The average rent has increased by $22 a week (+5.2%) in the last 12 months

Photo: Nick Youngson CC BY-SA 3.0 Alpha Stock Images

The average rent for new residential tenancies increased by 5.2% nationally in the 12 months to June, easily outstripping wage and general price inflation.

Interest.co.nz's latest quarterly analysis of rents, based on tenancy bond data from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment, shows that the average rent for new tenancies taken out throughout the country was $444 a week in the three months to the end of June, up by $22 a week (5.2%) compared to the same three months of last year.

Changes in Average Weekly Rent
Q2 2017 - Q2 2018
District Average rent Q2 2018 $ Annual change   $  Annual change   % 
Whangarei  383 28 8.0%
Rodney  549 28 5.4%
Waitakere 510 24 4.9%
North Shore  583 27 4.8%
Auckland Central 562 16 3.0%
Manukau 526 22 4.3%
Papakura 504 16 3.2%
Franklin 463 16 3.6%
Auckland Region 541 22 4.2%
Hamilton 380 15 4.1%
Tauranga  457 23 5.4%
Rotorua 344 26 8.3%
Napier 402 30 8.1%
Hastings 366 18 5.1%
New Plymouth 351 8 2.4%
Palmerston North 320 16 5.2%
Whanganui  279 30 12.1%
Kapiti Coast 410 25 6.5%
Porirua 436 31 7.5%
Upper Hutt  401 54 15.6%
Lower Hutt 404 26 6.7%
Wellington City 506 15 3.1%
Wellington Region 473 21 4.7%
Ashburton  324 7 2.2%
Banks Peninsula  317 -42 -11.6%
Christchurch  373 11 3.1%
Mackenzie 308 -80 -20.7%
Rangitikei  233 10 4.5%
Selwyn  417 -30 -6.6%
Timaru 307 4 1.2%
Waimakariri 383 -3 -0.8%
Canterbury 367 7 1.8%
Nelson 372 22 6.3%
Queenstown-Lakes 596 21 3.7%
Dunedin  361 28 8.3%
Invercargill 261 17 6.8%
Total NZ 444 22 5.2%

That compares with a 1.1% increase in the Consumer Price Index in the 12 months to March and a 3.9% increase in average weekly earnings (before tax) in the  year to March, according to Statistics NZ's Quarterly Employment Survey.

Those figures suggest that rent is likely to be making up an increasing component of the household budget for many if not most people who are renting, leaving them less money to spend on other things.

It will also be taking a bigger share of government spending through higher rent subsides for people on low incomes, leaving less in the kitty to spend in areas such as health and education.

However, there were significant regional differences, with the biggest increases occurring in areas where rents were well below the national average - Upper Hutt  where the average rent increased by $54 a week (+15.6%) and Whanganui where  it rose by $30 a week (+12.1%).

At the other end of the scale, four districts in Canterbury;  Banks Peninsula, Mackenzie, Selwyn and Waimakariri, posted declines in average rents compared to a year ago, although those figures could have been affected by the relatively small number of tenancies involved, which could make the figures for those districts more volatile.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the area with the highest average rent was Queenstown Lakes at $596 a week, although the annual increase there was a relatively modest 3.7% ($21 a week).

The area with the cheapest rent was also in the south of the South Island, with Invercargill having an average  rent of $261 a week which was up 6.8% compared to a year earlier.

Around the major centres, the average rent in Auckland is now $541 a week up by $22 a week (3.6%) compared to a year ago, and within the region the average rents ranged from $463 in Franklin, which was the only area where the average was below $500 a week, to $583 on the North Shore.

In the Wellington Region the average was $473 which was up $21 (4.7%) compared to a year ago, with the biggest increases occurring in Upper Hutt (15.6%) and Porirua (7.5%).

Although Wellington City rents were the highest in the region at $506 a week, they also had the lowest rate of increase at 3.1%.

In Christchurch rents increased modestly, up 3.1% for  the year to $373 a week.

Overall, areas which have traditionally had some of the cheaper rents had some of the biggest increases over the last 12 months.

As well as Whanganui and Upper Hutt which both had annual increases above 10%, Whangarei, Rotorua, Napier and Dunedin all had annual increases of 8% or more.

The figures also showed that most of the increase in rents that occurred in the year to June, happened in the first quarter of this year, when new rental activity was highest, and rents tended to remain largely flat or even decline slightly, in the second quarter.

So from a tenant's perspective, the winter months are probably a better time to negotiate rent than the summer.

You can receive all of our property articles automatically by subscribing to our free email Property Newsletter. This will deliver all of our property-related articles, including auction results and interest rate updates, directly to your in-box 3-5 times a week. We don't share your details with third parties and you can unsubscribe at any time. To subscribe just click on this link, scroll down to "Property email newsletter" and enter your email address.

 

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 or click on the "Register" link below a 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.

107 Comments

Rent rises will come as no surprise. The Governments interference in the market with the nonsense "warm and dry" regulations, the scrapping of letting fees, the restrictions on giving notice, not to mention the lock-in effect of the Bright Line test plus many other threatened moves, must eventually end up in rents. Landlord's cash returns are slim enough, and will get even slimmer, and capital gains are flat lining. Within the next 12-18 months the rent-a-crowds will be in the streets demanding more controls and regulations to hold back rent rises. People never learn. The Government can only give what it takes away from you in the first place. Watch this space.

Rent rises will come as no surprise. The Governments interference in the market with the nonsense "warm and dry" regulations, the scrapping of letting fees, the restrictions on giving notice, not to mention the lock-in effect of the Bright Line test plus many other threatened moves, must eventually end up in rents. Landlord's cash returns are slim enough, and will get even slimmer, and capital gains are flat lining. Within the next 12-18 months the rent-a-crowds will be in the streets demanding more controls and regulations to hold back rent rises. People never learn. The Government can only give what it takes away from you in the first place. Watch this space.

Mike Hosking would wholeheartedly agree. What is it with "poor people" anyway? Why can't everyone be in the middle socio-economic class? Imagine NZ without all these "poor people." What would we do? Complain about poor people in Asia or Africa?

BigDaddy makes no mention of "poor people" only you are J. C.

Get used to it BigD...the peasant renters are voting. There are more of them than you, so expect more 'pro' rentier policy forthcoming.

As for your theory of more and more rent rises...I pose another theory. A price crash. Wages in Wanganui (and elsewhere) are depressed. The higher costs lead to a reset. Existing landlords will be replaced with fhb's, and new landlords buying in at the bottom.

Good luck getting blood out of a stone - or a Wanganui patch member.

Guess you get what you deserve investing in such a faulty, expensive, non-diversified asset class. What a fool.

And therein lies the response to those who questioned investors strategies and acceptance of low rental yields. As soon as capital gains started flat lining and other restrictions slowly kick in rents were always going to increase and play catch up to the fundamentals of the current market. It started happening quite some time ago and will continue. Increased debt needs to be serviced and yields are important to investors in a flat market.

up
12

And how long do you thing rents can rise faster than wages before the whole thing falls over? Long term wage inflation is ~3%. real cost of living essentials inflation is higher than 3% also, particularly with fuel prices rising, and our dollar dropping.

I understand your thinking but have you factored in the significant increases to WFF allowances and all the industrial action taking place around the country. Fortunately or unfortunately new money is there and investors have/will clip the ticket to improve low yields

And where is the govt getting this money from? Someones pockets are being hoovered for this money eventually or we are priniting money/digging a debt hole. Its a nasty cycle that doesn't have a good end, no matter which way it goes.

Wait, are you suggesting that to beat rising rents and inflation, I just have a child or two and watch the money flow in?

"And how long do you thing rents can rise faster than wages before the whole thing falls over? Long term wage inflation is ~3%. real cost of living essentials inflation is higher than 3% also, particularly with fuel prices rising, and our dollar dropping"

As long as the government continues to run a high immigration policy & we cant build enough houses (along with investors exiting the market)

Investors exiting the market doesn't change things.. the house still exists, and somebody will still be occupying it.

Enjoy having your rentals stuffed to the gills with broke tenants, and chasing tenants for rent, and the extra wear and tear. And more and more legislation leaning the tenants way, becuase thats is one very predictable outcome.

It does. Investors leaving the market means the houses are more likely to transfer to ownership from rental thus decreasing the supply of rental properties in a market that cannot already provide enough rental and ownership properties.

*Rolls eyes* Houses transferring to owner-occupier reduces the pool of renters, thus leaving fewer people for "investors" to profit from.

With immigration as it is the pool of renters does not decrease it increases, while the number of houses available for rent decreases this leads to increased demand for rentals.

And this doesn't change when an investers sells. Yes, high immigration increases demand. But an invester selling a house doesn't change supply. The house either goes to another investor = no change, an owner-occupier, who has moved out of another house, so again, no change. A developer, who will eventually finish redeveloping and likely increase the supply of accommodation.

It doesn't reduce the pool of renters by as much as it reduces the number of houses available to rent. That is because there are on average more people living in a rental house than in an owner-occupied one.

Consider the situation of four people renting a house. One of them gets married and, with her new husband, buys the house to live in. Now there are three people looking for a house to rent and one less house available to rent.

The number of people living in a house is a function of lifestage rather than owned/rented.

As for your example. What happened at the house the new husband was living at? chances are he moved out, house went back on market as a rental. Same result, couple moves into one house, the flatmates move into the other.

Couples pairing up and moving in together in a place of there own is a constant system dynamic, it always happens, always will. It's balanced out by older people dying or moving into rest homes, freeing up housing. All determined mostly by getting older and the natural progression through life.

As Pragmatist points out, looking at the simple average of each group is too simplistic. You need to look at the marginal average of those moving from renting to owning. I have no idea what the numbers are, but I suspect you're right to some extent but not to the extent that the simple averages imply.

It has been happening in Whanganui for at least 14 years. The parasites, oops sorry - Landlords, have all the power. Taking their share of the accommodation supplement because most of the renters are on some form of benefit.

Murray, I have a friend with several rentals. He just put the rent up $30 a week, 3rd increase in 18 months, thought there could be issues but told me the accomodation supplement came through for all of them.
It's a disgrace.

Yes, been against it since the inception. There is indeed a way to regulate to reverse it out over time which would ensure that tenants would not be disadvantaged. Some brave government needs to take that bull by the horns.

You don't need to be on a benefit to receive the Accommodation Supplement. You don't even need to be renting - you can get it as a homeowner too.

https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/products/a-z-benefits/accommodation-su...

I posted the below yesterday on another article – I can understand some of the cheaper areas playing a bit of catch-up, but regarding Auckland ,I would think that as demand and supply slowly continue to move towards some degree of equilibrium the pendulum may swing in favour of the tenant.

“A Minsky moment possibly– Trade Me Auckland Rental Listings currently 4,995 – and looks poised to go through 5,000.
Yes, 5,000 is just a number – but an interesting benchmark – at the beginning of the year it was around 4,000 – so 1,000 additional rentals currently on offer.
Apart from the obvious I have little idea what this is telling us – is it a seasonal thing, is it an “unwilling landlord” development, a bit of both – or something else entirely?
I note weekly rental rates are currently somewhat stagnant in Auckland – however, should they fall, whatever pitiful yields currently “enjoyed” could well be further weakened.
This market could be full of surprises.”

I've seen a fair few advertising "No letting fee" and "One week's rent free" too. Interesting times.

I thought letting fees had been axed under regulatory changes? Or is that yet to be enacted?

I think yet to be enacted.

I have been banging on about this for at least a year.

This is likely a direct unintended consequence of Government doing everything possible to discourage investment in housing rental stock .

And its only going to get worse when we have policies such as :-

- Banning investors
- Threatening to overturn the entire basis of taxation on housing with Capital taxes
- Threatening to ring fence losses causing damage to existing investors
- Introducing hurdles to investors who require as much as 40% deposit
- and not least of all the Labour Party and the "Mao Tse Tung effect" , slandering and threatening the evil landlord with hell fire and damnation ( anything short of public execution) .

Or maybe the whole "way to get ahead" through rentals schtick will fall over. Generation rent, don't want to be generation rent, they're now a significant portion of the electorate and legislation will change based on people's voting habits.

I'm failing to see any problem with the points you make, aside from the fact some of them are just plain wrong and purely hyperbolic i.e "banning investors" "slandering and threatening". The others are inherently good things and addressing a problem.

up
10

You are right. I would much prefer housing investor sentiments in New Zealand to crash and burn; they should either put their money into something more productive or take their money and go elsewhere to speculate on property prices.
Contrary to popular belief, not all foreign capital inflows are good for the country. We should continue to block out inflows from crony capitalists whose money neither create skilled jobs nor brings innovative products, ideas or technical know-how to boost our economy.

Foreign Capital Inflows, like foreign investors buying up existing houses, then selling them later for a profit. That transaction alone could be considered a Foreign Capital Outflow, and if the foreign investor has sold to a local who has taken out a mortgage, that difference in capital will likely have some of the interest going overseas.

It'll be like me buying a house off someone, then selling it to their son 2 years later for a profit and lending them the money to pay for that profit.

Calm down, boatman or you might get a "stroke" (pun intended).
Policies like cracking down on speculation take time to materialize into visible benefits.
The blocking of speculators out of the market is absolutely necessary; in the absence of which, any new number of builds will be snapped up by investors with little benefit to FHBs.
As new builds gradually come in, more renters will exit the rental market thus easing demand pressure.

@advisor , you are simply wrong ...........speculators are not the cause of the problem they are the symptom , and unless the causes are dealt with the problem will simply continue

What they need to do is amongst other laws, introduce rent controls. Yes i know rent controls haven't worked overseas, but research shows that that was the only law put in place. Other laws are required such as the condition of properties, and preventing properties from being "land banked" (held empty). An analogy is roads and vehicles - there are many laws to cover these including speed limits (equivalent to rent), there are vehicle conditions (WoF), occupancy rules (how many can be carried) and so on. Try a similar system for rental properties. It'll be a piece of work, but ultimately worth it.

Rents have probably gone up quite a bit more as only new tennancys have been lodged with new prices.people that have had there rents increased but are still in the same residence have not been registered as having a new rent.

Do you think that renewals are running with higher rent inflation than at a change of tenant? That's not my experience either as a tenant or a landlord, quite the opposite. I am much more likely to raise rent when an existing tenant leaves and I don't think this is unusual.

I would expect this effect to mean that these stats over-exaggerate rent increases if anything, but I suspect over the long term it washes out.

I hardly ever raise rent on existing tenants, always review at the end of the tenancy to see where we should be at.

If anything, including that depresses the rental inflation.
Rent increases for existing tenants will be anchored to wage/inflation increases.
The cost of transition (search, repair, etc) for a landlord means that existing tenants enjoy lower than market rent increases.

Agreed. Landlords tend to go for lower increases than the market once a rapport is built with a good tenant. Plus, the cost and effort that goes into finding a new tenant (viewings, advertisements, loss of rent due to possible time lag between tenancies etc.) for mom-and-pop landlords.

As long as the Govt hands out rent subsidies,wff tax credits etc rents will continue to rise.
A lady on tv1 the other night claimed she was paying $460 a week on rent.Rent subsidy was $200.

Yep, and sooner or later the young and productive will realise they are being fleeced left right and center.. Landlords charging stupid money for rent, govt taxing them for funding handouts to breeders and bludgers. Not sure why any young ambitious person would stay in NZ if they have good transferable skills and qualifications.

Landlords charging stupid money for rent, govt taxing them for funding handouts to breeders and bludgers

I assume you're including landlords and company owners in that group given subsidies for rent go to landlords, and WFF subsidises lower company wage bills.

Supply and demand are a long way off reaching any degree of equilibrium. Have you tried renting a property in Hawkes Bay? In terms of Auckland if 4.2% rental increase is considered stagnant I think most investors would take that any day. Not forgetting there has recently been significant increases in WFF allowances, some of this will go towards increased rents. As many on this site have stated rental yields have been pitifully low for some time so it should come as no surprise that rents have risen and will continue to do so.

We review our rents every 6months and increase them if we feel it is below market rent.otherwise we find by the end of the tennancy the price has slipped substantially.

This from a Trade Me release – 20th June – since then I would suggest listings have continued to increase.

“However, there was good news for Aucklanders, with an 11 per cent rise in the number of rental properties listed on Trade Me.
Listings were particularly high in Auckland City, up 28 per cent on a year ago. As a result, rents in the Auckland region have stalled at $550 a week, an increase of 4 per cent in the last year.
"We don't expect to see any major changes in the Auckland rental price for the next few months," Trade Me's head of property Nigel Jeffries said.”

Whanganui and Upper Hutt are ideal locations to set up your very own chemistry lab!

Think you are wrong there - in the most recent report I've seen (The Geography Of Methamphetamine Manufacture In New Zealand Between 2004 And 2009), Auckland suburbs/surrounds took out three of the top five spots for lab seizures.

Your old prejudices are just that - old.

https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/about/news-events-and-notices/news/news-20...

“The upper half of the North Island, particularly in parts of Auckland, was consistently identified as having a high concentration of clandestine laboratories, even after adjusting for population size.”

The (renting) suburbs of Auckland are as anonymous as it gets. In a place like Whanganui, people know their neighbors and notice what they are doing. In large suburbs of transient renters, as long as there is no noise and not too much vehicle traffic, many / most have no idea or interest who lives next door, or what they are doing.

The labs aren't always near the users. AFAIK they're usually near major ports as an efficient manufacturing process relies on smuggled substances.

My rent when up by a whopping $5 a week ..dang it. But hey I am grateful for the heat pump - double glazing and new paint job, love our landlord!

That compares with a 1.1% increase in the Consumer Price Index in the 12 months to March and a 3.9% increase in average weekly earnings (before tax) in the year to March, according to Statistics NZ's Quarterly Employment Survey.

What this tells us is that the 24.47% weighting for the category Housing and household utilities, in the CPI basket is a total crock. Quite a joke really that that weighting only increased by 0.24% in the three years from 2014 to 2017.

https://www.interest.co.nz/news/91579/statistics-nz-completes-its-3-year...

I would be very wary of the accuracy of these figures.
They are obviously only for new bonds and that does not give an accurate average price at all for what is being charged.
Christchurch average of $373 per week is not accurate at all.
We have only got 2 rental properties less than 373 per week and that is for 2 bedroom units, so either there has been some stuff up with calculations or there are a lot of landlords that are under renting their property.
We have not got a single 3 bedroom home under $400 per week and most are around the $450 to $475 Mark.
We do have attractive well maintained properties and have no problem tenanting them to good tenants.
Christchurch is an attractive city and conducive to being able to obtain a good return on investment.

I would be even more wary of drawing conclusions from your figures.

Your properties seem to be larger and perhaps even better maintained than average, so there's no surprise your own personal average is higher than the market as a whole. This does not invalidate the total average figure, which includes apartments, one bed places etc.

TM2, let's be honest here, your post earthquake "as is where is" portfolio leaves you limited room to command premium rent. What looks good from the street is less likely to pass inspection where the light don't shine. Even you said that to insure them would be a mere formality. This indicates you can't yet insure them.

Good to see you're prepared to compromise to get the bedrooms filled although, I suspect you don't have a choice ;-)

Goodness me, “light blue touch paper and stand well clear”

I think it was a fizzer....

High crime, under-policed, gang-filled, poor employment opportunities - and people still want to rent there.

Rip-off NZ.

" under-policed' that's exactly my point about your own Chemistry lab.
Someone quoted the stats, but they are for busted meth labs and there is thousands undiscovered around the country. If I was a mad scientist, I would go somewhere like a small towns where it will attract the least attention.
Eketahuna is a nice place!

Small towns where everybody knows everybody, and gossips? And where there is a small market for the product? You've got to sell your product, and sooner or later the police will bust one of your users.. or worse still, the bikie gangs will... then you are in the system. Its just a question of the boys in blue, or the boys in black leather.

The nurses pay-me-or-else strike is a perfect example why rents rise. They get more pay, for a job they volunteered for in the first place, and we are forced to pay them through our taxes. Their blackmail type tactics will be followed by similar demands from teachers, police, government servants and others, and soon the Government will be obliged to gather more tax. As tax increases prices, (as we see e.g.with petrol, cigarettes, rates) it feeds into all wages as the workers fight for necessary, but totally undeserved parity. The bosses need to raise prices which feeds back in one big loop into all prices including rents. This happened back in the 70's when the Electricians Union forced a massive pay hike through strikes and kicked off the wage price spiral which ended up with one of the biggest recessions NZ has ever seen. History is going to repeat itself for certain.

Or on the flip side, they felt the need to strike as they're being gouged by rent prices and inflated costs of living... They can't afford to live because the national average rent price per week is $444, their weekly pre-tax salary on average is $1,307 per week (after 5 years), add power to heat their damp, poorly insulated shit boxes, food, petrol, phone, broadband and suddenly they're a bit strapped for cash.

I know a lot about nursing and the pay claims are excessive. Yes they are stressed, but who isn't. Yes, if they screw up somebody dies. But it's the same for truck drivers. Extra hours unpaid is actually very rare. Very rare. They work in an environment where they have to worry about what's in front of them, but then it's walk out and switch off. Most workers I know have to worry about the health and viability of their employer, but nurses don't.

Sounds to me like you know very little about nursing. Why do you think you know "a lot"?

A bit of history for you - my experience includes being senior manager in a DHB. Over the years Doctors demanded significant pay increases, and blamed the DHBs when they went on strike. They did not put their patients first, but their wallets. they threatened to go over seas (I said let them, there were only a limited number of vacancies overseas, and plenty of foreign Doctors who wanted to come here), but the DHBs were too scared of them and gave into them. Of course the public never blamed the Doctors like you and others are blaming the nurses. After the Doctors, and managers had got their raises, there was very little left for the nurses, and a professional attitude that put their patients before their own needs meant that the DHBs could back them into a corner and get agreement. thus 30 years of neglect. Take a look at pay rate across DHBs - managers and Doctors are way out of step with other positions in this economy. 10 years ago a junior Doctor straight out of medical school started on about $80K. what other profession starts at that rate fresh out of uni and being required to have intensive supervision?

More than that over the years the nurses role has evolved and now they are much more involved in the medical monitoring, diagnosis and treatment of a patient, than they used to be. They are even required to monitor Doctors and check that their diagnosis and prescribing is correct. They are worth far more than they have been paid.

Beyond nurses, there are many other Government organisations who significantly undervalue their staff. The free market elitism that has crept in needs to be corrected. This is a step along the way.

well said murray86. I have said to family who are nurses that the teachers, police and firemen would not put up with the conditions they were. Unfortunately their union let the gap get too wide so a fix requires big $.

Hopefully enough nurses will ignore their unions demand to strike and turn up for work as usual.
That will stick it to the cloth cap union organisers who feel empowered now that their lap dogs are in office.

The Union was not in favour of the strike, they recommended the members accept it and the vote went against them. As a fellow healthcare worker, I was quite surprised the offer wasn't accepted, will be interesting to see where it goes from here. In the meantime, our negotiations have been delayed.

And how much have rates and insurances gone up in the past 12 months? Bet you rates haven't kept in line with inflation, they never do, those costs will carry through to tenants.

Is it any surprise that new tenancies have increased? I know that is when I adjust my rents back to market rents. I've a rental, just finished repainting whole interior and putting rent up by $30 (10%) but previous tenant didn't have an increase for the previous 3 years.

The Union lied to the Public so as to "look right. You have fallen for one of the oldest trick in the book when it comes to propaganda and half truths.
It is very interesting that the votes for and against the strike have not been released and that you have to take the word of the Union.
Ask for the audited voting figures and I will bet you will never get them.
Any genuine nurse that beats her (or his) breast proclaiming their love for the job and the feeling of fulfilment and duty, will turn up for work tomorrow and tell the Unions to go stick it.

Interesting accusation, have you got proof of that?

Yes. The union would not reveal the voting figures when asked, other than to say the margin was "slim". How very convenient and how dumb the nurses and public are to fall for that lie.

Are they required to release that information? You are after all calling them liars, I would expect a better standard of proof than you have just given, they've said the factor was "slim". Are you privy to some other information at all, that says they've lied and engaged in propaganda? Which is the accusation you've made.

Hard to find proof for just making stuff up

My staff group very nearly went on strike a couple of years ago, so I find your emotional manipulation at the end there quite offensive. Sometimes a staff group has to stand up for the good of the profession in the long run. In our case we were tired of constant vacancies we couldn't fill and losing staff to ~50%+ higher wages in Australia. Sitting back and taking the barely inflationary offer from the previous Government would not have been in patients interests.

Sometimes staff are considering a bigger picture than the immediate patient issues, although of course we always go out of our way to try to minimise clinical impact.

A live broadcast yesterday on NewstalkZB had the Union representative asked the very question and the answer was that the union does not divulge that information other than to admit the margin was "slim". I will wager $1000 to any charity if I am proved wrong.

Cool so your answer is no, you don't have proof. Thanks for clarifying.

Edit -

How about if you're wrong you pop on a nurse's uniform and go and join the picket line?

Now you've got to prove you're right as that's how the burden of proof works. You've made the accusation, you've got to prove it, it's not up to me to prove you're wrong.

Prove your vacuous claim that you take patient issues into consideration by going back to work and negotiate the honourable way without the use of blackmail .

Wow, you've got it in for a few people and professions today eh? Is a nurse behind on their rent to you or something?

The vacuous claim on this thread surely is that the union has lied and engaged in propaganda, an assertion that you've not been able to back up champ. My spider senses are tingling a touch, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you're not a fan of unions.

I'm not a nurse so I'm not striking tomorrow. When my staff group took action we didn't go straight to strike, we stopped working flexible hours and overtime and other low level action first, then planned a full walk out. If you've been in the same situation you'll know that very few are actually keen on striking, it's very much a last resort when your employer fails to negotiate reasonably. We all hated the idea of walking out but it was the only way to be heard. As I said, the nurses offer looks reasonable but I understand the drive is from an understaffing issue rather than simple pay. I don't work in a ward so can't say with confidence how bad things are in there but certainly I have heard of significant issues following the underfunding of the last decade.

I guess putting rents up and kicking out your tenants if they won't agree is more honorable than striking eh little d?

Proof ( argue with "would not be drawn on how many members wanted to down tools etc)
"NZNO industrial services manager Cee Payne wouldn't be drawn on how many members wanted to down tools, but said the results of the online vote illustrated a "clear shift" towards reaching an agreement.
The latest vote was closer than previous votes had been."
link:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/105363317/nurses-organisation-or...

That's not proof of what you've said mate, it really isn't, no matter how hard you try to make it so. It's proof that they don't release the information, it's not proof that they have lied or engaged in propaganda.

What size uniform do you wear? I'll go grab something for you, anything in particular you want put on your placard?

Pathetic response. Obviously your guilty conscience is the mother of invention.

My conscience is clean. Suffice to say, without industrial action everyone is this country would have much worse working conditions than they do now. The threat of withdrawing our labour is one of the few tools we have when an employer is not willing to come to the table and have a proper conversation. The DHBs and nurses have put things in place that no critical care will be withdrawn and lives should not be put at risk.

There is only one answer to blackmail strikes and that is to sack all those who lead the action and demote the others who helped. This was done in 1981 when flight controllers in USA went on a prolonged strike causing massive harm. The then President (Ronald Reagan) sacked the lot and imported replacements. None of the flight controllers ever got their jobs back. Good job well done.

The trouble is, the government would be unable to recruit nurses from overseas without increasing wages. Would be something of an own goal.

And that action by Reagan, although he was indeed right in law and in principle, was extremely costly - much costlier than entering into negotiations. As I recall, the FAA estimated it would take 2 years to replace all of the fired workers - instead it took 10 - and the turnover in those interim years (due to the pressures operators were under) was horrendous.

There is only one answer to blackmail strikes and that is to sack all those who lead the action and demote the others who helped. This was done in 1981 when flight controllers in USA went on a prolonged strike causing massive harm. The then President (Ronald Reagan) sacked the lot and imported replacements. None of the flight controllers ever got their jobs back. Good job well done.

There is only one answer to blackmail strikes and that is to sack all those who lead the action and demote the others who helped. This was done in 1981 when flight controllers in USA went on a prolonged strike causing massive harm. The then President (Ronald Reagan) sacked the lot and imported replacements. None of the flight controllers ever got their jobs back. Good job well done.

There is only one answer to blackmail strikes and that is to sack all those who lead the action and demote the others who helped. This was done in 1981 when flight controllers in USA went on a prolonged strike causing massive harm. The then President (Ronald Reagan) sacked the lot and imported replacements. None of the flight controllers ever got their jobs back. Good job well done.

Apologies for unintentional repeats.

No worries, I actually thought you had intended to repost your comment several times in a desperate attempt to get your point across.

Try hard to post a reasoned response even if the topic is beyond you.

I'm behind them 100%. I'm a US trained nurse but did not enter the profession on moving here as the pay was too low then, and that was decades ago. Became a pharmaceutical rep instead - got better pay and a company vehicle and the work... well it was a breeze - got commission too and a trip to Fiji as a bonus one year. I really, really missed nursing - it's a very fulfilling and noble profession, but due to the pay rates, I could never contemplate a return. That's just plain sad frankly, as we need caring people in the profession.

Someday you'll need one to care for and about you - and you'll change your tune. I can guarantee it.

Well on the bright side, if the euthanasia bill goes though we can just take him out back and shoot him.

I have been in the care of nurses on more than one occasion and I am forever grateful for the wonderful treatment received,
But no one is all ways perfect, and in this case the good nurses have been worked up by a witches coven of Union stirrers. The good nurses are being used as pawns by the Unionists and should realise that. They have got 99 percent of what they asked for and the rest can be sorted quietly over time. Nurses, wake up!! Get out of the gutter the Union has put you in. Regain control of your dignity before it is besmirched for ever.

You'd make a wonderful manager for Dole Foods;

https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/201808688...'s-most-popular-fruit

Your childish comments are in vain. All the extra pay the nurses will get will be sucked up in higher rents and higher costs. Welcome to capitalism.

You really are a number aren't you. Maybe a doctor or a nurse will apply the principles of capitalism to you one day when you need treatment.. ie bleed you for everything they can.

No worries. I have full private ultra insurance. $2000 per month covers 4 of us.

Haha wow. I’ve got Ultra private health insurance as well but that’s only a couple hundred a month for 3 of us. Where does one get this health insurance for $2000 per month?

Seems like he might have pre-existing conditions related to high blood pressure.

He's aging. Hopefully he has plenty of money for private insurance because it will continue to get more and more expensive as he ages, and if he ever has to give it up he will be at the mercy of the public system he has ranted against.

All the while forgetting that his private insurance is only so affordable because so much is handled well by the public system.

I have more than enough money to last the rest of my life- unless I want to buy something of course.

....what's your time frame...next week?

I do question the accuracy of the so called average rents. In Nelson for instance your figures indicate an average rent of $372. Looking at Trade me properties to let 30% of all properties are below $372 and of these most are one bedroom flats or even just bedrooms in hostels. Of the 91 properties listed 64 are more than $372. I let a lower quality three bedroom house this week for $380 and I had plenty of tenant choice. The next cheapest three bedroom was well into the $400's. Most agencies do not even need to advertise. Plenty of walk ins who are prepared to pay what it takes to secure a property.