The number of dwellings across the country increased at a significantly faster rate than population growth over the five years to 2023, according to the latest Census data released by Statistics New Zealand.
Between the 2018 Census and the 2023 Census, NZ's usual resident population increased 294,168, or 6.3%, to 4,993,923 from 4,699,755.
Over the same period the number of dwellings increased 170,061, or 9%, to 2,056,578 from 1,886,517.
The growth in dwellings compared to population growth was particularly strong in Auckland and Marlborough.
In the Auckland region the population grew 5.4%, while the number of dwellings grew by more than twice as much, up 11.9%.
In Marlborough, the population grew 4.4%, while the number of dwellings increased 9.2%.
There were only three regions where dwelling growth failed to keep pace with population growth - Bay of Plenty, Gisborne and Taranaki. But there were another three where the pace of dwelling growth only just managed to keep pace with population growth - Waikato, Manawatu-Whanganui and the West Coast.
Altogether NZ's population increased by 294,168 between the two censuses, while the number of dwellings increased by 170,061.
The table below shows the change in population and dwelling numbers in all regions.
The comment stream on this article is now closed.
•You can have articles like this delivered directly to your inbox via our free Property Newsletter. We send it out 3-5 times a week with all of our property-related news, including auction results, interest rate movements and market commentary and analysis. To start receiving them, register here (it's free) and when approved you can select any of our free email newsletters.
73 Comments
Interesting...
Explains why house prices have been persistently low
Must have be the last government doing some good.
intentionally misleading and dishonestly manipulating the maths ignorance in much of the public. That the percentages are meaningless without the values they relate to. For instance a small amount of a very large number can outstrip a bigger percentage of a much smaller number, several orders smaller.
Adding 170k dwellings and 290k people, when each dwelling will house at least 2 people (and sadly many will house far more with our shameful migrant exploitation) is actually very helpful facts.
Shuts down that nonsense “we didn’t build enough houses” argument. It’s the treatment of houses as commodities to be hoarded and prices manipulated
4,993,923, I thought we were at 5 million+?
The figures were at the date of the Census. Population and dwelling numbers will have increased a bit since then.
So that's basically just the amount of people who filled out the census then? Anecdotally I know heaps of people who didn't fill out the census. Wonder if that has much effect on the accuracy of the stats.
How many Warriors fans are there in real life? Surely not enough to massively influence the census outcome ...
Yeah plenty of KFC fans though, even gets convicts off roof protests
I thought Stats NZ were amalgamating other data sources to try and fill as many gaps as they could for the deficit in census returns?
No idea what their methodology is so can't say anything for certain. Also should insert a caveat that I don't know all that much about statistics in general.
Yet Stats NZ is completely ignorant as to why their admin data discriminates and excludes much of the population. They had been informed about this multiple times and still in the drive to do away with census outreach to those excluded (excluded from the census often indicates they are also excluded & had difficulty accessing and ensuring accurate data with other government services). They actually were told many decades, year after year this is an issue yet always seek to treat many groups in NZ as if they don't exist or deserve to participate. Admin data excludes many social groups by default. Migrants, homeless, disabled people all are often excluded from admin data and the census.
You see it matters a lot more whether you have housing and are highly integrated with government services, most of those services being very inaccessible to more then 25% of the population. Stats NZ has only done an outreach survey more then 10 years ago and since then the population numbers, the numbers homeless, recently migrated or unable to access government services & others have increased. Hence while Stats NZ knowingly discriminates and excludes people other non government organisations have had to cover the gaps, organisations which Stats NZ does not consult with.
E46
The published census data certainly is just not based on the number of people who filled out a census form as you suggest.
As with all censuses there will never be 100% completion rate. Stats NZ have allowances and have sampling and alternative means of getting data as well as statistical methodology of addressing this to get sound results. A census - as with any survey - will have a degree of confidence.
Of note, while the 2018 census completion was troubling, they have high confidence in their 2023 census results. Yeah, inter-census data relying on 2018 data may be an issue, but with any survey and Stats have reported that they have good confidence in their 2023 census outcomes. The interim collection response rate, which reflects the number of people counted through census forms, was 88.3 percent - close to the target for the collection period for the 2023 Census of 90 percent.
The published census data certainly is just not based on the number of people who filled out a census form as you suggest.
That's good to hear I wasn't trying to suggest that was the case just genuinely wondering if that was what the number was. Was more surprised by the number being lower than I expected.
admin data excludes many social groups by default. Migrants, homeless, disabled people all are often excluded from admin data and the census.
You see it matters a lot more whether you have housing and are highly integrated with government services, most of those services being very inaccessible to more then 25% of the population.
Maybe stats do wastewater tests like the good folk at MOH who can work out the true levels of covid presence and methamphetamine usage
No, and they use admin data to fill the gap. Refer SNZ website.
Most of the admin data excludes many social groups by default. Migrants, homeless, disabled people all are often excluded from admin data and the census.
Does that admin data normally reside between a pair of large gluteus maximus muscles usually residing on a large office chair and digitally extraced when needed following the Xi Jiping course in advance statistics.
Agreed I thought it was close to 5.5 Milliion.
I'd like to know the figure for the period 2008-2017.
Well done to the government of that period.
If the theory that house price inflation is caused by lack of supply compared to population growth then prices should have gone down.
If the theory that house price inflation is caused by lack of supply compared to population growth
This is the naive view. It's wrong - as I was arguing last month.
By my reckoning almost 20% of investment properties are not used as a permanent residence. In an environment where property investment becomes more common... well.
Artificial demand (for investments) ≠ natural demand (for homes). We have encouraged too much artificial demand. That's the real cause of the price rises and accommodation crisis - not a shortage of dwellings relative to population (though we could always do with more).
For those curious about how I came to a figure of about 20%, see figure HM1.1.2 (B) 'Percentage of vacant dwellings and seasonal/holiday homes as a share of the total dwelling stock, 2022 or latest year available' in this document: https://www.oecd.org/els/family/HM1-1-Housing-stock-and-construction.pdf.
The above source suggests a little over 6% of dwellings in NZ are vacant.
My assumption is that all unoccupied and second/holiday homes are by definition investment properties.
Assuming 65% of dwellings in NZ are owner-occupied this means 35% are investments. So if 6% of all dwellings are vacant investments then a little over 17% of investment properties are not being used as a permanent residence.
Nah it’s not. Zero interest rates and constraints on supply were still relatively high. It’s all just supply.
Yeah, I'm not buying it. Check this document: https://www.oecd.org/els/family/HM1-1-Housing-stock-and-construction.pdf . The first figure indicates that the proportion of dwellings to population in NZ was pretty much steady from 2011 to 2022. In the same period median house price rose 250%.
As for low interest rates - agreed. But this feeds into artificial demand (i.e. demand for investments) - it doesn't make people want more homes (you can only have one after all).
eh no. The govt during that period had migration several times higher then new housing development. This article is intentionally misleading and dishonestly manipulating the maths ignorance in much of the public. That the percentages are meaningless without the values they relate to. For instance a small amount of a very large number can outstrip a bigger percentage of a much smaller number, several orders smaller.
In 2018/19 NZ was estimated to be between 40,000 and 130,000 house short.
So in the 5 years since all we have done is scratch the surface of the deficit.
The wonderful outcome of running an unsustainable net inbound Immigration rate.
Source for your assertion?
On top of that there are around 29,000 airbnbs in NZ now impacting housing supply. Airbnb started around 2015 in NZ
My estimate is that Auckland has a UNDERLYING housing shortage of 115,942
a) UNDERLYING supply: 619,710
b) UNDERLYING demand: 736,652
1) UNDERLYING housing demand: 736,652 (1,692,000 / 2.3)
i) Auckland population: 1,692,000
ii) Average person per dwelling: 2.3 - https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2021/02/16/how-big-is-our-housing-sh…
2) UNDERLYING housing supply estimate: 619,710 (561,000 + 58,710)
i) Estimated number of dwellings (June 2020): 561,000 - https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2021/02/16/how-big-is-our-housing-sh…
ii) Residential code of compliance certificate issued between June 2020 - March 2024: 58,710 - https://knowledgeauckland.org.nz/publications/
the NZ average is about 2.6 per household - Auckland is higher at about 2.9 (I think). The higher Auckland number may be because of higher Maori/Pacifica population, or that prices have meant that more people lived in average house. We should also remember the current stock of Auckland houses is dominated by larger homes (more villas per head of population than say Sydney) which means that more ability to shift numbers of people per house up or down.
Auckland is higher at about 2.9 (I think)
Happy to be corrected.
Here is the source that I used:
That figure grew with each subsequent census and in 2020 it stands at nearly 2.3 adults for every dwelling
https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2021/02/16/how-big-is-our-housing-sh…
FYI,
1) if the calculation used 2.9 persons per dwelling, then UNDERLYING demand would be 583,448. This would mean that there is a UNDERLYING housing surplus compared with the UNDERLYING supply of 619,710 calculated above.
2) if the UNDERLYING supply and UNDERLYING demand were in equilibrium, then that would mean residents per dwelling of 2.73
A big part of the problem here in Auckland is transport and traffic congestion - which means well-positioned houses which are relatively close to the CBD are at a premium. (Generally, apartments don't do so well.) But there isn't the space to cater for lots more new houses.
I'll wager that Taranaki will have a growth squirt soon - with new housing developments close to the coast.
TTP
I'll wager that Taranaki will have a growth squirt soon
I don't think anyone wants to see that.
At the start of the last Government the Reserve Bank and MBIE estimated that there was a shortfall of 72,000 homes between 2006 and 2018. The 2006 was picked as a period when 'supply and demand' was in balance. So these figures suggest that 50,000 of that shortfall has been reduced. T
he obvious problems are: the new houses are smaller so the average household size they service is lower than the average, some mismatch of locations, and massive migration in past year. However, unsure where the 51,000 homes completed in 2023 are in these figures - or the 18,000 building consents issued in past four years which have not been built yet
Interesting figure on building consents. Here in NP the building consent only lasts a year and building must be completed 2 years from consent. Not found out if you let the BC expire and then re-apply whether you start from scratch again or whether its rubber stamped for a few dollars and lasts another year.
There's something called a 'section 127(?)' that basically means making a minor modification to the consented design to renew the term. At least that what I was told by someone who's job it is to help process applications. Apparently a lot of developers doing this to delay building.
and building must be completed 2 years from consent.
This isn’t how it works. The council must make a determination as to whether it complies with the code or not (issue a CCC). That’s all.
Yep this. Also to prevent expiry of the consent, all that's needed is a pre-start meeting and to stick a shovel in the ground.
Balance is where supply equals demand with no restrictions on building. And we’re nowhere close to that. Seymour should finish MBIE off.
But what if everyone wants an AirBnB and holiday home? Is there any real limit to demand?
Perhaps using building consents (which far more often are renovations and not new builds) is a bad measure. Unless they were an unscrupulous criminal landlord putting a garage on a property is not a new home. Also an OO renovating their kitchen or bathroom is not a new home either. Also an OO renovating & rebuilding the same single home structure is not an added house. Lets admit honesty the numbers based on consents is knowingly poor data and cannot be used to determine new housing.
When will those who read these useless numbers realize garbage in is equivalent to garbage out, simply to manipulate highly susceptible members of the public. Those who write reports or use these numbers are far more often contributing to the public's ignorance by encouraging the use of them especially in really manipulative and ignorant comparisons like the above. Its really sad and appalling this lack of mathematics understanding on a financial & investment website. The best case scenario is they are doing a dog whistle manipulation, the worse case is our maths education in NZ is far worse then we thought.
The data specifically records building consents for new dwellings. Not every building consent...
Or is your assertion that this is a lie..?
How many nails in the property coffin now
Dead in the water.
dwellings includes apartments. How many 100s of apartments are still for sale? If there is an oversupply of dwellings then there must be many people with money to be able to hang onto empty apartments without having to sell them.
Plenty of apartments on the short term rental market. Was just walking by a building I'm familiar with the other day. About 40 units all up. Counted 15 'keys' attached to the railings out front (a common indication of a short term rental). I delivered mail to that building 15 years ago. Not a single short term rental then.
Its a global problem returns are higher then long term rents
Yep. Many cities in Europe now banning Airbnb etc as they have hollowed out whole districts of local population and increased housing shortages
Yep, airbnb was a large influence in the rental price in Edinburgh over the last decade. around 2015 it used to be around 500pound a month for an inner city 1 bedroom tenement apartment, and within 2 years was 750 a month due to shortages thanks to many investors buying up multiple properties for airbnb only. Now at around 850-950/month as the airbnb's are back in force once all the lockdowns were over and many had sold off their vacant flats to other investors who managed to make it through.
Surprise, surprise...
I think the sleeping in cars problem is more about affordability then missing houses, not everywhere places like BoP have issues.
We are about to have a massive old age problem as people become 65 but no job
I think the sleeping in cars problem is more about affordability then missing houses
Hallelujah and yes!
While nobody would argue that building more homes would not be helpful, at this point it is mostly just a politically convenient scapegoat.
There are much easier approaches to deal with the more significant issue of too much 'artificial' demand driving up prices and removing properties from the permanent housing stock. CGT, LVT, credit guidance (e.g. varying interest rates according to the purpose of the borrowing), etc. Lots of options. Essentially we should be focused on making investment in existing properties less attractive relative to other investment options. Good luck getting a politician on board with killing the golden goose though. Thankfully it's been overfed anyway and looks to be dying its own death.
we need tiny home parks....
Haha. You mean trailer parks :) I've always found the whole tiny/mobile home instagram thing a bit odd as it looks a lot like dressing up caravan park living to look glamorous.
Seriously though, I think councils have dropped the ball on this one and aren't living up to their responsibilities here. Sure, once upon a time you didn't want more than a couple of dwellings on a rural block because of the costs involved in supplying utilities, but that is no longer an issue. Off grid is no longer fringe and is now cheap and convenient. Councils really need to look at their regulations and ask themselves why they are the way they are in this day and age - especially during an accommodation crisis.
Rural would work for younger, but older need services, buses, hospitals etc etc, needs to be close to rural towns.
Very true. My own mother is finding this out now.
That said, I can imagine that quite a few would really benefit from spending at least the early part of their retirement in a small home sharing a large property and amenities with like minded people.
.
One has to wonder why we still rely on 'estimates' in this day and age.
Surely with our systems we know within a few hundred how many people are in NZ at any given time and what their status is...and if we dont, why do we not?
"New Zealand's population grew 6% in the 5 years to 2023 while the number of dwellings increased 9%"
This article is intentionally misleading and dishonestly manipulating the maths ignorance in much of the public. That the percentages are meaningless without the values they relate to. For instance a small amount of a very large number can outstrip a bigger percentage of a small number (several orders smaller). Hope that maths lesson helps. I did expect better, not sure why you did not grasp mathematics & ethics when writing this article; knowing the structure is intentionally misleading or makes you look really unaware of how percentages work.
"In the Auckland region the population grew 5.4%, while the number of dwellings grew by more than twice as much, up 11.9%."
Please anyone call them out when they do this as the best case scenario is they are intentionally trying to mislead and manipulate people yet the sadly more likely and worse case is the NZ public mathematics education is far worse then we thought. For the article writer please retake primary school mathematics & NCEA level 1. Learn what percentages are & how they can be used. That this is on a financial and investment site is pretty shameful. It calls into question not only the authors basic mathematics understanding but that of the editor and team doing review. Please QA the work being published for glaring issues like this that bring you into disrepute.
100% cooked.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, we have a housing utilisation issue not a housing shortages. Tons or residences that have been built have no one in them.
100%. NZ has a very respectable amount of housing units per capita. Always has.
The big change in the last 20 years is boomers piling into the home investment space, which in itself would be a good thing if they were actually building new.
The last 10 years has also seen a massive shift in utilisation. Would love to see the stats on this. There is no doubt that Airbnb and other short term rentals has played a massive part in the housing affordability crisis. This manipulation of the house market, for pure profiteering, means that less hotels are developed.
Two things could fix this immediately:
1- ban Airbnb, except in designated holiday areas that have a surplus of long term rentals.
2 - Ban commercial, trust or investor purchasing of existing homes (unless they are tearing down within 3 months of purchase in order to build new).
3. Tax all capital gains on property sales, except the family home, at a flat rate of 50%. In order to pay for superannuation and healthcare that the boomers need.
Where the houses are located is also a huge part of this.
There will always be locations where many many people would ideally live. Also there will always be locations almost impossible to rent and left empty.
That’s why I’m always a bit sceptical of these broad based numbers. Although I’m not sure how you would get a more accurate picture.
Looking at all the new building in the Wellington region - I suspected this. Well done to the development/building sector. Great news.
That's if the can actually build in Wellington. It seems like the road and sections to be developed on the west side of island bay has been stalled or minimal progress in the last 5 years. They were selling land packages noting it was all to be done by 2021 XD
Thanks Kate. (We get little appreciation.)
Sadly, many of us are hibernating and twiddling our thumbs at present. Something to do with what the RBNZ is doing. Meanwhile we get calls from builders wanting more work and telling us that their employees are disappearing at an alarming rate.
Kate I expected better mathematics understanding from you then this. Please improve by learning what percentages are and what data is being collected. This is extremely bad news when you compare the numbers as they are as the new housing is far below the increasing demand from the population. Sadly though not much of the new population can afford the new or even old housing even as renters. There is also a significant affordability mismatch. Hence people sleeping in cars, tents, garages, basements, on streets, in public spaces, in "emergency housing" and "transitional housing" etc. Numbers of homeless people that have increased significantly (not even counting those living in overcrowded housing with family & friends) which can be clearly seen even if we just record the numbers in emergency housing alone.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, we have a housing utilisation issue not a housing shortages. Tons or residences that have been built have no one in them.
Changing demographics are going to unwind this to an extent. I would guess that 90% of baches are owned by old people that will sell them ina few years. They will also be downsizing thierbown dwelling so families move in to bigger houses freeing up the smaller ones and so on.
Big growth story in Waikato (+40k). It's kinda annoying that the press release and therefore MSM keep quoting smaller regions with high % increases like Queenstown. Almost like they want to name check places around the country for the sake of it.
Overwhelming growth is Auckland, Waikato, and BOP, and now Northland strong too.
That population increase only occurred in 2 years - 2019 and 2023. The borders were shut for the other 3 years and population actually went negative during that time as people returned home, whilst others were blocked from returning to NZ.
So its no surprise that 5 years of building outstripped 2 years of population growth. Now imagine how much better off we would be if immigration simply stopped for another 2 or 3 years?
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.