There was a significant drop in the number of new residential tenancies in November compared with a year earlier and a rise in median rents, suggesting the rental accommodation market is continuing to tighten.
The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, which holds tenancy agreements and bonds on behalf of tenants and landlords, received bonds for 3196 new residential tenancies throughout New Zealand in November, a 29.8% drop from the 4553 bonds it received in November last year.
The median rent of those new tenancies was $370.01a week, up 4.5% compared with the median rent of $354.08 in November last year (see table below).
However there were substantial regional differences, particularly in Auckland where high population growth fuelled by strong immigration and an inadequate level of new building activity are combining to put significant pressure on the rental market.
In the Auckland region there were 733 new tenancies recorded by MBIE in November, down 45.3% compared with November last year, while the median rent of $492.93 a week was up 13.7% on November last year.
Within the region the increase in median rents ranged from 2.3% in Manukau, which went against the trend and recorded an 88% increase in the number of new tenancies in November, to an 11.6% rise in median rents in Rodney, where the number of new tenancies in November was down 37.8% compared with last year.
In the Wellington region, the median rent dropped 1.4% in Porirua but was up 10.6% in Lower Hutt and up 4.3% in Wellington City.
In Christchurch the median rent was up 4.7% while the number of new tenancies was down 18.6%.
Although median rents rose in most parts of the country compared to November last year, 13 districts recorded a fall in their median rent, with the biggest decline occuring in Buller where the median rent dropped by 20%, from $250 a week in November last year to $200 a week last month.
The next biggest declines ocurred in Wairoa -13.9%, Gore -11.6% and Central Hawkes Bay -10%.
See the chart below for the full list of median rents and the number of bonds received in November for all districts throughout New Zealand, compared with November last year.
|
Median Weekly Rent |
% Change |
No.of New Bonds Rec'd |
% Change |
|||
| Nov-13 | Nov-14 | Nov-13 | Nov-14 | |||
| Far North District | 260 | 260 | 0.0% | 64 | 47 | -26.6% |
| Whangarei District | 300 | 320 | 6.7% | 114 | 88 | -22.8% |
| Kaipara District | 245 | 250 | 2.0% | 7 | 15 | 114.3% |
| ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | |
| Northland | 284.08 | 294.20 | 3.6% | 185 | 150 | -18.9% |
| Franklin | 350 | 390 | 11.4% | 76 | 56 | -26.3% |
| Thames-Coromandel | 290 | 297 | 2.4% | 30 | 14 | -53.3% |
| Rodney District | 430 | 480 | 11.6% | 90 | 56 | -37.8% |
| North Shore | 500 | 520 | 4.0% | 203 | 165 | -18.7% |
| Waitakere | 410 | 440 | 7.3% | 213 | 186 | -12.7% |
| Central Auckland - All Properties | 515 | 550 | 6.8% | 350 | 256 | -26.9% |
| Central Auckland 1 brm apartments | 350 | 367 | 4.9% | 311 | 276 | -11.3% |
| Central Auckland 2 brm apartments | 445 | 460 | 3.4% | 320 | 209 | -34.7% |
| Central Auckland 1 brm flat | 300 | 320 | 6.7% | 160 | 117 | -26.9% |
| Central Auckland 2 brm flat | 380 | 410 | 7.9% | 273 | 200 | -26.7% |
| Central Auckland 2 brm house | 420 | 440 | 4.8% | 143 | 101 | -29.4% |
| Central Auckland 3 brm house | 515 | 550 | 6.8% | 350 | 256 | -26.9% |
| Manukau | 430 | 440 | 2.3% | 321 | 598 | 86.3% |
| Papakura | 380 | 400 | 5.3% | 57 | 131 | 129.8% |
| ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | |
| Auckland | 433.66 | 492.93 | 13.7% | 1340 | 733 | -45.3% |
| Waikato District | 270 | 300 | 11.1% | 49 | 39 | -20.4% |
| Hauraki District | 242 | 232 | -4.1% | 20 | 14 | -30.0% |
| Matamata-Piako District | 280 | 290 | 3.6% | 49 | 38 | -22.4% |
| Hamilton City | 340 | 350 | 2.9% | 239 | 164 | -31.4% |
| Waipa District | 310 | 332 | 7.1% | 49 | 56 | 14.3% |
| Otorohanga District | 220 | 240 | 9.1% | 11 | 8 | -27.3% |
| South Waikato District | 200 | 190 | -5.0% | 28 | 30 | 7.1% |
| Waitomo District | 230 | 210 | -8.7% | 11 | 9 | -18.2% |
| Taupo District | 290 | 310 | 6.9% | 71 | 57 | -19.7% |
| Western Bay of Plenty District | 285 | 305 | 7.0% | 56 | 36 | -35.7% |
| Tauranga District | 350 | 372 | 6.3% | 191 | 142 | -25.7% |
| Rotorua District | 275 | 277 | 0.7% | 117 | 92 | -21.4% |
| Whakatane District | 300 | 295 | -1.7% | 54 | 38 | -29.6% |
| Kawerau District | 170 | 202 | 18.8% | 11 | 12 | 9.1% |
| Opotiki District | 190 | 217 | 14.2% | 7 | 6 | -14.3% |
| Gisborne District | 277 | 280 | 1.1% | 58 | 45 | -22.4% |
| Ruapehu District | 162 | 185 | 14.2% | 12 | 18 | 50.0% |
| ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | |
| Waikato/BOP | 301.82 | 310.07 | 2.7% | 1033 | 804 | -22.2% |
| Wairoa District | 180 | 155 | -13.9% | 7 | 9 | 28.6% |
| Hastings District | 310 | 297 | -4.2% | 77 | 84 | 9.1% |
| Napier City | 320 | 330 | 3.1% | 88 | 49 | -44.3% |
| Central Hawke's Bay District | 200 | 180 | -10.0% | 17 | 15 | -11.8% |
| ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | |
| Hawkes Bay | 299.95 | 296.07 | -1.3% | 189 | 148 | -21.7% |
| Wanganui District | 237 | 220 | -7.2% | 58 | 46 | -20.7% |
| Rangitikei District | 190 | 195 | 2.6% | 15 | 12 | -20.0% |
| Manawatu District | 270 | 280 | 3.7% | 25 | 19 | -24.0% |
| Palmerston North City | 295 | 310 | 5.1% | 129 | 100 | -22.5% |
| Tararua District | 182 | 197 | 8.2% | 24 | 20 | -16.7% |
| Horowhenua District | 230 | 230 | 0.0% | 41 | 45 | 9.8% |
| ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | |
| Manawatu/Wanganui | 257.53 | 260.62 | 1.2% | 292 | 242 | -17.1% |
| New Plymouth District | 350 | 360 | 2.9% | 88 | 58 | -34.1% |
| Stratford District | 240 | 250 | 4.2% | 15 | 7 | -53.3% |
| South Taranaki District | 230 | 237 | 3.0% | 35 | 38 | 8.6% |
| ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | |
| Taranaki | 307.61 | 307.15 | -0.2% | 138 | 103 | -25.4% |
| Kapiti Coast District | 330 | 360 | 9.1% | 61 | 49 | -19.7% |
| Porirua City | 360 | 355 | -1.4% | 35 | 35 | 0.0% |
| Upper Hutt City | 367 | 370 | 0.8% | 34 | 27 | -20.6% |
| Lower Hutt City | 350 | 387 | 10.6% | 86 | 68 | -20.9% |
| Wellington City | 460 | 480 | 4.3% | 132 | 103 | -22.0% |
| Masterton District | 250 | 270 | 8.0% | 25 | 45 | 80.0% |
| Carterton District | 250 | 250 | 0.0% | 10 | 14 | 40.0% |
| ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | |
| Wellington | 381.44 | 389.13 | 2.0% | 373 | 333 | -10.7% |
| Tasman District | 350 | 350 | 0.0% | 47 | 25 | -46.8% |
| Nelson City | 350 | 360 | 2.9% | 59 | 48 | -18.6% |
| Marlborough District | 300 | 320 | 6.7% | 65 | 44 | -32.3% |
| ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | |
| Nelson/Marlborough | 330.99 | 342.82 | 3.6% | 171 | 117 | -31.6% |
| Buller District | 250 | 200 | -20.0% | 13 | 13 | 0.0% |
| Grey District | 245 | 272 | 11.0% | 12 | 12 | 0.0% |
| Westland District | 265 | 355 | 34.0% | 8 | 9 | 12.5% |
| Waimakariri District | 365 | 400 | 9.6% | 20 | 16 | -20.0% |
| Christchurch City | 430 | 450 | 4.7% | 350 | 285 | -18.6% |
| Banks Peninsula District | 382 | 400 | 4.7% | 6 | 13 | 116.7% |
| Selwyn District | 400 | 450 | 12.5% | 25 | 14 | -44.0% |
| Ashburton District | 340 | 325 | -4.4% | 33 | 24 | -27.3% |
| Timaru District | 290 | 300 | 3.4% | 44 | 20 | -54.5% |
| ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | |
| Canterbury/Westland | 398.14 | 414.83 | 4.2% | 503 | 392 | -22.1% |
| Queenstown-Lakes District | 380 | 430 | 13.2% | 59 | 45 | -23.7% |
| ------ | ------ | ------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | |
| Central Otago Lakes | 380.00 | 430.00 | 13.2% | 59 | 45 | -23.7% |
| Central Otago District | 280 | 320 | 14.3% | 23 | 15 | -34.8% |
| Waitaki District | 250 | 260 | 4.0% | 34 | 17 | -50.0% |
| Dunedin City | 300 | 310 | 3.3% | 103 | 77 | -25.2% |
| Clutha District | 190 | 200 | 5.3% | 5 | 8 | 60.0% |
| ------ | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------ | ------ | |
| Otago | 283.58 | 296.50 | 4.6% | 165 | 117 | -29.1% |
| Southland District | 200 | 245 | 22.5% | 12 | 12 | 0.0% |
| Gore District | 215 | 190 | -11.6% | 14 | 26 | 85.7% |
| Invercargill City | 235 | 217 | -7.7% | 79 | 128 | 62.0% |
| ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | |
| Southland | 180 | 245.00 | 36.1% | 105 | 166 | -88.6% |
| ===== | ===== | ===== | ===== | ===== | ===== | |
| NZ total | 354.08 | 370.01 | 4.5% | 4,553 | 3,196 | -29.8% |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our new free Property email newsletter brings you all the stories about residential and commercial property and the forces that move these huge markets. Sign up here.
To subscribe to our Property newsletter, enter your email address here. It's free.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
32 Comments
If the biggest increase in any part of Auckland is 11% and the increase in most parts of Auckland is 4-7%, then the only way the overall increase can be 13% is if people are renting in different places?
For example more bonds lodged in more expensive rental areas, but it doesn't mean landlords have raised rents by an average of 13%. Very misleading.
Any year rents rise faster than wages/inflation must be a good one for landlords!
Yes TOG I think I do. It's because we have an ultra right wing National government who's intention is to quietly sell every single asset in the country without creating political backlash. Our prime minister does not want to be associated with killing kiwi the dream of home ownership. Moreover, climbing the greasy pole in a the public service like the IRD means being perfectly aligned with the views of the current government. I mean look what happened to poor old Adam Feeley at the SFO, hung out to dry for doing his job. Shame on him.
I give long term tenants (those more than 52wks continuous rent) who haven't had significant problems caused by them, a rebate of a week rent. I budget on 50wks occupancy, so I figure its just spliting the love - I'm still up a week, they're up a week they didn't expect. fair'nuff.
Yeah Ive got some fantastic tenants in palmy who never ask for anything, always pay rent like clockwork without exception, paid a total of $110 in maintenance over 2 years as they tend to sort minor things out themselves.. Tell me how much they love the house everytime Im there... Just means I don't ask for a rent rise as Im too worried about losing such quality tenants, so they end up winning as well as over time what they are paying is good value
Your response is a bit of a surprise there Mr Chaston
Did you actually read Fat Pat's comment
I realise the written word is a most difficult form of communication, but
Seriously, how did you get to immigration?
Paranoia? Sheer humbug
Immigration was furthest from my mind in my response. Didnt even arise
Care to explain?
What does arise out of this comment segment is the fact that the IRD can produce factual data, as was clearly evidenced last week by your scribe, Terry Baucher
Yet instead of seeking factual information and informing your audience, you prefer to dwell in the twilight zone of second-hand mis-information and fanciful utterances by politicians. Sometimes balance is good. Maybe Terry Baucher will read this. And, maybe you might invite him to participate more frequently. He is really good value. Factual. Informative.
For those of us in our 30's who are watching the kiwi dream of owning your own home quickly fade (I can't save an extra $50k a year just to keep up with house price increases) there's really not much to lighten up about.
Some of the landlords on this thread sound like nice people, but for those of us who don't have good landlords, a life of renting can be pretty sh*t.
Yes it's totally crazy isn't it. 11% ! Even more crazy when you consider that many foreign landlords will have properties in trust. They'd probably work hard to make sure their trusts weren't "non complying foreign trusts" taxed at 45c in the dollar. That means NZ domiciled trustees / settlors. That means the IRD wouldn't recognize those entities as foreign. That means 11% is almost certainly an underestimate. SOrry a little off topic but I get hot under the collar about this issue.
But of course. As supervisory function government rewards what it wants more of (foreign ownership with offshore profit laundering and givers of perks) and penalise that which you want less of with more costs and legislation (dairy, FHB, NZ businesses).
It's a solid policy of transformation because of the financial limitations inherent in the system it can't fail.
11% non-resident - how many of these are Kiwis who are living/working overseas?
I have a lot of friends who left NZ in search of a job in the past years, when times were meagre. No, they did not sell, as they may want to return one day. Most rented their places out.
I guess the mainstream here would have wanted them to stay in NZ on dole. True patriotism.
Incidentally, walking down Queen St there is hardly a shop not run by Asians these days. Were the original owners coerced to sell mafia-style ... or did they want to make a quick buck? Jees, guys, why not get mad at the greed of the people who sell to the evil "non-resident"?
Yes, you are quite right, it's also quite possible that the entire 11% are comprised of nz nationals who have moved overseas while retaining ownership of their property. Should that be the case then any angst aimed at landlords who are classified as "foreign nationals" is misplaced
It's also possible that the 11% is understated
It's certainly not overstated
However, the IRD possesses data that can differentiate between a non-resident rent-receiving taxpayer who has had an IRD number for many (say 20+) years, and a rent-receiving landlord who has just obtained their IRD number recently
Statistics NZ doesnt have that information
Well, then we simply don't know, even though raw data must exist.
And in any way, these days it is often hard to distinguish who is "true blue" Kiwi and who is not. I usally think that school socialisation is a strong factor, but I know e.g NZ Sri Lankans who are 3rd generation New Zealanders but totally live within their own community and marry only among each other or back "home". Totally racist, really. On the other hand I know e.g. Swiss and Germans who behave like chameleons and try to be Kiwier-than-thou although they are only in NZ for a few years and will niver-iver get the accent right :-)
Having said all that I am of course not happy either that the country is sold out to just about anyone incl corrupt Commie party scum. Some kind of legal restriction would be fair, given that NZ is tiny relative to the huge money sitting e.g in China. However, be aware that it will somewhat deflate the bubble, if it really was to happen. I dont care personally, because I hardly carry debt, but I bet a lot of people here feel differently about it.
Hang on a minute.
Only last week you were trumpeting that rents were "stuck in the mud"
http://www.interest.co.nz/property/73367/rental-growth-slows-auckland-r…
Now it's all changed again.
Will the real story please stand up?
....I guess someone always has a story like this at any time..but it's a first for me. Landlord with 60 rentals has crunched the numbers recently... baby boomer who is ready to slow up...has decided that the cap gain has come to end and will be cashing up fully....will have 4 x cash in hand from low risk alternatives. How many more out there thinking same ways i wonder? Very fine tipping point.....just how far aways away is the question?
My new years pick....when she blow it will sooner, big and quick...
Look around the world. Which government has allowed a real estate bubble to burst for good? In the UK, Spain, Ireland etc etc etc there was a short price deflation followed by frantic money printing to reflate - and it worked.
Not that I like the situation. I think it is crazy and in the long term destructive. But the politicians are hell bent on it, the central and other banksters happily assist and the media cheers a big hooray.
Today NOTHING is safe, also as a result of money printing policies. If I had 60 rentals and retiring I would also sell out some, fix up the kids, spend on a few things I always wanted to do. But there is no rush and panic in the move.
Yet in the 1930s governments allowed the real estate bubble to burst by opening the floodgates to new construction to escape the Great depression. Monetary policy following escape from the Gold Standard allowed private home builders, primarily around the new tube stations in England and state house building in NZ to kick start the respective economies.
Google Escaping liquidity traps by Nicholas Crafts.
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.