Parliament debates the 'True Blue', affordable house

Email
Print

Is affordable housing possible?

3News NZ

All the arguing is about a $300,000 home in Auckland (file)

All the arguing is about a $300,000 home in Auckland (file)

An example of Labour's promised $300,000 home in Auckland was produced in Parliament today, by the Greens.

Labour was too embarrassed to comment on it, but Prime Minister John Key had to – it's in his electorate.

All the arguing is about a $300,000 home in Auckland – a $315,000 valuation actually. It's in Hobsonsville, Mr Key's electorate. The Greens found it advertised on Trade Me for auction. It's called "True Blue".

“If the Prime Minister truly believes that building a $300,000 home is impossible, as he said, has he never visited his own electorate?” asks Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei.

Labour Party leader David Shearer has promised $300,000 homes in Auckland since announcing Labour's KiwiBuild policy in November.

“The possibility of building $300,000 houses is very, very real,” says Mr Shearer.

This week we've been asking Mr Shearer what that $300,000 would get you. On Sunday, it was two bedrooms. On Monday, it was three bedrooms. On Tuesday, they could be standalone.

“In west Auckland – I've seen them in Mangere,” says Mr Shearer.

Today, Mr Shearer was unavailable to discuss the matter with 3 News.

A Labour insider said they don't like the "True Blue" example put forward by the Greens, saying it's an embarrassment to KiwiBuild.

Labour prefers a two-bedroom house in west Auckland suburb Glen Eden, sold for $310,000. Mr Key says Labour isn't being upfront.

“David Shearer had a road to Damascus experience, or actually it was a road to Ponsonby experience, and realised it will cost a lot more than $300,000,” says Mr Key.

So $300,000 homes, actually just over that, can be found if you look hard enough. But exactly what Labour's policy will get you, and where it will be, remains unclear. And unless Mr Shearer can get the details straight, it is vulnerable to attack.

3 News

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

2/02/2013 8:24:58 p.m.

eric wrote:

no or restrict foreign buyer will take a lot of pressure off genuine kiwi buyer. but john key just doesn't like this idea....

2/02/2013 8:57:30 a.m.

Mike wrote:

@Zac Fletchers is a large construction business, amoung other things. 310 homes is not many for them, but to increase to approaching 10,000 a year is well beyond their ability. Fletchers is also heavily involved with fixing Christchurch.

If not for Christchurch and otehr commitments, could Fletchers build a lot more homes? Probably. 10,000 a year? No.

While Fletchers can get some decrease in costs thorugh economies of scale, they wont be the cheapest to build. This has been proven time and again. Why? Its simple, even with the lowest costs, Fletchers wont run margins as low as many smaller operators, so the government wont actually get cheaper through Fletchers. What Fletchers gives is security to build on a large scale, generally at a reasonable price, not the best price. For what amounts to small building jobs, like homes, many smaller operators in NZ will do the same for cheaper.

The big issue is land prices, and Aucklands Labour lead council not making cheaper land available, and the RMA adding too much to land costs for cheaper homes to be even viable. This by itself makes the proposal impossible to work. Labour needs to show us where they intend to put 100,000 cheap homes - most of which will have to be in Auckland. Labour wont do this as it can't be done without costing a lot more than their $300,000 budget each.

31/01/2013 2:13:14 p.m.

zac wrote:

@ Mike - I didn't have 3 pages on here to explain it in fine details for you what the Fletcher manager has said, and what Shearer has already said about their policy. In brief, the manager said that they could build significantly more than the 310 houses they are building at the moment, and currently land availability is their biggest constraint. He agreed with Labour that a large scale housing project can bring the cost down if land availability is not an issue. I dont know where you got the piece about 'if they took a large government contract, and they are already too busy to handle large scale home building' from? The manager from Fetchers never mentioned anything about contracts, or unable to handle large scale house buildings. As usual you make up things as you go a long. John Key should be apologising to us for telling us porkies that it cant be done when a house in his own electorate has been built for around what Labour is proposing. It shows you how well he know what's happening in his own electorate.

31/01/2013 12:02:45 p.m.

Mike wrote:

the claimany that Revenue=profit, ALL businesses are immorral and evil, as is money.

You dont know your ass from your elbow.

What happens if you remove ALL businesses? Oh, we lose all the jobs and the ability to earn.

What happens if your remove money, like that money from those benefit collectors? Kathy thinks removing money will solve problems, yet I think it would leave people starving in the street.

Kathy thinks businesses are evil and immorral, yet its not businesses - its Kathy! She is just applying her own personal bigotry and claiming she is a business person and she herself is an evil and immorral person, therfore ALL businesses must be.

31/01/2013 9:52:22 a.m.

Kathy wrote:

Yes there has been more than one expert interviewed on television that has said labours policy is both workable and achievable, Key is the only one saying that it isnt because it shows him up as a lazy layabout slacker who doesnt actually want to fix the housing market because it will disadventage himself and his rich mates. Patrick and Duncan dont seem to have the stomach to take Key over his bogus figures and lies.

31/01/2013 7:51:24 a.m.

Mike wrote:

No Flethcers didn't say they could build for that price. What fletchers said is that if they took a large government contract they could make savings from scale which is very different from building homes and land for $300,000. The fletchers manager said the problem was the land price, which is what everyone has been saying throughout and only head up the oppositions backside people keep ignoring the land problem. Given Fletchers heavily involved in Christchurch rebuild they may already be too busy to handle large scale home building in Auckland too.

Its quite simple. If you have 100,000 homes to be built and the shortage is Auckland, your going to need to build the majority of the homes in Auckland where the land prices make the $300,000 a pipedream fantasy. So where in Auckland is Labour/Greens going to find the cheap land for like 50,000+ homes? We also expect the average to be more 3 bedrooms at least.

The RMA has strangle new development as intended, as Labour/Greens were told even before it was intorduced. The problem is it has raised the costs of all homes being built, and this has made lower cost homes unaffordable to develop - thanks Labour! We also have councils which are often Labour lead which are doing their damndest to stuff up lower cost housing - Take Auckland council with their Labour leader, and how they are approving or should we say 'not approving' lower cost developments. Again - Thanks Labour!

31/01/2013 7:42:01 a.m.

Cheryl wrote:

The bumnbling Shearer has already admitted their housing policy is 'unafordable'. Labour did not cost their flagship policy at all. Labour again look like morons again - as for Shearer again he is showing what a tosser he is. How anyone supports these muppets is brain dead or is too lazy to work.

30/01/2013 8:54:06 p.m.

zac wrote:

Get up to speed with the latest Mr Gower. A manager from Fletcher has already appeared on TV1 earlier to say that Labour's Housing Policy proposal can be built at that price. Which is happening now in John Key's own electorate. The media should stop believing what John Key tells them all the time without checking facts. He's been misleading the public for the last 5 years. His latest, finger pointing or if you like, passing the bug on to the councils for being slow to process housing consents and not opening enough land for new building developments, then threaten to reform the Resource Management Act if they dont get their act together, is a complete senescence. A lie if you like to call it. His own ministry's survey figures shows that the councils are processing nearly 100% consent applications a lot more quicker than the 18 months claim he's making out. How about asking him about that? He couldn't get a straight answer in the House when Annette King asked him about it. He looks like he was pissed off and embarrassed for being caught out. However, I dont believe that will stop them from creating a dramatic story out of the RMA. Then tinker with it to make it looks like they are making changes to benefit everyone. I can see this building up to be like a clone of the ACC scenario before Bill English slipped up and admitted that it was a made up story. This government has ran out of ideas. In fact, they never had any new ideas. Just an old 1990s ideas they finally had the chance to finished it off. To sell off our valuable assets - the power companies.

30/01/2013 8:21:02 p.m.

pondering wrote:

truth be told the big thing keeping new house prices up in Jafa is Fletchers. And the government just lets them hold the country hostage over house prices and Christchurch reconstruction