More crown land development, Inflation-adjusted mortgages, state-funded infrastructure, curbed migration settings and higher rates on undeveloped land have been suggested by officials

More crown land development, Inflation-adjusted mortgages, state-funded infrastructure, curbed migration settings and higher rates on undeveloped land have been suggested by officials

By David Hargreaves

Measures including greater development of crown land, limits on migration, inflation-adjusted mortgages, rate hikes on undeveloped land and state-funded housing infrastructure have been put to the Government by officials as potential ways of tackling Auckland's pressured housing market.

The suggestions were contained in a Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment briefing to ministers on November 25 about housing affordability.

The briefing was part of a large number of documents released publicly by the Government on Friday, mainly relating to its social housing reform programme.

Last week Building and Housing Minister Nick Smith flagged new unspecified regulatory interventions in Auckland's housing market to ramp up supply, but wouldn't give more details. It is eminently possible that the measures Smith has alluded to could have been included in this MBIE briefing.

The Government made substantial decisions around housing, particularly in relation to social housing, before the end of last year and is rolling out these proposals now.

The MBIE paper says that "even once" Auckland's Housing Accord  is delivering new sections, the forecast is that Auckland’s shortfall will persist.

The MBIE put the current shortage of houses at 20,000, with Auckland household growth forecast to continuing growing at  more than 10,000 per year.

"Therefore, demand is forecast to exceed supply in Auckland for at least the next decade."

$30 billion not enough

The $30 billion forecast to be spent on the Auckland market in the next five years "will not be enough for supply to match accumulated demand", the MBIE said.

It said measures such as the proposed reform to the Resource Management Act would not be sufficient alone to "incentivise" additional investment.

MBIE estimated that a further $11-13 billion of investment (on top of the $30 billion) was thought necessary to make up the shortfall of supply within the next five to 10 years.

There was an opportunity to add increasing dwelling supply as a specific aim of the social housing reform programme.  Opportunities to develop other Crown land were also likely.

"The Crown holds extensive land holdings in well located urban areas, both HNZC properties and others, some of which has the potential to be developed to deliver more dwellings."

MBIE said large developments (1000-plus houses) of Crown land had "potential to attract large off-shore developers with extensive capital and expertise that would not otherwise invest in New Zealand".

Large-scale developments were the "most likely" means to overcome the majority of Auckland's dwelling shortfall inside 10 years, the MBIE paper said.

However it would require an "extensive work programme" to scope and implement and may require "bespoke legislation" and development of a "new managing entity".

MBIE said residential development of Crown land could be accelerated by enabling special planning powers for particular developments.

On the possibility of rate hikes on undeveloped land, the MBIE said "land bankers" could be targeted and this would likely bring land into development more quickly.

More feasible than CGT

There would be "many" details to iron out with such a plan, but the existing rates mechanism could be used. This, MBIE said, was likely to be "more feasible" than a capital gains tax.

Inflation-adjusted mortgages would allow home owners to spread the real cost of repayments over the life of the mortgage, reducing the cash costs of a mortgage in the early years and trading it of for higher nominal costs in later years.

This measure, MBIE, said would make mortgages more affordable, but could actually increase crease house prices as the effect was similar to a demand subsidy. Regulation already allowed for such mortgages but the market was not providing them, however, the Government could work with Kiwibank to introduce them, MBIE said.

In terms of funding infrastructure in Special Housing Areas (areas legally designated for fast-tracking of development), MBIE said the Government could establish a special fund to build infrastructure in "the highest yielding areas".

MBIE said that the impact was "potentially significant" as about 30% of the shortlisted Special Housing Area sites in Auckland had "large infrastructure issues".

"To the extent that some of these can be improved by providing more funding, we could significantly expand the set of developable land," MBIE said. It said it was "feasible" to set up such a fund, but would be "difficult" to get the governance structures and institutional settings right.

Migration curbs

On the suggestion of migration curbs, MBIE said this could be done by reducing the targeted levels of inbound migration, or directing migrants into ares with less pressure on housing markets.

Such a change would be "administratively simple", however, "wider economic considerations" could limit the feasibility for major change, MBIE said.

Longer term options raised in the MBIE paper included establishment of Urban Development Agencies, introduction of a mortgage interest levy and "capturing" land value increases to fund affordable housing.

Development agencies would involve a partnership between central and local government, with the agencies undertaking land aggregation, infrastructure provision and urban design and the developers then doing construction. This would, however, require legislation and funding and would take at least a year to establish.

Mortgage interest levy

The mortgage interest levy would be a tax on mortgage interest rates that could be lowered or raised depending on the extent to which the housing market was overheating relative to the rest of the economy. This would allow for more "precise control" over the housing market.

However, MBIE said, this would take a least nine months from a decision to proceed to enact legislation and there would be difficult governance and organisational incentive issues to work through.

On capturing land value increases resulting from a decision to rezone land, there were "various options" that could be applied either nationally, or regionally.

MBIE said such a plan would "reduce the arbitrary gains to private landholders from decisions to rezone". The plan may lead to some increases in house prices, but revenues could be used to fund low-cost housing.

However, this again would likely require legislation.

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

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.


On moves such as levying undeveloped land under rezoning and increased rates you have to ask why it has not been considered before now. I believe the UK had so-called betterment levies when I was there in late 1960s. They were very hard to avoid and while they initially slowed land release, the financial pressure of holding on eventually forced release.

In general the UK is a disaster from an affordable housing perspective. I wouldn't trust any practice coming from the UK. I would prefer we took lessons from, Singapore, Germany, Japan and parts of the US before we try to 'learn' anything from the UK.

You're correct Brendon of course, but the Govt. Departments (who are full of UK 'professionals') think the best place to learn anything is from those jurisdictions that are having the same problems, eg the UK, without thinking that maybe they have the same problems because they use the same systems.

The above comment was not a suggeston for NZ but while the UK is also a disaster,  like Auckland is here only London is extreme. Elsewhere immigration has spread unevenly and they have to cope with ethnic /religious desires like not allowing toilets to face the wrong way in relation to Mecca. Absolute stupidity. Their immigration is well out of control while ours at least can and should be constrained except for our own returning.

Auckland Council can go #$%^& themsleves . I refuse to pay them $1,0 million in exhorbitnat  Fees and levies and get jerked around by those idiots  to cut up and subdivide my property in Greenhithe .
I will continue to graze my sheep on the land as a matter of principle

I've noted a few times previously that the Government needs to manage the rolling 12 month net migration rate.  This is particulary pertinent as the majority of the inward migration goes to Auckland.  This is the only simple way supply and demand can be bought back into balance within a reasonable timeframe.  Even this would need to be done carefully so as not to cause a sudden slump and push houseowners into positions of -ve equity.  It would even be possible for the RBNZ to manage the maximum net inward migration rate as a macroprudential tool.

Actually negative equity can be managed and the lenders have just as much if not more responsibility for it. therefore while the RBNZ should act they should make it clear that the retail banks make available some of previous years excessive profits to repair any collateral damage if they want to continue having a licence to operate.

Your access to our unique content is free - always has been. But ad revenues are under pressure so we need your direct support.

Become a supporter

Thanks, I'm already a supporter.