New figures from Statistics NZ suggest only about 90% of new homes consented in Auckland actually get built, which means the housing crisis could be much worse than feared

New figures from Statistics NZ suggest only about 90% of new homes consented in Auckland actually get built, which means the housing crisis could be much worse than feared

Building and Construction Minister Nick Smith put a fine spin on some new housing numbers that came out this week.

This was in response to some experimental data released by Statistics NZ, which attempts to plug an important gap in housing market data by estimating how many dwellings consented each year actually get built.

According to Statistic NZ’s estimates, it’s around 97%, which if correct, would mean just 3% of the homes consented don’t get built.

Smith was quick to use the figures to sling some mud at his political opponents, issuing a press release headed; “Another opposition housing myth busted.”

“Opposition parties have been running a campaign claiming building consents are an unreliable measure of the number of homes being built,” the release said.

“They have claimed that the numbers are flummery, that there is a yawning gap between consents and buildings completed.”

Smith said the new figures disproved those claims.

On the face of it, what Smith said is correct, at least at the national level.

Unfortunately neither the Statistics NZ’s or Smith’s release made any mention of what the trend is in Auckland, which is where most of the housing pressures are.

However Statistics NZ did supply the raw numbers showing the number of homes consented and its estimate of the number of homes completed in each region, going back to 1998. has analysed those figures and what they suggest is that the number of homes consented in Auckland that actually get built is somewhere around 90%, with the most recent figures suggesting something just under that number.

And it has bobbed up and down around 90% for the last five years.

Statistics NZ has stressed that its dwelling completion numbers are still experimental.

“This data should not be considered final and we advise against using it in decision making. This is a work in progress and likely to change as the methodology is refined and other input data sources considered,” Statistics NZ said in its initial report on the new figures.

However if the Auckland figures do prove to be correct once the work on the new data series is complete, they will paint a grim picture for the Auckland housing market because most estimates of Auckland’s housing shortage are based on the number of consents issued in the region.

If the number of homes that are actually built is only around 90% of what is consented, then the housing crisis Auckland is facing is likely to be more severe than most estimates have suggested.

Although Smith’s release did not mention the Auckland figures, it did make another rather startling claim.

“The confirmation that building consent figures are a reliable measure of new home completions reinforces the progress the Government’s housing programme is achieving,” Smith said in his release.

“Our housing policy has successfully grown new home construction for the past six years, from 13,000 to 30,000 a year, in what is the longest and strongest residential construction boom on record.”

According to Statistics NZ, 30,645 new dwelling consents were issued in the 12 months to May this year, but that is hardly a record.

More consents were issued in the 12 months to May 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976 and 2004, with the record being the 12 months to May 1974 when 39,636 new dwelling consents were issued, which was 29% higher than the 30,645 consents issued in the 12 months to May this year.

And what about Smith’s claim that the last six years have been “the longest and strongest residential construction boom on record.”

Smith is again correct, but only if you measure the boom by the cost of homes being built.

But in terms of the number of homes being built, the last six years are far from a record.

According to Statistics NZ, 140,652 new dwelling consents were issued in six years to the end of May.

That compares to 165,615 in the six years to May 2008, and 192,681 in the six years to May 1977.

So we still have some way to go before Smith will be able to claim that the number of homes being consented and built is the longest and strongest on record.

Here's what Nick Smith said:

And here's what Labour's Phil Twyford said:

National’s failure to fix the housing shortage has been starkly illustrated by new statistics, says Labour Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford.

 Statistics New Zealand has released a new statistical series today, showing the number of houses actually built, rather than just building consent data.

 “Auckland’s population growth under National has been similar to growth under the previous Labour Government – 220,000 people. The difference is that under National just 44,000 houses have been built, compared to 78,000 under Labour.

 “When compared to population data this release confirms a housing shortfall of over 30,000 homes has built up under this Government.

 “In the last year only 8,600 houses were built in Auckland, barely half of what was needed to keep up with population growth. No wonder Auckland Council projects the city’s housing shortage will rise to 50,000 houses in a few years.

 “That’s the story of the housing crisis: National has simply failed to get enough houses built. National’s housing shortage caused house prices to rocket and turned our homes into gambling chips for overseas speculators.

 “The lack of housing has caused rents to balloon, increased overcrowding, and forced more and more families to live in cars and garages.

 “After nine years, it’s time to fix National’s mistakes. Labour’s fresh plan for housing will build affordable houses and sell them to first home buyers at cost, while banning overseas speculators, and shutting down the tax loophole that speculators exploit,” says Phil Twyford.

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.


This will certainly put upward pressure on Auckland house prices in the medium/long term.

Demography is likely the biggest driver of house prices over time.

The current softness in the Auckland market will, I fear, be short-lived.

Demography is likely the biggest driver of house prices over time.

Interesting. Does this stem from your work in policy formulation in the social sciences? Perhaps this is some kind of driver analysis. Wanna share the methodology?

Some guy named Loh mentioned it at an open home

Hi J.C.

The prospect of demographic impacts on the Auckland housing market gets you worked up - as we all note.

Increasing population keeps the demand for houses high. And prices inevitably increase, in order to ration the growing shortfall of houses. That's the way it goes over time, I'm afraid.

Demography is, of course, a social science - as are economics and econometrics. These disciplines are all relevant to property.

Not worked up at all. Just interested in the methodology that you base these forecasts with. You seem reluctant to share. A steady line of patter can done by anyone a la Mike Hosking.

tothepoint Keep up the spruiking
When does the words stop and the action start in Auckland ?
I guess we will all be dead & our children will be arguing over this mess

Specuvestors have elbowed first-home buyers out of Queenstown's first special housing area.
Queenstown Lakes is also the least affordable place to buy a house. The median house price of $880,000 in May is now 12.21 times the median household income of $72,098, according to Auckland's North Shore is at 10.55. The national average is 6.21 times.

The large price rises in Auckland and Queenstown are kind of driven by the same basic impulse - severe land supply constraints coupled to low interest rates and a desirable location.

Queenstown has an area of land bordered by mountains and lake, leaving little room to build.

Auckland has an area of land bordered by the imaginary fences of Len Brown and Phil Goff's politicking little minds, leaving little room to build.

So prices rise in both places rise, until desirability of the location fades.

The Auckland construction shortfall is about to get worse now that the property market has turned and banks are restricting lending.

Zachary, remember 25 Ridings Rd was passed in at $3,800,000 last week? Now it has an asking price of $4,550,000.

Will not be good if house prices begin rising again in a few months, 90% of the people on will have to bury their heads in the sand again.

LOL the thought of their heads in the sand is very funny.

House prices will definitely rise again in a few months. Just found out 19 Omahu Road sold last week for $6,700,000. Zachary will be happy to read this.

Wow, that's almost 2M over the high price and 100% of CV. I often run by that house on my up to Mt Hobson.

Gee wiz property up the st from me is asking 12.5mill & value wise bests anything in emmbers or eeepsum

Despite the so called housing shortage, the Auckland market is struggling at the moment .. the main reasons being :
- Huge Housing debt
- Imposed restrictions on DEMAND
- Interest rates rising

So MR. Smith/ Billy trying to bullish their way around by stating that the market had been rising due to lack of houses is BULLSHIT....

...the above quote you appear to be referencing is by Phil Twyford and yes it is BULLSHIT:

“That’s the story of the housing crisis: National has simply failed to get enough houses built. National’s housing shortage caused house prices to rocket and turned our homes into gambling chips for overseas speculators.

“The lack of housing has caused rents to balloon, increased overcrowding, and forced more and more families to live in cars and garages."

The reason Auckland has not been able to build enough houses is that Labour has cut off land supply to the city. But don't worry now Labour has a policy of opening up land supply to Auckland. So vote Labour, to punish Labour, so Labour policy can be scrapped and Labour policy can be implemented.

Vote Labour - even they don't know what they are doing.

what about the SHAs that got abolished? that was not labour that abolished them.

"So called shortage" is right, in Auckland. No one has yet been able to explain to me why, in the face of this "crisis", rent increases have been v modest over the last 5 years of so. I don't see increases of 3-4% compounding as being an indicator of a significant shortfall. Supply and demand in the rental market seems quite well balanced. There's a shortage of houses to invest in, not a shortage of houses to live in.

Exactly. While I recognise there is a house price crisis it still doesn't seem like an availability crisis.

Rents have gone up faster than wages. Middle to low income earners have not been getting 3-4% pay increases. Median rents for a 3 bedroom home have gone from around $450 to $600-620 a week in the last 9 years. That is at least a 33% increase. In dollar terms a family renting a 3 bedroom home is now paying at least $7500 a year in rent compared to June 2008 (stats from charts).

How much has renters pay rises been in that period? My guess is that after paying for the increased rent there is not anything much extra for themselves.....

And remember there are more and more kiwis renting....

Yes, I agree that rent increases are bigger than wage increases, but only by about 2% per year. Trademe made a big deal about rents going up 20% over 5 years, but when I did the numbers that only about 4% compounding. Is 4% pa a significant increase? No. It's borderline material. 33% increase over 9 years...I mean, per annum compounding that's just not a massive number. 3% compounding? And this is a really important point, as if the rental price represents the true market price for housing as an accomodation commodity then there are no "housing as accomodation" supply and demand fundamentals to support current prices. its not a supply problem, it's a demand problem (there is too much investor demand and the banks have been too willing to respond to that demand with bigger and bigger loans).

What if the 33% increase was the maximum rent landlords could squeeze from tenants, while their main revenue target was capital gains. That would mean tenants are losing all their economic gains from pay increases, the introduction of WFF, accommodation supplement increases..... but due to NZ and foreign property investors being so active in the market, and pushing prices so high, renters ability to buy rather than rent is limited.

Its not the maximum, we will find the maximum when the interest rates begin to rise and landlords simply pass the increases on to the renters. Renters have been on "Holiday", just wait until the rates rise.

Maybe short term.
When that happens, all hell will break loose though.
House values will collapse at that point.
Net effect will be that rents decrease in medium term due to significantly lower house values.
It will not be a good time to be a landlord unless you have a ton of equity in all of your properties. I somehow fear that isn't the case, currently.

No, as rents are paid from income there is a natural cap on rents. You can't borrow to pay rent. What WILL happen is that house prices will fall so that those rents represent an increased yield. So interest rate increases will be a problem predominantly for leveraged landlords, not tenants.

Would be stupid to build when no one s going to buy? Shortage is going to get worse.

... no shortage down in Christchurch ... the local rag the " Press " ran a front page story yesterday that the housing market was already in surplus ... and many big new subdivisions are still ramping up ...

So ... here's a go for adventurous Orc Land retirees ... sell your $ Million average home in the Queen City ... buy a really good one for one half of that somewhere in the Garden City ... and invest the residual $ 500 000 as per Claire Matthews/Martin Hawes sound advice ...

... live the Kiwi dream !

Good idea. Hopefully Auckland boomers haven't left their sell-up too late to get great money.

...and freeze for the rest of your life (I lived in Chch for 20 years)

You could always go to the Bay, which is warmer, but as I've found out this week lives up to the stereotype of 'Heaven's holding pen'

As an architect shouldn't you be able to design and build a warm house?

Yes but I like going outside my house every now and then lol

Queenstown ay Double!
Must be full of Chinese and Chinese money flowing in according to some.....didn't think supply and demand had anything to do with it *cough* *cough*
Who is going to be our scapegoat today for this supply debacle..... the Govt, the Chinese Buyers, the Reserve bank, the sellers that choose to sell to Chinese and make huge profits and brag to their friends yet have an issue with Chinese buying houses, the council or the super city council or the poor old investors who never use to cope so much flack until housing actually become a massive issue and a media frenzy. I wait with anticipation.

That's an interesting point Upside, I think most will agree there isn't a lot of Chinese money in Qtown... so what are the reasons for its huge prices ?

One theory I have heard bandied about is that QT is a result of cashed (Mortgaged) up Aucks buying holiday places.

My understanding is that a big issue in QT is that a lot of houses sit empty waiting for the families twice yearly visit.

Hard for the Aucklanders to grasp is that the Queenstown story is not about Auckland. Sorry.
That said I find it hard to explain the phenomenon of the Whatipu Basin. What are the drivers? The place is separate from the rest of NZ. It's like a different country.

I think a factor in qt is the popularity of renting homes out to tourists. Average occupancy of 5 nights a week at say $250 per night for a 2 beddie

I have seen quite a few houses on the Shore with "for rent" signs on them. Its possible that they are asking for too much rent I suppose, but it seems odd when so many people are saying there are not enough houses in Ak.

This explains why my landlord is so nice to me.

If anything the 10% is significantly underestimating the problem. As well as the obvious issue that

many people just gaining consents now - did so before the 40% LVR came in - yes it is taking over a year in many cases to get consents through - and cannot afford to raise the capital to begin builds

Although interest rates are lower than they were a couple of years ago - the element of risk is definitely trending to the upside - unlikely to be much lower movement - again pressuring developers

The banks have significantly tightened up and in a falling market are less inclined to lend at even 40%

Building costs have increased by around 7-9% in each of the last three years - meaning if its a years to consent and another 6 months to project start ( lack of builders) then initial pricing could be out 15% or more making some builds uneconomic

Political uncertainty - they may have dropped in in the manifesto - but we all know that Labour will roll out a CGT or similar if they scrape in - and other tax changes that target landlords and property prices - which has to impact on developers and new builds.

Lot of indicators and headwinds against New builds - and only immigration for which all parties are pledging to cut and limit to various degrees.

Not a pretty picture for ensuring adequate and quality housing for all

I agree. I reckon it's becoming more like 70-80% in Auckland. Quite a few apartments will be consented but not built.
This is old news. Anyone working in and around development in Auckland know this.

I'm an Architect who used to practice in Christchurch, (now living in Auckland after losing my house to the EQ).
My personal rate of houses I designed and applied for a consent for to houses that got built is 60 designed 47 completed, a rate of 78%
(I can sense some jokes coming my way)

Building processes are long and costly. Reasons why some of my clients never built a house I designed them and obtained a building consent for are:
- encountering money problems (most common)
- divorce or separation
- ill health
- unexplained reasons
Personally, I think the 90% completion rate to consenting rate is too high

People often don't realise how expensive construction is right now. Design changes to fit within budgets are always a common feature (even before this decade's costs).

This year banks are really tight on construction lending for residential so I wouldn't be surprised to see the optimistic 90% to drop substantially this year.

In the PM biz, this is all wrapped up as 'the carry'. Carrying costs are the death of many a project, typically for all the reasons you mention, but with three very potent additions:

  1. Interest paid on already-sunk costs if debt-funded/opportunity cost on these if outta cashflow. These will include:
    • Land/plot purchase
    • Associated legal eagle fees
    • Plans (sorry!)
    • Pre-consent consultant fees to navigate the often incomprehensible and not infrequently internally inconsistent District Plans
    • QS and other professional fees associated with costing the plan
  2. Material and labour cost inflation during the elapse of time, while the hapless principal slogs through the consent, build and inspection process. On a $400K pure build cost, at 7% inflation, this is $2,333 per month
  3. Variations arising from the consent process itself. E.g. projections through a site envelope that seemed inconsequential but don't get past the Brown Cardies on the first phase of play, or Questions (which often are there simply to extend the Consents Clock) which add to elapsed time and thus to the Carry. It's the Magic of Compound Interest, but the wrong way round....

I'm sure common taters with skin in the game can add more items or time injectors, to this rather sparse list of 'what can possibly go wrong'.....

Cost of roof over your head while it might be rent going out as well as interest costs on project.

Building Consent questions don't just delay processing but they claim that the clock is stopped even though there is no such provision in the Building Act. What Councils do not seem to understand is that they multiply their workload by doing this, and on top of that they are doing more work that achieves nothing.

Council Officers starting arguments because they refuse to communicate, read plans, pick up the phone or create arbitrary requirements based on their lack of understanding of what they are processing. Councils also charge commercial rates for substandard and intentionally slow work. Councils do try to process faster but they are experts at self-sabotage.

You're on the money Waymad (pun intended), either you have built yourself or you are in the building industry is my guess

Yeah, nah, work in the accounting BI side of IT so get to see a lotta Financials, understand PM well enough to steer in the exact opposite direction, and have stayed right outta new builds since 1976. But in them days, a two-A3 sheet (plans and elevations, self-drawn) plus a reputable local builder, were all ya needed to House yerself perfectly satisfactorily. That ship sailed decades ago.

I don't envy those of you in the business - it's a wonder the homicide rate is not higher if my own emotions were projected universally....

This area is one best now experienced vicariously, methinks....As in, stand on the sidelines, laughing and pointing (and, occasionally, sobbing for the lost opportunities and the utter waste of resources - like Producer Statements).

I find National’s approach to housing incomprehensible. They say housing is important to them. There are videos and speech notes of John Key as far back as 2007 -saying housing affordability was at crisis levels. All the time National wrt housing talk about supply, supply, supply….

National despite English proclaiming to be an economics policy wonk/safe pair of hands...... they do not discuss that the housing market is made up of supply and demand.

National does not discuss that there are multiple demand and supply factors influencing the market -the global economic cycle -the GFC, the cyclical nature of NZ’s high rate of immigration, cyclical flows of foreign investment -especially from a fast globalising China, tax laws on housing speculation vs other investments, monetary policy cycles -under Clark/Cullen -it was tightening, under Key/English interest rates have been low/stable. Macroprudential tools have been the preference under Key/English and did not exist for Clark/Cullen -but that has come with a lot of political interference. John Key begged last July for higher investor loan to value restrictions -which Wheeler gave him. Investor housing loans have dropped by a billion dollars this year compared to last. Yet Joyce refuses to give the Reserve Bank a debt to income tool if this is needed to calm the housing market in the future.

Back to supply -I see nothing the government has done that has radically improved Auckland’s housing supply elasticity. As Phil Twyford recently argued in Parliament National has had 9 years to reform the planning rules around the inelastic supply of land for housing and they have failed to do it.

So now all National has is spin (luckily for them they have a lazy and forgiving media -with the odd exceptions like this website). National are spinning a big story about supply -about Auckland's house construction boom when the facts just do not back them up.

The reason is that for elastic/competitive land supply to be credible there needs to be a means of supplying infrastructure to it. The government has not explained in its supply, supply, supply mantra how it is going to provide infrastructure for Auckland to build a Tauranga every three years given its current immigration/population growth settings.

Steven Joyce in Parliament on Wednesday is still trying to blame something that Auckland Council's (Pre Rodney Hide's supercity) did under Labour's watch 14 years ago for the housing crisis. Steven refused to answer why if this is the main issue causing the housing crisis they did not reverse this decision in the last 9 years. The arrogance and inability to accept responsibility is a chronic affliction for National it seems.

Phil Twyford: Why do he and the Prime Minister and the Minister for Building and Construction always blame Auckland Council for the restrictive planning system that makes urban land so expensive when at any time in the last 9 years the Government could have published a national policy statement under the Resource Management Act to prohibit the use of an urban growth boundary?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Let me explain to the member what happened. In 2003-04 there was a law change that allowed the regional councils—
Phil Twyford: In the last 9 years.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Let me take you through it—let me take you through it. The regional councils' metropolitan urban limit was put in place as being superior to the local councils plan. That caused a massive decline in housing construction in Auckland, to the point where in 2009, there were only just over 2,000 houses a year being built in our biggest city. Since that time, the construction sector has grown dramatically, and now we have nearly 11,000 houses being built in our largest city. But we have had to recover from the terrible situation that was left from that change in 2004.
Phil Twyford: Surely he does not believe the spin of his Minister for Building and Construction that the special housing areas and the Auckland Unitary Plan are the same thing as abolishing the urban growth boundary, given that the unitary plan still has an urban growth boundary and Auckland continues to have some of the most expensive urban land in the world?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member is missing the point. The problem was that the previous Government put in place—
Phil Twyford: You've had 9 years.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —this requirement. I am trying to explain it to you, Phil. From 2004 down to 2009 there was a massive decline in construction, and from 2011 to 2017 there has been a massive increase in construction. Spot the difference between those two things. The Labour Government stalled the housing market in Auckland; the National Government is growing the housing market in Auckland.

I believe they have an edited version of Harry S Truman's sign behind their desks: "The Buck Stops Elsewhere"

National have openly admitted the do not want house prices to come down, hence they're studiously avoiding taking any action that will make houses more affordable.

Funny and yes National have an elaborate game of excuses when it comes to why they haven't provided affordable housing that they promised and campaigned on as far back as 2007.

I have a friend who has even longer complained about the lack of policy from central or local government to allow affordable houses to be built. He blames people on the left for being naive and stupid with advocating for things like greenbelts and ignoring the inequality consequences of housing becoming unaffordable. But he thinks the greed on the right is worse. The blue rinse brigade and a bunch of well connected old boys that ensure the planning system is rigged to maximise their property capital gains.....

And so ....

The Government should govern for all native New Zealanders - particularly those who have been squeezed out by the burgeoning outlanders who come to New Zealand from their own cities and countries that have been spoiled by corruption - they get here and find a paradise of easy going people who are easily conned by bearers of blankets and muskets and much money - easy pickings

We can all see it happening in right front of our eyes but the Wellington domiciled burghers never see it - to them it's just words from another place - so they dont see the need to protect the locals - meanwhile the spivs coming in continue to make hay while the sun shines or doesnt shine

How much of that is just politics? Not defending them by any means but QT is anything but QT. They rarely answer the questions just answer by somehow referring to how bad opposition are or were. Or else they interpret facts for their argument, the way they want and disregard the rest. Pity they can't answer it like it was at a public meeting/debate or something.

Its very frustrating. But they are meant to debate but once you've got the numbers, whats the point in debating, just count the votes. Majority governemnt = Stable government but also arrogant government.

Like a recent supreme court decision against them building a dam on conservation land. What will they do ? Create a law to break a law. And for the PM to say this so soon after the decision is downright wrong. These guys disgust me!!

I hear what you are saying Queen. But what Steven Joyce said in Parliament about National creating this big housing supply boom in Auckland is also what Nick Smith and others in the National Party are saying outside of Parliament to the media and public. It is part of their political campaign for getting re-elected. They obviously think the public will believe their twisted version of half-truths and lies. Or at the very least they will create such a confusion on the housing issue the public will not know who to believe....

Then they can safely play their traditional cards -safe pair of hands, possible tax cuts.......

Maybe thats it. Confusion, spin, or anything but the truth.
Hope people wake up and ship them out!
Uninformed or misinformed comes to mind.
Have many govts won a 4th term?

I think not because a) Labour are frightening b) the tax cuts are wanted. I also dont think its much of ppl being asleep, I think they know full well what is going on and will vote with their wallets.

The only winner right now I think will be NZF, I think they'll become the 3rd biggest party and the king maker.


If Labour are frightening then National is terrifying, after all look at the complete pig's ear they have made of the housing market.

Pocketaces - It's a pig ear in every major developed country that didn't suffer a major recession, and as a part of that, a housing market slump. One of the major causes of this housing market problem was the global QE and all time historic low interest rates that were initiated to bail out those incompetent economies - we can all afford a house at 4% interest rates when houses are under 5 times salary, but not so when it gets to between 6-9 times depending upon the location when we all want to buy one at once and the building industry/(Govt?) is expected to provide the product within the space of a few years.

"safe pair of hands, possible tax cuts" I agree, there are I think enough of the middle income swing voters who want just this. Why? because many of them seem to have at least 1 rental if not 2 or more so the last thing they want is a dropping or stagnant market and no extra taxes thanks. There is I think this huge war between 2 parties, those not on the housing treadmill who want cheaper housing and the rest ie those on it who dont want [anyone] to go into negative equity.

Fair comment -"There is I think this huge war between 2 parties, those not on the housing treadmill who want cheaper housing and the rest ie those on it who don't want [anyone] to go into negative equity."

Although I would add not everyone on the housing treadmill wants it to continue -some want houses to become more affordable for the sake of their children, grandchildren......

"Although I would add not everyone on the housing treadmill wants it to continue - some want houses to become more affordable for the sake of their children, grandchildren...."

You mean the hypocrites - They can always sell their house for less to the FHB over the moneyed up buyer.

I am aware of a sale in Wgtn in early 2016, where it was a caveat that it must be a family buyer/owner. She ended up with about 10%-15% less than what the entire Market would have paid.

Dodgy buggers then resold 2 months later for the extra. Original owner would have been better taking the cash herself, she obviously had better morals and I am sure would have put the cash to far better use.

Brendon - national have become more and more arrogant and pig headed just like the last labour government did as their time in power lengthened. Not much difference between our two major parties really

Fritz I wasn't in NZ between 2004 and 20012 so missed the end of Clark/Cullen and start of Key/English -so can't comment too much on the rising arrogance problem of third term governments. But I have always been critical of the last Labour government for their lack of action on housing. They should have done more to make developable land competitive/elastic. In the long run that would have been more beneficial than WFF etc -which has just been eaten up by landlords and property owners in higher house prices and rents.

But Labour got voted out by National who in part campaigned on fixing the housing problem and quite clearly in 9 years they have failed to achieve a fix.

Phil Twyford, Labour's housing spokesperson and the likes of Jenny Salesa -who helped break the working families living in cars story -have in my eyes been making amends. Much of the progress that National has reluctantly made on housing issues (Brightline test, foreign buyers needing a tax code, Unitary Plan, raising points requirement for immigration....) is due to pressure from Labour. On housing matters Labour has been an effective opposition.

>Create a law to break a law. And for the PM to say this so soon after the decision is downright wrong. These guys disgust me!!

And the reason why they're going to do that?'s to create a taxpayer-subsidised irrigation scheme in for farmers. More social welfare for mates.

It's not the value of irrigated water to farmers - it's the improvement to the value of the farm land that the irrigation scheme itself brings to the farms in the area. The water itself is a bonus yet another National party taxpayer subsidy to property investors. Money for mates, off the back of the taxpayer.

You gotta wonder. If we need to start raping those bits of land left in environmental estates for us all to enjoy, we really can't be that wonderfully clever at farming we think we are.

We is enough devolopment enough? When is it time to leave things alone and make do with what we have?

Of course National have made some serious errors with housing , and its not going to be easy to fix , but Nick Smith is in denial and Bill needs to get rid of him .


Back to supply -I see nothing the government has done that has radically improved Auckland’s housing supply elasticity. As Phil Twyford recently argued in Parliament National has had 9 years to reform the planning rules around the inelastic supply of land for housing and they have failed to do it.

Not so.

There is a massive cumulative 50% oversupply of land for housing in the Auckland region. Almost all of the exurban towns of the Auckland region are getting a 100% - 400% oversupply of land.

Auckland City has had it's land supply reduced by 40%. And that has caused some problems.

When you have a Govt that owns rentals, own houses, they always, repeat always want them to go up.

They do not want cheap houses to be built. It would defeat their, repeat their objective.

Am I the only one who can see where the problem......lies.

It is all a lie.

Added to that they want taxpayers to cover any shortfalls. Added to that they want it tax deductible. Added to that they want rates to cover all costs. Added to that they want their pound of flesh, dollar averaging, added leveraging, added cheap bank rates, added expenses, added declining interest rates, plus exorbitant Local Council charges, beyond belief land costs, beyond understanding the building costs, all adds up to people being stupid.

Money talks, when printing and crediting the wrong people.

The mere fact that it does not add up for a normal husband and wife to afford what they want, is getting a bit of a strain when all people in this Country worry about is the bleedin cost of crap houses. Rent, Own, or otherwise.

It was an Asian puzzle, it is now a jigsaw puzzle, nothing fits...the General Public...especially need to get their facts right.....i decline to join in...

If you want a comfortable life, quit the stupidity. retire early, do not over pay idiots to rule the roost, as soon the chickens may be coming Home to roost...

It is in lots of other countries...Ruled by idiots, for idiots, and you...possibly voted for em.

NZ is 90billion extra in just a few years....Whose debt is it....or are you going for double or quits like most countries. Do you give a toss, or do I credit you with this.

Toss a coin...toss the tossers...if you want to really understand the Housing s the overheads that are the problem...and they always were...and you pay em....interestingly..................enuff.

So do enjoy the merry go round...the Middle is a bit wonky, just remember my is not Friday, this is no joke, but if you follow the money, it is a circus, daylight yer bleedin eyes.

And count the cost....40 hour week...constant debt, retire at 65 plus and risingggggggggg........... or die in the attempt........suckers...or die trying to change the system..... which is inflated prices.......inflated twits, inflated egos and inflated....expectations.

Plus inflated immigration, but that is annuver story. It ain't working...but it is distracting.

Your access to our unique content is free - always has been. But ad revenues are under pressure so we need your direct support.

Become a supporter

Thanks, I'm already a supporter.