Labour pushes bill curbing offshore house buyers

Property

Labour has introduced a members' bill that would allow only New Zealand citizens and residents to buy any existing house, flat or apartment

5th Dec 13, 12:16pm by David Hargreaves

<a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/">Image sourced from Shutterstock.com</a>

The Labour Party's followed through on its policy of banning overseas buyers of New Zealand houses by pushing a members' bill into Parliament.

The bill, sponsored by Labour’s housing spokesperson Phil Twyford, was put into the ballot for members' bills yesterday.

It would allow only New Zealand citizens and residents to buy any existing house, flat or apartment.

And while the chances of the bill ever becoming law are slight in the extreme - it first has to be picked from the ballot and then once given a first reading would likely be immediately torpedoed by the Government - any debate of the issue in the house would sure to be lively and emotive.

The issue of foreign ownership has become a heated one this year as house prices, particularly in Auckland, have headed skyward. Anecdotal tales have abounded about large numbers of offshore based buyers snapping up properties, but there is little hard evidence to either support or refute such tales.

Labour officially adopted a policy of limits on foreign ownership in July, when it was announced by then leader David Shearer.

Since then the Reserve Bank has, as of October, introduced its "speed limits" on high loan-to-value lending, principally to ensure financial stability, but also with an eye on dampening the housing market.

However, with the early evidence indicating that first home buyers have been largely knocked out of the market by the new measure, there have been suggestions that property investors could have a field day - and this would include buyers from overseas.

Twyford said his new bill was a "response to current housing market woes", which he said had seen the LVR limits drive first home buyers out of the market, "leaving a free hand to speculators both foreign and domestic".

He said Inland Revenue Department records showed that more than 11,000 overseas investors own properties in New Zealand that they don’t live in.

"An estimated 2,600 homes were bought last year by offshore property speculators that had no intention of living here. That’s a big chunk, given that just 4,700 new homes were built in Auckland last year."

Twyford said that "many other countries", including Australia, China, Singapore, the UK and Switzerland targeted overseas speculation in housing.

"New Zealand’s lack of regulation leaves the door wide open."

Twyford said the limits on foreign ownership would "reduce demand and help take some of the heat out of the [housing] market".

"It will put Kiwi buyers at the front of the queue. By itself this is not a silver bullet for housing affordability – but it is part of the solution."

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.

127 Comments

by kin | 5th Dec 13, 12:41pm 1386200481

That is the biggest Political Ploy without substance that has been floated so far....since it is going nowhere, so it's just advertising by the Labour.

Good political point scoring anyway since it has the ample political headling of Immigrant bashing....should get them a few points in the next election. Just enough to tip the election in their favour ?

BTW did I not just read in the Herald that the Census shows NZ needs more immigrants ?

When will the politicians finally man up and admit that their policies (MUL, RUB, Urban Density, Materials standards Monopolies etc etc ) are the cause of higher house prices and not immigrants ??

Fat chance our politicians admitting they are wrong !!!

by Kate | 5th Dec 13, 1:41pm 1386204117

Kin - it's got nothing to do with "immigrant bashing" - the target ban of the proposed legislation is on overseas companies/persons .. not foreign nationals who have immigrated to NZ. Immigrants are NZ residents.

If anyone is spinning it - it's you!!!

by Kate | 5th Dec 13, 3:55pm 1386212157

Where's Winston?

Moving onto the next issue of serious importance;

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9479680/Peters-warns-of-immigr…

I just hope NZ First follows up and finds out under what immigration category these folks who can't speak English entered the country. As you'll note from the article above - they are all NZ residents .. so the question is how? Based on the 'Investor Plus' category, I suspect. Probably stated they intended to become importers :-).

by puketepapa | 5th Dec 13, 4:35pm 1386214542

Migrant crime, permanent residents and or citizens, working real hard at assimilating, cant speak english, working real hard moonlighting, making money instead.

How did they get into the country in the first place, and second how did the get the stuff past customs

Interpreters needed indeed. Next step is to watch for the loss of all their properties and cars under the proceeds of crime. Hit them hard where it hurts. Seize the lot, revoke their residency permits, cancel any nz passports, and deport them.

by SmoKey | 5th Dec 13, 7:12pm 1386223938

Yes, how can they come here without any passable use of English and live here ? Even if they are allowed on family ground, there should be a condition that within 12 months they should learn some level of English or the permission to reside should be reviewed.

by Plan B | 5th Dec 13, 2:40pm 1386207605

Kin

BTW did I not just read in the Herald that the Census shows NZ needs more immigrants ?

Thie editorial you refer to was one of the weirdest to come out of the Herlad in a while, with absolutely nothing to back it up they decided that what NZ needs is more people, why?

More people means cheaper labour, moer expensive property and less investment in productivity improvements. Immigration is in essence an attack on wage rates. Now you could argue- sure why not , drive wages rates down, but the bottom is very, very low, so low that NZ would not function in any way that we could recognise. So why not educate our own, invest in productivity and get on with the job of paying our own way in the world, instead of importing people to do the work for us. It is sickening.

by KH | 5th Dec 13, 8:51pm 1386229879

New Zealand does not need more people. Actually less. IMHO.

by Boatman | 5th Dec 13, 12:49pm 1386200957

This ideological nonsense is why Labour remains in the wilderness.

Who passes legislation on the fly when they dont have stats to even support the argument ?

We dont know

How many non residents bought NZ property in the past year
The extent to which offshore resident buyers are pushing up prices
How many NZ residents with foreign citizenship bought property last year
We dont know how many foreigners own rental properties
Or how many actually live in them
Or whether they are speculators

And now Labour just want to ban them .

I suspect that Labour has lost touch with reality , especially the rapidly changing demographics in NZ

Dont quote me , but something like 40 % of Auckland adults were born overseas , and if you add their offspring its around 60%, and as many as one in four Aucklanders are Asian .

Two irrefutables come from the reality

1) Labour runs the risk of alienating all of them

2) That makes us the most culturally diverse place imaginable

by Basel Brush III | 5th Dec 13, 1:11pm 1386202276

Boatman,

Your six points are just the reason for trying to find out the size of any problem.

Introduction of restrictions without knowing who is involved will at the very least help to throw light on any need to go even further.

The present National led government appears to be totally unwilling or unable to progress a solution so lets get on with it.

I would go further and give all those who pay little or no tax in NZ ( and that includes some with resident status) an ultimatum to get out and a time limit to do so and heavy penalties for not acting.

When I hear instances of those with recent resident status acting as a front for syndicated buying of rural and development land that should require OIO approval, I can believe that NZ will have great difficulty in retaining its No 1 status as the least corrupt country in the world

by iconoclast | 5th Dec 13, 1:32pm 1386203532

Basel Brush

Yesterday Boatman got a first-hand demonstration of how prices are set at the margin

Yesterday a few hundred OTD trades in MRP comprising a million shares, representing a mere fraction of the total free-float of 1.4 billion shares, set the price for everyone

It's the pricing power of the last-man-in who dictates todays price.

Wonder how Boatman is going with his MRP and MEL investments. Probably averaging down

by Basel Brush III | 5th Dec 13, 1:50pm 1386204631

Yes I totally agree. If we frighten the horses with the threat of a clamp down on housing investment, that may well be enough to correct the market.

The voters next year need to be educated on the need to rebalance investment markets away from residential property and even more the cohort of those aspiring to home ownership have got to realise it in their interests to vote for lower property prices, and to exercise that vote. They are the largest potential chunk of voters who can change the rules but I suspect they either do not know their power or have given up on trying.

I am a potential buyer in MRP and MEL but not at the silly float prices or even at current values. And yes I did register for both floats but never with any intention of fronting up.

by Boatman | 5th Dec 13, 5:32pm 1386217958

@Basel , Yip the MRP price is a bit annoying , but the projected yield should be on track .

by iconoclast | 5th Dec 13, 1:49pm 1386204553

Simple solutions are always best

All those who pay little or no tax in NZ including those with resident status ..

Agree .. I would re-phrase that as follows

All natural born kiwis of voting age will have an automatic right to acquire land in their own name with emphasis on "in their own name"

All non-natural-born New Zealanders, regardless of citizenship, must demonstrate they are of voting age, possess an IRD number, and have paid at least $30,000 in income tax in previous 5 years. Or alternativley they pay a non-refundable bond of $100,000. In other words they can't acquire land until they have established their bona-fides

by Boatman | 5th Dec 13, 5:02pm 1386216164

Maybe we should get emperical evidence that non -resident speculators are the cause and not rely on anecdotal pub talk .

I dont think non -residents are a big factor , even at the margin

by raegun | 5th Dec 13, 6:00pm 1386219614

Well Boatman it would appear that the census has turned up many unocupied houses, will that do for starters?

by Boatman | 5th Dec 13, 11:12pm 1386238333

Your suggestion ' TO INTRODUCE RESTRICTIONS " is analogous to peole in the 1800's wanting to ban electricity because it people could get shocked by it .

Why ban foreigners from buying houses in Auckland when we dont even know how many have done so, or are doing so , or whether they are the cause of a bubble or escalating prices ?

by cowboy | 6th Dec 13, 2:49am 1386251394

The ban needs to go on even though we don't know -

- because measuring that statistic is considered racist by the PC policy crowd in the administration and thus will NEVER be done

by Kate | 5th Dec 13, 1:48pm 1386204488

You miss the point of the legislation as well ... Labour are not talking about immigrants!!!! They are talking about offshore/foreign investors. Like Aussie's living in Aussie - not Aussie's who have moved to NZ.

by Basel Brush III | 5th Dec 13, 2:02pm 1386205370

Ultimately regulations and/or the tax system have to even up the playing field between investors (of whatever status) and because owner occupiers do not have any deductibility for interest, then investors need to pay the price. In order to catch up with those who leave property vacant or own revenue nil land should have a nominal income assessed for tax purposes (a bit like the FIF regime). Writing that tax off against the actual tax (as now paid) would leave many investors with low or nil LTV borrowing unscathed

The Labour bill could not help here but it is well on the way to starting the ball rolling, I suspect.

by Kate | 5th Dec 13, 6:36pm 1386221816

Boatman is being no different than the Nat government ministers. Watch Parliament - they are the masters of obfuscation and everything that is going wrong is still Helen Clark's fault! :-).

by Basel Brush III | 5th Dec 13, 3:27pm 1386210443

I thought that one was attributable to John Banks.

Just joking ......I hope.

by cowboy | 6th Dec 13, 3:04am 1386252251

The increase of interest rate does more harm than good.

The foreign buyers get funding from foreign sources which are unaffected by the OCR (and because they can wait, increases in local OCR just means a profit from the interest differential as Kiwi's would have to recover larger interest costs eg through rent or speculation)

The obvious first step, is the same as the US rules.

Make ALL income from NZ interests taxable whereever they are in the world, no kickback credits for foreigners. that way they can reduce the actual tax rate in NZ (half the rate, that produces economic growth, rather than the poverty policies we live with). So if a property is being rent out in auckland, tax the profit. If starbucks has a store, tax all profits AND fees going out of country (a bit like an "offshore GST for services" fee - to catch the dodge). IRD is having fun harrassing banks so they put their charges inc interest up to cover the bill, so I'm sure they would happily go after offshore transactions ...especially if they're looking to nickel and dime NZer's for GST when importing small items not available in NZ.

In the US, someone making a profit (eg from publish a blog with advertising profits) has to pay tax. This is worldwide.

And IRD...leaving the freaking banks alone...they're just passing on all those costs back to us. so while you think you're profiting...you're just losing out on NZ business and economic improvement.

by Plan B | 5th Dec 13, 2:44pm 1386207845

Boatman.

The value of houses is determined by very few actual houses- the incredibly small number that actual change hands, so who cares how small the number is- it does not take that much to move the market.

Immigration is not actual an answer- ask an immigrant if you don't believe me, the last thing that a person from China or India or the UK would want is to compete for jobs, houses, space on the beach with the hordes of people from back home.

Do not wish millions more on us.

by Boatman | 5th Dec 13, 11:34pm 1386239656

Plan B you are thinking like a Kiwi , not a migrant . You have no idea how wide the gap is between your cultural ideas and thought processes and those of migrants .

MONEY and WEALTH

We are individualistic when it comes to money , Asians, Muslms and even Africans have a communal approach to helping their kin financially . They buy houses in syndicates , or with extended family money.

Ever been to an Asian wedding and seen all those little envelopes as you go into the wedding ? Many young Asians get enough at their weddings to buy their first home. And its reciprocal

NUMBERS AND OVERCROWDING

Asians ( both Indian and Chinese ) see their strength in numbers , so they welcome their Kin coming here .

There is still lots of space here , so overcrowding is not in their reference .

Africans believe in having as many children as possible , wives are discarded if the cant produce kids .

COMPETITION FOR JOBS

Other cultures often dont expect to be given jobs. Ever been to Indonesia? . Everyone is doing something no unemployment benfits there . Go and check it out , they dont expect to be employed and are often self employed , often they actually prefer self employment .

WORK ETHIC

There is no such thing as a minimum wage or a 40 hour week in Asia , you work as much as you can . You employ family first and foremost , including Nana as long as she can stand up

Trade Unions? , there is no such term in Madarin

by Chairman Moa | 5th Dec 13, 1:12pm 1386202375

Not that I am agreeing with Labour and their policies but this will be a vote clincher, eventhough they signed up to the FTA with China. This will be like what Helen Clark did with the student loan free interest deal. National will have to come up with something similar soon.

by Machiavelli | 5th Dec 13, 2:22pm 1386206562

The working class are in the majority home owners. They might be a bit dissapointed about losing equity in their houses under the scenario you have described. Only the proletariat would gain. But I doubt they really would gain from market turmoil.

by Machiavelli | 5th Dec 13, 2:43pm 1386207814

These are Faustian times Factboy. There is only one outcome I can see in a world where capitalism is the new religion.

by Machiavelli | 5th Dec 13, 3:16pm 1386209816

Indeed they have been judged and they are now in their second term of government. We can pontificate all we like but we can not overlook the ever so human trait of self-interest.

by Machiavelli | 5th Dec 13, 5:16pm 1386217007

Agree Factboy - it will be interesting to see where the votes fall at next election given such opposing policies on property ownership. It reminds me of the opposing policies on asset sales. That didn't go too well for Labour.

by Boatman | 5th Dec 13, 11:47pm 1386240427

@factboy ......When prices fall .....?

What planet have you been living on mate ?

How are prices going to suddenly fall when :

We have 500 to plus buyers turning up at Auctions at the Bruce Mason centre when 20 houses are on offer ?
When we have thousands of new migrants arriving every week ?
When there is a land shortage in Auckland?
Where it is cheaper to buy a house than rent it ?
When those migrants can borrow at 2 to 3% while we pay 6% interest
When a 4 bed house is cheaper in Auckland than a 40 m2 bedisit on 35th floor in Kowloon

by cowboy | 6th Dec 13, 2:51am 1386251510

yeah make the Kowloon people buy their houses, and inflate -their- market, not ours!

Why isn't our government protecting our people and our borders, for our childrens' future?

by Wordsmith | 5th Dec 13, 1:20pm 1386202820

Excellent - about time ... tick, tick, tick goes the clock. I'll vote to have residents and citizen put back at the front of policy instead of foreign investors who by definition do not give a damn about this country.

by rjf | 5th Dec 13, 2:18pm 1386206284

Yup I might hold my nose and vote red to get this in. They need to be careful that this doesn't become an immigration or racism argument. It's just making New Zealand houses available for those that live here, work and vote here.

by Boatman | 5th Dec 13, 4:59pm 1386215993

It may not be racism , but its called change and its happening whether we like it or not .

by cowboy | 6th Dec 13, 3:10am 1386252615

Sadly the labour policy all promote the work and the workers profits... (eg living wage)

However the policies would slaughter most employers...and you can't have employees without employers.

Eventually the leaders of the Labour party admitted they'd never even looked at what their $15 minimum wage would have done to most NZ employers (or the flow on costs).

There is no point voting Labour (or the Watermelons), and National is right out. ACT is gone. NZFirst doesn't have what it takes to go beyond opposition. The minor parties have no effective major policy or ideas for running government. and that's where we're headed...

by Kate | 5th Dec 13, 1:58pm 1386205081

Can't see it being immeditately torpedoed by the Government - without the vote of John Banks, that is. It is also an issue which I believe a number of Nat members of the house might well be prepared to cross the floor on. After all, it's only saying that only NZ citizens and residents will be allowed to purchase existing residential building stock. Land (and I assume that includes farms) and commercial buildings, would I assume still be open to foreigners.

Ultimately it looks as if they are simply intending to can the offshore residential landlords - of which I am guessing the biggest number are Australians, and perhaps Asian Mums and Dads buying a rental for the kid(s) who might be studying in NZ. They can just as happily rent from a NZ owner.

by raegun | 5th Dec 13, 6:05pm 1386219904

Yes, and we need to address the issue of our means of earning a living, farming, being sold off as well. That and corporate farming just getting too damned corporatey, (actually serious about that)

by cowboy | 5th Dec 13, 8:26pm 1386228384

Why is the government and labour department trying to destroy our small farms?

Just read the other day about hourly rates being enforced onto farms (usually per-day-rate or fixed per annum, due to low value of work, unusual time demands, and uncertainity and inability to control income).

That will stick my wage bill up about 50% (and I'm the primary employee). Where is the money coming from to cover this? Is Fonterra going to be forced to pay an extra 10% on a minimum 7$ payout so we can make sure the wage bill is going to be covered.

Most of the farm experts calculations ignore return of investment on plant & land (what a "nromal commercial operation" would consider rent) and don't factor in all hours of labour.

At the moment I get $40k for a 70-100hr week (7 days). Thats 3hrs morning milk, 2 hours evening, x 7 = 35hrs.

The big corporates get around the wage question by deliberately playing down their return (rent) on their assets/capital - so they can get product under competitive price. 40k is a good whack - median around here is 26-32k. But can't hire more staff without blowing out my second biggest budget item (rent then wages) because Fonterra payout is out of our control and unpredictable (even to them).

Why is this being encouraged?

by rastus1 | 5th Dec 13, 2:08pm 1386205715

National will be praying it is not picked from the ballet as arguing against it will be the nail in their coffin. I think it a disgrace that long time honest NZ residents have to compete in the housing market with this hot, cheap and very often corrupt new money. Shame on the Nats for their inactivity.

by Boatman | 5th Dec 13, 5:11pm 1386216717

Firstly the expression is ... HEAR HERE !!!!! It means I agree and everyone should HEAR what this person is saying HERE .

Secondly , the previous Labour Govt under Ms Clark encouraged investment AND migration from Asia , so this is a sudden about -face on their part

FYI the National Government has actually made migration here more difficult and increased the points required to migrate here , unlike Labour who lowered them .

What National has done which is a bit dumb is encouraged INVESTOR MIGRATION by wealthy people , and this may have compounded the problem .

BUT we dont actually know because we dont keep the Stats .

by cowboy | 5th Dec 13, 8:32pm 1386228735

I think it's a good idea - if we dont look after NZer's then what are our children and grandchildren going to do when they are looking for income and investments??

And for the sociopathically self-orientated... that means who is going to be paying your pension, borrowing and paying back on your sunset investments/perpetuities?

The only thing I'd consider change is allow such people to buy buildings (improvements) but not the LAND.

by ngakonui gold | 5th Dec 13, 2:18pm 1386206307

Whats to stop foreign buyers still buying but using a nz resident as a frontman.We now have lots of foreign owned banks in nz so it wouldn't take much to set up.

by Kate | 5th Dec 13, 2:42pm 1386207770

The 'frontman' (i.e. the purchaser) would be the person on the title of ownership .. to my mind that's a NZ owner. What's the problem again?

by Plan B | 5th Dec 13, 2:47pm 1386208046

If your bank account in NZ suddenly goes up by a million dollars from offshore then some at the bank is going to ask questions, you are going to be reported- that is a fact.

by Boatman | 5th Dec 13, 11:52pm 1386240765

Many Asian folk are known to buy residential property in Syndicates , its a major cultural difference between the Kiwi way and migrants.

They understand the strength gained from pooling their resources

by cowboy | 6th Dec 13, 3:05am 1386252338

Have looked at that. It's really not worth the risk in NZ. Economy is too unstable, people are too clueless for finance or just outright untrustworthy. It's very difficult when the majority of people are in massive amounts of debt...or on the gravy train and don't understand why others are struggling.

by steven | 5th Dec 13, 2:49pm 1386208148

Well if you legally said thats a no no and made confiscation automatic and jail time the result when caught then Im no so sure how many "residents" would enjoy the thought of some new accomodation time with bubba your new found cell mate.

regards

by raegun | 5th Dec 13, 6:06pm 1386219989

Maybe confiscation if they get caught out could be a bit of a deterent

by cowboy | 5th Dec 13, 8:36pm 1386228992

Actually that's not a problem.

Being a NZ resident (citizen)l, that person would be entirely subject to NZ laws and policies. They would also have to stay in NZ, or if a NZ front-company, one of the directors would have to be in NZ all the time and accountable to NZ laws and policies.

That way if it doesn't take the pressure off the market, pressure and restrictions can be put on that/those individuals - eg minimum time resident, minimum holding time before non-emergency transfer, and holdable to account for any future "cooling off" policies if the market still moved beyond NZers' means.

by Chris-M | 5th Dec 13, 2:26pm 1386206767

The corollory to this legislation would be to tax foreign owned property about 2-3% of the capital value per year. If it is a tax paying, income earning investment, then the capital tax can be rebated against the income tax.

Overseas owners of property should be required to contribute to the running of the country for the benefits and privildge that they enjoy by owning property here. As they are contributing nothing, or worse damaging our ecconomy through their speculation, then there should be a premium added to their fair share of the tax burden. In any event there is no way that NZ citizens should be subsidising them.

by Chris-M | 5th Dec 13, 2:34pm 1386207285

Factboy

I am not offering this as a compromise. I fully support banning sales to foreigners. My suggestion is to address the issue of property that is already in foreign hands.

by Chris-M | 5th Dec 13, 2:54pm 1386208452

I suspect that even a Labour Govt may not go as far as forced sales of foreign owned land. On the other hand you never know...

I thought that my plan at least clawed something back from a mistaken policy and could be quietly ratched up to a point where it is too painful for foreign owners to keep holding our land. Same effect, but less international political flak.

by steven | 5th Dec 13, 3:09pm 1386209399

I would and I'd inlcude the land bankers as well.

regards

by Chris-M | 5th Dec 13, 3:22pm 1386210143

Steven

That thought crossed my mind also. In fact you could go further and include all forms of non residential property. If they are generating an honest tax paying income then they should be unaffected. If not..... Also, if you did this then foreign parties could hardly complain. Not that we should be too worried about them.

by Basel Brush III | 5th Dec 13, 4:57pm 1386215852

As some here know we have a FIF taxation system for which tax is payable on the NOTIONAL income level of 5% of the current value of a share investment where the shares fall outside a very narrow number of Australian listed shares.

This means you could be paying significant tax without any income being earned.

We could equally apply a similar system to investments by all property owning individuals and overseas controlled investment entities (i.e. 25% deemed foreign ownership)

Imagine a system where it was deemed that 7% is the income on the investment capital value.

Apply this for simplicity to a value of $1m

Then a residential property unoccupied would pay tax on $70,000 – say $21,000 with no deduction for any expense including rates.

The above would also apply to bare land.

A residential property in Auckland rented at $40,000 would pay as above though tax may have currently been only $12,000 if at 30%

A property in a provincial area may rent at $100,000 – 10% yield. This would still only pay on the deemed $70,000 rent giving a tax bonus to the owner.

Similarly industrial and commercial properties that yield above 7% commonly would be unaffected

Farming land (not the overlying business) would be liable to tax so that farm values may eventually fall to reflect the yield on land value.

The important incentive here is that ongoing business activities are affected by cashflow more than profits or lack of. A tax demand coming at the owner each and every year when income os low or nonexistent will affect capital value over time.

A tax of this nature should be made to fall outside double taxation agreements so that IRD gets full benefit.

by Zombie ponzi | 5th Dec 13, 4:18pm 1386213515

Factboy completely agree with your comments except requiring existing foreign owned property to be sold. Banning new foreign buyers will probably cause a steady decline in prices and most foreigners to sell up anyway. Forcing mass sales would pop the bubble big time, I think letting about 40% of the air out over 3-4 years would be better for economic stability.

by Boatman | 5th Dec 13, 5:16pm 1386216991

Are overseas owners really the cause of the problem? Do you have empreical evidence to support your contention ?

Or is it

Land supply and subdivision constraints ?
The RMA?
An open immigration policy?
The lowest interest rates in living history?
Local Authority incompetence and rorting?
Len Browns arbitrary city limits?

by Alter Ego | 5th Dec 13, 2:32pm 1386207161

http://www.realestate.co.nz/2140418

This sets the benchmark for the taste of things to come. Put it all on the house.

Something only a true Kiwi could aspire to, if all goes National, not Labours way.

Also, sets the standards we should all aspire to and the makings of a fine old business, charging a mere 400 bucks to have a gander. Just a once over.

At that rate should pay for itself in no time at all. May never have to work again.

Also has no need of those pesky MRP power shares, as it is powered by the sun, the moon and the stars.

Maybe National were right?.

Who says National were not working in immigrants favour.

But this rude shack was probably Labours doing, started off in Helen's wa hey day.

This is Kiwi, through and through. Furnished accordingly.

Even somewhere to park the old Holden, the imported Lada, maybe even a cherry bomb or two.

A mere triffle, tongue in cheek.

Who says investing in houses was wrong.

Not I.

Just trying to sell the idea to the General, Hoi- Poloi.

Any takers?. General.

Please see the link, contained therein.

If ya get my drift.?

And before anyone starts saying it is not about the economy, or high finance, I tend to disagree.

by steven | 5th Dec 13, 2:52pm 1386208333

Sure its a opposition bill, however Labour is a Govn in waiting. So it will become law, only 1 or 4 years away.

Wow we sure seem to be hell bent on collapsing this bubble.

regards

by steven | 5th Dec 13, 3:12pm 1386209537

Agree, in so far as you have to live here and pay NZ tax (eg PAYE) to own NZ property.

regards

by Boatman | 5th Dec 13, 5:21pm 1386217307

Oh Get over it , your parents may have built a few State houses , but 40% of Adult Aucklanders are migrants , and if you add their kids , they make up 60% of Aucklands population .

One in 4 Aucklanders identifies themsleves as Asian .

AUCKLAND IS NOW A COSMOPLITAN , MUTI CULTURAL MULTI ETHNIC CITY , NO LONGER A WHITE KIWI VILLAGE

by Happy123 | 5th Dec 13, 4:04pm 1386212672

It's not for the first time I have to remind you that Labour are highly likely to NOT win the next election:

"If recent history is anything to go by, the 2014 general election result has already been decided. As the chart to the right shows, since 1998 the party leading the opinion polls in July of the year preceding the election has gone on to win the highest proportion of the party vote, enabling them to form a government.

Despite the current centre-left Labour/Greens bloc looking competitive, history tells us National should have the 2014 election in the bag, again.

Although David Cunliffe emerged from the Labour leadership 'primary' with all guns blazing, recent political history also suggests he will find it hard to make a sustained impact within the next 12 months. The MMP era is littered with major party leaders who have rolled their predecessors with the hope of doing better within two to three years of the next election, only to fall by the way.

John Key was the exception as leader of the Opposition for just under two years before he became Prime Minister; before that Helen Clark was leader of the Opposition for six years, and before that Jim Bolger was leader of the Opposition for 4.5 years. No one has yet gone on to lead a government within 12 months of assuming party leadership."

by SeriousSaver | 5th Dec 13, 2:55pm 1386208525

for 400$, i expect to use the bathroom and one of the bedrooms for 2 minutes.

by Halon5 | 5th Dec 13, 3:52pm 1386211928

at last, some common sense

by iconoclast | 5th Dec 13, 4:09pm 1386212974

Pay attention now ..

While the legislators duck and weave ..

Nothing stands still .. it's getting worse .. a new breed of private investors has emerged as competitors to institutional investors for prime real estate

An article by Florence CHONG who has her ear to the ground ..

she knows property-provides-rich-pickings-asias-elite

by Happy123 | 5th Dec 13, 4:09pm 1386212941

You people have such short memories, remind me, what happend with house prices last time Labour were in power in the naughties... Oh yeah, the biggest boom in NZ history.

And what is Labours policy regarding immigrants last time.... Open door. You don't have to worry about foreigners buying our houses, Labour will make them NZ citizens.

This is a political stunt, nothing more.

by Plan B | 5th Dec 13, 5:37pm 1386218221

Happy 123

The question you have to ask yourself is - is the labour party the same labour party that you describe or has it changed- I think that it may just have turned back into an actual labour party - with a few rogernomics types still there but on their way out

by Smalltown | 5th Dec 13, 4:23pm 1386213825

A wise man once told me that an immigrant makes the best neighbour in the world when he is the only immigrant in your street. When you are the only non immigrant in the street your neighbour is the worst in the world.

Never thought I would be a Labour voter or even consider Winston but times are a changing. Labour's proposal leads me to think some one is waking up to smell the coffee but unless they win the next election significant areas of AKL will face the prospect of having powerful immigrant voting blocs when you consider the apathy normal kiwis have to making their vote count. For the North Shore of Akl I would think Labour's ship has already sunk.

by Plan B | 5th Dec 13, 5:34pm 1386218095

The recent immigranst are anti immigrations because they get it- they left somewhere with lots of people and not a lot of houses and jobs they don't want the place they moved to to go the same way .

by bob | 5th Dec 13, 4:48pm 1386215312

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11167626

"A members bill put forward by Labour's Phil Goff which would tighten up rules for foreigners buying rural land will be debated in Parliament after it was drawn from the ballot today."

It's just rural land over 5ha

by Boatman | 5th Dec 13, 4:55pm 1386215749

C'mon people, get real . Think of "Farting against thunder" This law will never get past the first reading in Parliament

We have gone past the mark of stopping migrants from buying up Auckland, its simply too late to close the stable door .

We have a city with the most migrants other than Toronto ,
1 in 4 Aucklanders is Asian
We have invited them in to settle here .
Our immigration policy is if your have money , you are in .
If you have money , you dont even have to worry about the pesky little Question box on the IMMIGRATION FORM about speak ENGLISH. Hence the ESOL problem .
Migrants can borrow money in Hong Kong or Shanghai for under 3% ( we pay nearly 6% for mortgages ), and prices here are a joke when compared with HK
HSBC ( Thats Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corp for those that dont know ) one of the worlds largest Banks , with an NZ Branch located at 1 Queen St Auckland will even lend the money at 3% onshore if you have income/ investments in China

We cannot stop new migrants and their extended families from buying property here , this is not Apartheid South Africa , Israel or the American South or Midwest in the 1950's .

And finally , we dont have conclusive proof that non -residents are causing prices to escalate , simply because we dont have , or keep, the statistics .There are just too many variables to this problem to blame non -residents for our shortcomings in planning Aucklands growth.

by Basel Brush III | 5th Dec 13, 5:10pm 1386216636

IMHO Absolute rubbish!

The status quo is no excuse for avoiding change to allow us to assert becoming our own masters once more.

It is just like saying "We need more immigrants"

Do we really?

Others quote the same without any good reasons other than increased market size and efficiency. I would prefer to spread existing resources among those we have here now. Those resources are limited.

So I would vote for any government which is prepared to curtail the profligate granting of residency and citizenship while trying to incentivise our diaspora to return.

by Boatman | 5th Dec 13, 5:29pm 1386217768

A part of me agrees with your sentiments , I think we have overdone the immigration thing .

Another part is more rational and recognises we have gone past the point of no return , so we need to accept that Auckland is no longer the white Kiwi village it was a generation ago , its now got 40% of its denizens being migrants , and when their kids get to voting age they will make up 60% of the city's population .

Mate , things have changed right under our noses while we we have been grinding our way to and from work in Aucklands traffic each day

by steven | 6th Dec 13, 7:30am 1386268200

Yep, but much of the developed world's central banks and the right wing pollies at least have a similar phobia of inflation....

In NZ we have been lucky, we didnt see a melt down in property aka the USA.

One counter balanace point though is we need to borrow money, hence with an OCR "excessively" high "investors" are happy to lend to us. Now if the OCR was say 1% and retail mortgages 3% would that still be the case? I suspect not....

regards

by Plan B | 5th Dec 13, 5:32pm 1386217976

Is this the HSBC that earlier this year made an approximately 2 billion dollar payment to the US Government because they had been money laundering for Mexican Drug cartels and for terrorist organisations. I do wonder how they manage to keep there banking license.

by Boatman | 5th Dec 13, 5:54pm 1386219290

Yes , thats the same HSBC that lends money in Yuan at 2 or 3% to ( resident) buyers of Auckland property , when you my kids fork out 5 or 6% pa for a housing loan.

The article about these loans being okay'd appeared right here on this site last week

by Boatman | 5th Dec 13, 5:42pm 1386218523

Okay , I was being flippant overstating the issue to make a point, and you are correct , we will never be an Apartheid state.

But, but can you prove to me that non -resident speculators are buying up Auckland and sending prices sky high ?

by Basel Brush III | 5th Dec 13, 5:51pm 1386219118

I accept the above BUT I also expect our Government to recognise the distortions presented by excessive immigration rates from whatever source. Regrettably the further the culture and language from our own the lower the rate we can absorb without difficulty. That is not xenophobia but just plain logic.

Hence my aim would be to capture our diaspora first and certainly not to allow money to dictate who we get as they are also likely to decamp again.

by Alter Ego | 5th Dec 13, 5:18pm 1386217089

And a wise man once said, " Follow the money"

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/12/4/property/property-provides-rich-pickings-asias-elite

Sorry, It has to be repeated.

by steven | 6th Dec 13, 7:20am 1386267605

Good piece, the Q has to be why ppl think paying top dollar is a winner.

So determine their strategy.

regards

by Happy123 | 5th Dec 13, 5:32pm 1386217961

Hahaha, rural land pruchases... You all got so excited. LMAO.

by alioop | 5th Dec 13, 6:40pm 1386222019

http://www.labour.org.nz/media/bill-restricts-offshore-speculators-buyi…

by Boatman | 5th Dec 13, 5:50pm 1386219014

Wow , I never realised foreigners buying houses was such an emotional issue !.

We have got ourselves into this position , and banning them from owning property ( with some even suggestion retrospectively ) is just crazy .

Helen Clarke welcomed them here , we wanted their money , but we dont want them to compete with us

What kid of nonsense is this ?

We cant have it both ways

by raegun | 5th Dec 13, 6:17pm 1386220668

How is setting in place, policies that favour kiwis in NZ over foreigners not living in NZ, crazy? You are a bit of a lone voice here, with a personal agenda methinks, sorry about that, but in the end, when if comes to my kids and their kids futures, too bad.

by raegun | 5th Dec 13, 7:44pm 1386225877

Um, my comment was aimed at Boatman, you weren't there when I commented. You've managed to read it completely backwards, so please go back and give me a thumbs up ;-]

by Brendon | 5th Dec 13, 6:32pm 1386221526

Factboy I think Raegun was replying to Boatman not yourself and that is the misunderstanding.

by raegun | 5th Dec 13, 7:49pm 1386226155

It's still not the case, I ain't a "his" LOL

by waymad | 5th Dec 13, 6:57pm 1386223030

Gosh, chaps and chapesses, comin' into the site after coupla days slaving in the data mines of Takapuna, a bit cold after all this crappy Awkland weather, and then...

Open up this thread and Feel the Heat.

Not much light, mind yez.

But an uncomfortable thought strikes me, having warmed my hands over the glow of the Righteous Indignation here evinced.

Given that setting up a Company is straightforward, what's to stop an astute person setting up a shell, selling shares to all and sundry, buying entire streets, driving a dozer through the existing shacks, and flinging up a buncha dog kennels (oops I meant to say small but exquisitely formed homes), then selling the licence to occupy them to, say, a lotta Immigrants for whom 25 squares All ter Themselves is Paradise?

After all, that's exactly the retirement village schtick. Except the occupants are the Unwanted Doddery, not the Newly Arrived Hopeful.

No ownership, so avoids the citizenship test
Companies with majority foreign ownershiop are two-a-penny, politically unassailable, and just happen to run, apart from anything else, our banks, insurance companies, and other useful stuff

I think the next step is to ask ourselves the question:

'Is this piece of politicking gonna produce anything but the usual hastily flung together law (if it happens at all), with the usual loopholes and Monster Truck-sized gaps, (for a working example, see the Affordable Care Act in the USA) and with the bonus side effect of polarising the populace and poisoning the well of Community?'

by Kate | 5th Dec 13, 7:45pm 1386225900

For starters, it is very rude to refer to all the people living in retirement villages as "Unwanted Doddery". My mother lived in a retirement village for in excess of 20 years post-retirement and I can assure you she was never unwanted - and I'd have dared you to call her doddery to her face. She was very good at putting small-minded, cynical upstarts such as yourself in their place.

Secondly, what makes you think all our "Newly Arrived Hopefuls" want to live in a 25m2 box? Again, you're an arrogant stereotyper who thinks all immigrants are poor sods from third-world countries with no skills, nor prospects. Wrong (and rude) yet again.

Lastly, the strawman example sounds like a commercial business if it intends to offer said 25m2 properties on unit title. Any property developer who would build 25m2 single story unit titles on a central Auckland residential street would have to be someone intent on going broke. Otherwise, they'd be an apartment block developer - quite a different kettle of fish.

Sorry, chap - it's you doing the politicking. The Labour Opposition is just trying to assist aspiring NZers to achieve their goals of homeownership.

by waymad | 5th Dec 13, 8:06pm 1386227180

Argumentum ad hominem doesn't cut it.
Rude and cynical - yup. But read an Aussie paper, even the business pages, and you'll see worse.
Licence to occupy is not a unit title. Ask the Christchurch retirement villagers who figgered all this out the hard way after the quake (e.g. Kate Shepherd).
Give me a convincing ball-not-man answer as to why a company configuration would not avoid the Labour Lawz. The devil's in the details....and legal structures.

by Kate | 5th Dec 13, 8:28pm 1386228511

It wouldn't avoid the Labour Lawz - the intention as I read it is not to restrict new commercial development of apartments and/or retirement villages or whatever form of licence-to-occupy commercial development you refer to. It is to restrict the purchase of individual residential properties.

What do you mean cut the ad hominem .. I called you rude and cynical and you agreed!!! lol. Thank you for that affirmation.

by cowboy | 5th Dec 13, 10:14pm 1386234896

Problem with confiscation and serious penalties; is that when you get some rule following butt kisser that wants to do well and doesn't have the Myers-Briggs to give a damn about anyone else, and thus only cares about *their* performance in *their* job appraisal, or is willing to walk over everyone else at the direction of "find more cash" (eg Morton Fork material) then those policies become "rule-by-law"...... very much the case of where the heds of IRD are at the moment. Gods know whose agenda they're serving because it sure isn't NZ's best interest.

by notaneconomist | 6th Dec 13, 11:00am 1386280848

Factboy - What is the point of having a law if all one has to do is change to a new type of entity or business structure to circumnavigate that law?

Anyone with any drive and determination will always find a way to get what they want legally........the people that don't have the same drive and determination will simply not do the necessary homework to get what they want and then cry its unfair.

Consciousness comes first then construction not the other way around. The people who recognise this are the first out of the starter box.........if your too slow in becoming conscious to the facts then you miss the opportunities and get left behind and then think the system is unfair and that is pretty much why we have the situation we have today.

by Chairman Moa | 5th Dec 13, 6:51pm 1386222673

Boatman,

you are mixing up the two categories of buyers together; immigrants and overseas buyers.

Immigrants are welcome to come to live in NZ and buy their houses

Overseas buyers; This is where people are having issues of them buying houses in NZ and then go back to their home countries

by Boatman | 5th Dec 13, 11:02pm 1386237777

Dont get me wrong here , I share some of the sentiments regarding migration on this forum , and I do get the difference between foreigners buying up property who dont live here , and migrants who do live here .

The problem is we dont know if the non -residents are causing prices to escalate , because we do not have the statistics.

I have seen foreigners at the auctions , thousands of them , and assume they have some kind of residence status.

I have seen no statistical evidence that non-residents are the big players here.

The other issue is that in 2006/7/8 under Helen Clark most of us will recall , we had all the major Auckland Real estate agencies opening stands at trade fairs in China to encourage investment in Auckland property .

Labour wanted their money, they called it FDI , and now we want to ban them .

And what is the difference between foreigners buying shares on the NZX , Property , NZ Govt Treasury bonds or any other class of asset ?

by two otherguys | 5th Dec 13, 11:13pm 1386238409

silly statement boatman

There is a huge difference between off-shore buyers of NZ Property and NZ Financial Instruments

And you know it

by rjf | 6th Dec 13, 11:14am 1386281648

It would be trivial for Barfoots or some government agency to collect data on the residency status of buyers.

The problem is the data would be dangerous and might put the ponzi scheme at risk, this is why it isn't collected. I've been to Auckland auctions, we all know that certain nationalities are massively over represented.

by Chairman Moa | 5th Dec 13, 6:51pm 1386222694

by KH | 5th Dec 13, 8:58pm 1386230303

The value of this policy is not just around prices of house this week. We would be a more healthy and robust society if we owned our own houses. Rather than rent.

And the owner residents were citizens with a committment to this country.

by spottie | 5th Dec 13, 9:10pm 1386231029

National will be worried if this bill is drawn.

It will be a sure fire vote winner.

As has already been mentioned.

Why is there no accurate data....they are too scared of voters finding out how large the problem actually is.

by FYI | 5th Dec 13, 11:09pm 1386238172

Imagine the bubble that will be created by foreign investors in the weeks and months leading up to such a law change. It would be unprecedented and very lucrative for sellers.

by Basel Brush III | 6th Dec 13, 6:30am 1386264647

You wouldn't see them for dust..........and the ones here already will want out at any price they can get.

by steven | 6th Dec 13, 1:19pm 1386289195

I think he's taking the ****

regards.

by ngakonui gold | 6th Dec 13, 10:09am 1386277756

Phil Goff on Radio Live this morning was asked whether James Cameron would have been allowed to buy his property in Waiarapa under the new law.Goff said yes because Cameron had indicated that he intended to become a resident and spend more time here.

Problem solved for all new immigrants and overseas investors.He was also asked about the Crafar farm sale and he said no however if they brought new technology and created jobs it would be okay.

Nothing will change.

by steven | 6th Dec 13, 1:49pm 1386290976

Rather in-consistant.

If the owner is resident and if the owner is paying NZ tax I have no issues. If its no to one or other then no, cant own property and they'd have to sell off property, eg Crafer farm(s).

Think that will catch out some land bankers as well, no biggee.

regards

by Kate | 6th Dec 13, 5:08pm 1386302894

That's a different members bill - one which has been selected from the ballot. It relates to farmland, as opposed to residential. See here;

http://www.labour.org.nz/media/bill-limit-rural-land-sales-overseas-buy…

I agree - doesn't look like it will make a great deal of difference. Don't forget, PG is the right wing of the Labour camp (a bit like Key in terms of being an incrementalist .. i.e., tweeker) - likely PG was very close to Cullen when they opened the flood gates in terms of amendments to OIO rules when they were in office. So this looks to me like a Phil Goff ballot initiative submitted before Cunliffe took the helm.

by Chairman Moa | 6th Dec 13, 12:51pm 1386287510

If I was a gambling person with some dosh to burn and knowing Labour/Greens might be the govt in 2014. I would go shopping for some good houses because there will be some frenzy buying before the govt outlaw overseas buyers.. But then I don't have spare dosh nor have a gambling habbit!

by steven | 6th Dec 13, 1:15pm 1386288911

Backwards?

So when Labour/Green's get in prices should drop surely? ie nce overseas buyers are outlawed they will have to sell up, in which case selling now to buy back later cheaper is the fast profit?

regards

by Chairman Moa | 6th Dec 13, 1:51pm 1386291084

Can they make the laws retrospective?? I doubt if they would.. NZ will be a gaint Eketahuna..

by steven | 6th Dec 13, 2:02pm 1386291742

Yes as its an ownership thing going past the implimentation date of the legislation so its not really retrospective.

You would put in a proviso that they would have to sell within 12months or apply to a court for an extension showing why not. So if you had a property worth 1million and were asking 2 million, that wouldnt be an adequate case for an extension, especially if you had offers at $900k.

regards

by Basel Brush III | 6th Dec 13, 2:15pm 1386292536

And even if the legislation says you cannot move the property to another overseas owner or register a change in ownership in any way except to NZ control, or alter any mortgage source, that would be more than enough for most of them to try to sell up before the others cause a deluge of sales.

Example locally. What price are you willing buy Chorus shares at today?

'nuff said........ or Meridian.... or Mighty River Power?

by Chairman Moa | 6th Dec 13, 2:23pm 1386293001

Just a quick thought, this wouldn't stop anyone with NZ residency from setting up a property syndicate (i.e. a company). Overseas buyers would be able to become shareholders (FTA rights) and buy their properties through the company

by Basel Brush III | 6th Dec 13, 2:51pm 1386294716

Surely as soon as the ownership becomes more than 25% overseas owned or controlled, all bets are off.

by steven | 6th Dec 13, 3:46pm 1386297989

Good point, however the idea is to stop residential / house buying and not actual companies or say farms. Really will individuals from overseas want to set up companies to buy houses? I suppose that is possible but starts to get complex. Also wouldnt that make the company liable for NZ tax?

Besides which does the FTA apply? Ive had a look at it and nothing really says they can buy houses here beyond "investment" or can Labour "simply" say no foreign ownership trumps the FTA? not sure there.

Also I assume you mean the Chinese <-> NZ FTA? so other foreigners wouldnt be able to buy.

regards

by Chairman Moa | 6th Dec 13, 4:30pm 1386300650

I've lost track how many FTA NZ has signed up to; China, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand..

USA??? I know AUS has FTA with USA..

by Boatman | 6th Dec 13, 4:07pm 1386299264

After having read the article 3 times and each of the 156 responses ,I have arrived at the conclusion that the housing issue is a ridicuously highly emotive topic among New Zealanders .

We have a predicament , brought upon by our various Governments actions for the past decade .

We are no longer able to control who owns Auckland , who buys houses here.

We have gone out of our way and encouraged migrants to overpay for terribly badly built wooden shacks in some cases .

Now we dont want them to do this anymore .

I guess this is how the Maori felt when they realised the Pakheas were here to stay and things had changed for ever .

History does what ...... ?

by Boatman | 6th Dec 13, 4:07pm 1386299266

After having read the article 3 times and each of the 156 responses ,I have arrived at the conclusion that the housing issue is a ridicuously highly emotive topic among New Zealanders .

We have a predicament , brought upon by our various Governments actions for the past decade .

We are no longer able to control who owns Auckland , who buys houses here.

We have gone out of our way and encouraged migrants to overpay for terribly badly built wooden shacks in some cases .

Now we dont want them to do this anymore .

I guess this is how the Maori felt when they realised the Pakheas were here to stay and things had changed for ever .

History does what ...... ?

by Christov | 9th Dec 13, 12:13pm 1386544394

I have to say it Boatman, .....your ticks don't show it, but that was possibly the best post this year on the hysterical state of the N.Z. (particularly Auckland) property markets.

Not too far from here we will be asked where the line in the sand is, the Aussies have made their choice now subtley reaping the consequence of trying hard to close the door a little.

Still great post , and a fair reflection of how we got here......Oh I Oh and just bad policy written on the hoof.

by steven | 9th Dec 13, 12:24pm 1386545073

I think we have said a few times now, not migrants but foreign owners who buy on speculation (or to hide the money) and do not and never will live here, pay no NZ taxes etc.

regards

by Christov | 9th Dec 13, 12:30pm 1386545426

True that Stevo....but let me assure you , no shortage of migrants escaping taxation on masse either. There is a cash market out there in the labour industry that flows in circles amongst the resettled migrant community ...ah...like you woud not believe.

by iconoclast | 9th Dec 13, 1:15pm 1386548120

That's another subject that chazzo can't or won't touch

When you consider that the group of which you speak now comprise 25% of the auckland population and auckland economy, that's a lot of cash economy, not subject to income tax, or paye tax, or GST, or compulsory super, you name it, but whichever way you slice it, it is un-taxed money, and where does it go? straight into adding to the pressures of pushing up auckland house prices. With a bit more money they can import more of their kin in for the skin-trade, more cash money, contactNT, more cash money, lotsandlotsofit

by Christov | 10th Dec 13, 4:39pm 1386646780

Spot on iconoclast.....the good news is there are levels of investigation now in progress, as one such immigrant or Foreign National just this week has become the first to forfeit purchased property and charged with money laundering.

Do we have the manpower to follow available leads , do we have the will to, time will tell.

One thing for certain that little story did no make front page news and came to me from a mouth very close to the horse. I was surprised, and asked whether there were ongoing investigations....the answer was yes.

by Stephen Hulme | 10th Dec 13, 5:05pm 1386648345

It's not all beer and skittles in Australia in respect of the immigration flood:

People born overseas now make up 27.7 percent of the population, according to 2013 figures from the United Nations’ Department of Economic and Social Affairs. That compares with 14.3 percent in the U.S., 12.4 percent in the U.K., and 20.7 percent in Canada.

Immigration is “incredibly important,” RBA Deputy Governor Philip Lowe said Nov. 26 in Sydney. “They bring management skills, they bring technology skills, they bring a commitment to hard work.”

Along with stimulus, immigration has brought challenges. In 2009, attacks on Indian students in Melbourne dented the reputation of the education industry, the fourth biggest foreign-exchange earner.

Bob Carr, premier of New South Wales state from 1995 to 2005 and foreign minister from March 2012 till September, says a pro-migration business lobby has encouraged an expansive program even as it pressures the world’s most arid inhabited continent.

“Why is it in Australia’s interests to push immigration at the very highest levels?” he said in a telephone interview. “We know we’ve got problems with an erratic rainfall pattern, we know our rivers sometimes end up grudging streams, we know we’ve got a lot of land degradation and that we cling to the coast, a fertile coastal strip.” Read more

by iconoclast | 10th Dec 13, 5:46pm 1386650788

How I got it wrong on migration

by Rob Burgess, 6 Dec 2013, Politics National Affairs

What we are now discovering

90 per cent of migrants settle in our major metropolitan areas, the main concern is the housing and infrastructure demands they place upon public and private investment resources.

Many journalists - this one included - have assumed migration will sort out the ageing population problem. On that, we have been wrong

national-affairs how i got it wrong on migration

by tagrossbilly | 6th Dec 13, 11:04pm 1386324242

...put things all in the past.

by Plan B | 6th Dec 13, 11:57pm 1386327446

Phil may not realise but the issue he has raised through his private members bill is fast becoming something that he no longer understands nor has the pwer to control.

by cowboy | 7th Dec 13, 7:01am 1386352878

Nothing is too important that the government won't destroy it