Tāmaki MP Simon O’Connor has taken credit for the National Party backing away from its bipartisan housing policy, saying it was something he had lobbied for.
O’Connor was number 35 on the National Party list in 2020, but was returned as a member of Parliament after winning the safe blue seat he has held since 2011.
In a social media livestream on Sunday, the MP said he had successfully lobbied for the Medium Density Residential Standards to be retracted on behalf of his constituents.
“Quite literally, week after week, I’ve been taking that feedback back to my own caucus, to my colleagues. So, a big win today is that National is walking that back,” he said.
O’Connor said the new policy would help to prevent intensification in Glendowie, Mission Bay, and Meadowbank. These are wealthy central suburbs on a frequent bus route to the CBD.
“The intensification rules that National had initially agreed with, we’ve pulled back from that, and that’s a real win for locals here in Tamaki. It's not going to be as intense as originally planned.”
High density housing should be permitted in Glen Innes and Panmure, he said, as they are main arterial routes with both a bus and a train link running through them.
The revised policy would also protect productive farmland and should prevent “a whole lot of apartments” being built near Pukekohe, he said.
While the new policy does retain some protections for the most high quality land, it has been explicitly designed to enable more development of farmland.
The policy document said areas designated as “Future Urban” on the edge of Auckland city were likely to become available for housing immediately.
This includes a large chunk of land around Pukekohe, as well as Papakura and sections north of the city.
Bishop of Building
National Party’s housing spokesperson Chris Bishop said the policy should create “abundant development opportunities” on the edges of the city, as well as within them.
“The point is to flood the market with development opportunities so that we can get rid of this artificial scarcity around land which is driving up land prices,” he told media on Tuesday.
Greenfield developments require expensive infrastructure to be built, which buyers will pay for using 30-year targeted rates on the newly built houses.
This means those developments will only go ahead if the economics make sense, he said.
Labour’s Housing Minister Megan Woods said converting enough farmland into residential housing to meet 30-years of growth would cost tens of billions in infrastructure alone.
Somehow, National will have to push councils to also rezone urban areas for high density construction, and be prepared to intervene if they don’t.
Wellington city councillor Rebecca Matthews, who is an outspoken advocate for more housing, said local governments will always zone for the bare minimum of housing possible.
“They will cook population numbers, zone in the worst places, and [only] a small proportion of zoned land gets developed anyway. That’s why you need a standard MDRS to upzone broadly and reliably,” she wrote on Twitter.
It may be politically difficult for a National Government to force a city to upzone in areas it does not want to. O’Connor has already said he opposes density in three of his electorate suburbs.
Years of delay
Matt Lowrie, who edits the GreaterAuckland blog, said councils may withdraw existing plans in order to opt out of the MDRS.
“If that happens it will likely result in years of delay as they rework everything before re-notifying new plans. In other words, National’s policy will delay the delivery of more housing,” he said.
Bishop wouldn’t say exactly how long he would give city councils to zone enough land to accommodate 30-years of housing growth.
“We want it to happen very, very quickly. If we win the election and we have a mandate for this policy we will implement it quickly and they will have to move expeditiously to do that and if they don’t, we will do it for them,” he said.
Auckland’s unitary plan, which upzoned significant portions of the city in 2016, took three years to create.
Hamilton Mayor Paula Southgate said she welcomed intensification in general, but had been pushing back on the MDRS requirements to permit three-stories anywhere.
The city has its own infrastructure and housing plans which look 30-years ahead, she said.
It plans to use a blend of greenfield development and high-density urban builds to meet housing demand, but wants denser housing to be in the central business district.
Southgate said having six-stories in the central area was preferable to having three-stories scattered through outer suburbs more suited to “lemon trees and washing lines”.
On the face of it, National’s revised policy would align more comfortably with Hamilton’s preferred development plans. But the mayor was not enthusiastic about the walkback.
“It depends on them getting elected, and then living up to their election promise. Remember, this is just an election promise at this point,” she said.
What the city council, local developers, and residents needed most was certainty.
“Every time the government changes direction it costs ratepayers money. We can’t keep having plan changes.”
Still on the table
National and Labour have agreed to meet in an attempt to re-establish common ground, but neither have signalled what that might look like.
Prime Minister Chris Hipkins has said his preference was to have a bipartisan housing agreement, but that Labour would consider making its own changes if National walks away.
National Leader Christopher Luxon told the Herald that Hipkins was conceding there were problems with the MDRS in its current form and was open to him adopting the revisions.
Bishop said parts of the policy were similar to those of Labour’s Phil Twyford, particularly around moving the urban limit and removing infrastructure constraints, so common ground was possible.
Judith Collins, who was National Party leader when the MDRS was negotiated, said the revised policy was a development, not a rejection, of her original one.
“Every policy can be improved; even excellent policies,” she said.
114 Comments
Unfortunately having been a resident in his electorate, i can confidently say he does nothing. He is ultra religious, and is married to Simon Bridges sister. He used to be Reverend O'Connor and therefore is anti-abortion. He would prefer high house prices and cheap labour and mass immigration. I do believe Brooke will have a good shot at rolling him in the election.
Everything both parties do has zero to do with the bulk of the voters.
They both have a core base that vote for them out of habit/demographic .. whatever. And for their most likely coalition partners (e.g. a vote for ACT or TOP is a vote for national, Maori party and greens is a vote for labour)
They do all they do to try to appeal to those who are unsure of who to vote for. Its what they are paid for.. to win.
Thus the trick is to vote for a coalition party that would potentially swing the dwal for either party.. if top had a policy of going with either party given certain policy conditions tjat either is willing to accept then they would get my vote. Right now winston is the least tied so he gets it.
I must have missed the part where TOP ruled out working with Labour. If anything I would think they have a better chance of getting concessions on their key aims from Labour. National won't touch anything that might help future generations at the expense of their short term vested interests.
They've always said they'll work with whomever to get their policies in play.
Ideologically I'd say they fall between national and labour in that they have both a strong social element to their policies but recognize the importance of a strong business environment to achieve that.
I'm 90% sure they've got my vote this election.
As much as I'd like a re-think on tax,TOP's policy on taxing the family home is a 'no' from me. https://www.top.org.nz/fair-tax-system
Try this link from that site https://taxswitch.nz/
I punched in our numbers,couple working,above average income...initially,save $6800 pa if we didn't own a property,once I put in our home address,we only have the one,our prooperty tax came in at $20k pa,so we would be $13,973 worse off.Imagine if you weren't earning much and had to pay that property tax,yikes.
There was never any uncertainty around these factors from my perspective. Not arguing that any other political party is any better - but Key has left deep scars for me and trusting National.
But as I say, if they change their housing policies I'd consider voting for them for the benefit of change. I.e. I don't mind many of their other non-housing policies.
National is a shambles, but this policy is not greedy. Quite the opposite, it is positively altruistic.
This is a plan to prevent property developers from buying in leafy Auckland suburbs at a time when the only people buying in leafy Auckland suburbs are property developers. A bunch of NIMBYs have successfully begged their local MP help slash their own house prices. Simon's policy could wipe $500,000 off the price of the average section in his electorate.
We knew over a decade ago that NIMBY councils are primarily responsible for unaffordable housing: https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/don-brash-house-prices-are-sti…
Time and inclination.
Who has time to attend Local Board meetings held in the middle of the day during the week?
Who has the time and motivation to stay current and filter through all the nonsense going on in local politics?
It's hard enough getting local boards to maintain playgrounds for kids, let alone allow housing for them.
It was right to backpedal on this one. It was a Nicola Willis unthought through policy ( sadly possibly typically) to introduce her pc credentials. The policy installs scattergun development anywhere any time on middle nz homeowners who thought they had bought a house in a nice consistent suburb. Doubt that the green fields alternative is right either. We don’t seem to be able to balance.
I have said several times that the MDRS is really flawed. But the flip flop is awful. Maybe they should think more in the first place?
This gives me no confidence whatsoever in the National Party, their credibility and their integrity.
I am also on record as stating that I don’t rate Willis at all. She’s the deputy of the party. She’s mediocre.
Remember when Nicola Willis was housing spokesperson and said this?
National's housing spokeswoman Nicola Willis said the bill would enhance property owners' "Right to Build", making it easier for people who currently own land to build more houses on existing sections.
"This legislation takes power away from town planners and gives it back to the people they serve. It will allow our cities to develop and grow, with a range of housing types to suit people at different stages of life," she said.
I wonder what changed?
Again, I'll repeat my position that this whole thing can be made acceptable to almost everyone by replacing "3 story" with "2 story"....
Also
Nicola Willis says people have nothing to fear, saying the new housing will meet the quality standards in the Building Act and Building code.
Willis said National continues to support the bill, saying it will cut red tape, allow for more much-needed housing and reduce the costs, complexity and delays associated with the consenting process.
She said the bill applies the quality standards in the Building Act and Building Code, including requirements for natural light, ventilation, amenities and other matters.
"Nothing in the Housing Supply Bill removes, reduces or changes design and quality standards contained in the Building Act or Building Code. All homes built under the new Housing Supply Bill will need to meet these existing standards in order to get a building consent," she said.
Under the Auckland Unitary Plan, it's not as though the Council wasn't allowing mass intensification anyway (an extra 900k dwellings) but at least it was in well defined areas where it made sense. And even then they were bending their own rules to get 5, 3 storey houses in, in zones intended for 3, 2 storey houses (like next door to me). There is simply no need to build this stuff everywhere. The government ran roughshod over years of council planning and expertise for cheap political handwashing of problems they essentially created.
The bigger question for me is why are we having all these tensions in the first place? It comes down to an unspoken goal of all major parties to substantailly grow the population via immigration - the fastest in the OECD.
How about they had just left things with the requirements of the National Policy Statement Urban Development which requires rezoning to enable six storey development in walking distance of train stations and centres.
That enables huge development potential, in a focussed manner.
A thing alot of people haven't taken into account when talking 3 stories or even 2 for that matter is cost. All well saying everyone can go up. Going from single to two extra 1000 a Sq meter from two to three have heard only estimates but an extra 1500 a Sq so single story depending were you are in the country and not including the new regs just brought in is approx 3000 a Sq. So two story is approx 4000 a Sq and so 3 story upto 5500 a Sq. So the ROI for just building a couple in the back yard dosnt stack up. So all well and good the govt and National crowing about it back in the day. But going from talking about it to actual pegs in the ground takes more than talk. Which I find alot of overpaid politicians/civil servants are good at.
The argument you've just made is actually for the MDRS. i.e. three stories where the land is a bit more expensive so the entire package (house+land) is a bit pricier but not outrageously so, i.e. inner suburbs, with 3 stories starting in the inner suburbs and moving slowly outwards.
re ... "3 story upto 5500 a Sq." ... If you're paying that much for sticks you're either, a) dealing with a sub-optimal bit of land, b) have need of a new builder and/or architect, or c) building for the high end of the market. $5,500 per sqm is lower end apartment building numbers!
Excellent case in point on yesterday's news ...
The CO2 shortage from NZ's single supplier at the woefully out-of-date Kapuni plant (that is, btw, making fertilizer using 3rd world plant and spewing way, way more greenhouse gases than a more, modern plant would).
Apparently the cause was hushed up for months - right up to ministerial level - due to 'commercial sensitivities'. Took over 5 months to fix. In the five months a competitor could have set up and there'd be competition and less green house gases.
This article exemplifies is why politicians; any of them, can't solve the problems we have in our Property Sector. It's why we had to rely on an independent body to do it, and I'll admit, I thought that was the RBNZ. But alas. They look like they are as much a part of the impotence as politicians.
So what will; fix the problems for us? The Market. Not our Property Market but the international finance market. And that.... is going to hurt. 0.6027 earlier this evening, and that will look 'high' in the near future.
Dharavi, a Mumbai slum where 600,000 residents are crammed into 520 acres, contains the attributes for environmentally and socially sustainable settlements for the world's increasingly urban population.
"I strongly believe that the west has much to learn from societies and places which, while sometimes poorer in material terms are infinitely richer in the ways in which they live and organise themselves as communities,
Charles declares Mumbai shanty town model for the world | Architecture | The Guardian
Perhaps this is the path we are heading down. Shanty town areas in the greater Auckland region because no other form of housing is going to be affordable based upon our incomes/productivity.
Both main parties with very expensive flip flops going into this election. Labour know full well that we can’t afford a 65 year old pension and National know we need more houses - but why let principles stand in the way of votes. Both those flip flops are crushing the younger generation even more.
If we can't afford Super at 65, then why will National introduce deductibility on property and reduce taxes for rich. Then open greenfield that require huge infrastructure costs. There are other stuff National are doing as well. But Super impacts all kiwis the stuff National are shoe horning in impacts a select few. I'm thinking National are actually ACT light and Labour are National light. Both are not great. But Make NZ great again Trump wannabe Luxon, is a bitter pill.
Can these guys not hear what they are saying! Development should be in Panmure even though meadowbank also has a train station and is a short bus ride to the city. They couldn’t be more NIMBY if they tried, why not just tell the truth and say development should only be in poor areas!
SHAs were generally a good initiative, I met Nick Smith a few times in dealing with them. Twyford in one of his many acts of stupidity did not agree to continue them. Simply because they were a National initiative. He reckoned he had better ideas, like Kiwibuild. Lol
Not so.
The 'better idea' was the NPS-UD (National Policy Statement - Urban Development). It far wider reaching and far less subject to manipulation by monied interested that the SHAs were. Further, some Councils, Auckland being one in 2016, developed 'apartment building zones' that largely replaced the SHA and allowed up to 6 stories and in far more places. (In my area, most apartment buildings got RC for 4 stories under the SHA regs and then went to 6 stories in 2016.)
You can just imagine the residents of Meadowbank having a few wines at the local degustation restaurant saying how great this guy is. It’s not that they don’t like immigration, it’s just that their area has great heritage (it’s mostly ex state houses) and Glen Innes is already “ghastly” so is much better suited.
Entire thing has been and will continue to be bad
Greenfield in Papakura/Takanini exploded with no adequate transport links
New developments in South Auckland are rubbish built by fly-by-night developers
Three stories too expensive to build anyway
Intensification is growing unbalanced suburbs - 'Rewa' and 'Kura' are holes where only those who are on the government pay check want or have to live. Enough weed in the air to fog the brain of even the strongest minds.
Nicola Willis in her prior role just spat hot air with sound-bites. Didn't listen when flaws were pointed out.
The AUP as it stood wasn't too bad. Council urban design team needs to improve though.
Better how ? Because an ex ceo is at the head ? There is no vision, National look to be playing the make nz great again card without actually saying it. Rolling back the clock is hardly forward looking.
There is no one truly inspirational selling a real vision of the future.
"Three stories too expensive to build anyway"
Say what? Once you have one engineered design it's a case of rinse and repeat. Quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of hearing this assertion. Anyone in the building game knows it largely nonsense. They're still stick houses. Quite good for pushing the prices up though. I don't know how many times I've heard that same shite from REAs!
Those figures per sqm to build are just that - build only.
Once you put in the costs for buying and holding the land, architects & engineers & landscape designers & interior designers, getting past Council with planners, legal fees, surveyor fees, connection fees etc. at the beginning - and then at the end, legal fees, GST, REA fees, marketing, finance costs, insurance costs, etc. ... then there's not usually much left for the developer who carries all the risk.
Very few developers make a lot of money once evened out over booms and busts. The ones that 'appear too' are sometimes just 'big noters' who want to pretend they're loaded. Ask your accountant next time you talk to them.
This is absolutely nuts. I’m happily living in a new three bed town house which is walking distance to the city. It’s far nicer than anything else on my street which are old not insulated and not double glazed. If you are lucky enough to own a mansion in a city great for you but don’t lock out all of your young workers from reasonable housing and then be surprised when they move. I already moved from Wellington to Christchurch for that reason. Plenty of young people move to Australia instead. Then who will pay for superannuation ? Not to mention will you every see your grandkids.
OMG! He's also a religious wackadoodle like Luxon. NZ's heading towards US style Republicanism at an alarming rate!
Christopher (as he insisted on being addressed as at Air NZ,until he became a hero of the 'hard working average kiwi and entered politics)is definately not Catholic,he is a member of the evangelical fellowship 'Upper Room' which is an American 'church' that he no doubt joined when he was doing his time in the corporate world in North America.
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2021/12/02/must-read-the-fellowship-of-the-u…
Perhaps Chris(topher) should heed this;
Matthew 6:24
24 "You can't worship two gods at once. Loving one god, you'll end up hating the other. Adoration of one feeds contempt for the other. You can't worship God and Money both.
I stand corrected.
In my defense - He went to Saint Kentigern College which I assumed was a catholic school. Actually, it's presbyterian, which, if my experience is anything to go by, is far worse. I consider all followers of organised religions slightly un-hinged as their world view denies science and evolution. As a result, I seldom pay much attention to what type they are. More so, if they start quoting their religious texts at me.
Interesting conversation. Fundamenalists/fundamentalism/evangelicals (no matter what the primary faith) are worthy of concern in politics. Your average run-of-the-mill person who believes in a higher being, or cause, generally accepts/welcomes peoples of all faiths. My experience of fundamentalists differs. They tend toward the 'one only' worldview (theirs), and to me, that's a worry. Religious fundamentallism is what it seems is plaguing the US Republicans at the moment - and it seems once in positions of political power, and they become fascist in their political ideology. Either that, or they're all just deranged in some other way! :-).
Funny thing, Simon is effectively boasting to his affluent constituents that he will crater their property prices if elected.
With mortgage rates north of 6% and climbing the only people buying houses at prices above $2.8million are developers and the extremely wealthy. The largest proportional fall in value since Covid19 has been in the upper quartile, because buyers can't afford to borrow that much. Simon with his "brilliant plan" (copied from ACT) to kick developers out of the market could cause price falls of a further 20-30%.
If you are a mortgage holder in Simon's electorate and your capital value declines by $500,000 or so. Be sure to congratulate your local MP.
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.