’t adapt to the changing market and find ways to take advantages of the opportunities it is going to provide, then someone else probably will.
And, perhaps ironically, that someone else just might be Chinese.
You can receive all of our property articles automatically by subscribing to our free email Property Newsletter. This will deliver all of our property-related articles, including auction results and interest rate updates, directly to your in-box 3-5 times a week. We don't share your details with third parties and you can unsubscribe at any time. To subscribe just click on this link, scroll down to "Property email newsletter" and enter your email address.
210 Comments
Aww, golly gosh, so the little overseas investor who was no more than a blip is suddenly crucial to keeping property developers rolling in it. Boo bloody hoo, is all I can say.
Thank you John Key, thank you Bill English, thank you for your last nine years of obfuscation, denial and outright lying. We are now left in the position of ordinary kiwis being priced out of their home cities, of being fodder for the big landlord mill, some of whom would be foreigners, some of whom will be dipping into the public purse via accommodation supplements for far too expensive rentals, some of them will be both.
We need exactly zero foreign landlords and we need even less of them dipping into the public purse, I wonder where else will willingly hand over welfare to foreigners.
Us lot have been proved right, we were right all along, but oh no, we just got told we were "negative" or "xenophobic".
It is going to be eye wateringly expensive to fix this, but it has to be fixed.
On an aside a continuing concern remains the quality of recent existing and current builds. It will require a very motivated and commited industry and regulatory framework to avoid the horrendous shortcomings of the leaky homes era (still lingering to this day). With an enormous uptick in affordable (read utilitarian) housing to scale all the issues we have seen before will undoubtedly be amplified. The industry itself and the NZ product market and its cohorts has a problem. In order to deliver builds that are of, at least even the bottom tier of the quality metric will require either manifest innovation (which wont happen) or rudimentary design and build, which will further ghettoise existing and yet to join so called marginalised communities. Unfortunately the associated social costs will, over time be another generational burden to shoulder.
NZ should be producing modular homes in factories
Best type are wooden Lockwood type that will take a 9 earthquake & remain habitable with no structural problems.
NZ could be a leader in this type of housing but without a strategy from any past NZ government the industry remains cottage type
No matter what has been tried or is to be tried every market has inefficiencies and inherent inequalities which will be exploited systemically under whatever regime. Admittedly some apparently worse than others but one could argue that you cant fix what wasnt broken in the first place. We are as much a product of our environment as our environment is a product of our nature.
Property developers are also required to be sympathetic to allowing enough space for neighbour's gate entrance when building a fence. See this article on: "Two neighbours in the leafy, waterfront Auckland suburb of Devonport are at legal loggerheads after one built a fence across the other's gateway.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=119…
Double post. Please enjoy this video about chocolate-farming in Equador instead.
Looks like one of those honest mistakes where something's been in place for years, and it would appear from the footage to have only encroached on the border by a few inches anyway. Really, why would any sane or reasonable person care. Doesn't cause any problems for anybody until some dick decides to put a huge ugly revenge fence over it. Not unlike that brouhaha in Wellington where developers took down a fence and didn't replace it, then time passes, and the dude who inherited the property throws a massive tantrum and builds an oversized monstrosity with the sole purpose of ruining the view of completely unrelated people who bought one of the apartments years later.
Here is a couple of conversations that could have been had. First home owner, "Oh hi, I'm putting up a new gate, hope you like it". "Looks like it might encroach a bit on my land, but it's not going to hurt anything, catch you later for a beer, eh". or, second home owner "Hi, did you realise that your new gate actually encroaches a bit on my land?". First home owner "No, I didn't, perhaps I better fix it". Second home owner, "It's not like its ruining my life, catch you later for a beer, eh."
that was my thought, why have it on that angle so you have to go across the neighbours driveway?
he could have very easily change the angle to straight when he built it problem solved.
This looks very much like two dickheads living next to each other with ME complex
Looking at the footage and the diagram, I wonder if the original gate (said that this gate replaced one that had been there for years) was placed right on the corner like that as a convenience for people coming and going from the shared driveway - better visibility, no risk of clipping the corner. All the revenge fence achieves is to make the driveway narrower.
the guy with the angled gate clearly was using part of the drive way guys land (pocket hankerchief) for access if he was straight lining it with his wheelie bin out of the gate so "trespassing" and had widened his gate previously to give himself better access so not entirely "innocent". The drive guy considers himself able to build an over height fence (which Council obligingly permit!! why??) and to extend to his boundary (which on the face of it he has right to do however nasty). Based on the report I can't imagine why gate guy is wasting his money on the mediation which won't be cheap. Better to simply realign his gate and move on.
Agree. Having had issues with a previous property, when we purchased our current home we paid for a professional boundary survey. It gave positive and negative news. Part of our fence had taken a metre of our neighbours land, which we eventually fixed at our cost and we knew where the boundary was when that same neighbour was looking to build closer to our house than his plans indicated. It allowed us to decline his request and give a reasonable explanation why. Being a good neighbour is respecting their property boundaries and allowing them quiet enjoyment of their property. If you encroach, fix it, don’t be an ar$e.
The other reason for getting it right is that future neighbours aren’t bound by any casual agreements and buyers for your property may discount it due to incorrect boundaries. We’ve all heard the stories of garages or even worse, houses, built on someone else’s property.
It all seems quite American not Kiwi. Americans are all for freedom to do whatever you want and going to law to enforce absolutes. The Kiwi tradition is 'fair play' (a phrase that has recently made it into French sport commentary). Fair play is hard to define but implies more of a fuzzy reasonableness rather than precision. The judge should tell them they are not being Kiwi - that will leave them embarrassed. PocketAces to buy the beers and problem solved.
Our rising seas and increasingly volatile weather will also impact on housing built within a few meters of median sea level. For property in NZ it will be a challenging century or more.
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/12/11/67374/drowning-dreams-billions-at…
You should have bought in Burwood Cres in Remmers, high up on the cliff top with no threat from rising sea level whatsoever! This one just sold for > $11M in December.
https://grahamwall.com/property/11c-burwood-crescent-remuera/
Ok this one is not on the cliff top and still for sale - go and get it quick!
https://grahamwall.com/property/542-remuera-road-remuera/
Glad to see PT echo the words of myself and numerous other disInterested scribblers:
And by tendering construction work at scale, at say thousands of homes with multi-year contracts, companies will be able to scale up and invest in offsite manufacturing - build factories that can build quality homes at a more affordable cost."
Cf the Impediments to Prefabs, the fallacy of a Free Market in Housing, and most importantly (which bears out the conclusion in this 'ere article) that doing the Same Old Schtick and expecting Different Results ain't gonna cut it.
Finally a ray of hope from this cobbled-together Gubmint. But it still does not address the land costs/zoneration madness/TLA economic cluelessness issue.......
What have you done with Waymad? Where is he? I know he likes the idea of applying manufacturing techniques to building so we get really well made, decent long life structures, but surely you cannot be he? Made in China doesn't quite mean what Made in Japan means, not yet, if ever. Who is it who pretends to be Waymad, yet wears the rose tinted spectacles?
The Waymad (for it is indeed xhe) NY Rissolution is to comment only on stuff that Rilly Interests moi, and to do so in a spirit of 'Eliminate the Negative'.
It's hard, given the enormous opportunities on most Interest threads for snappy take-downs and exposure of elementary logical flaws. There are entire Case Studies at times.
But there we have it. Ack Sense You-ating the Positive. Rose tints and all. As Leonard Cohen wrote (The Future) 'Love's the only engine of survival'.
Although, there's that old Chinese saying: 'Love thy neighbour, but don't tear down the fence..."
Whole thing needs to be burned to the ground and rebuilt from foundations up so that it can work again. The current system was mostly established in the 90s, when the market was depressed and there wasn't the population pressure we have now. In those circumstances it's possible to get away with a leisurely routine of control-freakery and consultation with every nit-picking neighbour, and industry protectionism. Not any more. It's like a dense thicket of Catch-22 nonsense where every element of the system makes another element impossible.
My experience out in the provinces is that once the house is built after needing permissions from all neighbours within cooee (even out of sight of the house) the owner can then add whatever they like to their property without so much as asking even seriously impacted next door neighbours "do you mind." The building regulations are a total farce.
It will be an interesting exercise addressing the perceived excesses of foreign buyer interests. A watertight exclusion it will not be as it will be tempered by the very agencies used to implement it. There are numerous ways to subvert the system and from what I have seen thus far the laws of unintended consequences will almost certainly come into play. Trouble is NZ is too far down the global river and the perceived inequities attributed by a number of commentators here to the political machinations of various masters is testament to that fact. The status quo is precisely that.
It will be an interesting exercise addressing the perceived excesses of foreign buyer interests. A watertight exclusion it will not be as it will be tempered by the very agencies used to implement it. There are numerous ways to subvert the system and from what I have seen thus far the laws of unintended consequences will almost certainly come into play. Trouble is NZ is too far down the global river and the perceived inequities attributed by a number of commentators here to the political machinations of various masters is testament to that fact. The status quo is precisely that.
Well, here’s an overseas investor via land sales - 42 hectares - residential
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=119…
lol. they don't have control.. they are investing and making profits like we and most Western "democracies" do all over the world ... They have just been demonized for their obvious competition ..!!
lol, it was Ok to sell our big industries, utilities and the four banks to foreigners !!
Meanwhile the USA is bombing anybody who doesn't want to use their petro dollar for oil sales and you think the Chinese are the bad guys?
The Chinese have the good manners to purchase what we offer them from houses to forests to whole industries.
I bet Iraq wishes they were doing business with China and not USA.
Another nail in the coffin of Left inclined , anti-progress, viciously envious dinosaurs who just hate to see Improvement which didn't line their pockets .... it's all good !!, these people are doing a great job by digging their own grave, we just have to be patient until they are finished !! ... it will get much worse before it eventually gets better Again ... We are just hoping that there won't be too much mess left to clean come 2020!!
I would absolutely delight in seeing this “improvement” you talk of.
Unfortunately it has been in very short and questionable supply over the last few years.
However, good news – there shouldn’t be too much mess left to clean up come 2020 – as you suggest, the coalition have already started work cleaning up the big mess of the last 9 years and in 3 years considerable progress can be expected.
Time will tell Sir ...
In this era of " Why Not ?! .. and, "Everything is Possible, even if it defies logic " we can at least hope that things would remain the same, and not really holding our breath for further improvement !! ....
You can curse the Obvious, Undisputable, and Tangible progress the Nats made in 9 years as much as you like ... that is Not the point anymore, that is Undeniable and Unchangeable History now... anyone still doing that is just making excuses ( or paving the way) for current and future actions ....
Today,we are looking at those who are in power and witnessing the implementations of their promises and their progress ( and/or the lack of ) which would possibly improve things .. as they claimed and got elected accordingly !! ....
please excuse those of us who have difficulty in believing that shifting a vehicle into Reverse Gear would actually cause it to Advance Forward..
Again, Time will tell as we all watch, we might all learn something new afterall.. "Why not" !
... the question seldom asked is how is it that " foreigners " have so much money , how is it that they're so flush with cash that they're scouring the globe for rare works of art , houses , and cr*ptocurrencies ... flooding those sectors with dosh , pushing prices up , creating bubbles ...
Central banks ! .... the true culprit is the raving loonies who've cheapend credit so much so that they're sown the seeds of the next economic melt-down .... solved the problem of the last great debt deflation by even greater quantities of debt ... given the debt addicts a heavier dose of leverage ,,,
I don't think we have seen improvements just graft.
http://www.tailrisk.co.nz/documents/TheSuperdiversityMyth.pdf
My business is involved in financing the residential market. $1b to $2b a year. Approximately 50% are backed by foreign capital without which, banks, and other funders wouldn’t transact. Greg you seem xenophobic in writing this, as are most posts on this site. The reality is if kiwis can’t save then nothing will get off the ground. I expect a major fall in development funding as a result, and activity. That is unless other backers (government included) can fill the void. Those involved in the industry will realign with markets that are conducive to this type of activity, and take the path of least resistance.
Greg is not being xenophobic, simply factual. The Chinese buying in Auckland was rampant under the National government and Phil Twyford was on the right track when he got hold of the names of the Barfoots buyers for that three month period. Over 50% of the titles to homes on the North Shore now have Asian names on them (excluding Devonport and Takapuna). Many are vacant. It was never just 3% foreign buyers - more like 25% and the Nats knew it all along. So shutting the door on this foreign investment will mean we don’t actually need so many homes and apartments built. Net migration gain needs to be around zero to 5,000 for the next 6 years so we can get back into balance. So suck it up developers - the game has changed!
Great post. Totally agree. An old friend in epsom is surounded by empty houses...all owned by you guessed it asian names.
The real issue is the ponzi and hangers on agents and lawyers is that they still dont get that like winter, change is coming NZ voted for it. Please go to propertytalk forum and moan there.
I'm in favour of the ban on foreigner to buy existing houses, I think it's smart to allow them to buy new-builds to help increase stock levels. I don't understand why they are forced to sell within 12 months though, I think that's the problem. Foreigners will not buy new builds since they have to onsell within 12 months, therefore it negates the idea of foreigners adding to the housing pool
"The growth opportunities (for developperws) now are in providing more modest dwellings that more people will be able to afford"
Do you mean go back to building poor quality shoebox apartments Greg? Because you certainly cannot build decent sized, good quality dwellings "that people can afford" in Auckland
“Because you certainly cannot build decent sized, good quality dwellings "that people can afford" in Auckland”.
Complete, utter nonsense!
It’s very simple, unwind the mindless, thoughtless and so very damaging policies of the previous government.
I simply can’t believe that any New Zealander would consider the following to be an acceptable and non-questionable state of affairs:
“You certainly cannot build decent sized, good quality dwellings "that people can afford" in Auckland”.
What further astounds me, I don't doubt these completely inane statements are possibly posted with serious intent!
Thank you Yvil for your most kind words.
Forgive my somewhat “tongue in cheek” style, but at the end of the day there are obviously problems with both supply and demand – and if the answer isn’t to address and “fix” them then what is, acceptance that this is the new norm?
Not easy or palatable solutions for some I know – nevertheless I’m pleased to note that some positive steps have been taken on both fronts – with more to come.
Being in Government is to govern.
I did despair with the previous administration who at times refused to accept there was a problem – and if you don’t accept there is one, I doubt it will be fixed.
And thus here we are.
My vent may have been misconstrued.
“Complete, utter nonsense!” refers to the fact that it can be stated with some authority that:
“Because you certainly cannot build decent sized, good quality dwellings "that people can afford" in Auckland”.
It should have never come to this - and it is that state of affairs which I find to be complete, utter nonsense.
How do our costs compare to the States?
Average price per square foot The latest available data from the National Association of Home Builders gives us insight into the average cost per square foot of single-family homes in 2015. They report an average sum of $289,415 US dollars, and their reported construction cost per square foot for the year was $103. The NAHB also reports an inflation rate of slightly more than 4 percent for 2013-2015. Data from the US Census Bureau reveals that the median size for a single-family home in the USA was 2,467 square feet as of 2015.
https://thelendersnetwork.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-build-a-house/
Arizona
https://home-builders.promatcher.com/cost/phoenix-az-home-builders-cost…
Yvil.
lol, no one has a number to give - just assumptions ...
I agree with Kane02' s comments ... we will see a sharp decline in construction this year and if this bill ( amendment) get through, then we will see a disaster ... especially in year where we see investment opportunities opening elsewhere in the world ...
You might be closer to this action than most of us and know that building industry cannot take such a blow and would not operate at a loss .... they won't crawl back to the Gov begging for a piece of action when investment dries out ...
I can clearly see another huge drop in general business sentiments should this Bill pass as it is ...!!
No one will be happier than myself and hundreds of property investors and thousands of property owners when that happens ... but alas, that does not seem to be happening anytime soon, if ever!
We do not deal with "Perhaps" we work with what we see and feel on the ground and never make a decision on hopes or wait for one to materialise.
https://www.google.co.nz/amp/m.scmp.com/business/banking-finance/articl…
NZ has had its share of this. Canada, Australia, UK & US are very open about the issue. Must be a cultural thing for us Kiwis to go into denial mode, for what reason i can't imagine.
The property developers, real estate agents and lawyers always knew that foreign investor buying was out of control as evidenced by their current fears and protestations. Nick Smith, John Key etc did a great job with the smoke and mirrors and quickly shut Phil Twyford down but he was right all along and now he gets the last laugh as he now has control of the housing portfolio. With a 5 year bright line, foreign buyers of new homes having to sell within 12 months and pay tax etc the game has changed.
.. in all fairness to them , it's just human nature to attempt to create a fiscal fortune for oneself ...
The sad part is that consecutive governments have encouraged that to occur via the mechanism of property , comparatively unproductive assets , from generous tax legislation ... rather than via business and innovation ...
... job creation and export earnings are what the tax system ought to stimulate ...
Yvil - you like many (so don't be offended by this comment) fail to see how interdependent reality is. By trying to beat others, you simply end up beating yourself....in the short term you might think you're winning, but in the long term you end up harming yourself (or your kids).
Instead of just playing the game - why not focus on changing the rules of the game? (instead of exploiting the rules for your own self interest?)
That is not the point made here IO, you are just twisting your rules to suit (possibly) yourself because you either cannot or do not want to play the game - Just like few others here, you always like to frame this out and preach it as a moral issue or a morality problem... when it isn't. -
Buying,Selling, and investing are not sins and nothing to be ashamed of !!
Your comments above to Yvil about hurting yourself long term etc is pure fantasy in today's world - you use harsh words like "Exploit" which preludes criminal intent and actions - seems that you wish everyone to be a good samaritan just to please those who cannot make their life better !! You seem to want to play Monopoly where the winners re distribute their wins at the end of each round so everyone sleeps better !!
Everyone is entitled to the way he perceives his actions as long as he is playing by the rules and not breaking the laws of the land .... speaking of which, these Laws were generally put in place to regulate, control and fulfill the needs of the society to advance and prosper. simple evolving human nature ..
If you don't like Monopoly, then stay away from it and you are free to teach your kids how evil and shameful it is ... Some of us think otherwise, we sleep well at night and don't really need to follow any other rules!
We're all in this game Eco Bird - we have no choice by the fact that housing is a basic human necessity.
The fact that landlords and speculators have push the costs of housing through the stratosphere and raise rents as soon as accommodation supplements are increased is unfair - in time society will resent that behaviour (which I think is happening - and that's fantastic).
Its a slippery slope. If were willing to screw over other parts of society for one basic human necessity (housing), how long until we do the same with food and water? Or is it okay - it's just the 'game'....
I see you are emotionally charged by assuming stuff and building further on your assumptions which seem to me to be baseless - I also see that others are just fueling your frustration using similar trolls.... equally lacking true information ....
Yes we are in the same game Independent_Observer , and that is the system and set of laws governing us all , not much changed in the last 20 years... and Housing, as basic human necessity, is actually Provided to everyone one way or the other.
But that is not what you seem to want - you want to be equal with everyone else -- you feel it is unfair to be left behind ... because you feel it is your right to have equal chance -- and it is unfair that some, not all, had a good run over these years just because they owned a house or investment .. and there was a rush which took everyone by surprise....and left some clueless of how fast it happened .... Well, that is a matter of opinion and a matter of where you were in life at that point in time.. !
Where did you get the "Fact" ( as you stated) that landlords have pushed costs as soon as supplements increased ??.... please show us practical examples if you have any!! -
I say, chances are that you will find NONE other than rants by dark souls speculating and crying foul on social media or articles to agitate the vulnerables or people mislead by political propaganda !!
I am a long time landlord and know many people in this business, I have not heard of such an absurd news, statement, or action from any property manager or landlord whatsoever about pushing rents because beneficiaries will be paid more or some sectors will have a pay rise soon.
Landlords actually cannot do that and will be heavily fined as it is against the law and rules. no one can increase annual rents beyond a reasonable amount governed by its local going rates in that area ... anything else is total BS ...any landlord risking to do that can only blame his foolishness for the consequences....we do not live in a jungle !!
You need to source truth and facts on the ground -- not from propaganda and biased reporting, trolls, and hearsay stuff.
The Gov is not subsidising landlords ( or paying their mortgages) by the accomodation supplements that is another false statement and lie which was sent out during the election campaign and was meant to create support !!... some people who said that in public are now ministers of the crown and cannot dare repeating that kind of nonsense now ...
Should you have personal grievances and wish to start a revolution and threaten to flip the board then do not look for excuses , instead stand on facts worth fighting for - take your complaint to the managers of the country whom you might have elected to solve the problem, have a word with your MP , see if he can do something !..email PT , he seems to be the man who will solve the housing problem now.
There is no use in crying over spilt milk ...time for the new Gov to take action if they can.!! And I suggest you push them hard to get on with job.
We are all free in choosing the future for ourselves and our kids going forward. And just like anyone - I do not impose my way of life on others and do not expect others to do that to me.... that is a basic human necessity of life too... Everyone bares the results of his choices in life.
take care...
On the government subsidzing landlords, tomato, tomato. Depends how you look at it, of course it is subsidizing rents, of course it is subsidizing landlords. It is just that someone else has to go cap in hand to apply for it.
There seem to be some landlords who think a great number of people choose to rent, well, maybe they do, but a few years ago, those same people would have bought, wouldn't have given renting a second thought as a means to house themselves, certainly not as a means to have a home. A few years ago people cried foul over the possibility that we might have to buy certain light bulbs and shower heads, social engineering they cried. Well, now I want to draw everyone's attention to the social engineering of turning this country from a nation of home owners into a nation of renters, almost job done, sadly now there are people who don't really have a concept of home ownership.
Now it's time for a bit of subtle social engineering to swing it back or all these homeless, yes homeless even though they have a house to live in, will be very dependent on the public purse in a few decades. It will either be back to home owning being the norm or it will be a vastly different way that tenancies are structured.
It is my view that the structure of our tenancies has contributed to the social malaise of the day, not the only cause, but it is in the mix.
All people need something to aspire to, even if it might a home they rent, done properly it can be their home, not just a shelter till the landlord decides it isn't any longer. It HAS to change, end of story.
Then I suggest that the Gov should stop benefits all together ... following your ( point of view) landlords cannot accept discrimination against them ...AS is a small part of benefit ... we should stop subsidizing Supermarkets, dairies, bottle shops, medical service, medicine, and transport ..etc ,... and become a productive Happy Nation
Let's make it all user pay and No Benefits .. Agreed?
Well, at least benefits that are destined to go to one thing and one thing alone, at least with the main beneift you can choose to shop at this supermarket or that or grow your own, drive your car or walk or cycle, the accommodation benefit has one final destination only, therefore it is quite fair enough to call it welfare for landlords and I will continue to do so
That was a long chirp there Eco Bird....
Im in favour of removing all accommodation supplements and welfare payments for a year and resetting the finanacial environment - to generate some clarity in the situation. If renters can no longer afford to pay rent, and landlords default on mortgage payments, and their portfolios crash, so be it. It means the local economy isn't supporting wages sufficiently for landlords to charge what they do for rent - meaining that the government is propping up the rental market. Lets try that for 12 months and we'll see if your position is true or false. What do you think?
But if you crash and burn - no point crying over spilt milk right?
Not all renters are beneficiaries, and Not all landlords have mortgages. You seem to follow the economy of a small village where 1+1 must equal 2 and everyone should apply your rules or else !!
Portfolios Crash ?? .... you certainly don't know what that really means, you are still stuck in board games - life isn't a game !
I think you should apply to become the PM of this country for a week and find out yourself - then you might learn how to stop assuming stuff and think before Trying things willy nilly!
Sorry IO your horizon is a bit narrow and looking at this issue through your own lenses is really sad.
Countries are not governed and run by sentiments or impulse reactions . Get real!
1+1 absolutely equals 2 where I come from - does it not for you? Is there some new kind of maths that I'm not familiar with?
Countries are governed by sentiment - how else did Trump get elected? Wait until it shifts...in fact I think its shifting now and the Eco Birds of this country are starting to squawk...Markets and economies are also governed by sentiment (try reading Animal Spirits by Shiller and Akerlof - they cover this topic in good detail).
You cant blame individuals when a government is corrupt
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/4622459/Government-policies-blame…
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1607/S00020/qa-prime-minister-john-key…
etc
The bizarre thing about this 'human nature' of creating a fiscal fortune for oneself concept, is that it is also human nature to raise and care for the offspring that a generation has made.
So at present we have one generation exploiting the next (making them tenants in their own country for their own financial gain), while at the same time caring about their well being and wanting them to get established and have a happy life - anyone else confused by these counter intuitive positions that one generation is forcing upon the next?
But can't you see that your destroying their ability to learn and grow themselves? I don't want my parents money, I'll take far more satisfaction of being able to become self sufficient and earn what ever success I have (not have it given to me).
I find it bizarre that, in Auckland at least, parent's (mostly in the babyboomer generation) are so worried about their children not being able to buy a house, that they find it imperative that they themselves buy many houses, so that they will in turn be able to help their children to buy a house...but all they've achieved is pricing their children out of home and increased demand on limited supply....it all seems so illogical and counter intuitive. If there isn't enouugh of something, why add more demand pressures (just because you're fearful there won't be enough...?)
It might seem illogical and counter intuitive from a macro level but not from a micro level. Different cultures have brought in much more competition when it comes to preparing your children for life ahead and are furiously taking advantage of everything the West has to offer. We don't operate at the level of caring for the whole community anymore. Indeed such notions have been chucked in the dustbin of history, or so I was told.
Lions don't usually eat their own cubs. If I didn't deny them an opportunity to purchase their own home someone else would. I have to play the globalist game. Actually I don't believe you have proven they are being denied this opportunity. There are plenty of affordable places around New Zealand and all around the world. My job is to equip them as best I can to take advantage of any opportunities that arise.
So not really like lions, more like canines (dog eat dog?).
But you don't really want the younger generation to leave.....who would live in your rentals and pay down the mortgage....'let the kiwi children leave, a desperate foreigner will happily pay the mortage on my rental'
I don't think globalism equates with caring about all the children in the world. It's open borders only for the relatively well off or well qualified. Globalsim inevitably led to only a relatively few cities becoming highly attractive and all these cities now have a large percentage of foreign born residents. Because many people wanted to live in these cities property values boomed and they also became places to buy property simply for investment and not necessarily to live there.
All of these cities remain very attractive even after they became unaffordable. It's hard to see a way of correcting this as it would involve de-globalising which is something not all that many people want to do, especially now with such high percentages of foreign born residents. It's as if some people want to retain the benefits of globalisation while de-globalising the attractive cities. The cities will become a lot more affordable if we make them a lot less attractive. Yet the vast majority of the global city dwellers want to be part of the dynamic global economy and hurly burly.
Problems like this in the past were solved by the rise of nationalist countryside movements as cities have always been dens of iniquity however nowadays we have very few people living a rural lifestyle and even few er with the will to burn it all down.
Living in a global city is quite nice and part of its increasing appeal is its relative unaffordability which results in exclusivity.
I don't think we would want a global city that was also very affordable. It may not even be possible.
Of course cities are attractive where we have human rights and our living standards are high compared to third world countries. Since we let all and sundry in to wait at restaurants, pick fruit, serve petrol, drive trucks, money launder money and drive taxis.
Doesn't make us a global city, it makes us mugs.
Let's become a global nation by creating global companies that can attract highly skilled people and pay high wages to New Zealanders. So smart New Zealanders dont leave. Not a country that reduces our productivity by ripping each other off with unproductive assets and high debt. Global city, more like global bazaar.
If the foreign born population is something like 40% and relatively well off immigrants continue to flow in and you are a gateway to an economic region then you are a global city. It's not a badge of honour just a simple fact.
I don't deny we were mugs, the whole of the West were mugs, things happened that few people consciously voted for, but we have gone too far down the track now.
If we're that global a city, surely we need to start levying enough in rates/land tax to pay for the infrastructure of a global city. No longer, the nonsense argument that we have some obligation to keep rates low so that those who grew up in a city in a central suburb can afford to live there when they're no longer working - infra costs are just part of being a global city.
Look at the tax you'd pay in NY on a $2 million house, for example. Google suggests $16,000 per annum. That sort of amount funds decent infrastructure.
Auckland can't be a global city when it comes to the housing needs of the young, but a small NZ village when it comes to the needs of the older. Where's the consistency and the willingness to stand on one's own two feet?
I think Auckland has it just about right.
I'm completely unsurprised at that. However, Auckland's massively in debt in order to keep rates low to please those already landed. And lagging behind on infrastructure.
Probably about time Auckland starts funding its needs instead of living off debt too. Bit too much of this short-termism going on at the moment, nationally and locally.
Point is, if the needs of the young are of no heed in the face of praise of the global city mantra then neither are the needs of the retired, fixed income "want to live where I always have" folk. It's a global city...it's up to an individual to be able to afford to live there.
Excellent article Greg, thank you for point out the reality of the situation which impacts all our lives.
I'll be very glad to see this legislation come in to effect to ban foreign (none resident) property buyers. Do we know when this ban will be implemented to help make property more affordable for residents?
Whilst I have a certain amount of empathy with certain less privileged groups in society, not sympathy, as I myself came from a materially disadvantaged background I soon realised that it was, for me at least, a decent work ethic and the ability to make the most of opportunities that would support my ambitions. I have no intergenerational guilt whatsoever as it predisposes one to an element of hand wringing and needless and wasteful indulgence best reserved for a particular tiresome minority who espouse daily self flagellation and self serving rhetoric aimed ostensibly at reminding us all how wicked we are. Life is a one shot deal, what you do with yours is entirely up to you but if you are sincerely wracked with guilt for being even marginally successful, from a financial vantage, then follow it up with actions that befit your heart on your sleeve. Cast all your worldly possessions aside and feed the poor and the destitute or, use whatever talents you have and exploit them fully by making a contribution to the benefit of the greater good through hard work, perserverence and passion. It is my view that the latter will be ultimately of far greater benefit to those who you would count as your intended benefactors than what I suspect is simple lip service to a situation which, if I am not mistaken, may be indelibly imprinted, whether actively or latently, in our DNA. But then social Darwinism I doubt is just not that popular around these forums.
Yeah, let's get real though - per Ex Expat and my discussion the other day, we're all receivers of great benefits from the contributions of others to society, in the past, present and future. If you grew up in New Zealand you never made it entirely on your own, but benefited greatly from all the ways NZ helped you.
And you're not going to stand on your own two feet, truly claim your self-sufficiency and not take up the pension, are you?
Point being, we need to discuss NZ policy in the context of reality, not the fantasy of an Ayn Rand novel that we admire but have never lived nor embodied.
None of which is to say people don't work hard. People have always worked hard and likely always will. But we live in a real world where we also benefit from wider society - and contribute to it.
I actually accumulated a significant portion of my personal wealth as an expat so it's my no means all NZ derived. That said, I recognise being born in NZ gave me some of the tools to convert my talents into wealth and the property boom post repatriation has added an unexpected amount to the pile.
Simple. If you want cheaper homes, build build build and boost supply, but this takes big amounts of private money. I’d encourage developers and make it tax free if they sell to first home buyers at a set price. Unfortunately money will dry up due to the stigma of this policy, there will be even more of a shortage and prices will go one way over the next 10 years. Up!
Be kind to developers, we need the buggers.
I've been to a few open homes in last one month and all the agents acknowledge that houses aren't selling at the current CV, in fact, about 10-15% below CV. Just one year ago, houses were selling at about 20-30% above CV. I don't know where it'd go from here. Unfortunately, prices are so high, we can't afford even at these discounted prices.
Rick, I dont disagree. However I have made my way in this world often through doggedness and determination and been in many a bad situation, but made my way as best I could by relying on myself. If I could be called resouceful it is this that has enabled me to get where Ive got, and in the process assisted others along the way. But I’d stop well short of thinking that somehow I’m indebted to a great faceless number of others who have provided the springboard for my lot. And in the same vein I don’t consciously acknowledge my current efforts are somehow paying it forward to subsequent generations. I don’t honestly care, I have enough to concern me without second guessing how my actions now will or wont potentially benefit those of my generation or in the future. Having said that I was raised to give the shirt off my back and have sacrificed many an opportunity doing just that. I suspect a great many of my generation are the same hence despite a seemingly pervasive denegration of particular current generations we, as in New Zealanders are a pretty damn good bunch and if you wish to put it like that, fortunate as well. I don’t disagree that successive governments have meddled with unfortunate results but that is simply the nature of our present system and indeed any system which aims to represent and manage the affairs of the collective.
As long as we are relatively free and autonomous my belief is that we, as human beings will generally prosper. When I say prosper I mean to each his or her own and whatever floats your boat. There are a great many things Ill never get to do on my bucket list because I live in a world with borders, with controls, with agendas and restrictions. However I am also grateful that I can rationalise my behaviour and tailor my world view and expectations accordingly and keep pleasantly sane and happy. My success is the product of that view, it has no bearing on the Joneses or any other demographic. Each day is a new revelation to me, and I am grateful for that because over the last few years, if I was to get morbid, trust me I have plenty that I could saddle myself with.
Having lived internationally I can see NZ follwing in the steps of countless other nations, some good some bad. Adaptability is an essential human trait. Maybe I am overly cynical but NZ, since I’ve been old enough to think independently, is heading down a path that will inevitably incur some very predictable social outcomes. Again some good and some it would be nice to avoid. But nothing is ever as easy as maybe it could be, every journey has its risks and everybody before, now and in the future will play their own role. But my responsibility is to myself, as true as I can be, and in doing that I sincerely believe that my actions or inactions will, when all is said and done, be at best useful to others and at worst, neutral in the scheme of things.
Again, very eloquent and reasoned writing. I'm waiting for the response from those whose core belief is that your responsibility is to everyone but yourself and that it doesn't matter if you disagree because they intend to tax/regulate you back to your rightful place in the collective.
I personally don’t believe those with wealth have a personal responsibility to others less fortunate. I’m a recent FHB’er who leaves home at 5 am and gets home at 6 pm each I couldn’t imagine in 20 years being told that I owe half of whatever wealth I have accumulated to someone who hasn’t worked as hard.
That said though I do fear that there is the potential we are heading towards a sort of landed gentry situation or at least a shift in the balance of home ownership which I feel needs to be kept in check. A generation of misfortune for some could mean future generations are destined to rent.
“What’s that? You can’t afford to buy a house? Okay I’ll build you one and you can rent it off me.”
I've yet to understand the core concern that motivates many of the housing comments on this site. Is it the general fear of:
Not being able to rent in any NZ location?
Not being able to rent in the desired location?
Not being able to own in any NZ location? or
Not being able to own in the desired location?
Based on prices the problem seems to be the latter, a very narrow issue and I don't see why a generation is destined to rent unless its unable to see past the logic that there are many other affordable places to live. I made exactly that choice 30 years ago and quit Auckland, only to return when I had the financial means to live there. If the current generation are convinced that the Government can solve this by building affordable houses where they want to live, then I suspect they are being sold a pipe dream. The economics just aren't there and the years waiting while they are spun a story are years that they will never get back.
Let's not miscast what people are actually saying or advocating either, and let's not forget where NZ has come from nor the parallels we see working everyday.
The amount of good information on here that has highlighted how middle classes are being hollowed out around the world is informative.
But it seems folk have been indoctrinated successfully (e.g. "taxation is theft", that you see reflected sometimes). We seem to see any advocating for rights of those who are less fortunate as nasty communism, forgetting that without NZ's history of people actually fighting for workers rights we wouldn't have the middle classes we do today.
Folk seem to only very grudgingly acknowledge how much they were helped by free education, low cost health, the boost in housing supply achieved by successive societal efforts over the 20th century...before returning once again to "But really, it was all me". There are good reasons why NZ once achieved a high rate of home ownership and there is no good reason to ignore NZ's history.
"I did it all on my own two feet" is a fantasy that ignores history and reality in NZ. And the primary things I advocate are being informed by our history rather than forgetting it, and being cognisant of how much benefit society actually delivers so as to not begrudge one's own contribution.
Either that, or show some philosophical actually stand on one's own to feet and let people keep their income, rather than claiming the pension and taking it off them in taxes.
But it too often seems to boil down to, "No, I want the benefits I got when I was younger and the benefits due me at 65, but I want lower taxes now and for that reason others have to receive fewer things."
I’m disappointed Rick. I thought you had a plan that might be more ingenious than the Government’s completely unrealistic ‘affordable’ homes target.
My view is that this ‘problem’ won’t be solved by conventional means, otherwise that would have already been sorted during National’s reign. Twyford is all hat and no cattle on this. He’s playing for time.
If I was solving this I’d leverage the existing capacity in Auckland housing by positively incentivising owners to unlock that capacity. Stop bureaucrats charging ridiculous fees for subdivision. Allow partial ownership, temporary division of existing buildings, fixed term lease of space. Get innovative.
Oh, fair cop. I've been a little out of time tonight - time for neither War and Peace nor My Struggle. Well...in the spirit of turning against National based on their non-performance I will give Phil a chance and see, albeit maybe not three terms. I do hope they have some success with leveraging bulk purchasing power to increase supply. When conventional means cannot solve it that's a time when other means can step in.
I agree, unlock latent capacity in Auckland, in measures of carrot and stick. Freedom from regulation plus some land tax to incentivise, I think, would go a very long way. We need to do something...
I was looking at a friend's apartment in San Fran tonight. Stunning to realise he has a 20 minute commute to central SF and a 2-3 bedroom apartment can be had for sub $500k. Auckland is in a state, right now.
I know you are joking but San Francisco is an Alpha- global city and Auckland's economic region is the whole of New Zealand and nothing to do with Fiji from a global city perspective. I do feel that people here just can't grasp the fairly simple concept of a global city.
I'm calling BS on your last paragraph. 500k US is 685k NZD. A quick search for apartments reveal them to have pretty high prices with studios selling for 500k USD.
The Paragon San Francisco Real Estate Market - New Year Report paints quite a different picture:
The median SF house sales price in 2017 was $1,420,000 (up from $1,325,000 in 2016), and for condos, it was $1,150,000 (up from $1,095,000). Looking just at the 4th quarter, median prices were $1,500,000 for houses (up from $1,350,000 in Q4 2016) and $1,185,000 for condos (up from $1,078,000) respectively.
https://www.paragon-re.com/trend/san-francisco-home-prices-market-trend…
If you're right in inner city SF, yes. Across the bridge in Oakland (the 20-25 minute commute I referred to) you have a bunch more reasonably priced condos. If you get further out (think a Kumeu commute time) you get yet more affordable. Friends I visited over there were in a suburb that was 3 bedroom houses on land for $4-500k.
Places with a good commute to downtown SF: https://www.zillow.com/homes/Oakland-CA/13072_rid/
My friends both work in the CBD so they have quite a good setup, better salaries on average than NZ and - as you can see - a better deal on housing.
I see what you're saying and you do have some merit. Is it realistic for everyone to up sticks from Auckland and move? Working professionals heading to the regions to pursue a career in retail....
Home ownership rates were 73.8% in 1991, now they are what? 63.2%? There was seen to be a need for the Government to build affordable housing back in the 1950's when home ownership rates were 61.2% (house prices were 2 - 3 the average single income back then) but today is different?
Rental Properties made up 23% of all Residential Properties in 1991, and now they make up 33%. What else changed by 10%? Home ownership rates.
I suppose we should let the market sort it out, let Landlords with X properties/X income streams put their equity (something they haven't had to save for) towards another rental property locking another family out of home ownership. But he's doing them a good service, providing them shelter they couldn't afford because they were outbid by his peers in the auction room.
http://archive.stats.govt.nz/~/media/Statistics/Browse%20for%20stats/Dw…
" Is it realistic for everyone to up sticks from Auckland and move?"
Yes it is.
Auckland doesnt need teachers, cleaners, restaurant workers, no need for fast food, nurses, students, receptionists.
Auckland only needs rich people who can look after themselves fine, they dont have children or get sick, theres no crime so dont need police. Theres just a world where the sky is purple and petals float down instead of rain.
Badlad wrote, But I’d stop well short of thinking that somehow I’m indebted to a great faceless number of others who have provided the springboard for my lot. And in the same vein I don’t consciously acknowledge my current efforts are somehow paying it forward to subsequent generations.
That's quite nicely put and exemplifies the modern way of living. Indebtedness to the ancestors is now rather a primitive way of thinking. It made sense in olden times when you were part of a warrior clan like the Spartans or a higher caste like the Khsatriyas or part of a cannibal tribe. Such a feeling of indebtedness was inculcated since birth and reinforced, usually through martial rituals and blood sacrifice. Pretty cool but a little bit out of place in downtown Auckland.
We are now just wanderers, all immigrants as they like to say, making a living and looking out for ourelves as best we can in a largely peaceful and material world. A world of travellers moving to and fro, trying to avoid eye contact.
Whereas as someone who has actually spent years living in Third World countries I'm quite aware of the reality of how much NZ's society helps people, gives them opportunity, gives them a head start, and supports them.
I'd argue for facts rather than ethereal lolling that social supports only exist in tribes.
I can claim the same Rick, probably much longer time in those communities than yours, albeit it's not a competition. What I saw in those countries is why I still send funds to some families to school their children and some of their (now) grandchildren. It's a lot more efficient than throwing dollars at communities.
What your point doesn't cover is why people born in the same NZ pool of opportunities should have those that chose to take them support those that chose not to take them.
What your point doesn't cover is why people born in the same NZ pool of opportunities should have those that chose to take them support those that chose not to take them.
I don't think either of us believe that we have a responsibility to support those who are given opportunities but choose not to take them, ceteris paribus. I've said it before - and your example of helping out those whose personal example you've seen reinforces it - that we've probably more in common than not, philosophically. I emphatically do not suggest that your siblings should be compensated to match your situation even though they've had the same or very similar opportunities, and responded to them differently.
I would suggest most of our difference lies not in philosophy but in perception.
I am a great believe in equality of opportunity, NOT equality of outcome. I am a great fan of Amartya Sen's economic philosophy of "freedom from" (the crap) and "freedom to" (the opportunity). And that arises from my work in trying to address Third World slum poverty, not through handing out money but through other mechanisms including ownership, small business initiatives, training, and -
especially - mentoring (from the likes of yourself and those in higher classes, to those born in slums).
Of course I try to get people to see just how much NZ society has helped them in terms of opportunity and equipping them for that opportunity because I've seen and known so many brilliant people who simply have had society stacked against them and lack such opportunity. I also see the broadening social disconnect and power gap that is common in Asia, accelerating here. And while I wind people up (who don't appear to appreciate what NZ society has provided them) about the pension (as it's an example of equality of outcome, not opportunity), I do think it's a good thing to have around for all of us.
I think we have real issues with inequality of opportunity in NZ, this borne out of my experience in anti-poverty work overseas and my exposure to the same here - and the remarkable similarity of the two when I expected marked differences.
At the end of the day neither of us is a fan of simply throwing money at poor communities, because there are better ways. Maybe we have different impressions of poor Kiwis, though? Where some see wholesale benefit abuse, I see 10-20% abusing and some of these in cyclical poverty that's hard to break. I see many more who are like those whose children and grandchildren you are willing to sponsor - people who work damn hard but who lack the opportunities I've had growing up in a stable middle class family with highly educated parents who put the effort in.
So yeah...equality of opportunity, not outcome. Something I reckon we'd both drink to, after our horns have locked on Interest.
"I see many more who are like those whose children and grandchildren you are willing to sponsor - people who work damn hard but who lack the opportunities "
This is exactly it, I see a lot of not so well off people work really hard, they may not have the financial smarts of a lot on here, but it does not mean they dont work hard.
A lot of wealthy people would not work as hard as some of the poorer people. They just make better decisions.
To be fair who cares whether its left or right as long as it gets done and the right people are helped out, and NZ as a whole becomes a better place.
I voted National 5 years in a row, and after what has happened to NZ over the last 9 years, I could not see myself voting for National again. You could call me a lefty for that, or you could call me someone who is gravely concerned in the direction National has taken us.
People get ticks for some things and people get rasberries for other things, maybe this was a good policy by Bill, but after 9 years of National and living in a country that I am not recognising, I wanted a change.
Absolutely about results and that's my current beef. I look at the Herald and see pics of our PM cooking breakfast. FFS, how about getting out there and proving they can lead. They look completely clueless yet some are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Pike River is a great example of we can do better being a complete sham. Running a country is not the place to play 'fake it in the hope you make it'
And that's exactly the reasons for not guaranteeing any single party a vote for the rest of your life. If you can't hold National accountable for their failures after nine years, then how can you justify demanding far more in results from a fresh government after 100 days?
It ends up looking like little more than partisan antics.
Maybe there are some of those nefarious Lefties out there who believe not what they claim but what other's caricatures of them suppose they do, but this seems a bit of a cop out, to me. It's about as worthy as someone on the Left claiming right-leaning voters don't mean what they say but believe in racial purity and final solutions, and what they say is just a myth they perpetuate.
I'd argue for facts rather than ethereal lolling that social supports only exist in tribes.
Really? But just before that you wrote,
I'm quite aware of the reality of how much NZ's society helps people
NZ was hardly multi-cultural prior to the seventies. I'd say it was highly tribal and its success was because of its British connections and heritage. Britain protected NZ and NZers responded and protected Britain wherever and whenever the call came. We made extraordinary blood sacrifices for Britain sustaining higher proportional casualties in the wars than the British themselves. Why was that? Because we were the same tribe. We were closer to being Spartans then than now. We identified with being part of an epic and conquering people.
This attitude laid the foundations of the society we have now. This attitude was enormously beneficial. Somehow a people's tribal history affects their current attitude. It's kind of like we are infected by the past. It can be motivating or demotivating. It can lead to pride or resentment or even despair. It's what motivates you to go out and imperialistically try and solve the problems of third world slums. It's what keeps people living in slums.
My theory is that the tribal historical stream is still very powerful and not to be discounted. All tribalism among Europeans now is heavily suppressed. Why is that if it isn't a powerful and dangerous thing? There is a huge effort going on now to eliminate tribalism among Europeans in the West even to the extent of rewriting history, of denying such a tribe even exists. They have cottoned on to the necessity of doing this. "He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”
Time will tell how it will all work out. I suspect badly because to the North a dragon is awakening and in Africa and the Middle East the populations are exploding. These people have an infection that cannot be cured, a past that is set in stone and cannot be changed, a sense that wrongs need to be righted, for the honour of the tribe.
A dark and gloomy vision of the future. Hopefully I am wrong.
I didn't see much in that rambling so I have put some of my musings on here and whether Reiko Ioane would eventually play in the centers, or that Jack Goodhue is a better long term option. I really like Jordy Barrett as well as a 2nd five option and Ngani Laumape coming off the bench.
Sure, the idea that social support systems began in tribalism (or even in smaller groups, e.g. immediate family) appears to have some merit.
That's quite a different argument to extending that to saying that social support systems have no merit in a nation or larger group because not everyone is of the same tribe (i.e. because multicultural immigration is being used to prop up economics and house prices, no social systems - e.g. a pension - have a place).
Arguably it's one reason for volumes that allow integration with the local tribe, rather than the creation of enclaves where some other tribe trumps the larger national tribe.
Also opens the discussion about what tribe means, on a societal scale - immediate family, a culture of one origin or other, or the national tribe. And whether NZers have any justification in asking people to recognise that NZ has values and culture (e.g. gender equality, reasonable treatment of people of different sexuality) and that people moving here should integrate with them.
There's interesting discussion to be had across these, but not a sufficient case made yet that support systems and interdependency in a nation definitively has no place because of multiculturalism and high-volume immigration.
It’s amazing how emotional everyone gets when the word ‘foreigner’ is mentioned when it comes to property. Reality is only 3% if NZ property is owned by foreigners and the impact on the market is minimal. Sadly, young people etc. will continue to have real problems buying as this will do little to affect pricing. Building more houses and removing property tax anomalies (e.g. capital gains tax) will help. However if you restrict immigration (we don’t have enough skilled construction labour here) and foreign capital you struggle to get the labour and capital to build the houses in the private / public spirit that is being talked about. So we may need a change of thinking away from the home ownership obsession and towards a more continental European approach where there is a much higher percentage of long term rental stock. The issue I have with this Act is that it sends a message to foreign investors - whether in property or other assets - that their money is not welcome in NZ. If it drys up, that will impact the NZ economy adversely because our domestic capital markets are so thin. Hence it’s no wonder that the banks have become so nervous about supporting these projects in this new environment.
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.