Government funding for 8000 new homes will not necessarily increase the total number of homes being built but it will likely change the mix by increasing the supply at the bottom of the market

Although if the houses are factory-built, it will be more a matter of punching buttons on a factory floor full of CNC and other precision machinery, rather than swinging a hammer or captaining a framing gun....

You do remember how kiwibuild went dont you ?
Out of 100k homes to be build they managed was it 46 on there own and then bought houses off the plan that no one would want ?
As long as govt is NOT involved in the building process itself they might get some built.

This is a good initiative, much better than the $1.5bn per year handed out to private sector landlords in the form of the Accommodation Supplement.
I would expand the house building initiative by creating another capital fund that gives a significant amount of funding to non-profit Community Housing Providers to build another 8000 houses again.
State housing is mostly directed at beneficiaries and superannuitants. HNZ's income-related rent subsidy scheme means state house tenants pay a maximum of 25% of their income. Which means HNZ pays about 2/3 of the capital cost of a state house and tenants 1/3.
If community housing providers built houses targeting low income workers on the minimum or living wage with affordable rentals (a living rent) that consumed no more than 30% of their income the capital subsidy support could be about 50%.
This would diversify new housing developments that require construction industry support by adding low income worker residents into the housing mix.

As long as they are fit-for-purpose it's a great idea!
We just have to make sure the Government doesn't take on those developments that were targetted at shoe-box; investor-led, speculative buildings that are now headed for disaster.
Ones with 'good bones'? Fabulous!

Lol ..........Try-fail Twyford , has so may rods to hit himself on the back with already , I am sure he does not want to create another one

they need to move to a scheme to move away from that, i promote a three year lease with one right of renewal in the current property, after that you have to move, i am not worried if you move next door to another state house to stay in the area for schooling, the message is you dont own this house and are only entitled to stay here whilst your circumstances warrant it, and that also goes to size of house, once the kids are gone you get down sized
i get sick of the articles of someone or kids of someone that refuse to move out of a state house because that is where we grew up.

No questions from government or media asking how this family grew so large with no housing in mind

One child policy perhaps?

Leasehold land is no good when the lessor owner just hits the lessee tenant with market and higher rents. And govt seems no different to private owners, A friend of mine had a council owned leasehold with his one house on the section. Since 2000s the rents were hiked and through his own misfortune he ended up in forced sale with a property that was worthless. Cost to freehold was also likewise set extremely high and not viable for someone wanting an affordable dwelling. Local govt when strapped for cash start looking for revenue streams

I worry about the 30 years of crap housing policies which has inflated house prices and rents to insane levels, to the benefit of property owners and to the detriment of workers.
What sort of society are we trying to foster? An egalitarian society where anybody can do well or a classist society based on hereditary property wealth?
What sort of economy are we building? One based on rentiers and rorts? Or one where business and workers are rewarded for being productive?

I suggest reading Home Truths from BWB Books.

Puts paid to the idea that central housing efforts have not been a massive part of how affordable housing and home ownership became commonplace in NZ. It never was a case of people getting into affordable housing on their own two feet alone. (Leasehold was also used in the past by governments.)

What you are describing is a big part of how people had affordable housing by the 80s and 90s. Not just their own two feet at all.

Where did the idea that a first house had to have a full kit if whiteware and 2 bathrooms come from? Our of the delusions of baby boomers, presumably. I'm 38, and the vast majority of my friends have bought their first home by now (most relatively recently- within the last 1-5 years). Not a single one of them bought, or expected to be able to buy, a house with new whiteware, 2 bathrooms, etc.

Seriously, Does anyone really believe that this government actually knows what it is doing, after KiwiFlop and all the other policies that just haven’t looked like being achieved?

You can't have Jobs, Jobs, Jobs when you have Robots, Robots, Robots in a factory building Houses, Houses, Houses....

This is a challenging one.
Would a housing surplus be such a bad thing?
A lot of positives and negatives.

Too true but do not forget that HNZ and private social housing providers who pay no tax receive by way of government money subsidies way more per dwelling than us private landlords. Social housing tenants receive four times the assistance of tenants in private rentals. Remember less than half the private rental tenants get any Accommodation Assistance. So it really does not matter that houses for gang members cost $625,000.

I didn't realise the industry had capacity to even consider talking to Grant Robinson regarding a state funded house building regime. Maybe he's bluffing again??? He's probably padding the number to see who takes the bait. I wonder how many builders will be quick as lightening to latch on to the teat of the very government they've been so vocal against.

A bit like babies with born with cleft palates, it's amazing how technology has allowed property investors to survive.