This is horrifying

[Hat tip Charted Daily]

Grocer barriers

"There are already too many reasons for international supermarket chains to decide our small set of islands far from everywhere are not worth bothering about.

"If an international grocer wanted to set up shop here, land use planning would be a substantial barrier. ... [I]t has taken Woolworths four years to get planning permission for a supermarket in Halswell. Could a new entrant navigate across dozens of councils’ systems when even experienced incumbents have a rough time? ...

"My column ...made the case for a fast-track system for new supermarket entry. ... The government ought to be keen on making sure that kind of entry is possible. ...

"And government definitely should not be doing things that would make New Zealand seem risky, unpredictable, and generally hostile to retailers. ... [The] Grocery Commissioner van Heerden [says] that international food price comparisons that adjust for GST are ‘a bit sort of sneaky.’ ... The Grocery Commissioner’s draft review of the grocery supply code is more worrying. ...

"I still hope the government sets fast-track planning approval for new supermarket entry. But unpredictable regulations give potential entrants one more reason to give New Zealand a miss."

~ Eric Crampton from his column 'The obstacles in place for any new supermarket player'

RMA REPLACEMENT: The good, the bad, and the cattle

Chris Bishop has finally announced his chosen groups' recommendations to replace the RMA.

There's a lot to think through, so here are my first thoughts on their recommendations ...

The good (or not-so bad)

• Property rights gets precisely zero mentions in the RMA, and even less recognition. Here in this report however its gets exactly 25 mentions — a decent number — the first appearing almost as point one, after talking about how the two new Acts would be split up, and even before a section on Te Tiriti [Contents]

• That same hierarchy appears to be reflected in the "Goals." Remembering in law that earlier stated paragraphs/sections/clauses take priority over those stated later, the hierarchy given here is: property rights > separation of incompatible land uses > well-functioning urban and rural areas .> development capacity > infrastructure > natural hazards and the effects of climate change > public access > Māori cultural matters. So if property rights were well-defined and well-protected, that might be sufficient. But see below for the devil ...
• The two replacement Acts (one for environment, one for central planning) are said to "both ... be based on the enjoyment of property rights" [emphasis in the original]. This is stated as "the guiding principle." Good.
• "Both Acts," says the recommendations, "will include starting presumptions that a land use is enabled, unless there are minor or more than minor effects on either the ability of others to use their own land." Good. The devil, of course, is in the detail of how those "effects" are defined, and by whom.
• The RMA was said to be "effects-based," and so are these two replacements. So prepare to be underwhelmed. Yet whereas the RMA looked at ill-defined and undefinable "effects" like "amenity values," "natural character" and "such as the architectural style or colour of a neighbour’s house," this seems to be somewhat more objective. Somewhat. (The problem here being these "externalities" that they talk about, about which see more below. And the all-but certain prospect of regulatory creep to protect "heritage" suburbs and areas of particular "character.")
• "Better recognising property rights," says the recommendations, "requires a more certain regulatory environment so people can know as far as possible what they can and can’t do with their land." The intention is good. 
• It looks like long-existing activities to which new neighbours chose to come (such as speedway at Western Springs, for example) will now be protected. "That is, those that come to the nuisance should not be able to complain about it." Great news, if that's properly done.
• Providing a low-cost tribunal to whom to object to a council's decision is good. (But may not stay low-cost.) And providing "for rapid, low-cost resolution of disputes between neighbours" also sounds good. And that's all that we do need. Maybe a kind of "Disputes Tribunal" or "Small-Consents Tribunal" staffed by experienced part-timers to adjudicate simple no-bullshit disputes about rights to light, to air, to support and so forth based on earlier precedent. In other words, much like an early common-law court ...

The bad (or not-so good)

• The so-called "Expert Advisory Group" delivering these recommendations was established only in September 2024, and given only three months until Christmas to do their job — giving, as they themselves say, only a "short time ... for what is a very substantial task." Given that National in both government and opposition have been talking about "reform" for decades, it seems almost impossible to believe that's when this work first began. And yet, there's no hint from either Bishop or Simon Court (his ACT associate) of any earlier thinking around this. Which would be incredible, right?
• So no wonder "Further detailed policy work will [still] be needed to fully develop our proposals and address outstanding issues and areas of detail." In other words, don't get excited yet. Details .. devil ... etc.
• The Planning Act's purpose is not "protection of property rights" (i.e., part of the very purpose of government); nor yet is it "allowing property owners to exercise the peaceful enjoyment of their property while recognising that same right in others" (i..e, a recognition of where right-based boundaries lie, rather than some subjective "balancing" of rights). So whatever the press releases say, it's not a bottom-up law based on property rights. Instead, the stated purpose is: "To establish a framework for planning and regulating the use, development and enjoyment of land." In other words, it's top-down planning. As will be the related Natural Environment Act.
• The RMA was said to be "effects-based," yet we see how well that turned out! These replacement Acts are also said to be effects-based, with the effects this time "regulated ... on the economic concept of externalities." [Executive Summary, Recommendations, 5b]
• externalities, however, are essentially an anti-concept, i.e., an unnecessary, approximate, and and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept (much like "stakeholders" or "opportunity cost" are also); in this case it's an economists' way to avoid talking about property rights. And the real cause of many “externalities” is generally that private property rights have not been adequately defined, nor sufficiently well protected! (For example, if property rights are well-defined and well-protected, a downstream landowner could sue in a court of law for an upstream farmer’s action in dirtying the waters.)
• the presumption of the proposed Planning Act
• While both replacement Acts are said to "be based on the enjoyment of property rights," these rights appear to come as  gifts from the state, subject to "approaches to regulation standardised at the national level" and requiring a "justification report" if the"approach" has any departure from that. [Executive Summary, Recommendations, 5c]. And the refusal to recognise or allow ownership of Crown "resources," but only a license, give little motivation to protect that resource, while limiting the ability of these limited license-holders to sue in common law if the resource is damaged by others.
• In a sense this whole thing is irrelevant, since the whole country will still be zoned anyway — zoned according to town planners' predilections, with their own additional "overlays," "areas" and "precincts."  So fewer zones, to be sure: but does it really matter how many principalities it takes to make up a whole kingdom — the fact is that you still have to make obeisance to a prince. (Note here that town planning (with its zones) has only been around here since 1928, and you'll notice that most of those in that alleged profession prefer to live in places built before then. Ever asked yourself why that is?)
• Whatever the headlines might say, the recommendations here still favour inclusion of a Treaty Clause. Less ill-defined than before, to be sure, listing what is said to be "relevant aspects of the statute enacted in light of Treaty obligations." But still there, poisoning all objective law. 
• One of the worst part of the present RMA is the scope given to objectors from anywhere to "submit" on a resource consent application to oppose/delay/kill it off. It's not only unjust, it's illegitimate — only those with standing, in a common-law sense, have the right to object to any "effects" on their property rights (hence the importance of well-defined and well-protected rights.)  That focus on proper standing would, on its own, limit objections to those with a right to mount one, and also kill off the potential for illegitimate objections by trade competitors. But I see nothing here to substantially change this situation. And they still explicitly allow for "public notification" of activities or effects along the lines of the existing Act.
• Providing "for rapid, low-cost resolution of disputes between neighbours" sounds good. So why involve councils at all in disputes between neighbours? (And you can complete the thought by realising that's the only common-sense part of any "planning application.")   Since these Acts still call for council, however, their halfway-house proposal of a "Planning Tribunal" to site between council and Environment Court might at least save some applicants some money. (Unless of course it becomes just another layer in an already lengthy process, or so popular and so necessary — and staffing of these "expert" bodies so difficult — that the delay in being heard becomes unconscionable.)
• Finally, one of the many uncertainties under the present RMA regime is the uncertainty faced by land-owners when "ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga" no longer owned by iwi or hapu, but foisted on present land-owners on the basis of often non-objective oral histories or other unsubstantiated accounts. See for example Auckland's "Taniwha Tax," and other councils' "SASMs." The report nonetheless recommends "that future legislation should retain the existing RMA mechanisms for Māori participation and make further provision for Māori engagement." (The only improvement might be a recommendation for better record-keeping of the decision-making processes around these impositions.

The cattle

So they weren't given much time, and arguably in that short time came up with something better than decades of earlier meddlers and "taskforce" writers did. But who exactly wrote this report? 

We have, to list them all with their chosen "professions":

• an "environmental planner,"  
• an economist "with expertise in natural resource and environmental economics"
• a "resource management practitioner"
• the general manager of Tauranga City Council (infamous for their ill-named "Smart Growth" strategy that made the small city one of the least affordable in the country)
• and a "professional director" who chairs the kingitanga.

Nice. All folk who've made piles of money out of this ill-defined and poorly-written pile of excrement.

Chairing the group is a barrister, who's also made her career from that ever-giving trough labelled "resource management law." ( I was reminded again of Mencken's famous saying that All the extravagance and incompetence of our present Government is due, in the main, to lawyers, and, in part at least, to good ones. They are responsible for nine-tenths of the useless and vicious laws that now clutter the statute-books, and for all the evils that go with the vain attempt to enforce them. Every Federal judge is a lawyer. So are most Congressmen. Every invasion of the plain rights of the citizens has a lawyer behind it.")  

I looked in vain for someone in that list, anyone at all, who might be a business owner or developer who's had their balls in the planner's vice, or a land-owner begging for permission from these grey ones to use their own land. Not a hint of it. Just folk who've been making a killing over many years from their snouts being in that same trough. (There is one bureaucrat who's a policy chap from Federated Farmers — not a farmer although he grew up on one' —who's issued his own minority report essentially arguing for better definition and clarity, to limit the possibility of regulatory creep. )

So what to expect from that group?

To be fair, it's better than I'd expected.

But given how many decades it's taken to start turning this ship around, and this will be the one chance in all that time, it's not as good as it could be.

And there's still plenty of work to do (which is to say too much) for the various species these authors represent.

Furthermore, with the legislation not to be passed before the next election, I'd expect it only to get worse rather than any better. This, you'll realise, is the high point.

Here's the group's own table summarising their main recommendations:

NB: For a more mainstream view (some might say a "less-jaundiced" one) here are the initial reaction from planner Stu Donovan, who is focussed on affordable housing. And some short common-sense thoughts from Matt Prasad.

"Private property rights do not just protect us; they provide the strongest possible protection for the environment"

Cartoon by Nick Kim 

"The solution is simple: Don't tinker with the procedures for acquiring a Resource Consent. Don't tinker with the Environment Court. Don't 'recraft' the RMA. Don't 'streamline it, don't 'fix' or 'reform' it. 

    "Instead, drive a stake through its heart. [Draw up transitional measures] to reinstate the common law protections of property and environment -- and then get the hell out of the way."

          ~ me, writing 20 years ago in the NZ Herald

"New Zealand has had nearly a decade under the RMA, under planning legislation that abolishes property rights and provides no environmental protection...In doing so we have ignored eight centuries of common law that protects both.

~ me 23 years ago, writing on 'New Zealand's Persecuted Minority: Property Owners' 

"Protection of property rights is amongst the chief reasons for which governments are constituted, yet successive NZ governments over recent years have not only ignored your property rights, but have actively sought to remove them. ...

"New Zealanders who once themselves understood the crucial importance of property rights now seem bemused by their lack, until perhaps they themselves find they can’t build on their own property, can’t cut down their own trees, can’t use their property in ways they always have, or find that control of their property has been passed to someone else … and that someone carries a clip-board and must be called ‘Sir’ … and we must pay that person for the privilege of asking them permission to do what we want to on our own land.
It’s not right.

"Author Ayn Rand once observed that when the productive have to ask permission from the unproductive in order to produce, then you may know that your culture is doomed. Aren’t we there now?

The productive have been asking permission from the unproductive in order to produce … and you haven’t been getting it, have you. Not without a fight. Not without iwi consents. Not without a large legal bill, and several weeks months spent with a consultant.

"There is a litany of projects across the country – projects both large and small --that have never and will never get of the ground – permission having been sought at great time, energy and expense, and permission never having been granted. The number of large infrastructure projects completed in the last ten years can be counted on the fingers of one foot.

"[And there are uncountable small projects, things that you and I would have once attempted], that are just stillborn; never to be tried, as people realise that there’s no point in planning projects and paying for consultants and for permission that will never be granted.

"And there are people who have now realised that their land is no longer their own, since ownership means nothing when you must ask someone else’s permission in order to use that which you own.

"It’s not right.

"We’ve lost our property rights, and we’ve lost the understanding of why property rights are important. What we’re losing is part of our heritage: part of what made the West rich, and part of what protected our freedom, our liberty, and our lives.

...

"The need for a legal framework protecting property has been long ignored or taken for granted by economists and legal theorists of all stripes, but its importance is slowly being re-understood by contemporary thinkers. Tom Bethell’s landmark book 'The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity Through the Ages' traces successes and disasters of history consequent upon the respective recognition or denial of property through the ages: Ireland’s potato famine, the desertification of the Sahara, and the near-disastrous US colonies at Jamestown and Plymouth can all be traced to lack of respect for property.... 

"Bethell identifies four crucial blessings of property that can't easily be recognised in a society lacking the secure, decentralised, private ownership of goods. These are: liberty, justice, peace and prosperity. The argument of [his] book is that private property is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for these highly desirable social outcomes.

"Property rights then give us a firm place to stand deserving of legal protection — a Turangawaewae. Their full legal and constitutional protection is crucial, in order to ensure that their protection is not taken away by arbitrary legislative fiat, as has happened over recent years. ...

"The most glaring recent example of the destruction of property rights by legislative fiat is that of the Resource Management Act (RMA). In all the nearly five-hundred pages of the RMA there is not one reference to property rights — not one! — yet it is people’s property and their use of it with which the RMA deals directly. ...

"Private property rights do not just protect us; they provide the strongest possible protection for the environment, since owners with clearly defined and secure property rights have a strong incentive to care for their own land. Our property rights act like ‘mirrors,’ reflecting back on ourselves the consequences of our own actions.

"[Properly directed, as the common law was once allowed to,] they also give us the power to act as guardians against abuse by others — specific legal power to act against those who would damage the environmental values of our property.

"As property rights are eroded however, people become less willing to invest in good stewardship because they are uncertain as to where the benefits of their labours will finally accrue.

"Most damage to the environment is the result of ‘the tragedy of the commons’ whereby people are encouraged to ‘take the last fish’ or ‘cut down the last tree’ because if they don’t, then someone else will. Property rights solves the ‘tragedy of the commons’ by defining ‘whose tree’ it is, and by giving secure legal protection to those planning longer range by planting trees.

"As Hernando de Soto argues, property rights extend people’s time horizons by allowing them to plan longer-range rather than shorter. In jurisdictions in which property rights are not secure, he writes, it will be observed that people will build their furniture before they build their walls or their roof. The reason for this is that without the protection of property rights, such short-term action is rational: property in such a jurisdiction needs to be kept mobile as property cannot be kept secure. As property rights become more secure time horizons become longer, and planning can become longer range."

~ me, from a 2005 speech on property rights

RELATED:

• 'It's Time to Drive a Stake Through the Heart of the RMA' - Peter Cresswell (2004)
• The problem is not dirty dairying; it's still dirty government (2018)
• How the RMA continues to protect polluters (2015)
• Amy Adams’s meddling dirtier than the dairying (2014)
• The Common Law: How it Protects the Environment – Roger Meiners & Bruce Yandle
• Cue Card Libertarianism -- Common law (2013)
• Water Markets: Priming the Invisible Pump – Terry Anderson & Pamela Snyder, PERC REPORT
• Without Obstruction, Diversion or Corruption: The Power of Property Rights to Preserve Our Lakes and Rivers – Elizabeth Brubaker, ENVIRONMENT PROBE
• The role of property rights in protecting water quality - Environment Probe
• The state can't protect the environment – markets can – Fred Smith, NOT PC (2017)
• What would Party X do about the environment? Part 2: A Nuisance and a BOR – (2011)
• Environmental Water Markets: Restoring Streams Through Trade – Brandon Scarborough, PERC REPORT

Another National tax grab

Leadership aspirant Chris Bishop headed to Auckland recently to tell us of the grand plans he will very kindly allow us to build. But before that, a new tax.

David Farrar kindly ssummarises. I unkindly fisk ...

Bishop says: "Congestion stifles economic growth in Auckland, with studies showing that it costs between $900 million to $1.3 billion per year. Congestion is essentially a tax on time, productivity, and growth. And like most taxes, I’m keen to reduce it."

Yes, congestion stifles economic growth. Yet little has been to arrest it. And over the last dozen or so years councils and transport ministries and bureaucracies have done everything to promote it, with transit lanes, bottlenecks, speed humps, speed restrictions, cycle lanes, bus lanes, no-right-turns, no-left-turns, pedestrianisation, beautification ... anything but combat traffic congestion.

Sit beside almost any major Auckland thoroughfare and you'll see that useable traffic lanes at rush-hours have nearly halved, while traffic has nearly doubled. A few nights back around 10pm a friend and I sat beside Hobson St — a near-motorway that once had six lanes or so allowing motorists to get out of the city on her motorways. Those lanes are now halved (with beautification works, don't you know, as part of John Key's bloody Convention Centre white elephant) and even at 10pm motorists were in a jam.

Will Bishop improve mobility?

Will he hell: he intends instead to make mobility more expensive.

Bishop says: "The government will be progressing legislation this year to allow the introduction of Time of Use pricing on our roads."

As commenter Bill says on Farrar's thread: "OK so another tax. Is there no problem the government thinks can’t be fixed without more taxes?

"We the motorists already pay for the roads with petrol tax and registration fees. How much of this money has been spent creating traffic bottlenecks, humps, removing free left turns etc? How is any of that helping with congestion? This latest tax proposal should be vehemently opposed. The money squandered on all the traffic obstruction should instead be spent on facilitating the uninterrupted flow of traffic. It sounds like they want to tax motorists to fix a problem that they themselves created. This is not incompetence, it is villainy."

Bill is right.

Bishop says: "Any money collected through time of use charging will be required to be invested back into transport infrastructure that benefits Kiwis and businesses living and working in the region where the money was raised."

Bishop is bullshitting.

Nicola Willis is so short of the readies already that she'll be overjoyed to grab as much of this windfall as she can. And if not her, then as soon as things are "bedded down," your next finance minister will have his or her hand in your pocket to root around in your small change. Don't doubt it.

Bishop says: "Modelling has shown that successful congestion charging could reduce congestion by up to 8 to 12 percent at peak times."

As every hired modeller knows, modelling will show whatever the modeller's hirer wants it to show; it all depends on the parameters chosen for said model. Sure, make something more expensive and (depending on one's marginal utility) then less of that thing will get utilised. But if the marginal utility of getting around is high enough (and it probably is) then Bishop's new tax will just make getting around more expensive. And we'll still be congested. And poorer.

Bishop says: "New Zealand can raise our productivity simply by allowing our towns and cities to grow up and out."

Well, duh.

Some of us have been arguing for years that up-and-out will make Auckland both more liveable and affordable. (Productive? That's an odd one to claim.) But with developers and builders having to sit on their hands while Bishop's bureaucrats rewrite the RMA to say what councils will allow developers and builders to do — to relieve the uncertainty since Bishop and his boss canned the MDRS — it seems like we're as far away as ever. And that uncertainty is hardly making developers and builders more productive ...

Bishop says: "My aspiration [for Auckland] is ..."

You know, frankly, it doesn't matter a shit what Bishop's aspirations for Auckland are! Because given the piss-poor popularity of his boss, and the pathetically slow promise to abolish and replace the RMA (to protect property rights, we're promised, and to finally give some certainty to those developers and builders) then  it will be too damn late this term for any changes at all to be made, and next term he'll have lost his chance.

And this time, three years from now, we'll all be sitting here in exactly the same position.

Only by then we'll (maybe) have a new train set.

And we will have bloody Bishop's new tax.

"In the Minister’s words, 'Going For Growth outlines the approach the Government is taking to turbo-charge our economy.' Yeah right.

 

"The Minister [of Finance] also used her speech to announce the launch of a Going for Growth website complete with a 44 page document (15 of which are photos and covers, and another 9 are lists of things (being) done) titled 'Going for Growth: Unlocking New Zealand’s Potential' – in the Minister’s words, 'Going For Growth outlines the approach the Government is taking to turbo-charge our economy.'
    
"Yeah right.

"Now, to be clear, there are some (mostly small) useful things the government has done in the area of economic policy. There are also some (fewer in number) overtly backward steps ... and some important areas where the government has so far failed to act at all .... There is [however] just nothing in what the Minister said, or in what the government has done (or has concretely indicated it will shortly do), that comes even close to being likely to 'turbo charge' the economy.

"It isn’t even clear that either the Minister or her Treasury advisers has anything close to a compelling model and narrative about how we got into the longer-term productivity mess, let alone how we might successfully get out of it (if any politicians really cared enough to want to do so).

"We are told ... that 'Leaders around the world are being compelled to act more boldly than they have for several decades.' But there isn’t much sign of it ..."

"We are told that 'New Zealand’s low capital intensity is a key driver ... of our poor productivity performance.' No one disputes that business investment as a share of GDP has been low in New Zealand for a long time ... So the capital stock per worker is, in some mechanical sense, quite low. ...

"But ... the mentality is all wrong. Low levels of capital intensity are at best seen as symptom not as any sort of cause or 'driver' of productivity growth failures economywide. New Zealand has never had a particularly problem attracting finance ... And we should assume that, on average, firms and potential investors are responding rationally, and even optimally on average, to the opportunities they face.

"So the issue is not that firms are failing to use enough capital in their production processes – they are most likely doing what is best for them – but that, having regard to all the other constraints (taxes, FDI rules, RMA regimes, other bits of regulation, real exchange rates) there just aren’t that many attractive projects here in New Zealand. A highly successful New Zealand economy would be likely to be more capital intensive (and generate higher wages), but focusing on the capital intensity or otherwise is the wrong lens with which to look at the problem.

"Firms and investors respond to opportunities, and sometimes (often) governments get in the road and make investment ... unattractive."

~ Michael Reddell from his post 'Willis and Rennie speaking'

"We cannot run an industrial nation only with pressure differences in the atmosphere. Stand up for weather-independent electricity!"

 

We're short of energy in New Zealand because we don't build enough reliable energy production, hampered by the RMA and relying too much on unreliables — so-called renewables, or 'green energy,' which need real back-up energy when sun doesn't shine or wind doesn't blow — and finding it damned difficult even to build these unreliable sometime-producers.

So, we are running short because we're shooting ourselves in the foot by not building enough. In Germany, they're running short because politicians decided to shut down the reliable (and clean) nuclear producers they had, and rely instead on unreliables — and on buying extra from France's reliable nuclear fleet.

So how's that going? A: It's expensive. So much so that German automakers are struggling. And B: well, as Staffan Reveman points out, whatever capacity is cited for unreliable energy production, it just doesn't produce it reliably, if at all:

German #wind power in the first 9 months of the year 2024. [Graph: Agorameter with 1h resolution]

The installed capacity is 70 gigawatts. Wind power delivered everything between almost nothing and

50 gigawatts. We see here that we cannot run an industrial nation only with pressure differences

in the atmosphere. Stand up for ... weather-independent electricity!

In the words of one local, "This country hat nicht alle Tassen im Schrank."

It goes double for us.

"The failure to distinguish between economic power and political power leads people to believe that large corporations have grown through coercion."

"Many people distrust Big Business: Big Tech, Big Pharma. Big Oil, even Big Grocers – any large corporations. They believe these companies have grown big by exploitation and coercion that they are able to perpetuate due their sheer size. Therefore, these people think the government should control these companies’ size to ensure 'fair competition' and to prevent monopolies. [The reaction to the recent discussions about supermarket 'monopolies' is an example] .... [C]ommentators relish the prospect that using (non-objective) ... laws, the government could cut [supermarket chains] to size ...
    "Those distrustful of Big Business fear that large corporations grow too 'powerful” and therefore can coerce and control us to do business with them, to buy their products and services, and to prevent us from competing with them. However, that fear is misplaced. Corporations, small or large, in free and semi-free countries (absent government intervention) don’t have the power to coerce. They cannot prevent anyone from acting or to force them to act against their will.
    "As Ayn Rand has observed, the only power business has is economic power: the power to produce and trade, which depends on its ability to obtain the voluntary co-operation of others through persuasion. ... Only the government possesses political power: the power to use physical force, or the threat of it, to restrain and punish those who initiate it.
    "The failure to distinguish between economic power and political power leads people to believe that large corporations have grown through coercion. ...
    "[A]bsent government favours and protectionism, companies grow large because they act morally. It means that they are productive: they continually develop and produce [and sell] goods and services that customers value. ... Only with the government’s help – protectionism and cronyism [and the RMA] – could [supermarket chains] coerce: to prevent competition from entering its markets, charge artificially high prices, sell subpar products, and to provide lousy customer service. ...
    "Instead of condemning Big Business, we should appreciate large corporations for producing the material values we need and want.
    "But we should condemn the government for initiating force to interfere in markets."

~ Jana Woiceshyn from her post 'In Defence of Big Business'

UPDATE: Why is there a "cosy duopoly" of Big Grocers here in New Zealand? Simple: the bureaucratic costs for new competitors to enter our distant market are too damn high, making a significant barrier to entry. (Call it bureaucratic drag.) Eric Crampton excerpts 

"a Jaw-dropping bit "from the Grocery Regulator on this, in interview at Interest.co.nz:

" 'What we've been told by these players is when they come and they want to open up a large store in New Zealand, the cost to get a spade in the ground is double that of Australia,” he says in a new episode of the Of Interest podcast. 

  " 'Now that is significant. And when they look at 'do we open up a store in Wagga Wagga or Tamworth or wherever in Australia' versus coming to open up in Auckland where there is massive demand or any of the other centres, really, the cost is double that of Australia. And the timeframe often is more than double as well. So when they do their business cases, they look at that and say, 'well, we're going to be better off by going elsewhere rather than here.' Now the government is saying that they're going to change things to make New Zealand more competitive for international players. And that's really what we're looking at.'
    "The Commerce Commission released its first annual grocery report on Wednesday which revealed ComCom’s efforts to boost grocery competition over the past year hasn’t had much impact'."

Later in the podcast, he says that Costco would already have expanded to more places in NZ if expanding in NZ weren't so freaking hard.
    It shouldn't be surprising that the grocery regulator hasn't chalked any wins as yet. The real problem is largely out of the regulator's hands: RMA, Overseas Investment Act, Council processes.

The emphasis there is mine. Eric's post has more detail on council clusterfucks.

Still a fast-track to cronysim

"To deal with the proliferation of regulation & red-tape in NZ, which means you can barely go to the bathroom without getting permission, National's Chris Bishop & NZ First's Shane Jones told us they would 'fast track' a bunch of selected projects. ... So its a shame to see that on the fast-tracking issue, Bishop and Jones went and took a good idea and stuffed it up. They sadly politicised the whole thing by wanting to give Ministers the power to make decisions about which projects would be accepted. ...
    "They couldn't help themselves. They wanted to be big men, holding big power, deciding who got what. Now in an embarrassing back-down, they've reversed themselves. ... changing the Fast-track Approvals Bill so 'Final decisions on projects will not sit with Ministers but with an expert panel.' This is the same as the previous Labour government’s 'fast-track' process.
    "But they've got it wrong again. Why revert to yet another layer of bureaucracy ... staffed with the usual assortment of [cronies,] in-bred Wellington nobodies, or dubious Kiwi 'business leaders' with political connections? ...
    "What should they have done instead? [Ed: Well, obviously they should get rid of the proliferation of regulation & red-tape. But in the meantime ...] the 384 projects should simply be referred to the NZ Treasury / Infrastructure Commission for evaluation, & ranked highest to lowest in terms of benefit-to-cost ratios. Those institutions should send their ranking / recommendations to Cabinet for ultimate sign off. The rankings should be publicly available. Should Cabinet accept a project low on Treasury's rankings, then we'd know it was because they wanted their mates to get the job, unless some very good reason otherwise was presented.
    "For National to adopt Labour's same fast-track process with an expert panel of nobodies tells us one thing. Both National & Labour have failed to deliver for NZ and they still don't know how."

~ Robert MacCulloch, from his post 'Fast Track Approvals Bill: Chris Bishop & Shane Jones Took a Good Idea & Turned it into a Dog's Breakfast.' To which Labour's David Parker replied here.

"Much of the mess we are in can be blamed, in my view, on lawyers ... "

"In [New Zealand], much of the mess we are in can be blamed, in my view, on lawyers (and judges). ...
    "It was Geoffrey Palmer, a lawyer, who designed the original Resource Management Act, and it is David Parker, a lawyer, who's currently drawing up plans to implement wealth and capital taxes as part of the Labour Party's platform for the 2026 election. The current Chair of Kiwi Rail is a lawyer. His Deputy Chair is a lawyer. Most of NZ's big firms have boards dominated by lawyers (and accountants) who have no shop-floor experience in the industry in which "their" company is working. How have they got their jobs? From what I have learned, mostly by networking & schmoozing. Is this a world-wide phenomena? No. Who do companies like Tesla have on their boards? To give you a flavor, folks like Mr. Gebbia, co-founder of Airbnb, and Mr. Straubel, founder of Redwood Materials, a firm working to drive down the costs and environmental footprint of lithium-ion batteries by offering sources of anode & cathode materials from recycled batteries. ...
    "What has been the objective of those sitting in the Auckland law firms quietly earning incomes of way over $1 million a year? To maximise their fee income, of course. The legal & regulatory structures that have promoted monopoly power in NZ, the frameworks that govern race-relations, and the mountains of red-tape we all must navigate, have been made deliberately divisive, deliberately ineffective, and deliberately onerous by Kiwi lawyers, all to generate more disputes & work for law firms and their partners. The profession that has ground NZ's economy to a halt has been our legal profession — all in the name of its ... quest for higher incomes."

~ Robert MacCulloch from his post 'God Save New Zealand from Lawyers'

RMA: "It was twenty years ago today..."

 

Crikey! Is it really 20 years since I wrote this cover story (above) for the Free Radical magazine? 

Sure is.

It was twenty years ago last month, and even then it was already well past time to put a stake through the Frankenstein monster of Simon Upton, Nick Smith and Geoffrey Palmer. And now (as the saying goes) a little girl still waits.

And twenty years since this piece first appeared, the RMA is still a current controversy ...

I'll post the whole piece here, below the fold, so you can find out what still happens when you want a bigger home for your grandmother's Morris Minor (there's only two pages more), but in the meantime you can

• download a PDF here of the whole piece, which you can then easily print and share — it's sadly still topical
• read a condensed version here that the Herald published without asking (but hey-ho)
• and read just a few of my responses to the tinkering and tepid "reforms" that both Red and Blue Governments have enacted (or promised) ...
• New Zealand's Persecuted Minority: Property Owners - July 2002
• RMA Reforms a Lane-Change, Not a U-Turn - June, 2005
• RMA Amendments: No Stake. No Property Rights. No Surprises - September 2004
• RMA surely don't impress Shania much - Herald, June 2005
• Q: Do you have an inviolable right to do whatever you want on your property? - May 2006
• What will it take for RMA anger to result in REAL change? - July 2007
• Fisking Nick Smith: "Gutting"? What gutting? - August 2007
• No property rights thanks, we're Tories - September 2007
• What would 'Party X' do about the RMA? - PART 3: Small Consents - September 2007
• What would 'Party X 'do about the environment? Part 2: 'A Nuisance and a BOR' - September 2007
• Urban housing, and why NZ doesn't really have it - Oct 2007
• Dirty dairying and dodgy drafting - Feb 2008
• No RMA reform that's worth a damn, with even worse promised - Aug 2008
• National's RMA Policy "like a chocolate-coated turd" - Oct 2008
• National's RMA Buzzword Bullshit - Oct 2008
• Real building reform? You have to be joking. - Nov 2008
• RMA to be reviewed to promote easier theft-by-government - Dec 2008
• Keep ‘em in the dark, and feed ‘em the RMA - Dec 2008
• Planners still stitching up home-owners: NZ cities world’s second-most unaffordable - Jan 2009
• RMA – what “shake-up”? - Feb 2009
• RMA changes: let’s all look at some examples - Feb 2009
• Overhauling the urban planning process, to make life easier for whom? - Oct 2010
• To Don Brash, regarding the RMA - July 2011
• Government finally plans to address unaffordable housing. But… - Oct 2012
• It’s time to put a stake through the heart of the RMA–and time a politician finally said that - March 2014
• “Avoid , remedy or mitigate” - Oct 2014
• So they’re “reforming” the RMA again? - Jan 2015
• RMA reform? Mush, without any details to give it form - Jan 2015
• How the RMA continues to protect polluters - Jan 2015
• RMA: From back when abolition wasn’t just a pipe dream… - Jan 2015
• ‘Coming to the Nuisance’? What’s that about? - July 2016
• RMA: After 25 years, time to euthanase it - Aug 2016
• Smith’s RMA reform: yet another chocolate-coated turd - Nov 2016
• Upton’s disaster continues to unwind - March 2017
• So the RMA is being reviewed again ... - March 2021
• "The National Party believes in private property rights..." - Nov 2021
• But the principles that made the RMA suck will all still stay the same ... - Nov 2022
• RMA: No wonder the lawyers like it. - Nov 2022
• So, what about that RMA replacement then? - Dec 2023
• "The RMA’s starting position is that you need permission. It is going to be dumped." But ... - April 2024
• "Under a better Resource Management system [sic], there would be no need for fast-track approval processes." - April 2024
• "...*if* Mr Bishop delivers on his promise." - May 2024

" The 'vision' seems to be to catch Australia. Wouldn’t that be great?"

"[T]he Prime Minister announce[d] a bold new economic performance goal. ... His 'vision' seems to be that economic growth in New Zealand over the next 16 years will be so strong that we’ll have matched – perhaps even exceeded – what is on offer abroad. .... The 'vision' seems to be to catch Australia.
    "Wouldn’t that be great? ...
    "[Luxon] ... reminded us of his firm focus ('resolutely and unapologetically') on 'delivery.'

"So having set out a bold vision what is the Prime Minister offering as a policy programme to achieve it? It isn’t, after all, a small ambition. ...
    "The Prime Minister does lay out some substance on the [first-hundred] days [etc.] ... but to a first approximation what it mostly does is undo stuff the previous government did and restore something like the policy set of 2017. ... [but] we weren’t making any progress then either in closing gaps to the rest of the advanced world ...
    "[I]t is welcome, and sounds good, but…..we’ve heard lines about fixing the RMA before, including from the previous National government.
    "And that was sort of the problem with the entire economic strand of [the PM's] vision. It brought to mind ... [John Key's] 'concrete goal' [in 2008] of closing the income gap with Australia by 2025.' ... [I]t all made no difference whatsoever. ... the goal ... would have greatly benefited New Zealanders had it been seriously pursued. It wasn’t. ...
    "[T]here ha[s] been a lot of talk over the years. ... Who knows if Mr Luxon is any more serious about his 'vision' – laudable on its own terms – than John Key was about the 2025 goal. ... but Key and his government did nothing even close to being equal to the task to make it happen. There seems little basis – whether in [Luxon]’s speech, his campaigning last year, or anything about what his government is and isn’t doing now – for believing it will be any different this time. ...
    "It would be great to be proved wrong on that, because the people who pay the price of empty political aspirational rhetoric never matched by policy seriously equal to the task aren’t Prime Ministers, who eventually move on to gilded retirements, but the children and grandchildren of ordinary New Zealanders.
    "If, as he should be, the Prime Minister is serious about that aspiration of New Zealanders (net) coming home not just because mountains and beaches make it a nice place for many to live, but because economic performance means you don’t have to leave for a higher income, the concrete policies need to start matching the rhetoric.
    "In the PM’s own words, delivery matters."

~ Michael Reddell from his post 'Words and (in)actions'

 

"...*if* Mr Bishop delivers on his promise."

"Far too many New Zealanders already suffer from serious financial stress because of the ridiculous price of houses. The problem is only going to get worse unless the Government delivers on the promise made by the Minister of Housing, Chris Bishop, who, in a major speech near the end of February, said the Government is aiming to get house prices back to where the median house price is between three and five times the median household income. To protect himself from the anger of thousands of property-owning voters, he did say that that was his ambition over the next 'ten to twenty years,' but if he is at all serious New Zealanders better get used to the idea that house prices will not be rising steadily year after year into the indefinite future.
    "Increasingly, as houses get older and in need of repair, and if the market is working as it should do, they will sell for less than they cost to buy.
    "But what about the land they sit on? Surely that won’t decline in value? Certainly there will always be land which has special appeal: that will quite likely rise in value faster than other prices and faster than incomes. But given New Zealand has a great abundance of land, section prices should be nowhere near where they are currently in most of our cities. That implies that section prices are likely to stagnate or decline from present levels if Mr Bishop delivers on his promise. [Yes, "if" - Ed.]
    "In an earlier article I quoted the case of a 455 square-metre bare section on sale in Drury – nearly 40 kilometres from downtown Auckland – for $842,000 including GST, or $1,850 per square metre. This is more than 10 times the average price per square-metre of sections in the US. This difference is caused primarily by the tight restrictions imposed by local governments on where houses are allowed to be built.
    "Those who demand that housing be confined within tightly prescribed urban boundaries – as is true in all our major cities – must be told again and again that they and they alone are primarily responsible for the appalling social costs arising from the outrageous price of housing in New Zealand’s major cities."

~ former Reserve Bank governor Don Brash from his post 'Perhaps house prices don’t always go up'

Why are housing prices still so unbelievably high, especially in the country's most desirable locations? The superficial answer is “supply and demand,” but the deep answer delivered by a new comic book―the reason supply is so low―is a regulatory system that treats developers like criminals. In this excerpt from his new comic book Build Baby Build,  economist Bryan Caplan argues in this guest post that "we" (by which I mean you lot and the governments you vote in) have been fighting poverty the wrong way. Want to help the poor? Then stop making housing harder ...

[Launched overnight in the U.S., Caplan hosted an 'Ask Me Anything' at his blog to help launch it, with plenty of challenging questions.]

Housing Deregulation as Poverty Policy

by Bryan Caplan

“How should government fight poverty?” It hardly seems like a loaded question, but it contains a strong sequential insinuation. Namely: Prior to government lifting a finger, a severe poverty problem exists. Then a helpful government arrives on the scene to fight this pre‐​existing problem. Which swiftly leads to a debate about the best way for government to play the hero. Should it provide education and job training? Tax the rich and take GST off food? Or just hand out cash?

To avoid this sequential insinuation, we have to rephrase the question. In lieu of “How should government fight poverty?” I propose: “How should government change policy to reduce poverty?”

This question remains open to standard redistributive responses. But changing the wording also allows for the possibility that existing government policy is a major cause of poverty. If so, the simplest way for government to reduce poverty is to stop making it worse. Talking about “fighting poverty” pre‐​anoints government as the hero of the story when the truth could be quite the reverse.

My new comic book Build, Baby, Build: The Science and Ethics of Housing Regulation highlights one of the main ways that modern governments do in fact sharply increase poverty. Namely: By slashing the supply — and thereby raising the price — of the basic necessity of shelter.

A wide range of regulations make it hard for developers to build tall buildings, multi-family housing, and even dense single‐​family housing. While this means more expensive housing for everyone, the poor suffer extra, for two reasons.

First, the poor spend a larger share on shelter. For the richest quintile of New Zealanders, it’s just 13 percent. For the poorest quintile, it’s a whopping 41 percent. (Compare this to the U.S, where the figures are respectively 18 percent and 25 percent.)

Second, renters are generally much poorer than owners. To be clear, lower housing prices aren’t always bad for owners; after all, they may hope to upgrade to nicer place, or want their kids to be able to afford to live in their vicinity. But cheaper housing is almost automatically good for renters.

The preceding two arguments boil down to simple arithmetic. If you dig deeper, you’ll find two more ways that housing deregulation helps the less fortunate.

First, as Nobel laureate Angus Deaton and Anne Case point out in their Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism, non‐​university-trained males in the U.S. have been doing especially poorly in recent decades. One common remedy has been to use protectionism to revive U.S. manufacturing, but the numbers just don’t add up. But housing deregulation is a far more realistic remedy here because (a) a large majority of workers in construction are university-trained maless, (b) 11 million people already work in this industry, and (c) most people would gladly upgrade to a bigger home if the price were right. Even modest housing deregulation would therefore create millions of new well‐​paid jobs for non‐​college males. The argument differs here only in the numbers. 

Second, building off the work of Peter Ganong and Daniel Shoag, Build, Baby, Build shows that housing regulation also reduces the upward mobility of the poor. Decades ago, when housing prices were much lower — and more nationally uniform — poorer people had a clear path to a better life: move to a higher‐​wage part of the country. Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath notwithstanding, this strategy worked well. Now, however, poorer people who try this route typically find that the extra housing cost in high‐​wage regions eats up more than 100 percent of the wage gain. Lifting yourself up by your own bootstraps is still possible, but used to be quite a bit easier.

Five years ago, I had a debate on poverty policy with my friend, economist David Balan. He broadly agreed with me on the merits of housing deregulation and acknowledged that high housing prices were especially bad for the poor. Yet Balan insisted on purely semantic grounds that housing deregulation doesn’t count as “poverty policy.” Unless you favour government redistribution, your preferred poverty policy is, perforce, no policy at all.

My reply: Anything that reduces poverty counts as poverty policy! Indeed, if you want to help the poor, Effective Altruism 101 urges us to start by adopting all of the policies that cost less than nothing. Shackling construction is a prime example of such a policy. After all, housing regulation hurts the poor by burning taxpayer resources to impede wealth creation. Harm fuelled by waste and more waste.

Housing deregulation isn’t just one sort of poverty policy. It is the best sort of poverty policy. Instead of letting government tax the rest of society and hoping that the benefits exceed the costs, housing deregulation shows government a mirror. “You’re not the hero of this story," it says: "At best, you can become a repentant villain. Want to help the poor? Then stop hurting them.”

* * * * 

Bryan Caplan is an American economist and author. Caplan is a professor of economics at George Mason University, research fellow at the Mercatus Center, adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and former contributor to the Freakonomics blog and EconLog. He has published in the American Economic Review, the Economic Journal, the Journal of Law and Economics, Social Science Quarterly, the Journal of Public Economics, the Southern Economic Journal, Public Choice, and numerous other outlets. His book, The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies (2007), was published by Princeton University Press and named "the best political book this year" by the New York Times. Bryan posts frequently at his blog, Bet on It.

His post first appeared at the Cato at Liberty blog.

Buy his comic book at Amazon in both paperback and e-book.

A fast track to cronyism [updated]

 

The media has been slow to pick up on this National-led government's new policy to help out struggling media organisations.

The policy is to announce, and string out, a steady stream of announcements of blatant knuckle-dragging cronyism, primary among them that Fast-Track Approvals Bill, whose invited-applicant list will be an ongoing gift to every media organisation looking for a colourful headline.

And no on top of that, just to drive home the message, is this weekend's gift to television personality and National Party fund-raiser Paula Bennett of the position of highly-paid chair of Pharmac — in the very week they announce a $1.8 billion increase in the unaccountable bureaucracy's budget to $6.3 billion. Her qualifications for the role? In the absence of a single one of any relevance, one would have to speculate it was her record fund-raising and chasing of donors to the National Party at the last election.

And speaking of donors ....  even the worst resourced newsroom should be able to turn out a veritable assembly line's worth of regular feature articles highlighting which party donors have been favoured with which fast-track approval by three ministers of questionable morals and fitness doling them out like largesse at a corrupt king's court.

As I said a few days ago, it's not a "fast track" for you or me or that small renovation you've been putting off for years as just too damned complicated to contemplate — it's a fast track for cronies and for government bulldozers.

How about we all get the benefit a fast track for our projects, little and large, instead of being tangled up in years of the red tape governments festoon around us while cronies enjoy all the fruits of political favouritism?

In the meantime at least, let's watch the media take advantage of the Government's gift. It should be one that promises to keep giving long after the Public Interest Journalism Fund gives out ...

UPDATE: Yes, of course, businesses need to be able to build. And so do you and I —and for too long we've been stymied in trying to build. But this isn't help for you and me — and when National and Shane Jones promise to "help business" that invariably ends up meaning "help particular businessmen." Just as it does here.

"Under a better Resource Management system [sic], there would be no need for fast-track approval processes."

"Under a better Resource Management system [sic], there would be no need for fast-track approval processes. The fast process would simply be the process."

~ Nick Clark from his op-ed 'For a better fast-track'

"The RMA’s starting position is that you need permission. It is going to be dumped." But ...

"Did you know it costs 50% more to build a house here than it does in Australia? ...
    "We [sic] have successfully regulated our housing market so tightly that only the children of existing homeowners can obtain the financing to purchase property. We [sic] have created a landed gentry. ...
    "There are two reasons for this; land use restrictions and building regulations.
    "Let’s start with land use. The Resource Management Act, or RMA, began life in 1991 as a blueprint for preventing Kiwis doing anything with their land unless it complied with a national environmental plan and had the consent of the local council. ...
     Again. ...
    "Simon Court, the Act MP and Undersecretary with the responsibility for drafting the replacement, has a different outlook. You can do whatever you want with your land, so long as it does not interfere with someone else’s property or rights. [Not true. See below.* - Ed.]
    "[But] this reform is 18 months away and will be in place for less than a year before the next election. ... National and Act have had six years to draft their RMA replacement. [And they haven't. - Ed.]
    "There are plenty of interested parties who would have contributed to this effort and a bill should have been ready to present to a select committee in the first hundred days. [Yes, it damn well should have been. - Ed.]
    "The longer any RMA replacement has to gain acceptance the more durability it will enjoy upon a return to a Labour-led government, and Labour have their RMA bill already drafted and ready to go; that being the one Court and his mates deleted on Christmas Eve. [Not to mention the not-insignificant regime uncertainty in the market until the replacement Act filters down to council's 'planners.' - Ed.]

~ Damien Grant, from his over-optimistic column 'Housing market so tightly regulated we’ve created landed gentry'

* Court's most-developed explanation of his proposed 'Urban Development Act' begins this way:

"Under ACT’s Urban Development Act, limits for urban development would continue to be based on locally-decided [council] plans."

So rather than a plethora of sackings of the unproductive, Court — a 'planner' himself by profession — proposes instead to keep his colleagues planners hard at work.

"These plans [his 'reform' plan continues] have democratic mandates [sic] and protect the legitimate expectations of property owners, while allowing councils to plan for infrastructure delivery."

Translation: Our party's two leading MPs represent home-owners in the country's leafiest suburbs, pledged to protect the unreasonable expectations of those suburbs' home-owners about what can be built next door.

"Councils [says Court] will not be permitted to restrict housing density more than the Auckland Mixed Housing Suburban zone."

Auckland's MHS "zone," by the way, essentially mandates for more of the same tightly restricted suburbia. And this confirms that zoning will still be with us, as well as planners. (How this reflects, as Grant says, 'doing what you want on your land as long as it doesn't affect someone else's property right,' Court alone knows. I suggest they both read Bernard Siegan.) 

"These zoning rules [Court says] have already been validated [sic] through extensive litigation in the Environmental Court ..."

One would have expected to see the back of that meddling court damned soon. Sadly, it seems however, we have a Court who refuses to meddle enough in his 'reforms,' and is doing it so damn slowly we will have years of uncertainty in what folk can plan to build on their own land.

 

Getting better homes faster

 

New Zealand needs more houses, and less Resource Management Act.

Fact is, if houses are going to be anywhere near affordable again, New Zealand needs many more houses, and no RMA. 

Instead, we have RMA for several more years, and a housing/RMA minister (Chris Bishop) who's created uncertainty and fewer housing starts by allowing councils to opt out of the (formerly) bipartisan Medium-Density Residential Standards (MDRS).

What can you do now on many sites in New Zealand's major cities? Don't know, because councils haven't decided (or announced) where and how they might relax things. The uncertainty means that on many sites in major cities desperate for housing, nothing gets started at all.

What could you do under the MDRS? In simple terms (see pic above), you could build up to 3 dwellings up to 3 storeys high without having to even think about the Resource Management Act. It was far from perfect, but still the most permissive housing change from government since ... well, before I was born anyway.

But Chris Bishop has "fixed" that, hasn't he. Too permissive for Mr Bloody Bishop. Too many "externalities." Too urban.

Urbanist Malcolm McCracken has a simple solution however that even this housing minister could (should!) get behind. He calls it Graduated Density Zoning, so it's still a bloody zone, but one that allows owners who amalgamate sites to get extra density and height -- and by their amalgamation build better things and ameliorate the effects on neighbours.

By being larger and a more appropriate shape for multiple dwellings, such a site would also encourage better housing typologies to be built than the simple long 3-storey-"sausage"-arranged-along-a-single-driveway that means everyone's window looks into every neighbour's.  Things like perimeter blocks, garden apartments and the like, with better privacy, garden outlooks and less iunmpact on neighbours (so what's not to like?!).

McCracken has details:

I propose that a condition of a council opting out of the MDRS, in whole or just in certain suburbs, should be the requirement to introduce Graduated Density Zoning6(GDZ) to residential land that is zoned below three storeys. GDZ is where, when a developer buys neighbouring sites totaling more than the set threshold, e.g. 1400m2, they can automatically build to a higher density. The details of that can be debated but I believe GDZ should be introduced to enable better housing choice and new supply in every neighbourhood. While resource consent would be required, once the threshold has been met, three-storey apartments and terraced houses would become a permitted activity.

Adopting GDZ could provide several key benefits:

• Larger sites can make it easier to manage the externalities of greater density, which have been some of the driving reasons behind the backlash towards the MDRS. This should see fewer sausage flats on single sites, which generally have poor design outcomes and interaction with neighbouring sites. Larger amalgamated sites will enable greater master planning that considers the interaction of outlook spaces with neighbouring properties, limiting driveway crossings and the design of open and communal spaces.
• It enables the market to deliver greater density in areas of high demand and better match this with new supply. While councils can plan through future development strategies for ‘enough’ capacity to meet future demand, this is always based on a range of assumptions, which can never be completely accurate. Amenities and accessibility of an area, along with personal preferences, can change shifting demand greatly. We should design our system to be more responsive and flexible to meet demand. GDZ would be a step towards this.
• Enabling three storeys, as I have discussed many times previously, can enable greater housing choice to be provided. It also enables ageing in place, where you can find housing suited to your needs at different stages of your life within the same neighbourhood.
• It’s worth noting that this can also benefit neighbouring landowners, who could choose to sell together to seek greater profit, which is possible as an amalgamated site is generally a better development opportunity. This has occurred previously, including in Te Atatū Peninsula in 2020.

Until or unless the RMA is abolished, this could be a start.