Adapted from a thesis on “publics” in Aotearoa / New Zealand.
The housing crisis is a key site of struggle over inequality in Aotearoa / New Zealand. As many increasingly note, an increasing proportion of people do not own the homes they live in. Yet both of the major parties obscure the causes of the housing crisis, perhaps to keep investors and privileged voters onside (particularly older Pākehā, more likely than other groups to vote).
In Aotearoa / New Zealand the housing bubble has yet to burst at the time of writing. House prices in Auckland have quadrupled from 1991–2014, and wages have not kept up. The growth in exchange value (price) already undermines the use value of housing (a place to live) and decreasing numbers of people can afford housing. Recent years have seen a drop in homeownership to just below 50 per cent of the adult population. The same period has seen a 25 per cent spike in homelessness.
- SPONSORED -
National barely acknowledges the housing crisis. As of late August 2016, Key has finally conceded the existence of a housing crisis after years of pressure. However Key evaded responsibility for the crisis, putting the blame on the previous Labour government.
Meanwhile Labour, attempting to court more of a working-class or conscientious audience, acknowledge the housing crisis while obscuring its cause. This was most shockingly underlined by Labour’s controversial “Chinese surnames” intervention (where Labour released a list of home buyers with “Chinese surnames”), failing to distinguish between migrant labour and international capital. As local hip hop artist David Dallas argues, in his excellent track “I Don’t Rate That”:
They buying everything that ain’t taxed
Blame it on the Chinese
Say it’s foreign buyers
But if a Brit buys up you don’t bat an eyelid
Could be third generation migrants
But we out here checking up on last names
What’s next gonna check what shape their eyes is
Tell the truth it probably wouldn’t be surprising
Growing social and economic contradictions among the people—between property owner and vagrant, mortgagee and lender, landlord and tenant—are safely displaced onto a nonpublic, an Other, defined through racial rather than economic characteristics. In fact, although the government does not collect comprehensive stats on ownership of housing, data from Land Information New Zealand indicates that only 3 per cent of buyers and sellers are foreign tax residents
More broadly, content analysis of Labour Party press releases reveals that they never identify “investors,” “speculators,” or “bankers” per se as a negative influence; rather they only couple these sorts of terms with terms such as “Australian” or “foreign.” Considering business interests fund both major parties, and generally act as a coercive influence (“business confidence” is a key term in electoral commentary), Labour is apparently unwilling to alienate local business.
According to Roy Morgan polls, New Zealanders’ main concern is “inequality.” However content analysis reveals that the two major parties appeal to “New Zealanders” as their main constituency, a nationally rather than economically defined public. Examining opposite terms to New Zealander, National is the most likely party to use the term “international,” while Labour is the most likely party to use the term “foreigner.” Whereas National seeks to appeal to local and international investors, Labour scapegoats foreigners rather than challenging capital per se.
The housing crisis presents a challenge that both major parties are apparently unwilling to address. Marxist geographer David Harvey notes, in Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism, that many middle-class “consumers” gain (precarious) wealth from housing bubbles, not only super-rich investors: “housing asset values have become important political objectives for larger and larger segments of the population and a major political issue because the exchange value for consumers is as important as the exchange value earned by producers.” Herein lies the contradiction for major parties; how to address the housing crisis without alienating voters who benefit from the boom. New Zealanders are the main owners of New Zealand housing and many benefit from driving up prices (landlords, for example).
The housing crisis is driven by the internal contradictions of capitalism, both local and international. As David Harvey argues, the “exchange value” (as a commodity) of housing undermines the “use value” (as a right). Neither major party will address the roots of the crisis. The existing movements for public housing and renters’ rights (see Renters United) offer more of a basis for building. We need a combined, independent social movement demanding an expansion of high-quality urban public housing, a clamp-down on all speculation and profiteering (whether local or international), and prioritisation of the use value of housing over the exchange value.