Local government is New Zealand’s second biggest provider of social housing, owning approximately 11,500 social housing units,LGNZ seeks:
Several important data sets are missing and some have had to be estimated or derived from informal and unsatisfactory sources. Examples are:Overseas investors: Investment by non-NZ based speculators was not recorded at all and a partial scheme is now in place. Labour's analysis of "Chinese sounding names" as an approximation caused offence but it appears that large scale non-resident purchasing is a live issue other jurisdications such as in Australia and Canada.Overcrowding, accommodation under-supply and homelessness figures.The presentation of housing data can be complex and confusing and the standard measures used do not present the whole picture.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/330768/labour-and-national-failing-with-housing-property-instituteCutting tax breaks on investment property will make housing affordability worse because it would be putting a disincentive in place to be involved in the market at all for investors.Small time investors perform an important public service in that they provide rental accommodation for the market.Without incentivised investors it would almost certainly fall back on the taxpayer because if the
government has to build additional houses it is the taxpayers that
Scrapping tax breaks for investors
Where housing impacts wider society: council powers and Not in My Back Yard effects, transport, education zoning, regional development, licences to occupy, inter-generational equity, disaster management, land ownership, cooperative housing, shared ownership.
While people might recognise the need for more housing they are antagonistic to changes to their street or suburb.
With three sizable disasters in 8 years - Christchurch and Kaikoura earthquakes and Edgecumbe flooding there is little in the public (governments) disaster funds. See https://www.eqc.govt.nz/about-eqc/our-role/ndfMarae and Maori hospitality and capability is being taken for granted by government.Short to medium term emergency accommodation issues. At the moment motels and camping grounds are being used.
Most new migrants settle in Auckland. There is limited investment in regional development as well as significant loss of local commerce and industry in the regions on a national scale which piles pressure on Auckland for housing.There are other house shortage hotspots including Queenstown, Tauranga & Hamilton
Several issues. There is high levels of population growth due mainly to immigration but also to the move from regional centres to Auckland and the growth of the tourism industry.Public housing has low occupancy often pending redevelopment and P-decontamination. There is no legal mandate to have housing occupied even under conditions of mass under-supply and homelessness. When capital gains are strong private landlords can see tenants as an unwanted cost and risk.
These are ideas that I haven't found in the material researched to date but are part of the picture. Some are implemented overseas. zeach could be framed positively or negatively.
Implement a rent to buy scheme where renters can optionally buy a percentage of a privately owned rental property, increasing the proportion over time.
That tenancies survive change of ownership.
That there is a separate class of tenancy where an owner is renting their only home.
Social housing is a better idea than state or public housing
Social and public housing can be just as well managed by commercial overseas social housing providers.
Public and social housing should only be for the vulnerable with multiple diverse needs.
Tenants of public housing should be forced to move on if they get jobs or the household income rises above a minimum level and move to the private market.
Housing policy can’t be separated from education, health, public transport and other areas of social policy and needs to be developed in conjunction with other goods.
Quality, affordable homes are a good in their own right and should not be part of an equation of economic growth
Providing adequate housing requires a complex set of policy responses to provide owner occupied, private rental and public landlords and social housing options.
KiwiBuild will deliver 100,000 affordable houses over ten years for
first home buyers. Half of these will be built in Auckland. That is a
ten-fold increase in the number of affordable houses being built in
Auckland each year, from 500 to 5,000.
The stand-alone KiwiBuild homes in Auckland will be priced at
$500,000-$600,000 with apartments and terraced houses under $500,000.
Outside of Auckland prices are likely to range from $300,000-$500,000.
These will be high-quality homes built to modern standards. Scale and
modern offsite manufacturing techniques will enable these homes to be
built at low cost.
Currently, 2-3 bedroom houses are being built at Hobsonville and
Waimahia and sold for under $550,000. KiwiBuild will enable more homes
to be built in this price range.
KiwiBuild homes will only be sold to first home buyers. To avoid
buyers reaping windfall gains, a condition of sale will require them to
hand back any capital gain if sold on within 5 years.
Construction of the KiwiBuild houses will be financed by an initial
$2 billion capital injection, which will be recycled as the houses are
sold, and returned to the Crown at the end of the KiwiBuild programme.
The Affordable Housing Authority will be the primary delivery mechanism
for KiwiBuild homes, building them as part of its development projects.
He said it would help level the playing field for first home buyers.
Labour housing spokesperson Phil Twyford said the top 20 percent of
income earners were reaping 60 percent of the gains from the current tax
The Green Party has a plan to build hundreds of state homes to help
deal with the emergency housing crisis facing thousands of vulnerable
New Zealanders right now.
The Green Party plan would allow Housing New Zealand to retain its
dividend and, in addition, would refund its tax, freeing up $207 million
in the next financial year to spend on the emergency building of around
450 new state homes.
Despite New Zealand being one of the wealthiest countries in the
world, families are sleeping in cars, under bridges and in garages. This
requires an urgent and direct response from the Government.
There aren’t enough houses in New Zealand, particularly in Auckland, and this policy is another step in trying to fix that.
New Zealand First’s policy recognizes that different policy mixes are needed for regions with different problems.
Those unable to own their own home must have access to quality and
affordable rental accommodation. Existing National Government policy
drives rental prices for low income earners up to crippling levels and
do not provide for adequate, affordable accommodation in areas of low
All New Zealanders who are working must have a genuine opportunity to buy their own home.
New Zealand First believes that this is only achievable by direct
government intervention in New Zealand’s overheated housing market.
There is more than enough housing at the top end of incomes and serious
shortages at the bottom end.
New Zealand First will:
We need to strengthen whānau capacity to identify housing solutions;
improve agency capability to respond, and address homelessness,
overcrowding and substandard housing.
No specific housing policy page or document as at 6/6/17.However a recent
press release outlines a proposal to allow a Working for Families
withdraw their annual entitlement in one lump sum for the purposes of
paying a home deposit.
TOP’s Social Housing Policy
Part of TOP Policy #7 –
Thriving Families is a reform of rental housing law. This part of the
policy is called ‘Decent Housing for Decent People’. The main aim of
this is to ensure that ordinary Kiwis can have a secure, affordable,
warm and dry place to call home provided by the private sector rental
market. This vision is totally achievable if investors in housing
refocus away from speculation and toward getting the stable long-term
returns offered by the rental market. That is where our TOP Policy #1 – Tax Reform will also play a role. It will directly hit the speculative demand for assets by halting the rise in prices.
Most people renting could benefit hugely from improved tenant protection within the rental market, as proposed by TOP Policy #7.
However, there will always be a portion of society that simply cannot
afford the market rental. Currently our Government helps these people in
1/ Accommodation Supplement. This is a subsidy paid
to people renting with private landlords to ensure the cost of rent
doesn’t become prohibitive. Effectively it subsidises private landlords
and pushes up rents and house prices. This model is costly at $2b and
needs reform, but that is another story.
2/ The provision of social housing; mostly through
Housing NZ (93%) and the remainder through the community housing sector
(including iwi and other charities). These providers all get payments to
ensure that rents are at 25% of the tenant’s income (Income Related
Rental Subsidy or IRRS). Some Councils also provide social housing, but
the Government explicitly excludes them from receiving the IRRS. For
that reason, Christchurch have transferred their stock into a community housing organisation.
The trouble is that the number of houses on offer has been stagnant
for almost 3 decades, so in per head of population terms, provision of
social housing has been falling.
While ultimately the private market will answer most people’s
accommodation needs, there will always be the need for a social housing
sector. So how will this continue to grow with our population?
In an attempt to boost supply of social housing the Government has
been trying to stimulate the supply from community housing providers. It
has done this in two ways – offering the IRRS as security for them to
undertake new builds, or by offering to sell Housing NZ stock at a
reduced price. As predicted, this strategy appears to have failed
because the social housing sector lacks the capital
to make the most of either of these offers. As a result Housing New
Zealand remains virtually the monopoly provider of social housing
services. Government seems to have acknowledged this and is now asking
Housing NZ to build more houses – financed via retaining any profit they
So there are two questions here. Firstly can the community housing
sector do a better job than Housing NZ? And if so, how do we give them
the boost they need?
Can the community housing sector do a better job?
Transfers of housing stock to the community sector have been
widespread in Australia and the United Kingdom. While there is no
evidence that the ‘increased competition’ leads to better value for
money, there is evidence that the quality of the service improves.
There are a number of reasons why this is the case:
A better service at the same cost? Empowering the local community?
Seems like a good deal to us. So why don’t we get on with it? Seems like
Labour and the Greens are addicted to big public sector provision via
Housing NZ, and National are too tight to do what is needed.
What is the best way to kickstart the community housing sector?
A 2016 review
suggested four ways to improve social housing in New Zealand. The first
was to increase funding to Housing New Zealand, which has effectively
been done by allowing them to retain profits for the forseeable future.
However the other options remain on the table; providing capital
subsidies for the voluntary sector, transferring stock to the voluntary
sector, and developing a cost-based rental sector.
The advantage of transferring stock is that it would in reality be
costless to the Government. If we accept that social housing will always
be needed and can’t be flogged off to the private sector, and that
Housing NZ is not likely to make a profit for the forseeable future,
then the value of their assets is effectively zero. Why not put it in
the hands of the community housing sector, and let them raise debt on
that asset to fund more stock?
Some of course would claim that the community housing sector lacks
the scale needed to do this at low cost, but that is the whole point of
the stock transfer. In giving them housing stock you are capitalising an
organisation that does have the expertise to make smart business
decisions. They could use the equity tied up in that stock to borrow the
money needed to build even more social housing. Economies of scale in
the management of social housing only really exist at a local level,
there isn’t any real reason to have one national provider.
Once the houses are built, the Government has already promised to pay
for income related rents for tenants that fit the bill. Ultimately the
aim should be to shift everyone that needs it into cost-based social
housing, so we can cut the Accomodation Supplement bill and keep rents
There would certainly need to be greater regulation of the sector to
accompany any stock transfer to ensure that these new social housing
organisations didn’t rip people off. We’d also need to make sure they
didn’t discriminate against tenants – religious organisations for
example couldn’t force tenants to read the bible. However, with their
newfound scale, such regulation facilitates good operation rather than
being a burden. A cost-based social housing sector would be born.
No specific policy document.Opposes sale of state houses
“The standard of housing in New Zealand is poor with many people living in rental homes that are damp, cold, and prone to mold. Current legislative tools available through local and central government are inadequate to address the problem. Unhealthy home environments have significant impacts on the health of people living in them and community quality of life. Addressing this issue requires a national response, such as setting minimum standards for rental housing.”
A policy framework that recognises the role councils play in social housing and treats councils on the same basis as community housing providers. (This includes access to support for income related rent subsidies.)
A stronger policy and regulatory framework for improving the standards of rental housing.
Opportunities, in partnership with central government, for local areas to develop innovative and place-based approaches for dealing with social issues.