Twyford defends KiwiBuild

Minister of Housing Phil Twyford has conceded that Kiwibuild is not for poorer people, but for ‘middle New Zealand’. He is correct that they can’t afford new house mortgages – but that was clear years ago when he was promoting it as a fix for homelessness.

Twyford said that Judith Collins criticising the first Kiwibuild house owners as having travelled the world is mean spirited.

Collins yesterday:

And:

It didn’t help that the purchaser described winning the Kiwibuild draw as like winning Lotto.

 

 

 

Leave a comment

44 Comments

  1. [As there are mentions of potential defamation I am taking this tweet down. PG]

    Collins is also claiming defamation against Twyford after this morning’s interview on RNZ.

    Reply
    • Corky

       /  October 30, 2018

      ”Minister of Housing Phil Twyford has conceded that Kiwibuild is not for poorer people.

      Then,everything else is just commentary.

      I guess this explains all those people I saw at a park in Auckland. A later news item showed some had made homes in the bushes.

      Of course our resident know-it-all, Kitty, said I must be mistaken, people naturally go to parks. Yes, but not in the quantity I saw..and they definitely don’t pitch tents and lean-tos.

      Reply
    • The Consultant

       /  October 30, 2018

      Ha ha. “Civility bullshit”. The difference is that here in NZ it works, even with the “nasty” Judith Collins. Unlike Trump she’ll back down in the face of Russell Brown’s “How could you be so mean attack. I’m surprised he didn’t post a photo of himself with a single tear tracking down one cheek.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  October 30, 2018

        I don’t know which parks Know-all Corks went to, but I have yet to see people putting up tents or lean-tos (which are buildings) in any park in Auckland, They would soon be moved on. He may be thinking of the Occupy movement, which is long gone, but people building in central city parks seems most unlikely except in Corky’s dreams.

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  October 30, 2018

          He has probably seen motor camps and thought that they were parks !

          Reply
  2. David

     /  October 30, 2018

    Good on Collins for calling out the ridiculousness of Kiwibuild and it not doing anything that Twyford promised. Rather than making hard decisions he has decided that chucking taxpayers cash is an easier way of doing things for him.

    Reply
    • PartisanZ

       /  October 30, 2018

      I’m with Russell Brown on this one …

      Yet another example where National could have “played it straight” – I won’t say “kind” its not in their vocabulary – but instead went in for a Troll Feeding Frenzy on a young Kiwi couple – almost certainly National voters themselves – led by The Crusher …

      Even if Kiwibuild isn’t for the poor, Labour look both human and humane by comparison …

      Other measures may be addressing housing for the poor … and poverty itself …

      Why do we even have poverty in this country?

      Reply
      • Corky

         /  October 30, 2018

        Why do we even have poverty in this country?

        Parti, you have been so disappointing lately…I’m beginning to despair.

        1- Welfare.
        2- Wrong Education.
        3- Low skilled work force ( carry over from point two).
        4- A huge 3rd world mentality underclass.
        5- Excessive legislation- RMA, small business compliance costs.
        6- Roger Douglas not being allowed to finish his reforms.

        Reply
        • PartisanZ

           /  October 30, 2018

          The more despair you experience Corky … the better as far as I’m concerned …

          1. Rogered Douglas being given free reign with his reforms [some of which were necessary] …

          2. Coincidental excessive legislation … Why would this go hand-in-hand with Rogerednomics? Coincidental fixation on RMA & compliance costs? Why?

          2(A) So, maybe the real problem is the ‘compartmentalization’ of taxes, excises & ‘costs’ under User Pays? They add up to more tax, and they add up to “you’ve been duped old son”!

          One way or another it costs X% of your income to live in a First World country … If you don’t wanta pay, don’t complain about people living in shanties at the local park …

          Conversely, deal with the FACT that work is not available for all those people.

          3. Purposeful ‘low-skilling’, underemployment and casualization of the workforce as part of labour cheapening … augmented by immigration … another downside of globalization. 12 – 13% unemployment at times has no longer term effects … people easily get over the loss of dignity as soon as things pick up … Right?

          4. Corporatization of Education … focus on immediate ‘supply’ of students and ‘demand’ for paid courses … globalization … Meantime, locally – Don’t train ’em and you don’t have to pay ’em … especially trades (where previously a greater degree of central planning worked better … though naturally it wasn’t total central planning)

          5. Direct result of being Rogered … a significant sized low skilled workforce … easy to publicize for the purpose of maintaining Right-Wing indignance … a handy enemy … and …

          6. An augmented underclass, disenfranchised, disillusioned and often criminal … societies discards have to survive too … another direct result of being Rogered … an even better handy enemy …

          Reply
    • Blazer

       /  October 30, 2018

      whats ridiculous is the mess the previous Govt made of housing ,so that it became beyond the reach of a middle class professional couple.
      Collins is a low troll ,and a perfect fit in the shadow cabinet .

      Reply
      • PDB

         /  October 30, 2018

        As you have been schooled about many times before on here it was the Clark Labour govt where housing prices grew the most and from which there was no turning back from.

        Reply
        • Blazer

           /  October 30, 2018

          and you have been told many times about the affordability ratio and the complete disregard to what is now acknowledged as a housing crisis by National for 9 years.

          Reply
          • High Flying Duck

             /  October 30, 2018

            Housing inflation under National was nothing special.
            Affordability was also comparable to previous era as the cost of borrowing and servicing mortgages is so low.

            Reply
            • Blazer

               /  October 30, 2018

              you will argue black is white till you’re blue….as you have been told average annual income to house price should be around 3-4x…not 10 x which is what happened with National…at the wheel.

            • PartisanZ

               /  October 30, 2018

              Wow HFD, an average of 10% COMPOUND inflation on most people’s biggest investment …

              No wonder ‘Housing’ had to be removed from the CPI eh?

              No wonder Prof Jane Kelsey dubbed it the FIRE Economy.

              Your graph makes a perfect mockery of neoliberalism in all its gory!

            • PartisanZ

               /  October 30, 2018

              News today in the Northern Advocate that houses in three suburbs in Northland have earned their owners on average more than the MEDIAN salary in NZ over the past 12 months … more than $51,800 per annum …

              Of course this is wonderful! Lauded as “a good indicator of improved business confidence, better employment prospects and an increase in infrastructure spending” …

              “Growth for growth’s sake …. Money for God’s sake”

            • High Flying Duck

               /  October 30, 2018

              “I have been told”?
              By that blinding genius Eaqub? Well don’t I feel silly. If only i had followed his advice I’d be….poor.
              Simpletons keep talking about 3 x income, forgetting that building costs are well beyond that level before land costs and council rorts are factored in.
              The fact is the monthly outgoings on servicing a mortgage are on a par with historical levels.
              Deposits are higher, so saving is tougher, but the “3 x income” rubbish is fantasy land.

            • Blazer

               /  October 30, 2018

              ‘From 1957 to the late 1980s the average New Zealand house price was between two-to-three times the average annual household income.’

              then Reaganism,Thatcherism,Rogernomics,Greenspan came along!.

              ‘Hugh Pavletich, the co-author of the annual Demographia International Housing Study says that three times income is a generally recognised definition for an affordable house.’

              ‘ Shamubeel Eaqub says lower interest rates do not help a person buy a house in the first place. The lower rates help with the ability to make mortgage repayments.

              Hugh Pavletich says factoring in mortgage rates to housing affordability is like factoring in the cost of petrol to an analysis of car prices.

              He says housing affordability and mortgage affordability are two separate subjects and must be treated as such. The price of housing must be a reflection of the underlying incomes supporting it.’

            • David

               /  October 30, 2018

              3 x income is a stupid outdated measure that is meaningless. If interest rates are 4 % or back at 10.5% when Labour were last in power means a massive difference in repayments.
              $1584 monthly payments on a 300k mortgage over 25 years at 4% and $2833 at 10.5% so calling an asset unaffordable based on income is dopey.

            • Blazer

               /  October 31, 2018

              @David..
              ‘so calling an asset unaffordable based on income is dopey.’

              So what measure would you regard as deciding whether something is..’affordable’?

  3. The Consultant

     /  October 30, 2018

    And I called this yesterday about assessing the government one year in:

    It’s long been the problem in NZ – and other Western nations too I admit – that the social welfare system, including health and education, supposedly designed to look after the poorest, have all been twisted into supporting the Middle Class (and above).

    This has been done because universal, free-for-all schemes could not have survived politically without the support of that class, hence the payoffs to them,

    Still, it’s good to see Labour being so upfront about it.

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  October 30, 2018

      the cause is neo liberalism and its impact on inequality.
      Without Govt assistance the middle class would not exist,it would be absorbed into the ‘poor’ class.
      If that happened, the myth of the ‘American Dream’ would have been destroyed forever and those aspirational ‘Joneses’ so disillusioned with reality would ensure the demise of any right wing ..party.

      Reply
      • The Consultant

         /  October 30, 2018

        Without Govt assistance the middle class would not exist,it would be absorbed into the ‘poor’ class.

        An economic history of the 19th and 20th centuries shows that the “Middle Class” rose simply as a result of ordinary, everyday capitalism, just as it has done in China in the last thirty years after the communists decided to let go of planning markets, and as it is doing in India.

        What actually happens is that all these people with lots to lose eventually hit a recession/depression and start screaming for government assistance. Rather like the so-called “Peasents Revolt” in England, which historians have long laughed about when it’s used as an example of the poor rising up, since they’re well aware that it was a revolt from the “middle class” of that age, who’d gained a small measure of property and wealth and objected to increased taxes.

        Contra Marxist theory, poverty stricken people don’t actually revolt, probably becuase they’re too busy surviving: current examples being North Korea and Venezuela.

        And you can scream about “neo-liberalism” all you like. This country is not going back to the delights of the Ministry of Works, Post Office telephones and the like. Too many of us recall how financially squeezed we were getting year by year under that regime.

        Reply
        • Blazer

           /  October 30, 2018

          ‘as a result of ordinary, everyday capitalism, ‘…where can this ‘beast’ be…sighted?

          Reply
  4. unitedtribes2

     /  October 30, 2018

    The problem is high land and housing costs. Throwing money at people to buy in doesn’t fix the problem.

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  October 30, 2018

      that is indeed the problem,fuelled by landbanking,foreign ‘investors’,speculators ,and a surfeit of new millionaires compliments of eyewatering Q.E, unleashed to save a failing financial system.
      Throw in some money laundering and a completely ,fucking useless National Govt for 9 years and this is what you…get.

      Reply
    • The Consultant

       /  October 30, 2018

      Twyford actually got some of this in a way that National did not. Freeing up land from stupid city planning in Auckland was one of his main talking points before the last election.

      Unfortunately that and other points he made seem to have been quietly shelved, probably because of the following factors:
      – lobbying from Goff and company, who love “plans”.

      – Arguments against “urban sprawl” from the same planners, focused on their desire to turn Auckland into London, NY, etc, especially along the rail and bus corridors.

      – Lobbying from the ogliopolies that control most of the supply of housing materials.

      – Allowing a freed up market of cheaper land and building materials would also steadily reduce the price of Auckland houses, which would land a lot of people, including any number of “right-wingers” in financial poo.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  October 30, 2018

        pretty good summation there Consultant.
        Look to Vancouver for solutions…they are ahead of Auckland in this cycle.
        The Harper Govt ran the same line as the Key Govt down here…no data,no crisis,but now with a progressive admin measures to rein in the property market have/are slowly being made.
        Fairly recently a levy on empty houses was introduced and it seems very fair with a number of allowances and exclusions.

        Reply
        • The Consultant

           /  October 30, 2018

          Look to Vancouver for solutions….

          Maybe. The City That Had Too Much Money, points out that the biggest problem they have is that:

          By some estimates, home sales, construction, and related activities account for as much as 40 percent of British Columbia’s gross domestic product.

          Pretty hard to put the squeeze on without hurting a lot of the locals in different ways to the hurt of unaffordable houses. Maybe Auckland has the same problem?

          Reply
          • Blazer

             /  October 30, 2018

            the irony of your link…’Vancouver was the first place to experience the tidal wave of Chinese cash. Now the city is leading efforts to stop it.’

            …Foreigners including Chinese only made up 3% of buyers according to National and the usual suspects.

            Reply
            • High Flying Duck

               /  October 30, 2018

              And yet despite the 15% tax imposed on foreign buyers, prices have continued to rise in Vancouver.

            • Blazer

               /  October 30, 2018

              ‘ prices have continued to rise in Vancouver’..well out of date.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  October 30, 2018

              As at September 2018. Prices dropped when the tax came in and are now back at their highs, although there is “possibly” a downturn coming. Sales have stalled, but prices have not fallen yet.

    • slinkypress

       /  October 30, 2018

      Lack of incentives to actually save, rather than incentivising people to have children, make it a good thing to save.

      Reply
  5. Patricia

     /  October 30, 2018

    The wife is a soon-to-qualify doctor, the husband a marketer, they have no children and yet they have been allocated a four bedroom house. Makes sense – not.

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  October 30, 2018

      well Patricia would you prefer them to take their skills to Australia,where houses are more affordable,which is what is…happening!

      Reply
      • Patricia

         /  October 30, 2018

        I would not have expected a couple with no children to qualify for a four-bedroom house. Four bedroom homes in Australian major cities are not ‘affordable’ yet and this couple would have to buy new. Good luck with that.

        Reply
        • Blazer

           /  October 30, 2018

          depends what you mean by ‘affordable’-quick search shows plenty available…

          https://www.realestateview.com.au/real-estate/brisbane/houses-for-sale/4-bedroom/

          Reply
          • Patricia

             /  October 30, 2018

            You forgot stamp duty, exchange rate, relocation costs and Australian neighbours (lol).

            Reply
            • Kitty Catkin

               /  October 30, 2018

              A friend and his husband were on the kind of income that would have let them be houseowners here, but couldn’t afford one in Sydney, except some pokey, scruffy unit miles from anywhere.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  October 30, 2018

              There are houses for sale in Auckland at reasonable prices; To me, this couple should have been non-starters. Not everyone buying a house in Auckland is fabulously wealthy. They could have bought a large apartment or a house in an outer suburb,

              It’s outrageous that the government is building a house for someone with the kind of lifestyle that these people have had. I wonder how much he has spent on travel and cars,

              The four bedrooms are totally excessive for two people. What’s the betting that they will have a few flatmates to help pay the mortgage as someone I know has ? And he bought his nice but modest house himself on a chef’s wages.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  October 30, 2018

              What someone spends their money is their business, but I can’t see why the husband in this case, who has spent a vast amount on cars and overseas travel should be given a hand up and out because he has spent the deposit that would have got them a house and thinks he’d like one built by the rest of us. It’s his hard luck that he’s spent that money and doesn’t have it now.

              Why didn’t they look through the house listings like anyone else?

              I own a house, so it’s not sour grapes.

              I am unimpressed that people on their income are asking for government help – and being given it,

  6. Alan Wilkinson

     /  October 30, 2018

    Stupid is as stupid does. Yet another non-fix for the Left plastered over with b.s.

    Reply
  7. Kitty Catkin

     /  October 30, 2018

    Why not have something like the UK scheme where people buy old houses for a token amount (this is for legal reasons) and have a year to do them up? There are state houses sitting empty. Instead of people on huge incomes being handed houses which are paid for by those on minimum wages, the people who would otherwise never own a house could have a chance, Don’t tell me that a doctor couldn’t afford a house in Auckland.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s