Government will fund buyout of 700 flood risk homes

Public Policy / news

Central government will help fund local councils to buy homes in high flood risk areas hit by cyclones and floods

1st Jun 23, 12:06pm by Dan Brunskill

The Government will provide funding for councils in cyclone and flood affected regions to offer voluntary buyouts of homes in high risk areas.

Councils will offer to buy residential properties designated as being in Category 3, meaning areas where future weather risks cannot be mitigated.

Category 3 refers to high risk areas considered not safe to live in because of a high risk of future flooding and loss of life.

The cost of these purchases will be shared between central and local governments.

Grant Robertson, Minister of Finance and Cyclone Recovery, said the valuation criteria for affected properties would be decided in the coming weeks.

“The facilitation work that the cyclone taskforce has been engaged in to undertake risk assessments has been completed. From here the councils will lead engagement with their affected property-owners.

Details such as how the costs would be split and how to treat uninsured properties are also yet to be made.

“The focus of today is on residential properties. We are working with sectors, such as the horticulture sector on possible targeted support for commercial operators, and on regional plans that will provide overall support for recovery and rebuild,” he said in a press release.

The Government will also help councils fund flood protection and other resilience measures for properties which fall into Category 2, where severe weather risks can be managed.

Michael Wood, Associate Finance Minister, said councils in Hawke’s Bay had made indicative assessments of which properties are in Categories 2 and 3.

“Our understanding is Auckland Council will be talking to property owners from June 12 and Tairāwhiti has already begun contact with property owners in Category 3, with the remainder to be finalised over coming weeks,” he said.

Initial estimates suggest there will be about 700 Category 3 properties and up to 10,000 homes in Category 2 areas. This includes affected properties in Northland and Wairarapa which are also eligible for support.

Robertson said there was no precedent for the response required but climate change was likely to cause more similar events in the future. The initial support for what's being announced on Thursday is already in place with $100 million initial funding announced in Budget 2023, he says.

“As a Government we have to strike a careful fiscal balance between supporting affected communities and not making all taxpayers bear the cost. But the affected communities can be assured we are committed to making this approach work.”

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.

78 Comments

by kiwikidsnz | 1st Jun 23, 12:17pm 1685578642

Another NZ Government that has no conceptual understanding of the term "moral hazard". Not that National is any different after the ChCh earthquake buyouts of the un/underinsured & South Canterbury Finance.

The thin end of the wedge for future "Climate Change" mandatory buyouts of billionaires clifftop properties.

by makechange | 1st Jun 23, 12:26pm 1685579199

Socialising losses and privatising benefits. Gross 🤢

by Kate | 1st Jun 23, 1:00pm 1685581208

I think there is a more equitable way - see a proposed formula below.

by ChrisOfNoFame | 1st Jun 23, 1:05pm 1685581547

The owners of " billionaires clifftop properties" can't claim they didn't know that their properties were going to be slowly eroded away. They may be able to argue it is going to happen faster thanks to climate change but it was always going to happen. Their investment in such a property is a perfect example of relying on the 'greater fool theory'.

by Te Kooti | 1st Jun 23, 2:38pm 1685587080

The cimate has always changed, how do you think cliffs and beaches came into being??? The "protect everyone" mentality is incredible, if you are on a flood plain or cliff or waterfront then you should get $0. I'm all for maintaining access to properties, keeping roads viable. Beachfront and cliffs have always been a risk and the taxpayer should not underwrite preserving this amenity.

by Kate | 1st Jun 23, 3:43pm 1685591039

I'm all for maintaining access to properties, keeping roads viable.

It gets a bit more complex than that. To gets students thinking on this, I use Eastbourne in Lower Hutt as an example. One coast road at sea-level in and out - that's it. Who should pay to keep this road viable as sea-level rises? Here's the short-version, case study (stats are a couple of years old now, but you'll get the idea):

- There is only one way in and out of Eastbourne, a suburb of Lower Hutt City. This access is via a coastal road.

- Eastbourne has a population of 4,665 out of Lower Hutt’s total population of 105,900.

- In Eastbourne, 43.6% of people aged 15 years and over held a bachelor's degree or higher, compared with 21.1% for Lower Hutt City as a whole.

- In Eastbourne, 44.1% of people aged 15 years and over have an annual income of more than $50,000, compared with 29.8% for Lower Hutt City as a whole.

- In Eastbourne, 82.2% of households own the dwelling they live in, compared with 66.2% for Lower Hutt City as a whole.

- In 2017, the median sell price for properties in Eastbourne was $750,000, compared with $520,000 for Lower Hutt City as a whole.

by Te Kooti | 1st Jun 23, 7:08pm 1685603290

I’m comfortable the State keeps access viable in those circumstances. That is an established community. Also to clarify, I do have some sympathy for Gabrielle as the slash caused the flooding damage and that should never have allowed to occur.

by kiwikidsnz | 1st Jun 23, 7:29pm 1685604542

Blame the Greens who stopped the slash being burned as it always used to be until a decade or so ago - in a just world we'd send them the invoice.

by powerdownkiwi | 2nd Jun 23, 7:39am 1685648348

Bollocks to both comments.

The 'slash' is the unmitigated result of offloading 'costs' - the standard business model.

Many of those complaining, are the same ones who welcomed forestry jobs, and who wanted paid from same.

But if forestry was really sustainable, dealt with it's waste-stream properly BEFORE divvying up profit (and wages) there would be little or no wages/payout. So it isn't done; both parties want the cash. Then one complains when it bites them in the bum.

by interesting1234 | 2nd Jun 23, 8:16am 1685650563

The 'slash' is the unmitigated result of offloading 'costs' - the standard business model.

Also thanks to worksafe and H&S regulations, the owners of the land would get fined into oblivion if joe bloggs walks onto the harvested forest and cuts up some slash for firewood. This is such a chronic wastage in my view.

by powerdownkiwi | 1st Jun 23, 5:05pm 1685595928

TK - no to your denial, yes to the rest. This is a road which - predictably - ends with the Alpine Fault; too many stuffed; not enough to fund.

by chebbo | 1st Jun 23, 12:17pm 1685578660

And there it is, the inevitable insurance sector bailout.

by FCM | 1st Jun 23, 12:20pm 1685578830

wonder what price...and will they only cover a certain Sq m for the land like EQC..think it is capped at 300k i thought? Someone may know this.

by chebbo | 1st Jun 23, 12:25pm 1685579117

Robertson just said pre-cyclone fair market value at the presser.

by Kate | 1st Jun 23, 1:20pm 1685582428

A serious mistake to my mind - the 'market' (i.e., house prices, RVs, etc.) have become wildly inflated - so to my mind, we have no fair market value here. We have a bunch of unrealised capital gains that have been allowed to be used in a speculative manner in the housing market. I really don't think we should compensate for unrealised capital gains. We need to look at what price was paid for the property by the current owner and come up with a formula that ensures no one ends up with an unpayable mortgage debt.

See my proposed formula below.

by powerdownkiwi | 1st Jun 23, 5:08pm 1685596132

Well said Kate. Otherwise cliff-top elite just have to sell each other houses, bump the prices in their zero-sum game, and claim it from everyone else.

Nuts.

by makechange | 1st Jun 23, 12:20pm 1685578832

As a taxpayer, this socialisation of risks is difficult to accept, especially since the risks have been understood, mapped and publicly available for decades.

And on the horticulture front - are the landowners going to be required to accept a socialisation of their profits too? People who grow things understand climate better than most.

Can someone tell me why those who are flying by the seat of their pants and taking profit and benefit should be bailed out?

by FCM | 1st Jun 23, 12:29pm 1685579367

Because we are turning into a no consequence society...you know where you don't need to do your census, and then you will get paid to do it by way of free tickets and meal on the government. We just put it on tick like everything else nowadays

by Beanie | 1st Jun 23, 3:09pm 1685588998

So climate change is getting the blame. Maybe we should first inquire into the carbon footprint of the lifestyle of people with their hand out.

by Beanie | 1st Jun 23, 3:24pm 1685589846

The Otago township of Kelso was relocated in the 80s after repeated flooding. Does anyone know if any compensation was paid out then?

by powerdownkiwi | 1st Jun 23, 5:15pm 1685596540

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/grantham-reborn-me…

by Northlander09 | 1st Jun 23, 12:57pm 1685581075

Also, why are some bailed out but others are not. There are plenty of houses in Muriwai in the same boat but due to landslides, will this extend to those people also? What about people who live in a coastal erosion zone and are about to loose their homes in the next few years?

by Kate | 1st Jun 23, 1:09pm 1685581773

It most certainly should apply to houses demolished by landslide - and re-building in that same location (no matter what the proposed mitigation of the hillside) should likely not be an option. Coastal erosion is a different thing - in most cases a slow, creeping hazard. If a property at sea-level on the coast was inundated by the sea and demolished in the process by the cyclone, fair enough, they should be included in the compensation scheme should they want to voluntarily leave the property behind. And again, no re-build.

by Northlander09 | 1st Jun 23, 2:22pm 1685586125

So by that logic people should be able to buy a waterfront house, reap the benefits of sea views and access until a storm inevitably hits, then get bailed out by the taxpayer and move somewhere else?

Sounds great sign me up! Thanks tax payers!

by Kate | 1st Jun 23, 3:46pm 1685591161

Nope. See my formula below.

by Northlander09 | 1st Jun 23, 4:22pm 1685593378

Your formular below seems to cover this. Say I purchase today and hold for 5 years.

$4,500,000 for a beautiful beachfront Mount Maunganui (Price paid for the asset) + $500,000 new boat shed (value of all improvements requiring building consent over the life of the property) + likely 5% on average over the next 5 years the way things are going (annual rate of inflation over the years of ownership) = maximum compensation possible

$5,000,000 * 5% per year for 5 years = $6,250,000 (simplified)

(Maximum compensation possible) - $0 as couldnt get insurance as it is in a high risk area (value of private insurance assessment) - $0 as EQC wouldnt cover coastal erosion (value of EQC assessment) = publicly funded compensation.

= $6,250,000 straight in my pocket woohoo

Is that right? Sorry not a mathmitician help me out here.

by Kate | 1st Jun 23, 5:49pm 1685598580

Yep (figures look right), but nope to a bailout by the taxpayer. Someone mentioned that below and it could be solved by mandatory insurance to be held by the property title holder. Needs working out, but an example in the US is, you can't buy a car without proof of insurance. Sure folks might get insurance and then get rid of it, but one could write regulation that would prevent such - something like no insurance, no government bail out for repair or retreat.

I don't see anything wrong with self-insuring, and if you have no mortgage and own the property outright, well that's your own risk profile/decision.

by interesting1234 | 2nd Jun 23, 8:19am 1685650771

That could also be in the regulations/legislation around must have been insured for the entirety of the ownership period pre-natural disaster and must still be able to be insured at time of natural disaster. Humans love to take risks and cheat the system then cry foul when they don't get what they want.

by Northlander09 | 1st Jun 23, 2:17pm 1685585820

Ha - very interested to see how people view this. Maybe people who have purchased in the last 2 years and are now struggling with debt will also get a bail out? I don't see any difference between the two, other than one is a natural hazard, the other is financial.

by Squishy | 1st Jun 23, 12:35pm 1685579727

Just can't stop bailing out homeowners can we? It's the investment that can never fail.

by JRSNZ | 1st Jun 23, 12:44pm 1685580246

Socialised losses make me very uneasy.

by Homer | 1st Jun 23, 6:52pm 1685602323

From those according to their ability to those according to their need, or something similar !

by DDH | 1st Jun 23, 12:58pm 1685581090

I too don't like the fact that these people that purchased knowing the risks will get a bail out.

The problem here is council's allowing that land to be built on in the first place and then generating revenue from that decision.

In some ways it feels like they're getting ahead of this by controlling how much they'll have to pay in conjunction with each other.

I'm certain that this ends up with both sides crying and the best we can hope for is that lessons are learnt before the same kind of land gets approved for development again. If Nationals plan to increase sprawl goes ahead, this would be a near certainty.

by Kate | 1st Jun 23, 4:14pm 1685592890

Welcome news - but my goodness, the detail is needed around valuation methodology (e.g., are unrealised capital gains paid out), formula (e.g., where there is insurance and EQC payable), how/whether tenant losses will be covered, etc. etc.

The $100m in the budget is a cart before the horse. And is it a capped envelope for events-to-date?

Huge policy issues here that don't seem to have been worked out. Even a draft proposal would be better than nothing - at least the tax and ratepaying public could be given the chance to comment in a quick-fire type public consultation.

For example, a payout formula along the lines of:

(Price paid for the asset) + (value of all improvements requiring building consent over the years of ownership) + (annual rate of inflation over the years of ownership) = maximum compensation possible

(Maximum compensation possible) - (value of private insurance assessment) - (value of EQC assessment) = publicly funded compensation.

Granted lots of things to be considered in that to determine whether it is equitable or not - but it's a conversation that the more minds that come together on, the better.

And, it should be a conversation that started right after the events occurred. And moreover, central government might have $100m budgeted, but that's not the way local governments work. They do not write budget deficits - they have to write a balanced budget (outgoings equal incomings) and set rates accordingly. So, just how they are going to be able to fund/accommodate any compensation 'split' is another huge issue, which might need LGA amendment to implement.

So many questions :-)!

by ChrisOfNoFame | 1st Jun 23, 1:11pm 1685581916

A taking it one step further ... Why not codify this into law for all types of disasters? It would stop knee-jerking and politicisation. It would also bring clarity to insurance claims. (I'm sure we used to have something akin to ... Can't think what it was called.)

by Kate | 1st Jun 23, 1:15pm 1685582119

Exactly - and that law it needs to be codified in is what the Labour government are calling 'managed retreat' under the Climate Adaptation and Managed Retreat legislation. Part of the RMA reform programme. They should have wirtten this Bill/Act first - given we've had the Christchurch experience to use as a case study... minds should have got onto the issue years and years ago.

by interesting1234 | 1st Jun 23, 2:47pm 1685587669

I agree with your formula Kate, but the main issue I see for this is that the government is setting legal precedent on the matter and opening the floodgates for insurers to take advantage of the taxpayer in future mass weather events e.g they could just decline more claims as it would be cheaper paying the court fees than paying out and they would have more likelihood of winning because: We can all already see the court cases when most homeowners, despite getting offered a well over inflated buyout price, take the govt to court claiming their house was worth more, or the improvement value was more. All of this winds up in case law which can be used for future exploitation and will cost the taxpayer even more by funding the legal defence.

That and the matter you mention of local govt having to have a balanced budget. Why should those who didn;t build in flood-prone valleys have to pay more for those that did?

by Kate | 1st Jun 23, 4:00pm 1685592058

Why should those who didn;t build in flood-prone valleys have to pay more for those that did?

I think you have to revise that to say "those who didn't build or purchase..." and it's not just flood-prone valleys; Buildings on steep slopes is likely a greater number.

In answer, where flood-prone is concerned in many case I have been involved in - a property when built or purchased was not 'flagged' as being flood-prone (that regulatory identification has happened since the builder/purchaser came into ownership of the asset). And moreover, many no flood-prone homes have become flood-prone due to new development in the general vicinity, or upstream of their properties. One person I spoke to had lived in her house for 50 years - never flooded until 4 years ago, and has had 3 floods (and 3 insurance claims) in these past four years. It is looking like she will be denied insurance cover in future - so is that her fault? The place never flooded when she and her husband (now passed) built it. She has a stormwater runoff problem (the existing stream's capacity cannot take all the additional volume due to new subdivisions upsteam having been built on previous undeveloped peat land (which had served as a natural sink).

My point is - this issue is quite nuanced and complex. Like you, precedents concern me.

by interesting1234 | 2nd Jun 23, 8:23am 1685651035

Interesting case, and a prime example of how new developments are far more complex and need far more consideration before councils give them the go ahead given the potential impacts elsewhere. In Edinburgh no new greenfield development gets the go ahead unless there is a viable plan for integration of public transport, with modeling done for the traffic and travel times across the rest of the major junctions in the city due to flow on effects. Naturally this means not many go ahead and the rate of progress is slow, but a good example of how proper planning done right the first time saves so much cost and pain down the line.

by Kate | 2nd Jun 23, 10:26am 1685658406

Planning done right the first time. Yes! As we are finding, re-engineering planning mistakes (and to be honest many of these mistakes are not made by planners, but independent hearings commissioners and the judicial system more generally) is costly, and in many cases near impossible to rectify.

I don't know for sure, but I get the feeling that our planning produced better outcomes prior to the RMA. Much of European planning laws look more like out Town and Country Planning Act (the RMA predecessor).

by Beanie | 1st Jun 23, 3:14pm 1685589260

With your formula Kate there is no penalty for not buying insurance..so why bother?

by Kate | 1st Jun 23, 5:50pm 1685598650

Good point. We could make insurance cover mandatory for all homeowners (i.e., land title holders). We know who these folks are as they are posted rates bills to the owner address. A mechanism for proof of insurance could be incorporated somehow into a LG process/responsibility.

As I point out - the regulatory (i.e., law making) considerations for this type of compensation scheme have wider implications than just the compensation scheme itself.

by Beanie | 1st Jun 23, 4:39pm 1685594351

Why should I be forced to buy insurance if I am happy to take the risk myself. In our case the risk of a catastrophe is so very low that we self insure.

I think the government should stay right out of it. There is a functional insurance industry in NZ, so people can choose to insure or not. It will become a false economy to buy a cheaper flood prone property as the insurance premiums rise accordingly. To save money on a property purchase because it could be flood or slip prone and then hold your hand out to the taxpayer is just wrong.

by Kate | 1st Jun 23, 5:53pm 1685598810

Why should I be forced to buy insurance if I am happy to take the risk myself. In our case the risk of a catastrophe is so very low that we self insure.

As mentioned to a poster above, you should be able to self-insure - in which case you don't qualify for any government assistance. Mandatory for those who have mortgages - as the banks make it mandatory (I believe) but not sure if they keep tabs on whether folks renew or not.

by Beanie | 1st Jun 23, 8:20pm 1685607606

Well if you think that through, any under-insurance is partial self-insurance. You are opening a can of worms with your formula.

by Kate | 1st Jun 23, 8:38pm 1685608721

Yes, can of worms, but a necessary one to tackle.

by Beanie | 1st Jun 23, 9:04pm 1685610241

Why is it any more necessary than other occasions where people have lost everything in an uninsured catastrophe and the government hasn't stepped in? We are setting precedents here with moral hazard and other unintended consequences.

by Kate | 1st Jun 23, 10:13pm 1685614435

The government has yet to make a decision on the uninsured properties. My understanding was that in CHCH, as the land was red-zoned (no re-build, no repair, no reticulated services going forward), those uninsured were paid out. And yes, there is a great deal of moral hazard in that, so yes, that needs to be re-thought. To my mind, it is particularly tragic if an uninsured property owner also has a mortgage. So all kinds of different circumstances, with potentially different responses.

The reason we have to deal with it is that in many cases, new/adjacent development has created the hazard on an otherwise hazard-free property - for example a property flooding due to new subdivision/development in the surrounding area. The new subdivision has been infilled to new floor level requirements, and the existing low-lying home(s) down the road built 50+ years ago take all the run-off. The subdivided land in its undeveloped state served as the stormwater sink in the past.

My guess is, probably 25% of properties now mapped as in a hazard zone have only been mapped as such for 5-10 years. Many existing owners purchased before these new hazard designations were investigated and assigned.

EQC exists (I assume) because near everywhere in NZ could become subject to a EQ event. Such is becoming the case for flood events.

All kinds of complex issues.

by kiwikidsnz | 1st Jun 23, 10:30pm 1685615450

You made a good point about the mortgages - having no recourse mortgages as eg USA would be a useful start. I've also commented on these a few times before as forcing banks to have their own skin in their lending policies would tend to restrain their excesses.

by Kate | 1st Jun 23, 11:00pm 1685617200

Another really good point of a regulatory change that would go someway to solve this problem - quite interesting as on first blush that might see lenders (instead of planners) taking on the lead role in terms of 'managed retreat' - i.e., the likely result would be, no new mortgages in areas of high risk.

All the more reason however, that we need to get real about what high risk is. In many cases, extreme scenarios are being applied to the identification - and mapping - of hazards by local authorities;

https://www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/121439/sean-rush-katharine-moo…

And central government is a leading culprit in this - seems they are happy with over-egging things and insurers are happy to raise premiums over wide swathes of property in NZ accordingly - bearing in mind they write one-year coverage contracts. So should they be allowed to raise a risk-based premium on a potential event projected 50-100 years out? I think not. .

by Beanie | 1st Jun 23, 11:24pm 1685618647

Fair points and observations made Kate.

by imhenry | 2nd Jun 23, 7:37am 1685648234

Yes what happened to the Principle of Buyer Beware.

by tuisbest | 2nd Jun 23, 1:20pm 1685668853

How about getting the money from a levy on homeowners? Expecting those who rent (specifically those who are too poor to afford a house, but too hardworking to be handed one for free) to contribute tax money to bail out homeowners sounds pretty rich to me.

by Kate | 2nd Jun 23, 5:09pm 1685682567

No doubt that will be a point made by central government when negotiating the 'split' with local government. Local government collects tax only from homeowners, not renters.

If a levy were to be applied (which is the EQC model) - invoiced with rates would be the place to do it.

by tuisbest | 2nd Jun 23, 7:39pm 1685691548

Thanks, Kate. Those are good points.

by WestieAJ | 1st Jun 23, 1:08pm 1685581688

Vested interest greed led houses to be built where houses should not have been built. Many of those decisions were made recently enough to be considered a nano second in the life cycle of the earth. I.E. this risks were well known. The risks were ignored. Profits were made and fees were earned and know we are all on the hook to pay for it.

by rastus1 | 1st Jun 23, 1:27pm 1685582834

Another attempt to save the housing market.

The public carrying the cost of govt and council employed fools.

by hum | 1st Jun 23, 1:56pm 1685584593

Wow ... I don't feel too good about paying so much taxes now. Revolting.

by IT GUY | 1st Jun 23, 1:57pm 1685584666

To be fair.... Many of the Esk Valley houses are not flash mansions, many would not even make healthy home requirements.

The bigger issue is the loss of value of the 10-20,000 in zones 2 none of these people will be able to sell for pre cyclone valuations, most will be underwater.... opps too soon.

by hum | 1st Jun 23, 2:00pm 1685584835

RIP the renters paying 33% tax rate paying someone else property.

by donny11 | 1st Jun 23, 2:09pm 1685585349

by hum | 1st Jun 23, 2:21pm 1685586071

Will houses in flood zones sell at premium now that we know the govt will bail them out?

Free insurance.

by iliketobike | 1st Jun 23, 3:17pm 1685589422

100,000,000 / 700 homes = $142,857 each.

by Kate | 1st Jun 23, 5:54pm 1685598850

Yep, big underestimate I suspect.

by whakahokia mai | 1st Jun 23, 6:16pm 1685600198

Not quite. 1,000,000,000 / 700 houses = $1,428,570 each.

by Kate | 1st Jun 23, 6:54pm 1685602461

$100 million initial funding announced in Budget 2023

So the initial central government funding has increased 10-fold in a newly announced $1b estimate (that's what I heard on the news anyway)?

by interesting1234 | 2nd Jun 23, 8:27am 1685651253

Who wants to do the inflation dance with me?

by Final Account | 1st Jun 23, 3:33pm 1685590408

Just so everyone can be reassured, this money won't be going to homeowners.

by powerdownkiwi | 1st Jun 23, 6:00pm 1685599230

FA - reassured. I like it; great pun.

by stefanblaise | 1st Jun 23, 4:00pm 1685592032

I'll be doing whatever I can to legally separate my wealth from this governments attempts to redistribute it. In the meantime, I'll be happy to get my hands dirty helping any neighbour that is in distress.

by Zachary Smith | 1st Jun 23, 5:08pm 1685596124

Gosh many of the people making comments are so mean.

What the government and councils should do, and what I think will happen, is purchase flood prone homes in order to build large drainage systems. In some cases the destruction of several homes will mean other homes nearby will no longer be flood prone.

by powerdownkiwi | 1st Jun 23, 5:24pm 1685597074

What it SHOULD do, is put an immediate stop to immigration.

Houses are for people - and there many, many more in the fleet of houses 'threatened' in NZ.

Let's sort that out for those who are already here, rather than intensifying the problem.

But no - we need growth, don't you know. Er, what got us into this Polycrisis?

by Minor Kemp | 1st Jun 23, 8:17pm 1685607432

Yes immigration is a problem, but there are other more important things to tackle first like:

The housing crisis

Total carbon emissions

Creaking infrastructure

Low productivity

Low wages

Economic/ethnic/cultural inequalities

Debt (private and public)

Lack of savings

The list goes on... Once all those are solved then we can worry about looking at fixing immigration. /sarc

by powerdownkiwi | 2nd Jun 23, 7:43am 1685648585

I'll play that with a straight bat: all that list are easier addressed, with less population.

by interesting1234 | 2nd Jun 23, 8:31am 1685651471

There will be a large decrease in population as the baby boomers slowly pop off. We are currently dealing with a mass retirement and they still need homes to live in, and we need to fill the gap of these jobs that are lost also. Many will step up to take then and this will create more jobs down the ladder that need filling to keep society functioning lest we lose large swathes of functional and productive businesses. Look at the projections to 60% of GP's projected to return in the next decade, of which the loss will have a huge impact on society when we have a large generation needing them more than ever. The only way to solve this is immigration or somehow incentivising the youth to stay in NZ, but with a highly mobile world today and much to offer overseas, this isn't an easy task.

by HellToupee | 3rd Jun 23, 12:42pm 1685752940

We are using immigration to prevent conditions improving that would keep more of our youth here, nor is it a solution as they get old to and also have elderly of their own to support.

by ACB | 2nd Jun 23, 4:37pm 1685680663

But arguably, immigration at the highest rates in the OECD has caused or been a major factor in:

The housing crisis

Creaking infrastructure

Low productivity

Low wages

by nigelh | 1st Jun 23, 6:17pm 1685600272

Its election year. Throwing out a sop. Once the issues (devil is in the detail) its likely to be dropped or so tight that only a few will benefit.