sign uplog in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

ANZ housing report says urgent action is needed to make housing more affordable including ramping up supply and curbing immigration

ANZ housing report says urgent action is needed to make housing more affordable including ramping up supply and curbing immigration

ANZ's latest New Zealand Property Focus report says a co-ordinated government policy response, which could include curbing immigration, is urgently needed to rein in the over heated housing market and ease acute housing unaffordability.

Written by the bank's economics team, the report doesn't mince its words.

"Housing unaffordability is an enormous problem in New Zealand, with especially significant consequences for our young and most vulnerable - and trends continue to move in the wrong direction," it says.

"Making meaningful progress is urgent, and change needs to be bold to reverse the tide.

"Broadly, we need to release land, build more houses and better align supply and demand settings," it says.

The report comes on the same day ANZ, NZ's biggest home lender with a $87.5 billion home loan book as of September 30, said it was requiring housing investors seeking a loan to have a 40% deposit.

ANZ also warns a fundamental change in the property price expectations of both the government and public is needed if the necessary structural changes are to be made to the market.

"Even sustained stabilisation in house prices would require a monumental shift in the market, and would be a vast improvement from the rapid house price inflation we are seeing currently," it says.

"But it's not just policy that needs to change - we need to change our expectations too.

"Policymakers and the public both need to be willing to accept house price stabilisation or even gradual real house price declines.

"Not only would this help affordability, but a managed supply-induced decline in house prices is a much better outcome than a painful correction, which is a risk under the current market structure," the report warns.

The report comes down in favour of boosting housing supply and better managing housing demand to restore affordability.

On the supply side, it advocates a freeing up of land for housing development, greater intensification of existing urban land and penalising land banking.

"Insufficient land is available for construction, reflecting stringent use restrictions, and few penalties for land banking," it says.

"Unnecessary land use restrictions need to be relaxed urgently, and penalties need to be introduced for passively holding housing-zoned land for long periods without developing it.

"As part of this, some expansion of urban boundaries is needed to reflect growth in the population.

"At the same time, increasing our buildable land means making more efficient use of land we already have available, meaning more intensification."

And that will inevitably involve pushing back against Nimbyism in established suburbs.

"As a wise person once noted, property owners tend to be raging libertarians as regards their own property rights, and complete socialists when it comes to their neighbours' - without even recognising the contradiction," ANZ says.

"To achieve real change, existing home owners need to be willing - or forced - to embrace some combination of urban expansion and intensification.

"That means pushing back against 'not in my backyard' thinking and reducing the power of vested interests."

On the demand side, the report suggests limiting immigration to ease pressure on housing demand while supply catches up.

"The other side of the equation, demand, may need to be considered too it we are to mitigate the extent of future house prices rises while supply catches up," it says.

"Curbing immigration cycles would reduce pressure on the housing stock.

"It's important to meet skill shortages, but with the border currently closed, it's a good opportunity to take a good hard look at migration settings and what is really best for New Zealand now and into the future."

The comment stream on this story is now closed.

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.



Beginning to wish I voted for ANZ in the last election.


Remind me who is their chairman


Didn't JK/ National party wanted to remove the Foreign Buyers Ban in the last election. So if they were in power, they would be back to flogging off NZ to the highest bidder again. The Nats don't even want to recognize that there is a housing affordability crisis which they helped to create.


It's not a crisis, it's a sign of our success.


What selling your young generation of Kiwis future down the river to overseas investors is a sign of success??? Only an idiot or a real estate agent would think that. Everyone else knows it's a false economy.


"A Wellington rental squeeze causing dozens of people to compete for the same flat is "a problem of success" and not a sign of a crisis, Prime Minister Bill English says."

Well we know Prime Minister Bill English wasn't a real estate agent.


Pretty sure the entire National party of the last government was part of the Property Investors Association.

probably one of the dumbest things English said... and he said it going into an election..


These seem to be folk who grew up in the times of Gordon Gekko but never realised he was not supposed to be an aspirational character.

The days of "won't somebody think of the children" are gone. "Won't somebody think of us ma and pa investors" is the new norm.

Thinking of the children would be reducing national debt so that we have net sovereign wealth instead of debt. Dropping unnecessary government spending and taxes so that the children can look forward to not being punished for getting ahead would also help. (It might just allow more kiwi success stories to remain in NZ)

Far from it Rick you are wrong ... again. Investors mostly don't go around quoting GG and aspire to be him. The govt by trying to placate the green lobby has handed all of the asset holders, not just house owners with tax free gains, who would refuse that. This year I have made four hundred thou from the shares, its been a great year and a lot easier than rentals. When will the govt learn to provide what most people want ie lots of housing choice.

Sure, yeah, this whole schmozzle over the last 25 years has been the 'orrible greenies' fault. God bless our selfless property investors in parliament.

You have no response other than scoff lol... Must be just a coincidence then

I have noticed that you and one other contributor here regularly make that claim whenever you disagree with someone's point of view. Your way of shutting people up.

Well feel free to go back to Rick in your response above with a counter argument then. Otherwise I stand by my troll comment.

Would you like me to redact my comments that Rick was simply scoffing... if it helps I will apologize if Rick does the same and debates whether it is the green lobby responsible for high house prices. I aren't holding out any hope so will leave you to have the last word

Geez, where have you been the last 30 years? 2017 was the first year Greens were part of the government. "Placating the green lobby" simply wasn't necessary before that, so consecutive governments of all colours ignored them. For reference, see NZs GHG emissions over that period. Scratch that, they are still climbing with the Greens in government. Because even our Green party is centre left.

Haha thats laughable have you heard of city vision. Tbh there has been pressure and restrictive policies coming from various angles since 1990

Well, there you go - you have countered your own point. "Various angles" reflects the reality most are familiar with, rather than trying to foist everything at the feet of 'orrible greenies. Including NIMBYs, developers with covenants etc.

The spurious part was ignoring the various angles and hoping to cast it all upon greenies instead.

"It's not a crisis, it's a sign of our success."

Indeed, it's a sign that NZ has come of age.....

Being geographically isolated, used to be a huge disadvantage. Nowadays, with the benefit of globalisation, it's a huge advantage.


There's not much point in shutting the gate after the horses have bolted.



The same guy who implied, for political purposes (and perhaps personal financial gain), that it would be xenophobic to ban foreign buyers?

DS holds that mantle now and 8% were happy with it...

Yes, I was just being glib.

I realize that but for me there is an element of truth if it were possible to put them on the ballot, its very ironical hahah

Beginning to wish I voted for ANZ in the last election.

Judging by the positive reactions to this comment, ANZ's strategy was a master stroke.

They only care about their exposure to a short-sharp correction - and continue pushing the government toward supply-side as opposed to regulatory solutions (i.e., higher bank capital requirements and rent controls).

Anything but rent controls as that would possibly bring about that short-sharp correction depending on how highly leveraged their property investors are.

I very much agree with your concerns Kate -- but I don't think rent controls are the right tool.
Too easy to manipulate, and they don't solve either the supply-side or the "capital gains are a law of physics" problems.
I know for a fact that my new landlords are losing money on the property I live in. Rent controls assume some level of caution and sanity on the part of property investors, not currently in evidence. They'll also struggle to work when there's a mismatch between the available volume and composition of supply and what's demographically required, which is what we have. I'd be more in favour of a massive, at-any-costs, multi-generational overbuild of state housing. Just throw everything at it for 20 years, until the idea of a housing shortage is laughable, and then let the chips fall.

Yes, lots of landlords are losing money, but mainly those renting a property at the higher end of the house/apartment price market and/or those that purchased their rental relatively recently (past 1-3 years). I'm not targeting the rent control formula at that end of the market (likely those already losing money are charging below what would be the weekly maxima), rather I'm concerned about higher and higher rents at the lower quartile household income end of the property spectrum.

Like the houses at that lower end - as they are coming off a low base, the price increases are higher relative to RVs. In other words, the trend is for the lower the RV, the higher the percentage above RV that existing owners are realising - and those inflated prices being paid are being passed on by way of above market rent prices being set.

And, yes any rent controls should be implemented alongside a massive state housing build as we will likely see a higher percentage of beneficiaries arising from the COVID pandemic.


Controversial but correct statement by ANZ economists that Kiwis (and the government) must accept house price declines. Trying to alter the economic cycles of boom and bust has never worked out well for any economy, it just leads to sluggish economies.


In a new world where market corrections, downturns, recessions aren’t allowed to occur, this is a brave statement. More PR posturing I’d suggest.


Agree with you Bugger. ANZ run their loan book how they choose to and they have been choosing to let investors leverage up and now they care? No, they are seeing data that scares them.

...and where it all began.. a good watch.


"Policymakers and the public both need to be willing to accept house price stabilisation or even gradual real house price declines."

Gradual real house price declines. They're not suggesting that nominal prices should fall.
Most home owners would hardly notice if real prices decline while nominal prices stay static or increase slowly, so that's probably the ideal scenario.

With inflation knocking on the door of 0% - is it worth while caring whether they talk of nominal or real?

Yes, because inflating us out of this problem would cause the least pain across the board. Whether they can pull that off is another issue.

Inflation was easier when debts were small, a few decades ago. How now?

...rates, insurances, cars, property, rents are already on the move. Chuck in supply chain issues and the growing number of the work force around the globe being paid to not produce, I wouldn't be too confident this 0% will here for much longer.


Lip service ....
"Curbing immigration cycles would reduce pressure on the housing stock"

Bit late for that - they're already here - 500,000 arrived over the last 5 years

- deleted since I misunderstood -

That's not 'per year'

Yes, net immigration was around 87,000 for the year ended February 2020. That's way above what we have come to consider as "normal", which of course is excessive anyway for our existing infrastructure — including housing. Ardern promised to slash immigration in 2017 but didn't. She now hides behind the fact that immigration is curtailed by Covid to argue soaring house prices can't be the result of immigration.
But we were already "pre-loaded"by the huge influx pre-Covid.


Not surprisngly no mention of reducing credit availablity for property.

Ssshhh, you're not allowed to talk about that! Just keep repeating "supply issues", the public shouldn't be pestered with such intricate details!


Where else can you get a tax-paid return of 33% on your dollar

The tax-free status of residential housing, and commercial buildings is a magnet for investment funds. It is an acceptable veneer that produces equivalent results to tax-avoidance and tax-evasion.

Soon to be 39%. Wasn't that the trigger for house price increases under Helen Clark?

Probably a good moment to remind this Parliament petition to implement a capital gains tax on residential property


Who created this problem 10 years ago John Key.
Just remind who chairs the ANZ???
JK is just a joke he has destroy this country for hard working kiwis and young people.


Whilst no fan of JK, this started in the late '80s over multiple governments.


Indeed. Key's biggest fault was his betrayal of his own campaigning on the urgent need to fix the housing crisis.

The very same housing crisis that ceased to exist once he became Prime Minister. Ardern risks becoming Key 2.0 by pandering to people who "expect" house prices should keep rising when the only way to do this is through wealth transfers upwards.


The problem existed before JK


It started to get bad under HC's reign and she did jack about it.

Yes and remember who the foreign minister was? Yep, good old Winnie. And he did the same thing he did this last time around. Nothing.


He is a Joke, but that does not invalidate the message.


Affordability is measured in terms of a "single family" unit

First hand experience
Way back in 2005 while visiting a friend in Lincoln West Auckland attended an auction of the house accross the road. Small house. A lower economic area. House to the left of the house for sale was a state house that was a typical 6 nights a week party house with a constant stream of visitors

There were 2 bidders. 1 bidder was a single Maori couple. The second bidder comprised 2 Romanian families acting together. The second bidder blew the first bidder away. No contest.

During the 2 months whence house prices scorched higher there were reports of families joining together and combining their resources to compete in the investment space. It's happening. What else would you expect. Single unit families acting alone have been pushed further down the ladder

Affordability is being re-defined


Yes, exactly, and that is where the median income multiple actually understates the issue, as it is based on household income, which used to mean one income earner.

Now it more likely means two income earners or more. Yet even with the total income increasing per household, the median income to house price ratio has gotten worse.

But as a measure of affordability, the median multiple is a very good yardstick, and that any multiple greater than 3x signals a dysfunctionality in the system, which was first noticed in approx. 1994.

We didn't have to wait until 2020 to realize this.

I don't think it necessarily does indicate a dysfunction in the system.

Technology has come a long way since 1994: a lot of things have gotten a lot cheaper in nominal terms (think of small kitchen appliances, TVs, other electronic stuff), while other things may have stayed about the same price in nominal terms, which means in real terms they're cheaper. Clothing is far cheaper than it used to be, too.

So with all of this extra 'freed up' money it's not surprising its chasing houses.

I'm not suggesting the current situation is acceptable or appropriate, but suggesting that the economy of 2020 should look identical to that of 1994 vis-a-vis house prices is a bit naive.

Adam Smiths' economics is just as relative today as when they were first said. What is gotten us into this mess is because we have gone away from first principles.

And considering I have worked in the industry, both in NZ and overseas for many years, plus studied this topic extensively, my comments are based on experience and knowledge.

This is land and housing economics 101. 1) The freed-up money only chases what it is encouraged to chase. We have a housing crisis because that is what our policies promote.

And 2. what freed up money? How can there be freed up money when the median multiple shows that there is less of it for the likes of food, education, savings, etc.

What housing is chasing, is 'made up' money due to the monopoly induced reduced supply to demand. It is not money they have made from some other activity and they have put into housing per se, all they have done is leverage the lack of supply induced growth in house prices. Approx. 1/3 to 1/2 of the value of a house is due to these monopoly induced costs.

Historically, in most countries, including NZ, prior to the early '90s the median multiple has always been around 3x. And there are still jurisdictions that have the same median multiple of 3x today as they have always had, and they have high immigration and lower interest costs.

This is land and housing economics 101. 1) The freed-up money only chases what it is encouraged to chase. We have a housing crisis because that is what our policies promote.

Except NZ is not the only country that has seen massive house price gains over the last 3 decades. Almost every other developed country has, as well. NZ is among the worst, and no doubt our policy settings are contributing to that, but this is not a problem unique to us.

And 2. what freed up money? How can there be freed up money when the median multiple shows that there is less of it for the likes of food, education, savings, etc.

Not entirely sure what you're saying here. Basically education, healthcare and housing are the only things that have gotten more expensive since 1994. And by referencing the 'median multiple' I assume you are talking about housing costs, and thus saying there is 'less money' for everything else because money is being spent on housing instead - which is what I said but backwards - prices of things have dropped and so money is being spent on houses.

All countries or jurisdictions that have NZ problems have a similar issue with restrictive land policies. Most of NZ's problems are related to our use of the English land law, think of Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, and the UK as having the same problems. California has similar issues but look at the huge difference between them and Texas, both have high immigration and low-interest rates. Californias median multiple is not even as high as NZ's, and Texas is less than half.

There is no immutable law that says housing in NZ should be what it is. It's purely policy decisions that have allowed housing to become so unaffordable.

The question to ask yourself is why housing instead of putting that extra into education, healthcare, save for retirement, or invest in other investment classes, etc.? Why would you invest in an asset that is twice as expensive as it needs to be? The exact same house could be built for half the price and yet have exactly the same amenity value.

Investing and making a return on housing development (actually all investments) should be based on value-added, not non-value-added speculative gains.

Can u point me to any economic first principles that discuss this affordability ratio of 3x income..? ( Im not being facetious... I'm serious )
I remember engaging Hugh P when he posted to this site, but he could not really explain the reason for 3x... just said to check out Houston, Texas.
( interest rates also play a very big part in determining what is affordable.. 12% mortgage rate is very different to a 3% rate )
I have been unable to find any , first principled reason, why a house has to be 3x income..??

In contrast, I find it very meaningful to look at the ratio of farmland prices on the urban boundary vs section prices in the inner city suburbs.
eg. farmland might be $20/sqm vs $3000/sqm for inner city land. ( Im guessing)
To me... this metric might be more relevant and realistic to use as a guide in heading toward "affordable" housing, than the 3x income ratio,
( eg.. building cost inflation has always gone up much faster than wage rate inflation)

The 3x median is the result of basic economic principles, anything by Evans and Bertaud

And there is plenty of good stuff on Hughs's site .

But you have hit the nail on the head with farm price land, which is directly linked to the median multiple.

That is, the price of all residential land is set by the price of land on the fringe, ie what the farmland can be bought for.

This gradient of a lower price on the fringe to relatively higher into the CBD is the same for any city in the world, irrespective of the restrictions on fringe land supply it has.

But whatever that fringe farmland price is, then the gradient starts from there. If there are no restrictions then the price starts close to the rural sales price eg $50,000 per ha. if it's restricted like it is in NZ then it starts at approx $2,000,000 per ha and goes up from there.

When there is no restrictive supply, the land can be bought at the farmland price. Farmland price is set by the economic return of whatever the farmer can grow or stock on it. It is only when the land is restricted that it becomes worth more as farmland/residential land.

I have done the numbers on a number of NZ subdivisions using tendered pricing, but making allowance for the land input at closer to the farm price, and it comes out at allowing land and house development at close to 4x income. it will still be higher in NZ because we also have building supply issues, which is another story in itself.

This median multiple is also reinforced if you take the non-value added costs out of a price, which is basically the difference between the price for a product in a truly competitive market and the price for it in a restrictive market. When you do this, you almost always come back to a median multiple of 3x.

Thks Dale.... I'll check out those books.

Thinking out loud.... Size of house on the size of plot are big variables that influence the total cost of land/house price.
A 100sqm house is quite different to a 200sqm house....etc.

In theory.... In todays current paradigm ,we could build "skyline garage" type homes on 100sqm plots of land and sell these on a x3 or 4 multiple ....and thus call them "affordable". ( modern equivalent of a shanty town.?? ).

Point Im making is that varying factors determine the economic realities of a possible x3 multiple being the "norm"...
( In my youth the "norm" was a 120sqm house on a quarter acre )

I respect ur knowledge so will accept ur view about 3x being the result of basic economic principles.....until I can prove it otherwise...

You have just hit onto another economic principle when you say about reducing house size to get a 3x median.

In a restrictive supply situation, which we are in, then all savings in one part of a system get captured by the most restrictive part, so in your example, as house size reduces (in trying to make the total package more affordable) then the price of the most restrictive part increase.

So you end up with 450m2 sections in Flatbush for $695,000. You would be hard-pressed to put a skyline garage on that for 3x median income (even if you were legally allowed).

You can see this effect whenever the Govt. do something to add to demand without increasing supply. When they lower interest rates, land prices go up. When they subsidize home loan grants, land prices go up. When builders build smaller or make supply savings, land prices go up.

And yes you can actually get less than 3x median multiple in certain situations in restrictive systems. That is when you get a genuine bust and housing can sell below its value-added replacement cost. This only happens when you get a boom and then the countercyclical bust. This obviously is not good for the economy, but neither is our present boom.

The best systems are stable. It's not just about a market reverting to the mean, it is about a system where the range is very small that it almost equals the average. The average of 50 + 50 is 50, the average of 0 + 100 is also 50. The former is a stable system, the latter boom/bust system, yet they both have the same average, and therefore would look the same if the average was the only thing you measured them on.

When they are stable, the supply curve will lie almost exactly on top of the demand curve, ie supply can equal demand in almost real-time. So if demand doubles (say due to lower interest rates) then if supply can double in almost real-time to match, then the price will still stay the same, and if the reverse happens and demand falls, supply falls to match, and prices stay the same.

That's why in a stable system, things like interest rates, immigration will have almost no effect on prices. No system is completely stable, and there are certain situations outside everyone's control that can upset the best of systems.

But all our problems are self-inflicted.

I agree with u about supply/demand curve.
Are u familiar with the writings of Fred Harrison..??
For him, a "stable' system , in regards to property is when there is a proper "land " tax ( ie. Natural resource tax ).
Without that , all the productivity and infrastructure improvement gains appropriate into the Utility value of land.
This has resulted in a boom/bust cycle that the likes of Homer Hoyt have researched to be an 18yr cycle.

No, I'm not familiar with Harrison but will look him up.

Looks like we have our Christmas reading sorted.

Have a good one.

Roelof. Have a look at a rural town like Feilding in Manawatu. Feilding is a town about 2 miles by 2 miles. Sections in town sell for $250k for a sixth of an acre. So $1.5m an acre. Farmland on the other side of the boundary so only 200 metres away have a govt valuation of $15k an acre, So the price goes up 100 fold as you cross the town boundary.

Yes ... totally get that..
Dales description of the gradient line from land prices at the urban boundaries vs inner city land is pretty compelling... Makes complete sense to me.

Hard to believe that even Fielding is suffering from restrictive Land use rules... These town planners must all be educated in the same place..??


Are you hearing PM?


Buying house in Forrest Hill 10 years ago for $550k 4 bedroom family homes now $1.5m that has happened over 10 years mostly from 2012 to 2017 Thank you John Key.
That is why the country got rid of him and his party still cleaning up the mess.


House price inflation was highest under Helen Clarke, followed (now closely) by Jacinta Arden. By comparison John key slowed the market down majorly.


Laughable comment. House price inflation was bad during the Clark years (off a low base and pricing multiples to income). Key got into power in 2008 and it took off in earnest. It has moderated under Ardern's government but for the last 8 months when the RBNZ tipped petrol on the embers. At least Labour has tried to do something, albeit ineffectively. The foreign buyers ban was a good start. Unfortunately Kiwibuild has been a disaster.

Key's government opened the immigration spigots, made no provision for infrastructure and then denied there was a problem. This will take another 10 years to sort out IMO.


I'd also say it's a bit of a stretch to put 100% blame solely on the Clark government, there was no benefit of hindsight. John Key had the benefit of hindsight and campaigned on it. Likewise with JA.

In the link supplied above it looks like Clarke had several quarters in the 20-25% inflation range with the majority of her quarters above 15%.

Key had as many quarters below 0% as he did over 10%.

The latest REINZ figures which are missing from your chart above appear to show National house price inflation over 20% in many regions this last quarter.

Suggest you check your facts.
Auckland house price inflation in 2015-16, for a 15 month period exceeded 24% annualised. Key was PM then.
2017-19 price inflation in Auckland under Labour was nil.
HPI in Auckland last 5 years, according to REINZ this month, was 6%

Nice cherry picking, take a 15 month period here and a five year period there. You know what they say about statistics.

You guys are v predictable. G back and examine what Ptolemy said above. He cites Key government as starting in 2008. House price inflation for 2008-11 was about 7% in Auckland. You do not really want full facts for 2001-20 even if I did provide them, you just want to continue dissing. House price inflation, pa, in last 12 years peaked in 2014-16 and everyone with knowledge of the matter knows that. It was on news every month for 2 years. For whole two years it as 20% plus.
Perhaps you could cite something researched for a given time period, instead of lazy habit of continuing to pick the bones of others' efforts and contributions, like what they proffer is all done for asinine selective reasons, unlike your objectivity and sophistication

What do you mean "you guys"? You can't compare a fifteen month period you hand picked with a sixty month period you hand picked and expect anyone to take what you have to say seriously. The issue at hand is the rate at which house prices have increased during successive governments, so how about I just drop a link to the HPI and let the readers look at all the data? No need to selectively pick a couple of periods to suit my worldview.

You, Yvil and p8 is who I mean. Sometimes P8 also.
Printer slightly different because he is v well informed and presents argument and analysis which I respect.
Prices rose a great deal 2001-06 because of China being given access to WTO and capital leaving their country.
Then, major hiatus 2007-11.
Growth resumed in sales and prices 2012-16 (late 2016)
Essentially static 2017-19 inclusive.
Point being that periods of mania should and usually are, followed by declines or at least stasis.
However, CB since 2008 in USA and now in NZ too, want to artificially prevent any decline whilst using inadequate tools to prevent manias.
And crucially, justifying this as a generic benefit to pop as a whole when in fact it benefits those leveraging against existing wealth holding the most.
Sales peaked in 2004-5 roughly in Auckland at around 46000. This year has been about 31,000.

Let me spell this out for you as simply as I can, hopefully you can understand this:

Clark Government: Dec 99 - Nov 08. Starting HPI of 705, ending HPI of 1395. CAGR of 7.88%.
Key/English Government: Nov 08 - Oct 17. Starting HPI of 1395, ending HPI of 2449. CAGR of 6.45%
Ardern Government: Oct 17 - Today. Starting HPI of 2449, current HPI of 3350. CAGR of 11.01%.

The claim was that house prices rose faster under Clark than Key, which they did. You picked a couple of periods to suit your own worldview and are wrong.

Suspect those are national figures

Separate numbers for Auckland and the Rest would be more revealing
The non-Auckland numbers drag the Auckland numbers down

Im reading a book written in 1978 by Wolfgang Rosenberg.

He has a "land index" for farmland.
In 1950 it was 100 and in 1975 is was 1537. 1500% in 25 yrs. ( thats an annual compound growth rate of about 11% )

House and land price affordability have been an issue in almost every decade I've studied.
Things have only become an issue now because of the nature of differing rates of exponential growth. eg house prices and incomes etc
Also... population in 1950 was less than 2 million by 1975 it was 3 million

The point I'm making ... In a much larger context, the relentless rise in Land prices transcends the boom/bust market cycles and is probably more structurally entwined with the nature of our Monetary system ( monetary system ), our taxation system, our urban planning and also our Immigration policies ..

It becomes hard to hold Helen Clark, John key, baby boomers, speculators and Rent racking ..etc as being solely or largely responsible for our current mess..
Everyone wants painless solutions to the problems.... ie.. someone else should suffer ( eg.. rent controls....taxes to collapse the mkt...etc )
Structural changes only tend to happen when we hit a brick wall...and dont mind a little pain...

Rents dont seem that out of wack with incomes ..( see chart under affordability subheading)

You appear to be cherry picking your data points. If you look at the first 4 years of Key’s time as PM you’ll see negative house price inflation. In the link supplied above it looks like Clarke had several quarters in the 20-25% inflation range with the majority of her quarters above 15%.

Key had as many quarters below 0% as he did over 10%.

NZ is more than just Auckland. The latest REINZ figures appear to show National house price inflation over 20% in many regions this last quarter.

Quoting quarters and then saying I am cherry picking.
Key came in at time of GFC so hardly surprising prices stalled is it?
Mania of price increases and sales rises in Auckland coincide with export of Chinese capital 2001-05 and 2014-15 (late in year)
Suspicion of HK exodus impact in last 8 months also, despite evident LVR and rate cuts drivers.

A user helpfully supplied a link to data by quarter above. The source appeared reliable so I used that.

The actual amount of increase in dollar terms is more important than the %. Its the dollar amount which interest is calculated off and amount of repayments required, plus the deposit.
The base was extremely low when Labour were in power. So 100k to 200k a 100% increase , is substanitially less of an issue than 400k going to 800k

So you are saying that Arden has caused the greatest amount of house price inflation in New Zealand history?

Hmmm...I wonder who the Chair of ANZ is these days??

Never liked him much but he actually chose to stand down himself so you're wrong there. I think most people agree that if he had run again, they would've romped home. Putting Bill English as the leader was never the brightest idea.

He had no choice but to abandon ship. Winnie was always going to be kingmaker and he was never going to swallow that rat.


Great piece.
Stable population. Who wudda thought. (Well many do think it, but politicians?)
Falling prices. Not a problem. It did not matter when house prices went up. You lived in the same house, same mortgage, and if you moved, it was into a similar price situation.
So prices fall, it's still same house you are living in and same mortgage etc.
So it's not great for speculators? Not a problem. Speculators are not why we have houses.


What strange times we live in when a retail bank has more commonsense and goodwill than its regulators.

This property party is all but over.
Agreed that current increases are unsustainable and I would not be buying in the expectation for significant gains in the short and even medium term.
For a FHB it is about a home (with that entails in terms of family security and intrinsic value) and any decision making regarding the market is fraught with uncertainty. Prices may have some correction, they may plateau, or they continue to rise albeit at a moderate rate (which is seemingly acceptable to Jacinda).
The bottom line for FHB is that being able to service the mortgage is the critical factor and short term market fluctuations are irrelevant. In the long term there will no doubt be capital gains.
The current gains over the past couple of decades is going to be folk lore.

Wishful thinking printer8, the party is over when most people leave the party.

Now it is even banks bailing out, so you tell me for how long you can get it running without them.


It's all been said before by many people for many years.
A lot has actually been done by Labour and in fairness the previous government to free up planning restrictions.
It's immigration settings that now need to be a focus.


Immigration has little to do with this, prove is how little numbers we had this year yet prices have kept raising. The problem is not blaming who comes to this country but to those that are already here taking advantage of others.

A housing investment BAN should be in place, the sooner the better.

Year to October 2020
Annual net migration gain – 59,500 (± 1,300), down from (year to Oct 2019)64,000 (± 200).
Still a small city


If population growth slows then the demand for housing slows.
It is very relevant.
But it is only one piece of the pie.
Yes we have hardly had any immigration this year and prices have risen, but we have also had insufficient building to match demand for a long time. Even if we had almost no immigration for 2 years I doubt supply/demand would be balanced out.
We need permanently lower immigration, then we will start to see moderation in price increases.

Agree, my point is that blaming this solely to immigration is not just short sighted but also misleading, since most migrants cannot afford buying a house and usually share in overcrowded homes. We might see probably in a few years a push of prices due to migrants that arrived a few years ago when they reach a position when they can afford to buy, but it is not something that happens right after someone crosses over customs at Auckland airport as the media seems to think.

Yes, most migrants cannot afford buying a house. But bringing more migrants will just make supply even harder to catchup with demand which causing the issue more severe. You need to have a plan on how much migrants you can bring to this country from time to time based on how much our infrastructure can handle. I believe this is just a common sense that we don't need to have a discussion on this topic anymore. Just look at where Auckland is at, Can we handle another large amount of migrants to Auckland with many issues (water supply crisis, housing crisis, health care crisis, etc.) are going on in Auckland?

Not so sure that most migrants cannot afford property - there are two families adjacent to us who immigrated in the last 10 years and both own their respective properties. One has a rental too. Both great neighbors who came here for the Kiwi lifestyle and values.

And even if they can't afford to buy they are adding to rental demand...

Exactly, 10 years ago.


Migrants definitely contribute to the housing shortage and high rents. How else would you be able to charge $450 p.w. for a shoebox apartment in Auckland, if it wasn't going to have 4 international students living in it?

@B2I. It's about "population" and "immigration" is just a component of that. Different words. Think "population"
What is our desired population? We never decided that. We should.
Another word, "growth". Has it worked for us or has it injured us.? Or which bits of it are good and which useless and harmful.
These things can be managed to our benefit.

We also need land supply opened up, otherwise, the land bankers and council will just hunker down and still trip feed out land to keep the price up, or at least not fall as much as it should do.

Immigration is a factor but not the major one. We have enough people in this country to fill their shoes with more and more debt to continue this Ponzi scheme.

Immigration policy, interest rates, cgt or lack of one, ffl program, responsivity of supply are all reasons why house prices have sky rocketed and in turn all or any could be used to bring them down. What is missing is simply the will to do so.

Yes we have a boomlet mania induced by CB action alone.
Demographic fact is that Auckland pop of 40-47 year olds who have most housing wealth and ability to transact in market, peaked in 2018 and is not due to surge again til 2023.
This idiocy is self-inflicted.
Growth in Auckland median was nil 2016-late 2019. Could have kept it there but no Mr Orr had to drink Fed cool aid didn't he

This is where definitions are important. If they have freed up planning restrictions then you would have seen prices come down.

Anything other than this measure means they didn't, whatever you call it.

Sorry, but housing market dynamics aren't that simple.
Freeing up regulation can actually result in land value inflation. It's one of the reasons so many properties in Auckland are selling so far above their CVs.

That's my point, you are using the wrong definition of what freeing up the market means.

If it's done as per the correct definition, it has to result in price deflation (from an overinflated price to begin with), otherwise, you don't know what you are measuring.

If you don't know what your hunting, you are just going for a walk in the woods.


I am wondering that for the people said "The NZ housing market is alive and well!", how do they think about this report? Do you still believe it's alive and well when this report clearly says "Housing unaffordability is an enormous problem in New Zealand"?
Also for those people who keep attacking so called "doom and gloom" interests users, what does this mean to you?
"Policymakers and the public both need to be willing to accept house price stabilisation or even gradual real house price declines."
"Not only would this help affordability, but a managed supply-induced decline in house prices is a much better outcome than a painful correction, which is a risk under the current market structure,"

Yes. Market is "alive and well" suggests healthy - a highly subjective assessment resting on selective criteria and perspective.
Healthy for whom?
Generic descriptors are always suspect for good reason.
If government and CB wanted a wealth effect with efficacy in short term re propensity to consume we all know (since Keynes said it in 1936) that bottom half of pop spend was they get. Wealthy don't because don't need to. Meanwhile here we have usual post 2008 guff fro CB about making wealthy feel richer so they will drop a few crumbs to lower orders. Well, as Yanks put it, "don't piss down my back and tell me its raining"

Someone should tell ANZ the market is always right. They are sounding like a pack of wets.


What market? We have government subsidies for prices and rental yields, and government monetary policy preventing a "worst case scenario" of house prices falling.

In a free market price discovery is allowed and subsidies aren't required.


Yip we have a central bank and government backed property ponzi but also property investors telling us about 'Mr Market'.

There is no free market in NZ, mate, regardless of what the housing Ponzi promoters keep proclaiming:
a) there is no free market since the RBNZ have massively intervened in the market, so to make the current interest rate environment and the bond markets completely meaningless
b) there is no free market since all appropriate risk pricing mechanisms have been destroyed by the RBNZ's actions
c) there is no free market since residential property speculators have been unfairly favored by the existing tax regime, ongoing outlays in form of landlord subsidies, and Governments (Labour and National) whose actions have been directed towards making sure that the housing market is protected from the normal swings that any asset class is subjected to, in a normal market

In one statement, as you correctly said, we have a central bank and government backed property Ponzi.
Property speculators should, at the very least, have the decency not to refer to the free market.

They should also concede how the last 20 odd years has been an insane run - likes of which we may never see again in our lifetimes - but instead like a ponzi scheme they spend their time encouraging others to join so they can maximise their personal interest - at the detriment to the entire financial system.

Yes, and it is a reaction to a system that allows rentier capitalism which allows the market to be captured by land bankers, council, and anyone else given the opportunity to get a monopoly.

One feeds off the other, with the Govt. thinking another wrong will make it right.

It's a real baptist and bootleggers mentality, with the result being more unaffordable house prices.

They are both winners, Labour/Govt. get more Command and Control, and the Landbankers and speculators more money.

Here we go again with some folk citing the "market", ie what gets paid for property.
Who decides what is lent, to whom and why? Banks
Who makes decisions to drive market or reign it in? CB and government.
Market is buyers and sellers, who are flotsam on a tide driven by others who control the weather


Truly astonishing times when a bank is begging the (Labour) government to intervene on behalf of the have-nots and reduce speculation.
I wonder how the likes of Grant Robertson feel about being criticised from the left -- by Aussie banks, the ultimate corporate predators? Hopefully it chafes enough to motivate some action.

Makes you wonder just how "at risk" the banks here are? And remember there's no savings safety net, No government guarantee to protect peoples life savings like the rest of the Western world has. Me thinks, it's high time to move life savings abroad for better protection from banking collapse.

Better still put your money with a good Kiwi bank like TSB

Aren't they over leveraged?

TSB to careful for that.
Very fell run and good honest kiwi people to deal with.
Not chasing profit like the Australian banks are.
Most of the profit goes back into the community.

Not so sure TSB are on safe ground. According to a recent article TSB have a massive 85% on property mortgages for their loan book balance.

perhaps they are worried that the RBNZ wants the big banks to collapse so that they can intervene, print money, buy the property, mop up the mess but cut banks out in the future... except for Kiwibank.

Strange when the banks become more socialist than the socialists.

One sidebar to the notion that 'Gosh, how surprising that a Bank is saying more, and more sensibly, than the Gubmint' is that banks, by their very nature, can see the ebb and flow of financial transactions in the finest detail possible: every single transaction made with or through them. In other words, they are much better placed than is the Gubmint (which relies on aggregates, intermittent reports and other second-hand data channels) to make pronouncements about the state of play.

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return

A well-chosen credo. Thanks for the pointer.

Who's this from. V interesting

Rudyard Kipling. It's well worth reading the poem in full, you can find it here:

Reminds me of this passage from the second inaugural address of Franklin D. Roosevelt:

"Old truths have been relearned; untruths have been unlearned. We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics. Out of the collapse of a prosperity whose builders boasted their practicality has come the conviction that in the long run economic morality pays."

Yes the irony, that JK as Chairman of ANZ can make better policy statements than when he was PM of the country.

But will anything change?

ANZ executed contracts to purchase every residential property speculator's IOU on it's asset ledger.

Buyer's remorse is expedient hypocrisy and an inadequate response for gaming the RWA capital rules in the process of allocating ~60% of lending to the non-GDP qualifying asset sector.


Ah the dark arts of banking

Obviously ANZ filled their boots last few months, record third of lending to investors (normally under 20%) - they were the bank that drove the prices the most - now they are content/worried about the size of their own exposure to investors and so are shutting the door.

Other banks likely more cautious than ANZ (I know other banks have been harder on serving tests etc) - these other banks likely happy to hold the line at 30% deposits for investors - ANZ trying to disadvantage the competition by taking the stance that they all should be at 40%


ANZ is right.
However, house price inflation is caused by banks lending more and more to facilitate buyers paying what seller and Agent asks for. If banks did not lend what is asked for, would mean fewer purchases and less rise in prices, as fewer buyers would be in credit for a purchase. So, for a bank to protest and say the way its goings terrible is a little peculiar. They lend the money, or not. They literally lend money into existence which fuels price rises. Stop doing that if you are so bothered. Nothing will work in short term (under 3-6 months). Restricting immigration would be a start. A rule preventing investors leveraging above a certain level would be a far more precise tool. ANZ just admitted that they have recently been lending 34% of loans to investors v 18% for FHB. I wonder what the figs are in Auckland?

Yes, there is perverseness that for a professional body, banks seem to have no moral compass if left to their own devices, and need the whip hand of the RB to keep them in line.

Looks like the ANZ is anticipating something happening next year, Orr are they are just paying lip service to maintain status quo.

Some possible reasons:
- NZ still isolated until 2022
- Mortgage deferrals running out
- Sugar hit runs out, now we make do
- Immigration down
- Supply ramping up
- Govts free trades programme starts churning out more workers
- Building material cost review changes prices
- Govt frees up land
- Vacant property tax
- Interest rate rise in the USA

Just some ideas

High time that we start taxing Speculative Investors then not just raising their LVR's.

Imagine the damage brought upon the economy if COVID mk2 got away on us!

It's partly lip service but there are some obvious risks.

The main issue is that given how lending has occurred in the last 3-4 months, all of those FHB/Owner-occupiers that put 10-20% (or more) down for property could lose all that deposit money which could be devastating. Given how over-inflated everything is, is it a real risk. Prices are easily over-inflated by more than 30%.

Nice elegant solution

Michael Reddell at Croaking Cassandra's recommended a solution is - if by its actions the Government smacked prices down by 20% it could underwrite any negative-equity loss by FHB's who have purchased in the last 12 months - the rest can go jump

Yup, exactly. The govt did a lit to mitigate the financial damage to those who lost income due to covid, because we had to lockdown to prevent a bigger crisis. If we have to reduce house prices to prevent a different crisis, no reason why the govt cant help those who would be worst affected.

Yes, the Helen Clark foundation made a similar suggestion in a paper they wrote about housing solutions.

Helen Clark with this, and JK with ANZ now, how come they can't put forward these ideas when they are in power. They were told of these solutions then.

Government to underwrite 100% of the purchase price for houses bought by FHB 12-24 months ago. Underwrite 90% of the value of houses bought by FHB in the last 12 months, and make a statement to underwrite 85% of prices for the next twelve months, and 80% for the 12 months following that. For FHB only. This should send a message. Once that is in place we can start slowly ramping up the LVR, DTIs and interest rates to more sensible levels.

ANZ perhaps realizing that since April 2020 about 80,000 less renters/buyers arrived in NZ.

You're on to it. I too think ANZ have rental data that looks worrying, i.e. rents are starting to flatline. But are they? Is there any data to support this? My understanding is it's only Queenstown that has falling rents at the moment.

What ANZ have said is a great message but RBNZ would not allow house prices to remain static or cool. The price increases ("wealth effect") now fund a substantial part of peoples spending above their regular incomes as people use their equity to borrow for cars, holidays, consumer debt consolidation etc. This is what commenters mean when they say housing is New Zealands economy, in a real way a very substantial part of many peoples disposable income is supported by asset price inflation. If that stops CPI would fall off a cliff and RBNZ would unleash a new wave of liquidity to kick-start inflation.

The only fix would be rising incomes and productivity but seeing as that peaked in 2008 I wouldn't hold my breath any time soon. Our economy has stalled for almost a decade now and there is no initiative or policy to support a return to growth.


The wealth effect is a farce - it just moves wealth from one lot of folk to another, from the poorer who spend more of their income to the wealthier who spend less.

It does both really.

Stating the obvious - for existing house prices to fall ( other than being caused by a huge fall in our population ) the cost of new builds has to fall, ie land has to get a lot cheaper, building materials need to drop significantly, and dear I say it tradies will need to take a haircut. This is on top of the shortage of trained people from surveyors to builders to truck drivers to roofers. If existing house prices were to fall for some reason ( not sure what that reason would be say a credit crisis ) say 30% unless the cost of new builds fell like suggested above, the construction industry would collapse setting another period of shortage to fuel another boom. Possible solution is to bring in massive Chinese companies with their people ( on a temp visa's ) to build on a huge scale that NZ will never have the ability to do.

and where would those chinese workers live?

and where would those chinese workers live?

The Chinese area already building here in big numbers.

And so we really want to cosy up to China more than we are already?

How did we get to the point where NZers can't build their own houses. We used to be able to.

Just my opinion

I have given some thought to the many pressures that have influenced house prices in NZ. No single action on its own has done it. It is the sum total. WFF and A/S are included as a continuing lubricant as a direct subsidy to landlords which in turn facilitates investors. While migrants and international students have nosedived they have left behind an irrational and over-inflated market where the current government is terrified of deflating it, enacting complicated monetary schemes and no taxes that tell the locals prices are not going down

The tax-free status of residential housing, and commercial buildings is a magnet for investment funds. It is an acceptable veneer that produces equivalent results to tax-avoidance and tax-evasion. Where else can you get a tax-paid return of 33% on your dollar

The tax-free attractant exists as a powerful incentive throughout the following table

2010-2015 was the period of Princes, Princelings, Princesses, Foxes and Flies, and money laundering

2020 - House prices increase 40% since Labour elected 2017
2020 - RBNZ cuts interest rates by 0.75% to 0.25%
2020 - Interest paid to $200 billion TD's slashed to 1% - now looking for a home
2020 - Outward Overseas Travel by locals curbed, $10 billion looking for a home
2020 - Air'Bnb, Tourism, Hospitality, Restaurants nosedive
2020 - RBNZ begins QE1, QE2, QE3. and wage support
2020 - International Student Door closed
2020 - Coronovirus - Border Shut - Immigration ceases - Tourism ceases - Returnees surge
2020 - Net Migration 12 months to March 79,000
2019 - RBNZ cuts OCR 0.75%
2019- WFF & AS - Immigration surge
2019 - Net Migration March 55,100
2018- WFF & AS - Immigration surge
2018 - Net Migration 12 months to March 51,200
2017 - Labour Government elected
2017 - Net Migration to March 73,200
2016 - RBNZ cuts OCR 0.75%
2016- WFF & AS, Immigration surge
2016 - Net Migration to March 68,900
2015 - House prices double since National elected
2014 - RBNZ raises OCR 1.00%
2014- WFF & AS, Immigration surge
2013- WFF & AS, Immigration surge
2012- WFF & AS, Immigration surge
2012 - International Student intake surges
2011 - RBNZ cuts OCR 0.5%
2011 - ChCh Earthquake - RBNZ cuts interest rates
2011 - House Prices stagnate
2010- WFF & AS, Immigration surge
2010 - House prices plateau
2009 - RBNZ cuts OCR 2.5%
2009- WFF & AS, Immigration surge
2008 GFC
2007- WFF & AS
2006- WFF & AS
2005 - House prices double since Labour programs
2004 - WFF & AS
2003- Immigration upturn
2001 - WFF and Accommodation Supplement start
2000 - Immigration trickle
1997 - Hong Kong - exodus to Australasia begins

To give it more context, and as the real ignition source, put in when the compact city ideology, the reinterpretation of the RMA, and restrictive growth policies came in.

Interesting timeline, thanks, iconoclast.

Wondering what source you used for the "WFF & AS - Immigration surge" historical data.

Did both WFF & AS increase substantially during those periods, alongside the immigration surge?

I'd be really interested in a source that charted WFF & AS costs over these time periods.


Current costs of accommodation supplements and income related rent relief = $4 billon a year

Property tax free status? I must tell my accountant, they obviously didn't know this.

Housing costs over the last 20 to 30 years have been a total aberration and not how a normal competitive market should work. Look at these references

Mike Greer homes are building some prefab homes from a Toyota.Panasonic JV hose builder. They said that if they could Guarantee 1,000 homes Panasonic/Toyota would set up a NZ factory.

Look at the Taiwan project apartment building figures
Cost 150 million yen = 2.2 Million NZ $
Floor area 17,800 square meters
Cost per square meter NZ $120 (how does this compare with NZ costs)

Note also
35 years ago the cost of building the average home cost the equivalent of about 2 new Toyota corollas. Now a new house costs the equivalent of 26 new Corollas to build.
Clearly the potential profits in building houses are highly attractive to highly efficient companies that really know what they are doing like Toyota and Panasonic. The resulting market forces must inevitably result in a massive reduction in building costs. (It looks like eventually a 10 to 20 fold reduction may be possible.) Our successively corrupt governments have been trying to do a King Canute act holding out against fair market forces. I would suggest that very soon the inevitable is going to happen and the ANZ is scared S-less. (If they are not, they should be.)
Prepare for a very interesting next 5 to 10 years.
If you are a property investor try to sell out now regardless of your loss.
If you are a renter, keep renting. Remember the share market maximum - "never try to catch a falling knife"

What concerns me is that the central bank has decided the catch the falling knife - so everyone's fingers get chopped off - not just those stupid enough to buy into the frenzy.

Yes they are hardly reserving their ammunition for when and if they need it latter. Their grossly over stimulatory actions are just making things a hell of a lot worse.

Cost per sqm of housing in NZ is now around $3000, with no sign of going lower. If anything, that will go up by (I would guess) 20% in the next year or two.

Unless you want a kitset home or one of those coming out of the "cheapie" factory in Masterton. No competition for building supplies and huge demand for everything to do with building. Add in supply constraints and it's boom time for the building industry in this country. For those not in the industry of course it's bust time as wages/hours get reduced and employment creeps up. Entirely expected with the current idiotic central/local government policies and a central bank intent of pumping up the real estate bubble as big as they can.

You can get a new build just north of chch for 500 - 550. Is that reasonable price?

All irrelevant when big international companies can march into town and build far better homes at about one tenth the cost. That is the point. The profits that they can make in our ponzie scheme protected market are just too huge for them to ignore. goodbye Fletcher building and the rest of the duopoly scheme crooks.

But they aren't allowed in are they? And trust me, people have been trying for many many years...

And therefore the government is a corrupt partner in the impoverishing of it's own citizens.
I am beginning to see the similarities between St Jacinda and Aung San Suu Kyi

Still got the high land costs and newsflash - they aint making any more of it. The further out people have to move, the more expensive the inner city living gets. Have you not noticed that NZ is a country where the savings don't get passed on ? if you want a bargain then it has to be small enough to be posted to NZ from E-Bay and suddenly its 1/4 of the price it is here and its delivered to your door. Sorry but I just don't ever see houses here being cheap. The market here got to where it is for several reasons, its going to be very hard to reverse the trend.

Exactly. The damage has been done over the last 20 years. It won't be unwound.
There's every chance there will be a credit crisis sometime in the next few years and prices will fall back 20%, but that's only undoing 2-3 years of price growth.
It's a terrible situation, a total joke, but it won't fundamentally change.
We need to move on and work on making renting more attractive and affordable.
Young kiwis should focus on plowing as much money as possible into kiwisaver. It might one day help them into home ownership, if not they will have a decent nest egg.

"Sooner or later, it must become apparent that this economic situation is built on sand." - Ludwig von Mises

ANZ knows something we don’t know, watch the space 2021 , Nz can’t go a year without immigration and no negative effect to housing, something is coming soon

America cant keep increasing its debt forever...maybe that's the problem.Its society is starting to fall apart.

People forget who owns our banks....its not Australians but Americans like Citicorp, JP morgan etc.

Coincidentally Citicorp own 18.5% NZME...the Herald, One Roof and yes they pay Ashley Church, Simon Barnett & Mike Hosking....JPMorgan own 16%....HSBC own 10%....get the picture.

Have a look at companies website to understand the Orwellian times we live in friends.

We have sold the Brands (NZ Herald, Auckland Savings Bank etc) of the institutions our people trust...we are not free.

And what do we as a country...a team of five million have to fall back on....farming, a few factories and changing sheets for tourists.

Happy days!

Where did you get those ownership figures?

Maybe we need somewhere else to store wealth? My bank in Germany just asked me if I want to buy a few kg of gold. I just found it in my online banking portal, and I think it's a new service. You just select which account the money comes out of, and what product you want, and whether you want it stored at the bank or delivered. Here are the prices they sent me.

It's just bollocks. You can faff with supply and tinker with demand but if you dont touch the tax arrangements and incentives that make property the easiest option for investment speculation, nothing will change anytime soon. Nothing mentioned I saw.... It's just a token argument then

The median Price in 2008 when John Key came in was 440k in Auckland , Decemeber 2016 when he quit it was 855k. That is a 415k increase in house prices. Put aside the percentages and look at the actual figures.

Under Key house prices rose by more than nearly all the governments prior to John Key taking office.

Increase under KEY = 415k
Increase under all governments prior to Key since the dawn of time = 440k


Too late to ever think my family and I can return. Young, with a law degree, there is absolutely no way I could possibly get onto the property ladder. All young people NEED to come to Australia. Cost of living is so low compared to NZ, brand new houses for $320k, to feed a family of 5, $250 p/w and a litre of gas- $1 on Tues. wages in the mining sector- unbelievable wages compared to NZ. Dont get me started on Super...9%. NZ are to lose all of its young professionals and skilled semi skilled. NZ has chopped off its nose, lips and eye lids to spite its face.


For goodness sake, it's got nothing to do with immigration, it's just supply. Our housing cost is nowhere near the Singapore, Hong Kong or Shanghai. NZ will leap frog OZ if can continue increasing further their housing cost, outperform OZ - and like those cities? guarantee more OZ will move to NZ to support the ponzi, more work, as people will move to the city with high housing cost, eyeing for investment purpose. Imagine, if average Invercargill house can cost at least $985K now? - bet you that Rio Tinto will keep puffing, more people coming.

Pusheen. Your English grammar needs a lot of work. The housing crisis is caused entirely by high levels of immigration. Without that there would not be a shortage of houses.

Recent immigrant says immigration is not the problem. Shocker.