NZ Centre for Political Research

This week's poll asks:

Do you support Labour’s plan to borrow and build 100,000 homes?

*1.NZ borrows 9,000,000 million dollars on a good year and up to 18,000,000 million dollars on a bad year! It is not sustainable to borrow for any Public project of any description. If current debt patterns continue Greek economics will be the way of the future and by 2018 the country will be locked into an irreversible default scenario.
2.Private Sector Real estate development projects in this century tend to blow out by up to twice the original estimates – what would a Public Sector blow out rise to?
3.Plus, how long would a government project take during the blow out phase – perhaps a decade will go by with taxpayer funds and more debt being pumped into such a project to appease perceived disgruntled Voters?
4.The responsibly of Government should finish at the level of land release. That is, the release of Public Land at economical levels for affordable homes to be purchased by first homebuyers.
5.But remember, first homebuyers need to be in a “real job” to be able to make a long-term mortgage achievable. Production in NZ is in regression and compound job losses are starting to emerge as factories continue to move offshore, or go bankrupt or shutdown. This causes multiple failure of small business in close proximity to failing industry.
6.Both sides of the house still refuse to accept the realities of economic regression and how it was brought about? Frederick

*As has been shown repeatedly, govt initiatives to assist people into housing backfire. They don't meet the needs of the target market, but instead they drive the price of housing sky high. What's more, we already have large numbers of state houses vacant, or single folks living in state houses designed for families. Wastage of the highest order. Caroline

*Alarmed that Labour want to borrow more to spend on consumption. David Shearer or Cunliffe present no threat to John Key with these types of policies. Monica

*Labour is too busy with their in fighting to even think of helping run the country !!! Ross

*It is a very flawed policy and will not work. Chris

*All these sycophantic self serving political posers seem to share a very peculiar shaped bed that obviously needs a redesign by the general public as it now seems well and truly munted with all their shagging about and continual distractions as is our once great Country. Given thier historical track records of ever growing rorts and evasion of common decency and truth let alone accountability, it is now time for Joe Public to send them a very clear message that cannot be ignored any longer. Bring back our Democracy that so many fought and died for you maggots! Forget any other sideshows until that happens! I sincerely hope these words do not fall on deaf ears as citizens initiated referenda seem to. Grrr! Ironsides

*This is a sensible start. Lance

*To say NO would be seen by the majority as cruel.
Yet providing housing does lead, and always has to abuses.
Those who demand houses as of right and those who remain in them for long periods are in effect; the people who spend everything and never contemplate saving or have the intention of home ownership.
State houses should be only a stepping stone whereby couples can go forward to home ownership.
Socialism has destroyed this concept; as a population dependent upon the state will always vote for handouts. Brian

This week's poll asks:

Do you support Labour’s plan to borrow and build 100,000 homes?

*Sure, the extra housing would be wonderful; but while the party threatens capital gains tax, and the thought arises that the extra builders for those 10.000 houses would have to come from China or Indonesia, I would be running scared of voting for Labour or Greens. Rob

*Supply more houses so Housing NZ has more gang members on their books? Take an axe to council red tape and a review of their fees instead. A green belt is OK but councils never allow room for future bus or train lines. Nigel

*No, because it is NOT addressing the core causes of housing inflation. Why can we see them and Government - with ALL its people of 'great minds' can't! Muriel, I think we should just boycott Government and start paying you guys our taxes to run the country. It is so refreshing reading your reports. You all hit the nail on the head and present good practical solutions. Petrina

*The policy represents another signpost along the road to Athens. The end is desirable but not the means. Peter

*More insane government interference is usually the cause of the problems not a solution, whether it is Labour or National. With a few exceptions less government is always more efficient even when it isn't perfect. RG

This week's poll asks:

Do you support Labour’s plan to borrow and build 100,000 homes?

*Will depend on timeframe and whether they can keep a good percentage of those homes within the reach of less financial New Zealanders. Watene

*Labour has learned nothing from the Greek / European fiasco. Borrow and go bankrupt is their motto. Ray

*Borrow, borrow, borrow is Labours answer to everything. We are in debt to our eyebrows as it is - there's no need to increase it and to do so would be yet another step towards insolvency. Aunti Podes

*Labour is as mad as the greens. Looks like whatever road that New Zealand ends up on, we're going to get screwed......unless you are a "moari boy". Neil

*Could be good to get them to figure out how to build them for their goal price so the rest of us can too!! Cliff

*Let market forces determine how many houses are built. Building houses is not the domain of sensible Government. Chris

*If done properly it will provide work. But Capital Gains Tax is needed first. Simon

*No No No. We are trying to get back into the black and labour wants to put us back to how we were when they went out of power. There must be some other way without borrowing such an amount. Gary

*Something needs to be done to provide more affordable housing! Jim

*Labour's unrealistic dreams will be very costly to the tax payers. Frank

*Fairy tale stuff! Brian

*Get real. Paul

*Typical left wing bullshit. Remember there ain't no free lunch. Sam

*Can't the left see that the banks are already providing more than enough funding at historically low interest rate lows. The government acting as a bank scares the hell out of me as a tax payer. Lee

*It is a fairy tale. Despite their claims to the contrary, they clearly haven't done the numbers. Laurie

*Labour needs to contribute rather than being knockers. Look @ the mess cullen left the country in last time he had the purse strings. Rick

*Will create more inflation and consent delays. Ken

This week's poll asks:

Do you support Labour’s plan to borrow and build 100,000 homes?

*Its nonsense and just politics. David

*But that depends on the overall price,it worked back in the 1960`s where it helped the newly weds and most of the money lent outside the old State Advances was through lawyers and under the Trustee Act of 1st mortgage being restricted to 2/3ds of a Registered valuation, and had first call when trouble erupted, any further lending came 2nd,or 3rd. Infact it wouldn`t be silly if banks were forced into reverting to that for the protection of depositors and well being of the first home buyers. Robert

*Just another ignorant policy from the left, they will never learn from the failed policies of others. John

*I believe in the equality of ALL New Zealanders. Sylvienne

*Leave it to the private sector if we need more houses - labour are busybodies continually interferring in our lives. I understand Russell Norman was an active member of the communist party in Australia. I shudder to think of this country with a Labour/Greens Govt. Carolyn

*If the demand is there then let the private building and financial sectors gear up into action. Kelvin

*I would like to have said YES but the component of imposing a capital gains tax has forced me to the NO answer. Such a tax will only further drive prices up and/or reduce the incentive for an investor to buy property for renting out. That would result in a further reason to an increase in rents. Peter

*This proposal will only create slums in the future. Allan

*There is not enough builders for it to work. David

*The Government should stick to security and lawless controls nothing else. Neil

*It is a stupid idea which regrettably will appeal to some people who have a self-interested view. Peter

*The housing problem lies within the legislative framework, that developers and builders have to work with; compounded by a bueacracy staffed by individuals who are in no hurry productively work themselves out of employment. Bob

*How unbelievably naive. This is absolute desperation to collect some votes from anywhere possible. Leigh

*I SEEM TO REMEMBER LABOUR BERATING THE GOVERNMENT FOR BORROWING AND WHERE ARE ALL THE TRADESMEN COMING FROM? PETER

*Typical of labour. If you can afford more than state house they will place another tax on you, to support the poor who don't get supported anyway. Rick

*We need less debt, not more. We also need less Government, not more: all Government initiatives cost the tax payers much more than claimed and have the effect of increasing the size of government and reducing National productivity. Lets get real. Peter

This week's poll asks:

Do you support Labour’s plan to borrow and build 100,000 homes?

*'Wasters!' Ri

*Stupid idea from a stupid party. The plan will distort the market, and probably attract people out to make a quick buck by buying then selling soon after. Gary

*In fact I don't support any plan Labour comes up with. The whole statement from Shearer emphasized, for me at least, his determination to increase the Nanny Stae approach. ie more Hands on Government!! Jim

*It is not possible to build a home and section for $300000. Therefore there must be a subsidy by the taxpayer included. Any houses purchased in this scheme will then be onsold at a profit by the first home buyer. John

*I don't think this policy is practical at all. Claire

*There is a range of options available already aired before more borrowing is justified. Graham

*This will create work for kiwis, house needy people and stimulate our economy. William

*Labour are away with the fairies! They haven't a clue what they are talking about. Affordable housing in Auckland was doomed about 1995 when the impact of RMA started to impede large subdivisions. By 2000 every volume low-cost housing company had simply given up trying to fight RMA and the greenies and ceased production of cheap housing. Since then, RMA has become a self-serving clobbering machine of anyone who tries to subdivide or build houses. Even if many thousands of hectares of extra land was zoned for housing it would make no difference whatsoever because it does not have sewer reticulation. Any extension of the sewerage system will be very slow and expensive. Instead of providing necessary services for more housing, councils have wasted the ratepayers' money on unnecessary surplus staff, consultants' fees and bureaucracy resulting in the imposition of ever more demanding requirements for every little thing imaginable which only serves to increase costs and delays more and more way beyond the reach of affordable housing. Ron

*The answer lies in the over centralisation of labour in the cities. Work and jobs need to be created in centres outside of Auckland where there is cheaper land and under employed labour force. Northland suffers from this and if jobs were created house prices would rise, public transport would be introduced and the living standards rise. N.Z. does not make use of sea transportation as we have no coastal shipping which is the cheapest form of transport, tug and barges are easy to introduce and are safe look at the Gulf of Mexico etc. Garry

*Best to let developers do it. Chris

*Why should the tax payer finance houses for those who do not have the ability or will to save themselves. Malcolm

*Keep the state out of housing. Colleen

*WE should look at the Irish model where low cost housing is included in individual developments. Errol

*Ridiculous. Dave

*As your article suggests where are the builders going to come from? Free up more land to build on and more people could afford to buy a section and so the demand from ordinary citizens would increase the demand for houses. They should also ensure any 'shonky" builder gets told to push off and train more apprentices so when the present builders retire they are replaced with fully trained workers. The government should set tough rules and enforce them. Then get out of the way of honest building entreprenuers. Colin

*I hate to say it, but red-tape cutting and tax reform is merely clipping around the edges. A more radical policy is needed to right the housing shortage and a more extensive government building plan is now needed. 100,000 homes does sound a bit over the top though... Marty

*Only socialists believe that its the "gummint"'s job to build houses for people. The gummint has no business sticking it's nose into 90% of the things that it already does. It's well, well past time to scrap our current form of governance & start over. The ONLY function of government is to provide a framework for "life" to take place in. It's up to the PEOPLE to actually create that life within the basic framework. The time for revolution is now, before the monetary system collapses & we're all left with nothing. Zeitgeist, 1st 55 mins, youtube. Peter

*Someone has to take an initiative. Bill

*Not realistic. Phil

*Reduce the number of immigrants first. If we don't have enough houses or jobs why keep on bringing in more? Mary

*Socialist spending inevitably results in market distorsions. Rodger

*We need to get rid of councils ability to charge developers huge costs and shorten the time it takes to get resource consents through. Taking years is NOT going to help the problem of affordable housing. Joan

This week's poll asks:

Do you support Labour’s plan to borrow and build 100,000 homes?

*Who is to pay the interest on the 2 billion. Likely not those who will benefit from the 100,000 homes (maybe built by low cost immigrant "tradespeople"?). Bryan

*There is a better way. We must reintroduce Capital Gains Tax. Kenneth

*NO! NO NO NO NO NO!

Instead, take $100,000 off every parliamentary prostitute's salary.

Every 3 parliamentary prostitutes is one house EVERY year from now on.

That's 41 houses a year EVERY year from now on WITHOUT borrowing a single cent.

Then abolish the parliamentary prostitute pension and make them live on the same pension everyone else must.

Next take $100,000 off every ""ministry of..."" tax leech paid more than $150,000.

Now you have 10,000 houses a year EVERY year from now on WITHOUT borrowing a single cent. Mark

*Just cut government spending by more and its a win win. Willy

*While making housing more “affordable” is probably a vote winner in some circles I fear for many of those who will qualify it will just leave more money for partying, while the O.E. nice car and wide screen TV take priority getting a house will always be difficult, my wife and I did not do all this and it was still difficult to get our first house 30 years ago, what people need to understand is nothing has changed except people want all the goodies AND the house (oh and someone else to pay for it preferably). John

*There are several arguments in the articles to illustrate how housing costs could be reduced. However I did hear of another cause that some argue contributes to the height price of the housing stock already available. That is the proportion of foreign ownership. Maybe we need to limit the ownership of property to persons having residential status (citizens and permanent residents). Having foreigners putting money into housing in NZ is not investment. Investment is putting money into factories and businesses that process the materials and build the houses (and provide employment and pay taxes.)

We might also look at immigration policy. Giving visas so that people can come and look for work is ridiculous when we do not have enough jobs here for locals (and I am writing from the experience of looking for suitable work over the last 8 months). Sure, we need to bring in expertise but let NZ employers advertise for such expertise, bring them on for three years and if it proves desirable the company can sponsor the person for residency. And if we are short of unskilled labor, let companies bring in labor on short term contracts. Such time in NZ would not count as time towards Residency status. And similarly, cut the path from study to residency farce. There are so many students in NZ going to flakey schools just to pass the two years to qualify.

That would take the pressure off housing. Anthony

*Building low cost homes is a short term fix that hasn't worked in the past and is only a vote catcher!! Cedric

*Would only lead to slums. Colin

*Since when is the government a property developer? It would be preferable to put their energies into breaking down barriers to. John

*This is a pipe dream but the sort of nonsense that could put Labour back in power unless National listens to what thinking Kiwis want. Alan

*No, I'm an old builder (who got licenced) but I just can't be bothered driving the nails anymore. Rob

*Labour shows its naiviety & lack of vision about unintended consequences in this plan.What about inflation with all that money looking for a "home"(no pun!) Don

*They are suggesting each home to be around $350K, have they forgotten about the land cost? and there is no way whilst the proverbial points to the ground that a family home can be built for$200K!!!! Glenn

*Giving some a hand up will give many more a hand down.. Adrian

This week's poll asks:

Do you support Labour’s plan to borrow and build 100,000 homes?

*No way. Firstly, building homes in NZ should be left to the private sector - unless they are state houses of course. And secondly, there is no real housing affordability crisis. If people move out of high housing cost areas there are plenty of bargains available. The media is hyping up the Auckland housing market and instead of doing proper research and finding that there is no widespread boom, Labour have believed the hype with a plan to commit taxpayers to billions of dollars worth of spec housing on the basis of it. Jim

*There is no widespread housing boom. Apart from in some parts of Auckland, property values are declining. Another mad idea from the socialists! Graeme

*Controlling councils is the key to all of this but that is an enormous challenge. Planning departments are filled with radical environmentalists who will invent every excuse under the sun to stop the development of land for housing. Susan

*Very interesting insight into the cost of development - thank you Frank. In other words councils are adding millions onto the cost of housing across the country. Did the Productivity Commission identify that simple fact I wonder or don't they understand the numbers either? Michael

*Part of the housing affordability problem is that people don't want to save for a deposit any more. They would rather spend the money on holidays and flash cars... then they moan! However that KiwiSaver incentive should sort these people out by providing them with a powerful incentive (free money) to save. I wonder how much this incentive is expected to cost taxpayers over time. Pat

*Another mad socialist idea from Labour. My heart sinks when I think of a Labour-Green government - time to go to Australia then, I think! Andy