Patrick Gower interviews Nick Smith
Patrick Gower interviews Nick Smith Smith commits
to improving the Auckland housing shortage – estimated by
the Productivity Commission to be 32,000 and growing – by
the next election. Housing Minister insists foreign buyers
are “not having a significant effect” on the Auckland
housing market and rejects Labour’s claims offshore
Chinese buyers could be buying as much as 30% of
houses. “I don’t believe that for a moment… I don't
actually think fair-minded New Zealanders are going to make
a judgement on the basis of people's Chinese-sounding
names.” Asked if he is keeping his promise to make
buying a house in Auckland easier when prices have gone up
$3000 a week in the past year, Smith says: “No. Quite
clearly, the Auckland market is overheated. Quite clearly,
house price increases of 20% in one year are not
sustainable” but says the problem of home ownership goes
back 30 years. Says the information being collected by IRD
in October is “not a register” of foreign
buyers. Describes Auckland housing as a “challenge”
not a “crisis”. National is “open” to iwi having
“input” into governance of New Zealand’s lakes and
rivers alongside councils and to discussion about improving
water management. Smith encouraged that “iwi are not
looking for a financial cut”. Rejects Sir Mark
Solomon’s claim he acted contrary to the Treaty of
Waitangi’s spirit of cooperation when he didn’t talk to
Ngati Whatua about first right of refusal on Crown land;
“The first right of refusal is held by a limited
partnership of 13 iwi. And so we sat down with the party
that we owed the legal obligation
to.”
Tova O’Brien: Last week The
Nation and the Weekend Herald kicked off what’s been an
all-consuming debate on foreign buyers. A snapshot of
Auckland home sales from February to April this year showed
that almost 40% of homes were bought by people with Chinese
surnames. But what the data couldn’t prove was residency.
Cue outrage, claims of racism and claims by National that
Labour was playing the race card. But is it doing enough to
gather information and manage house prices? An interview
we’ve been very much looking forward to, Housing Minister
Nick Smith is with Paddy.
Patrick Gower: Good morning,
Minister, and we’ll start first, actually, with your
reaction to Mark Solomon, who there was calling for
co-management of New Zealand’s fresh water, saying he
wants a deal where iwi-appointed representatives sit
alongside, effectively, elected councils and have a say over
who gets access to water and how much. Are you open to
that?
Nick Smith: Well, I was actually quite
encouraged by Sir Mark’s interview with you in that he was
very moderate. ‘We’re not going to get into divisive
argument about who owns the water, that, actually, no one
does, that it’s an argument about improving our
management.’ The truth is New Zealand’s been pretty
slack around its management of fresh water. You know, in
2011, we brought out that national policy statement, in
2014, the national standards. What’s really constructive
about Maori is that they have substantive economic interests
in sectors like farming, as well as having this very strong
environmental tone. And in my experience, they’re playing
quite a constructive role in bringing what was previously a
very divisive argument between, sort of, the economic
interests, the farmers and the power companies, and the
environmentalists. They have both those interests, and so I
think their input is constructive to New Zealand lifting its
game.
Okay, because by input, and that’s the
word that Sir Mark used as well, he is talking about iwi
representatives appointed, non-elected, sitting alongside
elected councillors—
I listened to his
interview very carefully. He didn’t actually say that. He
did certainly—
But would you be open to
that?
We’re certainly open to input, so
the Government’s view is that you
can’t—
You’re open to input in terms of
iwi representatives alongside a council?
Oh,
absolutely. So if you look at, for instance, the deal we
first did when we became Government with the Waikato, around
the Waikato iwi authority, the final decisions on the way in
which the Waikato River is managed is by the elected
regional council. But we have a co-governance
body…
Sure.
…the Waikato
River Authority, that has substantive input. This week
I’ve been in Lake Taupo, where we’ve just marked three
years early negotiating a 170-tonne reduction in the amount
of nitrates going into that, New Zealand’s biggest water
body, of which Tuwharetoa have been an absolutely vital
party.
Yeah.
Now the
Government’s view is—
The concern here,
though, is something extra than that, isn’t it? It’s
sitting alongside the council and having a say, and we’ve
seen in places like New Plymouth where talk of appointed iwi
representatives and stuff like or of Maori
wards—
And that didn’t fly
there.
Didn’t fly there. So will you go
there? Are you prepared to go there?
Well,
the Government’s view is that we are open to a discussion
– how we can get a more effective input for iwi into the
way in which we manage fresh water. We think that’s part
of the game that New Zealand needs to do to lift how we
manage fresh water.
Sure. Whatever happened to
the National Party and one law for all? Because this sounds
like they are going to get something a bit
extra.
Well, certainly, the Government’s
view is that iwi does have rights and interests in water,
and we need to be able to practically express those in a way
in which we manage it. That’s where the discussions are
very constructive, and I’m very much encouraged by the
sorts of comments from Sir Mark this morning in which he’s
saying that, look, iwi are not looking for a financial cut.
What they’re looking for is effective input so that New
Zealand can do better at how it manages that fresh water
resource, and that’s in everybody’s
interests.
Okay, what we wanted to talk to you
about this morning is, of course, foreign buyers, and I want
a yes or no answer to this first question. Are offshore
foreign investors a problem in the Auckland market or
not?
Well, the issue is whether they’re
having—
Yes or no?
Well,
it’s whether they have a significant input. All the advice
that we’re getting—
Are they are a
problem, yes or no?
All the advice that we
are getting from whether it be the Treasury, whether it be
the Reserve Bank, whether it be the Productivity Commission
or my own ministry, is they’re not having a significant
effect.
So, no, they’re not a
problem?
Well, no, I’m simply saying that
our advice is that they’re not having a significant effect
and that, actually, the core issue around housing
affordability is supply.
So, okay, you want
give a yes or no answer. Are you okay with the current level
of foreign investment in the Auckland property
market?
Well, we are going about legislation
in the Budget to get further information in that space. What
I’d say to you is that the really important issues, if
we’re going to make it possible for the average young Kiwi
family to be able to own a home…
We’ll get
to that. We’ll get to that.
…is that the
key issues—
Are you
okay—?
Absolute key issue is supply, and I
have no information—
Yes, we’re going to
come to supply.
What we've got from Labour
last week is a bunch of information about Chinese-sounding
surnames. Now we are not going to make judgements on an
important issue— we're quite happy to have a well-informed
discussion around what the appropriate levels of foreign
investments are in New Zealand.
So would you
go as far as to say— would you go as far to say that the
level of foreign investment in the Auckland housing market
is a bit of a non-event?
We are saying it's
not the dominant issue in respect of making houses
affordable for Kiwi families.
Because you sat here before
the election last year and said it was a non-event. Do you
stand by that?
I certainly say it's not the significant
issue. If we want to make houses more affordable, we need to
deal with land supply, infrastructure costs, productivity in
the sector, materials -
Yes, we'll come to
that.
Those are the real
things.
Let's look at Labour's figures — 9%
of the population in Auckland is Chinese. They came out with
figures showing about 40% of those Barfoot & Thompson house
sales went to Chinese. Basically, saying it could be up to
30% are foreign buyers. Do you rule out that it could be
that high, though?
Well, Barfoot &Thompson,
who actually own the data, do not agree with Labour's
analysis of it. They're saying it doesn't— it's not a
credible way. And I don't actually think fair-minded New
Zealanders are going to make a judgement on the basis of
people's Chinese-sounding names.
But could it
be that high? Could it be as high as
30%?
No, I think people, though— I think
Labour claimed that 39% of house sales were going to
overseas Chinese buyers. I don't believe that for a moment.
That is not consistent.
What do you think it
is? Do you think it's about 1% to 2%, because that's what
you said last year?
We've got legislation
before Parliament. I'll tell you what information we do
have. We do know that there are 25,000 off— out of New
Zealand, non-residents claiming either deductions for
renting a house or income from renting houses, so that's
about 1.2%. Right, so that over the total housing
stock.
So that's what you think it
is?
And that number has been quite
consistent for about the last 15-20 years. We accept that
that information's not imperfect. That's why at Budget time,
we introduced legislation into Parliament that is going to
give us far better information. We don't mind having a
discussion, quite properly, about the appropriate levels of
foreign ownership in New Zealand, but what we're not going
to have is one of these cheap, ill-informed debates that
targets one ethnic group. That's not fair. That's not the
New Zealand way.
Because, you know, with that
data that you're going to collect, I mean, here's a couple
of quotes — 'wild-goose chase that's going to cost mega
million’. That's about collecting data on foreign buyers.
Who said that?
Well, look,
certainly—
'Wild-goose chase costing mega
millions.' Do you know who said that?
Look,
I’ve rejected the idea of a register, and I still
reject— I still reject the idea of having a register,
where you can look up and see whether the property in Mt
Eden Road or a particular address is owned by a New
Zealander or not. I'm not playing that game. What I am
saying, and what we're doing—
You're playing a game
with words. You don't want to call it a register because it
looks like a U-turn.
No, what we're going to do is we are
going to collect better information.
Yes, and
that's what you called collecting better information, which
is what we asked you about. That's—
No, at
that time you asked me about a register. I said at that
time—
That's what you've called a wild-goose
chase that would cost mega millions, but now you're doing
it.
I remain of the view that the key issues
around housing are supply, and I’m going to put my energy
and effort into those things.
Yes, and we're
going to come to supply. The Reserve Bank calls it a
register. Why can't you?
Well, I’m not
sure what the Reserve Bank— and can play name games. What
I think is what the Government has done in the budget is
actually pretty sensible.
You're playing the
name games, Minister, not the Reserve Bank, not anyone
else.
No, I’m not. I'm simply saying—
I’m saying the legislation that we provided for in the
Budget, that makes sure that people who are investing in
property is paying their fair tax. That's going to give
us—
So it's not a register? It's not a
register.
No, it's not a register, because
it's not a register, because you're not going to be able to
look up particular property.
Ok. We'll move
on. I don't really mind what we call this
thing.
What it is going to do is give us
better information, and that's good.
What you
did say on this programme was that you would make house
buying easier. You would make buying a house easier. Is it
easier?
Well, if we look at housing
affordability data, actually, because interest rates are a
fraction—
Is it easier?
If
we look at the credible data — Massey University has a
housing-affordability index — housing affordability across
New Zealand is substantially more affordable than when we
became the Government. If I look at the home starts scheme,
I am being inundated with applications for that scheme, and
that's going to be the most generous support that young New
Zealanders have had to get into their first home than what's
been provided in a generation.
Why don't we
look at some data from the Real Estate Institute, which has
put the average Auckland house price at three quarters of a
million dollars, going up $3000 a week in the past year? Is
that easier? Is that easier?
No. Quite
clearly, the Auckland market is overheated. Quite clearly,
house price increases of 20% in one year are not
sustainable, and that is all the more reason for the
Government to—
So you've failed to make it
easier, haven't you?
Over the last year,
exactly the same way as under the course of the last Labour
government, we had increases well in excess of 20% per year;
we had house prices double across New Zealand. Housing
affordability -
Do you just admit, Minister,
that you've failed to make it easier in the last
year?
Look. See, the problem of home
ownership in New Zealand has been going back for 30
years.
$3000 a week. That's the figure, $3000
a week. Yes or no on this one — is it a
crisis?
It is a challenge. And look, we have
a— Paddy, we could spend all your programme having an
argument as to whether it's a challenge or whether it's a
crisis. That ain't going to get a young family into a
house.
Let’s move on to something
-
We've passed more legislation in the last
year on housing than in the last 25 years. Home ownership
has been going backwards for 30 years. Anybody that
expects— I've been minister for a bit over two years.
Anybody that thinks you can solve long-standing problems in
that short period is simply incorrect. I am absolutely
confident that the measures that we are taking are going to
make the long-term difference because it is important that
Kiwis can afford homes.
And we're going to
talk about those right now, because something that will help
a young family into a house in Auckland is supply. Now, the
Productivity Commission, which you quoted before, says there
is a 32,000 shortfall in Auckland right now. 32,000. Can you
get that down, that shortfall, by the next
election?
Well, when I became minister, we
were building 4000 houses a year in Auckland. We're now
building 8000 a year. That is the fastest rate— That has
doubled over the course of two to three years. That is the
fastest rate of growth. And Paddy, it might be easy to sit
in these studios and talk about building another thousand
houses. That is a power of work to create the sections, the
subdivisions; to get the builders, the plumbers and
everything else, and I
actually—
Exactly.
To have
been able to double the rate is actually a pretty marked
achievement. Albeit, I'm saying we have to keep the foot on
the accelerator.
Yeah, good job, and it is
very, very hard to do, so can you give me a clear answer on
whether you can bring that 32,000 shortfall down by the next
election? Can you do it?
Absolutely. And if
you look at the pace—
Because the Productivity
Commission says you can't.
We'll have to mark it
around what is the rate of increase, you know? We've put out
an accord with the Auckland Council. 9000; year one, we
actually got 10,500. Year two, out to 13,000 homes. Year
three, out to 17,000 homes; working very hard at opening up
those ladders.
So down from the shortfall of
32,000 to what? Give me a number. Come
on.
Even anybody making an estimate, Paddy,
around what that shortage of those number of houses - I've
seen three or four different figures between the
Productivity Commission, my own ministry and the like. It's
not exact, but what I do know is this — in Christchurch,
we had house price inflation of 15%, 18% several years
running. We lifted the house build rate from 1000 a year to
4000 a year. In the last year in Christchurch, house prices
have only gone up by 2%. Rents have dropped by 5%. What does
that tell us? Supply matters. Arguments about
Chinese-sounding names is not going to make a vote of
difference to the young families we want in
homes.
Supply does matter. And another one of
your initiatives to increase supply, building on Crown land,
and this legal fight that you've got in with Ngati Whatua.
We saw Sir Mark Solomon there say that you, that Nick Smith
acted completely contrary — these are his words — to the
spirit of cooperation under the Treaty. That's what Sir Mark
Solomon said about you.
And he's entitled to
that view.
But are you embarrassed that Sir
Mark Solomon is saying that about you?
Oh,
look. I get criticism all the time, Paddy — from you and
all others.
Are you sorry for the way that
you've dealt with Ngati Whatua?
The way in
which for instance a month before the Budget, we sat down.
First right of refusal — let's be really clear
here.
But let's just be clear what Sir Mark
Solomon is talking about. He's saying you acted against the
spirit of the Treaty.
No, I don't accept
that. Because a month before the Budget, we sat down with
the party who holds the first right of refusal. Now,
actually, Ngati Whatua does not have a first right of
refusal in Auckland. The first right of refusal is held by a
limited partnership of 13 iwi. And so we sat down with the
party that we owed the legal obligation to.
So
when Mark Solomon says that you acted against the spirit of
the Treaty, he's wrong?
I disagree with him.
I disagree with him. I disagree with him.
All
right, Minister. Thank you very much for your
time.
Good to talk to you.
Transcript
provided by Able. www.able.co.nz
ENDS