National Thus Far

[DrTiTus]

2011 was the year gifting tax laws were changed to allow free flow of dodgy cash with no record keeping requirements.

Auckland house prices went beserk after 2011. Suddenly there was a whole lot more money around.

Quick, blame immigration!

[BoyWonder]

What makes you think house prices went beserk after 2011?

[DrTiTus]

[CCS]

What do you suppose caused house prices to 'go beserk' after 2011? Just tax laws?

[BoyWonder]

I actually think that the Auckland house prices more likely follow global boom or bust trends and you would see the same trend in places like Sydney and Vancouver. Did the house prices not "go beserk" after 2001, or 1993 for that matter?

[spigalau]

Doesn't the post 2011 boom also reflect that between 2008 to 2011 the prices 'fell' by >10% and the recovery post GFC has only elevated them to 16% above 2008 prices, over 5 years.

Also, looking back - compare 1993 (~225K) to 1995 (~315k) - which is 40% increase in 2 years.

[spigalau]

/waits for lolspeed to point out that the Nat's were also in government in 1993 and that they are to blame. But just in case, also keep in mind 1996 to 1999 was under same and there's no growth then. And period 2002 to 2008 where prices went from low $300's to mid $500's was under Labour.

ergo - house prices have nothing to do with who's in government at the time.

[fixed_truth]

Disagree. House prices can be significantly affected by policy, which is passed by a govt.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

I'm not sure how that's relevant. My uncertainty is due to the lack of context. Is committing suicide normal or abnormal for Flaxmere? Is it normal or abnormal for a group of teenage girls to commit suicide together? How do these trends look over time? If, as the government says, it is spending more money on suicide prevention, is the suicide rate changing? In what way is it changing relative to population and to money spent?

Of course the government and its agencies are the only entities who can provide this information, so we can't trust it. Because if the suicide rate is actually "declining", that just proves how effective the government is at hiding the secret massive increase in suicide. Because there's a collapse in social health, which means there must be a secret massive increase in suicides. How do we know there's a collapse in social health? Because of the secret massive increase in suicides. Why isn't the government reporting it? Because it's SECRET of course.

Oh my god, it all fits together

That's it? You call for evidence, I produce evidence, you call for a thesis. And around it goes.

Anyhow, more evidence.

Homelessness accelerates between censuses

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

That's it? You call for evidence, I produce evidence, you call for a thesis. And around it goes.

Your anecdote is not evidence. It's cold in Sydney today, therefore global warming is a hoax.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Disagree. House prices can be significantly affected by policy, which is passed by a govt.

House prices in Auckland - which is the only place in NZ having a housing crisis - are most significantly affected by the availability of land, which is outside the govt's control.

[fixed_truth]

Supply is only one side of it.

It sounds like National are making it inside their control:

Mr Key clarified today that the Government was not considering commissioners in Auckland. However, he said, the Auckland Council would lose the final say on whether land was freed-up for housing.

The Government will soon release a National Policy Statement which will force growing councils to release more land for residential development if specific thresholds for growth or affordability are reached

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11647667

[spigalau]

Why aren't you quoting the actual policy document, instead of some speculation piece that's 5 days old ?

What will this new policy statement make councils do?

They have to over-supply land, rather than just meeting expected demand - a 20 per cent surplus in the short to medium term, and 15 per cent in the long term.

In addition, they have to consider the national significance of providing land supply; essentially, thinking about what their decisions will mean for all of New Zealand, rather than just the "NIMBYs" blocking new apartments and other developments where they live.

How are they meant to decide when to act?

The national policy statement will require councils to use a number of measures when deciding whether they need to step in and release more land.

One is average house price increases (Smith wants that kept to single figures each year) while another is housing affordability (how much houses cost in relation to average incomes).

They'll also need to look at predicted population growth to make sure there's enough space for any swell of arrivals.

Shouldn't they be doing that already?

Well, Auckland Mayor Len Brown says the Auckland Council's been working on land supply for the last four years and are "well onto it", while the council's unitary plan due later this year is expected to make a number of planning changes.

However, the Government points to the fact that house prices are so high at the moment as a sign that the council doesn't have the issue under control.

What if councils don't want to play ball?

The RMA allows the environment minister (currently Smith) to force a council to change its plans so they fit with the national policy statement.

Anyone who feels a council is not following the rules can take it to the Environment Court, where the national statement overrides any existing policies or rules.

Any sticking points?

Money's one: some say it will cost up to $17 billion to pay for all the necessary infrastructure for new developments, but the national policy statement doesn't provide any financial support for councils to cover that.

Nick Smith says the cost of new developments must "rightly sit with developers" rather than taxpayers, but some are concerned about how councils will find the money to pay for their share of the infrastructure.

What difference will it make?

It should lead to lower prices, but not overnight. As economists such as Arthur Grimes have said, planning changes take up to 20 years to make a real impact, so anyone looking for a quick fix is bound to be disappointed.

What's the reaction been?

Opposition parties are thoroughly underwhelmed: Labour's Phil Twyford called it a damp squib, and NZ First's Winston Peters described it as "a derriere-covering exercise".

Business groups like the Employers' and Manufacturers' Association and BusinessNZ have offered cautious support, while Local Government New Zealand called it a useful addition but just one part of the "housing policy toolbox".

What now?

The draft statement is open for public submissions until July 15, and the Government has said it wants the policy to be live by October.

Reading between the lines, Auckland City Council want to intensify developments within the current city boundaries. However, as these sites are already developed, it requires the current land users/holders to bulldoze the existing dwellings and rebuild multi-story instead. Why would a home owner want to do that ?

Ergo, extend out the city limits, build new high rise on the fringes, solve the shortage. Simple math.

[CCS]

If it's going to take 20 years to have an impact, and is just one part of the "housing policy toolbox" then what are the other solutions?

Labour and NZ First both seem to be in favour of restricting immigration. Labour reckons it can build 100,000 houses in 10 years, but I don't understand how they can build the houses if the council won't release the land... which is what National wants the council to do... but would take Labour at least 10 years to achieve.

What are the other options? There's National's idea of fixing deposits to income levels, which sounds fucking awful.

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by Ab

Your anecdote is not evidence. It's cold in Sydney today, therefore global warming is a hoax.

Seriously dude?

[Ab]

Yes. For serious.

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by Ab

Yes. For serious.

Okay, for starters your example was false equivalence. There is a huge difference between the "evidence" that LS presents, in terms of formally interviewed and formatted material from journalistic sources and some random dude saying "It's cold in Sydney today, therefore global warming is a hoax.".

To be blunt, saying that LS linking to journalistic articles isn't a presentation of evidence is maliciously dishonest.

What suppositions LS may make from that evidence is open for targeting, but the example you have used is clear false equivalence. I'm not taking issue with you disagreeing with LS's argument, I'm taking issue with the way you've done it.

I've noticed CCS throwing round the "intellectual dishonesty" tag like a monkey flings shit and to be honest this is one case where it would be apt (specifically because it is both self serving in terms of your argument AND because it shows a degree of criticality being applied to LS which isn't also applied to arguments of others posting on the topic, including yourself).

That out of the way lets look at the original post that started this.

Originally Posted by Ab

I'm not sure how that's relevant. My uncertainty is due to the lack of context. Is committing suicide normal or abnormal for Flaxmere? Is it normal or abnormal for a group of teenage girls to commit suicide together? How do these trends look over time? If, as the government says, it is spending more money on suicide prevention, is the suicide rate changing? In what way is it changing relative to population and to money spent?

In particular I'd like some more context around 2 of your statements, specifically;

Originally Posted by Ab

Is committing suicide normal or abnormal for Flaxmere? Is it normal or abnormal for a group of teenage girls to commit suicide together?

So when you say "normal" are you talking about statistical normality (in that the subject being discussed fits within normal distribution) or a cultural conception of what is considered "normal" in our society? The two are most obviously linked (through a process of normalisation) but no matter which of the two you are talking about you would need to explain why one is more important than the other, or at least how they relate to each other.

There's plenty more I could write on this but to be honest I find the idea that we should only rely on statistical evidence and never trust information from people on their experiences kind of horrific, mostly because it's so lazy.

I've said it before, I'll say it again - quantitative and qualitative evidence on their own will only ever answer part of any question, exclude one or the other an you might as well be jerking off in a closet.

Pixie

[Ab]

Lightspeed claimed that four suicides in Flaxmere are evidence that "things are fucked up in NZ". He also implied that the government is to blame for this alleged fuckedupedness of things in NZ because of "funding priorities for the kind of community services that address violence and the resulting trauma".

So the question is, ARE things fucked up in NZ? Given that a cluster of teen suicides in Flaxmere is being held up as evidence - which is fucking retarded, in the same way that claiming a cluster of cold days in one place as evidence of global cooling would be fucking retarded - what's the teen suicide rate in Flaxmere? in the country overall? How is it changing relative to other relevant metrics, like population?

IT'S NOT ROCKET SURGERY

[Lightspeed]

The floods going on in Europe don't prove climate change and can't be directly linked to climate change. But that's not stopping François Hollande from pointing to the disaster as an example of what the impact of climate change is, as a justification for why action is needed.

[Ab]

Is the rate and intensity of flooding in Europe increasing?

[DrTiTus]

From the comfort of my privileged white unmolested armchair, I will reduce these preventable deaths to data, so that I can analyse the situation with the heartless objectivity it deserves.

After all, only when we know what these people COST us, will we know whether caring is an economically viable option.

[pxpx]

Originally Posted by DrTiTus

From the comfort of my privileged white unmolested armchair, I will reduce these preventable deaths to data, so that I can analyse the situation with the heartless objectivity it deserves.

After all, only when we know what these people COST us, will we know whether caring is an economically viable option.

We can always print more money eh?

[DrTiTus]

Originally Posted by pxpx

We can always print more money eh?

You do realise NZ is borrowing nearly $30 million per DAY?

The Government can always find the money to upgrade its limousine fleet, or buy big screens, overpriced signs, and so on for itself. It finds the money to make $6m gifts to Saudi businessmen. It can still find the money to pay huge salaries to CEOs of public services. It can over pay for disastrous software projects.

You wouldn't believe how easy it is to spend someone else's money!

Except on poor people. They just waste it.

[Ab]

Don't confuse the government with the public service or with SOEs.

[DrTiTus]

I was referring to this sort of thing.

If you want a more specific case, MPs still felt they "deserved" a pay rise while funding was desperately needed elsewhere.

Nit picking aside, my point remains.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

Is the rate and intensity of flooding in Europe increasing?

It probably is. Do you think the consequences of climate change are going to be much worse than they might be if the public and politicians had listened to climate change experts sooner?

[Ab]

Originally Posted by DrTiTus

I was referring to this sort of thing.

If you want a more specific case, MPs still felt they "deserved" a pay rise while funding was desperately needed elsewhere.

Nit picking aside, my point remains.

none of that is government spending.

personally, I'd like to see MPs salaries doubled, tripled, or quadrupled if that were possible.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

It probably is. Do you think the consequences of climate change are going to be much worse than they might be if the public and politicians had listened to climate change experts sooner?

Who cares? You're drifting off on some syntactical straw-man tangent and I for one am not going to help you do it.

[DrTiTus]

Originally Posted by Ab

none of that is government spending.

Secretary of Education?
Treasury boss?
ACC CEO?
NZTA CEO?
Chief of Defence?
Police Commissioner?
State Services Commissioner?

I'm pretty sure there's tax dollars being used to support these roles.

Since SOEs are included in the Government expense sheet, I'm gonna consider it government spending (whether that fits your conveniently strict definition is a different story).

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

Who cares? You're drifting off on some syntactical straw-man tangent and I for one am not going to help you do it.

If I'm seems like I'm drifting it's because you've set up an arbitrary frame and I'm not buying it.

Is it that you need proof that rape crisis services are effective at clawing back some of the $1.2b sexual attacks cost NZ? (Figures I doubt include consequences that are less measurable in financial terms, despite being wholly undesirable.)

Do you not trust science that understands human development, mental health, psychology, all that business? You think these services are run by crystal healers? And so you need direct proof that a decline in these services will have any bearing on the cost reported by the Treasury?

Or do you accept all that but don't think there is any political relevance? That somehow our government doesn't really have a role to play. If we're a bit rapey and a bit indifferent to the rape, well, the PM should be expected to publically indulge in the occasional bit of rape humour. Is that it?

Cause that's how your argument seems to be going, flip-flopping between those two stances. If you don't like my apparent syntactical straw-man tangent, maybe you could try being a little more coherent?

[MadMax]

Pretty sure Kiwisaver would have had a significant impact on house prices.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

you could try being a little more coherent?

That's ironic.

[The Edge]

Originally Posted by Ab

House prices in Auckland - which is the only place in NZ having a housing crisis - are most significantly affected by the availability of land, which is outside the govt's control.

Christchurch (post-earthquake) has housing issues as well.

[Lightspeed]

Mental health workers struggling to cope

Auckland District Health Board shows an almost 300 percent increase in crisis mental health referrals over five years...

Other DHBs experienced massive rises as well - West Coast referrals jumped 226 percent, Bay of Plenty 210 percent and Canterbury 84 percent.

[pxpx]

Which is it RadioNZ 300% or 108%?

If it's 300% then well done, a massive increase and it hasn't totally collapsed!

Good thing Mental Health services are getting that $12m in the 2016 budget.

[Lightspeed]

They're probably just sufferers of Key Derangement Syndrome, so they don't really count anyway AMIRITE?

[Lightspeed]

Central Auckland homeless population more than twice that of 2013

[fixed_truth]

National trying to get in on that activist vote

National MP Maureen Pugh doesn't believe in pharmaceutical drugs

[Lightspeed]

More worthless anecdote.

[spigalau]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

More worthless anecdote.

So, what are they doing with the $530 per week, working for families payment ? They would also be applicable to accomodation supplement, and I assume the Father is on some form of unemployment benefit ?

Mum 40 hours @ $15 = $505 after tax
WFF Payments @ $530.00
Accom Supp @ ?
Fathers Benefit @ ?

What questions has the journalist forgot to ask ?