Here are the key things you need to know before you leave work today.
MORTGAGE RATE CHANGES
No changes to report today.
TERM DEPOSIT RATE CHANGES
None here today either.
A BUMP IN THE ROAD
Today's dairy auction saw prices fall back -3.8% from the prior event two weeks ago, a settling back after the +15% rise then. Across all products, this leaves price +10.7% higher than a month ago, and +39% higher than a year ago.
RISING PROFITS UNDER THREAT
Dairy co-operative Fonterra has improved 'normalised' profit by 43% and paid an interim dividend of 5c but says the second half of the year will be affected by the rising costs of dairy products.
SMALL CURRENT ACCOUNT DEFICIT
The annual current account deficit held steady at -0.8% of GDP for 2020 and the smallest in eighteen years. Demand for imports held below pre-COVID levels, offsetting the impact of the loss of international tourism. But imports started to recover even as exports stayed healthy in Q4-2020 resulting in a widening of the deficit from Q3.
LAWYERS WARNED
Auckland law firm Kidd Legal has received a formal warning under the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act from the Department of Internal Affairs. When the DIA does act, it tends only to be against the small fry.
HOW OUR IIP RANKS
New Zealand's net international investment position (IIP) is unchanged as at December at a net liability if -$177 bln, a marginal -3% worse in a year but in the circumstances of 2020, a very minor change. Our international liabilities rose 7% over the year but mainly because international investment houses invested more here. Out international assets however rose +9% in the same period, also largely because we poured more KiwiSaver funds into international opportunities, but also because our companies raised their international stakes. The net -$177 bln liability is equal to 56% of annual economic activity. On an international benchmark basis, that isn't especially high. Australia is 45%, the US is 66%.
RENTS RISING SHARPLY
Rents for 3 bedroom houses are on the move higher again. In Auckland they are back up to $695/week, equaling the record high. IN Wellington they are up at $720/week and a new record high for anywhere in New Zealand anywhere. In Christchurch they are up to $460/week and a record for that city. This is from the MBIE tenancy bond data.
FHBs WIN FEWER LOAN APPROVALS
Kiwis borrowed easily the most ever for house purchases in a January month, with investors prominent in the frenzy. In January, the proportion of new lending that went to first home buyers was its lowest in 30 months, down to 16.2%, or about $1 bln. In contrast, investors were approved for 26% of new loans in January, the highest for any month in more than 4 years ($1.6 bln).
ECON 101 UNDERMINES CARBON PRICE
Billed as a "significant milestone", the first auction of emissions allowances was held today. 40 participants took part in the auction. A total of 4.75 million New Zealand units (NZUs) were sold at a price of $36.00 per unit. However, any reader who turned to our tracking of the secondary market for NZUs (via CommTrade) will know that this excess supply is putting downward pressure on this price, which did reach $39.60/NZU as recently as early March.
A KILLER ALTERNATIVE?
Presumably because they are tired of waiting for regulators to act, Aussie banking giant CBA has rolled out its own buy now pay later service, one which can be used anywhere debit and credit card payments are accepted. Available to eligible CBA customers, the new BNPL links to an eligible CBA bank account, with no ongoing fees and at no additional cost to businesses. It is that "no additional cost to businesses" aspect that will have merchants queueing up to join, allowing them to avoid the 5%-or-so fee providers like AfterPay take from them. When CBA adds BNPL debt, it will be regulated as a bank. CBA is ASB's parent.
A MODEST RISE
According to official ABS data, house prices in the main Australian cities rose +3.6% over the year to December. This data is useful because it avoids the book-talking of the real estate industry.
GOLD HOLDS
Gold is trading in Australia, and soon in Asian markets. So far today it is at US$1730 and down -US$3 from where it closed yesterday.
EQUITIES GENERALLY LOWER
The S&P500 traded -0.2% lower in the session that ended earlier today. The NZX50 Capital Index is down -0.7% in late trade today and ending a string of gains that latest more than a week. The ASX200 is down -0.9% reversing yesterday's gain. In Tokyo, they have opened up +0.2%. In Hong Kong they have opened flat. But Shanghai has opened down -0.3%.
SWAP & BONDS RATES MIXED
We don't have today's closing swap rates yet. If there are movements today, we will note them here later when we get the data. The 90 day bank bill rate is unchanged at 0.33%. Benchmark rates are dead-in-the-water, waiting for a wind change from the US Fed which is forecast to come in tomorrow morning. The Australian Govt ten year benchmark rate is holding at 1.73%. The China Govt ten year bond is holding at 3.29%. The New Zealand Govt ten year is down -5 bps at 1.74% and now slightly above the level of the earlier RBNZ fixing at 1.73% (-7 bp). The US Govt ten year is +3 bps firmer from this time yesterday at 1.62%.
NZD HOLDS
The Kiwi dollar is now at 72 USc and basically on hold. On the cross rates we are up marginally to 93 AUc. Against the euro we still at 60.4 euro cents. That all means our TWI-5 is still just under 74.1.
BITCOIN BOUNCES BACK
Bitcoin has risen to US$56,357 which is a gain of more +4.5% in a day. Volatility over the past 24 hours has been a high +/- 3.3%.
This soil moisture chart is animated here.
The easiest place to stay up with event risk today is by following our Economic Calendar here ».
Daily exchange rates
Select chart tabs
88 Comments
Last viewing of a place round the corner before "AUCTION BROUGHT FORWARD!" later this week. That family home in leafy suburbs in a provincial city that you mention?
I didn't spot one person getting out of their car without grey hair. Judging from other recent sales in the area, +$1m is a certainty.
https://www.trademe.co.nz/a/property/residential/sale/listing/299020709…
We hit the auction this afternoon at Harcourts in Hastings. Houses prices just plain silly. A fairly standard, old (1980s?) 3-bedroom home in Taradale went for 770K. A near-new 4-bedroom house in Parklands, Napier, sold for $1.2 million. Both prices were well over what you would have expected before Christmas...
No, NZ should blame Arden and Canada Trudeau. But there is one common ideology they inherited, ie being a Commonwealth Country they use similar British Land law, especially the Town and Country Planning Act, which is partly responsible for how they have set land and housing policy.
We are both ahead of the British on housing unaffordability, ie the student has bettered the teacher, but England still leads Europe in having the smallest new house size of 73m2.
Bollocks - that's a mantra which was wrong 10 years ago (in the Paveltich days here) and is wrong now.
This is a bounded system, thus you have to live within limits.
Anyone arguing for no limits, therefore, is prima facie wrong.
And it's not affordability; this is a debt-fuelled ponzi. There is no rationality about it, any more - but we can see why it happened. It happened because we tried to pursue endless growth withing a Bounded System, and we hit the limits. Economists (and others who needed not to believe; developers, media hangers-on) didn't believe, know, research or learn. Thus the incresingly strident urging to repeal curtailing laws (often attempts to safeguard what's left of our life-supporting ecology) from all sides; farming (think Cant'y losing their democracy), developers (think acres of prime soil covered in tar and cement), extractors (mining, fishing, logging) - all pushing their short-term, self-justifying barrows.
Pity they were stuffing the planet. Pity we need it to survive, but hey, we might be dead but we'll be rich, right? Excellent.
You're obviously not happy with the outcome of the America's Cup. Which is a waste of resources, but that's yachting for you.
So what's not Bullocks then?
Ardern and Trudeau are not to blame?
NZ and Canada are not part of the Commonwealth?
Both countries are not using archaic planning and resource laws?
England doesn't have the smallest new house size in Europe?
You're starting to sound like Father Jack.
Rather than highlight systemic racism in institutional NZ we should be highlighting the new financial apartheid in this fair land where the asset rich have access to cheap credit and one set of rules and the wage earners with no assets are subjected to different rules which dispossess them of their earned wealth through purchasing power devaluation. Financial apartheid. This is where we are.
But without the interest rate cuts and money printing - a gift to the asset rich - house prices were predicted to fall a shocking 10%. The government had to act to ensure the wealthy stay up where they belong. Jacinda has stated that in a (housing) market prices are not allowed to fall, as that is not what (moronic) Kiwis expect.
The parallels between our situation and Canada for example (and the media rhetoric explaining the exponential rise) indicates to me that there is enough Chinese money in the NZ system and Canadian housing market to have a certain leverage over governmental policy. Therefore I do not think this crop of incompetent officials are actually in charge, but are given orders (gently propositioned) by those that hold the real power. The Chinese could crush the NZ property market tomorrow if they wanted. You'll never know because we're not allowed to know who owns what (in such a strategic asset). But methinks this is how it is. At the moment you've got landlords who make enough in equity gains in a few days to refinance for a deposit on another house. But you're not supposed to know. You're supposed to be happy and kind.
Rosenstein...Trudeau and our own PM share a multitude of character flaws and flawed lines of thinking. Trudeau has sold his poor people down the river (while pretending to champion them through worthless virtue signalling) in favour of investors, business interests and migrants and it seems we are well on our way to a similar destination.
Rosenstein...yeah when the current police investigation shows that there are serious inequalities of outcome for males compared to females then it will pose a tricky dilemma. I am pretty confident that in the 3 specific areas under investigation (who police stop and question, who they use force and/or violence against and who they decide to prosecute) the findings will be that serious inequalities (of outcome) most certainly exist and the inequalities will be most noticeable in the areas of Maori/PI vs European and even more pronounced in the area of male vs female. As a Maori male vs a female European I suspect a cavernous inequality of outcome will be identified. Will be fascinating to see how they proceed once these inequalities (of outcome) are confirmed.
Ardern and Trudeau both socialist/commies trojan horses used as a way of confiscating wealth for the top 1% who advocate for the social justice and other mumbo jumbo virtue signalling to distract from the true inequalities. As a side note, Wellington Central is become a more dangerous place with murders, gang fights in and around waterfront and even outside our acclaimed Te Papa.. Due to emergency housing in a hotels. Connect the dots here. Watch and wait as this worsens and city apartments start to hit the market
Investors are piling into the market (as seen in the last few months) and demanding a return on their investment. It shouldn't surprise anyone.
When you have removed other viable investments through destruction of productivity and lowered the cost of loans for those that have existing equity all while the government comes out saying they will never allow price drops, it's an obvious outcome.
Rents are rising and demand is rising because big time specuvestors are making such a killing on gains that some properties are being left empty. Don't forget many homes are still owned by overseas investors who bought before the overseas investor ban. Why bother with tenants when yr making 150k per year and may want to sell up and cash in soon. Local mom and pops who mightve taken in a boarder to help pay mortgage don't need to bother anymore as interest rates so low on house loan. Supply is shrinking
The market around renewable energy generators has been soft since the Prime Ministers "climate emergency" speech. I don't think investors are buying the government will make any substantial changes or I'd expect to see repricing and announcements to accelerate renewable energy projects.
Err... Tilt has just sold for almost double what it was trading at before infratil announced it was up for sale. Contact have just raised equity for a new geothermal plant which was on the back burner last year during the smelter confusion. Meridian announced a new wind farm in February.
Renewables are pumping as far as I can see, what an I missing?
Yes it's industry consolidation, but the price suggests that renewable energy is booming, the price of assets is much higher than last year. All of the major gentailers are progressing renewable energy (CEN new geothermal, MEL a new wind plant, GNE contracting wind energy through Tilt, MCY buying Tilt)... What are you seeing to say the market is soft?
Well, of you look back to the start of December (the Prime Minister made her speech on the 3rd it appears), the NZX50 is +9.29% but then looking at the energy companies you mentioned above:
Contact -11%,
Meridian -11%,
Mercury +7%
Genesis +16%
Mr. Market seems surprising cool on this.
Investors must be piling into property because the banks predicted a further 8% rise in property prices from June 2021 to June 2022. But apart from that your deposit may yield 4% on rent returns alone. It is probably a bit irresponsible for a bank to predict property rises publicly. How could they possibly know the future?
Maybe the government should offer bonds at 4% yield for people willing to sign a declaration not to buy property?
RENTS RISING SHARPLY
I saw it in 'real time' during the data collection phase of my research - and I only needed to do that for one month. Over the period of that month (21/12/20 - 21/1/21) the asking prices averaged 13% higher than the tenancy.govt.nz numbers at the time.
I cannot express my disgust as the government and its myriad officials sat by watching the tragedy unfold without so much as even a minor acknowledgement from them that renters were being punished in this 'deflationary' environment.
The pages and pages of focus devoted by MSM to the plight of the FHB cohort has served the government well in terms of diverting focus from the real social ill being projected onto 30% of the population.
Shameful - beyond shameful - for a Labour Government with an absolute majority.
Rent controls needed now. My formula approach can re-set the rot as soon as they decide to really 'be kind' to those other than asset owners.
#rentcontrolnow.
The point most people miss, especially the Govt, is it doesn't matter whether you rent or own, you should be able to do it for substantially less than what it costs now.
There are some very good economic reasons why people should rent rather than buy, at least for certain parts of their life. It's not uncommon for Germans to deliberately keep renting until their 50's, even when they could buy earlier.
Rent controls as a form of triage might be needed, but for them to be used as a crutch so they don't fix the real problem would not be good.
Do you have a pros and cons paper/link on this or countries where it works or doesn't?
For goodness sake. Why do we have to seek justification from other countries experience. We are quite capable of innovation on our own - just think America's Cup - a revolution in engineering/physics; all birthed right here in little Aotearoa.
As I've said before - we need to stop 're-designing' and start re-imagining.
Everything designed and written based on orthodox economic analysis (or how it used to work, or not work) needs to be tossed into the dustbin of neoliberal lunacy.
The parents who can't put food on the table - despite working all hours of the day - couldn't give a stuff about past evidence and theory - all they need is an affordable rent. Which in many cases would be a rent reduction - a turning back the clock 4-5 years ago regardless of what that might do to their landlord's yields. Let them (the latter) eat cake for a change.
You do know that some other countries don't have a rental crisis like we do? There are off the rack solutions just staring us in the face, if you want to look.
But you have just summed up the NZ condition right there Kate. This way we are a cluster*&$% when it comes to housing, whether owning or renting.
In the good old days when it took 6 months to get a part, Kiwis not wanting to wait that long just made it, even if it was only temporary (number eight wire) without regard to what was already available on the other side of the world. This sometimes leads us to new discoveries or some poorly designed temporary solution that became permanent.
Yet nowadays we can Google, or get goods delivered in days but still can have a blinked vision and don't even try to look for best practise elsewhere, and just invent something on the spot.
If you can't be bothered to look for what others might have already learnt, good and bad, then you're just guessing, like the present Govt. are.
Dale, I have read widely. And I've linked to much of that reading as well already on this site. And I've explained that the main arguments against rent controls as they have been implemented elsewhere, arise from 'first-in-first-served'; non-universal rent control policies - which is not what I'm suggesting. Sorry you've missed it all.
But, that doesn't really matter as you have recognised - triage is needed. And, even if (and perhaps more so if) the house-price bubble bursts dramatically - these wildly inflated and unaffordable rents will be with us forever. We cannot build or tax our way out of rentier class expectations - sad to say, they are unlikely to take the knee off the neck of the down-trodden.
Agreed, how about this for an analogy.
I have been stating that the road was designed and built badly and accidents will get worse if road is not fixed. And they have with the latest accident blocking the whole road.
You are tending to immediate triage of victims which is needed now.
Others are doing traffic control to stop others from piling up.
And I'll start building a new improved by-pass, which once in action means we won't need the triage or traffic control.
So the median national rental will set you back 26000 a year, and an interest only mortgage on the median priced house will set you back 15600 a year. Of course if you are to use the value of the median priced rental property, the numbers make stark reading. As you say Kate a social ill, and undoubtedly many of these people renting will end up whether thru stress need or consequence dealing with and being judged by the courts, police and all those organizations that are staffed by a myriad of paper pushers , because they failed to get on the ladder.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
How anyone can fail to see this astounds me - especially those who proclaim that these ills will be solved through supply-side miracles. Miracles - just like a good cheese - takes time. Time that the households experiencing added stresses with the corresponding domestic violence, drug use and mental health breakdowns do not have.
Jacinda and Grant - start representing the people who put their trust in you, and who hoped for a better future - implement rent controls now.
#rentcontrolnow.
Nope. I re-imagined the idea of rent controls. What you describe has happened in various jurisdictions overseas. The universally applied rent formula approach that I've suggested to the government would solve all those problems with respect to overseas jurisdictional implementation of the past.
The future is different - and bright.
Sorry, but if there are universally poor returns on rental properties then there will be no investment in new rental properties and existing ones will be converted into BnBs or upgraded and sold to owner occupiers. Future rental cohorts would be almost entirely dependent on Government to provide rentals.
My modeling so far suggests only lower quartile rental properties would be affected, as rents on the median and higher quartile are around the 30% of household income as it is. The hikes have been much higher at the lower quartile. I also found that many of these lower quartile properties have been owned for years, indeed decades and therefore profitability in most cases would be fine - the expectation on yields (based on these inflated valuations) are what would suffer. So, the majority who have held properties for years at that lower quartile end of the market are (to my mind) unlikely to sell. But, of course, those that might choose to sell are freeing up a lower quartile property, ideally suited to a FHB. Hence, win-win all around.
All the new build townhouses coming onto the rental market are constrained by affordability in the median/high price bracket and already do adjust their expectations accordingly. So, new builds are unlikely to be affected all that much based on my formula.
Hence, although the price controls would be universal (i.e., the weekly rent maxima formula would be applied to every rental property), the new build-to-let situation would not be changed.
Why is beyond my paygrade - the economics textbooks tell us that, “falling real interest rates result in lower rents, higher house prices and lower owner-occupancy rates”;
See TSY Working Paper 09/05 (Coleman and Scobie).
Have to just toss out those textbook models - we're in a whole new global ballgame - with asset-as-debt holders scooping up all the gains in a manner never before seen.
Can't see this Government trying to open the immigration sprig back to anything like the past again. Unemployment is worsening; environmental degradation is worsening; homelessness is worsening. GDP growth-by-numbers is a thing of the past.
Why is beyond my paygrade - the economics textbooks tell us that, “falling real interest rates result in lower rents, ....
Not at all. Falling nominal term interest rates increase the discounted present value of cash flows associated with assets and liabilities. Hence the desire to capitalise this higher discounted cash flow valuation for both liabilities and assets
I have put this article up many times:
In March 2017, former Treasury and Federal Reserve (Fed) official, Peter R. Fisher, delivered a speech at the Grant’s Interest Rate Observer Spring Conference entitled Undoing Extraordinary Monetary Policy.
Wealth effect or wealth illusion? The other therapeutic effect of lower-for-longer interest rates is the wealth effect. By driving up the value of future cash flows with lower rates of interest, all manner of assets – stock, bonds, and houses – increase in value and, thereby, can stimulate our marginal propensity to consume. More simply put, the imperative was to make rich people richer so as to encourage their consumption. It is not so hard to imagine negative side effects.
There are the obvious distributional effects between those who have assets and those who do not. Returning house prices in California to their 2005 levels may be good for those who own them, but what of those who don’t?
There are also harder-to-observe distributional consequences that flow from the impact of lower-for-longer interest rates on the value of our liabilities. This is most easily observed in pension funds.
Consider two pension funds, one with a positive funding ratio and one with a negative funding ratio. When we create a wealth effect on the asset side of their balance sheets we also drive up the value of their liabilities. Lower long-term interest rates increase the value of all future cash flows – both positive and negative. Other things being equal, each pension fund will end up approximately where they started, only more so.
The same is true for households but is much more ominous, given the inequality of wealth with which we began the experiment. Consider two households: one with savings and one without savings. Consider also not just their legally-defined liabilities, like mortgages and auto-loans, but also their future consumption expenditures, their liability to feed and clothe themselves in the future.
When the Fed engineered its experiment to promote the wealth effect, the family with savings experienced an increase in the present value of their assets and also an increase in the present value of their liabilities. Because our financial assets are traded in markets and because we receive mutual fund and retirement account statements, we promptly saw the change in the value of our assets. We are much slower to appreciate the change in the present value of our liabilities, particularly the value of our future consumption expenditures.
But just because we don’t trade our future consumption expenditures on the stock exchange does not mean that the conventions of finance do not apply. The family with savings likely ends up where they started, once we consider the necessity of revaluing their liabilities. They may more readily perceive a wealth effect but, ultimately, there is only a wealth illusion.
But what happened to the family without savings? There were no assets to go up in the value, so there is no wealth effect – real or perceived. But the value of their future consumption expenditures did go up in value. The present value of their current and expected standard of living went up but without a corresponding and offsetting increase in assets, because they don’t have any. There was no wealth effect, not even a wealth illusion, just a cruel hoax.
https://www.grantspub.com/files/presentations/FISHERGRANTSREMARKS15MAR1…
And yet: The notion that “low interest rates justify high residential property valuations” assumes that the growth rate of future cash flows is held constant, at historically normal levels. If, as we presently observe, interest rates are low because growth rates are low, no valuation premium is “justified” by low interest rates at all.
Yes, but lower interest rates today are savings, which in the first instance is a true saving that feeds demand. BUT without the addition of supply, the supply is now relative in short supply so the price goes up.
The amount it goes up is at least the amount of the saving and/or the amount that figure represents leveraged in extra ability to borrow.
Within one build cycle or less, if you sell off the plans, you are back to being worse off as the next FHB purchaser.
Yes, but lower interest rates today are savings..
For whom?
The RBNZ cut interest rates in half five times since July 2008. When interest rates are cut in half the present values of cash flows are doubled for assets seeking to fund liabilities.
I have a recurring annual $10,000.00 liability in need of funding.
I deposit $100,000.00 in a one year bank deposit account paying 10% annually.
Annual interest rates are cut in half to 5% during the deposit term.
How much do I have to deposit for one year next year to be in receipt of $10,000 to liquidate the same value annual liability?
The adjusted PV discount factor for the original $10,000 cash flow @ 10% for the cut in half 5% rate is 0.95 x 2 = 1.9 x $100,000 = $190,000.
Yes that's right, but it's not about your bank deposits. It's about stimulating the market (like the Far Side comic. 'Gods coming, look busy'), and not in a good way due to where it ends up.
Some other jurisdictions have low and lowering interest rates but they didn't end up imbalancing the demand/supply of housing.
Under our system, it represents an immediate saving to a potential purchaser that they can use make their house purchase now, instead of having to delay until a future date, but that is now capitalized into the purchase price for the next seller as soon it increases demand relative to supply. It hasn't even increased real demand over time, just brought forward the future into the present, which will have the potential to leave a demand hole in the future, because that buyer won't there anymore and builders are already planning on that extra supply by misinterpreting the present supply shortage. But nothing a little more immigration can't fix, unfortunately.
Rather than a stable line, we get a peak and trough.
The way it is at the present, even if you didn't invest in housing directly, then there are lots of REIT type investments, some of them no better than Mum and Dad investors thinking they are 'investing in managed 'Build to Rents.'
Yes, I'm pretty sure I have read that link from you before.
I took that quote/statement of 'fact' from a TSY paper which was forwarded to me by a PhD in economics when I explained what I was researching.
I could see that 'wealth effect' very clearly in the data as well. The greatest rent price increases were applied to properties purchased decades ago. I collected both last purchase date and purchase price for each of the properties in the sample. In other words, long-standing slumlords really piled on to the 'wealth effect' frenzy. Which is why the lowest quartile rental stock took the biggest increase on average.
Yes, I agree, there is no real need to increase the rent on these properties other than to keep the yield current up with its new valuation which is caused by what other properties sold for.
This is why new properties, especially those build on the restricted fringe set the price for all properties going back into the CBD (which tends to be older and less heavily mortgaged.)
These older properties get a free value uplift due to extra present land and build costs. And there is nothing stopping these owners from drawing down on this extra equity for a new rental property, holidays etc. Which now gives them justification (in their own minds at least) to raise rents.
This can only happen when supply is restricted.
Lobbying MPs does actually work - even if you don't get a reply - as long as the volume going in on a particular issue is good. But, you are right, we need the NGOs to get on board with alternatives to increasing benefit levels. I follow/support a lot of the work done by NGOs working in the poverty space; and the work they do is commendable. But what they haven't quite grasped is that this accommodation crisis cannot be solved by transfers alone. 30% of NZers rent; whereas only some 5% are unemployed beneficiaries - and this housing thing is affecting dual-income working families - not just the cohort they normally advocate for.
But, in answer to your question - NGOs, churches and unions across the spectrum are joining forces on the poverty issue, lobbying the government to implement the recommendations of the Welfare Advisory Group. Perhaps once they are successful in that regard, they will up their activity on our growing 'working poor' issues. Presently on housing, they are focusing on alternate ownership models (such as in the story below), but my point there is - surely the country would be better off if these working families are able to save for a deposit and enter homeownership in the normal manner;
https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/housing-affordability/30025309…
And the only way to do that (to my mind) is to bring the costs of renting down.
My problem with all of these ideas, from a capital gains tax to rent control, is that they'd never make it through parliament currently.
My inclination is that easing zoning is probably the most likely to pass. Labour can sell it as a way to ease the housing crisis, National can sell it as a boost to the building industry and both can call it a measure to decrease unemployment. Even then this is very high risk.
At least a few in government have identified this as the most important outcome:
"Instead of allowing cities to respond to population growth sustainably, poor quality and restrictive planning has contributed to a lack of certainty and unaffordable housing."
Richard Prebbles Herald article today - 8 points to fix housing crisis : • A policy to hold the population increase to what the nation can house.
• The Reserve Bank stopping printing money.
• Ardern accepting Judith Collins' offer of bi-partisan support to amend the RMA, in four weeks not four years, as was done to enable the Christchurch rebuild.
• Recognising ratepayers cannot fund the needed infrastructure. Government sharing the GST on construction with local government to incentivise councils to zone land for housing.
• Require builders to take insurance to guarantee the quality of new housing rather than the ratepayer being the de facto insurer.
• Creating a building regulatory environment that encourages productivity improvement.
Add investors to pay tax and business loan rates, and DTIs and Im 100% agreed.
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.