National Party leader Christopher Luxon has confirmed a policy announcement relating to the foreign home buyer ban will be made soon.
The party opposed the restrictions when they were first passed in 2018 and wants to encourage more foreign investment in New Zealand.
When asked by Interest.co.nz and others on Tuesday, Luxon said some restrictions were necessary but wouldn't give any more detail.
“There clearly needs to be restrictions on foreign buyers, that is something we do support, but we’ll have more to say about it with our tax policy,” he said.
It was enough of an answer for Newshub, which reported it “looked likely” National was planning to scrap the ban during the 6pm news Tuesday night.
Luxon was then asked again during a series of regular radio interviews on Wednesday morning. Each time he told the hosts to wait-and-see.
When asked if he would scrap the ban on TVNZ’s Breakfast show, he said National would have more to say on that subject soon.
“Foreign investment is just a part of what we might need to do in terms of getting our economy growing again, alongside other things as well," Luxon said.
Voters could expect an announcement on the party’s actual position “very, very shortly”.
In a press release, Labour’s David Parker criticised the possible future announcement and warned any reversal could be permanently locked in by recent trade agreements.
Labour passed the overseas buyers ban before the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) trade deal came into effect.
Parker said other signatory countries would have the right to buy on the same terms as New Zealanders if the law was now overturned.
At this point the “most-favoured-nation” clause in other trade agreements would kick in and likely force New Zealand to extend the rule to other countries, such as China and the European Union.
A most-favoured-nation clause requires a country providing a trade concession to one trading partner to extend the same treatment to all, and it is commonly included in agreements.
“Labour believes New Zealanders should not be outbid by wealthy foreign buyers … National needs to come clean on their plans to sell out New Zealand again,” Parker said.
The Overseas Investment Amendment Bill was passed by Labour in August 2018, with the support of New Zealand First and the Green Party. National voted against the Bill.
Purchases of New Zealand homes by foreign buyers had declined 91% by the 2022 June quarter, as the restrictions pushed them almost completely out of the market.
According to Statistics New Zealand, just half a percent of all home transfers were to a non-citizen or resident-visa holder in the year ended June 2023.
That’s 534 total transactions, compared with over 4,000 in the year ended June 2018.
However, these figures only capture transactions where a property was held in an overseas person's own name.
They do not record transactions involving either a sale or a purchase where the ownership of the property was via a company, even if the controlling or beneficial shareholders are foreign.
The figures are also very unlikely to capture most transactions where the property involved is owned by a trust, even if the beneficiaries or most of the trustees are foreign.
147 Comments
Yes National back to there old tricks let's get the Ponzi wind-up again.
Very slow leaners that why they lost the last two elections off John Keys one trick pony the Ponzi on our family homes.
I don't think the 500,000 voters they lost at the last election are heading back on this nonsense maybe going to Act if they are lucky.
One thing the red team is doing a good job on undoing the ponzi
Surely National aren't this dumb are they? this could very well lose them the election, should they revert to the rules as they used to be.
The only tinkering around this I would even consider would be if you were in some way making changes that encouraged more large scale apartment building in the cities.
Anything that allows overseas buyers back into the residential housing market is nothing other than political suicide, surely they aren't that thick?
All it will do is create more of the problem we face - that our house prices are too expense relative to our incomes. Selling more to rich foriengers does nothing to solve this problem!
I pray that Luxon has the wisdom to think about this very carefully.
I sent him a message on this topic a few months ago warning him about how this policy could lose him the election. Got a thanks very much will think about it reply.
I said even if they matched labours current policy around foreign buyer ban, but relaxed some of the other changes (e.g. interest deductions) that might be palatable...but selling our houses again to foreigners isn't going to be a political hit for him.
Was thinking at the start of the year that it was likely going to be the issue that decided the election winner. And at the time, was tired of Labour and wanted an excuse to vote National, but told him (and said to him there were many others I've talked to) I won't vote for him unless they change their views of residential housing as a get rich scheme for landlords and foreign buyers.
Hopefully it didn't fall on deaf ears, but again realise the pressures he will be under dealing with the backers of the National party.
Dumb idea. You then let one of them get into power based on less votes from more percentage of idiots and.. alllow minority parties ( whom you hate) like TPM, NZF, a better chance of having a say in a minority coalition.
Remembée 60% of voters vote Nat or Lab. If NZ first, Greens, ACT were atc20% THEN MAYBE they are worth a crack.
Dont split the vote
I really dislike the language Luxton uses in implying/equating residential house-buying to foreign direct investment. FDI when I was in government was about attracting offshore capital for investing in assets that created jobs - and added to the overall welfare of local citizenry.
Foreign money in residential real estate assets is nothing of the sort. It is provisioning for serfdom (tenants in our own land) by any other name. Foreign money in buy-to-let commercial buildings would be as far as I'd go in terms of acceptable relaxation of the current rules, if indeed that is not allowed presently.
I agree, it could be a serious vote loser if they get it wrong.
Yeah it really irks me. My greatest generation ancestors (some of who were involved in WW2 and fighting the asian power of that time (and again this is not to trigger xenophibia...just a view on the realities of how the world works financially/geopolitically) would be turning in their graves seeing the John Key's and Luxon's trying to sell our houses/assets to the new great power in the pacific so that those who already have enough, can have even more.
How they can't see how foolish and cowardly this is is beyond comprehension for me. 'At the end of the day' money isn't everything - but principles are. To the National mob, money would appear to be everything to them. They are blinded by $$ and can't see right from wrong.
Another corrupt politician to keep the others in check?
The time is ripe to question the role and purpose of the Government, and our media aren't going to do it. We should've already been doing this given the debacle over affordable homes for the last two decades, of both National and Labour.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.
None of them show any willingness to lead by example. It's either status quo populist vote buying, self serving interests or overcomplicated bureaucratic tweaks around the edges. There's no thought to simplifying what already is, no understanding of their silo compartmentalized thinking. There's no vision to what constitutes a healthy economy or healthy society, to what negates the negatives of exploitive capitalism. And that's all capitalism has been.
It begs the question - Are we the people a reflection of our government or is our government a reflection of us?
It would appear many here are dubious, except for the vested interest mob and those blinded by conditioned economic dogma. Our youth are either disinterested, educated by MSM and their parents beliefs or oblivious via social media.
It seems we're pretty fecked no matter who is in charge, especially when monetary policy is probably the biggest elephant in the room.
Is there enough time and anyone able to rally the masses to vote 'None of the above'?
We already have foreign money and serfdom in our residential property... Only it's called mortgage lending. Call it debt servitude and it might not be as sellable to the masses.
Believing that one is free after they've 'worked' off their debt, have something tangible they own and now get to be rich does not alter the definition of serfdom. People are just more oblivious to it now. It's still the landlord system and it permeates everywhere, driving our 'economic' beliefs, behaviours and consequences.
And those that believe they've done so great with their 'capital' gains, are blind to the fact they're encouraging the next generation into higher levels of debt servitude just to achieve their basic necessities. So called social mobility is being reduced - one should be able to move upwards, downwards or sideways without being tied to debt or needing to be 'wealthy' first.
Kate, when you were in government what did you do to prevent this?
you're only a Tennant in your own land if you make poor decisions. Many do it by choice.
the rich to middle classes are already propping up the people that, failed to better them selves, wasted money and can't save.
their Will always be winners and losers. Get over it and stop making excuses for the losers
Imagine if one our key media platforms (newshub, stuff) declared that in interviews they will give politicians one warning for deflection, and terminate the interview if it occurs again.
May not get many pollies coming for an interview, but would make for some great media!
I'll just leave this here https://youtube.com/shorts/hhP12nIZJoY Lee Mack - "One Word" politician interview sketch
Sorry for the video format, can't find a clean one
Luxon is reopening NZ's markets to more high-value imports such as rental accommodation.
Foreign-based landlords will also be able to suck more net yield out of their NZ rental income by deducting mortgage interest and a lower brightline test will ensure they can flip more frequently and pay zero taxes on their capital gains.
Larger net current account outflows for our economy to look forward to!
The battle of the Chris's rages on with each trying to out-dumb the other with new policy positions.
NZ, Aussie, and Canada are already dumping grounds for filthy lucre and money laundering through the property farce. Ultimately I don't really see the benefits. OK. Lord Key was able to sell his Parnell home at a good price to some shyster. But what has this to do with "investment into NZ"?
I don't think any Govt should be selling a dream that busloads of Chinese are going to converge on suburbia and pay you a king's ransom for your house. It is deluded and misguided. And as a way of encouraging sentiment among the sheeple, it's hollow.
Nobody cares about the sheeple. Successive governments have allowed vested interests to grow larger, more powerful and greedier. Now they are too big to fail and have many politicians in their pockets.
And we're not talking small numbers anymore - add up all the Kiwis who fall into one or more of these - REAs, banks, land-bankers, landlords and speculators, property managers, mortgage brokers, material suppliers, etc. Could be well-over 20% of NZ's population and likely all of our wealthiest who have skin in property game.
The government is unable to govern, that much is fairly clear. The bureaucracy is in charge and career government officials are not able (or willing not sure which) to determine how to change the status quo. Given the near total lack of accountability this is unlikely to change.
Good point.
Also bear in mind (and NB this is NOT me advocating for such a position) that outside of those directly in the property business, e.g. REAs and developers, there are many who genuinely believe that the "property game" is good for the country and society, who have a belief - even though it's a thoroughly misguided one - that relentlessly-rising house prices are the cornerstone of a well-functioning economy and necessary to a healthy country by acting as a means to allow you do better than you otherwise could.
I think of my in-laws as an example of this. They are very nice people, charitably-minded in many respects, would do anything for friends and family and both of whom came from robustly working class (borderline working poor) families. Neither works in property - both have been in the public employ since day one - and they have gone from living in employer-subsidised housing 30-odd years ago to owning several million dollars' worth of property now.
I don't believe for a nanosecond they are sitting in the spa on a Saturday night gleefully contemplating how to further enrich themselves at the expensive of those who don't yet own property. I know them well enough to say that with absolute confidence. They are good people, who are unfortunately misguided in that what they see as having "added value" and "taking a risk" is ultimately detrimental to the wellbeing of society even though it has been nothing but positive for them.
Because all they have ever tasted is the positive aspects of our collective property obsession, and because this has lifted them from struggling as young parents (e.g. my wife once told me about the time her dad used a tin can tied to a piece of wood as a hammer to fix their fence, as they couldn't afford to buy one from the local hardware store) to being in a very comfortable position with a great lifestyle, they simply cannot see how their experience isn't replicable by the next generation purely owing to timing.
In other words, they genuinely think that everybody can do what they have done and in doing so can improve their lot ... and if we just all "added value" to our starter homes and then added more value, and then a little bit more, we would all be better off.
I remember a survey I think it was about 18 months ago where a huge percentage of people said housing market was way over valued and would be happy to see it come down in price. It is crazy to have house price’s out of range for most of the population to buy from scratch it’s like saying our population cannot afford to keep ponzi going so we will allow the rest of the world to be our landlords and then push their agendas on us.
Evasion is an argument for tightening it, not scrapping it. NZ needs FDI, yes, but the last thing it needs is "investment" in existing residential stock. I think NZ needs tax bracket indexation, which is just about enough to get me over the line, but this idiocy is giving me pause.
Well we could actually. Completely ban foreign purchases of land, then call for tenders on a limited 1000 exemptions. It will only be the very expensive properties that will be bought by billionaires looking to avoid the pitchforks. Won't affect your average kiwi too much, Nact donors get top prices for their mansions, NZ govt coffers get a billion or two of foreign money selling the exemptions.
With respect to this election, I'm reminded of a joke made by Jeremy Clarkson in an old episode of Top Gear (when he was trying to find a cheap first car insurable in the UK for a learner driver)
"... it's like the menu at a Scottish restaurant. Not a lot of choice and nothing you want anyway" - or words to that effect.
Even my strategy of picking the least-worst option might be harder than anticipated to pull off.
The problem is that it's hard to work out the least-worst option.
I'm reaching the point where (if the polls stay above 5%) I might be forced to go for the Charlatan-in-Chief purely with a hope he gets to act as a handbrake on the worst excesses of either National or Labour.
Ummm....actually the Green/Labour block was bigger than Nact after the special votes were counted.
But don't let facts get in your way.
Curse Labour for being such a shitty government that we have to even consider voting for Nact and reversing the foreign buyer ban /asset stripping NZ.
What’s the “umm…actually” for? Is that what people say when they’re about to write BS.
Please visit elections.nz and see the 2017 official and final results.
National 1,152,075
Labour 956,184 + Green 162,443
= 1,118,627
Clearly you are wrong. It seems the facts are in the way of your porky pie.
Winston went against the wishes of the majority of Kiwis - what a democracy we have when in the end only one vote counted.
We already have too much money going into property in this country, it's all people here do!
If we need foreign money it should be for productive new enterprises like Blackrock investing in new green solutions, not selling our land like a drug addict that needs a quick hit after hit. Surely we're better than that.
"Foreign investment is just a part of what we might need to do in terms of getting our economy growing again, alongside other things as well," Luxon said.
Foreign investment should exclude residential real estate. I can't believe the number of fcuk ups this party is making. And I'm a long term Nat supporter. Voters are stuck between turkeys and idiots.
At the time of the 2018 Census, New Zealand's homeownership rates were at their lowest since the 1950s. Homeownership peaked in the 1990s, at 73.8 percent of households, but by 2018, homeownership had fallen to 64.5 percent of households.
The keyword there is households, so it would count a 25-year-old living at home with their parents as a homeowner, or someone living in a flat with an owner occupier as a homeowner as well. Despite all that, the homeownership rate has been declining and it will be interesting to see what the rate is in the latest census.
There are many home owners who want to see prices fall. I know, because I am one. There will be even more who want to see stable prices, or gently increasing with inflation rather than galloping away.
Those who should actually want prices to go much higher are multiple property owners or those planning to downsize/otherwise reduce exposure to property. That's a very small portion of the population.
If national policy’s includes opening up doors for foreign buyers it will only make housing unattainable for most of the population who do not own a home already, young generations will leave New Zealand and the ones who stay will be living with parents for as long possible. I will be voting for the party that puts its population first just not sure yet if any of them do.
If you want a society to thrive, then access to affordable shelter is a must.
In the face of the one of the worst housing affordability crisis in the OECD and in any living New Zealander’s memory, the last thing you would want to do as a leader is to re-inflate the property ponzi… that is, if you actually cared about the well-being of NZ society.
If National are serious about lifting the foreign buyer policy, then they are clearly demonstrating they only care about property owners increasing their portfolio’s capital gains.
Such a policy would be beyond madness, it would be borderline treasonous.
I am extremely concerned for New Zealand’s future if we continue to prioritise short term greed and stupidity over our country’s long term prospects.
I agree. I think Labour are clinically incompetent and dangerous, but I'm fully aware that National will metaphorically asset strip NZ's future to stimulate growth. There is nothing they won't do and lifting the foreign buyers ban will be the first of many that will enrich the few at the expense of the working class.
Hence my post above.
They certainly hope. They’ll be battling a deep and painful economic recession, a battered currency, embedded inflation and high interest rates.
Any cut to taxes could trigger a sov debt downgrade making our terrible balance of payments even worse and pushing up risk premie on NZ INC. Given we have to borrow to survive that’s suicide.
I can’t see how prices can rise against these headwinds, no matter how many perks luxy gives his landlord mates or how many exploited migrants we try cram in (hoping they don’t tell others back home the truth).
They definitely deserve some heat for that, but realistically the vast majority of the Western world had similar price rises during the same time which would be mostly due to interest rates dropping down to near zero.
Where Labour really screwed up was allowing the RBNZ to remove LVR restrictions and not ringfencing COVID funds to go towards businesses that were actually affected rather than firehosed into the housing market.
Rent has skyrocketed everywhere and has been a problem well before Labour got in. The very existence of the accommodation supplement is a testament to that. And even then Australia has seen larger rent rises than here, same thing in the UK, USA, Canada, etc. This government has been criminally incompetent but not everything can be blamed solely on them.
Young Kiwis
You can see what is going on here. National are going to return to the housing ponzie economy to enrich their property investing mates. They are also going to open the immigration flood gates wider (if that is possible) to lower wages and increase housing demand. Then of course they are going to rig the tax system to further enrich themselves and rich mates. Labor are not a lot better so if you think that house prices are unaffordable then they are soon going to get a whole lot worse. Your only hope of any sort of a reasonable future is to get out of New Zealand.
Old Kiwis
Follow your kids and encourage them if you have any care for the future of your grandchildren. Their education, their health and their economic well being.
The superannuation that you may loose may be irrelevant when you are dying in the waiting room of ED our outside in a waiting ambulance
Productive businesses
At the end of the day you are going to have to fund the wages and taxes required to support this circus. Borrowing only defers the cost and there is no magic money tree unlike politicians seem to think. Close your business in NZ and follow your good staff overseas.,
Tough situation:
1. Labour are a shambles
2. I despise National and their policies around housing (edit, I don't despise National...I just despise their views towards residential housing and would happily vote for them if they change their views on this one topic).
Can the election be postponed until a part that is a) competent and b) morally principled appears?
As it stands, there is no political party (that can have real influence) for the greater good, appears to exist in this country.
As the song goes 'What a damn shame' (the song reflects my general anger towards governments/politicians/corporate influence at present)
Agreed, and for that reason I am voting TOP. The only party that seems to have sensible fully costed economic policies designed to lift the whole country, boost our economy and at the same time deal with our pressing social issues.
A lot of disaffected voters from both sides are looking at them - their support is surging and will east clear 5%
Without being xenophobic, but selling assets, like our houses, to rich people from a country that we could be at war with in the next 10 years (it is a real risk) for the financial gain of a few, is what I call the height of evil.
It makes me think there is something completely rotten and toxic about this crony capitalistic system we are living in.
It's FUBAR for sure.
It doesn't help that our education system teaches us to serve said system and not critically disseminate it to create something better.
It's like we're missing the humanity from Humanity.
I've said all along that capitalism is merely an extension of feudalism and economics was written to justify it. A history of narcissistic sociopathic rulers that is now embedded into our corporations and institutions, and reflected in society.
When I first came across Maslow's teachings many years ago, saw how it reconciled with indigenous cultures and spiritual teachings, I thought I was onto something. How do we create a community/society that supports and encourages these values?
Unfortunately I also lost hope and faith that it was possible.
I look at the purchase prices for all these new two/three story row townhouses - and I don't see them as viable for rental properties in the main. I'd really like it if some media outlet was able to investigate and tell us what percentage of these properties are owner-occupied vs rented. I think in some (many?) cases the developers are renting them when a sale cannot be secured. And then there is another likely significant proportion of them that were purchased off spec and are now unable to settle.
Because of the stairs, they are really not ideal for retirees/downsizers - and because of the lack of sections/green space, they are not idea of families (unless adjacent or very near to a park. I suppose some are rented to overseas students on a room-by-room basis. But it would be really good if we had good data on them as they are such a new house-style/type in the market.
Of the 7 in the block on my street that were completed in May, 6 of them were immediately placed up for rent. For the price they were sold for, you can buy a decent 3 bedroom house on a 700 sqm section in a suburb in a good school zone. And as an owner occupier, why wouldn't you?
That will be great for the Auckland market - foreign offshore house buyers in the city's Waitematā local board, which covers expensive suburbs such as, Herne Bay, Ponsonby, the CBD and Parnell, had international buyers making up 18.7 percent of the purchases in the first quarter of 2018. Overall, the figure for Auckland was 7.3 percent in first quarter of 2018. Google “How many NZ homes are being snapped up by overseas buyers?” And look for the RNZ item.
There are areas where it could do with being relaxed without it being the end of the world. Currently you have to be a permanent resident of NZ to buy, so that excludes temporary residents. Say you were recruiting a CEO for a few years or an actor for a TV series, that person might like to buy a house rather than rent for the time that they are living in NZ. Ditto for parents of international students, who might like to know that their children are appropriately housed for the duration of their studies. Do we want to grow our business, film studio, and education businesses? Then we might have to give a little on the housing side. Australia allows temporary residents to buy houses, provided they sell them when they leave the country (and its followed up by the OIO).
I can just see Sir JK leaning over Luxon's bed when he's asleep whispering: "Chris, its your lord Jesus Christ. I have been sent by god to inform of a very important task. You must make sure residential property prices in NZ continue to increase for the good of all humanity. Amen"
How can we believe that a man with 7 houses has the best interests of all New Zealanders in mind when deciding on housing and investment policy. It may not be a conflict of interests in a legal sense, but it looks dodgy and I don't trust Luxon's motives. Is he really a business-man or a speculator. He worked for corporates and an airline partly owned by the tax-payer. Does he actually understand what a productive economy looks like.
when you have vested interests making big donations to the national party they want a return for their money
Fascinating. Of a total of $5.2 million - only $10 thousand dollars was donated in amounts less than $1,500. Or put differently, the 'little guys' supporting national represent only 0.2% of their overall financial support. No wonder they don't write policies for the majority of NZers!!!!!
Every Kiwi dreams of owning a special bit of our country. Even if we never get there it is something to aspire to. I've been working away to eventually get a bif of land down in Queenstown. Not there yet - still working and saving. Twenty year journey.
Selling it off to rich foreigners kills the Kiwi dream. Pushing up land prices does nothing for Kiwis who work their lives here and are committed to building this country.
Feels like a big cop out. We happily increase prices and sell it off to rich foreigners who might only visit occasionally and do nothing for NZ.
Let's be honest the policy is ill considered, and is to appease National's backers who want good resale prices when they sell their expensive houses in Auckland and Queenstown. Foreigners always pay more.
I know Labour claim the credit but it wasn't the much-hyped changes to NZ law per se that actually stopped the foreign buying, by Chinese at any rate. It was President Xi's clampdown around 2017 making it illegal for Chinese citizens to move money out of China to buy foreign property that was the real driver.
eg the chinese pulled 84% of their overseas property investments globally in the first half of 2017 after the restrictions on capital controls.
Depends on the details, if it's to allow foreigners to build new apartment buildings, then I'm ok with that, it will get more housing onto the market, which is definitely needed, so that could be good.
We are definitely not building enough large scale apartment buildings in NZ.
But we don't want foreigners in our existing residential housing market, that is pointless.
What do both parties mean when they say they support or not allowing foreign buyers?
Yes, Labour says we have a foreign buyers ban - except the Aussie and Singaporeans are exempt, which allows a stepping stone for the wider world to invest in us, via them, if they can be bothered. And of course, all the overseas Kiwis that can be used to funnel funds into NZ via their foreign contacts.
So Labour cannot say we have foreign owners ban, as a blanket statement.
There are only three main reasons to invest in NZ as a foreigner.
1) to spread your risk, eg Chinese getting money out of the country to a safer haven.
2) To make a return based on the demand associated with getting in early when the Govt. limits the supply will force prices up, ie speculation, non-value-added, Ponzi returns on investment
3) buying a gateway to residency, and just seeing the cost of buying property as the fee to pay, and cheap at that.
So what is National saying, that anyone can buy?
But the real issue is, that any demand that supply cannot meet in real-time will result, and has resulted, in point 2 above.
No political party has a policy to allow the supply of housing at the rate of demand, in spite of what they say.
I’m pro free-market BUT housing affordability has such great positive externalities that I support the ban, especially given the size of the NZ market. Only possible workaround could be on new building (can own it if you build it), so stock stimulus rather than market/price.
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.