Do we need more direct regulation to solve our housing woes - or less? Has past regulation contained the issue, or accentuated the problems? Your view?

Less planning regulation.
More regulation on foreign investment.

Simple.

Less regulation.

Simpler.

When you have a world awash in a surplus of money looking for a home that supplies a yield, or capital gain, and housing in New Zealand supplies that, then there is probably very little the governments and councils can do. But if the government is going to try and address the problem, the intervention has to be on a scale so massive that it will break decades old narrative that you can't lose in housing.

Alternative is to let it runs is course, and break of its own volition. For break it will.

Like it or not,, the regulation is there because history has shown that when left to their own devices. The average Kiwi will do a very sub-par job at constructing a house.

But, in saying that. Most of those in charge of the regulations also do a very sub-par job, and usually try to interpret the reg's in the most ineffective way possible.

Some reg's are definitely needed, some could be removed. I just don't think we have the collective Government brainpower to redo it correctly.

LOL - he actually made the case for more tax, LOL.

He referred to this "more tax" as "revenue sharing between central and local government". Use more revenue gathered from tax to get infrastructure to private landholders - so that more land is available for residential development.

In fact, Mr Seymour, restoring the top tax rate to 39% might just do it. You're onto something.

That fine idea aside, where were you the other day when the vote in Parliament to remove the Auckland Urban Growth Boundary was lost by only one vote? Yours.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1609/S00171/seymour-to-twyford-put-you…

The spin you've tried to put on the cock up that was yours is pathetic.

More regulation on the banks' special rights to loan money into existence and their ability to exploit real savings and implicitly pass the buck to the taxpayer.

Unsure if you need more or less regulation. Just BETTER regulation.

There should be better regulation of credit. No more interest only mortgages. LVR restrictions should stay in place and LTI restrictions should be introduced. Banks should be forced to hold a higher amount of capital. There should also be longer term fixed rate mortgages introduced. Housing shouldn't be a giant game of chicken for whoever can take out the most heroic mortgage.

Foreign buyers should be taxed hard or banned outright. That includes students and guestworkers. The current state of affairs is quite frankly disgusting. Likewise negative gearing. Capital gains tax should be applied to housing gains to level the tax playing field with other investments.

Landbanking is the source of much woe. We have a regulatory framework that encourages it. Either get rid of the MUL or levy high rates on zoned but undeveloped land. We are not short of land in New Zealand, even on the outskirts of Auckland. The drips and drabs zoned are just being held hostage.

I don't know much about building regulations, but it sounds like there is a cartel with building materials and being forced to use one or two specific suppliers approved for New Zealand. Obviously we don't want the leaky homes farce all over again. Why does every country on earth manage to build quality housing quite cheaply compared to New Zealand?

When Seymour was talking about how everything seems to go down in price except for housing and he asked what is different about it?

Inflation targeting and housing being excluded from CPI would be my answer.

It is not about more or less regulation, it is about balanced regulation that is effective. The issue with respect to housing is greed, so the regulation is required to put the brake on it, not wipe it out altogether. The regulation that the Government and the RBNZ has put in place has not addressed the core problem, and only adversely impacted the young or those trying to get into their first home. The regulation that the Government has put in place has allowed bureaucrats to run rampant with legislation making the cost of red tape ludicrous, and has not stopped land banking, has put foreign buyers ahead of Kiwis (under the BS mantra that a foreigner buying residential property here is "investing" in NZ!).

So it is all about balanced regulation that puts ordinary Kiwis first, protects their opportunities and rights from being bulldozed by the rich and powerful. Get it right and the economy keeps ticking over at a nice pace without the boom and bust cycles.

When it's not working try again. And again. And again. But I sometimes wonder how these folks in the 19th century came here, and build this country without any building regulations.

Better and valid regulation. Also proper and fair taxation.

It all depends on the type of regulation. The government could immediately fix the problem by legislating that no house could be sold for more than, say, $500k. But they would not do that. Similarly removing all regulation - I.e building codes and planning restriction, landlord subsidies etc would eventually have an effect on house prices. But that too would not be done.

I think the problem is that too many people think that housing is a safe investment. More than anything else, that is causing prices to rise above any inherent value in the land, amenities and shelter. Perhaps what we need is the horses to be scared a little. Ten years ago a friend of mine from China was telling me that he would never invest in real estate in China because without any warning the government could just take it away. So maybe, instead of regulation, we just need a more enthusiastic use of the Public Works Act, and problem solved.

For those calling for more or the same regulation, here a real example of someone trying to add a shower to a room. In the normal world: nobody wants to destroy their house, or make their insurance invalid, so they pick a good plumber, the plumber installs the pipes, the builder puts up the frames, and we install the shower. Done.

Here in Auckland:

1. Get an architect to draw up plans.
2. After a few rounds, architect submits this to council. At this point you're already a few thousand into the process.
3. Wait for council to approve. Hopefully you don't need to go back to your architect. If they approve, it's $2,000.
4. Finally you can get your plumber. They can do half the work. Then you have to wait and book in a council inspection. Weeks pass.
5. You get your FIRST inspection. These guys are so glad they get to inspect something, they'll find something to proof their worth, so plumber has to come back. Another week gone.
6. Another week passes, and council inspect turns up. Approves.
7. Now you get to do the final half, filling up the holes, because the inspect had to look at the pipes. You need to book your plumber/builder, which are all busy, so another few weeks. At this stage you only get to fill up the concrete and put up water membrane.
8. You need to book your SECOND inspection. It gets signed off.
9. At this stage you haven't gotten your shower in yet. But now finally you can install your shower.
10. After you have done that, you have to book your THIRD inspection. Hopefully it passes, else you can rip it all down.

Only then you have your shower.

All you guys calling for more of the same, have you ever build anything?? You really think this is the regulation that has anything to do with safety? It solves absolutely nothing except make building in Auckland very, very expensive.

who can take david semyour seriously, he and peter dunn are only in parliament due to backroom deals.
so whatever there stance is can be changed at a moments notice with a quiet word in the ear.

In a sense the same building code can be used but the terribly slow and incompetent processes within the councils could be fixed. The councils are under the impression that they are doing a good job and avoiding risk, when in fact the opposite is true. Councils are signing off some complete shit while spending all their time obstructing consents. Their performance is disconnected from reality. Despite all of this the building code itself needs a lot of improvements.

RMA needs to be modified to eliminate nimby sabotage. There are also a lot of times neighbours are completely insane and try to attack any work that'll be carried out around them. Although I've seen people that've flipped out over a notified consent only to have someone turn out and build within the district plan and block their view. Nothing quite like trying to ruin someone's building work only to hurt their own interests.

WTF were they thinking ? It should come as no surprise to anyone that we allegedly have 40,000 New Zealanders facing various degrees of homelessness, when, without ANY forewarning from NZIS and zero planning by the Beehive we have issued 200,000 work visa's to skilled migrants in just 36 months (when 36 months is the least time it takes to build a housing estate on a greenfield site...... Hobsonville Point has taken 15 years ).

Of course these skilled migrants have valuable skills and a relatively high earning capacity , many earn twice the minimum wage . Migrants have to live somewhere , and are prepared to pay higher rents than unskilled poor Kiwi's on minimum wages.

And landlords prefer foreign migrants .

Poorer New Zealanders often have huge extended families that cause overcrowding in rental houses and related problems such as blocked toilets , damaged carpets, burnt out plug-points strain on the house wiring system , all the hassles with rent subsidies , a shocking culture of poor payment , and a devil-may- care attitude towards looking after rented properties .

Migrants on the other hand have small families and tend to be 2 adults and one child ( Chinese) or two children (South Africans ) or three children in the case of Filipinos and Indians . And they pay the rent on time .

The "poor" New Zealander has basically been kicked out to make way for a higher rent paying foreigner, he is facing homelessness and his first stop in Housing New Zealand.

The lack of affordable housing in Auckland is caused by one thing and one thing only. Quite simply, Its time to recognise the real you-know -who -in the -woodpile and deal with it .

two words 'foreign buyers".....

reducing regulation is all fine and dandy and should be aimed for will help with supply HOWEVER, we also need to reduce the demand as even with deregulation they can't build the houses fast enough.

Took us 7 months to get permission to build a 55sqm extension on our place - Council demanding flood reports despite living on a 30º slope; lost plans; no access to Watercare/West Auckland Councils' plans records ("Sorry they're a seperate/old organisation!" Why does a rate-increase-dodging split-out by John Banks and A-Name-Change-to-'improve-efficiency' result in no access to existing documentation?). The regulation itself is almost acceptable given materials and experience etc; the incompetence, confusion and obfuscation most definitely aren't.

To run a country you have to have regulations. But those regulations have to be good regulations. Perhaps all laws and regulations should have a sunset clause for their total review. But in reality, as U4 says, it is not the regulation but the competence of those administering it and that is a completely different issue.

The argument should be about, good no regulation, bad no regulation, good regulation and bad regulation.

Then you need to realize that if something is 'bad', then if you do it slower or quicker, or throw more money at it thinking that it's the speed of implementing it or spending more on it, then all you are really doing is magnifying the wrong thing, and puzzled looks all around when it doesn't work.

Common sense would say if you want to be successful, then look to success for the clues, habits, and systems to be successful.

But where do our numbies look, they look at other jurisdictions that have exactly the same problems they have, expecting to find the answer, without thinking that if they had the answer they wouldn't have the problem in the first place.

Of course, those other jurisdictions look to us for the answers.

It's like a self admiration society for the stupid. Govt. departments conduct publicly funded junkets to visit each others like jurisdictions to admire each others failures, and compare notes. And conclude, whatever they are doing is not working because they are not doing it quick enough, or spending enough money on it.

Here is something we might want try, if it is not already obvious, how about we visit jurisdictions that have affordable housing, that have housing that is well built, and look at what type of regulation, or not, that they have, and copy that?

But of course that would never work, because ...............