|
You are subscribed as |
Unsubscribe
|
View online version
|
Forward to a friend
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Dr Benno Blaschke | Research Fellow | benno.blaschke@nzinitiative.org.nz | ||||||||||||
|
The housing target for Auckland shrank twice in mere weeks as central government searched for a politically acceptable number. But planning-by-numbers is part of the problem. Auckland met its housing capacity targets for years by claiming it had zoned enough land to accommodate population increases, but house prices kept climbing. Environment Court Judge Jackson compared the approach to “the Soviet model of setting aside X hectares for the production of pig iron.” Auckland’s Unitary Plan improved matters but falls short of where we need to be. During his New Zealand visit earlier this year, urbanist Alain Bertaud argued that forecasts baked into regulation straitjacket cities. When a forecast becomes a headline, it also becomes a political weapon. Minister Bishop’s own description of the two million figure as “a red herring that transformed into a lightning rod” proved Bertaud right. Price-based measures are a more effective approach. Instead of asking whether councils have planned for the “right” number of houses, ask whether people and businesses have real and affordable choices or are forced into bidding wars over scarce permissions, jacking up prices. A four-stage process can do this. First, calculate how many people the existing transport and utility networks can support. Make that capacity the minimum zoning floor. If infrastructure capacity exceeds already zoned capacity, zoning can be eased. If zoning exceeds that infrastructure capacity, infrastructure needs improvement. Second, map where buyers pay premiums for location alone, and compare that against zoning. That shows whether councils are allowing development where people want to be, or whether they are being pushed into low-demand areas. Third, divide land price by permitted floor space. When the rules limit land from desired use, land prices get high relative to floor space. Fourth, measure price 'cliffs' at zone boundaries and the urban-rural edge. Large differences mean the rules are too tight and that land is being rationed. An independent expert panel of urban economists should track these indicators using real sales data and overrule bad planning. Housing will always be political, but an expert panel would put a layer between communities and politicians so that decisions do not directly expose ministers. It would also shift the focus from headline numbers to the real question: Do the rules make our cities more affordable and productive? This approach would make housing debates calmer, more rational and conducive to delivering the housing outcomes New Zealand needs. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Dr Eric Crampton | Chief Economist | eric.crampton@nzinitiative.org.nz | ||||||||||||
|
Its measures should be proportionate to the risks being addressed, and cost-effective. Licensing should not be the primary tool for reducing every kind of harmful alcohol-related behaviour. It needs other policies targeted at specific harms. Without those, too much of the burden of harm reduction falls on local alcohol policies and licensing conditions. The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act does what it says on the tin. It regulates the sale and supply of alcohol, including through outlet licensing and the Local Alcohol Policy framework. The Government’s proposed amendments make modest improvements. Very low-risk activities, like providing a small drink as part of a hairdressing service, will no longer require a licence. It will be easier for non-wineries to run tasting rooms. Licence applicants will have a right of reply to objections, improving procedural fairness. But the bigger problem remains. Local alcohol policies and related licensing conditions are not particularly effective at targeting specific harms. Some current processes also allow official reporting agencies, like Police and Medical Officers of Health, to impose “voluntary” conditions on applicants such as prohibitions on the sale of single cans, restricted hours, or one-way door policies for bars – as the price of avoiding a contested licensing hearing. That process must change. Our submission suggested adding a proportionality and cost-effectiveness principle to the Act. Measures taken under the Act should be used only where they are a cost-effective way of addressing harms, and only where expected benefits exceed the costs, including costs imposed on lighter drinkers and their suppliers. Applicants should also have a right of reply to official reports. We also noted complementary measures, outside the Act, that are better targeted at substantial harms. For example, South Dakota targets repeat alcohol-related offending through monitored no-alcohol conditions. Participants must avoid drinking and are tested frequently; violations bring swift but modest sanctions, typically a night or two in the cells. RAND’s evaluations found reductions in repeat drink-driving arrests and domestic-violence arrests. New Zealand could trial a similar model and, if it works here, adopt it. Abstinence is up and hazardous drinking is down. A licensing regime focused on responsible sale and supply, complemented by separate measures targeting specific harms, would work better than asking licensing to do everything. Dr Eric Crampton's submission, Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Improving Alcohol Regulation) Amendment Bill, was lodged on 14 May 2026. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Henry Olsen | Research Analyst | henry.olsen@nzinitiative.org.nz | ||||||||||||
|
Similarly, politicians lacking public support are wary of the electoral meatgrinder that awaits them. Unfortunately, when politicians try to course correct and avoid misfortune, they risk exposing both their pride and their prejudice. For just these past few weeks, two petty dramas have unfolded that would strike even Jane Austen as unrealistic. The first drama began when New Zealand First released emails to the press without first consulting the Prime Minister’s office. They showed that Luxon wanted to support the US-Iran war but declined such a move when Winston Peters’ Foreign Office objected. New Zealand First initially denied any wrongdoing but ultimately categorised the release as a “process mistake.” National declared the release grave indeed and put forward a portentous warning. Like Austen’s Lydia Bennet, who foolishly ran away with a disreputable man and endangered the hard-fought position of the Bennet family, New Zealand First might abscond into the arms of the Opposition come election time. For now, New Zealand First, with its independent disposition and an inclination to read coalition agreements as binding chiefly on others, appears less like Lydia and more like Lady Catherine de Bourgh, Austen's imperious grande dame. And National, for their part, plays the role of Mr Darcy: well-resourced, cheekily boastful, and aghast at an electorate ungrateful for the privilege of its attention. Labour may laugh at this coalition in distress. But like Mrs Bennet, who delights in the misfortunes of marriages better than her own, Labour has discovered its own Lydia problem. I speak of our second drama: Toaster-gate. A former Labour staffer was caught posting memes of Luxon and Minister Willis popping out of a toaster, as well as out of other things too salacious to mention. Originally, Labour denied any connection to the staffer’s anonymous account. However, the toaster was identified as residing in the Opposition wing of Parliament. Labour eventually admitted to having hired the runaway meme lord. The electorate, being the only one with a modicum of sense and sensibility, is akin to Austen’s anti-hero Elizabeth Bennet. After many mediocre marriage proposals, the public has long since learned to distinguish the parties whose pride invites correction from the parties whose pride invites only more pride. Since our parties are of the latter sort, polling indicates a tight race between the Coalition and the Opposition. Elections seem but a quick succession of busy nothings. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| On The Record | ||||||||||||
Initiative Activities:
To listen to our latest podcasts, please subscribe to The New Zealand Initiative podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or The Podcast App. |
||||||||||||
| All Things Considered | ||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
Unsubscribe me please |
|
Brought to you by outreachcrm |