By Brendon Harre*
The end of the John Key government was marked by a desperate scramble to reverse housing policy settings. Media reports showing homeless families living in cars shocked the nation.
As a stop-gap measure, the homeless were housed in motels. The former prime minister was forced to contend with the consequences of his earlier housing attention being focused on middle-income earners and his assumption that building social housing was economic vandalism, when in fact housing as a human right was the political necessity.
Source: ANZ Property Focus, Dec 2020: Housing affordability — unlocking the solution
Governments are obligated in the last resort to provide affordable housing. The call to action — to build houses — becomes overwhelming when the public is exposed to images, videos and personal accounts of homelessness being a growing systemic problem.
Only parts of Southland do not experience rental stress or housing deprivation. In all other areas economic opportunity is capitalised into high rents (and high house prices). Source -HUD-BIM P.21
Housing as a human right is something many countries are struggling with. This problem is particularly acute in New Zealand because, as detailed in the paper New Zealand’s Rack-Rent Housing Crisis, Part One: Political Constraints, rent as a proportion of income for the lowest 20% of income earners is the worst in the OECD.
The government is still housing homeless people in motels. A post-election briefing to ministers (p.9) indicates 6300 motel units are being used to house individuals, families and whānau; this might be doable in the middle of a pandemic but in the long-term motels are better used for tourists than for permanent housing. And while signs look good for the resolution of the Covd-19 pandemic in 2021, it is not clear if the government’s housing solutions for the low-income end of the housing continuum will have much impact or even what the housing targets are.
New Zealand has taken the economic opportunity of its world leading response to Covid-19 to bid up house prices.
By November lower quartile house prices reached $541,000, meaning it had increased by $95,000 since May, a 21% increase in six months. Interest.co.nz figures show “the rate at which house prices have increased over the last six months has not only erased the benefits of lower interest rates. It has also eaten up the increases in wages over that time”. Because the rental market is so tight it is inevitable that rents will also continue to inflate faster than wages. Meaning non-property owning workers and businesses will not benefit from doing the hard-yards during the Covid-19 lockdown.
The property owning ‘haves’ have taken all the economic opportunity leaving nothing for the ‘have-nots’.
My previous paper Who are the Jedi Knights of Housing Affordability argued both local and central government politicians have failed on housing for so long that they lack the credibility to fix affordability by themselves. As is widely discussed in the media, the rational course of action for existing homeowners is to leverage up investment in housing because the actions of New Zealand’s leaders show they will not allow house prices to fall. The siren call of the one-way housing bet comes at a tremendous cost to the country’s social fabric, yet it is how New Zealand is responding to the current economic situation.
The Jedi Knight paper advocated for a housing accord to bring all the major players together and for a housing commissioner to provide long-term housing affordability direction through specific tools and targets. In effect, this would make the implicit obligation that governments treat housing as a human right explicit.
The book Ulysses and the Sirens by Jon Elster provides the theory for why governments at times use independent entities to solve difficult political problems like the housing crisis. Elster developed a theory called precommitment which he applied to the domain of politics. He asserted that direct democracy tends to reverse its own decisions and to display inconsistent preferences over time — that democracy can be “incontinent, vacillating, and inefficient.” Based on this, Elster argued that certain institutions in modern democracies may be considered precommitment devices. A democratic electorate may bind itself as a way of “protecting itself against its own impulsiveness.” The establishment of central banks, he argues, can be interpreted as an act of precommitment on the part of an electorate seeking to pre-empt the impulse to meddle with interest rates.
If the electorate decides that precommitment is needed to address the housing crisis a housing commissioner could be given the following targets, in order of importance.
- That rent is less than 30% of income for the lowest income groups
- That house price inflation be slower than wage increases
- A stable housing market that does not destabilise the wider economy
And the following tools:
- The ability to direct an increase in public housing placements where and when needed
- To purchase and release land as needed (probably releasing land to Kainga Ora)
- And the power to review planning regulations, by creating, directing, and appointing Independent Hearing Panels
These precommitments would in effect mean affordable housing becomes a universal public service for whānau, much like free education is for children and superannuation is for the elderly.
The precommitments could not be undermined by inconsistent positions held by political leaders, the vagaries of the various involved government departments and local government, or by private investors believing housing is a capital gains investment commodity rather than homes being shelter — a basic human need.
Going forward there would be political consistency, too. The housing commissioner’s targets and tools would outlive individual governments. Of course, like for other commissioners and the reserve bank governor, the government of the day has influence by appointing who takes up the position and the government can alter the targets and tools as they see fit. But these changes would be public decisions that would occur in an honest and transparent process.
Precommitment would mean public expectations about housing inflation, like general inflation, would be controlled as inflation would essentially be ‘tied to the mast’. It is unlikely that once the government and the public see the benefits of a consistent housing position that it would untie itself.
Giving the housing commissioner the power to direct independent hearing panels to review RMA district plans (or any subsequent planning legislation), or to increase public housing placements where and when needed — which would come at taxpayer expense — would also be good for transparency and honesty. It would expose the social cost of NIMBY objections to new housing, whether that be inner-city youth mental health accommodation, suburban infill housing, or building apartments along high-frequency public transport corridors.
If certain sectors of the public insist on vetoing private sector housing options, then more public housing would have to be built at the taxpayers’ expense. Like schools, the housing would be built where it is needed — near employment and near amenities such as educational and healthcare facilities. These are likely to be in the same urban environments that objected to private sector housing being available and affordable through the planning process.
Applying precommitment to housing would bind all sectors of society to the mast — central and local government and the public in general. Greater consistency, honesty, and transparency would be the consequence. This would be a good thing for New Zealand.
Finance Minister Grant Robertson has said he will “spend some time over the summer looking at the full package of how we’re going to deal with housing as an issue.” Hopefully, he gets to the heart of matter rather than playing around the edges.
This is a repost of an article here. It is here with permission.
286 Comments
Haha no mate that sounds more like you after all you stand for the 'status quo'. You have totally misread my inference so I will spell it for you.. I like people to show the courage of their convictions (in a civilized way) regardless of whether or not I agree with them. Aces makes valid points in his/her antagonistic way, about renters, immigration and the property market in general ... however spending ones time venting here on an anonymous forum, neither Facebook or other chat rooms will get any traction imv. I would say the same to crusader Kate to make herself known, but I think these ones probably don't want to publicly protest against the govt they generally support
https://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/99722/katharine-moody-mad-doctrine-p…
If you search the site for my name you'll get four guest articles and the lead in explains that I comment on interest.co.nz as Kate.
Well you are not paying attention - it's #rentcontrolnow - not a rent freeze. Got nothing to do with a 'freeze' at all.
But why was the piece a let down? It was written when the Zero Carbon Bill was making its way through Parliament. Are you only interested in housing issues?
I did say why, that i was expecting something on the rent freeze rent control (all the same) drum you've been beating. You seem to have gone very quiet on the subject after being admonished but if you are planning to write an article then go for it. Yes Kate housing articles interest me intensely as do other topics, but I am not interested in woke bullish!t. I planted hundreds of trees in the last two years and spend time establishing them because I enjoy it. How about you.
FH I think you are about to realise that any discourse with a passionate (but disconnected) academic left winger is fraught with difficulty. Best you retire now before all the wokeness overwhelms you. Kate is adamant rents should be less than 30% of gross income for the lower quartile so about 10Kpa. Clearly unrealistic but it's her passion.
That affordability measure is used by everyone, including the government in their considerations;
https://www.hud.govt.nz/news-and-resources/statistics-and-research/hous…
Hence why I'm looking to develop a regulatory policy proposal around it. No sense in arguing that aspect, Hook - in other words, the question is how we, as a society, achieve that measure, not the measure itself.
Yes, particularly if bounding a stream/freshwater body. 5 acres is a bit small, so it depends on its potential for improving the region's biodiversity;
https://qeiinationaltrust.org.nz/protecting-your-land/how-to-protect-yo…
I believe there are grounds for class action against central banks and government over mass QE stimulus. It has created inequality, giving to assets owners. Non asset owners need to be compensated. Just need lawyers with big enough danglee things to take on the big boys.
Housing Commissioner!!
For crying out loud, the last thing we need is another self-serving bureaucrat - in a leased high-rise Lambton Quay office with a secretary and a bunch of administrators, advisors, tea-lady, stationery cupboard, computers, cleaner etc. All of them happily soaking up our taxes!
We need builders, designers, joiners, plumbers, drain-layers, electricians, gas-fitters, bricklayers, painters, plasterers to actually build new homes for people to live in.
Let's have some commonsense for a change.
TTP
Absolutely, Hook!
The residential construction sector is riddled with monopoly elements/power. Its organisers are out to screw the public in order to maximise profits. This not only includes big private sector players like Fletcher Building (which is too greedy for its own good) but, also, inefficient and incompetent local authorities (such as Auckland Council and Wellington City Council). Anyone who has been through the building/resource consent process in recent years will no exactly what I mean. Local authorities serve as a major barrier to getting building projects off the ground and completed to a high standard, within cost and on time.
Another area that needs major and prompt sorting out is trades training. Everyone knows how difficult it is to find competent tradespeople in the current environment. Sadly, there's still a great deal of poor workmanship going on. The trades training system has a great deal to answer for in terms of output of well-trained apprentices. In short, there are far too few competent tradespeople being produced.
We don't need a so-called "housing commissioner" to tell us these things from a high-perched office overlooking Wellington Harbour. There's no point dishing out money to find out things that are already well-known. If money is to be spent by government, it should be used to break down public and private monopolies in the construction industry.
TTP
Its surprising how many tradie utes turn up after hours to their homes in the flash suburbs of towns and cities. Good sparkies and plumbers command huge incomes from fees and sales of goods and earn more than most degreed professionals.
We still should take a measured approach to any changes to council consenting and inspection powers. They are independent of the private sector for good reason.
"We still should take a measured approach to any changes to council consenting and inspection powers. They are independent of the private sector for good reason." - that hasn't worked at all well in Tauranga. There it would seem they are in fact heavily influenced by the private sector. Auckland Council too - outsourced the inspections and we got "Leaky Buildings". Down south (I can't remember the location) there was sewerage leaking into resthome bathrooms and showers due to lack of inspections and oversight. If Councils want to keep their powers they definitely need to lift their game.
"to free up more land". This is a rubbish suggestion; sprawling suburbs have already taken more than enough good pasture land which will be needed more and more as climate change makes already marginal farm land completely useless. It's criminal that so much prime pastoral land around the likes of Manurewa have already been squandered on cheap housing. It would have made more sense to expand housing around Northland where the land isn't so good for pastural farming; shifting Auckland's port and other industries up there would have provided work opportunities.
There is plenty of land available in the Auckland isthmus that isn't prime ag land. I agree that the sprawl southwards was (and is) a mistake. Suburbia should have been driven north and north-westwards imo. The port move would have required immense investment in rail and coastal shipping and a complete rebuild of Northport - extremely expensive and convoluted with Northport's ownership structure. I'm not saying it couldn't or shouldn't be done but there's a lot of ducks you'ld need to get in a row
There is a paradox that people need to get their heads around regarding growth.
For starters, if you don't want prime elite soils, wetlands drained, etc. to be built on, then zone it as no build.
But other than that, any restriction on sprawl actually encourages sprawl. This is because restrictions push up the price of land, forcing many to the fringe to afford housing.
The price of all land is set at the fringe, if there were fewer restrictions to sprawl, the land would be cheaper on the fringe, and therefore all the way back into the center, thus if people wanted to live closer in, then they can more afford to do so.
Restrictions cause high house prices and promote sprawl.
Restrictions both up and out need to be removed.
Have you read this? https://www.rmla.org.nz/2020/03/19/report-shows-auckland-land-supply-po…
Free up more land is simplistic ideological bullshit.
There is enuff land zoned urban or future urban. Issues include infrastructure (in Auckland over $150,000 per lot for greenfields lots just for bulk infrastructure according to the recent assessment by the Council's chief economist), the long term consequences of the shift from supporting/direct assistance to first home buyers to corporate welfare for landlords (started by Douglas, completed by Richardson and Shipley), the deliberate running down of state houses stock under Key, the way our tax system incentivises property speculation, and so on.
"someone needs to be responsible" - someone is, they're called the governing Cabinet. Remember that in '23 because the situation will be the same or worse. Appointing a Commissioner to be the electorate's (and by proxy the media's) whipping boy or sacrificial goat may sell advertising in chatrooms and websites but it won't help solve the problem. If anything it'll just be a distraction and a smokescreen enabling more inaction
... the collected wisdom of the folks blogging on just this one thread would be enough to set in place a series of changes which would ultimately solve the housing crisis in NZ ...
But .... none of us has the political might to do it ... so by consequence , if Ardern's government can't get to the heart of the problem over the next 3 years , then it implies that their collective wisdom is far less than ours ....
... and that , my friends , is truly worrisome !
Gummy, we gotta get you podcasting!!
- the merch, everything.
Beam into Asean & Australia.
https://youtu.be/MC76E1yPBgQ
Just like M Malice
Big Ted!
To mine, MMP has proved to be terrible.
A two house system would be much better.
PM & legislation comes from electoral house.
Senate based on two members from each province approves legislation.
Members all must complete a civics and public policy & administration certification and obtain security clearance.
What is truly worrisome, is that some on this site have introduced these 'wisdoms' to successive Govts. and they have either been ignored, or they have enthusiastically only chosen pieces of the system that fit their ideology and implemented only that, and it fails as a result, Kiwibuild being a classic example.
... just look at how Sam Morgan was spurned when he had the tech tracking app designed to keep a trace on us during the Covid-19 crisis ....
This government ain't listening .... in just their 3'rd & 4'th year they've already developed the " we know best " mentality of third termers ...
Actually GBH I think it's firmly implanted in their DNA from the days of the Messiah when they were last in power. I for one still vividly remember the Great Instructress telling me (or attempting to) how to conduct my life and affairs. That she still gets airtime shows how lazy our Fourth Estate has become
Those targets eg the rent being less than 30% for low income families are all well and good but with Kiwibuild not having started and immigration having only just stopped being at crazy levels whats the point having targets like this? Targets are the end game. To aid the decision making on when to stop.
And of course there are many factors at play which go against these targets being met. eg Rates and water rates increases.
There is more about housing affordability targets here.
https://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/108239/brendon-harre-wonders-if-hous…
And here
https://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/108376/brendon-harre-offers-part-two…
Labours spin doctors & PR team are going to be working hard over summer to generate some phrases, slogans & fluffy, stern, kind talk for Jacinda & Robertson. Jacinda and Robertson will do a conference where they will catch the news headlines, the general public will think they're doing something about the housing issue. They will most likely introduce higher caps for first home buyer grants, introduce some sort of rent to buy scheme & pump more money into breakfast/lunch at schools. As usual however there will be no substance behind their schemes and housing will continue to increase in price with inequality getting worse by the minute. They will continue to target the voting base and Jacinda aiming to get more popular than ever.
Housing has always been a political topic, and often weaponised by the Left since it can relate to things like equality and racial issues etc. Phil Twyford's "Chinese Sounding Names" was the latest flashpoint. It will not change as long as Left has a place in our political spectrum.
She is silent because she knows the Global Housing Bubble will pop in 2021, and there is nothing she can do to stop it.
Her inaction speaks volumes. Instead of doing something to stop the crash, she is giving us soundbites like “we don’t want to see house prices go down” or “Kiwis expect house prices to go up” so when the crash happens, you’ll remember she was all for higher house prices and will want to vote her in for a third term. She is a good leader when it comes to crisis management after all, and her third term promise will be all about getting house prices back up.
A rise of 21% in 6 months is a bubble. And all bubbles burst. Expect those lower quartile houses to go back down as we get an oversupply in 2021 once mortgage deferrals end. This isn’t unique to New Zealand by the way - this same scenario is happening all over the world (in larger scales) like in Canada, USA, Europe. There will be a global syncrhonized slowdown in 2021 and the world leaders know this - which is why Jacinda has strategically kept silent all this time.
Jacinda Arden is giving sound bytes as are been brainwashed by bureaucrats and so called advisor/ experts supporting them as have vested biased interest and politcuans be it from National party or Labour Party are only paranoid about losing power and it is their lust for votes that they fall for it, hence change when in opposition to when in power - best example is Jacinda Arden as now Jacinda Arden = Judith Collen = Any politicans who is in power.
"she is giving us soundbites like “we don’t want to see house prices go down” or “Kiwis expect house prices to go up"
Grant Robertson and Jacinda Arden = power corrupts and absolute power.....
I have been a long term Labour supporter and for the lack of a better word, I’m disgusted by their inaction when it comes to housing. Jacinda has forgotten about her tweets, her throwing up hands in the air when John Key did nothing about housing. She now says National failed to acknowledge a housing crisis but I am. Are you kidding me? Wow!!! Acknowledgment, sad face, side head tilt with nodding, pearly talks etc only takes you so far.
She said when interviewed by John Campbell that if it was not housing then she will be here talking about unemployment. Granted there were uncertain times. Unemployment is much better than originally anticipated so in turn what are you doing re housing?
I really liked them, I thought they would be an honest government but I wonder if Jacinda’s parents went and bought a bunch of houses and so did Grant’s or Adrian Orr himself bought a dozen that they are so hesitant to do anything until they line their pockets $$$$. How can they be so tone deaf, so far off their principles? How are they able to sleep at nights? How on earth can she say she expects house prices to continue rising? How did we get it so wrong with her?
So if you have rich parents who own property, be in NZ. If you have no support and find working hard, paying taxes, not being greedy and selfish not working then get out of NZ! Is that what she is saying? She will find 10 immigrants to fill my departure? Then she will have a team of 6,7,8 million? I am really saddened and shocked by our PM’s behaviour and her attitude to this housing crisis. My family will remember this next election.
Well, I didn't say I agreed with all their policies. But David Seymour talks some sense about how to solve the housing crisis, and that's "let the market do its job". The Local/Central Government is there to set the rules but at the moment we have the referees tackling the ball carrier.
Yes, this happened https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/123789794/nz-covid19-triump…
In a year when interest rates went through the floor, rents went through the ceiling. That, people is greed.
That, people is greed.
"Greed" is bandied around too often. People are behaving exactly as the ruling elite wants them too. People are acting in their own self interest. And the mechanisms of a capitalist society (as the ruling elite see it) is doing its job as the ruling elite wants it too (through encouraging greater private debt). Personally, I think this is all leading to some kind of widespread ruin as monetary debasement runs on full cylinders and the financial system falls apart. Yes, the financial system is falling apart. As an indication of this, you can see 'anti-system' indicators like Bitcoin take off. The smart money has already gone to Bitcoin, not piling into NZ houses.
As the ruling elite want them to?
So is there no allowance here for the fact that all humans left unchecked are inherently selfish?
We individually can choose to become civilised and train ourselves out if it, that is our choice, but the natural state of affairs is that people revert to greed and self interest.
So what are these allusions to a ruling elite?
This Govt is not interested in improving the housing situation.
They are more interested in woke social trends and general indoctrination.
In any case, their socialist philosophy doesn’t agree with the protection of private property rights or protecting the national interests of an individual country.
They are waiting for the Great Reset and the Build Back Better according to the UN, WEF, and other global agendas
https://www.weforum.org/focus
“Wellington is returning to its traditional role of guiding not only the economic levers of the nation, but is actively seeking to direct the cultural direction of those who reside within its jurisdiction”
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/123815591/sir-roger-d…
Mortgagebelt... indeed, The insistence on fashioning some sort of woke international inclusivity image seems to be non-negotiable. Our Govt are clearly showing that ensuring we are seen to be a diverse, completely open door society to all and sundry is more important than assisting marginalized Kiwis from lower socio-economic groups to bridge the gap between the haves and have nots.
Ensuring demand for housing is maintained through gigantic immigration settings is all but guaranteeing rents remain high and home ownership is out of reach for many.
So perversely, what is intended to be seen as inclusive is, in fact, the most exclusive and divisive path that could possibly be chosen. We don't need to be woke but we do need to wake up.
The house price damage to New Zealanders health and happyness is outrageous. The worst thing that has happened to New Zealand society in my lifetime.
But they aren't voting as if it is important.
Nor will they support the house dictator Brendon.
The 'dictator' really can only use solutions currently in discussion, or tenure will be brief. And none of those are useful. We get academics calling for rent control and or some tax manipulation. Laughable.
We have to look at fundamentals, limits to growth, and what is our desired population.
I keep popping in here the idea of setting a population target for our nation. Seems to be a new thought, even for some of our clever common taters.
It would take a lot of work with the general population - you can't escape politics on this one Brendon.
But without setting the basic direction, our ship will just wallow about.
The realisation that infinite in a finite world is impossible is not new, perhaps you are new to it.
It must be understood that beyond renewable growth ie organic and personal growth beyond consumerism, that growth eventually boils down to more people.
There is much to get our heads around, not the least of which is how to prosper without the growth we have relied on for so long.
Most of the growth of recent decades has been replacing, renewing and rebuilding everything we blew to bits during the war. Sadly, for many nations, out of mind, out of sight to us, things are still being blown to smithereens.
We are coming to the end of that growth, now we have to either become sustainable or start blowing each other up again.
. .. what amazed me , was the zeal with which our PM proposed a probe into supermarket practices ... after someone whinged that cauliflowers were overpriced ...
But , she reckons house prices oughtn't fall ... they should remain at cripplingly expensive levels ... dang !
Nearly cried into me cauliflower & blue cheese soup .
Another waste of time, has everyone forgotten about the probe into Petrol prices at the pump, whatever happened to that one ? yeah thats right it takes a year to get that "Done" so by then the sheeple have forgotten about it. its all just signaling and winning votes and holding up the approval rating but at the end of the day doing absolutely nothing. Sadly it appears to work really well though and you get a second term with an overwhelming majority. Yeah I voted ACT and it wasn't a wasted vote.
This patriot will bring the change
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/24/new-zealands-first-mexica…
they have the majority middle class voting like a minority wild swings coming, last election was just the beginning. All my friends used to vote like their parents, mostly National, now they are all swing voters, so much more fun.
I voted for the local Labour Mp purely because I would rather have a local Mp than a list one and labour was going to win anyway. She wrote in our local paper that her teacher called to mediocre , she should fit right in.
"Patriot"?? His attitude towards our Parliamentary process should have seen him removed from the House. He is a Representative (unbelievably, but that's MMP) in a Westminster style Commonwealth democracy - one which has seemingly granted him residency. A privilege he would do well to remember. I very much doubt he would escape prison in his native country for that sort of disrespect.
I am staying in a small Waikato town. It's clear the local motels are full with people from Auckland and other large cities after chatting to a couple of them who said WINZ moved them here. Normally these motels are empty or near empty,currently it looks like they are full or near full. And there are plans to build some more or expand the current ones.
Was out walking last night and was propositioned at 2 places by a woman then a man clearly money for sex, never happened before as usually the streets are empty at night. It was clear these people were fairly desperate for money. Also the number of liquor stores is booming in the area.
Social consequences are becoming widespread and ingrained. Nobody in power really cares and doubtful they will do anything to fix.
Brendon Harre sees the property owning ‘haves’ taking all the economic opportunity and leaving nothing for the ‘have-nots’.
Is this not the default position prevalent in those nations condemned to Washington Consensus economic practices?
Thank you Audaxes. Yes, the phantom middle-class is real in the U.S. and possibly even more so in NZ, even with a house in an Auckland suburb. The vast majority don't have two sticks to rub together despite all the imaginary wealth being generated. Their earning power is being eroded by central banks and their monetary debasement (cleverly hidden from public view of those who can't think for themselves).
Perhaps the question should be why investors are buying houses and not other investments that are more likely to be productive there by adding to the demand for houses.
For my family and others we mix with.
Compliance is creating complexity that just drains the fun and enjoyment out of the great things you enjoy as an employer, producer and making a better place for the next generation.
Many of my friends are investing away from their businesses into passive investment.
Unintended consequences of policy for the lowest common denominator.
As I said yesterday : access to food & shelter are the most basic of human rights .... any government or local council which loses sight of that is guilty of dereliction of duty .... that has been the status quo in this country for 40 years now ... 4 decades of incompetence & vested interests stuffing up our housing sector ....
.. and this current government shows zero ability to recognize what the problem truly is , and how to begin rectifying it ... more of the same , sadly ..
Politics. Its the the Labour Party alignment to USA Democrat Party and identities. The relationship with Hillary & Obama types, including Biden & Hunter.
For example, now. It seems we are being subject to a triangulation play by Labour JA & GR. & they attain moral bankruptcy because of it.
Means if political folk do not do as they promise, there is no bigger curse (moral) they can deliver the electorate.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangulation_(politics)
We are fortunate as the future is shown to us by California:
https://youtu.be/0nfdfoeQqkA
The decline of California- Tucker Carlson.
The real question is, Does the appointment of a commissioner make any real difference? I mean it could work in theory, but......
We already have different commissioners, some of whom highlight the problem very well, yet the outcomes get worse.
A housing commissioner of the RB sorts would obviously clash with the RB as in part it is RB policies that have caused the latest rise in prices. So which commissioner takes precedents?
Govt. and the RB are already starting to knock heads, putting the third party in there would be 'threes a crowd.'
As a political PR stunt it might work, like the Productivity Commission, keeps everyone busy, Govt. ignore the suggestions, and people can vent their feelings in submissions that go nowhere.
Nice to know the housing commissioner "could work in theory" Dale.
Regarding conflict with the RBNZ - Adrian Orr has asked Grant Robertson and the government to create an organising body to coordinate government housing matters. He wants a housing "clearing house". A housing commissioner could be that entity.
The housing commissioner usefulness is its 'precommitment'. If the various party's do not abide by housing commissioners suggestions (changes to the tools i.e. social housing, land acquisition and release and RMA Independent Hearing Panels) then sure the commission becomes a PR stunt.
Brendon we have Commissioners coming out our ears - all to little or no effect. Dale is correct when he adds "but..." The fact that Govt can't organise itself without external prodding is just another indication of their dysfunction and foot dragging. You're right that things need to be depoliticised but this could be achieved via a Select Committee or a bipartisan Steering Group with enduring powers of mandate. The resources are there, unfortunately the will and sense of responsibility is not
The important thing is not the name but whether the housing entity has the correct housing affordability targets and adequate tools to achieve those targets. It is that which will give the housing commissioner or whatever it is called credibility. Credibility is needed to change public expectations of future house price gains.
Thinking about it Brendon, didn't Twyford create a Housing and Urban Development Authority? Surely this would be a candidate for a "housing entity"?
The point I'm trying to make is that creating another layer or group of overpaid bureaucrats (as evidenced by a recent RNZ article) won't change anything and is unlikely to add any credibility, certainly going by current and past performance.
I disagree. There needs to be a central organising entity that coordinates all the various involved parties and is directly accountable for achieving measurable housing affordability targets. If we don't have that - the system gets distracted. The siren call of housing capital gains takes over and it all ends in a cluster f...
What we need is... "On the basis of a warning from his erstwhile lover, Circes, Ulysses instructs his sailors to bind him to the mast of his ship and block their own ears before sailing past the island of the Sirens, whose enchanting song draws sailors to shipwreck. Ulysses and the Sirens"
Well then we have to agree to disagree then. Orr's letter neatly snookered Robertson with one line regarding a Govt strategy and policy regarding housing affordability - create one and include it in the FP Remit. The trouble is the Govt doesn't have a strategy or policy. Which is reprehensible given they've had 12 years (and counting) to create one. Remember the UNICEF ad "and the little girl waits..." - could have been written for NZ. Talk about fiddling while Rome burns
So you think the government should create a specific housing affordability remit for the RBNZ? Some sort housing target (median house prices, rents for low income earners) and tool (OCR or just macroprudential tools) ??
I think there is a good reason the RBNZ rejected this proposal because it wouldn't work. The RBNZ is only in control of one of the demand factors affecting housing.
Actually I think the Govt should stay clear of the RBNZ. This is not a problem that can be fixed by regulation. As many have said - supply is the only way to cool the market. Use HUD to identify the actual impediments to supply, fix them and start building using a mixture of methods - infill, transportable, flatpaks and anything else that gets houses on the ground and lived in. There should be volumes of reasons why Kiwibuild failed - research them, fix them and don't repeat them.
Supply and demand are certainly important but the last few months show clearly they are not everything. The population has been very stable since the borders shut, the big change has been interest rates and money supply. To say the RBNZ are not involved is just as crazy as saying supply and demand are irrelevant.
No one (certainly not me) is saying the RBNZs actions aren't contributing to price rises but it is incidental. They dropped the OCR etc to attempt to stimulate consumption and hopefully employment. It is the Trading Banks who decided to go full monty on house lending because it's the lowest risk form of lending. The RBNZ can encourage but not instruct Banks to divert money to Business Loans but the fact is very few businesses are interested in borrowing - quite the opposite.
I do agree dropping the LVRs was a mistake but we only know that with the benefit of hindsight.
Well, it would work in reality if a commissioner had that power as the saying goes, 'in theory, it should work in reality, but in reality, it doesn't.'
What we really need in these situations is a 'benevolent dictator' but of course, all dictators started off thinking they were that, but I'm willing to put my hand up :-)
What does a 'housing clearing house' mean?
Here is the full quote from the Reserve Bank Governor re a clearing house: “Given the wide range and number of parties involved, and the complexity of underlying issues, there is a need for a single agency or ‘clearing house’ to co-ordinate the government’s response across agencies.”
See point 13 in the letter from Adrian Orr to Grant Robertson
https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/-/media/ReserveBank/Files/News/2020/House-pric…
Thanks for that, but having read it it would seem they are only recommending a 'clearing house' under this recommendation as quoted"
'We recommend, amongst other things, that the Government’s specific housing objective
be issued as a factor for the Reserve Bank to take into account when setting financial
policy under section 68B of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act (1989) (“the Act”) and
articulated in the Reserve Bank’s forthcoming Financial Policy Remit.'
This does not sound like an independent or equal commissioner to the RB?
Plus I noted under their point 20 where they state:
'Higher house prices, relative to the costs of house building, will also encourage increased
building activity, as it becomes cheaper to build new than buy existing. Increased house
price inflation can therefore encourage increased supply.'
In real $ terms, this is factually incorrect. I can't believe they are this ignorant. Do they really believe this? But either way, they are promoting higher house prices as a means of making housing more affordable.
if they truly believe this, then they are the problem.
New Zealand looks like it may have chosen to learn the hard way, in spite of having the benefit of seeing what happens when loose monetary policy meets irrational speculation.
It was a typical west London dinner party, of the kind where the guests agree not to talk about house prices but then do so anyway. One smug homeowner was in the middle of explaining why buying property makes sense when usually placid Japanese guest Takashi suddenly jumped up in anger. ‘That’s nonsense,’ he shouted. ‘I know what it means to see house prices collapse. You British know nothing about that.’
Like many other young Japanese professionals, Takashi remains traumatised by his country’s experience. Property prices in the Land of the Rising Sun have so far fallen by 54 per cent since peaking in 1990. In some parts of Tokyo they have lost 90% of their value. On average, they are back to 1979 levels, nailing the lie that house values always do well over long periods. The horrific house price crash Britain suffered in the early 1990s, with all its misery, negative equity and repossessions, was a brief setback by comparison.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/don-t-mention-house-prices-to-the-j…
People who want to discredit the example of the Japan bubble (loose credit / irrational exuberance) usually bring up the strawman of demographics. The irony is that people in the West hold Japan up as an example of how money printing / fiscal policy can mitigate the aftershocks of the bursting of bubbles.
Tokyo is still growing in population and built floor space. From 1960 to present the population of the inner wards of Tokyo went from 10m to 13.3 m and the per capita floor space something like 15sqm to 30sqm, which means built floor space nearly tripled over a 60 year period. Imagine if Auckland Isthmus tripled its built floor area over the next 60 years. That would go a long way to solving the housing crisis....
Hi Brendon. Sorry but Tokyo actually decreased in population last year.
Tokyo growth is completely at a different level to Auckland.
Since 1990 Auckland has doubled its population. 800k to 1.6mil.
Tokyo has gone from 32 to 37 million.That is 16% only.
I don't see that demographics is a strawman.
Sorry but Tokyo actually decreased in population last year.
Greater Tokyo has approx 37 mio people while metropolitan Tokyo has approx 14 mio people. Central Tokyo refers to four wards. It is not decreasing in population.
https://japanpropertycentral.com/2018/06/central-tokyos-population-grow…
Regardless, the Japan 'asset' bubble was a credit-driven bubble. Demographics were irrelevant on the way up and on the way down. Credit was easy on the way up and more difficult to access on the way down.
Yes it would be great if we had more floor space being built. But I think you'll find Tokyo floor space is closer to 20 m2 per capita .
Interest rates were around 3 to 7 % at the time of peak Tokyo madness in1989-90 . Then house prices crashed, then interest rates crashed.
Tokyo and Auckland don't match.
Something that gets forgotten in the praise for Tokyo / Japan and its housing is that most of it is of awful quality (high quality Japanese architecture is amazing
but it's a very small proportion of the housing stock). Cramped, poorly built and lacking in amenity.
We could get rid of most of our planning rules and we would start to see more Japan-style housing outcomes. Good for housing supply, not necessarily good for amenity and people's wellbeing.
Garbage. Since the end of the bubble, Japanese construction companies have had no choice but to build better quality apartments / houses that people want to buy. There is much awful construction, much of what was constructed in the 80s by the then mafia-saturated construction industry.
It's not garbage. I have toured a number of housing estate developments in Japan over the past 5 years, middle value townhouses are still very cramped with minimum outdoor living spaces.
My wife's family live in one of the best areas of Nagoya. They built a 3 bedroom townhouse about 7 years ago, it's about 85 square meters and very cramped. It's a nice enough design but very cramped for 4 people, and with just a very small deck with limited privacy and sunlight. So overall pretty average in terms if both indoor and outdoor amenity. And this is an upper middle income family in an expensive suburb.
And this is common.
Sure, a minority of townhouses are significantly bigger.
Most apartments built in the last 10-15 years are also very cramped. I agree that the design might be a bit nicer than the hideous stuff built from the 1950s to 1980s. But it's still very hit and miss.
The really sad thing is that building simple houses is not a highly skilled occupation. Foundations on TC1/2 land excepted, most houses are capable of being clonked together by owners, just as Norm Kirk did back when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth. Working bees (churches, community groups) were common ways ('barn-raising') to put up a house for a pastor, for poor congregation members, or for community purposes.
Why have those days gone? Because Gubmints (local and central) realised the fee revenue streams to be had from Regulations, Inspections, Certifications, Requests for Further Information, rendering of Producer Statements (itself a cause of raw material inflation) and sheer time (which for anyone outside the public sector equals Money). Because it was For our Own Good......
Which fairly much rules out Jane and John Citizen from investing $20K in a table saw, drop saw, nail gun, drill/saw battery kits and a buncha hand tools (all of which, being capital items, are capable of being used many times over) and then just getting on with it......
Yes, if you have the finesse to bake a decent pav, or can put together Ikea furniture, then you are well qualified to do some of the work.
But remember as this would represent a saving, then all your effort would feedback into increases in land prices, so the net effect is all your hard work would result in higher house prices or at least no net saving.
I'm all for people having more time to look after themselves and be at home more. Which if we sorted the land supply and consenting issues, then people wouldn't have to both work so much, so would have the time to do everything more, even working on their own home etc.
Having done it id say it isn’t as easy as you’d imagine. And a while I hate regulation a lot if it has a purpose - for example we could easily start having more storms and cyclones due to global warming, it would be nice if most of the roofs stayed on. However I do think the whole process could be easier, maybe more focussed on inspections and less on paperwork.
After 3 years they got the front end of that figure , the 100 were built ....
... now , following that with the three " 0's " ought to be a cake walk .... a Christmas cake walk ... easy peasy , where's Phil the Tool Man at ? .... replaced by Wood , you say .... radiata or Douglas fir ?
They ran head-long into the same issues the private sector does. Councils won't play ball on zoning for development and the RMA impedes modern mass development. If they removed those impediments we wouldn't have a housing problem to begin with of course but that's too politically charged to substantially change.
At face value that is true. But they lack two necessary prerequisites:
1) Will, and 2) even if they had the will they still have to make the correct choice.
They had the will under Twyford but made the wrong choice, which in their own minds only leaves them doing nothing as the default right choice, but of course, this is also wrong.
And of course, if they do have the power to make the right choice, why wouldn't they also make the right choice to allow the private sector to be able to do what they were only going to grant the right from them to do?
I would not call myself a Labour man through and through. I am not a paid up member for instance. But yes I have some contacts in the Labour party and I have urged them privately to have a much more comprehensive housing package and now I am urging them publicly. You can read between the lines about my opinion on their 'lack of urgency'.
My full advice on housing, transport and land-use would be my recent rack-rent housing papers on Interest.co.nz and the following paper
https://medium.com/land-buildings-identity-and-values/if-not-now-when-f…
The entire housing market is a bet future New Zealand governments won't take the handbrake off housing development.
Also what would make anyone think the government would take advice from a housing commissioner? New Zealand governments have a long history of ignoring recommendations, even from their own working groups at times much less an independent entity. It would only create the illusion of progress.
It depends how the housing commissioner was structured. To be really effective they should have the power to directly intervene without Ministerial intervention as long as they are pursuing the agreed upon targets using the prescribed tools. For instance to set up Independent Hearing Panels where needed that will update RMA District plans. They also could have a endowment that allows it to acquire and release land without requiring permission. Really it is only the 3rd tool advising on the social housing programme - how much, when and where to build - that would be more of suggestion (hopefully firmly received) to a government department rather than a tool that is directly controllable.
That's a very high level of risk in a society with increasingly polarised views on the issue. I'm not sure if appointing a bureaucrat would really mitigate any of that risk in reality, even creating the position would be immediately draw fire from lobby groups like the Property Investors Federation and what's left of the National Party.
Housing is certainly in a dire situation regarding both supply and affordable houses and it is a problem that has been building for some time.
It seems neither the government nor the market have been able to address this.
Labour as part of its flagship policy looked to address affordability and supply three years ago with KiwiBuild and that proved an embarrassing failure.
I am finding it surprising that the private sector has not addressed supply of affordable housing when clearly there is demand. In the housing boom pre GFC (2002 to 2006 especially) it seemed numerous entrepreneur / speculators were building new spec houses.
. . . . and Covid can not be blamed for the current issue as the problem of housing shortages and house price inflation (although Auckland subdued 2017-Sept 2019) predate this.
. . . nor can any political party be dumped on, as while the problem may have developed under National, Labour - including its former coalition partners - have only allowed the problem to escalate.
While the RBNZ and the private sector are important players, it is the government that needs to take a lead and I’m not even hearing any whispers of anything constructive.
I recall government large state housing developments such as Porirua and Otara in the 1960s and 1970s and considerable private development (Keith Hay homes) in Mangere in the 1970s. Although there were associated social issues, they were able to provide much need housing in times of rapid population growth. We seem currently incapable of such initiative or action.
... and nimbyism .... oh lawdy , wouldnt it be a hoot if they bowled Eden Park ... cos the noise and lights from thousands of people enjoying themselves annoys Helen Clark so much .... and sold the land to HNZ .... to construct zillions of offaldible state houses and hi rise apartments for the needy ... how could she say " NO ! " to that .... we'll call the new housing project " Helengrad " ... it has a nice ring to it , dontcha think ?
The trouble is, is that housing inflation is used to create wealth in NZ, the government knows this and encourages it. It’s going to be unpalatable to take wealth away from owners with policy that reduces prices. The irony is they’ve be actively taking wealth from ‘have nots’ with policy, sadly this will never register with the pro housing inflation media.
Brendon, the problem is that no political party wants a housing crash on their watch. That is why I think they will leave it to the market, NZ will get too expensive for migrants, more families will struggle to pay the rent, we get a shock, external or internal and it tips over.
I have been here before. I sat with friends in London in the 90's in tears that the house they spent both their inheritances on was now worth less than the mortgage. I had friends from school watch their parents walk off farms when the rural bank went to market interest rates, I had school friends whose parents got caught borrowing offshore in the 80's it was common, when the dollar went the wrong way they got carted off. I have friends who joined Lloyds as partners or whatever they called them, very little risk until a few big events like asbestos got them carried out. Many friends in the USA lost everything in the last housing crash, now they fear crash II is on the way.
Risk is part of life, while I hold this and past governments complicit in this housing fiasco, I am sure they had no intention of it running out of control and forming a bubble this huge. What ever happens it's going to hurt, both indebted households and the economy. Governments should know better than trying to trick us into thinking we are getting wealthy when our house prices go up and up. The economy should be much more than the FIRE sector but here we are, in a mess to big to fix.
It's a tragedy, there is no solution only consequences.
I have never heard of a a housing bubble being corrected gently by gov't/ CB policy, Im happy to be corrected.
Andrew I like your comment. It is thoughtful and a genuine examination of events.
I would argue that what I am suggesting works with the market nudging it to make it fairer. I think it would be foolhardy to overturn all aspects of market forces.
If a housing bubble were to crash and personally I don't see it happening... but 6 months ago I didn't a 20% price increase... so maybe....if it were to happen then NZ should have mechanisms in place to build through the crash... that was the mistake of omission Key made post GFC... the construction sector was decimated after 2008... which just exaggerated the boom-bust nature of NZ's housing market last decade.
They don't need to take that risk. The Prime Minister is expert in managing public perception and the public have shown no preference for socially progressive policy. We have preferred more conservative and restrained economic policy in recent decades anyway. The issue is that to date the Prime Minister has exactly guaged what voters in New Zealand want.
1) The first graph above is appalling bad. NZ is a basket case. Our politicians should be publicly shamed.
2) Graphs like those at the link below show how long NZ has been becoming a basket case:
https://www.economist.com/img/b/1000/594/90/sites/default/files/2017031…
3) I have no hope Jacinda has the fortitude to fix the problem - "I dont want to see house prices fall". NZ needs a real leader.
It would be interesting to revisit the economic settings prevailing from 1980 thru to 2005(ish). Could they be reinstated? Has population growth cut that avenue off? Should the Govt legislate interest rates to double figures (15%)? I remember in the early '90s they were at 18%. Should NZ just let the whole mess implode of it's own accord and get the mops and body-bags out? Certainly after '87 there was a whole lot less speculation in the commercial property and stock markets. There is no easy answer and certainly our current crop of politicians have neither the will nor the courage to administer the bitter pill so desperately needed
1) Population strategy - maximise total welfare/capita growth (i.e. takes account of the externalities) - no more mass migration with massive externalities
2) Capital / wealth / land tax / capital gains - the tax playing field must be leveled
3) Free up the RMA, no density & zoning restrictions - just effects based assessments based on national environmental standards.
4) Streamline & simplify the building regulations & encourage mass scale prefab & 3D printed housing
5) Use Ministry of Housing & Urban Development & Urban Development Authority to build cheap housing for the poor and homeless where there is no private sector profit
6) Force ComCom to take account of the HHI index and break up building supply monopolies
What is an envy tax? Isn’t it people being “envious” (or downright pissed off) that another persons income is being taxed much less than their own? Why wouldn’t we want to fix that? And how can you say that a massive tax advantage isn’t changing peoples investment decisions and pushing them to property? It has to be a factor no doubt at all.
. . yes ... as a nation we have $ trillions invested in residential real estate .... to keep it tax free , apart from the taxpaying sectors of wage earners & businesses , is to place an increasing and unsustainable burden upon the productive segments of our society , and to give a pass , a free ride to people getting rich on capital gains ....
And if we do nothing? Due to inaction we find ourselves amidst an explosive ponzi scheme and everybody knows it. Seems we are damned if we do, damned if we don't. Hold onto your hats people. Whatever the outcome, it ain't pretty. And no one gets out unscathed. After a necessary period of pain, maybe we can get back to the basics: A warm, dry roof over our heads, food on the table, and enough time to enjoy it with loved ones. Wouldn't that be a fine thing.
Also mass trunk core I frastructure build. You can't just rezone land. Ypu have to service including upgrading the down and upstream infrastructure. More water reservoirs, more stormwater pipes, more sewage treatment, etc etc.
Govt can dole out that via its borrowing and bypass the local politicians not wanting to put rates/development contributions up.
The reality needs to be faced that there will never be affordable housing again in NZ. Even a big 30% crash would simply take us back to 2016 prices, which were still grossly unaffordable.
Brendon's idea is a good one but ideas like this will only ever amount to damage control.
Realistically, there are only a couple of things that will have large and meaningful impact:
- significantly increase levels of state house building
- enable the private sector to build more townhouses and apartments for rentals. By doing so, there is more choice for renters and rents are less likely to increase significantly.
Labour are doing both things, maybe not as aggressively as they could. Perhaps they know that affordable home ownership is a forlorn hope.
It might be better if this reality is acknowledged and accepted.
Damage control is important when there are hundreds of thousands of households in rent induced poverty.
Having the first housing affordability target being to reduce rent as a proportion of income below 30% for the bottom 20% of income earners would make a massive difference to the have-nots who do not own property.
I have thought about that. Something is needed to give opportunity to the property have-nots. Another possibility would be to increase the government contribution for KiwiSaver funded by a tax shift further up the income/wealth spectrum. This would be especially helpful if social housing tenants could make equity contributions in exchange for the right to buy their social housing home (5% equity contribution gives a right to buy after 10 years in Austria).
The German concept may be looked at. Affordable housing is provided to the have-nots. They receive a home at an affordable rate...they can only sell that home through the govt organisation (i believe) at the rate of purchase plus inflation. Makes home ownership available to all.
Having been deemed in NZ as a 'havenot' as there was no possible way of affording a home, we were forced to return back to Perth. So grateful we are for the wonderful opportunity that Australia gives us. Compared to the experience of the extreme struggle that my family faced in NZ, we are now making double the wages with half the living costs. We are now have the ability to save for a house at a reasonable price of $350k...half an hour train trip to Perth. NZ- the struggle is real and extremely concerning. The level of poverty I saw in the community was incredibly sad...I do not see that in Perth. The measure of a robust and resilient community, is one that can provide for its members. The 'havenots' now a significant number in NZ will be forced to go to where the grass is greener. The future younger generation are already forced to seek a fair go in foreign shores. Its the only way we can get ahead as NZ property prices are some of the highest in the World, dragged up by the greedy speculative desires of the wealthy. The future leaders, skilled workers and taxpayers (like my daughter who is studying medicine next year, myself a lawyer and my wife a degree holder, who is starting her masters degree, will never return) will be gone- unable to help build NZs society. The Govt must act, to ensure that houses are valued as a human right, not a tool to make money. NZ has cut off its nose in spite of its face.
BacktoPerth: You say you are a lawyer but you are displaying a degree of illiteracy: the correct saying should be "NZ has cut off its nose TO spite its face", not "in spite of its face". I have noticed the standard of the general literacy of lawyers, in my experience, has declined over the years. I think this is because the universities have realized that law is the only subject where a degree can be obtained without natural talent and superior intelligence; many law students are now being "walked" through university under a policy of positive discrimination for under-privileged "demographics". The country is becoming flooded with law graduates. So unless the student is exceptional they aren't going to be able to achieve a high income in law.
If your daughter succeeds in gaining a medical degree she will be potentially capable of earning a high income whether in NZ or Australia. But like a law degree, a medicine degree depends ultimately on being able to work hard to stuff your mind with endless information; a high level of actual intelligence is not necessary. As I get older I meet more and more people who are dissatisfied with their doctor as the doctor merely looks to their computer for a remedy.
Regarding your wife having a degree, a degree in itself today is no guarantee of a high income or of even acquiring employment, whether in NZ or Australia.
Finally, Australia's ability to sustain a high standard of living with high wages is at this very moment problematic because of China's ominous threat to discontinue buying Australia's iron ore.
Idiots like you contributed to BTP leaving NZ - linking the mis-quoting of a metaphor to Maori and Pasifika admission schemes dumbing down degrees is the sort of rubbish he no longer has to put up with. The real takeaway from these admission schemes is that, if given the opportunity, Maori and Pasifika can do just as well as pakeha.
TK, despite of me agreeing much to BTP - sadly? one of our decision to move is well related with the point that you've raised there. OZ pretty much looking up towards ASEAN & Asians, NZ in my view has gone backwards, Unless you want to dig further? - Maori is the second largest ethnicity, Pasifika is the fourth largest ethnicity. NZ has shot itself in the foot by 'ignoring the third largest ethnicity/Asians' - which during my practices nationwide is also screaming for their ethnicity related healthcare reps. Don't get me wrong, you just simply cannot 'grant the opportunity' by just passing 60-70% exams, while the rest/specially those Asians.. try to be/have to be at the 98-100% bracket, crazy uh? Should we do the same for Pilot training?, imagine to block Usain Bolt from competing, just because coming from different ethnicity for example. Go to MOH, request them for OIA to publish the 'healthcare workers retention' after 2 years post training in every DHBs. Yip, they all gone to community services, Mental Health or Teaching/research back at Uni. or no longer in Healthcare - You can count with finger, despite 'opportunity granted? the past 7yrs, still producing less than 80 graduates?, and from there.. how many forwarding to higher level in very specific specialist/sub specialist area? - almost none. So, many vested interest parties uttering the same; discrimination, racist, only xyz knew about xyz health (even if we borrow this term, that means? only Asians knew about Asians health, thus.. beef up their number as well then). Equality of service doesn't mean identical of service, for example an expert oncologist you can't prescribe identical Chemo medication between Pakeha, Maori, Asians, Pasifika patients, due to the nature difference of their historical medical records/previous condition, age, weight, hereditary factor etc, these are factual field consideration, but being politicised instead, not the same=discrimination, make it the same=patient die, also discrimination/racist... Which beg questions: almost 200 nations on the planet, mostly also produce medical graduate to treat all races/preserve life to the best of their ability.. different races, different skin colour, different culture/language, religion/believe systems. Is this only in NZ? Many Asians come to us stating, 'if only we've been given the opportunity like the preferred ethnicity, we already reached the moon by now' - And please, don't start uttering why NZ oncology training/curriculum is adopting the OZ one, hence why you can count with fingers how many nationwide oncologist from such preferred ethnicity and let's create NZ own Oncology training manual, let's re-invent the wheel for 'NZ' - Some of those Asians I knew, really passionate wanted to make difference, learning Te Reo, immersed with culture, got highest recommendation by their 'culture mentor' at training place, wanted to move to rough/rural difficult to post area.. but got zilch/zero call even for interview by DHBs.. so what you do? ditch all those culture passionate.. tearfully moved to OZ. Oh, btw grocery is much cheaper, housing still within DTI.
Ok- again everyone detracting from the issue of poverty middle class (and other lower classes also), priced out, and being forced overseas. However, you want to talk about inequities in all areas (especially health)- look at the extreme health disparities that Maori face, because of low socio-economic realities, direct and indirect systemic racism (ie doctors who don't provide the proper or inadequate treatment- plenty of research that has been done- and before all the rednecks chime in by saying it doesn't exist- it does. I have experienced it firsthand in NZ- NOT while I am in Perth, Australia). Common sense approach- it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if you provide more Maori health practitioners in all fields, there will be a balancing of these harsh and in-equal disparities. Again, plenty of research out there to qualify this statement.
I don't see it, perhaps it exists but I have never seen it. I have a good friend who is struggling at present in AKL, Maori from Whanganui, his kids are super smart but not staying in NZ. My wife was sick and we ended up with a Malaysian specialist, super competent, we didn't have a problem with him being Asian and Muslim, why should Maoris?
Lower socio groups get discriminated against, I can believe that.
I had a friend in DC, she is Haitian, turned up in the States with nothing, her and her husband got given clothes etc, worked hard got their own businesses and a house, sent children to top Universities. She always argued that if she can turn up with nothing and get a head why cannot African Americans.?
I think it's because while they had nothing Blacks had negative nothing. They started with a disadvantage that was very hard to break through. I see the same here, many poor families have a negative sign above them. I don't know how to fix it, not having a father is too often the first major negative.
I don't see positive discrimination working.
I have heard Samoans talk of being discriminated in LA. I think we all have prejudices, I also think thats lots of people in NZ would like to solve the problem in low socio economic groups it just isn't an easy fix.
We live south of Asia and the Asian star is rising, we are close enough to probably get sucked in the vortex, more immigration, Asians will be number two minority, Indians next, then Maori or Pacifica. They won't have the same connection to colonialism and the commonwealth. I think we face a threat to our way of life and we are far to blasé about the consequences.
Hi AndrewJ... its a fact that where a socity thinks some of its people are "dumb, lazy and useless" then you aint going to see much success in that society, if you belong to that demographic. I can absolutely and unequivocally state that I have been exposed to this racism- both direct and indirect. As Taika Waititi stated ( and you ask the majority of Maori, who will tell you the same) that NZ is racist as fu*k. The absolute difference I felt when I went to Aust is that Maori are treated as kiwis and kiwis are hard workers and loved. I definately feel more welcome in this society than I have in NZ. In saying that, I see the way that aboriginal people are treated...much like Maori in NZ. The correlation is strong- no employment opportunities, poor health and socio-economic outcomes...its extraordinary sad that they in their own homeland are treated so poorly. With ingrained racism by society means different and lower outcomes than non-westerners- its a fact. But again, we digress...this is a property forum!
I am concerned that high rents are creating poverty and dependence, so it is property related. I am also concerned that Asians will make it worse not better.
I also must confess that if I had my time again I would have stayed in the States when I worked their at 19. NZ is incredibly expensive and that reduces opportunity. We could solve some of the inequality by dealing with the high cost of food/rent/ electricity and so on, but no politician wants to go there, yet %27 of parliament is politicians with Maori blood. .
I find it's very easy for me to make African American friends in the USA, they have an energy that we lack, it's an advantage for me not being American.
AJ i can endorse BtP's experience, he is on the money sadly. My grandmother was caned for speaking her language at school and my father and siblings were made to feel ashamed of their culture. This isn't fixed in a generation, the bitterness and resentment doesn't go away. I have lived in a few countries and NZ is the most racist by some margin. Does that mean all pakeha are bad or should feel guilty - of course not - but you are kidding yourself if you think it isn't.
Some New Years reading
Thomas Sewell
https://www.amazon.com/Black-Rednecks-Liberals-Thomas-Sowell/dp/1594031…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J92gQDZ4dL8&t=15384s
Some New Years reading
Thomas Sowell
https://www.amazon.com/Black-Rednecks-Liberals-Thomas-Sowell/dp/1594031…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J92gQDZ4dL8&t=15384s
those are often individuals who have problems, you shouldn't blame a whole race, prejudice and racism are not unique to any one race, look at problems in between tribes in NZ. It's also problematic if we judge behaviour from the past using todays values and morals.
We have to learn to put things down and move on, i know I have issues with forgiveness, it's a hard mountain to climb.
Blaming a whole race: it happens all the time. Have come across many Pakeha that believe all Maori are dumb and useless. Hence the prevellance of indirect racism. You showed it in one of your posts above. You were stating that you liked African Americans better, because the have a better energy... and alluded to the comparative demographic (no doubt Maori) that you could not relate.
Regard tribes having problems...where did you get those facts? Current Iwi relationships are extraordinary strong. I know because I was involved in the iwi development field while in NZ.
Your last point is crap mate. "Just get over it". That argument is a favourite one from the privileged white...the whole NZ system was made to acquire as much land and resources from Maori. It was illegal for Maori to have business that competed with Pakeha up until the 1960s. If we fought for our lands it was confiscated. Thats why Maori have fu*k all. If you have no resource base then how the fu*k do you survive or get ahead. That mixed with the current attitude towards Maori, of course they are not going to have the same opportunities as in employment, housing, education as non Maori. ( my move to Aust has been amazing- they LOVE Maori workers- the amount of millionaire Maori who own their own businesses due to being truely accepted in society is significant). Walk in someone's shoes with empathy before you say shit like that. You really don't understand the impact of colonisation.
No but I do try to look at things objectively and without judging. One of the issues I notice is Maoris outside tribes feeling left out. I have one friend who I haven't seen for a while from Taranaki who has done super well in NZ , I think she would do well anywhere. My advantage in USA with African American is I'm not American.
The previous NZ govt has turned us into a big melting pot, I don't think with good outcome s for Maori.
As a farmer, i think Maori landholdings are huge and very well run too. I believe biggest voters on meat board and still buying land.
One thing I have learnt, if it belongs to everyone it belongs to no one. Big Maori trusts and tribes will have issues down the line.
People having been moving around the world for ever, NZ got the Scots and Irish fleeing the UK due to lack of opportunity and oppression. USA also had huge influx from Europe, Norway was extremely poor too. After WW1 up to %30 of the children in Germany were suffering from various stages of malnutrition.
The Irish Catholics had big families and left everything even, the English practised Primageniture. The English knew how to keep the wealth, they educated all the youngest and then sent them off into the world. The Irish ended up with small landholdings dependent on Potatoes.
I flew back from Australia a few years ago and sat next to two Maori builders living in Queensland, both had done well, the main reason they left so they told me was for their children's education, they didn't like the peer pressure up the coast from other Maoris, their children were doing well at school and going to Uni.
Maoris still have big families, bringing up children in NZ is expensive and no doubt they miss out on opportunity. You have done well in Australia, good on you, sometimes opportunities are more obvious away from what we know.
I admit I don't know much about this subject, I do like to debate and learn, happy to concede points to you. I am what I am a creature formed of my own experiences in life.
Andrew- you can only comment from you world view. This is unfortunate, as you are unable to speak to a demographic that you have no affinity to. You are white, male and a wealthy farmer. You have absolutely nothing in common with my peoples plight. Youre friends are Maori bull shit- so you are now an expect in the field? I am a qualified experienced Maori lawyer, at the top of the Mining game in Australia, and I have worked in the Iwi field. I think you need to do some proper research of NZ history and current societal attitudes to Maori and how it restricts the Maori community growing (there is plenty out there on the net) prior to assuming what you think is best for Maori. This Maori person here, is telling you, you are completely wrong and you dont know what you are talking about.
I have five grandchildren who whakapapa Māori - three of whom take after their Dad (pakeha) and three of whom take after their Mum (Māori).
I can even see they, as a cohort of five siblings, understand discrimination - knowing in their heart that their Māori siblings won't be 'looked on' by wider society in the same way. Racism is endemic in NZ society and so very, very sad and frustrating. If only we could all come to appreciate and respect what Te Ao Māori has to offer us all. Part of that is not only understanding, but 'living' our collective history, and part of that is understanding and 'living' te reo, and part of that is understanding tikanga and how it differs so profoundly from a European/positivist worldview.
If they were not looked on as different would they not then be the same as the rest of us? We all seem to gravitate to our own backgrounds, birds of a feather sort of thing, where we feel comfortable.
Im afraid Kate the the writing could be on the wall for all of us as the Asian century rises. I don't know what the future is going to look like but we are a small country a long way from our European roots and Asia will dominate this part of the world economically and politically, while the West squanders it's wealth.
A couple of weeks ago a group of Asian mountain bikers were badly beaten by a group of Maori men in Rotorua hot pools, racism is not unique to one race.
Years ago, was attending a movie in Rotorua. During interval, standing outside at the kerb, was the latest E-Type Jaguar Sports. Standing beside it was a Maori bloke dressed in black singlet, black shorts and wearing gumboots, looking longingly at the car. After a period, he shrugged his shoulders, turned and climbed into a late model Rolls Royce parked right behind the Jag. Life has changed. I grew up among Maori. This level of racism is new to me
Its hard to understand Iconoclat, if you have never been exposed to it. More face it on a daily basis in NZ. Aboriginal people face it on a daily basis. African-american face it on a daily basis. I definately faced it in NZ thats a reason why we left. Taika Waititi is correct- NZ is racist as Fu*k. Your one story of "seeing a Maori once driving a car" and making your reality, a fact doesn't make it so.
When I went to primary school the maori children were not the poor children, they were white kids without shoes etc but never maori kids. If what you say is true then our country has really changed, I am out of touch and very sad.
Inequality is going to be a huge problem which I have no idea how to fix, we shouldn't have gone there in the first place.
I absolutely agree with you AndrewJ. I did not want to detract from the property issues, but you do raise valuable issues as to a harmonious national and global society.
When my wife and I took our kids from Perth to a NZ small town, we were absolutely gob smacked as to the racism. Stink eye everywhere we went, inappropriate and rude service daily, absolute distane in job interviews. My 5 year old son being followed in shops and being kicked out for touching a toy!!!!. My wife grew up in Auckland, in which there was so many ethnic backgrounds that she never felt direct discrimination. From Auckland to Perth, again we were totally accepted- mine sites I would go to, every kiwi, white or brown, were very close. I was accepted equally by both Aust and all Kiwis...and it is great. Its a bit like those stories you hear- white Sth African's fight next to black Sth African's and are friends- as soon as they return back to their home town they are enemies again. Its prevellent in NZ- so much so, that people are quite happy to share their stories of Maori driving cars, or being happy "maoris" in NZ- that NZ doesn't have a problem. It has a huge one...and I agree with you, it's going to be hard to overcome. I have to say, the next generation are more accepting to the disenfranchised...they key is that generation will hopefully fix the wrongs. Bear in mind, I believe that the population of under 18 yr olds in NZ that are Maori are 27% (maybe wrong) and 1 in 3 are living in poverty. Therefore the inequality needs to be addressed for the NZ Society of the future...
The majority of Maori dont live with a rolls Royce in the garage. What a stupid statement. And if this Maori guy had one, good on him. I rub shoulders here in Perth that have million dollar businesses. Because that dont have to deal with redneck attitudes with stupid stories as the likes of you. 1 in 3 Maori children are in poverty. Trying to talk sense to some, is like talking to slow kids... "now Bobby, please take those crayons out of you mouth...its not good for you.. "
That's just the stupidest comment I've ever heard from you, iconoclast. For starters, in te ao Māori there is no concept of 'aristocrat'. Those considered to have mana might be referred to as kaumātua, kaitiaki, ariki or rangatira - and wealth is the least of the characteristics that are a determinate of mana. Hence, your 'story' is so culturally ignorant to be embarrassing.
This is what I mean by my frustration that so many NZers do not 'live' our history or our indigenous language, or take the time to understand and respect cultural difference. Anecdotal 'evidence' from a personal past does not re-write history, nor contribute to any present-day understandings. Only when we collectively accept our society is racist and that people of colour are disadvantaged, will our hearts demand change.
Its hard to understand Iconoclat, if you have never been exposed to it. Maori face it on a daily basis in NZ. Aboriginal people face it on a daily basis. African-american face it on a daily basis. I definately faced it in NZ thats a reason why we left. Its not a whinge- its a fact. Taika Waititi is correct- NZ is racist as Fu*k. Your one story of "seeing a Maori once driving a car" and making your reality, a fact doesn't make it so.
BTP, Judging people is folly, you should know that being a lawyer. My grandfather wrote a lot on Maori history and spent a lifetime trying to protect Maoritanga, and record history that would have been lost forever without him.
The neighbour 2 up from me is a young maori guy, does some contracting for me from time to time, much bigger farm than mine, is he a wealthy farmer or wealthy Maori farmer? Perhaps just a good farmer/father/husband.
Streetwise: I stopped counting the grammatical errors in your response at 11. You are not only racist but also illiterate. In addition, you are also detracting from the issue that I raised- the reason why young middle class NZers are, and will, flock to Australia, based on the views of many other Kiwis based in Australia, including my own personal experience. NZ is too expensive to live in, and is impossible to get on the property ladder. NZ has quite simply the most expensive properties in the World. You do not like the issues I raised because you know it to be true- so you attack the person, not the issue. You are vested in the current system- either as a hoarder of investment properties, or you work in the field. You would like to see the continuation of the current system, which only works for the wealthy elites. Regarding this so called "positive discrimination" - being a Maori lawyer working in one of the largest mining companies in the World (also making double what I made a s a lawyer in NZ), managing contracts worth more than $170 million per year- I can assure you, that being of Maori descent is not an advantage when going for roles in Australia, as they don't have any "quota" systems in Australia for Maori. I have got this role, because I am excellent at what I do.
Yes I have been taught a very valuable lesson. Dont mess with you guys or I will be hit up with my slight grammatical mistakes, and question my qualifications and employment skillset. You guys are clowns.
This distracting sh*t of not focusing on the real issue is doing my head in...
Me: we have a real problem in NZ. The ramifications to NZs community is profound. Young people can't make ends meet. We need to move to Australia to get a fair go.
Pro-status quo wingnuts: but what about your grammar, its terrible.
Me: you are going to lose the future leaders, taxpayers, skilled workers that builds NZ.
Pro-wealth elitists who gives zero fu*ks: you should of tried harder, loser.
Me: this will impact terribly on NZs way of life as many young middle class families are forced to foreign shores as they cannot think about owning a home, unless they win lotto.
Pro-monopoly top hat, long moustached numbnuts: bon voyage, poor peasant.
Yes, If all anyone can pick you up on is your grammar, you know that your argument is sound.
And if I only heard their reply to your argument based on that criticism, I would know almost without question or needing to hear your argument, that you were more likely to be correct.
We would never say, "you should of tried harder", we would say, "you should have tried harder". This is a common mistake as in spoken English H is often weak or silent especially if the word is in the middle of a sentence making the word 'have' sound a tiny bit similar to 'of'.
Again, detracting from the real issue that we are forced from NZ, by wealthy, greedy people who have driven up the prices to nose bleed heights. What are your thoughts on the inability of people to get ahead, let alone be able to afford a house, in NZ, Zachary? I think that would be a better spend of your time, then your petty messages.
I've been saying for years that high house prices are a result of globalism. If common people can be more free to move about the world then they would move to the most desirable places. NZ, Australia and Canada all share features that make them very attractive. Previously pioneer societies, English speaking, sound laws, secular, low population etc. Whole countries, certainly their major cities, become prime real estate. In a globalist world the major cities become global cities.
So I don't think it is the result of greed necessarily, more the result of anti-nationalism and deliberately increased diversity of people. A huge amount of people who originate from Asia, who live in NZ, own more than one house. They are more devoted to acquiring houses to pass onto their children. In NZ we used to chuck out the kids when they turned 18 and encouraged them to get by on their own and we had a system that made that possible. Now, not so much. Parents who pay for their children's education and give them houses are going to skew things. Actually rich folk of all colours and persuasions have always done this.
Not much we can do about it I am afraid. Your threats to move to a different country are ineffective as that is what you are supposed to do, are actually encouraged to do. You could also have easily moved to Christchurch or Invercargill and bought a house. It just so happens that Perth is more attractive to you and that is great. I read a story in stuff the other day about a young student nurse who left Nelson and went to Invercargill to buy a house and now has two flat mates paying the whole mortgage.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/housing-affordability/12370039…
You are painting this argument to benefit your narrative. You love the high prices because you either a hoarder of properties or you work in the field of property selling. You have a vested interest and you don't like or want to be challenged, by the simple fact- your potential renters or buyers are forced to go to foreign soil to get ahead.
Globalisation Issue: Aust had faced this issue and as a result tightened up their laws and taxes to ensure that prices stayed reasonable and affordable. Why does NZ the highest property prices in the World? Because rich clowns can and do, treat property like their private monopoly game. This leads to an imbalance society. The Have-Nots, as alluded in this article, and reflected in the homelessness rates, are forced to go to greener pastures. This is reason for my posts- to allude to you the extreme concern that you, and all of NZ society should take heed. The younger generation, that were to pay for your future costs (taxes) and be your future service providers and leaders, will be forced over here.
That Stuff article actually actually supports my argument- that was the shittiest hole I have ever seen. And she paid $220k for it- fu*k sake...in Invercargill... and you think she is getting ahead??!! Perth- roughly the size of Auckland - in Maylands, 4.5 kilometres from Perth, its median house price at $285,000... and I can assure you, wages are SIGNIFICANTLY higher than Invercargill. Cut the nose IN spite of the face.
Weird how you think you should be able to buy a house for cheap. Everyone is in the same boat, it's not like we are fighting some dark force buying up our houses. You are competing with 70% owner occupiers and 30% investors and unlike past years we have little in the way of immigration. House prices have recently gone up due to lower interest rates, ie money is cheaper to borrow, so people can afford to pay more when competing to buy a property. Also if Perth is so good why keep on moaning, just enjoy life, sounds like a great place.
Im not wanting to buy a house for cheap. But II certainly didnt want to buy at prices in a country that is DEEMED AS ONE OF THE MOST EXPENSIVE IN THE WORLD. Why do you think there is so much homelessness? Do you think its appropriate that houses are the most expensive in the world? Moaning- go and have a hard poo. As soon as I realised that NZ was fu*ked, I didnt moan- I was proactive, and packed up my family and moved to a much better place. All young new NZers must come to Australia- its the only way to get ahead.
Not so sure 70% buyers are owner/occupiers vs 30% investors in every case? Recently sold our family home due to relocation.. 9 offers- 8 from investors and one from Housing NZ.. sadly fhb were told by agent not to bother with their offers as they wouldn't get a look in- as much as we wanted it to go to a family. Sale price made no difference to us as we are buying in the same market, although find prices have risen substantially in the 2 months since selling and competition is rampant. Our old home was on trade me to rent on the day of settlement.
Thats not sub-standard. Thats a fricken dump. Dont kid yourself- I wouldn't let my dog sleep in that shithole! But whoopdedoo- she got in the game by getting herself into debt for $220k, with the average wage in the area of being 4 tuppence a week. Happy in Perth- mate- I'm on this forum stating how incredible it is in Perth, and reiterating the point that if NZ society doesnt do something soon, say goodbye to all of the young professionals. All you can do is attack me, and not the issue that Im raising, because like I said previously- you have skin in the game, and you dont like people like me shining the truth on your party.
Stop detracting from the issue... whats that got to do with the price of cheese?! All of these people trying to shoot holes in my story which reflects the absolute truth - WE HAVE TO MOVE FROM NZ BECAUSE WE CANT AFFORD TO STAY. Stay on topic, and stop wasting peoples time.
1 million have already left the shores...and get ready for the next wave Carlos...who you gonna sell you million dollar house to? Here I am informing you of a real threat to NZ society, based of personal experience and what is being expressed by people overseas and all you can do is get personal. You don't get it do you... I reflect the true threat to your current reality... we are all going to better pastures... so who's gonna buy your "investment" properties?! And by the way, you are missing the point I'm making... I made a significant wage in NZ, but still couldn't get ahead because I didn't have a spare $80 k for a deposit. The cost of living was so high in NZ you had no money to save. I never stuffed it up... it is the NZ system based on greed that has resulted in prices being so out of reach of 90% of NZers...defined as the have-nots. Btw doing fantastically well in Australia, financially.
So the millions who live in poverty worldwide are deciding to stay where they are as a conscious choice, and those that manage to leave and get to a better country have left because they stuffed things up?
You do know that the inequity in NZ is getting worse, especially for the younger generations and lower quartiles?
So much focus on low income earners who are more likely to be given more of a helping hand whilst medium income earners are the folks who will actually miss out.
Those who don't fit into the caps set for the home grants or who are expected to have large deposits because of what they earn and the banks are just turning them away in droves.
Yes, this again is something most people miss, but the likes of left-leaning Govts. like, that cohort immediately above the cut off point for Govt. assistance is worse off than those that just qualify.
This cohort is left with only three choices, 1) either stay where they are worse off compared to those above and below them, or 2) somehow move with considerable effort and no assistance up into the next cohort group to be financially well away from both lower cohorts, or 3) the easiest option is to do less and drop back so to qualify for assistance and be better off.
The present system is designed to drag you down to be more dependant on the Govt. which you will then support with your vote.
This middle cohort, aka as the lower middle to the middle class are the swing voters that Labour and National fight over.
Whatever you do, do not get trapped in that cohort.
Most FHB unless they have a very high income can get housing grants worth $thousands and they can use KiwiSaver which has had government contributions (i.e. it is subsidised). But households further down the housing continuum have either received no or ineffective assistance to build. The rental part of the housing market is the most dysfunctional, especially at the bottom end where rents are inflating faster than wages. The $2bn/year Accommodation Supplement has been capitalised into higher rents and house prices - it has not induced landlords into the build-to-rent sector. It is only at the very bottom of the housing continuum - at the level of state and emergency housing is the government building houses. But because the private rental part of the housing market is so bad the waiting list is huge and growing. The biggest missing gap in housing support is between FHB and state housing. In places like Austria one quarter of new builds are with government assistance, using regulated limited profit housing associations, that provide affordable rents (Austrian social houses rent is $177/week on average). The equivalent level in NZ would be 9,000 to 10,000 affordable rental houses a year (last year NZ built 38,000 houses) - currently we are building some 2000 to 3000 state houses and emergency accommodation.
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.