Another day, and Labour bring out an even more comprehensive…er housing plan


As the day’s announcement on Labour’s comprehensive housing plan policy fails to inspire, Labour come out with the revised/improved version overnight.

Part three of Labour’s housing policy splurge is being billed as comprehensive.

Labour leader Andrew Little says the announcement at 2pm on Sunday will deal with several issues, including speculators and housing affordability.

On Thursday he announced an emergency housing policy, and on Saturday at the party’s centenary conference in Wellington he followed up with a state housing policy.

Labour will make Housing NZ a government department again with a social mandate and use the dividends it’s been paying to the government to build state houses.

Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce says the Government puts way more money into Housing NZ in rent subsidies than it takes out.
Homelessness and the affordability of housing, particularly in Auckland, are big issues.

The Government says there’s a supply problem in the housing market but others say immigration is driving demand.

“We have to build more houses, and we have to build more affordable homes. That’s what we’re targeting,” Mr Little said on TV3’s The Nation program on Saturday.

He says tax measures can be taken but Labour will not be going into the 2017 election with the capital gains tax plan that cost it at the last election.

To be charitable to Labour, they didn’t lose because of their capital gains tax policy. But, if that’s what they want to believe, all power to them. If there has been one thing that has been consistent over the last six plus years, it is that Labour’s policies have not withstood any scrutiny.

Both National and Labour are currently just blurting stuff out depending on the pressures they feel the Media party are putting on. It’s amazing to see it expanding on Labour’s website on a daily basis, probably as nightly brain storming meetings drive the next day’s ideas.

Like many of Labour’s “policies”, this one won’t survive until the 2017 election. It will hit the pile of opportunistic and poorly thought out ideas that Labour think can earn them a few points for the next poll.


– NZN via Newshub


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • hookerphil

    Would have thought that driving house prices down is going to have a detrimental effect on the majority of New Zealanders who actually do have a house. Why would you vote for a party that is setting out (however poorly) to lower the value of your major asset?

    • Damon Mudgway

      Will you wouldn’t’ would you? The only ones I can see voting for this madness are those who will simply never have the nouse or means to buy a house.

      Worry about your state housing Andrew, for those that need it, the bigs boys game of property ownership and speculation is a bit past your kindergarten level comprehension. And let’s be frank here, Labour hate business and entrepreneurial endeavour, both are against their socialist ideals. So your voter base will remain those who want everything for nothing.

  • sandalwood789

    “We have to build more houses, and we have to build more affordable homes…”

    Uh….. you don’t *have* to do *anything*, Andy. The best thing that government can do is to *get out of the way*.

    There is *no* “housing crisis”. There is a housing *market*. There are few houses for sale and a high demand for them, so prices are rising. What a surprise.

    Anyone who wants to buy a house at a reasonable price would be crazy to look in Auckland. They need to get out to the provinces and “make things happen” there.

  • Gaynor

    Wouldn’t driving the house prices down by 40% reduce the rates take by a similar amount?

    • sandalwood789

      Probably not if the socialists can help it.

      They’d probably legislate to keep rates either as they are or to make them rise by “x” percent per year.

    • OT Richter

      No. Council’s need to bring in a certain amount of rates a year. A drop in property prices simply means you will get rated at a higher % of your property value.

  • Trev_A

    Muldoon once said anybody peddling a capital gains tax is committing political suicide.
    Still Labour want it, just to take from the rich, forgetting the poor still have to pay and can least afford it.

  • Aucky

    What next? Speculators (especially those with Chinese sounding names) to be dragged before a Peoples’ Tribunal, given a fair hearing and shot?

  • Graeme

    Tell ‘im he’s dreamin,,,,

  • Sally

    From Little’s speech this afternoon Only first-home buyers would be allowed to buy a KiwiBuild house, and they will have to hand back any profit if they sell the property within five years of purchase.
    Interesting concept. Put S500,000 into a new home but except no return on that money for 5 years. I wonder if Labour would take improvements in consideration. If a homeowner has to hand back profit might as well do nothing for 5 years.
    Question “when is your home not really your home.” Answer, “when it is a Labour affordable home.”

    • kayaker

      The State has control. Five years is a long time in a first home buyer’s life. I doubt there’ll be much buy-in for this. What Angry and Labour just don’t seem to realise is that if you put restrictions on people, they will find creative ways around it. Another thought – under this hair-brained scheme, does the State have control in the selling price after five years? It’s nuts.

    • Second time around

      A lawyer would probably advise his clients buying on those terms unless they were dirt cheap. There is a lot of paper work recording what improvements have been made to a new section (paths, garages, permanent trees, fencing, curtains, attached bookshelves, legal fees for a loan (deductible), legal advice (not deductible), conveyancing (deductible). Otherwise 5 years down the track, that money is all lost when it should be deducted from the property.

  • Graeme

    If Key and National had come out with this hairbrained scheme noone would have believed them and the Media would have pulled it to pieces, not so with Labour though.

  • SFB

    The thing is, Perception is everything. Do we have too much immigration? Well Winston says ‘Yes’ so it must be so. Do we have a ‘crisis’ in Auckland? Well all the parties except National say ‘Yes’ so again this must be the case. The MSM is pimping people sleeping in cars and families sharing houses in South Auckland. That is what voters remember. Key needs to run defence on this as Nick Smith looks like a possum in headlights.

    • kayaker

      I get a hunch that JK and National will let Labour come out with all these plans based on stats – like 42,000 homeless, immigration is (insert number here), build 100k houses in 10 years (with no costings as yet) – then National will set about unpicking all of Labour’s grand plans which are based on erroneous stats. I feel another “show me the money” moment coming on.

    • Second time around

      These stories have a natural life, and it is usually better just to let the life ebb away rather than attack the message or the messenger. Cold houses have almost been forgotten from last year as it turns out that most poor people are living in cars. Chinese at auctions no longer make the news. Even poverty has taken a back seat this year to the plight of the 400,000 homeless sleeping rough on our streets.

  • EpochNZ

    Now I’m not an economist, but can someone with more knowledge please answer the following?

    Wont a state funded new housing boom artificially inflate the price of building materials? If that is the case, wouldnt that then lead to a downturn in the construction industry as a whole?

    • one for the road

      The prices of some building materials are already going up significantly ( or the lead time is going out) with current build programme, so to be able to achieve the goal of 100,000 new houses in 10 years, yup you guessed it – serious price increase for labour and materials – housing boom!!

      • EpochNZ

        The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again!

  • one for the road

    SoAngry and his band of merry troughers has just announced a plan to setup a Development Authority to build all the KiwiBuild Houses that Labour are pushing – this sounds just what National announced a week or so back – except instead of giving it a good start in life (like Nationals $1b for infrastructure, plus) they are only going to fund it initially with $100m – that wont get them onto a runrate of 100,000 houses in 10 years – it is just enough to build about 200 houses (land and house at $500k each) in the first build, say 6mths, so 400 houses in year 1… Hmm, dont think they are good at maths either!

    • PharmaBloke

      And the other night – 118m of divs from HNZ go to the Govt ( presumably where do they get the $ to fulfill their housing policies ) will instead be used by Labour to build 1,000 state houses a year . Wasn’t that what they said ?

      My basic maths says that’s a state house for 118 k.

      Really ? What am I missing ?

      • Second time around

        I think it was over 4 years, two elections roughly.

  • Second time around

    Labour still wants to cut out the “loophole” that rental losses are deductible from other income, NZ will still need landlords even after Labour has put all the 45000 homeless into the new KiwiDoss houses, and providing rental accommodation should be seen as a business just as any other business is.

    • Sally

      I maintain it is rental properties that are missing in this so called crisis. We need the investors.
      Affordable housing ($600,000 Labour quoted today) is all well and good but even if the buyer has a 20% deposit ($120,000) they still have to service a $480,000 mortgage.
      Stopping people investing in properties, less properties to rent, bigger demand, higher prices.

      • Dog Breath

        This is exactly why Labour are dreaming. How many people are able to save $120k and service a $480k mortgage in South or West Auckland. It might as well be millions for most people. The answer to home ownership is not Auckland, it’s anywhere but Auckland. Regions are the answer for both homeownership and for business who are finding the cost of doing business based in Auckland is such that more money can be made by shifting to the regions.

      • Second time around

        In the old days public servants used to wander around the country on the promotion career circuit, and everywhere they stopped they bought a house with a State Advances subsidised loan and legal /real estate/ moving fees paid for them. That seems to be Labour’s dream world still. Nowadays if people are uncertain how long they will be in an area, the last thing they should want is a house to encumber them and they expect good quality rental accommodation to be available, at a price.

  • Dog Breath

    The whole point of the housing Corp model is to drive efficiencies by creating Market pressures for the corporation to respond to. Creating a replacement ministry by definition removes these pressures so that this new ministry will be encoraged to build houses in the wrong place for the wrong people exhaberating the current situation of having state housing in the wrong places. Who is dumb enough to believe these pie in the sky numbers. Unfortunately there are a number of suckers who will believe this nonsense.

  • BG

    My only question is ‘where?’
    There are plenty of people with the means and intent to build houses (including the current govt) but with councils unable (or unwilling) to release land,or delaying consent, where is Angry Andy going to build them? Murapara?

  • Wheninrome

    There is already housing available for $600,000. Available in Pokeno, I presume this is the sort offar flung areas little is talking about.
    Given maori want the crowd funded beach back houses on crown land cou,d go the same way.

  • WBC

    “they didn’t lose because of their capital gains tax policy.” True but like all the other things, it was like turning up to an executive meeting wearing a tie die suit. IT doesn’t lose you the job in itself but it is a marker that you generally don’t get the picture and have no place here…