top of page

Subscribe Form

Thanks for submitting!

Search

DR BENNO BLASCHKE: Helping government take its foot off the brake

Before anyone builds a house in New Zealand, someone must pay upfront for the pipes and the roads that connect a development to the city. Almost always, that someone is the council.


But a council can only borrow so much: about two to three times what it collects in a year. Once it hits that limit, it can no longer pay, so it uses its planning rules to say no.


When land to build on is scarce, prices climb. Those who buy homes for the first time pay that price, if they can afford it. Others are locked out. Money flows to whoever happens to own the right field.


There is another way to pay for the pipes and roads upfront: investors lend money. Those who move in pay them back slowly, through a small charge on their homes, like a mortgage for the pipes. The debt would sit with the project, not the council.


The difference comes down to who loses money if things go wrong. Under the current way, ratepayers and taxpayers carry the loss. Under the alternative way, investors who backed the project would face the loss, and no one else.


We used to pay for infrastructure this way.


For most of the last century, a community could vote to tax itself, borrow the money and build. Harbour boards and power boards did it; roads and pipes were also built this way. If a project failed, lenders lost money, not the ratepayers or taxpayers. Then, between 1989 and 1996, we shut it all down.


In 2020, Parliament brought the idea back. Yet, six years later, only three projects have used it.


A contradiction at the heart of the model explains low uptake.


The government has one foot on the accelerator: underwriting the model so investors will lend, retaining decision rights, and getting financially involved. But government also has one foot on the brake: routing every project through Cabinet with so many checks and costs that only a few large projects can afford this.


The way out is a finance model that can let a project fail without hurting others. If one runs into trouble, the taps keep running for those already bought in, while investors take the loss.


Build that, and the government can take its foot off the brake.


My report, Finance Freedom, shows how. We knew how to do this once, and it built much of the country. To give people homes they can afford, we need to do it again.



Benno Blaschke is a research fellow at the New Zealand Initiative

 
 
 

12 Comments


FACT is, New Zealand is headed for a Banana Republic status before 2040 (under 14 yrs), when iWi are going to OWN the Country, or Muslims/Indians numbers will be the majority. The children will be at voting age, and will vie for who will take over New Zealand politically, because they will stand together and vote for their own like they do everywhere. This is why International investors will not trust NZ as the chances of losing their shirt are VERY high.

Like

There might be a less mentioned underlying problem called Fiat Currency pretending to be real money?

I am looking forward to criticism and disagreement so have a go. You may prefer to stop reading now?

Fiat (latin for "let it be") Currency has no enduring value. It is a useful medium of exchange that has no real value.

It is like Monopoly money only not even bits of paper any more.

Central banks can create as much as that want from nothing and loan it at low rates of interest because currency created from nothing is really worth nothing. Working people accept this fake money in return for the real value of their time and labour and borrow more of it by…

Like
Basil
Basil
Jun 23
Replying to

Well covered there Charlie, I’ve been concerned about this issue of ‘credit creation’ since being made aware of it.

It’s an economic house of cards which cannot last forever. Debasement of currency has historically lead to empires collapsing (or at least it was noted as a significant influence).

Edited
Like

winder44
winder44
Jun 23

Starting to sound like we need an ACT lead Government to sort out the unbelievably complex way of doing business in NEW ZEALAND.

Like
pghayward
Jun 24
Replying to

ACT was a significant force in its own right, back when it was first set up. More than 10 MP's. What reduced it to one MP, was Don Brash's short-lived takeover of National. It was obvious in the 2005 election, that ACT supporters saw National as finally worth voting for, as Brash was virtually ACT in principle. The mystery is where the ACT voters went over the following few terms. I believe a high proportion of them left the country in disgust. Had Brash become PM in 2005, and had the support of the National caucus, NZ would have benefitted significantly from his principles being put into effect. John Key completely betrayed whatever subset of National's voters were ACT ones…

Like

ron
ron
Jun 23

A fundamentally sound idea killed by over complexity.  Largely from a mix of institutional risk aversion, the immense technical challenge of integrating new infrastructure with existing systems, and the rigid web of council standards and requirements. In essence, its a system where a developer must take on the financial risk of a project, but still navigate a complex and costly approval process designed for a council-led, risk-averse public sector. This creates a high barrier to entry that stifles the very innovation the Act was meant to encourage.


From my reading, this broken system is already in the process of a major overhaul with the Infrastructure Funding and Financing (IFF) Amendment Bill (late 2025), a so called Greenfield financing model with low…

Like
pghayward
Jun 23
Replying to

Those are absolutely all good ideas. But my position, is, why is there so much resistance to the general principle that land absolutely anywhere should be allowed to be developed for housing and other "urban" use; with regulatory prohibitions being clearly defined geographic locations limited in number and extent? This was not even controversial for most of human history although the scope for rent-seeking to be disempowered by it was only fully enabled by the automobile. If we had Central Planning like we have today, decades earlier, there would be no Porirua, for example. Ooh, MUCH too far from the existing trunk infrastructure at the nearest urban area!

Any in depth economic analysis can only conclude that splattered new developments…

Like

©2021 by Bassett, Brash & Hide. Proudly created with Wix.com

bottom of page