Reader, when I write these columns, I find it very challenging just to keep up with the developing circumstances, the consequential information, while also turning everything over in order to form, one hopes, a coherent-ish thought on it. I liken it to watching amateur kite surfing. Reflecting on Housing Minister Chris Bishop’s announcement of the coalition government’s ‘Going for Housing Growth’ policy and housing approach, it is no different.¹ Some of the approach is not, I guess, surprising; still, how these new policies unfold over the next few years will take the country either forward or backward in addressing the housing crisis.

The announcement, from an initial reading, demonstrates that solutions require a high-level national agenda. The housing crisis is more pronounced in certain cities but affects the entire country and demands widespread attention. However, the new mandates’ implementation will fall largely on local governments, where the challenge is likely to be most complex.

Minister Bishop frames the need to prioritise housing solutions with three main arguments: boosting the economy, saving government money and addressing moral concerns. While these points might seem obvious, a recap is useful.

Addressing the housing crisis unlocks human capital, enhancing productivity and quality of life — a perspective I understand, though, personally, I dislike such terms.

Secondly, reducing government spending on housing assistance — $5 billion last year alone — suggests significant taxpayer savings. This raises questions about the political dimensions embedded in the ways in which the announcement frames the housing issue, the government’s response, and the type of accountability the government will face when the results of these reforms become apparent.

Lastly, the moral argument centres on intergenerational equity, highlighting the issue’s transcendence of class boundaries as it now affects middle to upper classes. The thing is that there has been great advancement in so many human endeavours that, if progress cannot, conceptually, bring us to approach housing as a human right, then what is all the technological advancement for?

This prioritisation of housing, driven by economic and moral imperatives, is, for me, troubling. Yet, regardless of values and beliefs, these points underscore the urgency of addressing the crisis. And, fan or not, I would have argued similarly, perhaps not in that order or with that framing but with the same intention, to make the case that investment in housing equity is not only for those who experience housing deprivation but, rather, it is for all.

I digress. The government’s strategy appears to focus on land use adjustments and incentivising supply, which could be seen as a series of smaller-scale measures rather than a broader, cohesive plan. While these adjustments might seem incremental in nature, they may well collectively achieve more than their individual parts. It remains to be seen how effectively these measures will contribute to the necessary improvements in housing affordability, security, quality and supply.

Fixing housing uses five interlocking puzzle pieces: a ‘Going for Housing Growth’ policy piece, improving the rental market for both landlords and tenants, improving competition in the construction sector to deliver lower building costs, better social housing to support those experiencing housing deprivation, and reforming the Resource Management Act.

The ‘Going for Housing Growth’ policy includes a three-pronged approach to land use: freeing up land for development at urban fringes, enabling intensification through liberalisation and deregulation, and promoting mixed-use developments. Local authorities must meet development targets, allow urban fringe development, and further intensify urban areas near businesses, services and transport. Of note, councils will be encouraged to entice developments in meeting their targets. This, one can only guess, may put those authorities between a rock and a hard place, considering the cost of greenfield development infrastructure. Councils can also opt out of the Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS), further liberalising housing density. This may well be welcome, but one does wonder what these replacement mandates achieve.

Despite these efforts, which will require local authorities to enact, the announcement critiques urban planning, suggesting that cities should reflect the ways people want to live, not planners’ tidy-minded designs. As someone working with urban planners, I question this wisdom. Urbanisation is a relatively new phenomenon and urban planners, with their specialised training, contribute valuable insights to contemporary developments. Underestimating their role in shaping the built environment is unwise.

Nestled amongst the changes is the abolition of minimum floor and balcony requirements; this aims to reduce development costs and could lead to more shoebox apartments. While these measures might increase housing supply, they risk compromising housing quality, en masse. The refrain that a shoebox apartment is better than a car or an emergency motel highlights a concerning shift towards profit-driven housing outcomes.

As I navigate this recent housing announcement, I am concerned, dear reader, that we are entering into a moment of housing supply that is regressive. Still, I remain hopeful that growth will not come at the cost of people’s well-being. Though I might order the reasons for addressing housing differently, this difference does not preclude working towards the same goal: better housing outcomes for generations to come. As we drive for growth, we can prioritise both quantity and quality in housing.

Reference

^{1. Chris Bishop, ‘Going for Housing Growth speech’, 4 July 2024.}