John Armstrong: National's affordable housing package lacks any substantial detail
9:30 AM Tuesday Oct 30, 2012
Photo / Doug Sherring
Package? What package? No wonder National avoided over-selling the contents of their plan to make housing more affordable. The plan looks more like a rough first draft.
As Annette King, Labour's housing spokeswoman noted, the Government's long-awaited announcement was a combination of "considering new ways", "undertaking more inquiries", "doing more work" and "undertaking evaluations".
The lack of detail serves to illustrate one thing: when it comes to increasing the housing stock, there is not a lot central government can do unless it is willing to spend big bikkies.
Apart from fiscal restraints, National is not keen on being blamed for doing anything which might end up seeing many voters' prime asset - the family home - losing its value in cold, hard monetary terms.
There is comparatively a lot more that local government can do. Yesterday's announcement consequentially upped the pressure on local bodies - notably the Auckland Council - to make a "commitment" to making land available for new housing.
Bill English, who was the lead minister in putting the package together, talked of giving councils a "clear sense of direction".
But it seemed designed more to provide cover for giving a clear sense of direction to major changes to National's bete noir, the Resource Management Act. As well as housing, the modifications will make it quicker for shopping and industrial developments to get planning approval.
Buried in the announcement is a new provision which will see consent applications for undefined "large regional projects" referred directly to the Environment Court rather than first being heard by local or regional councils.
Such a provision currently only applies to proposals of "national significance" which the Minister for the Environment can refer to a board of inquiry or the Environment Court for a decision.
The reaction to yesterday's housing plan may have been ho-hum. But National could be grateful for one thing: the Government has finally steered political debate on to something it wishes to talk about, rather than being hostage to what Opposition parties would prefer to debate.
Should we:
1. Devalue the currency (currently in vogue whether you call it quantitative easing or printing money) so the prices go up since the dollar is worth less to foreigners who bid up prices more.ooops?!
2. Lower interest rates so people can afford bigger loans for now so there will be a bidding war and prices go up.ooops?!
3. Ban foreigners from buying so no one gets their money out of their home?!
4. Ban people from moving/immigrating to Auckland?!
5. Build monstrosity flat blocks a la 1960's Chicago and uk Estate blocks so more people are packed in and urban blight sets in with encumbent drug and crime problems?!
6. Expand boundaries to so called 'green fields' (nothing green about them) to increase commutes, rate payers bills for new ameneties before any schools, sewerage, broadband is in place?!
7. Pass a law that no house in Auckland can cost more than $350,000?!
8. Streamline consent for shoddy work?!
You are right, this is an easy problem. National is dragging their feet!
No home owner in Auckland, in their right mind, would renovate their home at present if it results in a significant increase in value and a corresponding rates reappraisal of 25-50% which is what the Auckland Council is doing to owners shortsighted enough to take pride in their homes. Thats why so much housing stock in AUckland remains a "renovator's dream" type of property.
They should have retained the Hobsonville project instead of being so petty about it.