Rising rents are being given some of the blame for the number of people seeking social housing in June hitting yet another record high since the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) took over publication of the stats in 2014.
MSD figures showed 5,353 eligible people were sitting on the Social Housing Register in June waiting to be matched up with suitable properties. This was a 10% jump from the 4,865 on the register in March.
The rise in June 2017 from March compares to a 9% jump between the two quarters in 2016. While winter may play a part between the two quarters, a 6% fall between March and June in 2015 indicates the seasonal change cannot be easily argued as the principal driver for the rise.
Indeed, Social Housing Minister Amy Adams said rising rents had partly contributed to more people turning to social housing. The government’s move to increase Accommodation Supplement payments from the start of July should help, she claimed. More social housing was also needed, Adams said, referencing National’s building plans.
The number of people on the Social Housing Register waiting for appropriate accommodation is up a whopping 38% from June 2016 and 60% above June 2015, which was the low point since MSD began publishing the figures in June 2014.
Interest.co.nz has requested archived figures back further than that – MSD took over publication of the Social Housing Register from Housing NZ in 2014 and there seems to be some confusion over who holds the archived numbers.
The social housing-need figures came on the same day as Labour Party housing spokesman Phil Twyford drew attention to a Yale study indicating New Zealand has the highest per capita homeless rate in the OECD, at nearly 1%.
“Families living in motels, cars, and garages; a record waiting list for state houses; Auckland City Mission forced to turn people away; homeless people dying in the street – these are the human costs of National’s housing crisis, along with falling homeownership and skyrocketing rents,” Twyford said.
“It is simply shameful that National has not built the houses we need to give all our people a home. Labour first proposed KiwiBuild in 2012; if National had adopted that plan five years ago, we would have built nearly 50,000 houses by now.
“After nine years, even [Deputy Prime Minister] Paula Bennett now admits National got it wrong but, truth is, they won’t change. Their latest ‘plan’ involves building just one affordable house a day in Auckland, at a time when the population is growing by over 120 a day,” he said.
'We’re providing more accommodation'
Commenting on the Social Housing Register release, Minister for Social Housing Amy Adams said the government was ramping up support for rising numbers of people needing help.
“Winter is seeing an increase in the number of people needing support. Our primary focus is getting help to those who need it, and while demand has increased, help is there for those who need it,” Adams said.
“The Government helped 1,725 families into homes over the past three months. We’re working hard to help ensure people have somewhere to live, whether it’s emergency, transitional or permanent housing.”
Adams said that an extra 353 social houses and 386 transitional houses had become available to house vulnerable New Zealand families in the last three months, bringing the total number of social houses to 66,330. “More transitional housing is available every week, with nearly another 300 places available since last month.”
“Part of the drive behind the higher demand is rising rents affecting those with low incomes. We’re aware of this pressure, which is why the Government is lifting Accommodation Supplements as part of our $2 billion Family Incomes Package. More social housing is also needed, and the 13,500 new social houses in Auckland and hundreds of others we’re building across the country will help,” Adams said.
Adams said that more than 3,000 families and individuals have been helped with a Special Needs Grant (SNGs) for emergency housing for motel stays, which is nearly 500 more than in the last quarter.
“While motels are not ideal, they are warm and dry, and preferable to families sleeping rough during the coldest months of the year. Our priority is that those in urgent need have a place to stay while we secure them a social house. The increase in SNGs underscores the importance of the Government’s $354 million investment to secure 2150 additional transitional housing places,” she said.
“The number of SNGs are contributing to the increase in the social housing register. Families staying in transitional housing also remain on the register while they are provided wrap-around support to help them find a stable, permanent home.”
92 Comments
Screw the real economy that relies on people having money to spend. Who needs it
Who needs it? NZ does. Consumer spending is the lifeblood of the economy, not herding and milking dairy cows or making Hollywood movies. NZers are general are playing their part. Household debt is at record (or near record) highs and the framework for asset price inflation has been jury rigged accordingly. Asset price inflation is useful for making people feel good about themselves and that's the precursor for them to spend and borrow (for more spending). This is not some backyard banter: It's the reality and all part of nudge theory.
Toronto House Prices Crash 192k since April.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGL0ysImPCo&t=1s
Auckland Albany House Prices Dive 13.5%
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/property/94154549/house-prices-dive-in…
Proudly Sponsored By Double-GZ
Shock! Horror!
Homelessness is at 1% - we have an catastrophic disaster on our hands.
99% of the population is housed but that is not nearly good enough.
101% of the population must be housed immediately with the goal of having no less than 110% of the population housed within 12 months.
Nothing less is acceptable.
I think many people would be "surprised" that NZ has one of the highest rates of homelessness per capital in the OECD. We're only talking a population of 4.6 mio. That's worse than Japan with a population of 125 mio and a land mass that's only approx 1/3 greater than NZ.
Well, I guess it depends on what your values are.
If, like me, you are a fifth generation New Zealander who once took pride in the relative egalitarianism that our forebears established based on a Judeo-Christian heritage, then you are sickened by this and other growing marked inequalities.
If you believe in the law of the jungle, in 'each man for himself', then these levels of homelessness will not disturb you. Even if you don't care for your fellow human being and only of yourself, you might be happy to live with the impacts on yourself and family such as increased squalor and unpleasantness, increased crime and violence.
But there might come a time where those impacts on you start to affect you personally, even if you can't feel that something urgent is required from a humanistic point of view.
I was in Tauranga this week, and it's the first time I've seen 'bundles of living rags' in the doorways of downtown shops early in the morning. Tauranga, for Heavens sake. It's not like it's the poverty capital of New Zealand and yet there they were, forgotten humanity trying to survive on the city's streets....
It's all bad life choices.
If they'd wanted to be well off and owning tracts of land they'd have made better choices about when and to whom they were born, they would've chosen not to grow up abused, and they would've grown up with parents who'd teach them to put their assets in a trust.
Poor choices.
Fritz. Our heavily income redistributive and generous welfare system, excellent health care, quality education, low pensioner deprivation rates and still very caring and fair-minded society, is far removed from the law of the jungle attitude you imply is common here. The social dysfunction you describe can be just as convincingly attributed to well intended welfare, as to selfish individualism.
If our crisises in housing, child welfare, suicide etc are the product of welfarism then why have those problems worsened in recent years when there is less welfare support than in the past and more focus on 'market solutions'?
Sorry, that contention is plain wrong
I think Singapore has benefited from rather stern and practical patriarchal rule since it was formed. They execute drug dealers for instance. They have military conscription. The family unit is considered to be the building block of society by the state and most of the people and nearly all children are brought up in families with a mother and a father. I think this is a very important factor in the success of their society. Also if you are old and poor you have to work to supplement any benefits provided by the state which is rather harsh.
Interesting response PocketAces. Am I wrong about Singapore?
Why do you feel the need to de-legitimize my entirely valid comment? Why stoop to Kakapoish grossness?
Was Lee Kuan Yew not a patriarch? Is Singapore not successful?
The point I want to make and which might have been missed or perhaps poorly expressed is that Singapore has benefited from its past. Much like NZ. A harsh patriarchal past sets the foundations for the success of today. Do we benefit from the afterglow? Will it grow cold in the future?
Well national is correct more the population /immigration better the data, so if now it is 1% and with the immigration the percentage - more population as a result will decrease in percentage and will be prosperity (Assuming it remains at the same level).
For any problem solution is Immigration and who cares about...............
jimbo-jones. Even your leftie mates have stopped parroting the nonsense 40,000 homeless number that was based on an academics reconstruction of what the word homeless meant. I believe the current number in vogue with the socialists is now about half that. Of course there are other numbers but they won't fit the MSM fed narrative of widespread housing deprivation that must be addressed by taxpayers; whatever the decisions and circumstances that led people there.
So what does "homeless mean to right wing deniers? I will go so far as to say that anybody who would in a normal market, be able to buy their own home, but current conditions are forcing them to rent, are homeless as well, especially given they can be given notice to quit at any time. No-one can make a "home" under those circumstances, so for me, the number is probably very light at 40,000.
Perhaps what you are arguing is that the number of shelterless people is much smaller than 40,000, and yes, I would agree with that, but the word is HOMEless.
It's because the ratepayers association has the council by the balls. They can't increase the rates sufficiently. There's been all sorts of propaganda campaigns pleading poverty on behalf of Auckland landholders.
Double rates against the values of land only, and watch developments spring up as infrastructure gets the funding it needs and we don't need to keep punishing developers with excessive consenting charges, connection fees and excessive water retention systems because the council will not provide sufficient stormwater infrastructure. And landholders are actually pressured to make productive and efficient use of their land due to the increased cost of exclusive landholding.
the supplement is only a very short term fix and will enable landlords to increase rents.
it is a transfer from the state to landlords a spends very little time in people hands.
this needs new ideas to fix, the state paying billions to private landlords each year is not the answer
It's just nonsense. Rents are flat in Auckland and falling in Christchurch. The average national rise is 2% or so. Some parts of NZ are seeing rent rises, esp BoP, but I would have thought most social housing needs would be centred in the main centres, esp Auckland. I mean, does anyone actually look at the data before they start talking? Social housing needs are not generally being driven by increases in rent, although there may be small social housing areas where they are
I conceded that, but the areas where rent increases are most material as per the trademe figures don't seem to me to be the areas where there is the biggest need for social housing. Has there been an explosion of social housing needs in Tauranga big enough to move that needle? Doubt it.
You assume Bay of Plenty doesn't have a high amount of social housing needs? All regions, have social housing requirements.
Is this the basis for your figures?
http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/price-index/for-rent/
Using those (non hedonic, non rp sales) indexes, all of the positive ones show huge increases relative to wage inflation - so what's to say there is no pressure on renters ability to pay?
No, I didn't say that. Auckland and wellington are where the social housing big numbers are, as that's where the population is. Maybe also Hamilton? If the trademe figures stack up, it looks like BoP and northland have had material rent increases and therefore renters would be under more stress. But that's not where the big social housing numbers are, so that would not produce a change like this.
I am a bit sceptical about the trademe rental numbers for northland and BoP, as the increases are large and it looks a bit odd. But even if we just accept them, the overall numbers compared to the larger populations centres just aren't that big and don't show a national crisis. Ffs, there's 136,000 people in Tauranga, and 65,000 in Rotorua. There is more people in South Auckland alone.
I appreciate the suggestion that it isn't population driving house prices to these ridiculous levels isn't a popular one on these pages, but the numbers show that view to be total BS. This "housing crisis" insofar as it relates to the balance of supply and demand for housing as accomodation is verging on a national hysteria that isn't supported by what we know. It's repeated and repeated by Serious People and everyone just accepts it. But if prices aren't supported by occupier demand, what DOES support them? Worked that out yet? Stupid lending and hot air.
Also see the MBIE housing affordability figures for Auckland. Renting affordability in Auckland had IMPROVED as of the date it was written. So I don't see why these bigger social housing numbers are driving by big rent increases in Auckland, as there haven't been any.
Nothing here that a batch of double-wides in the nearest park would not fix. And caravans these days are infinitely better built (think, CNC-cut SIP panels, double-glazed windows, smoke and CO sensors, integrated HW/space heating), and are warmer than, most houses.....
[The latter, BTW, (cue the old records, lower the needle and give 'er yet another spin) being clonked together, out in the Awkland weather, by occasionally drug-tested hammer hands, and then left to mature, like a fine cheese, for weeks on end. And then we all gape in wonder when they turn out to be fulla Mould and other Beasties,.]
Hey, the suggestions's gotta be better than a tarp and a coupla dogs for warmth, cuddled up in the nearest shop doorway.....
Tauranga esp Papamoa seems like a relatively easy place to add supply, so I would be surprised if even material population growth has a long term effect in rental yield
Trademe shows rental spikes that don't really make sense to me. Far north....really? BoP I assume is about Tauranga. Rotorua is in relative terms so small it barely matters.
If immigration is used to double the population without doubling the housing stock then half the population is left homeless. In NZ's case this is the poorest section of the community, those with mental illness,drug issues, drinking problems, single parent families and struggling with poverty.
The immigrants coming in will not say its their fault and will say these people deserve to be homeless and they don't give a stuff.
Good one, and...
The 700 or so real homeless that are on the street, and the two poor guys who perished on the road few days ago ..how long have they been there ... are there any stats of these numbers in the last 5 or 10 years ...
Who are the 24000 homeless ? are they all poor workers or Islanders here on quota and have had too many kids over the years to be housed with relatives?
Will anyone mention these people in November 2017 again?
Just few questions begging for some answers
Tga might have to many houses for sale soon, there seems to b a lot more for sale and lots new, I think sales slowed a few months ago but when it seemed Auckland vendors changed there tune and started dropping there prices a little and go sales the tga area got a new lease of life, a lot of investors I think, because I noticed houses brought then up for rent a lot, mainly papamoa, tga,s flat lining, I think it's your topical slow down in play, drop a bit, buy a bit and so on, same as 2008, how far who knows but tga is relying a lot on Aucklands money
Bobster Iv been looking for a rental in papamoa or the avenues in tga for a year or buy but I'm to tight at the moment, and I strongly believe tga with Auckland can't hold these house prices and Auckland won't b coming to tga for much longer, I sold 2 houses last year and kept one, papamoa rental haven't changed much around $480 for a 3 bd 1 bath and $550 for 4 & 2, there's the old ones at 650
Buy low sell high, if there's a down turn that's a good thing, buy low, don't worry about your other property's , but u need cash, people that do this have been doing it for ages, of course theres lots of new people now playing with property which is good but using there houses as a ATM , they probably didn't had much money in the first place, but soon they won't b able to sell and won't have any cash in the down turn, of course it u have the attitude prices never go down with cycles so it, look at the thousands of Aucklands who have left with 1 to 2 million dollars and brought a house or 3 elsewhere, but times running out
Another thing to don't get attached to a property, why'd u buy it, make money or tell your mates how many u have, of course they are for retirement but on the way make money and grow, Iv seen plenty of corrections so u do need to change this prices never go do attitude, but if u do, free u cash if u can because as price come down it'll get very hard, and selling on the way down , early, helps home owners to buy and gets more investors buying again at the lows starting it all over again, ya, cash is king
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.