Creating Healthier and More Affordable Homes for Kiwis
Hon Dr Nick Smith
Minister of Housing
10 August 2013
Speech Notes
Address to National Party Conference:
Creating Healthier and More
Affordable Homes for Kiwi Families
Prime
Minister, President, delegates.
Housing policy is
one of the great challenges of our time.
It matters
because for most kiwi families the equity in their home is
their greatest asset.
It matters because we’ve
seen how mis-managed housing bubbles can bring the world’s
biggest economies to their knees.
It matters
because old, cold and mouldy homes compound into health
problems.
It matters because part of the kiwi way
of life is that through hard work and careful saving New
Zealanders should be able to afford their own
home.
We are embarking on a comprehensive package
of reforms that will make homes more affordable and will
reshape New Zealand’s approach to state
housing.
I’ll start with housing
affordability.
You can’t have affordable homes
unless you have low interest rates.
In the post war
years when home ownership rates soared interest rates were
five per cent.
This reversed by the mid-80s and I
can still remember the day I received a letter from my bank,
as a first home owner, telling me that my interest rate was
going to 24 per cent.
While interest rates follow
the economic cycle, they are also the reward for good
economic management.
It is no coincidence that
they have consistently gone up under Labour and down under
National.
We should be very proud of our record
over the past five years that has enabled New Zealand
families paying a mortgage to have the lowest home interest
rates for nearly 50 years.
But that alone is not
enough.
We also know that house prices have soared
over the past 15 years.
I find it ironic that
Labour is beating the drum so loudly on house prices when it
was during their watch that prices grew out of control.
From 1999 to 2008 house prices increased by 100
per cent – or around eight per cent a
year.
They’ve increased by a further 13 per cent
over the past four and a half years – or about three per
cent a year.
But that’s still too
much.
That’s why in March 2011 we commissioned an
in-depth inquiry into housing affordability by the
Productivity Commission.
Its substantive report
said we needed to deal with land supply, infrastructure,
building materials costs, building sector productivity, and
compliance costs to improve housing affordability.
Our Government is advancing work on all five of
these.
I contrast this with our political
opponents.
Not one of the 100-plus submitters nor
the 12 month inquiry by the Productivity Commission found
any effect from foreign buyers on house
prices.
They also specifically considered and
rejected a Capital Gains Tax.
They noted that our
tax law already requires that anyone developing and trading
in property must pay income tax.
Nor did they
recommend a massive state house building
programme.
Follow Labour’s logic.
You
make power cheaper by the Government being the only buyer
and seller.
You make houses cheaper by the
Government building them.
Are they next going to
bring food prices down by nationalising our
supermarkets?
Labour’s greatest weakness is that
they refuse to accept that land regulation is any part of
the problem.
They have ridiculed the Productivity
Commission – calling them dinosaurs.
They are
opposing our special housing areas legislation and our
longer term RMA reforms.
Let me give you some of
the facts on why freeing up land supply is a must-have
component to improving housing affordability.
We
released in February a joint Government/Council study on
section availability and price in Auckland.
It
showed that the number of available sections in Auckland has
plummeted from 4,100 to 1,400 in the past
decade.
Remember we need 13,000 new houses per year
to keep up with Auckland’s population growth.
The same study showed section prices soared from
$100,000 to $325,000.
I have a question for Mr
Shearer and Mr Twyford.
How are you going to build
thousands of homes in Auckland for $300,000 when the section
price is $325,000?
I think they are digging
themselves a hole.
Further evidence of the land
supply problem is in un-improved land values.
This
block of 29 hectares of land at Flatbush was bought in 1998
for $890,000 but is now on the market for $112
million.
That’s a 38 per cent compound return for
15 years.
No wonder people are speculating on land
prices.
This obscene raw land price is the product
of Auckland’s Metropolitan Urban Limit and comes at the
cost of kiwi families wanting to own a home in our largest
city.
The rationale for such a tight urban limit
around Auckland is flawed.
Auckland’s future will
be a mix of greenfield and brownfield developments, but we
must not let rigid planning dogma get in the way of
affordable homes for kiwi families.
The Housing
Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill is about breaking
this planning impasse in the interim until Amy’s next
phase of RMA reforms roll in.
It reduces the time
for consenting a new greenfields housing developments from
three years to six months and for brownfields from one year
to three months.
It will enable the fast-tracking
of 39,000 new homes over the next three years.
Sam
Lotu-Iiga and his team have done a great job on the bill at
select committee that was reported back last week and I hope
to have it pass into law next month.
This means
that by Christmas we will have opened up thousands of new
housing lots in Auckland.
We must also tackle the
costs of council development levies.
They have
trebled over the past decade, rising faster than any other
component cost of a completed house.
They now
average $13,000 per section but are as high as $64,000 per
section in some areas.
The cause for this was a law
change in 2002.
It gave licence for councils to
charge developers whatever they liked.
The then
Government argued this cost would just come out of
developers’ margins.
In truth, the cost was just
passed on to the section or home buyer.
In
February, we announced proposals for reform that will put a
check on these costs.
Final decisions will be
announced this month and legislation before Christmas.
We’ve also got work underway on building
material costs.
The Productivity Commission report
noted that some building materials are as much as 30 per
cent more expensive here than they are in
Australia.
Commerce Minister Craig Foss and myself
initiated in March a market study on the costs, including
reviewing our standards system, tariff levels and
competition laws to ensure kiwis get access to more
affordable building materials.
We will be releasing
options for reform next month.
Colleague Maurice
Williamson is also hard at work on bringing compliance costs
down with proposals for an online building consenting system
and standardised nationwide multi-build
approvals.
He also has important work underway on
reviewing our building liability laws and investing in
sector productivity improvements.
Improving skills
is an important part of this and that’s why the Prime
Minister’s announcement at the beginning of the year with
Steven Joyce for thousands more apprentices is part of the
solution.
Reversing the generation-long downward
trend in home ownership and affordability won’t be solved
by gimmicks or sound bites.
If there was an instant
solution it would have been done long ago.
It is
going to require hard team graft.
Our group of
housing affordability ministers from Bill on finance, Steven
on skills, Amy on RMA, Maurice on consenting, Craig on
materials costs and Chris on development contributions are
working in tune to make housing more affordable for New
Zealand families.
I now want to talk you through
the parallel changes that we are making in the area of
social housing.
It too is based on solid research.
The Vision for Social Housing report was authored
by people like Major Campbell Roberts of the Salvation Army,
Dianne Robertson from the Auckland City Mission and Brian
Donnelly from the Housing Foundation.
For more than
a century New Zealand housing has been bisected into private
housing and state housing.
The big idea in that
report is that we need to grow a third sector of
community-owned social housing.
This is not a new
idea.
In fact, New Zealand is now out of step with
international best practice in social housing.
In
the United Kingdom, 58 per cent of social housing is now
provided by the community sector.
I spent a week
in Australia over the July recess researching their
community housing sector.
Over the past ten years
it has trebled to 80,000 homes or 19 per cent of social
housing.
It has been so successful that the
Commonwealth Government in Canberra has set a target that 35
per cent of all social housing will be delivered by the
community housing sector.
In Queensland, the
Liberal/National State Government last week announced a
policy of transferring 90 per cent of state houses to the
community sector by 2020.
The Labour/Greens
Government in Tasmania under a Greens’ Housing Minister is
similarly transferring large stocks of state houses over to
the community sector.
I found four major strengths
of community provision of social housing in visiting dozens
of providers in Australia.
The first is better
tenant relations.
Whereas the state tends to be
bound by clunky bureaucratic rules, these community social
housing providers were consistently rated by tenants as more
user-friendly and providing a better service than state
housing agencies.
The second is better and more
consistently maintained housing.
It is a matter of
record that when the board of Housing New Zealand
recommended major repair work in 2002 the then Government
redirected the money into new builds.
There are not
many photo opportunities in basic
maintenance.
Community housing providers have a far
better record in consistently keeping their housing stock up
to standard and fit for purpose.
The third
advantage of community social housing providers is that they
are better able to provide the network of services that
people in social housing need.
These are people
with significant disabilities.
Many have problems
with mental health and addictions.
Many community
housing providers specialise in working with a particular
group and provide services that state housing could never
deliver.
The fourth strength is that community
housing providers are much more successful in helping people
transition to independence.
Government housing
agencies worldwide have a serious cultural problem of state
houses being viewed as a house for life.
There are
some people for whom this is appropriate but community
providers do a much better job of ensuring that their houses
are for people with the greatest need.
My ambition
is to grow the community housing sector to 20 per cent of
New Zealand’s social housing over the next five
years.
You may be wondering who these intended
housing providers are.
Some will grow from existing
small social providers like Vision West in Auckland and
other housing trusts in places like Nelson, Queenstown and
Tauranga that have sprung up in response to high housing
needs.
Others will grow from well-established
nationwide providers like Habitat for Humanity, the
Salvation Army and the IHC.
There is also strong
interest from iwi who now see under National a financially
sustainable role in social housing.
We are
implementing these reforms with our Social Housing Reform
Bill introduced to Parliament as part of Budget
2013.
The game changer in those reforms is enabling
community providers to have access to the same income
related rent subsidy as Housing Corp.
I am hugely
excited about these reforms.
We know that the old
state housing model is broken and in need of
reform.
We know there will always be people in
society who will need the support of social
housing.
We know from international experience that
we can provide better housing support for those people by
empowering the community sector.
This is a
once-in-a-generation opportunity, in parallel with Paula’s
welfare reforms, to change for the better New Zealand’s
social housing.
There is another dimension to these
reforms announced in the Budget – the development of a
Housing Warrant of Fitness.
This was an important
recommendation of the Expert Advisory Committee on Solutions
to Child Poverty.
It interlocks with our policy to
more generously fund social housing providers.
The
quid pro quo is that the housing is of good
quality.
The problem is there are no consistent,
up-to-date standards for housing.
The closest we have is
the 1947 Housing Improvement Regulations.
Our
intention is to replace these long out-of-date regulations
with the sort of practical requirements we can rightly
expect of housing today.
We will firstly apply the
Housing Warrant of Fitness to our state housing – the onus
is on us first to get our own house in order – and then to
apply it to those houses where the Government is paying a
good share of the rent.
The reason this matters is
the compelling research showing the links between poor
housing and disease incidence rates like Rheumatic Fever.
We are making good progress in raising the bar on
housing standards.
We can be very proud of our
record in insulating cold, damp houses in both the public
and private sector.
The warm-up New Zealand
programme got a further boost in Budget 2013 with $100
million targeting low-income households for home insulation.
Your Government, in parallel with this programme,
has been getting on and insulating our state-owned homes –
another 46,000 that will all be finished this
year.
In total we are talking about 320,000 warmer
dryer houses or 800,000 people living in healthier
homes.
Nowhere is the housing challenge as
difficult as in Christchurch.
Of our 6,000 state
houses, 5,000 have significant damage requiring major
repairs.
The $320 million insurance settlement we
reached earlier this year is enabling us to bowl over old,
severely damaged three bedroom homes on quarter acre
sections and replace them with three new two bedroom
apartments like this site in Wilding St in St Martins.
From now until the end of 2015, every working day
we will be building a new replacement home and completing
repairs on another 10.
We’ve built four temporary
villages to provide transitional housing for families while
their home is repaired.
We’ve partnered with the
private sector in providing extra worker
accommodation.
With Corrections we’ve got
prisoners refurbishing red-zoned houses for
relocation.
We are embarking on a wider nationwide
programme of reconfiguring our housing stock to better meet
today’s needs and to make better use of the Government’s
land holdings.
Our problem is that we have tens of
thousands of standard three bedroom state houses, many of
which are half empty and others of which are
overcrowded.
We are currently out for tender on
Project 324&5 that will add an extra bedroom on 1000 houses
and two extra bedrooms onto another 1000.
We are
also using surplus Government land to house thousands of
families.
A prime example of this is the surplus
air force land at Hobsonville being converted into a
stunning new suburb of Auckland.
We’ve got new
schools, a new ferry terminal and the development has
specific conditions requiring at least 20 per cent of the
homes to be in an affordable price range.
The chief
executive of the Hobsonville Land Company has announced that
with our Special Housing Areas legislation he will be able
to bring forward another 1000 homes.
Let me
conclude.
Home ownership is in National’s
DNA.
We understand that part of the kiwi dream is
having your own place.
A place where you don’t
have to worry about getting a 90 day notice.
A
place to celebrate birthdays and anniversaries.
A
place to call home.
Our policies are about
substance over sound bites.
Our policies are about
keeping interest rates lower for longer.
We are
about slashing red tape to free up land supply.
We
are about shifting from failed state housing to community
housing.
National is about practical programmes and
not just political posturing.
We are directly
building more houses than any Government in a quarter
century.
We are insulating hundreds of thousands of
kiwi homes.
It is all about creating healthier and
more affordable homes for kiwi
families.
ENDS