The PSA weighs into the Auckland housing crisis with tales of woe and suggested solutions from its members

The PSA weighs into the Auckland housing crisis with tales of woe and suggested solutions from its members

The Public Service Association (PSA) says its Auckland members are deeply affected by the city's housing crisis with many at breaking point.

The comments come in a 56 page submission the trade union has made to the Auckland Mayoral Taskforce on Auckland Housing Supply.

Here's an overview from the PSA, whose members work for the likes of district health boards, crown research institutes and other crown entities, state owned enterprises, local government, tertiary education institutions and non-governmental organisations in the health, social services and community sectors.

In March 2017 we asked our Auckland members to complete a survey examining the impact of the housing crisis on their lives. In the space of two hours we received close to 1500 responses and by the time the survey closed this number had grown to 2512. This represents around 14% of our Auckland membership. 

The speed of our members’ response and the heart-breaking stories they shared with us was powerful evidence that our members are deeply affected by the housing crisis.

Our members also provided many suggestions for how things could be improved, ways to increase housing supply, bring down the cost of housing and improve the quality of housing. 

We think the findings of the survey are very important because they highlight the stresses and difficulties experienced by the people who are delivering our essential public and community services in Auckland. Worryingly, six out of 10 respondents said they had considered leaving Auckland for housing reasons. Four out of 10 said they had considered leaving Auckland for transport-related reasons. 

Too many of our members are at breaking point. The stories need to be taken seriously by decision makers who need to take radical, brave and creative action to address these problems.

The PSA says housing affordability is a big problem for its survey respondents, especially those with dependents. It says 58% of respondents in single income households with dependents pay at least half their income in housing costs, with 22% of respondents paying two-thirds or more of their income on housing costs. And 51% of double income households with dependents spend more than half their pay on housing costs, while 24% spend two-thirds or more.

The chart below shows the annual incomes across the PSA survey respondents. The median Auckland house price to income multiple stood at 8.84 in February.

The PSA says there doesn’t appear to be a big difference in affordability rates between people who own their own homes and renters.

Both home-owners and renters in our survey told us of the budgetary stresses arising from high housing costs. However, in addition to budgetary stress, renters also told us of the high levels of fear and anxiety associated with renting – this is outlined in more detail in the qualitative section of this report.

Almost two thirds (62%) of our respondents said that the housing crisis had had a “somewhat negative” or “strongly negative” impact on the quality of their lives. A worrying 57% of respondents said that they had considered leaving Auckland for reasons related to the cost of housing.

Meanwhile, 39.2% of survey respondents say they have considered leaving Auckland for transport-related reasons.

We received over 2000 comments from members about how the housing crisis had affected their lives. These comments paint a very vivid and disturbing picture of the human reality of the housing crisis in Auckland. Our members work hard to deliver the essential services that we all depend upon, yet many are situations of extreme hardship. They struggle with the cost of housing, the availability of decent housing, fear of losing their homes and anxiety about the future. Even those members who themselves have financial and housing security worry about their children, the people they work with, their friends, people struggling on their communities.

Too many of our members are at breaking point.

Common problems emerged from survey respondents, the PSA says. These include;

Lack of choices
Exploitative landlords
Impact on children
Stress, worry, depression, fear and shame
Diminishing quality of life

Work in a range of areas is needed to counter these problems, the PSA argues. This include building more homes, improving infrastructure, reducing consenting costs, changes to bank lending criteria to support first home buyers, government subsidies and incentives for first home buyers and property developers, and greater regulation and controls in the rental market. 

The PSA's submission says creative, radical and brave thinking is needed to resolve the housing crisis. It details a range of recommendations in the table below.

And here's a selection of anonymous responses in the report from PSA members. There are more in the report.

I am a single parent with a dependent child. The only source of income is my wage. Of which I have to pay $400 pw as rent and also I have bills to pay. I struggling at the moment. Landlord has increased rent 3 times so far. Whatever he says we have to obey them, because at the back of my mind there is a fear. If I leave the house, am I going to get the house in the same price. Always fear in my mind if landlord asks us to vacate how am I going to survive. Because large part of my wage goes to rent sometimes I struggle to buy food. (LOCAL GOVERNMENT, Single income earner with dependents, $30, 000 - $40, 000, I/we rent the house I'm living in, More than two thirds of income on housing of income on housing)

My son, his wife and our 2 grandchildren (and a third on the way..) have needed to move back in with us as they are unable to afford to rent in Auckland - they are a single income family (he is a policeman) and are unable to make ends meet - they moved out of Auckland to (town on outskirts of Auckland) in an effort to find appropriate affordable housing - the daily travel of 3+ hours per day made this untenable. (DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD, Two income earners with dependents, $80, 001 - $90, 000, I/we own the house I'm living in and pay a mortgage on it, More than two thirds of income on housing)

Being a social worker, having lots of families I work with for their housing needs impacts my life, physically, emotionally and physiologically. I can't sleep well at night, thinking of my families I see in their houses with two bedrooms for 11 members; 3 adults and 8 children, it breaks my heart. I t affects their health and some parents are mentally depressed. This is an example of the housing crisis I see in Auckland. (COMMUNITY PUBLIC SERVICE, Single income earner no dependents, $50, 001 - $60, 000, I/we rent the house I'm living in, Spends roughly two thirds of income on housing) 

 It causes me a great amount of stress and worry. From owning my own home since the age of 18 in the UK I am now 54 and have had no chance to buy my own home since landing in NZ from the UK in 2010, and will never have the chance to own my own home before retirement, which means I will be reliant on rental property for the rest of my life. I currently pay over $700 a week on rent and as landlords cash in on the current market, have had to move 4 times within the last 5 years due to sale of rental property. I do not see how I will be able to manage once I retire and will probably have to move back to the UK. I dread this as my children will by then be settled in NZ and unlikely to move back with me, which means I will hardly ever see them as we will certainly not be able to afford the flights very often. Quite frankly it is a nightmare. Moving to New Zealand was probably one of the worst things I could have done. (PUBLIC SERVICE, Single income earner with dependents, $60, 001 - $70, 000, I/we rent the house I'm living in, Spends roughly two thirds of income on housing)

About 90% of my salary goes into rent. I have to live with the 10% left + partner's meagre salary (she works part time) to buy food for the family of four, electricity, water, phone, internet etc.. I take extra care that the children do not starve. (PUBLIC SERVICE, Two income earners with dependents, $30, 000 - $40, 000, I/we rent the house I'm living in, More than two thirds of income on housing)

My kids will never be able to own a home, and if they do, they will be in debt all their life, so yes it does affect quality of life, as we would like to see our kids well and prosperous. (DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD, Two income earners with dependents, $40, 001 - $50, 000, I/we own the house I'm living in and do not pay a mortgage on it)

With large numbers of people living in one dwelling - there are cars blocking street, footpaths, close to corners, driveways and so on. With so much in-fill housing in areas, infra-structure is lagging. Public Transport is atrocious and unreliable. No thought about transport corridors. Overcrowding of schools and amenities. Increase in corruption? And dodgy building practices. Are we heading for another 'leaky' building type situation? (PUBLIC SERVICE, Two income earners with dependents, I/we own the house I'm living in and pay a mortgage on it, Spends roughly half of income on housing) 

We've repeatedly tried to settle down, but have had landlords terminate our lease in order to sell, or to take up residence themselves, within 3-13 months on numerous occasions. Most recently, we couldn't find anywhere suitable in time after being forced out, so have had to move in with family. I feel I should add that both my husband and I are professionals with postgraduate qualifications, and clean credit and police records. (STATE SERVICES, Two income earners no dependents, $50, 001 - $60, 000, Living with family (parents-in-law), I don't pay mortgage or rent)  

My husband & I moved from our rental as with only one income we could no longer afford it anymore, we now live with my son & his 3 sons. My husband & I are in our mid 50s, we have between us 25 years of experience working with people with a intellectual or physical disability, but only one of us is working we cannot afford a home of our own to rent the impact, is we both get really depressed, we cry a lot, as we feel we are intruding on our son trying to raise his 3 sons. (COMMUNITY PUBLIC SERVICE, Single income earner with dependents, $40, 001 - $50, 000, Spends roughly two thirds of income on housing) 

We have 9 people living in our house, my partner & I. Three adult daughters & 4 grandchildren as they cannot afford to live by themselves. It is a huge social problem. One income families cannot afford to rent in Auckland let alone buy a property. I am only staying in Auckland to provide a home for my mokopunas. Once they are able to either find a suitable home or move I'm out of Auckland. I hate the travel time which is exhausting & takes away from quality of life. (PUBLIC SERVICE, Two income earners with dependents, $40, 001 - $50, 000, I/we own the house I'm living in and pay a mortgage on it) 

I am a lawyer. I am 53. I cannot save from what l earn. I know l will be renting all my life and that terrifies me as l know a pension will not be enough. If l can keep my job which depends on MOJ funding l may have 40000 in my kiwisaver by retirement and that won’t last long. I battle depression and anxiety daily but l must work to pay my rent and get my child through school. 2/3 of my income goes on rent. I don’t live in a flash place. I have considered moving somewhere smaller and further out and realised lm lucky with what l pay as one less bedroom costs the same. That’s crazy! I appreciate my decision to do (area of practice) means lower wages but it shouldn’t be so hard. (COMMUNITY PUBLIC SERVICE, Single income earner with dependents, $50, 001 - $60, 000, I/we rent the house I'm living in, Spends roughly two thirds of income on housing) 

Tried to get into the market around 3 times over the last few years. Do not fell we can provide a future for our new family in the current climate. (LOCAL GOVERNMENT, Single income earner with dependents, More than $100, 001, I/we rent the house I'm living in, Spends roughly a third of income on housing)

Each time we have to move we apply for 20-30 houses before we are successful, this means taking time off work to go to viewings that are normally scheduled during the working day. We are subjected to prejudice and racism most times we apply for a house. The house we are currently renting has flooded 8 times in the past six months which affects the health and wellbeing of our family but we are reluctant to move because it is too expensive and we do not want the stress of applying for new rental properties. (LOCAL GOVERNMENT, Two income earners with dependents, $80, 001 - $90, 000, I/we rent the house I'm living in, Spends roughly two thirds of income on housing) 

I feel devastated that at my age, 58, I am unable to buy a house. Following a separation 12 years ago, I was a single parent who had to move into rented accommodation and use most of my capital to provide for my family. Now I am on my own, I have $70,000 in the bank and I am unable to buy an apartment or unit and pay the costs of mortgage, rates, insurance and upkeep. I am having to rent and find flatmates. I want to move out of Auckland but I need to find work elsewhere. This would mean leaving family, including my hoped for future grandchildren. The housing crisis is breaking up families and communities. It is ridiculous that on my perfectly good salary I feel poor because of housing costs. We need rent controls and an end to speculation in the housing market. (COMMUNITY PUBLIC SERVICE, I flat with other people and we don't share income, $50, 001 - $60, 000, I/we rent the house I'm living in, Spends roughly a third of income on housing)

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

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.



Will have to wait till election as unless the pioneer of this level of crisis are voted out will never find a solution.

National is crying supply supply is only for they do not want to act on their support base who are benefited by this ponzi.

No doubt supply is important but what about controlling speculative and overseas buyer demand ?

Think and Vote


What National government has done to NZ :

Good for people who had house - made them millionare by default.

All others who may be working hard and may be doing fine but will always be poor as will never be able to buy the basic - House and will always be struggling. Thanks to National Government. Though doing well will always be a failure.

How can a Kiwi on NZ wage compete with Chinese money who dot mind paying a premium to launder money from China to NZ as a result pay much more that the present value as their main aim is to channelise their money out of China. Why not say overseas buyer instead of China is because China being not a democratic country people are more desperate to move their money out ( sor for $800000 house will pay million - as they do not think that they are losing $200000 but saving $800000 by loosing 20% which otherwise if communist govt finds out will loose total instead of 20% and will also be in deep trouble).


NP has failed the average Kiwi. How can they be bold enough to claim that they represent kiwis. They represent SPECULATORS


Great piece.
Auckland's societal fabric is slowly crumbling under the weight of this obscene housing farce.
'Middle' Auckland is seriously hurting, not only those at the bottom.
At mass this morning I will pray for our esteemed catholic leader that he 'sees the light'

It's very sad that articles like this and others that look into wider issues, the consequences of our quest for never ending growth and monetary wealth attract minimal comment and articles about house prices gains/losses attract hundreds of comments.

The housing issue, immigration, environmental degradation and the raft of other social and financial issues that exist are merely symptoms and we continue to tinker without ever addressing the underlying cause(s).

Well, it's because by nature people see what's under their own nose in the short term and take longer to appreciate wider and longer-term effects. That's why you see folk celebrating every potential factor that might push prices higher - good for their own personal immediate gains - with nary a thought for the effects it'll have on Auckland and New Zealand society over the longer term.

(That and it's maybe harder to care about something you don't think will affect you in your lifetime, apart from giving you more money.)


Bill English says that making the poorest 50% of Kiwis suffer is a sign of success. He'll pat himself on the back all day if he reads this article. He literally hates the people in this article.

In other news it seems there's no shortage of Auckland developers who have managed to fail in a boom and with low interest rates. Of course they blame a 1 year development taking 7 years on the GFC even though that was already long since over.

No Zeal-anders and others think their money is safe in others pockets and that they will turn a dollar into multiples. Nuffin new there.

Dream "New Tricks'...just different versions. "Fletcher Building"...maybe not.

This is maybe the start of the next phase of Investment failures, as per '29+ Finance Companies in NZ alone...", And some whole COUNTRIES.....yet to totally fail.

Dot.Com boom and bust...(And I do not mean the Big Fella, with the Internet connections),

Ostrich Farming, I could go on.....but some who have lost a lot in the past, will identify with this....and a few a who only "Realised" their own, past stupidity....not a profit.

I was nearly one. ...and maybe encounters of that kind....fill spaces, unheard of before.

A ponzi starts with Grandiose schemes, the first in and first out, may win and the others left holding the baby, dirty water and others messes to clean up.

Never trust anyone to do your bidding, your buying, your selling, your tax avoidance shelter and "have I got a deal for you'..."Buy one, get one free, plus no Interest' ...brigades....there is hordes of em...or is that spelt whores....I am never sure.

Do not be seduced by quick flip and slow build economics..and many other derivatives..and never believe an ex-Banker or a Poll-lie to have your best interests at heart. ..especially when importing debt, into your life...and everyone around you.

They did it to you....not for you.

I could elaborate...more.

Just tired of off to sleep my life away...I saved a whole hour today....Who will pay me..................................Nobody.

Don't knock the developers 'dictator', They have to put their money up front paying for the land and paying for the buildings. Being a developer isn't for sissies. Give it a go, they have all the risk. If the market turns or they haven't accounted for all the costs they go broke, they loose everything, give it a go!! see how you go!!

If the council stuck to its knitting and did a major restructuring (sacking exercise), then there would be millions of dollars available for roads and public transport initiatives. We hear of all these pet projects eg $270,000 spent on a walkway to a "secret cove" in Devonport that nobody can get to due to traffic gridlock. A cove that already has an existing access way to it 100m away. This is but one example of a waste of ratepayer money.


For a mass sacking to work at a Council you need to sack the top managers and keep the people who do the work. The problems are at the top where you have a lot of highly paid idiots who run the Council into the ground.

At least they got some land for that.

There are many examples where they spend millions, but produce or obtain nothing of lasting value.

A silly straw argument, when infrastructure costs start at a 1 or 2 billion dollars. It is as fraudulent a suggestion as the classic boomer retort to millennials "if you just suck it up and stop buying lattes you will be able to save the deposit for that meth-house leaker shit-hole (oops starter home) in Glenfield." Well, only if you are swallowing a thousand coffees a week.

So some council staff are considering leaving Auckland? Great.

why are government department head offices based in our most expensive city?.
with todays technology they could be shipped out to regional cities to provide local employees at a cheaper pay.
was that not one of the reasons of ultra fast fibre, you can work from anywhere in nz

Central government departmental head offices are based in Wellington, not Auckland. I assume these testimonials are from either local government public servants or from central government employees of the service delivery arms of central government (e.g., hospitals, community service workers etc.).

Many more public servants based in Auckland - almost "parallel" or shadow head offices. CEOs spend a lot of time in Auckland, some SOE Board members prefer Auckland as can fly in from Sydney

Because there kids goto schools in those cities


Gosh the individual testimonials really point out the massive problems - and in many/most cases these are for people on greater than the median personal income of $29,600 pa for Auckland City's population;

It's a tragedy of epic proportion. What isn't mentioned in any of the testimonials is that if living costs are so exorbitantly high - and if government can't realistically bring down those living costs in the near/medium term - then the only thing to do is to increase wages.

What a mess, and it seems to be largely of a central government making given the immigration settings and the unwillingness of central government to more appropriately revenue-share and/or to provide local government with the additional revenue generating tools and/or to properly change the legislative setting to bring the cost of compliance/bureaucracy down with respect to local government settings and responsibilities.

Time to change the government folks - any alternate political ideology has to be an improvement on this.

This government stands for nothing but corruption, exploitation and sadism. Hope they get the kicking they deserve while they're still here to take it, and we don't have to wait for history.

Business lobby - stand the eff up. These parasites are draining you too.

I just hope Sam Mahon finishes this artwork before the change - as I think it's a really appropriate legacy piece;

This needs to be permanently installed on the wharf at Glendhu.

Yes, I read that yesterday - an excellent reminder. We were very lucky as a family at that time. I had been working in the private sector in the recruitment industry for quite a few years - and of course the private sector was booming in terms of money market/finance/IT - and as all the new SOE's began to use private sector recruitment agencies for their hiring, it just made my industry even busier/more lucrative.

Commission earnings were high and we spent everything we earned on that sort of fun/entertaining/traveling lifestyle that preceded the 87 stock market crash. Luckily because we spent all our disposable income on fun - we had nothing invested in the stock market :-)!

But, yes, I had a very real and direct sense of just how devastating that period of government restructure had on many individuals and whole communities as well. As recruitment consultants we of course met and interviewed many people who were out of work due to it.


Rogernomics and financialisation of everything, and neo- liberalism has ruined most of NZ.
Yes, some reform was needed after the Muldoon era, but now the capacity to produce export goods has been dismantled in many areas, while we sell more assets to foreign owners.
This comment from the stuff article was spot on:
"Neoliberalism has had the net effect of permanently decimating our ability to produce merchantable goods while inflating our reliance upon banks and insurers to prop up inflated asset prices. Much of the monopoly infrastructure is now owned by private monopoly or cartel interests. We are seriously considering asking China to build our infrastucture. We have forgotten how to.
The last 8 years have seen NZ supinely buying freshly minted EU, US and UK 'money' as debt to fuel a property price speculative frenzy, while some of our prime productive,strategic assets and infrastructure , both public and private have been sold off to private mostly foreign interests.
We are now apparently incapable of building our own roads.
One of the first casualities of neoliberalism/Rogernomics was the break up of the MOW. It might be time again to look at rebuilding our ability to build and produce real things, not just financial hollow man financial derivatives and debt.
The last time NZ produced a trade surplus was over 40 years ago.
Bring back the MOW, and introduce free public transport funded by a fossil fuel tax"
Unfortunately NZ has no significant viable political alternatives, so we are locked in to globalisation from all party groupings.

Despite adulation from people like Peter Schiff, New Zealand is hardly the libertarian promised land. It continues to have a robust government involved in many aspects of its citizens’ lives.

But neither is New Zealand the progressive paradise that foreign travelers once breathlessly described — or that many of its citizens still believe it is. Perhaps it never was, given that ideas about self-reliance and individualism have always been central to its culture and self-conceptions.

Still, decades of neoliberal reforms have not only hardened social attitudes and eroded some of the country’s greatest legislative accomplishments, but also rolled back many of the elements central to its self-image. A country once proud of its egalitarianism now has higher income inequality than much of the developed world. A country once known for its prosperity now suffers with shameful levels of poverty. A country that markets itself as “clean and green” now must face the reality of its environmental degradation.

For the vast majority of the population, much of this remains invisible, which explains why Kiwis continue to view their country through social-democratic-tinted glasses. Perhaps if they looked more honestly, they could start to solve these problems.

Excellent article. Entirely worth reading the whole thing.

Agree - that's a must read.


The reality of John Key's 3 terms of fun and popularity are being realised. And it doesn't look good.

I spend 50% of income on mortage repayment. I choose to. 10% on rates and insurance 10% I give to charity. I live on 30%
Single inventory admin no kids I own my own home.
If there's you , partner 3 adult girls and grand kids you are getting WAY. More Than 40k once you ad in wfftc and other wins payments.
This is very one sided. Include all the salaries of the people sharing the house.
Living with adult children. They're paying you back for when they lived with you. Plus free in house nanny.

All this point only in one direction : Change Government

The govt would rather put blue collar 23 year olds on the dole than assist in productive jobs that used to exist in forestry, horticulture, railways, packhouses, etc which are now run by large contracting entities importing foreign labour.
This makes perfect sense from a spreadsheet and purely short term financial perspective, but not from a country/development of its people point of view.
So much human carnage, resulting from financial/banking/globalisatio-indoctrinated politicians.

National. For a brighter future.

In my view, one of the biggest problems we have in Auckland is the disproportionate focus on urban design.
Consents often go round and round in circles due to subjective ideas as to what is and isn't good urban design.
I've been brain storming some ideas with a developer, if we could lessen the restrictiveness of some of the Unitary Plan rules (especially outlook space and private open space) then I know we could be delivering 2 bedroom (albeit compact) townhouses to the market for circa 480-500K. At the moment, about the best we can do is 580-600K.

And it's not like any of this alleged 'design' has made it any less of a dysfunctional bloody shambles.

I do actually think some of the design stuff has helped lead to better outcomes. I would never say it hasn't often - if not always - had some kind of benefit.
The big thing for me, though, is that I don't think the benefits outweigh the costs which are often significant in terms of consenting delay, redesign etc.
As a planner I think most planners fail to get the socio economic element of getting lots of houses built. Planning had really socially progressive origins. These days any social concerns are swamped by notions of 'design' (said in a poncey voice...). All very bourgeois really, despite many of its proponents self identifying as lefties

Hi Fritz, just curious as I'm unfamiliar with the Auckland Plan. What is the land value component of those prices quoted? And I'm assuming the savings you could make in terms of that lower price relates to the reduced outlook and pvt open space (land) requirements (as opposed to the building construction cost?), meaning a smaller land footprint for each townhouse?

Or is it that the building construction cost would be cheaper without these outlook and pvt open space requirements?

Hi Kate
Yes it's about getting more yield out of the land, to bring the land price component per dwelling down.
For example, on a 650-700 sq m section, you are doing very well to get 4 townhouses under current rules.
With a change to the rules, that could easily become 5 or possibly 6.

Unfortunately land costs so much or more in Auckland than other larger cities, that it does not matter how much yield per square metre you can generate. In Auckland the yield per $ investment is pathetic.

Well if every renter in Auckland made a point of voting surely their voice would be heard. As to exactly what the solution is though is more difficult. NZ today is not what what it used to be. Benevolent politicians like Muldoon and Savage who had the public interest at heart are not in evidence today or if they are they have no power to make anything happen.

I would say it could be worse but then who are we kidding:-

Bloomberg: Hong Kong Warns on Home Loan Risks, Daily Says, as Prices Soar
Hong Kong retained its position as the most expensive housing market among 406 major metropolitan regions in the annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey for the seventh year in a row. The median price of a home in Hong Kong last year was 18.1 times the median annual pretax household income, according to its website in January.

This article is very illuminating, and worrying.

Meanwhile on the Herald:

The NZ Herald should be ashamed of themselves for running stories like the one above. Clearly these were the only millennials they could find to write a 'success' story about in Auckland without parental help, when house prices were in a different place altogether (purchased in 2009 and 2013 respectively). They are desperate to keep the ponzi going for their RE advertisers, and it's a disservice and disgrace to their readers and the public.

What they are ignorantly advertising to the young and gullible is that to be recognized as successful in NZ you must buy an excessively overpriced asset now from a greedy property developer while carrying a large risk of asset price devaluation and ruining yourself and your family financially for the rest of your life while you attempt to service the $500K+ mortgage that you'll be paying for the next 30 years, most probably at higher interest rates than what you've purchased the property so what appeared to be affordable in reality is not.

It's criminal.

Nice to see the PSA is staying true to form and failing to mention land prices.

Heh. And urging PT (in the not too-thinly-disguised hope that New PSA Members will result).

Interesting too, to see the dog-whistle politics emerging in the comments thread:

  • Just change the Gubmint and All will be Well. That ignores the first rule of politics: how 'dya tell when a pollie is lying? Their lips move....
  • More PT and less Roads. Well, that'll work for businesses within 500m of a choo-choo or bus, and workers in terrace housing on said routes. Except 11pm to 5am, of course, so bad luck to the night shift.
  • But less Roads? Last time I checked, Buses ran on 'em.
  • More Rail? Good luck with getting FMCG to yer local supermarket on Steel Wheels. Figure on $1m a meter construction costs....
  • Incentivise developers? So just how to stop that 'incentive' being simply fed straight back into house prices (see the tragic story of Welcome Home Loans....which simply elevated every minimum price by the exact amount of the $ on offer)?
  • Dismantle building regs and consents? Ooooh no, think of the Children! And all 'a'them Inspectors are PSA potential or actual members (or kindred unionised spirits). Solidarity!

Congratulations all, however, for a most amusing thread....


There are additional costs, but some rebalancing - here is my daughter's story.
Highly motivated nurse - got a placement in Auckland on graduation, job paid for most of her Master's degree and is undertaking management training, all paid for by Auckland DHB. She is a star of the team.
Lives in a one bedroom hutch for $350 a week, depressed and stressed by that and commute, need for car.

Doesn't cover for Indian and Phillipino nurses stuff ups any more, who aren't up to scratch. These imports, in her experience, look down on Pacifica and Maori patients, but fawn over Pakeha.

What's next? Graduates Masters in July, resigns, comes back to Wellington and I'll build her a brand new three-bedroom two-bathroom at the back of my place, she can get flatmates in to cover the cost and life will be grand. Large new place for less than her dogbox rent. Auckland's loss, and it will continue.

>"These imports, in her experience, look down on Pacifica and Maori patients, but fawn over Pakeha."

Unfortunately this is common, yes.

To your wider're right, it's simply gotten to the point where it no longer makes sense for many people in these professions to stay in Auckland, because there's not a viable lifestyle for them. Not even security of rental tenancy such as is available in places like Germany - only an insecure lifestyle.

I work for Local Govt. The higher management is clearly overpaid (there are managers paid twice or more their reports, for doing F%& all). Middle management does all the work and gets paid pretty bad, with no hopes for payrises or advancement. Front line staff are minimum wage and scrape by. There is huge staff turnover and lately I say 50% of the people that leave go to either another country or another city in NZ.

Edit: of course no turnover at all in upper management, they are all still there from the old Auckland City Council times. Middle managers became superbosses overnight with the supercity

Need Solution. Vote Wisely

The Herald Newspaper appears to be whitewashing the issue - three articles in the last few days showing how easy it is to get on the property ladder in Auckland.

toughen up and work harder you wannabes (I'm just quoting the herald!)

NZ's main stream media, has been so complicit with the destruction of the NZ lifestyle that it is offensive.
Mike Hosking stating that NZ needs a population of 16 million people. No why! no financial assessment, just his own arrogant opinion. NZers too busy working and raising families listen to that crap and then vote National.
At least our kids don't remember what NZ was like, they don't know what they missed out on, for them this is normal.

Yep - the last few years feels like a hostile take over of NZ society. You cant have a functioning democracy without an informed public. As much as I like reading, watching "the Nation" and listening to John Campbell. Sadly all the prime time spots are occupied by right wing sycophants like Hosking. It's sad.

I have to be careful what I write but in my opinion (just my opinion) Hosking is not right wing. The true right wing was taken over by libertarians and false conservatives. The Alt-Right would never advocate increasing NZ's population to 16 million unless it was mostly by natural means with the people we have here already.

Ironic coming from you Zachary. Yes I should have used the word “neoliberal” instead of “right wing”. Mike Hosking, the Herald newspaper, Fairfax media, the National party are all the epitome of neoliberal.