Minister for Housing and Infrastructure, Chris Bishop has told his Cabinet colleagues to expect a plan to fix the housing crisis to be delivered in the first quarter of this year.
On Tuesday morning, Bishop gave a speech to the Wellington Chamber of Commerce on how the coalition Government plans to tackle housing costs and released a relevant cabinet paper.
The paper said housing affordability was “arguably the single most pressing economic, social and cultural problem facing” the new Government.
Increasing the supply of land was key to lowering housing costs and improving living standards, productivity, wages, social housing, and restoring “the dream of homeownership”.
Bishop said his goal was to “flood urban housing markets” in big cities with land zoned for development — both through densifying existing suburbs and creating new ones.
“I propose to return to Cabinet in the first quarter of 2024 with a comprehensive plan to solve New Zealand’s housing crisis,” he wrote in the paper.
This plan will make more land available for housing and mixed use development, and give councils funding tools for infrastructure upgrades and financial incentives to grow.
In his speech, the Minister said the first element of the package would be requiring councils to zone enough land for 30 years of housing growth.
Councils will be allowed to opt out of the bi-partisan Medium Density Residential Standards but only if they are able to zone enough housing in other ways.
That could mean ultra-density in some place, or entirely new suburbs on farmland surrounding cities. Bishop said he was working with officials to find a way to enforce this rule.
“To put it bluntly, we are going to let councils have more discretion over where they have density, but they’re going to have more housing. It’s as simple as that,” he said.
There will also be changes made to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development to allow more mixed-use zoning—for homes and businesses—around transport nodes.
“It’s mixed-use zoning that produces the type of cities that New Zealanders regularly travel overseas to enjoy; but which we could have right here at home with some imagination and the right tools at our disposal”.
The Minister said legislation to give effect to these policies would be introduced in the coming months.
Too many New Zealanders were moving overseas and not returning because of how expensive it was to own or rent a house, he said.
“The lure of London, New York and Sydney will always be attractive to young Kiwis.”
“But our housing market is practically standing at the departure lounge at Auckland Airport and in big neon writing telling them to just get on the plane”.
Hint for Wellington
The Minister also appeared to hint he may back up the Wellington City Council if it chose to reject the recommendations of its Independent Hearing Panel proposed district plan.
Economists and housing advocates have been highly critical of the Panel for rejecting evidence that land supply is the key driver of housing costs.
The panel has often opted to zone the minimum amount of housing permitted within the laws and has recommended extending character protections.
In his speech, Bishop said he would be in charge of any decisions related to housing where councils and Independent Hearings Panels do not agree.
He specifically cited the Wellington IHP process as a possible example and also took a swing at people who deny land-use is responsible for high housing costs.
“The idea that zoning and land supply does not affect housing affordability is frankly nuts,” he said, in a different section of the speech.
“The evidence is as plain as day: cities that make it difficult to build more housing have housing affordability problems. Cities that legalise housing find it is more affordable”.
144 Comments
I think the names changing back to HNZ but these days it's too hard to keep track of.
Perhaps the one amazing thing Labour did was going to happen in the future, and was unlike anything that they actually did while they were in office. Seems unlikely, but we will never know.
Although I think they handled the first 12-18 months of COVID decent.
What is the point of this? They aren't in government any more. Let's have some actual comments on the topic at hand, not low effort partisan spam.
There's a very important learning here. People voted for Cindy because she promised change for the better. People believed her.
Ignoring it is like ignoring the fable of the Pied Piper of Hamelin and its moral learnings.
Don’t trust and follow others blindly because they play what you want to hear. Think, be aware, be cautious, and use your own judgment. Otherwise, results can be fatal (metaphorically speaking).
I wasn't a fan of Ardern or Labour but I'm fed up with this big boomer partisan nonsense.
It's got us absolutely nowhere in the last 30 years, in fact it's got us worse than nowhere - it's sent us backwards.
We now have some of the most expensive housing in the world - the fault of successive Governments of both colours (which means it is actually a voter problem) and the fault of a generation who have habitually opposed any new housing anywhere.
Our infrastructure is in a disgraceful state because, again, boomer voters vetoed any spend required.
It wasn't just the last Government, and for god's sake stop calling her 'Cindy' I'm embarrassed for anyone who says that.
The moment you use puerile nicknames like that you may as well throw your credibility on a bonfire.
Focus on the topic at hand, we need to build more houses.
It doesn't matter who does it, we just need as many as possible and the more that get zoned closer to the city centre the better.
Anyone who disagrees or opposes should be told to bugger off and live in Eketahuna.
The moment you use puerile nicknames like that you may as well throw your credibility on a bonfire.
Cindy is the one whose credibility is being scrutinized. Not mine. And I reserve the right to ridicule any politician. It goes with the territory.
I've seen other nicknames for our pollies - Fool Goff, Piggy Muldoon, Chong Kee, for ex. Are these deemed OK but somehow Cindy is not?
I responded to "...the comment on the topic at hand"
"by ChrisOfNoFame | 27th Feb 24, 9:49am
You clearly have no idea what the last lot did then."
And no one's put their name to that site - and the Who.is info is redacted - so how do we know it's not a Kremlin-backed Internet troll or something to that effect?
"...the bigger picture"...
Under Labour, KO was outbidding the market by $100k for several years, thereby contributing to both shortages & price inflation.
Then, Labour & KO had a secret policy of not evicting KO tenants no matter how bad. So, the result:
“Trouble at the housing estate, built in 2019, was not new, as Kāinga Ora spent almost $300,000 on security guards to ease concerns about one resident,…”
(Edit: Love the replies thus far. Talk about missing the bigger picture.)
The bigger picture is the really bad smaller picture on a larger scale.
They certainly "did" stuff. Much of it not very sensible, or economical. I'm not sure how you you would thinking doing even more of it would somehow be better.
Anyway without actually defining your "big picture", once again not much of a discussion.
The last lot made tax more equitable by raising tax on speculators, as well as making renting more stable for tenants. You can see why entitled speculators were so vociferously against them.
Did a lot of things wrong apart from that though, including supporting RBNZ welfarism for property.
Evidence? The evidence of GC, Sydney, Edinburgh & others is that light rail is a taxpayer and ratepayer subsidised uneconomic & inflexible white elephant in the absence of much more significant population density (eg Singapore).
Buses have much lower lead times capital & operational costs, are more flexible to demand & dedicated bus lanes take no more space than train tracks.
Let’s wait and see but would suggest “ flood” as being a somewhat awkward verb to resort to given much recent revelations, from north to south, of flooding on developed areas that were known to be flood plains and then couple that with reports that intensification of housing in existing urban areas is pressuring run off and storm water etc.
Flooding isn't really a revelation. What we tend to do though, is turn everything on its end every time nature reminds us we're not in charge.
Once again, our largest city is situated in a volcanic field. And they're still building there.
Maybe I missed a memo when they worked out Rangitoto is definitely the last one ever.
Kiwirail was asking for mid-size Hyundai. Willis has decided they need to pay more for a smaller Corolla, ultimately.
Neither Labour not National are actually building or procuring the boat, ultimately - but Nicola cancelling the Hyundai deal will ultimately be one of her bigger boo-boos.
I highly doubt it. Their leading MPs have far too much personal wealth at stake and their first priority was tax cuts for property speculators. Meanwhile, they walked back freedoms for greater intensification.
Nothing that makes a big difference will be allowed, I'd guess.
Wonder if they'll up demand side subsidies to benefit themselves and their donors more.
At great cost to ratepayers, with sprawl being 2-3 times more expensive to maintain than intensification. Remarkable how stridently against allowing freedom to intensify some of National were - one wonders at personal or influential speculation on fringe land.
They seem ideologically opposed to pragmatism and financial sustainability in development. Wayne Brown has begun to look rather pragmatic in comparison, at least appearing to have genuine interest in fixing issues instead.
Indeed. How many people would knock down a town's main supermarket to build a few houses on? That's effectively what sprawl into Auckland's breadbasket is doing - removing the main supplier of food for the short term gain of a few houses and wondering why it's so hard to get enough good quality fresh food from the local corner dairy.
Sprawl is not 2-3 times more expensive, except for doing the way you suggest.
Under our present system, ALL housing is more expensive than it needs to be, especially the closer you go into the centre.
This is because our restriction land use policies don't allow easily for the fringe to expand to meet demand, and since the price of all land is set at the fringe, this drives the price up of all land, all the way into the city center. Land economics and all the evidence is very clear that this happens.
This then perversely drives development to the fringe looking for affordability, which then dislocates people from where they need to be for work, necessitating the need for more transport to take them back in.
It's a self-fulfilling philosophy to make housing expensive and add to transport problems.
The way is up and out, which will allow people to locate themselves closer to where they need to be for work, and in the type of housing they prefer. And whatever location and density they choose will be cheaper.
Yes, experience across the globe seems to suggest that suburban sprawl and the masses of roads and infra it creates to maintain is far more expensive to maintain than more intense models (2-3 times). Even in Melbourne estimates were looking like it'd be $110 Billion cheaper for every additional million people they allow to live close to existing public transport arteries than force to sprawl at the verges.
Hopefully something that gives Councils an incentive to grant individual titles in a timely fashion. Like giving them a portion of the gst on each new title. No new titles, no new monies. I think a combination of the carrot and the stick is needed. Money for results, fines for slow walking development applications. Subsidies for extra engineering staff could be given, and a body that the developer can appeal to that has the power to grant consents if the council has delayed the application beyond a say a year could be established. Currently, engineers in councils are like little emperors and there is often no one that they have to answer to if they ignore expert's reports that they have requested.
The law that says councils cannot stand in the way of development without good reason has no teeth. There is currently no penalty for a council for slow walking an application.
Councils already charge reserve contributions from the developer but this increases the cost of developing each title and this cost is passed on to the buyer. If the council increases the reserve contribution by $50,000 then this straightaway increases the price of the section by $50,000. This is a way for councils to restrict development in their region by increasing the unaffordability of the sections. Hamilton and Tauranga are examples of cities that have restricted development because they couldn't handle it (In Tauranga's case) or in order to pump up the price of sections relative to Auckland (Hamilton).
Why would councils want to restrict development in their area? To decrease the cost of infrastructure services that they will have to contribute to by decreasing the amount of infrastructure required.
The problem is not just land availability, it is the lack of incentive for the granting of applications that generate titles for people to buy and the lack of any downside for the councils to not grant titles in a timely fashion.
Labour and the Greens were all about land taxes but never connected the dots re how anyone is supposed to develop their land when the consent process is so expensive and time consuming. They were all about punishing the land owner but never about central govt giving local govt the funds to construct the infrastructure required to make sections available for housing.
The way you describe development contributions is not actually what they are or how they are used. It is about the developers (and in effect the new land-owner) pay (part of) the cost of new infrastructure needed to support the development. Otherwise, all existing ratepayers end up paying this and effectively subsidising new development. These are a effectively a form of user pays.
People often think of what "the Council" should pay for, without realising that this is actually what ratepayers pay for.
The 20% housing price crash from highs will seem a small drop in prices when more land is developed, over coming years rents will also tumble. The people who purchased thinking rates would stay low and house price’s couldn’t drop will now be in negative equity for years, so many trying to sell before next phase of crash is so obvious even Tony and Ashley are advising to sell and invest in term deposits.
If you want to get rich, look for where the development's going to take place, and dip your toes in the water. Areas on the outskirts of Auckland is where it's going to happen.
Kiwis don't want to live in boxes. Look at Whenuapai, hard to navigate the roads because of parked cars.
Except some of it is very wateryfloody.........so won't be flooded with housing.
Some very big cheap fringy land will be become big cheap fringy parks.......
Higher and longer will be rainfalls.........as Northern NZ becomes more like the tropics.
That cheap fringe land maybe cheap for very good boggy reasons......take care in land speculation!!
You must have been in Fiji or something at the time because I remember several flooding events over the years. Those cute streams turn into full on raging rivers that pretty much nobody could see coming. These days the best building position is on top of a hill, sure you get a bit more wind but you also get a better view and the chances of being flooded out drop to near zero. We continue to build houses in areas that should be only for parks and recreational areas. You can usually tell if its an unsuitable low lying area by the types of grass that are growing and anything in the bottom of a valley is a no go zone.
My grandparents lived in northern NSW and southern QLD and moved to NZ in the early 1900's. They left because of a drought that lasted for 11 years.
Children cried when they saw rain for the first time because they'd never seen it before. Was that global warming?
I'm building a new house right now and it is elevated. Not because of fictitious 'global warming', but because it's got a great view. But if the next owner wants to believe that being elevated will stop them from being inundated , it's fine with me.
No, global warming is not a hoax: https://twitter.com/LeonSimons8/status/1760984146174972161
Global warming's a hoax alright, and the 'experts' and 'scientists' are milking it for all it's worth. At the recent climate conference in Dubai, delegates flew there in hundreds of private jets. Dubai airport had insufficient parking, so after dropping off their 'climatologists', they re-started the engines, flew to another airport, and flew back when the conference was over.
Who remembers 'acid rain', running out of water, the ice caps melting and the ozone layer disappearing?
People believe anything. I've made a lot of money betting against the sheeple.
Running out of oil in the 1980's..that's what the herd believed...but I didn't. There were dozens of books written about the coming economic implosion, one of them was "Twilight in the Desert", by Matthew Simmons. Did we run out of oil? The current price of oil adjusted for inflation in USD is close to as low as it's ever been.
There's been no weather 'emergencies' where I live.
Last year was colder than the year before. There's been no catastrophes here, the only catastrophe recently was the damage inflicted on the NZ economy by Comrade Arden.
I made a fortune in 1986/1987 on the local stock market. The herd got very excited, but forgot to cash out - I didn't.
For decades millions of unsophisticated goldbugs have 'stacked' tiny bits of gold awaiting the great meltdown, that unfortunately for them has never happened.
Millions believe the moon landing was a hoax.
I've just bought some land on the outskirts of West Auck. If you read the comments here about the approaching property crash.....well it won't happen, quite the opposite. I'm going to make a killing.
Adolf Hitler managed to dupe tens of millions of gullible Germans into thinking that the Jews were the cause of all their problems - not WW1, the Great Depression or money printing by the German Government.
Nobody said 'running out' - that was the twist put on it by the flat-earthers. The LTG progrmme-runs said peaking, then declining. Running out is lazy intellectually, and if purposely stated, spin.
Colder than the last year, eh? You must be getting your information from some other planet. The last 8-9 years have been the hottest on record - or are you so skewed that a down' blip in a wave of up, register with you as down? I'd call it selective fooling-of-self.
My bank account reflects the value of my wisdom. I've been a contrarian for as long as I can remember.
Millions of worthless jobs have been created worldwide in the name of global warming, we're taxed on something that isn't happening. But if you dare say so you're branded a heretic or an unbeliever, in the old days you'd have been burned at the stake.
Coincidentally, this is breaking news. Record cold in Alaska.
https://alaskapublic.org/2024/01/30/alaskans-see-bitter-cold-record-bre….
Around 25 years ago there was a drought in Auckland. Lots of gullible kiwis thought this was a permanent situation and bought water tanks, in fact Auckland ran out of tanks and they were brought up from Hamilton. Not long later the rain started and water tanks all over Auckland crashed to the ground because amateurs, including my neighbour, hadn't calculated the weight of water when full.
Yes interesting that if you hold a different climate change view to the "settled science" you're branded a "denier". In what other area of science are differing views silenced? People would do well to ponder why most of the opposing views come from retired scientists who don't have careers and positions to protect.
Agreed, this is a good strategy but be early.
Without central funding (my vote is Council Level debt perhaps paid by a special rates levy on new builds over time) for infrastructure however it will not progress as the Dev Fees that are currently charged on new builds are not sufficient.
It's the only way that we know how to grow our economy. Given that we now find ourselves weighed down by a mountain of debt with no associated improvement in productivity the only answer will be to grow our way out. Not great but we seem incapable of solving the issue any other way.
They're like a DJ scratching the record back and forth, unable to decide exactly what/where their position is on this issue. And they keep bringing already addressed issues back up - when they've already been legislated for and implemented.
The 30 year supply matter has already been addressed by the National Policy Statement on Urban Development - and you'll find that the high growth councils have already identified land for future urban development in their plans; e.g.,
https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-byl…
Densification was already addressed by the Median Density Residential Standards - something National walked back on.
Densification around transport nodes is already being implemented in district/city plans.
What are they on about then? They cannot force the private sector to develop land if it doesn't want to and/or can't afford to at this particular time.
They'd be better off addressing Building Act and building supply matters, and moving forward aggressively on social housing. They need to develop and redevelop all the land THEY own as the risk of development is just too high for the private sector to drive meaningful housing expansion at the moment. FHBs cannot afford new builds - it's as simple as that.
They are barking up this "tried and true" neo-liberal wrong tree - the "market" can't save you, Chris.
It's definitely taken off like a rocket in the Hutt - multiple lot townhouses sprouting up everywhere in the last year - but the 'puff' has gone out of it - my guess as the profitability just isn't stacking up - and now we are seeing the undeveloped land going back on the market; e.g.,
https://www.trademe.co.nz/a/property/residential/sections-for-sale/well…
Pick any European city and it's foundation is the terraced house, small apartment blocks. People love them. They couldn't bear living in suburbia or the wop wops, having to drive everywhere, no walkable cafe or food store, no community vibe, very drab life.
It doesn't surprise me that lots of the people who oppose densification of NZ cities are also miserable anti-social boring old farts.
I can probably fit the 'old fart' bit, but boring......no. I like a bit of dirt around the house, and some distance between the neighbours and me. I'm prepared to drive to the supermarket so I've got peace and quiet.
And a great view over the countryside, not the neighbours 2m away or their noise.
Depend when you take the foundation to be.
I also just picked Valencia in Spain as a random city and looked at Google maps aerial. No suburbs there, just a series of medium density mixed used towns expanding out from the centre to the periphery connected by public transport. Surrounded by farmland.
Haha, you Randomly picked Valencia. Was that with the Ministery of Housing random city calculator, or a spinning globe and dart?
https://www.dreampropertiesvalencia.com/valencia-suburbs/
"Councils will be allowed to opt out of the bi-partisan Medium Density Residential Standards but only if they are able to zone enough housing in other ways.
That could mean ultra-density in some place"
Could see Wellington going for that. The MDRS was always too blunt to keep a council in power. 3 storey flats anywhere you want with no consent and stuff the neighbour. Im no nimby but that's just bad law.
Yes, you have hit the nail on the head.
Almost all the people who come up with these 'good' ideas are not the ones directly affected by it.
Any general rule or principle needs some customizing at the individual level. There is no need for a shotgun approach in the hope that you will hit your target, and everyone else is 'friendly fire' collateral damage when a more targeted approach is easily doable.
Thus the supporters of mandated high density seem to think, that if you are going to piss one person off regardless, then you might as well piss everyone off.
This 'heavy hand that holds the hammer' seems to be the go-to for the Command and Control types in that they are so assured they are doing it for your own benefit, that their superior conscience drives them to do it despite any pain it causes the people affected. If only you could see that.
There will also be changes made to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development to allow more mixed-use zoning—for homes and businesses—around transport nodes.
also, please consider develop more mixed used land instead the ugly residential only surburbs where household cannot find anything but drive minutes away. let residential/retail/commerical units mixed with residential more and people will actually enjoy living around their neiborhood.
In Auckland much of these suburbs are dangerous to walk around at night, almost feel abandoned, thinking Mt Wellington, Eden Rise. Not a pathway to happiness for most Auckland buyers.... sure if you are living just off ponsonby rd or parnall, but less so just off panmure or glen innes shops
Much of Dairy Flat was zoned future urban under the unitary plan, The issue is how much it costs to put in the roading, lights, underground services etc etc.... itty Bitty life style blocks will not solve the issue as that land will still be 1H and by no means cheap, plus you are up for your own services.....
Not sure how they make cheap land now, it costs so much to do the RC earth works etc etc etc, only works at scale.
Look at the scale being applied in Milldale and look at the cost of housing there. Same in Warkworth, cheaper then Milldale but another 30mins on the motor way each way for your 2 days in the office a week...
If I remember correctly, and the research was a few years ago, lifestyle blocks covered almost the same portion of NZ land as zoned residential. They are not an addition to Aucklands food supply, just an excuse for a boomer to have a ride on lawn mower. Easy solution to 30 years of housing land supply…..
SJ - perhaps do some homework.
https://www.thegreatsimplification.com
That goes for all the can't-be-bothered-to-be-informed would-be-rich types herabouts... Human population density is only to be had, if enough energy is available, and enough stuff to apply it too - to service said cluster. Before fossil energy NO CITY maintained above 1 million.
And that energy source is leaving us (it's finite, we're half-way through it, and growth tries for 'doubling-times'. There is NO guarantee - quite the opposite - than any of our urban constructs will survive the morph. And it ain't far away. And Lifestyle Blocks will fare better than compression.
And Lifestyle Blocks will fare better than compression.
That's a bit of a toss up, I think. Certainly not better if the owners have to commute to work in order to pay the mortgage. And security (of the animals and fruit and veggies one might grow) becomes an issue too if/when economic depression/collapse happens.
Not a pretty picture for anyone, me thinks.
Well- whatever they do I WISH they would build social housing out of robust materials!...concrete block etc I was told recently that the tenants in one of our brand new KO multi story builds had broken through a wall so they could join up with their neighbours/ friends/family in the next door apartment! The building couldn't have been more than 6 months old. I also hope our Town Planners are on their toes...not forgetting the need for parks etc and trying to couple social housing with work opportunities. I'm an ex orchardist / cut flower grower. A handy work force would have been a win win. (I can see problems with this! but still....we need to be more productive/imaginative as a country.)
Making land available is all very well. That does not mean it will be "affordable" - it just means its there if you can pay. It will very much depend on who owns that land. Historically ownership has ended up with a very few organizations with deep pockets - & they aim to maximize profits !
Fools and horses.
Global events tell us the planet is creaking at the seams. Growth is so far overshot, that this nonsense won't eventuate.
Interesting to see that even at this late stage in the human trajectory, there are some woefully ignorant comments. And a woefully ignorant 'minister'.
Have to laugh - what else is there to do? The serious question is: What do we do when this nonsense goes the way it will (physics tends to be like that)?
And nobody - Dan?????????? - questioned 'land supply'. They aren't making any more of it.....
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.