Census data shows the proportion of people owning their own home is increasing

Property / news

Home ownership rates are increasing while renting is declining, according to census data

6th Dec 24, 11:00am by Greg Ninness

The proportion of New Zealand households that own their own home is increasing, while the proportion that rent is in decline, according to the latest Statistics NZ data from the 2023 census.

The increase in home ownership is small but could mark a significant turning point in the structure of our housing market if the trend continues.

The census measures the three main types of household tenure; direct ownership where the home is owned by its occupants; indirect ownership via a family trust; and dwellings that are not owned by their occupants or via a trust, which captures most rental properties.

This shows between the 2013 and 2023 censuses, the percentage of households throughout the country that directly owned their own home increased from 49.9% in the 2013 census to 54.9% in the 2023 census.

Most of that increase is due to the diminishing popularity of family trusts as an ownership vehicle for family homes.

Trust ownership of family homes declined from 14.8% in 2013 to 11.1% in 2023, and between 2018 and 2023 they declined in absolute numbers as well as percentage share.

However, even allowing for that shift in the ownership pattern, overall home ownership, either directly or via a trust, increased from 64.6% to 66.0% between 2018 and 2023, while the proportion of homes not owned by their occupants either directly or indirectly (renters) decreased from 35.5% to 34.0%. The 2023 census showed the first lift in home ownership for 30 years.

Of course there are significant regional differences, with direct home ownership rates being greatest on the West Coast 68.1%, followed by Tasman 66.5% and Nelson 62.1%.

Direct home ownership rates are lowest in the Auckland Region at 48.1%, which is the only region where direct home ownership is below 50%.

Auckland also has the highest percentage of renting households in the country at 40.5%.

The chart below gives the ownership breakdowns nationally and by region.

The comment stream on this article is now closed.

Tenure of Households by Region
Census Years 2013 - 2023
	2013		2018		2023
Area: Total All of Aotearoa
· Dwelling owned or partly owned	725448	49.9%	847377	51.3%	978105	54.9%
· Dwelling not owned and not held in a family trust	512109	35.2%	586131	35.5%	604884	34.0%
· Dwelling held in a family trust	215280	14.8%	219555	13.3%	197112	11.1%
· Total stated - tenure of household	1452837	100.0%	1653060	100.0%	1780104	100%
Area: Northland Region
· Dwelling owned or partly owned	27861	52.1%	35379	55.1%	42546	60.4%
· Dwelling not owned and not held in a family trust	18066	33.8%	20610	32.1%	20118	28.5%
· Dwelling held in a family trust	7581	14.2%	8226	12.8%	7806	11.1%
· Total stated - tenure of household	53508	100.0%	64215	100.0%	70470	100.0%
Area: Auckland Region
· Dwelling owned or partly owned	201408	46.0%	225456	45.4%	259299	48.1%
· Dwelling not owned and not held in a family trust	168705	38.5%	201330	40.6%	218220	40.5%
· Dwelling held in a family trust	67533	15.4%	69642	14.0%	61839	11.5%
· Total stated - tenure of household	437649	100%	496428	100.0%	539361	100.0%
Area: Waikato Region
· Dwelling owned or partly owned	68193	48.5%	82917	50.9%	97464	54.9%
· Dwelling not owned and not held in a family trust	52536	37.3%	59274	36.4%	61083	34.4%
· Dwelling held in a family trust	19977	14.2%	20613	12.7%	18900	10.7%
· Total stated - tenure of household	140706	100.0%	162804	100.0%	177447	100.0%
Area: Bay of Plenty Region
· Dwelling owned or partly owned	45453	47.9%	57075	51.5%	67287	56.8%
· Dwelling not owned and not held in a family trust	33453	35.3%	36753	33.2%	35943	30.3%
· Dwelling held in a family trust	15981	16.8%	17034	15.4%	15207	12.8%
· Total stated - tenure of household	94887	100.0%	110862	100.0%	118440	100.0%
Area: Gisborne Region
· Dwelling owned or partly owned	7080	48.1%	8133	49.6%	9096	53.1%
· Dwelling not owned and not held in a family trust	6006	40.8%	6666	40.6%	6354	37.1%
· Dwelling held in a family trust	1629	11.1%	1611	9.8%	1674	9.8%
· Total stated - tenure of household	14718	100.0%	16410	100.0%	17124	100.0%
Area: Hawke's Bay Region
· Dwelling owned or partly owned	26919	49.8%	31206	51.8%	35577	56.5%
· Dwelling not owned and not held in a family trust	18420	34.1%	20151	33.5%	19143	30.4%
· Dwelling held in a family trust	8700	16.1%	8871	14.7%	8190	13.0%
· Total stated - tenure of household	54039	100.0%	60228	100.0%	62913	100.0%
Area: Taranaki Region
· Dwelling owned or partly owned	21084	52.1%	24810	54.8%	28647	59.6%
· Dwelling not owned and not held in a family trust	12951	32.0%	14205	31.4%	13755	28.6%
· Dwelling held in a family trust	6405	15.8%	6234	13.8%	5688	11.8%
· Total stated - tenure of household	40440	100.0%	45249	100.0%	48093	100.0%
Area: Manawatu-Whanganui Region
· Dwelling owned or partly owned	42228	51.7%	49737	55.0%	55953	58.8%
· Dwelling not owned and not held in a family trust	28401	34.8%	30165	33.4%	29667	31.2%
· Dwelling held in a family trust	11067	13.5%	10503	11.6%	9555	10.0%
· Total stated - tenure of household	81696	100.0%	90405	100.0%	95178	100.0%
Area: Wellington Region
· Dwelling owned or partly owned	86346	51.8%	98823	53.3%	110118	56.7%
· Dwelling not owned and not held in a family trust	58515	35.1%	64818	35.0%	65472	33.7%
· Dwelling held in a family trust	21933	13.1%	21690	11.7%	18780	9.7%
· Total stated - tenure of household	166791	100.0%	185331	100.0%	194370	100.0%
Area: Tasman Region
· Dwelling owned or partly owned	10194	58.6%	11964	61.2%	14538	66.5%
· Dwelling not owned and not held in a family trust	4356	25.0%	4761	24.4%	4935	22.6%
· Dwelling held in a family trust	2850	16.4%	2820	14.4%	2391	10.9%
· Total stated - tenure of household	17397	100.0%	19545	100.0%	21864	100.0%
Area: Nelson Region
· Dwelling owned or partly owned	9648	54.5%	11220	56.6%	12777	62.1%
· Dwelling not owned and not held in a family trust	5598	31.6%	6210	31.3%	5922	28.8%
· Dwelling held in a family trust	2445	13.8%	2388	12.0%	1872	9.1%
· Total stated - tenure of household	17691	100.0%	19818	100.0%	20571	100.0%
Area: Marlborough Region
· Dwelling owned or partly owned	9252	55.3%	10821	58.1%	12090	61.7%
· Dwelling not owned and not held in a family trust	4863	29.1%	5121	27.5%	5085	26.0%
· Dwelling held in a family trust	2607	15.6%	2679	14.4%	2412	12.3%
· Total stated - tenure of household	16722	100.0%	18621	100.0%	19584	100.0%
Area: West Coast Region
· Dwelling owned or partly owned	7176	58.9%	8151	60.5%	9675	68.1%
· Dwelling not owned and not held in a family trust	3885	31.9%	4293	31.8%	3612	25.4%
· Dwelling held in a family trust	1119	9.2%	1035	7.7%	912	6.4%
· Total stated - tenure of household	12180	100.0%	13482	100.0%	14199	100.0%
Area: Canterbury Region
· Dwelling owned or partly owned	106311	54.7%	125385	55.6%	148026	59.6%
· Dwelling not owned and not held in a family trust	61671	31.7%	72606	32.2%	75657	30.4%
· Dwelling held in a family trust	26262	13.5%	27375	12.1%	24837	10.0%
· Total stated - tenure of household	194244	100.0%	225366	100.0%	248517	100.0%
Area: Otago Region
· Dwelling owned or partly owned	37221	49.9%	44631	52.2%	51084	55.8%
· Dwelling not owned and not held in a family trust	23841	32.0%	27321	32.0%	28365	31.0%
· Dwelling held in a family trust	13461	18.1%	13473	15.8%	12102	13.2%
· Total stated - tenure of household	74523	100.0%	85428	100.0%	91551	100.0%
Area: Southland Region
· Dwelling owned or partly owned	18963	53.5%	21540	55.8%	23796	59.2%
· Dwelling not owned and not held in a family trust	10743	30.3%	11718	30.4%	11454	28.5%
· Dwelling held in a family trust	5709	16.1%	5334	13.8%	4932	12.3%
· Total stated - tenure of household	35415	100.0%	38589	100.0%	40182	100.0%
Source: Statistics NZ

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.

83 Comments

by Retired-Poppy | 6th Dec 24, 11:38am 1733438298

Nice! This is welcome news. More owner occupiers in, spec-vestors out! Lets hope that given the known overvaluations involved that for recent FHB's, it all transpires to being a positive emotional and financial experience. As prices continue adjusting lower, long may this transition continue. Houses are for living in and not speculating on.

by huttman | 6th Dec 24, 2:33pm 1733448792

More owner occupiers in, spec-vestors out!

Rental dwellings:

2013: 512109

2018: 586131

2023: 604884

by Retired-Poppy | 6th Dec 24, 3:05pm 1733450711

Thanks.

by thinktank | 6th Dec 24, 11:37am 1733438234

Thank you National.

by Greg Ninness | 6th Dec 24, 11:40am 1733438458

The figures are from the 2023 census and mark the changes from the 2018 census - nothing to do with the current government.

by Eschaton | 6th Dec 24, 12:40pm 1733442039

Arguably more correlation with Labour govt.

by mfd | 6th Dec 24, 1:33pm 1733445235

I wonder how much is to do with pushing investors into new builds via the interest deductibility rules.

Wonder what will happen to this data now that NACT first have reversed it.

by RookieInvestor | 6th Dec 24, 11:37am 1733438272

Great news!

by HouseMouse | 6th Dec 24, 11:51am 1733439084

The home ownership rate would gave got a boost from the unprecedented low interest rates that kicked in 2020-2021

by GV 27 | 6th Dec 24, 12:18pm 1733440712

And the post-2016 AUP that National basically forced through in Auckland, which wasn't a huge step but a good one in the right direction.

I don't believe the current mob have done anything close to that in terms of leaving a planning legacy, although if anything happens with the NW Busway it will be a positive step.

by Independent_Observer | 6th Dec 24, 1:28pm 1733444921

I thought over this period significantly more money/debt (and to more individuals) was lent to investors than FHBs?

(please correct me if I’m wrong)

And is it possible for home ownership rates to increase when the rate of housing debt to investors (and number of) is greater than to FHBs?

I thought it was when interest rates went up that more debt was l created to more FHBs - ie FHBs outnumbered investors significantly? Or has the high immigration meant that we can increase both while increasing the homeownership rate? (Ie foreigners arrive and get stuck in rentals?)

by JimboJones | 6th Dec 24, 2:29pm 1733448594

I wonder if we are so used to saying “houses are unaffordable for young people” that we haven’t actually realised that it might not be the case anymore.

As I have said before, KiwiSaver helps a lot with the deposit, particularly for a couple.

As for the mortgage repayments, granted they are tough at the moment due to high interest rates, but even now the mortgage isn’t that much more than rent. Give it 6 months and it might be on par.

Just did a few calcs for a NZ lower quartile house when interest rates drop to 5%:

Deposit 20%: $121,800
Mortgage: $487,200
Weekly repayments: $603.50

Seems about what you would pay in rent.

by meh | 6th Dec 24, 2:17pm 1733447865

The interest rates aren't high, it's the debt required that's high.

Using KiwiSaver as a deposit defeats the purpose of KiwiSaver and likely increased the price of homes. Limiting ones ability to borrow too much would likely reduce the price of homes - if the intention really was to have affordable homes.

Turning homes into investment/retirement vehicles (obviously not their intended purpose) is neither wise or intelligent, for a variety of bigger picture societal and economic reasons. It's an irrational logic.

by JimboJones | 6th Dec 24, 2:27pm 1733448464

I disagree, buying a home is very important for retirement. When I was their age Kiwisaver didn't exist, so someone spending all their Kiwisaver at 30 is no different to me not having any Kiwisaver at 30.

by kiwikidsnz | 6th Dec 24, 2:46pm 1733449617

+1, good point

by 26@Main | 6th Dec 24, 4:34pm 1733456064

Turning homes into investment/retirement vehicles (obviously not their intended purpose) ...... I think they mean investors, not people who buy houses to live in. For example, the investors who say things like "we're investing in rental property to fund our retirement" when in reality that's nonsense and they just want extra money.

by Nzdan | 6th Dec 24, 5:04pm 1733457896

They just present it as "for their retirement" because it frames the narrative around providing support at a time in one's life when they're vulnerable.

A way to gain sympathy and deflect the heat landlords often get.

by CN - new | 6th Dec 24, 5:13pm 1733458437

They just present it as "for their retirement" because it frames the narrative around providing support at a time in one's life when they're vulnerable.

A way to gain sympathy and deflect the heat landlords often get.

Another frequently repeated narrative by the non owner occupiers and their lobby group is that they're doing a "public service" of providing homes for their tenants. The primary motivation is entirely for profit.

In reality many non owner occupier buyers are outbidding owner occupier buyers in the existing dwelling market due the buying advantages of non owner occupier buyers.

- 100% LVR financing due to equity release / deposit recycling techniques that owner occupier buyers do not get access to

- interest only financing which most owner occupiers do not get access to

- interest deductibility which owner occupiers do not get

by CN - new | 6th Dec 24, 4:54pm 1733457298

"buying a home is very important for retirement."

If you're referring to owner occupier buyers, there is an inherent assumption that net worth increases due to rising property prices.

Look at buyers in the early 1980's and early 1990's in this market. These buyers may have been in their 30's at the time of purchase and now reaching retirement. Residential property prices are at price levels last seen in 1987. Remember that these purchasers bought using a mortgage and paid mortgage interest so their property is worth less than their total payments over the 30-35 year period. For these people, it would have been better to rent and put their excess savings in the bank for the entire 30 -35 year period.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/QJPN628BIS

Here is an example

Paid JPY26 million in 1990's. Just sold for JPY1.1 million - loss of over 95% in 34 years (a loss of 8.8% p.a). Remember that this is before the impact of leverage.

https://youtu.be/j3de0l8Pq-8?t=152

What were buyers in 1991 seeing?

1) House price growth for the 36 year period from 1955 to 1991 had increased at 13.0% p.a.

2) House price growth for the preceding 10 year period from 1981 to 1991 had increased at 6.4% p.a.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/QJPN628BIS

Observations to note:

1) Japan property prices have yet to recover to their peak 1991 levels after 33 years. House prices are currently back at 1987 levels (37 years ago - imagine getting back to your original purchase price 37 years after you bought it - not really a source of funds for retirement).

2) the house price growth for the last 50 years since 1974 in Japan is 1.4% p.a.

3) the house price growth for the past 69 years since 1955 (earliest data point) in Japan is 6.2% p.a.

by meh | 6th Dec 24, 8:12pm 1733469149

I bought a home and retirement never factored into it, nor did capital gains. KiwiSaver didn't exist and I had my own retirement savings scheme.

Buying a home is not important for retirement. Paying off a smaller mortgage and freeing up cashflow for retirement savings/investment, productive pursuits is more important.

Encouraging house price inflation for retirement and relying on the next gen to take on the debt burden is financial illiteracy. The banks and RE industry did a great job at promoting this.

by RookieInvestor | 6th Dec 24, 2:45pm 1733449516

Kiwisaver has always been advertised as being able to be used for your first home, in a way it is investing for retirement, as it saves some people paying rent on the pension.

by meh | 6th Dec 24, 7:38pm 1733467110

No. That was a change implemented by National to ramp up house prices, even though they campaigned on the housing crisis and unaffordability.

by Nzdan | 6th Dec 24, 5:00pm 1733457637

Assuming all things remain the same, in 10 years time:

Weekly repayments: $603.50
Rent: $800 +/- (3% p.a. inflation)

But aside from that, it's really subjective. Many are probably happy to pay a premium over renting for the intrinsic benefits that come with home ownership.

by JimboJones | 6th Dec 24, 6:42pm 1733463764

And in 30 years time:

Weekly repayments: $0
Rent: $1456 (3% p.a. inflation)

And your $120k deposit has been turned into a $600k home (that is assuming no capital gains).

You can probably do better with that $120k if you are real smart (and lucky), but I still think owning your own home is the best investment for the average person.

by CN - new | 6th Dec 24, 6:55pm 1733464530

"You can probably do better with that $120k if you are real smart (and lucky), "

Also remember 30 years of rates, insurance and maintenance that the owner pays and renter does not pay.

On a $600,000 property, lets say $4,200 for the first year and increasing at 3% p.a. The total payments over the 30 year period is almost $199,816.

Also depends on the total net savings differential between renting and buying over the 30 year period.

by Nzdan | 6th Dec 24, 8:28pm 1733470111

But that $4,200 is off a low base. The renter's 3% increase is generally off $20k p.a. Over 30 years the home owner has $200k of overheads payments, but the renter has paid $950k to their landlords.

Investing that $120k is a $120k initial investment value. Putting it into a house deposit becomes an initial $600k investment value with a loan attached to it. Take out the distortions, and houses will almost certainly track inflation in the long term. Your investment on the other hand is constantly fighting to beat inflation.

If that home owner with a $480k mortgage pays it off in 15 years, they'll have paid about $250k in interest (6% p.a. rate) and $80k in overheads = $330k. The renter will have paid $370k.

by CN - new | 6th Dec 24, 10:13pm 1733476406

"But that $4,200 is off a low base. The renter's 3% increase is generally off $20k p.a. Over 30 years the home owner has $200k of overheads payments"

Yes. Each person has to do their own calculations for their own situation.

The variables interact with each other.

House price growth for an owner occupier vs investment returns for a renter on the funds saved.

Under some conditions, it is better to buy, under other conditions it is better to rent.

The property promoters and those with vested financial self interests with their marketing budgets tell owner occupier buyers to buy under ALL conditions. That is not the case.

by Nzdan | 7th Dec 24, 11:37am 1733524671

The math (assuming all inputs remain constant) generally favors the home owner. I've done quite an extensive amount of calculating in the past, its generally when distortions happen that can tip things in favor of a particular option. I asked Chat GPT their thoughts, note I didn't allow for the homeowner increasing their mortgage payments over the life of the loan.

In New Zealand, if someone was to take the pick of 2 options:

Buy a house for $600k, $120k down payment, $480k mortgage at 6% p.a. The mortgage is a table loan with a fixed rate, so the interest portion is higher at the start. Assume the house appreciates at 3% p.a. They have $4200 p.a. of insurance/maintenance payments that increase each year by 3%.

Rent, invest the $120k in stocks returning 7% before tax of 17.5% p.a.. Their weekly rent payments are $600 per week, and these will increase each year by 3%. They invest the difference between renting and owning into their stock. After 15 years and after 30 years, what's the net financial position of each person? Assuming all variables are constant.

Scenario 1: Home Ownership

After 15 years: Net financial position = $521,261.13.

After 30 years: Net financial position = $1,256,540.74.

Scenario 2: Renting and Investing (Rent Paid from Job Income, 17.5% PIR)

After 15 years: Net financial position = $450,952.90.

After 30 years: Net financial position = $1,219,219.04.

by CN - new | 7th Dec 24, 2:31pm 1733535107

"its generally when distortions happen that can tip things in favor of a particular option."

Can you clarify / expand what you mean by "distortions"

"I didn't allow for the homeowner increasing their mortgage payments over the life of the loan. "

Each person has their own set of circumstances and should do their own calculations for their situation. Some people are able to increase their payments (and the magnitude of the increase in payments differs between households) and some may be unable to increase their payments.

by Nzdan | 7th Dec 24, 4:15pm 1733541345

An example of a past distortion is reducing interest rates, making housing a much more attractive investment for those who got in early than other cash investments. Allowing interest only mortgages is another, and 100% equity leverage. These are all mechanisms that predominately drive a flurry of landlords to the market, but influence/distort the values of owner occupied too.

Going forward, maybe a sustained period of negative migration results in rents falling for an extended period of time. Or conversely, inward migration pushing up demand for shelter. Maybe owner occupiers are given mortgage interest deductibility which would distort favorably the idea of owning a home.

Yes, circumstances do differ. However, if someone receives a 3% pay rise and inflation is 3%, then they can increase their repayments by 3% as everything is proportionate.

by CN - new | 6th Dec 24, 7:45pm 1733467510

And in 30 years time:

- Weekly repayments: $0

- Rent: $1456 (3% p.a. inflation)

And your $120k deposit has been turned into a $600k home (that is assuming no capital gains).

Here is something that most people may not be able see:

1) total mortgage payments over 30 years: $936,733

- pmts $600.50 per week x 52 weeks x 30 years for 80% LVR mortgage of $480,000, 5.0% mortgage interest rate and 30 years.

Note that the total interest paid over 30 years is $456,741.

2) total rates, insurance, maintenance over 30 years: $199,816

3) initial deposit $120,000

Total payments over 30 years: $1,256,549

House value after 30 years $600,000 as above.

Is that a good financial outcome for retirement? What if the homeowner needs to move closer to family or downsize (into a retirement village or more easily maintained property), or needs to sell for their aged care?

Could that total payment over 30 years of $1,256,549 be used elsewhere for an improved financial outcome after 30 years?

by meh | 6th Dec 24, 8:49pm 1733471362

I tried pointing out the mathematics over a decade ago. There was a turning point when capital gains were absolutely necessary to make it a worthwhile financial investment. All people saw was the capital gain and tax free profit.

But hey if the value doubles every 10 years, winning.

So I say again, turning homes into financial investments/assets is dumb. It shows how easily led we've been. We're not winning from this.

by Mypointis | 7th Dec 24, 4:39am 1733499584

I look at it this way, buying a house is a compulsory savings scheme. A big factor is as wages go up, you make bigger repayments and pay it off faster. When renting, your wage increase goes to rent increases. Currently my accommodation costs in my home are about 5.5k a year for rates & insurance or just over $100/week. Never going to find a rental for that and still a long time before retirement.

by safeashouses | 6th Dec 24, 12:03pm 1733439836

Great news :)

by IT GUY | 6th Dec 24, 12:20pm 1733440852

Many of the KFC munching fraternity may not have got around to doing census, I suggest that they are mainly renters....

by False economies | 6th Dec 24, 12:25pm 1733441113

KFC munching fraternity

???

by MassiveNerd11 | 6th Dec 24, 12:53pm 1733442788

Classist comments to attempt to justify the bad attitude he has towards half of the people in our society. And to make him feel that his ability to own property wasn’t mostly due to being born at the right time.

I am a renter. I eat KFC. And I am a doctor. And I guarantee my left nut has contributed more to society than he has.

by agnostium | 6th Dec 24, 2:33pm 1733448839

Brilliant response.

by UMHTR | 6th Dec 24, 12:36pm 1733441784

Any chance of expanding on what you mean by "KFC munching fraternity"? I mean, don't sugar coat it - tell us who you are really talking about.

by LASSET | 6th Dec 24, 12:40pm 1733442028

I had KFC for lunch yesterday. And have no intention on wasting my money on an overpriced house anytime soon. So it must be me.

by agnostium | 6th Dec 24, 2:35pm 1733448925

He means Maori and Pacifica.

by IT GUY | 6th Dec 24, 2:52pm 1733449957

As NZs biggest fast food seller , its hard to believe these two smaller ethnic groups are munching all that KFC by themselves?

unless you know otherwise.... I see lots of PAWGs munching...

by UMHTR | 6th Dec 24, 3:24pm 1733451869

Absolutely. Racism with a fraction of ambiguity to give the poster some (wafer thin) deniability.

I guess this site (and its advertisers) are OK with that.

by MassiveNerd11 | 6th Dec 24, 12:48pm 1733442487

Thanks for taking the mask off finally and ousting yourself as a genuinely awful person

by IT GUY | 6th Dec 24, 1:00pm 1733443238

leftie trigger so easily....

Its well known KFC and warriors tickets where offered late in the piece (normal or spicy recipe) to get people to fill in census

you guys are just showing how easy triggered you are...

So glad you will have years in the political darkness to consider your position...

The kfc munching fraternity... are people who munch on KFC (munchies not required)

by UMHTR | 6th Dec 24, 1:06pm 1733443619

Nah, it isn't "lefties triggering easy". We can just see through your dog-whistle.

Sincerely - a right winger who is sick of this shit being accepted.

by IT GUY | 6th Dec 24, 1:11pm 1733443890

I am not coming down from this roof until I get a bucket head of KFC

why is KFC always the bribe and the demand from people who

A) should have done their civic duty in the first place

B) should not be on the roof

Hopefully Willis has cut the KFC budget

by UMHTR | 6th Dec 24, 1:12pm 1733443941

You should stop digging.

by IT GUY | 6th Dec 24, 1:18pm 1733444306

You can't handle the truth.

by mfd | 6th Dec 24, 1:32pm 1733445134

So wait, did the KFC crowd complete the census, because they were bribed to do so, or fail to complete the census and led to this story?

You can't have your bigotry and eat it, too.

by IT GUY | 6th Dec 24, 2:53pm 1733450010

I like what you did there uptick

by RookieInvestor | 6th Dec 24, 1:45pm 1733445906

I agree with you IT Guy, They should not be allowing our tax funded dole money to be spent on KFC!

by IT GUY | 6th Dec 24, 2:21pm 1733448092

I did not say anything like what you are saying, shame on you, i made no comment on funding or employment status

by RookieInvestor | 6th Dec 24, 2:07pm 1733447223

come on, with a statement like.

Many of the KFC munching fraternity

its obviously something you agree with, we all know who you are talking about, whether or not you will admit it.

by meh | 6th Dec 24, 2:06pm 1733447186

"leftie trigger so easily" lol yet someone was triggered by KFC

The left/right name-calling immediately shows ones lack of credibility/ability to discuss the topic. It's as if they're simply parroting the division propaganda, being told what to think.

by RookieInvestor | 6th Dec 24, 2:51pm 1733449870

MassiveNerd, thb you can be realistic and point out habits in people without being an awful or racist person.

I'm genuinely curious, as a doctor, do you think Maori and Pasifika are more likely to suffer from diabetes and heart related disease largely due to their choices in food? or do you think it's a purely genetic factor.

by IT GUY | 6th Dec 24, 3:25pm 1733451954

that's a great question, should the Labour party ever have agreed to buy such crap food as a bribe? Did they think about the health issues as much as they did about the 90% required to unlock NZ?

rhetorical question... Labour do not think, they just follow ideology

by LapisLazuli5297 | 6th Dec 24, 4:03pm 1733454190

The Labour Govt also did the same to bribe people to take the COVID jab...Mackers vouchers too...totally ignoring the fact that obesity was the no.2 factor predicting bad COVID outcomes (the top factor being elderly age).

by MassiveNerd11 | 6th Dec 24, 6:17pm 1733462267

I never mentioned ethnic groups once. But thank you for letting everyone know that your ingrained stereotype of Māori and Pasifika people is a KFC-eating renter.

Genuinely fascinating the number of specu-vestors that have outed themselves as bigots on this single comment thread.

by blobbles | 6th Dec 24, 2:59pm 1733450365

This reads like someone drunk at midday at a work Christmas do...

by MassiveNerd11 | 6th Dec 24, 6:19pm 1733462394

Exactly why I never replied to the comment. Incoherent dribble.

by safeashouses | 6th Dec 24, 3:04pm 1733450645

@IT Guy - you let it slip dude - you are missarable and have been taking it out on anyone bar yourself.

by IT GUY | 6th Dec 24, 3:23pm 1733451782

tell me what you really think about people who eat takeaways?

by Ty Coch | 6th Dec 24, 12:22pm 1733440967

This is proportion of households, does the data also have the proportion of adults owning the home they live in?

by John Mendel | 6th Dec 24, 12:25pm 1733441106

But a few weeks ago there was an article said that more people can't afford buying a property, what has changed since then?!

by Zwifter | 6th Dec 24, 1:14pm 1733444058

RP has told everyone that its now a good time to buy, a few weeks ago the sky was falling...

by RookieInvestor | 6th Dec 24, 1:42pm 1733445761

Houses have been affordable for over a year now, many here just refuse to admit it.

by Ty Coch | 6th Dec 24, 12:59pm 1733443192

Headline on the front page says proportion of people, article is proportion of households

by Yvil | 6th Dec 24, 1:24pm 1733444687

Home ownership rates are increasing

Excellent !

by RookieInvestor | 6th Dec 24, 1:44pm 1733445867

we are now getting to a point where 50% of the articles are spruiking, 50% are DGM.

compared to 3-6months ago 90% were DGM.

The tide is turning.

by Thats All Folks | 6th Dec 24, 2:00pm 1733446827

Yes and pigs fly.

by meh | 6th Dec 24, 1:57pm 1733446623

How many more humans are neither renting or owning?

Do these stats take into account more adults in a house, but it's only the use of the house that's measured - owned or rented?

It's easy to pull data to suit a narrative. Ask the wrong questions though, and you're likely to get wrong answers.

by RookieInvestor | 6th Dec 24, 1:58pm 1733446724

are you suggesting interest.co.nz is reporting misleading information?

by Zwifter | 6th Dec 24, 2:25pm 1733448315

There is a noticeable amount of people living in cars and in vans. Very noticeable in certain spots where there is a lot of parking and toilet and water facilities are available. Doubt these people even made the Census numbers with no fixed abode. The numbers only seem to have grown over the years, at one point most were able to live in a caravan park but even that is probably too expensive now and a few of those parks have gone.

by JimboJones | 6th Dec 24, 3:30pm 1733452257

Is noticeable the same as statistically relevant? Are you talking 100's of people, 1000's of people, or 10,000's of people. You would need most of the population of Napier to be homeless to make 1% of NZ.

by Zwifter | 7th Dec 24, 11:19am 1733523593

The actual number doesn't really matter does it, what really matters is the trend. If the numbers only ever keep rising its symptom of a problem, just as the number of homeless in the Auckland CBD keeps increasing. The problem is now at a level it has become noticeable.

by meh | 6th Dec 24, 2:27pm 1733448445

Lol. I asked a few questions. I understand how the human bias works. I suggested that statistics and data is open to misinterpretation because of leading biases, without applying slander.

Another suggestion might be balanced reporting - why not also provide the statistics of the changes in homelessness etc?

by pacifica | 8th Dec 24, 11:57am 1733612236

by Property Leader | 8th Dec 24, 5:38pm 1733632686

Yes correct. A few years ago I suggested they count commercial properties that have people living in them such as motels, and dwellings lawfully permitted by the councils. Their answer was the census was traditionally only for population and dwellings. So yes theoritically they can catch the number of people in NZ using other sources such as primary medical data. So whilst the number of people looks reasonable the number of dwellings is skewed. This last census clearly has missed this new recent aspect of NZ society and this is reflected in the uptick in owner occupied. I have tracked the rental vacancies advertised every month for the last 15 years and can see the trends.

by huttman | 6th Dec 24, 2:56pm 1733450195

interestingly I've read some of those census stats.

some people actually live onboard a boat. which I assume those cannot be counted as dwellings.

by LapisLazuli5297 | 6th Dec 24, 4:07pm 1733454424

Apparently they are counted as dwellings that are not part of the housing stock. Same with people living in garages, vehicles and caravans.

by MikeM | 6th Dec 24, 6:36pm 1733463396

Does this mean we might be able to walk through the suburbs and appreciate how tidily kept the houses, gardens etc are instead of the rented dumps currently owned by tight landlords?

by pacifica | 8th Dec 24, 12:19pm 1733613572

If they only ask those able to afford a whole house for their family in good conditions then of course the data becomes more meaningless and skewed as poverty increases & living conditions become more varied.

Of course the overpaid, unskilled census design team could not conceive how a homeless person did not have a residential address to use... ignorant even on a mathematics & stats basis they were on their own population & income data. Hence the data parroted above is as badly recorded and designed; akin to only asking landlords how affordable rent is. The census design team I hope lost their jobs or will do in future. Because they are a waste of taxpayer money and if they ever experience some of those diverse living arrangements we would be better for it as they would then have more experience to bring to their next population surveyor roles (I have little hope these office chair surfers pick up productive work).

The Census on purpose was designed to exclude those homeless, those living in itinerant conditions, those in group housing, those without their own address and unable to rent a whole property with a separate address, etc. Those with multiple families under the same roof were also often excluded. I mentioned in the census design meeting this is a growing gap and that census team expecting everyone to have a 1 house per family unit is an archaic concept that misses much of the population and now in many cases houses have been split for multiple rentals. They responded with disbelief that there is not a separate address for each and every household & person. Apparently they were also ignorant of property data where many houses can be built on the same land parcel, and share address. I guess we really need better education for these muppets. Sadly NZ is so far backwards we have thousands of school leavers without even a primary school education (and more % youth state testing for it is too tough on them and growing rates fail primary school level knowledge in high school). I have little faith in the current lot learning unless they are directly affected.