EXCLUSIVE: Chinese billionaire lines up to buy state houses

67
25

enjoy-communism

Chinese property billionaire Dr Henry Cheng Kar-Shun has joined Australian-based Horizon Housing as the second foreign investor wanting to buy state houses from the government.

The government intends to sell up to a third of all state houses, the biggest privatisation of state assets in New Zealand history, beginning with 1140 houses in Tauranga and 370 in Invercargill. New Zealand state houses are valued at around $17 billion.

SHAN understands that on 11 December last year Social Housing Minister Paula Bennett met with Roger O’Sullivan, recently appointed New Zealand Manager for Dr Cheng’s Pinnacle Group to discuss buying state houses.

The Group sees rich pickings to be made from vulnerable state house tenants through “very exciting market opportunities” provided by the government.

Dr Cheng’s Pinnacle Group website explains it like this:

“Our current focus is on New Zealand where we have been shortlisted for Auckland City Council’s ‘Housing for Older Persons’ Project. Additionally, we are actively engaging in market soundings on Tamaki Regeneration and Tauranga Stock Transfer projects. New Zealand is providing very exciting market opportunities as the Government seeks innovative and transformative reform of the way social housing is managed and tenants supported.”

As we have done with Horizon Housing, SHAN has written to Dr Cheng expressing our strong opposition to any purchaser, domestic or overseas, buying state houses.

“The government selloff of state housing is a travesty.  New Zealand needs more state housing, not less. We are in the middle of a housing crisis for low and middle income New Zealanders and only the government has the resources and the capacity to provide the large number of quality, affordable housing so desperately needed.”

We condemn this government policy to sell or transfer state houses as the most despicable move yet under John Key’s leadership. It is unworthy of even a National Party government.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

67 COMMENTS

  1. Yes, Chinese billionaires, but also middle class Pakeha Kiwis.

    Why are we ignoring the local landlords who are committing the same levels of violence on renters?

    Stop this nonsense. We’re giving a free pass to the rent exploiters who are voting for this barbaric system.

    Will Andrew Little get some guts and address the local leeches too, or will he continue to allow them to exploit the poor? Race based populism is good for middle class Pakeha, but Labour can do better than that.

    • Affordable housing is a basic need to prevent poverty. Even middle income earners struggle to meet this expense. Earners, including those on low incomes, automatically enable landlords to charge exorbitant rents, by funding the Accommodation Supplement via taxes. Therefore landlords are beneficiaries, yet many people don’t realise this and criticise those in genuine need rather than landlords who become wealthy at taxpayers’ expense.

      I wonder how many people complaining about house prices and rental costs, and who want a capital gains tax or similar, bothered to vote in recent elections, or voted for National or Act, when Labour was going to introduce this in 2014? If they voted for National or Act, perhaps they could explain why they did and which National/Maori Party/Act/United Future policies have benefited them and the majority of society, not just the wealthy few?

      • Some good point Vivie, however, I do not think that Labour currently provide any solutions to our housing disaster. Their CGT was minimal at best and 30+ years too late. I do think Labour are better than National on housing, but that’s not saying much. Housing prices skyrocketed under Helen Clark and Labour’s policies remain disappointingly similar.

        The root cause of our housing problem is our culturally embedded desire for home ownership. We need to limit home ownership rates, not increase them. We need to look at what MANA and the Greens offer – social housing. Furthermore, we need to limit the ownership of a 2nd, 3rd etc property. Put simply, home ownership should not be a route to economic security, instead, economic security needs to be provided by other means (for example, a recreation of the welfare state via a UBI that ensures the elimination of poverty and the provision of human rights to all).

        Home ownership is the problem, not the solution. For me, Labour’s current polices (and those of the 4th Labour Govt) perpetuate our housing disaster.

        Overseas rent exploiters should be treated the same as our local ones – they need to be eliminated. Social justice cannot exist alongside them.

        • Tell that to the Tibetans!

          ….clearly overseas speculator exploiters are worse than local ones…for a start they are less under a sovereign Nation’s governmental control….they are also less susceptible to societal approbrium and government change

          You are making a case for New Zealanders NOT to own their own homes in their own land? !

          You are more critical of Labour than jonkey Nactional?!

          (You say: “The root cause of our housing problem is our culturally embedded desire for home ownership. We need to limit home ownership rates, not increase them “)

          New Zealand has a relatively small population. We havent overbred. We are environmentally aware.

          We have built up a state housing stock over the generations of New Zealand taxpayers.

          We should have enough for ALL new Zealanders…(if we cut out the overseas foreign speculators buying up our scarce housing)

          …are you an apologist for the Chinese buy up of New Zealand housing stock?

          …are you Chinese?

          • “You are more critical of Labour than jonkey Nactional?!”

            Yes, nut nNational are proud that they don’t speak for the working class. Labour claim they do, but their policies are neoliberal. We need to be critical of Labour, not accept their light-blue neoliberalism.

            I clearly stated that “I do think Labour are better than National on housing, but that’s not saying much.”

            I think not critiquing Labour is our problem.

            “You are making a case for New Zealanders NOT to own their own homes in their own land?”

            No, I’m not suggesting the end of private property because it’s not a realistic policy. I’m suggesting we end this home-ownership-boner most Kiwis have. Our ‘kiwi-dream’ was constructed. It doesn’t exist outside NZ AUST, USA, UK etc to the same degree. That is the root of our housing problem. We need to promote renting and alter our economy so that home ownership is the only way to ensure economic security.

            “…are you an apologist for the Chinese buy up of New Zealand housing stock?”

            No. I think you completely missed my point. I don’t care about the ethnicity of landlords, I care about the concept of rent and its inherent exploitative nature.

            “We should have enough for ALL new Zealanders…(if we cut out the overseas foreign speculators buying up our scarce housing).”

            No, you’re blaming foreigners for a problem that is the result of 80 years of economic policies and cultural norms. Your solution will just allow local landlords to be the exploiters.

            • Fatty, you comments are fundamentally confusing. You state:

              “We need to promote renting.”

              and

              “I care about the concept of rent and its inherent exploitative nature.”

              So, are you saying that we need to promote something (renting) that you consider has an “inherent exploitative nature”? If so, why do you advocate for something you feel is exploitative? If you mean something different, please clarify.

              You criticise Chooky’s suggestions by saying, “No, you’re blaming foreigners for a problem that is the result of 80 years of economic policies and cultural norms. Your solution will just allow local landlords to be the exploiters.”

              What, specifically (without the waffle) are YOUR solutions?

              • “So, are you saying that we need to promote something (renting) that you consider has an “inherent exploitative nature”? If so, why do you advocate for something you feel is exploitative?”

                Yes, I see how that comes across as confusing. I do think rent is inherently exploitative. When I said we need to promote renting I was meaning we need to end our obsession with home ownership because that is the root of our housing crisis. We need to see renting-for-life as a normal decision, and one that will not subject people to poverty. We can do that by following what some countries do – strict rent controls and strong renter’s rights. There needs to be a massive state housing scheme too. CGT could be part of it as well, but that ship sailed long ago and now a CGT would have to be much stronger than what Labour offered at the last election (or what Key has introduced).

                “What, specifically (without the waffle) are YOUR solutions?”

                My solutions to the housing crisis are littered though my comments on this thread, they include:

                1. A UBI so that people no longer feel the need to speculate/invest/buy housing to ensure economic security.

                *This must be the first step or people will never vote for the following steps.

                2. A massive state housing scheme that will flood the market with housing – this will end the housing shortage.

                The problem with a state housing scheme is that it should drop the value of property, which is why the UBI is needed. In addition, a stronger pension plan is needed so that housing investments aren’t needed as nesteggs.

                3. Strict rent controls on price (could include a housing WOF too).

                4. Ensure strong renter’s rights. This means long term tenancies which are common in many Western European countries. This is needed to make housing and communities stronger – both of which will foster housing security in a wider sense (to include psycho-social benefits, strong community ties and a sense of belonging…these are as important as the ‘roof over one’s head’ understanding of housing security which sadly is the usual assumption.

                Numbers 3 & 4 are important. They will make people less likely to invest/speculate/buy housing. As a result more rentals will be provided by the state and landlords will lose a lot of their exploitative power.

                5. Limit the numbers of houses people can buy, as well as family trusts etc.

                Those are a few solutions off the top of my head.
                What doesn’t work is blaming foreigners for our failed economic ideology. If we remove foreign investors from housing then local landlords will take control of more property. Sure, removing foreign investors will allow a few more middle class people will get on the housing ladder, but many of the poorer people in society will still be excluded. I think we can do better than that. I prefer to think of housing as a human right…and that’s why we need radical change (radical for NZ, but quite normal in other places).

        • Fatty, in what way is a capital gains tax ineffective in stopping people owning, as you put it, “2nd, 3rd etc property?”

          You say, “We need to limit home ownership rates, not increase them”, and, “We need to limit the ownership of a 2nd, 3rd etc property”. So, based on your comments and your repeated use of the word “limit”, which suggests that some people but not all should own property / properties, who decides who should be among the privileged few who own their homes and who have second and third properties?

          What do you mean by your statement, “Home ownership is the problem, not the solution”? Are you suggesting that the vast majority of New Zealanders should be renting? If so, why? If not, can you please clarify what point you’re making about home ownership?

          You comment: “Overseas rent exploiters should be treated the same as our local ones – they need to be eliminated.” So, you don’t think exploitative overseas-based landlords and exploitative local landlords should own homes (I agree with this point); then you state that you don’t think most New Zealanders should own their homes; then you state, “Look at what MANA and the Greens offer – social housing.” So, are you saying that the Government should own most homes and most people should rent homes from the State? If not, what point(s) are you making?

          • “in what way is a capital gains tax ineffective in stopping people owning, as you put it, “2nd, 3rd etc property?”

            The same way that it doesn’t work in the UK, USA and Aust. Labour CGT was so mild that Key pretty much put it through himself! That’s shameful for Labour

            “based on your comments and your repeated use of the word “limit”, who decides who should be among the privileged few who own their homes and who have second and third properties?”

            People can own more homes if they wish, but they shouldn’t be a tool for economic violence. For example, some of the Western European countries have made it so that excessive rents can’t be charged and that owning home doesn’t equal economic security. People then will limit their buying of properties and create wealth through other more socially productive means, such as starting businesses.

            “Are you suggesting that the vast majority of New Zealanders should be renting? If so, why?”

            Yes, we can do it with strict rent controls and a massive state housing scheme. The former works in Germany and other European nations, and the latter was what Labour was built on (and it more or less eliminated our housing crisis by the 1970s).

            “So, are you saying that the Government should own most homes and most people should rent homes from the State?”

            That’s one part of the solution – long term rentals need to be part of that. We can have private landlords too, but controlling rent shouldn’t be an easy ticket to wealth – it should offer minimal returns so that rich people actually invest in creating business and jobs, not the poverty that they currently produce as landlords.

        • Because we are a small country it is easy for ‘sharks’ to take advantage and buy up every housing unit using ‘strawmen’, companies. Until we reach an equitable state of affairs re housing, investors as of 2016 should only be allowed one unit this year. Other investors with multiple units must sit on the sidelines. The Government must hold all units sold in 2016 and beyond to a high standard. Units MUST be free of mould and fitted with proper heating to be dry. State Housing was just that, built with taxpayers hard earned $. Investors deserve good tenants and they will have them, tenants used to being offered sub-standard housing will be thrilled to live in a ‘normal’ house.
          I think a Tenants Assoc., many of them throughout NZ made up not of Bureaucrats but concerned citizens with knowledge, volunteers who are savvy and willing to give back to NZ. Count me in.

          • @Fatty

            While you are worrying about private landlords this government is asset stripping from us all and depriving those on the lowest incomes the right to their state house which generations of Kiwi taxpayers paid for.

            Unless you are advocating a Chinese system where the government owns all the land so nobody can own everything or everyone is supplied a free house, there has to landlords.

            Rents are high in relation to income because wages have not kept pace and because their are 60,000 migrants coming in competing with housing and jobs.

            Under TPPA it is all going to get a lot worse.

            Landlords are the ‘click bait’ for venting so people don’t focus on the wider problems of neoliberalism and globalism, free trade agreements which are anything but, low wages and obsene corporate welfare.

            • “While you are worrying about private landlords this government is asset stripping from us all and depriving those on the lowest incomes the right to their state house which generations of Kiwi taxpayers paid for.”

              If you read what I’ve written you’ll see I have been advocating for a massive state housing programme. Something Labour didn’t offer at all last election. Something that Labour was built on.

              “Unless you are advocating a Chinese system where the government owns all the land so nobody can own everything or everyone is supplied a free house, there has to landlords.”

              Try thinking about housing without talking about China – I have no idea what the so called Left’s obsession is with that country (xenophobic at best, racist at worst). I’ve clearly stated that we can apply some of the policies that are effective in Western European countries. My point about eliminating landlords was about eliminating our economic policies that encourage landlordism as a respectable investment, a useful asset to our socio-economic landscape, and the easiest route to economic security.

              “Rents are high in relation to income because wages have not kept pace and because their are 60,000 migrants coming in competing with housing and jobs.”

              Yes, wages are far too low – Labour can’t even ensure a 40 hour week keeps workers out of poverty – maybe we should tell Labour to sort their shit out?
              And no, you are wrong for blaming immigrants. That’s UKIP rhetoric. Chooky is correct in her/his comment above “New Zealand has a relatively small population. We havent overbred.”
              Population growth is the last of our worries. Blaming population growth is part of the problem.

              “Landlords are the ‘click bait’ for venting so people don’t focus on the wider problems of neoliberalism and globalism.”

              I won’t apologise for my left-wing view about rent exploitation – go read some Marx if you don’t get it. Neoliberalism and globablisation have become problems, but they are not going to be put back in the box. I’m happy to discuss the negative impacts of globalisation and neoliberalism, but this post was about private landlords buying up state housing. Blaming the foreigners is pointing the finger in the wrong direction. It’s the housing policies we’ve voted for since the 1970s. I couldn’t give a shit if my landlord lives down the street or on the other side of the world – either way they leech money from me and leave me in poverty.
              Wake me up when Labour start to put policies in place that stop the rental exploitation from people of all ethnicities.

              • re -“Neoliberalism and globablisation have become problems, but they are not going to be put back in the box”

                …this is the right wing corporate laissez faire capitalist position in itself

                …Michelle Boag and Matthew Hooton would be proud of you…

                • “…this is the right wing corporate laissez faire capitalist position in itself”

                  Yes, it’s also the position of many on the Left. Why do you think the Left was unable to peel back neoliberalism after the GFC?

                  The key part of my comment was the word ‘back’. If you think we can recreate our post-war Keynesian Social Democracy then you are deluded. Feminists and ethnic minorities won’t stand for it, and rightly so!

                  However, we can move beyond neoliberalism. This is quite different and requires you to engage with people and theorists talking about post-capitalism. Paul Mason from the Guardian is a mainstream writer worth reading.
                  Or try ‘Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work’ by Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams. In this book Srnicek and Williams explain why we can’t put neoliberalism back in the box, but we can move beyond it.

                  Boag and Hooton are much more in tune with your ideas and solutions. You’re all stuck within a box Mark Fisher calls ‘capitalist realism’. Sorry.

                  • actually I thought the topic was about Chinese billionaires being able to buy up New Zealand State Assets

                    …STATE Housing which was meant for the poorest in New Zealand ….which my socialist ancestors fought for and paid for…

                    all you can talk about is that it is New Zealanders at fault for wanting to own their own houses as they have done in the past

                    You may call yourself ‘Left’ but there are some on the ‘Left’ who are quite deluded and their brand of socialist theory corrupted by the Right wing

                    • “STATE Housing which was meant for the poorest in New Zealand”

                      No, our state housing scheme from the first Labour Government was not meant just for the poorest people. You are framing our welfare history with neoliberal goggles, which reduces welfare to a safety net. This is right-wing rhetoric. The same is said today about our unemployment benefit.

                      Our original State Housing programme was built upon the idea that long term secure housing is a right (sadly limited to Pakeha and men back then). The same philosophy underpinned our welfare state during the same time – it wasn’t about being a safety net for the poor. It was about state responsibility and human rights.

                      I think I’ve mentioned the need for a new social housing scheme in almost every comment, but I don’t view it as something for the poor who slip through the cracks of our failed private property system.

                      Instead, I want to see social housing become so normalised that renting for life can be done in state housing – just like the socialist minded Labour MPs from the 1930s.

                      How we do that is the question. You think neoliberalism can be peeled back, but I don’t. I think we need to move beyond neoliberalism and not perpetuate the ‘Kiwi Dream’ that led us to where we are today.

                      “all you can talk about is that it is New Zealanders at fault for wanting to own their own houses as they have done in the past”

                      No, I’ not blaming individuals, I’m blaming our obsession with private property and this imaginary construct called the ‘Kiwi Dream’. Both are right wing concepts that cannot and will not solve our housing problems. You don’t solve the symptoms of private property by promoting private property.

                      My socialist theory isn’t corrupted by right wing thinking. The ‘Kiwi Dream’ is right wing thinking based on individual property rights. I refute that.

              • Fatty, your comments lack clarity. You appear to be conflating home ownership and landlordship. Obviously, all landlords are property owners but not all property owners are landlords. In fact, most property owners are not landlords and simply want to have a home to call their own, as New Zealanders have done for generations.

                Your points about capping rents and protecting tenants are valid. However, it is unclear why you object so strongly to home ownership in general, when the vast majority of home owners are not landlords and are therefore not exploiting tenants.

                Why do you think that people who are not landlords should not own their own homes?

                • “Fatty, your comments lack clarity”

                  I think they only lack clarity because there is a lack of understanding as to why we have a housing crisis.

                  “You appear to be conflating home ownership and landlordship.”

                  Yes, I do. Because the underlying problem of our housing crisis is our obsession with owning property – be that a home or as an investment.

                  We can’t chase this imaginary ‘Kiwi Dream’ and think that it won’t end in suffering and homelessness.

                  We on the Left have a tendency to define our problems as the result of ‘bad capitalists’ (in this case slum-landlords). But our problems are systemic and we need to change our collective values (in this case you have hit the nail on the head: the “want to have a home to call their own, as New Zealanders have done for generations”).

                  We need to make a fundamental change to how we think of housing and how we deliver it to everyone so that housing is a right. Our ‘Kiwi Dream’ locks us into thinking owning property is normal or natural, but it isn’t and we need to move beyond it. Lond term rentals can give us the same levels of psycho-social security that home ownership does, but without the resulting homelessness and suffering that many experience.

                  A left wing view challenges the private property norms within capitalism. I’m happy to call myself a Marxist here. Home ownership has always been a right wing position (National) and now it is also the domain of the so called ‘Left’ (Labour).

                  I know what side I’m on.

                  “Why do you think that people who are not landlords should not own their own homes?”

                  I don’t think that.

                  I think that home ownership shouldn’t be promoted as a natural desire, and owning a house shouldn’t be a money making venture, and those who rent should be just as economically secure as those who own a home.

                  My solutions go some way to solving the problem. People on here who have been debating with me don’t seem to understand the root of the housing problem and they seem to offer no solutions – just like Labour’s policies.

                  • Fatty, you state people’s desire to own a home is an “obsession” and state “we need to change our collective values” and “home ownership shouldn’t be promoted as a natural desire.” It seems implausible that you would hold these beliefs. I presume you are simply trying to distract from the growing housing crisis, mainly in Auckland, but spreading to other areas in New Zealand, and mainly caused by unrestrained property speculation, which is pushing up house prices beyond the reach of many New Zealanders.

                    Whether or not you believe what you state, from a psychological perspective, most people have a natural desire to have control over their own lives, which in New Zealand includes owning a home and not being at the mercy of landlords, exploitative or otherwise.

                    • “It seems implausible that you would hold these beliefs.”

                      It only seems implausible because the ‘Kiwi Dream’ has become so embedded into our national psyche that we can’t think beyond it. Sadly, we then can’t see why it is part of our problem.

                      “I presume you are simply trying to distract from the growing housing crisis”

                      No, for me it is *the* issue that needs to be sorted. And to do that we need more than these Blairite policies that Labour offered us from 1999-2008.

                      “mainly caused by unrestrained property speculation, which is pushing up house prices beyond the reach of many New Zealanders”

                      Sure, unrestrained property speculation is part of the problem, but it is a symptom of our core problem: private property (which is fostered by our ‘Kiwi Dream’ and property fixation). I’d rather deal with the core problem.

                      Also, let’s clarify that claim of “pushing up house prices beyond the reach of many New Zealanders”. Our house prices are now out of reach of middle class educated Pakeha. Sure, that’s sad, but what about everyone else? If we’re so determined to retain this ‘Kiwi Dream’ then how about all Kiwis?

                      I’m sick of the so called left speaking out for the middle class. Why don’t we speak for those on minimum wage too?

                      My solutions would make secure housing a right for all (or at least go close to it). That’s why I suggested the UBI as the first step. If we just blame speculators then we’re not speaking for the poorest Kiwis. My solutions would provide the psycho-social benefits of ‘Kiwi Dream’ to all. Sadly, to ensure that happens we need to dismantle the ‘Kiwi Dream’ and reframe long term housing security as a human right.

                      “most people have a natural desire to have control over their own lives, which in New Zealand includes owning a home and not being at the mercy of landlords, exploitative or otherwise.”

                      I agree with that, except for the part where you place home ownership in a binary with paying exploitative rent. We really can’t think outside of the ‘Kiwi Dream’ can we? We’ve been zombified by individualistic capitalism. I wish we could think positively about life-long renting, but maybe the rightwingers have won….

  2. The market rules and is a better judge of resource allocation. Commonwealth and caring what’s that? The Natsis neoliberal destruction continues. Intervention for the sake of your own people ( market serfs ) is a dirty word associated with Socialism that vile belief of: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.The only sensible sane sustainable policy ever, instead we have the worship of wealth acquisition and a property speculators’ paradise.
    It’s an outrage that any foreigners would be allowed to buy for profit the jewel in the crown of social policy of our forebears who truly cared for ordinary kiwis not money grubbing accumulation.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Socialism%3F

    Key’s history:

    His solo mum on the DPB
    Grew up in a state house
    Got degree when tertiary education was free

    Key was a refugee and now he can’t betray the country that gave him sanctuary via its social policies fast enough.

    • The DPB did not exist when Key was a kid, it did not come into being until the 70s. Much as I do not like him and his policies, I don’t think making things up about his childhood should be a thing

      • Did Key’s mother not get a widows benefit?

        See this:
        http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/1966/welfare-services/page-2
        “History of Monetary Benefits”

        Extract:
        “During the following 30 years the pension system was extended to include widows (1911), Maori War veterans (1912), miners (1915), and the blind (1924), while the size of the pensions was steadily increased and conditions of payment were made less stringent, though always subject to a means test. In 1926 family allowances were introduced at the rate of 2s. per week for each child in excess of two, again subject to means test. All these pensions and allowances were non-contributory.

        The second great advance came with the passing of the Social Security Act 1938. This Act extended and increased the existing pensions, but it also introduced important innovations. It was intended to provide subsistence to all citizens who, in the face of economic difficulties arising from exceptional or unavoidable circumstances such as unemployment or old age, could not adequately maintain themselves or their dependants.”

        We have been told that Key’s mother also worked, but I am sure she also received some support as a widow, and in the form of state housing, hence these stories that keep coming up, reminding Mr Key of his past.

        • I don’t know that she was widow then, I thought his father cleared off or something. And on reflection Key was probably still a dependent when DPB came in so she may have accessed it at some time, but don’t know. Whatever it may have been in those instances, I know one thing for sure, access to state housing was a lot easier then, and there were a far greater number of them per head of population and education was far, far more egalitarian, though it was need seen then as a necessity to go to Uni just to survive. Apprenticeships and so on were everywhere and people made good lives with plenty of work for all, much less of a need for welfare in the first place. It definitely was easier, I know, I was there.

          • From what I’ve read, Key’s family lived in a state house for quite a short time while she was waiting for a large legacy to become available. She definitely received a widow’s pension, so Key’s father must have died. Key’s tale of an impoverished childhood is largely a lie, or, at the very least, a distortion of the facts to gain sympathy.

            • What “large legacy” would that have been? I never heard that one bit, perhaps give us some evidence.

              Key’s father died when he was still very young, and his parents apparently split before he died, as he had some alcohol and other “issues”.

              As far as I know John Key, his sister and mother lived in a state house for a fair few years, and this was due to them being in need of support. His mother did also do some part time work, to supplement a humble pension she received.

              There is truth to the story that Key grew up in a state home, he certainly did not make that up, and he still lived in a state home when he was in his later school years, I think until he left home to start work.

      • FJK was 12 when the DPB was introduced, but I understand his mother was on a widow’s benefit, to which there was less stigma attached. In any case, she did get a state house.
        I can only think that he hated his childhood, maybe he had no friends until he got rich, and wants to destroy everything that reminds him of life back then.

        • Still doesn’t change the fact that Key , – ( his bloated hypocritical minister of social welfare Bennett , …or has this changed due to the inherent incompetence and lies therefore a constant musical chairs of portfolios among Nat ministers …) has used the system .

          As such he is a true bludger and trougher.

          Probably the worst and most vile example of someone shitting all over the hand that previously fed him.

          And that hand that fed him was social democratic New Zealand .

          It is time we tried, sentenced and imprisoned him for treason. And freeze his Hawaiian assets , redistributing the wealth to those who deserve it – the victims of his treasonous neo liberal ideology – the poor.

    • +100…”It’s an outrage that any foreigners would be allowed to buy for profit the jewel in the crown of social policy of our forebears who truly cared for ordinary kiwis not money grubbing accumulation.”

  3. Here they come. All the fools who believe we can turn our backs on the Crown in favour of Republic status are going to find out the hard way the folly of that particular stupidity.

  4. So why was the headline “Chinese Billionaire….”? with a picture of Chairman Mao? Does it actually make any difference whether he is from China? or Australia, or America or Russia? One might suspect that there is some kind of xenophobia or racism here and that would seem to be out of character for you, John.
    All billionaires are the same everywhere, they make a lot of money by screwing other people, where they come from is usually irrelevant.

    • I take your point Mike, but the fact is that he is a Chinese Billionaire and if was an American Billionare it would have said that. This has zilch to do with racism. I am pretty sure that John doesn’t decide on the picture at the top. But the irony of a so-called communist country (you know reds under the bed and all of that) having a billionaire isn’t lost on most of us.

    • So why was the headline “Chinese Billionaire….”?

      Because in this instance, the intertested buyers are from China.

      Does it actually make any difference whether he is from China? or Australia, or America or Russia? One might suspect that there is some kind of xenophobia or racism here

      We’ve already been alerted to Australian parties interested in buying up publicly owned housing as well, I didn’t hear any charges of anti Australian bigotry over that announcement, but perhaps I missed it.

    • That is the trouble, as we are afraid of being accused of being racist, we seem to be afraid to openly express concern about money coming from the Chinese Communist system and its command economy. Their government still have much control over what happens overseas, especially in the business world, so I think we need to shake off our fear of regarding the Chinese a bit differently from other foreigners, although first and foremost that is what they are.
      We do not want any of them with their mitts anywhere near our social housing, along with a lot of other stuff.

    • Reference also being made to Australian buyers;

      “Chinese property billionaire Dr Henry Cheng Kar-Shun has joined Australian-based Horizon Housing as the second foreign investor wanting to buy state houses from the government.”

  5. So a Chinese billionaire and his local enterprise are joining the residential building speculator casino player arena. They are already talking with TRC I read. Let us dissect some figures and facts:

    The Tāmaki Regeneration Company (TRC) is already selling us a BS concept. They’ve published revealing “evidence” on the Independent Hearing Panel’s website – in relation to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan Hearings: https://hearings.aupihp.govt.nz/hearings

    Under ‘Topic 061’ you find a ‘STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF JOHN DUTHIE, ACTING GENERAL MANAGER PLANNING AND REGENERATION TAMAKI REDEVELOPMENT COMPANY IN RELATION TO TOPIC 061 – RETIREMENT AND AFFORDABILITY’ (from 26 June this year).

    Of the 7.500 homes they want to “develop” the present number of actual social housing will only be replaced in virtually equal number as it is already (2,770), but not in the same quality. While the new homes may be insulated and have some modern features, they will also be small, often only shoe-box size flats stacked on top of each other, with no access to a garden, with limited storage, and with less living space than most will have now in their existing Housing NZ homes.

    The claim is that of the future planned total of 7,500 homes only 40 percent will be “social” or “affordable”, which sums up to 3,000. So take out the 2,770 existing state homes from that, and you will get another 230 (!!!) “affordable” homes on the market, which the Tamaki Redevelopment Company also want to be allowed to sell on “price relative” basis (not measured against median income, which would mean lower house prices, but against “median price”). As we know the present average valued house or home price in Auckland is now close to $900,000. Present QV may still be a bit lower, but in future will be higher. On the basis that the TRC want it, the “affordable” homes will be sold at $675,000 when QV is at $900,000!

    That can be worked out easily by looking at the mentioned evidence, from where I quote from “8.1 The PAUP defines price relative affordable dwellings as those sold at no more than 75% of the regional median house price.”

    Also in their “evidence” TRC quote: “8.10 TRC is delivering one bedroom units at $500,000 but four bedroom at $650,000. This would still represent a very significantly cheaper four bedroom unit than elsewhere in Auckland.”

    Remember, that was as per market situation half a year ago, in a year where house prices in Auckland rose over 20 percent, as far as I know. What TRC seem to want is what many other developers want, and where Council seems to be bending over backwards already: Concessions in dwelling sizes, in allowable heights, in cover-able ground area, and so forth. The 5,000 “net gain” will though be in homes sold in present state housing land areas, at high market prices, possibly for money rich Chinese and other economic refugees, for great windfalls, and I wonder what TRC plan to do with the money earned, whether it will be “re invested” or pocketed by some who may do nicely out of the privatisation of state housing land and homes?!

    All plans for “affordable homes” in Auckland on the present market are just such dishonest proposals, as it is impossible to provide truly affordable homes to those most in need under the given market speculation circumstances. Council is already settling for minimum dwellings at 30 square metres, with NO minimum dwelling mix for apartment buildings, and more concessions, so prepare for new slums of the future to be built right here in the coming years.

    What is needed instead is a major state housing initiative by central government in cooperation with local government, on Crown owned and some other affordable land. A land tax is needed, and other interventions, to stop speculators, and unused land should be highly taxed after say two years. Also necessary are measures to end the monopolies or oligopolies of building supply traders, of large builders such as Fletcher Residential, to also stop land banking and speculation (on a market designated for intensification), and to stop mass migration into Auckland.

    • what is needed is that we DONT SELL off STATE HOUSING.!!!! to foreigners!!!!!…and billionaires

      …when there is a crisis shortage of housing for New Zealanders!!!!!

      …where is Labour? the Greens? NZF? …on this issue

      • Quote:
        “…where is Labour? the Greens? NZF? …on this issue”

        Answer: Twyford is now in bed with the right wing think tank and lobby group called ‘The NZ Initiative’!

        He co-authored the following article with Oliver Hartwich from that lobby group:

        “Opinion: Planning rules the cause of housing crisis | Dr Oliver Hartwich & Phil Twyford | The New Zealand Herald”

        http://nzinitiative.org.nz/About+Us/Staff/Oliver_Hartwich/Opinion+and+commentary+Dr+Oliver+Hartwich.html?uid=1122

        So to them it is now all primarily a “planning” issue. The planners are to blame, for too many rigid rules, and so forth.

        And they both want to change the RMA, as the RMA is to blame also. As for the particular issues they see:
        “First, urban growth boundaries driving up section costs. Second, anti-density restrictions stopping affordable housing. Third, the expensive and inefficient way we fund infrastructure.”

        “Some people are fearful density means the kinds of high rise slums you see in Hobson St.

        It need not be this way. There are plenty of examples of density done well, you only need to look at the buildings designed by Mark Todd’s Ockham Residential.”

        So for those who do not know this, Ockham is one of the main developer submitters to the Auckland Unitary Plan (still being heard). They support high rises, smaller dwellings, less rules, more density and want to turn most of Auckland into apartments and multi-level buildings. Like other developers they want to maximise returns on costs they face, and want sound profits (20 percent is the anticipated margin). What they plan means creating a totally different Auckland, where a large number of people live in blocks that may only contain 30 sqm size studio flats and go up to 7, 8 or in some zones more levels.

        If that is what Twyford now stands for, adopting stuff from right wing think tanks, and supporting the private enterprise developers to solve the housing problem, then we know where Labour stand.

        Twyford is a great talker, great arguer, but in all honesty, he is not that far away from what Nick Smith and Nats want themselves. More BS from Labour, I’d say.

        • Re Ockham Holdings, by far not the worst of developers, but after all still a business, and profit oriented developer:

          Evidence of Mark Todd, 50 percent owner of Ockham Holdings Ltd, subm. 6099, on Residential Topic 059 – 063, Auckland Unitary Plan Hearings:

          https://hearings.aupihp.govt.nz/online-services/new/files/4Htj14xY7uuDbDmpdx3coPOhSISfkIvoNXjvZsBq8ci4

          Quote:
          “10 Ockham believes there are only four core development controls:
          1. Building coverage.
          2. Retained green space (currently termed Landscaping)
          3. Height
          4. HIRTB”

          “11 We believe all the other controls should not be rules as such but dealt with as assessment criteria on an RDA basis. The site specific context of every site will naturally result in infringements of many of these other rules which may well be natural and appropriate.”

          And read this:
          “Further, a trade-off between amenity, proximity and affordability is a decision best left to purchasers and developers.” (In italics under Para 11)

          Statement of Evidence of Ockham Holdings, for Hearing Panel and Hearing on AUP Topics 059 – 063:
          https://hearings.aupihp.govt.nz/online-services/new/files/UFPs3rzV9tmijianZyBXGLQoX4WswQL5CB6kd9Gg7UFP

          While some of that may sound reasonable, the push to re-merge the newly created Mixed Housing Suburban and Mixed Housing Urban zones into one Mixed Housing zone, covering 60 percent of Auckland, and generally allowing up to 3 storeys all over that zone, yet allowing Council to consent to further levels on top of that, will lead to massive intensification.

          Ockham is only one developer enterprise, and others want yet more liberal rules to build up and cash in on Aucklands massive redevelopment plans.

          The Council’s plans to rezone and intensify much of Auckland, signalling this through the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan and other planning, is also one major reason why properties are in high demand, as big windfalls are to be expected where redevelopment will take place.

          Old property guru Olly Newland therefore advises investors to do the following:
          “Olly Newland on the Auckland Unitary Plan; ‘Buy up land that will have the densest zoning'”

          http://www.interest.co.nz/property/63749/olly-newland-auckland-unitary-plan-buy-land-will-have-densest-zoning

          Find more on all that is being discussed and heard by the so called ‘Independent Hearing Panel’ via this link:
          https://hearings.aupihp.govt.nz/hearings

  6. I saw Chinese taking over the Nairobi business community that rings around that city in 1970 and the locals were telling me that ikf they are not stopped they will control all Kenya’s business community eventually.

    I was in Canada working a year later and read in the news that That there had been a nasty uprising of the Kenyans and the Chinese were sent back out of the country to do that takeover policy somewhere else.

    Vancouver looks a lot like the next target the Chinese targeted and now us it seems.

    Yes the Chinese have much desire to own overseas business potential everywhere else now it seems, and it is therefore very sad that we have no rights to buy their country does there John?

      • HAHAHAA!!! – PRECISELY !!!!

        LET US ALL REMEMBER THE PERSECUTION OF THE FALUN GONG PEOPLE WHILE WERE AT IT , PLEASE.

        I watched as Keys cops marched in military rank on 200 Falun Gong protesters when the PM of China and his motorcades paraded through our Auckland streets with bodygaurd’s in tow.

        Here was a group demonstrating for democratic rights and religious freedom and Keys cops were marching in rank then surrounding these peaceful demonstrators.

        And you just knew these people were brave as their relatives and friends back in mainland China were also being singled out for harassment by Chinese state authorities for persecution.

        Key supports communism !!!!

      • I would, for one, since ‘neo-liberal’ is a complete misnomer. It’s neither new nor liberal, just the same old exploitative capitalism with a diferent name.

  7. It is my u derstandng that the Selwyn Foundation has taken over this project, John?
    “Our current focus is on New Zealand where we have been shortlisted for Auckland City Council’s ‘Housing for Older Persons’ Project.

  8. Ok so thats the guts of what there plan is now would somebody please tell the good hard working kiwis out here what we can do to stop this.

  9. “The government selloff of state housing is a travesty. New Zealand needs more state housing, not less. We are in the middle of a housing crisis for low and middle income New Zealanders and only the government has the resources and the capacity to provide the large number of quality, affordable housing so desperately needed.”

    As much as I support the statement, allow me to play devil’s advocate for a moment. I’m pretty sure that in the eyes of the senior investors, this simply reads:

    “Now that you have us over a barrel, we eagerly await notification of the frequency of our spankings, news on how often and by what degree their severity shall be increased, and how we may better cry out in pain as a symbol of our submission to your power. Enclosed is an automatic payment authority for our accounts, with permission to change the amount according to the discretion of market fluctuations. We do hope that we, the paying customer, serve your interests well. Also, our boss really wants to lick your bums. Yours, the little people.”

  10. Selling off state houses is abhorrent!

    I can’t really say in words the disgust I feel at the greed of the government and apathy of the MSM and commentators. In addition the opposition parties are not doing enough.

    Where is the outrage about Key’s lies to not sell off any more state assets?

    • There is no outrage because National’s supporters (including our infotainment driven MSM) are those who own their own homes already, or rent out others. In the first case, why should they care if the state owns houses or not? In the second case they would welcome a state house sell off because 1. They have a chance to snap up some bargains and 2. Less state houses for rental means less competition from lower priced rentals and thus a general increase in rents. Higher rents = higher profits.

  11. I think the idea is that English finally manages to post a surplus.

    What a financial disaster National has been for the people of this country and a bonanza to foreigners and rich mates asset stripping NZ at bargain rates.

    Even if the government sold the state houses individually (which I don’t approve of) they would get more money than a bargain basement sell em cheap price, and at least poorer people or first home owners might be able to buy one.

    Once again locals shut out in every way.

    • Bill English and the Nats couldn’t even post a surplus even after bankrupting Solid Energy…. they are just neoliberal zombie idiots…

      Killing off this country like the fabled golden goose.

      Now another pathetic and desperate attempt that will do the maximum harm to this country along with signing TPPA which they will also do so nobody can take the assets back in the future and to champion more of the same.

      • If you can’t manage a real surplus (and they haven’t managed one yet) you can always get a Clayton’s surplus (and they have managed that!). If all else fails a bit of creative accounting can do wonders for how your books look. And if all else fails, then you can take to the kitchen and do some cooking of the books. National’s next achievement will be to publish a book on “How to Cook the Books” written by Bill English with a special forward by John Key.

        • Hell! don’t give Key any ideas. Prancing about on Prime Time TV hosting a show called “PM Masterchef” would inflate his ego even more than it already is. What a scary thought!

  12. its a scandal that housing in this country has been allowed to reach a point where new zealanders happily hand over most of the hard earned income to landlords then add
    insult we the tax payer pay the rental supplement to landlords as well are we fucken nuts ??????
    housing is in a bubble because easy credit and foreign dirty money its not good enough that citizens of this country have been so totally disenfranchised of the stability of roof over there heads a place to call home ,a home that doesn’t leave then in poverty or stupid levels of debt .
    the baby boomer bough there homes at no more than 3 to 1 income ratios i do not think its a lot to ask that next generation get the same level of consideration.
    to tell citizens of this country they have rent the rest of there lives is unacceptable .
    to become tenants in own country is unacceptable .to hand over vast amount of our income and tax money to landlord who don’t even live here is unacceptable
    to allow ,foreigners to come put our citizens on the street and under bridges is unacceptable. john fucken key and national have abandoned the people of this country we have been sold down the river this is a cause worth rioting over john key belongs on the gallows high like any traitor. BRIGHTER FUTURE ,WORKING FOR NEW ZEALAND LIKE FUCKK HE IS total scum!!!!!!!

  13. with privatisation of working class homes….formerly State Owned Houses and a State Owned Asset ( provided by the NZ taxpayer for a social welfare society over the generations)

    …comes a kneecapping of the working class right to dissent and to fight for an egalitarian socially just society

    ….who is going to protest this right wing capitalist jonkey nact government when its capitalist mates have bought up State houses and can turf them out of their house?

    …New Zealanders are becoming serfs in their own New Zealand

    …flag change anyone?….corporate capitalist flag? ( oops no one much wanted ‘Red Peak’…sorry Greens)

    …well what about Jonkey’s option of a flag change to fit our new status of foreign corporate capitalist control and serfdom …and wipe away the egalitarian history of New Zealand…and its Treaty of Waitangi…as well as its State owned housing?

  14. The Government are getting a very good return on their initial investment in these State Housing stocks, however Key and English need the cash to pay the interest on the $105 Billion overseas debt which they have run up in the last 7 years, also we need to cover the running of our Saudi Sheep Farms and the Chinese Infrastructure Bank National have invested into.

  15. Except after such sell off NZ would still need state or social houses. As the onus for the support falls to the govt it makes zero sense for it to be renting off a private person/business. It may all come under guise of “not for profit” and such soothing words, but for the life of me, I cannot work out why a Chinese billionaire would be seeking to enter into a seemingly not for profit venture in NZ. Are there other motives further down the track in an “I’ll scratch your back” kind of deal?
    What will the next move be, removal of the tax free status of charities?

    • +100…re- “I cannot work out why a Chinese billionaire would be seeking to enter into a seemingly not for profit venture in NZ. Are there other motives further down the track in an “I’ll scratch your back” kind of deal?”

      the answer is corruption

      …where is the Labour Party on this?

      …time for a new Left socialist Party

Comments are closed.