New Zealand

Melbourne-based property developer Ninety Four Feet has unveiled its project Lakeview Te Taumata, a 10-hectare lakeside suburb set to redefine luxury living in the heart of Queenstown.

Situated near the iconic Skyline Gondola, the collaboration with ASX-listed Centuria Capital Group and visionary pioneers from the Britomart precinct in Auckland will transform a former campground on Lake Wakatipu into a vibrant, world-class community over the next decade.

The multi-billion-dollar precinct will encompass diverse offerings, including residential apartments, a co-living building, three hotels, a co-working centre, health and wellness facilities, curated retail spaces, an art gallery and a significant food and beverage offering. The proposed addition of thermal pools, pending approval, will add an exciting dimension to the project.

<img alt="QT" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="588af906-4de9-41bd-a2f3-397be79e4648" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/QT.jpg?VersionId=HLhegLZ5rsDR4CVjMM31sbBSpTuAkev9" />

Architectural renders reveal stone-wrapped shops and restaurants at ground level, complemented by one co-living building and four residential tower blocks, with the tallest reaching twelve stories high.

Over half of the precinct will be dedicated to open public spaces and walkways, fostering a sense of community.

Ninety Four Feet Development Manager Charmaine Balchin stated the project will officially launch in early 2024, with New Zealand Sotheby’s International Realty inviting high net worth clients from their database to register their interest now.

The consortium secured the project in a competitive global bid with the Queenstown Lakes District Council in 2019. Subdivision and civil works commenced in 2020, with the handover expected in March 2024.

“Despite global challenges, the Queenstown Lakes District Council has shown remarkable dedication to bringing this ambitious project to fruition,"&nbsp;Balchin said.

“It’s really inspiring to see the precinct forming and we’re excited to bring this community alive with our layers. We anticipate startingconstruction of the first stage coming out of winter 2024."

<img alt="QT" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="3708f786-46fe-4348-9786-cf8a5bd02061" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/QT%202.jpg?VersionId=xZRiHZLcwrmQjKdlg0jAmJVC81QbhCoy" />

New Zealand Sotheby’s International Managing Director Mark Harris described Lakeview Te Taumata as Queenstown's first truly world-class master-planned community in the CBD.

Ninety Four Feet emphasise a cohesive design philosophy centred on sustainability, neighbourly intent, and experiential placemaking.Lakeview Te Taumata aims to be a net-positive project for energy, water, and waste. Collaborating with Māori designers, artists, placemakers, and renowned architects Monk Mackenzie and Architectus, the project respects both the natural environment and the cultural heritage of the region.

Prices start at $750,000, offering a range of residential options, including one, two and three-bedroom residences and penthouse suites.

Lakeview Te Taumata follows Ninety Four Feet's successful $250 million Hotel Indigo Auckland and 51 Albert sky residences tower project in Auckland.

Locally, they've recently completed Tommy Residences in Melbourne's Maribyrnong.

Prices start at $750,000, offering a range of residential options, including one, two and three-bedroom residences and penthouse suites

Urban Editorial

Melbourne developer Ninety Four Feet unveil new Queenstown suburb, Lakeview Te Taumata

<html><body>
Expert Observer


Economists like to talk about “optimal policy instruments” — essentially, policies that achieve their objectives more effectively or efficiently than the alternatives, and have minimal unintended consequences.

Judged by those criteria, the New Zealand government’s recently announced package of <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/300259522/housing-policy-what-the-changes-mean-for-homeowners-investors-firsthome-buyers-renters-and-bach-owners">housing policy instruments</a> is a long way from optimal. You might even call it a shambles.

How so? To the uninformed, the package’s main elements may seem to address the housing affordability crisis by doing several things:

<ul>
<li>
	removing tax deductibility of interest on loans for residential property investments
	</li>
	<li>
	extending the <a href="https://www.ird.govt.nz/property/buying-and-selling-residential-property/the-brightline-property-rule">bright-line test</a> — the period after which the property sale attracts a capital gains tax (CGT) liability — from five to ten years
	</li>
	<li>
	favouring new builds in these tax changes
	</li>
	<li>
	introducing a “changes of use” rule that effectively makes family homes liable to CGT if sold within ten years and rented out for more than one year
	</li>
	<li>
	and raising income and house price caps for the government’s <a href="https://kaingaora.govt.nz/home-ownership/first-home-grant/">First Home Grant</a> scheme.
	</li>
</ul>
If we examine the package in light of the three optimal policy requirements, however, we can see the problems.

<figure class="align-center "><img alt="Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson at press conference" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/394390/original/file-20210411-23-15frx4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/394390/original/file-20210411-23-15frx4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=400&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/394390/original/file-20210411-23-15frx4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=400&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/394390/original/file-20210411-23-15frx4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=400&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/394390/original/file-20210411-23-15frx4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=503&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/394390/original/file-20210411-23-15frx4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=503&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/394390/original/file-20210411-23-15frx4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=503&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 2262w"><figcaption>Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Finance Minister Grant Robertson announce the Labour government’s housing policy changes. GettyImages</figcaption></figure><h2>Achieving the policy’s objective</h2>

Economists have a policy “rule” that to achieve various policy objectives, you need at least as many policy instruments. The housing package is a hodgepodge of inter-related measures, but it has several explicit objectives:

<ul>
<li>
	stabilising house prices
	</li>
	<li>
	facilitating home ownership
	</li>
	<li>
	discouraging (ill-defined) speculative investment
	</li>
	<li>
	increasing the housing stock with mainly (undefined) “affordable homes”
	</li>
	<li>
	closing what the government claims is a housing “tax loophole”.
	</li>
</ul>
To these, add implicit objectives of tackling perceived income and wealth inequalities between tenants, landlords and homeowners.

Overall, this is quite a task, and it would be remarkable if any set of housing policies could achieve such wide-ranging objectives.

Arguably, the primary target of this policy package is stopping the <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/real-estate/124692627/national-house-price-up-by-more-than-100000-since-early-2020">inexorable upward march</a> of (mainly Auckland) house prices. Failing to achieve that would simply put it among a long line of attempts by previous governments (National and Labour) over the past 20 years at least.

In all cases, the biggest problem has been insufficient political commitment to boosting housing supply.

<h2>Unintended consequences</h2>

All taxes cause “distortions”, mostly unintended, which need to be mitigated. Furthermore, policies that have conflicting objectives are “incoherent” and typically among the most distorting. This applies to the housing package’s removal of interest deductibility.

Previously, in New Zealand and almost every other country, interest on business loans is treated as a legitimate expense and therefore tax deductible, regardless of the nature of that business.

With that coherent principle now not applying to housing, then, what about other types of business loans the government thinks it should favour or disfavour? No doubt arguments could be made for such policies, but the result is an ad hoc tax system that generates multiple undesirable distortions and perverse incentives.

It could be argued the “new build” aspect of the housing package gets some incentives right by directing rental housing investment toward increasing the housing stock.

But with already existing constraints on new house building — such as planning regulations and availability of suitable land — the policy is likely to have little impact. It will simply shift housing investors from competing with first-time buyers for existing properties to competing with them for new properties.

Over time the rental housing stock becomes a patchwork of homes that do or don’t qualify for tax exemptions. Exploiting these new loopholes and assorted distortions to property prices will likely provide plenty of employment for tax accountants.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
'Free money' for landlords: Rent controls needed to protect vulnerable people from rent increases, say advocates <a href="https://t.co/lJ4XvaAjBH">https://t.co/lJ4XvaAjBH</a> <a href="https://t.co/UTQVOWegpW">pic.twitter.com/UTQVOWegpW</a>
— Stuff (@NZStuff) <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://twitter.com/NZStuff/status/1379480197972430848?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 6, 2021</a>
</blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script><h2>A back door capital gains tax</h2>

It would be rare to find a liability based on transactions and timing among the principles of a good tax policy. But the bright-line test manages both — it incentivises delaying property sales to avoid the tax even when selling would otherwise be in the taxpayer’s best interest.

It was originally introduced in 2010 with a two year threshold, without supporting evidence, supposedly to stop so-called speculators from flipping properties for quick profits. A ten year threshold cannot be branded an anti-speculation policy, it is simply a back-door CGT.

As with most back-door policies, this CGT is inevitably less transparent and coherent than a policy designed to tackle the problem head-on would be.

Consider the hypothetical case of an Auckland homeowner relocating to Sydney to work for two years. It wouldn’t be sensible to sell the Auckland house due to high transaction costs and the risk of slipping on the property ladder when trying to buy back later. Much better to rent in Sydney while also renting out the Auckland home.

But this would now generate a potentially substantial tax bill on the family home. Indeed, <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300260832/how-the-government-is-changing-rules-for-renting-out-your-main-home-and-the-brightline-test?rm=a">one calculation</a> showed just such a plausible scenario could generate a CGT liability of almost a year’s salary — simply to move to a similarly priced house.

<h2>Alternative policy instruments</h2>

If there are better alternatives, they do not lie in even more ad hoc fiddling with a coherent tax regime.

Instead, like the famous real estate mantra of “location, location, location”, the mantra for New Zealand housing policy should be “supply, supply, supply”. Specifically, supply in Auckland.

Successive governments have aimed policies nationwide when rapid house price inflation is almost exclusively urban and essentially an Auckland phenomenon.

Without policies that reform construction sector regulations and open up more land for urban housing, there is little prospect of Auckland house prices stabilising while current demand-driven trends persist. To make matters worse, the government’s first-home buyer schemes will merely raise demand without incentivising supply.

With too many objectives and the probability of numerous unintended consequences, the government’s housing policies risk being seriously incoherent.<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/158768/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important" width="1">

 

This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-zealands-new-housing-policy-is-really-just-a-new-tax-package-and-its-a-shambles-158768">original article</a>.

 

Related Projects:

[smartcode_project:default project_id=7275]

[smartcode_project:default project_id=95292]
</body></html>

Without making housing supply the priority, the government's tax-based policies create more objectives than they can reasonably achieve

max.kwok_55688

New Zealand’s new housing policy is really just a new tax package — and it’s a shambles

<html><body>
<h3 class="post-title entry-title"> </h3>
Annual migration to New Zealand hit its highest annual level on record in November 2016 at 70,400. 
<h3 class="post-title entry-title"> </h3>
Australia saw a net loss of permanent and long term 1,830 departures to NZ over the year - mainly Kiwis returning home - although over the last six years the cumulative gain to Australia has been more than 116,000. 
<div id="post-body-8831991451369549932" class="post-body entry-content"><a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/01/17/NZ1.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content">
 <div class="separator"><img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2017/01/17/NZ1.jpg" alt=""></div>
 <div class="separator">Although it's tempting to think that Australia is losing population to New Zealand, in reality the opposite is true.</div>
<div class="separator"> </div>
<div class="separator">In fact, an extra 16,000 Kiwis came to Australia on 444 visas on a net basis over the year, taking the total storming past 677,000. </div>
<div class="separator"> </div>
<div class="separator">The big drivers of migration to NZ are now China and South Africa. </div>
<div class="separator"> </div>
<div class="separator"><a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/01/17/NZ3.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a></div>
 <div class="separator"><img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2017/01/17/NZ3.jpg" alt=""></div>
 NZ still has a lower unemployment rate than Australia, which is very much helping its cause.</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content"> </div>
<div class="post-body entry-content">
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/01/17/NZ2.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a> <img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2017/01/17/NZ2.jpg" alt=""> <div> </div>
</div>
<div class="post-footer"> </div>
<div class="post-footer">
<div class="post-footer">
<div class="post-footer">
<div id="post-body-8831991451369549932" class="post-body entry-content">
<div>
PETE WARGENT is the co-founder of <a href="https://allenwargent.com/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">AllenWargent</a> property buyers (London, Sydney) and a best-selling author and <a href="https://petewargent.blogspot.com/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">blogger</a>. 
His latest book is <a href="https://www.bigskypublishing.com.au/Books/General-Interest/Four-Green-Houses--and-a-Red-Hotel/1015/productview.aspx" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Four Green Houses and a Red Hotel</a>.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body></html>

pwargent-M4siyDbqQY

NZ migration highest on record: Pete Wargent

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Raise your hand if you’ve ever travelled for weeks or months as a backpacker on a limited daily budget. Keep your hand up if you were made welcome in the places you visited on your <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249631253_The_big_'OE'_Young_New_Zealand_travellers_as_secular_pilgrims">OE</a>, enjoyed chance encounters and experienced the generosity of strangers.
And did those experiences leave a lifelong affection for the places you visited and people you met? If the answer is yes, then we need to consider what might happen in New Zealand were Tourism Minister Stuart Nash’s latest ideas to become policy.
To recap, Nash told the Tourism Summit in Wellington last week the industry should move away from catering for low-spending backpackers and instead <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/18/new-zealand-tourism-looks-past-backpackers-in-favour-of-high-net-worth-individuals">target the rich</a>. This would solve two problems: the environmental damage allegedly caused by freedom campers (including using <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/defecating-freedom-campers-cause-a-big-stink-at-otagos-smaills-beach/IQXG2C6HLDTFJCH3JOIFA4UBSM/">nature as their toilet</a>), and the pressure of too many visitors in general.
Nash was right to say we cannot return to the pre-COVID normal when the border reopens and the tourism recovery begins. Overcapacity, strained infrastructure and environmental impacts meant <a href="https://www.pce.parliament.nz/our-work/news-insights/media-release-pristine-popular-imperilled">growing community resistance</a> was reaching a tipping point.
But do we really want to banish backpackers and position New Zealand as expensive and exclusive — the Switzerland of the South Pacific? There are five reasons this approach would be a mistake.
1. Big spenders are big polluters
Lower-budget travellers generally stay much longer than the average. They usually make a higher aggregate economic contribution than those whose daily spend is high but who pass through quickly.
Does New Zealand really want only the uber-rich to experience our natural wonders, when flying business class, travelling by cruise ship and hiring helicopters are the most environmentally damaging ways to do so?
 
If we were to consider the wider social, economic and environmental impacts of discrete tourism markets, we would be banishing the <a href="http://www.physics.otago.ac.nz/space/cruise_ship_EnergyPol.pdf">cruise industry</a> first, not backpackers.
2. Backpackers bring many benefits
Because they stay longer, backpackers can bring wider benefits to our society, economy and environment. They tend to be more dispersed, bringing economic development and employment opportunities to regional communities.
Also, their travel behaviours tend to align more with the concept of <a href="https://pureadvantage.org/news/2020/07/31/regenerative-tourism-opportunity-for-tourism-recovery/">regenerative tourism</a>. Backpackers are more likely to be conscious of their carbon footprint, engage in beach cleanups, plant trees and involve themselves in conservation projects.
They are a seasonal labour force, too, as has been shown by critical <a href="https://www.odt.co.nz/rural-life/horticulture/no-change-seasonal-worker-shortage">labour shortages</a> in rural and regional economies due to border closures.
3. The importance of diverse tourism
Backpackers and freedom campers support small regional tourism businesses, attractions and local services that would not survive without them. Backpacker hostels, home-stays, camping grounds and other low-budget accommodation subsectors would be at risk, as would many small and medium tourism businesses.
During crises it is important that tourism destinations have a broad portfolio of markets. This ensures resilience and mitigates potential economic impacts from periodic disruptions to global tourism. Furthermore, as the mayor of Queenstown has <a href="https://www.odt.co.nz/regions/caution-urged-over-tourist-van-ban">observed</a>, today’s backpackers return in future as high-end visitors.
4. Tackling climate change and overconsumption
Social tourism refers to the principle that opportunities to engage occasionally in leisure and tourism are important for personal well-being and an inclusive society. It is a form of tourism based on an <a href="https://westminsterresearch.westminster.ac.uk/item/8zz55/what-is-social-tourism">ethic of social inclusion</a>, as opposed to exclusion based on wealth.
By contrast, the carbon-intense lifestyles and sense of entitlement of the super-wealthy are major barriers to climate action.
Our tourism policies should not celebrate and encourage over-consumption, which works against shifting attitudes towards less carbon-intensive and more sustainable travel.
5. Damage to our international reputation
Do we really want to be perceived as exclusionary and elitist? A colleague based at a university in the Netherlands, for example, reported a social media backlash:
Everyone is complaining about the news that Kiwis do not want to have us anymore and they are only interested in tourists who fly business class and hire a helicopter around Franz Josef.
Similarly, the policy can look petty. A <a href="https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/new-zealand-vows-crackdown-on-defecating-backpackers/articleshow/79277723.cms">story</a> headlined “New Zealand vows crackdown on defecating backpackers” in the Times of India reported the New Zealand government’s promise “to take action against backpackers relieving themselves at natural beauty spots as part of post-coronavirus tourism plans”.
The post-COVID challenge
Should New Zealand’s post-coronavirus tourism rebuild really be perceived as revolving around the defecations of low-budget tourists? While there have been cases of disgusting behaviour, this problem can be actively managed.
Non-self-contained campervans could be required to park overnight in fully serviced camping grounds for a nominal fee. New Zealanders should not bear the costs of tourism, anyway. Local councils transfer the costs of freedom camping to ratepayers when they provide “free” overnight parking and toilet facilities — putting rate-paying local camping grounds out of business.
 
Above all, our tourism rebuild should be closely aligned with what makes New Zealand unique. First and foremost, it should be founded on the Māori principles of <a href="https://maoridictionary.co.nz/search?idiom=&amp;phrase=&amp;proverb=&amp;loan=&amp;histLoanWords=&amp;keywords=kaitiakitanga">kaitiakitanga</a> and <a href="https://maoridictionary.co.nz/search?keywords=manaakitanga">manaakitanga</a> — a mutual responsibility to care for the land and culture, as expressed in the <a href="https://tiakinewzealand.com/">Tiaki Promise</a> charter.
This would honestly reflect the ideals of generations of Kiwis who have set off on their own OEs to experience the world. If we consider this a birthright, is it fair that we deny the same to others who want to visit us?<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/150639/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/james-higham-134567">James Higham</a>, Professor of Tourism, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-otago-1304">University of Otago</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hazel-tucker-1180720">Hazel Tucker</a>, Professor, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-otago-1304">University of Otago</a>
This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/5-reasons-why-banishing-backpackers-and-targeting-wealthy-tourists-would-be-a-mistake-for-nz-150639">original article</a>.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/james-higham-134567">James Higham</a> &amp; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hazel-tucker-1180720">Hazel Tucker</a>
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

5 reasons why banishing backpackers and targeting wealthy tourists would be a mistake for NZ

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Until a trans-Tasman travel bubble is <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-04/trans-tasman-bubble-coronavirus-what-might-happen-next/12212580" target="_blank">established</a>, there is little doubt the New Zealand tourism industry will <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/413845/covid-19-domestic-travellers-eyed-to-keep-tourism-sector-viable-after-lockdown" target="_blank">rely entirely</a> on domestic travel post-COVID-19.
Without underplaying the impact the pandemic will have on discretionary spending in both countries, however, there may be a silver lining to the crisis.
New Zealand is in the fortunate position of having an <a href="https://tia.org.nz/about-the-industry/quick-facts-and-figures/" target="_blank">already strong</a> domestic tourism sector. Domestic tourists spent NZ$23.7 billion annually (or NZ$65 million a day) pre-COVID-19, compared to a total spend of NZ$12.7 billion (or NZ$47 million a day) by international visitors. <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://openrepository.aut.ac.nz/handle/10292/11857" target="_blank">Research</a> pre-COVID-19 showed 65% of New Zealanders wanted to explore more of their country, a figure expected to increase.
True, New Zealanders generally don’t have the deep pockets international tourists have. Their higher overall spend is a reflection of their numbers, not their bank balances. But with the big ticket tourist attractions now missing the bigger spenders, the market will rule.
Regional tourism organisations, attractions and operators may need to rethink their offerings and their pricing. While tramping the <a href="https://www.doc.govt.nz/parks-and-recreation/things-to-do/walking-and-tramping/great-walks/" target="_blank">great walks</a> may be perfectly affordable for a family of four, taking the family on a whale watch, a bungy jump or a cruise on Milford Sound may not be – especially as parts of one big holiday. Indeed, it has been found that <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://openrepository.aut.ac.nz/handle/10292/11857" target="_blank">price</a> is the major decision-making factor for 30% of New Zealanders when it comes to holidays.
So this is also an opportunity to give New Zealanders back a piece of the summer pie – not only for the COVID-19 recovery but in the longer term. Summers have tended to be characterised by a large influx of international tourists, with Kiwis settling for shoulder seasons (and unfavourable weather) to tramp the famous tracks when they are <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/99088942/tourists-outnumber-new-zealanders-on-the-great-walks--and-the-gaps-growing" target="_blank">less crowded</a>.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/331898/original/file-20200501-42929-8lze50.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Attractions such as the famous Shotover Jet near Queenstown may have to adjust costs to suit Kiwi pockets. www.shutterstock.com
But domestic tourists who have grown accustomed to off-peak holidays away from high-cost destinations will soon tip the scales. Now is the time for operators to win back their hearts.
With New Zealand’s gradual easing of its strict lockdown (possibly to the stage of allowing non-essential travel by mid-May), tourism can clearly support the economic revival of local communities. The challenge is how to reinvent New Zealand tourism as an initially purely domestic industry.
Overall, only a handful of New Zealand destinations have depended entirely on international tourists. These also happen to be the places most heavily associated with overtourism in the past. Given that the <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14616688.2020.1759131" target="_blank">growth model</a> driven by short-term, dollars-first business thinking has led to an <a href="https://www.noted.co.nz/money/money-economy/nz-tourists-should-we-limit-number-visitors" target="_blank">unsustainable</a> tourism market, might this also be a chance to restore some equilibrium?
That will mean no more killing the goose that lays the <a href="https://www.pce.parliament.nz/publications/pristine-popular-imperilled-the-environmental-consequences-of-projected-tourism-growth" target="_blank">golden egg</a>. Some hotspots, such as the <a href="https://www.tongarirocrossing.org.nz/" target="_blank">Tongariro Alpine Crossing</a> and <a href="https://www.thecoromandel.com/activities/must-do/hot-water-beach/" target="_blank">Coromandel’s Hot Water Beach</a> may be managed by restricting visitor numbers.
Such strategies have long been in place in other places, such as the <a href="https://www.doc.govt.nz/parks-and-recreation/places-to-go/fiordland/places/fiordland-national-park/things-to-do/tracks/milford-track/" target="_blank">booking requirement</a> for the Milford Track. We have also seen tremendous problems associated with too many cruise ships in too small places. Akaroa is a prime example, and limiting both the number of visits and the size of vessels may be a feasible <a href="https://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=2018685520" target="_blank">future strategy</a>.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/331899/original/file-20200501-42929-1nm13fy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
A cruise liner arrives at tiny Akaroa in the South Island: limiting the number of visits to small centres has already been proposed. www.shutterstock.com
As part of our own research (yet to be published) into the pressing issues of overtourism we conducted interviews with various tourism stakeholders around New Zealand, including city and regional councils, the Department of Conservation, residents and operators. This took place just before New Zealand’s strictest lockdown level was imposed, without any real foreknowledge of the eventual economic impact of COVID-19.
Nonetheless, our interviewees shared very similar sentiments when it came to how the industry can evolve sustainably only if New Zealanders themselves embrace the behaviours they expect (and sometimes demand) of foreign tourists. According to our subjects, too many Kiwis still hold on to a past when the country’s population was half its current size and SUVs and large motorhomes didn’t crowd the roads and parking lots.
Initiatives such as the <a href="https://tiakinewzealand.com/" target="_blank">Tiaki Promise</a>, which promote environmental and cultural sensitivity to tourists, have largely targeted international visitors. These now need to turn the lens inwards so that Kiwis become better ambassadors within their own backyard.
Kiwis love their country, but they will now need to truly discover what it has to offer, not only for a weekend of tramping or a quick getaway, but for their main summer holiday. And they will have to become better kaitiaki (or guardians) of their homeland in the process.
The absence of international tourists will be a huge challenge, but also an opportunity. If we get it right, when those foreign visitors are allowed to return (most likely at first from Australia) we will have found ways to grow – or limit – their numbers and their expectations so that our tourism industry can thrive as well as survive.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/137256/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/sabrina-seeler-744896" target="_blank">Sabrina Seeler</a>, Postdoctoral Researcher, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/nord-university-3607" target="_blank">Nord University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michael-lueck-804450" target="_blank">Michael Lueck</a>, Professor of Tourism, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/auckland-university-of-technology-1137" target="_blank">Auckland University of Technology</a>
This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-coronavirus-survival-challenge-for-nz-tourism-affordability-and-sustainability-137256" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

The coronavirus survival challenge for NZ tourism: affordability and sustainability

<html><body>
The Lendlease Real Estate Partners New Zealand fund is set to sell New Zealand’s premier retail portfolio.
The portfolio is expected to fetch a combined price in excess of NZ$350 million.
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2019/10/16/Christchurch.jpg" alt="">
The portfolio includes outlet centres Dress Smart Onehunga, Auckland (pictured top) and Dress Smart Hornby, Christchurch (pictured above), together with Meridian Mall (pictured below) - a retail asset in the centre of Dunedin’s CBD. 
The portfolio is being offered in one line. 
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2019/10/16/NZ%20Portfolio%201.jpg" alt="">
Colliers International and CBRE are managing the International Expressions of Interest campaign which commences in October 2019.
Each centre is the number one performer in its respective catchment. 
“We expect to receive significant interest from offshore investors, who will be drawn to the globally attractive initial yield, low acquisition costs and quality growth opportunities each city’s demographic offers,” Simon Rooney, CBRE Head of Retail Investments commented.
“Around the world, the outlet centre market is relatively small in terms of the number of centres and the number of investors and operators participating. Outlet centres have successfully closed the gap between full price retail and highly disruptive internet sales as they provide a level of investment diversification from traditional shopping centres,” said Mr. MacGillivray.
“This retail portfolio represents a ‘once in a generation’ opportunity to immediately dominate the outlet retail experience in New Zealand.”
</body></html>

Lendlease selling NZ$350 million New Zealand retail portfolio

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
New Zealand’s Tax Working Group (<a href="https://taxworkinggroup.govt.nz/" target="_blank">TWG</a>) released its <a href="https://taxworkinggroup.govt.nz/resources/future-tax-final-report" target="_blank">final report</a> last month, with the most significant recommendation to introduce a capital gains tax.
The key motivation for the Labour-led government in establishing the TWG was to investigate a fairer tax system. For reasons of simplicity, the TWG proposes broad exclusions from a capital gains tax, including a taxpayer’s primary home and all personal assets such as collectables and artworks.
I argue that this exclusion could nudge taxpayers towards investing in art.
Taxing works of art
My research explores how the tax system can promote the arts and fair reward for artists. But I am concerned by the lack of principle or clear purpose underpinning the TWG’s collectables recommendation.
Few countries specifically privilege artworks for capital gains tax purposes. But in the United States, artworks have long qualified for roll-over relief, whereby a taxpayer can sell an artwork but not pay tax on any gain <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1" target="_blank">if they reinvest in art</a>. This roll-over relief has been eliminated by Donald Trump’s tax reforms, but <a href="https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/trump-s-tax-act-offers-potential-tax-havens-for-art" target="_blank">investments in special economic development areas</a> offer similar deferral opportunities or even elimination of capital gains tax liability.
A more common approach internationally is to include <a href="https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/lu/Documents/financial-services/artandfinance/lu-en-artfinance-taxmatrix-16092013.pdf" target="_blank">artworks in a general category of personal assets</a> that are excluded, provided they are held for at least a year. France excludes sales of artworks or other collectables from a capital gains tax if the sale price does not exceed €5000 (about A$8,000). Similarly, the United Kingdom only taxes collectables sold for more than £6,000 (about A$11,000) <a href="https://www.gov.uk/capital-gains-tax-personal-possessions" target="_blank">but excludes other personal assets</a>. In contrast, <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/general/capital-gains-tax/cgt-assets-and-exemptions/#Personal_use_assets" target="_blank">Australia taxes the gains on collectables</a> bought for more than A$500 but excludes gains on personal-use assets bought for no more than A$10,000.
The problem of categories
Once policymakers draw distinctions between types of assets for capital gains purposes, anomalies inevitably arise. The United Kingdom distinguishes between personal assets deemed to have a <a href="https://www.gov.uk/capital-gains-tax-personal-possessions" target="_blank">lifespan shorter or longer than 50 years</a>. Stamps, for example, are deemed to have a lifespan of more than 50 years and therefore potentially attract capital gains tax, whereas antique clocks or watches are deemed to last fewer than 50 years and are not taxed.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/262266/original/file-20190305-48435-1ufz3sg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Portrait of Omai, by Joshua Reynolds, depicts Omai, a Pacific Islander who travelled to England with the second expedition of Captain James Cook. <a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Joshua_Reynolds_-_Portrait_of_Omai.jpg" target="_blank">From Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" target="_blank">CC BY-SA</a>
But since plant or machinery used in a business is deemed to have a lifespan of fewer than 50 years, the <a href="https://www.pumptax.com/wp-content/uploads/old/documents/HMRC%20v%20%20Lord%20Howards%20Executors%20approvedl.pdf" target="_blank">Court of Appeal famously ruled</a> that Omai, a 250-year-old painting by Sir Joshua Reynolds, was plant that did not attract capital gains tax on disposal.
In Australia, personal-use assets include boats, furniture, electrical goods and household items. Collectables include paintings, sculptures, drawings, engravings and photographs. Disputably, personal-use assets are presumed to be wasting assets, whereas collectables are not.
Different types of assets may not fit neatly into either category: for example, furniture has a utilitarian function and eventually deteriorates but is commonly collected. It is a troubling thought that such policy distinctions may lead to a (presumably unintended) preference for the utilitarian over the aesthetic.
For the sake of simplicity, New Zealand’s TWG recommends excluding all personal assets, including collectables, from its proposed capital gains tax. Artists may incidentally benefit from such an exclusion. A wealthy person might choose to invest in artworks to hang on the walls of their tax-free principal residence. In Australia, the tax nudge is in favour of non-collectable personal-use assets.
An investor might even choose to invest in artworks rather than, say, listed shares. These investment decisions could have a beneficial trickle-down effect for living domestic artists, although purchasing works by internationally recognised artists with established track records may be a more attractive investment option.
Proposed exclusion for artworks
Capital gains tax is an inherently complex tax. The complexities are exacerbated once politically necessary exemptions are introduced. Every deviation from the fundamental principle that all receipts should be taxed diminishes equity. But equity is not the only generally accepted tax principle. Efficiency, neutrality, sustainability and simplicity, among other criteria, should also be considered.
With regard to personal assets, the TWG has elevated simplicity above other pertinent considerations. Consequently, wealthy people might continue to receive tax-free capital gains by investing in their principal residence and collectables. This possibility would be unfair, inefficient, non-neutral and unsustainable.
Promoting the arts in the public sphere and the economic well-being of artists is most effectively pursued through direct grants and subsidies, but a proportionate capital gains tax exclusion might also assist. For example, while roll-over relief in the United States generally benefited the art market, it may have been a disproportionate way of promoting public access to the arts or helping artists most in need.
A painting by an old master stored in a bank vault has no immediate social benefit.
So how might a tax exclusion benefit the arts and artists?
First, no distinction should be drawn, as Australia does, between personal-use and collectable assets, because a nudge towards personal-use assets may discourage investment in artworks.
Second, a cap on the value of excluded collectables, say NZ$10,000, might encourage purchases of less expensive artworks created by emerging local artists.
Third, for more valuable artworks a rebate might apply for public display. For example, if an owner lends an artwork to a public gallery for half the period they own it, a 50% rebate could apply. If the New Zealand government takes up the TWG recommendation for a capital gains tax, proposed exclusions could be modified to benefit the arts and artists. Australia might also usefully reconsider how it treats artworks for tax purposes.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/112765/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Jonathan Barrett, Lecturer, Victoria University of Wellington
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-zealands-proposed-capital-gains-tax-could-nudge-taxpayers-to-invest-in-art-instead-of-property-112765" target="_blank">original article</a>.
Main photo;  For more valuable artworks, a tax rebate could apply if an owner lends an artwork to a public gallery. from www.shutterstock.com, <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" target="_blank">CC BY-SA</a>
</body></html>

New Zealand’s proposed capital gains tax could nudge taxpayers to invest in art instead of property

<html><body>
High Ridge, a hill country estate in New Zealand’s Hawke’s Bay is for sale.
Located at 266 Blackbarn Rd, Havelock North, the four bedroom four bathroom home is on the fringe of famous Te Mata Peak.
It was built was built by Leo and Anne-Marie Leader.
The home uses cutting edge argon-filled double glazed glass with thermal breaks to ensure the least heat loss. 
<img src="https://f.datasrvr.com/f1/519/90354/1.JPG" width="640" data-imagetype="External">
Featuring water heat pumps and an AC system allowing for individual room control, two years of planning and design, followed by two years of construction went into the home.
The pool was the first in the bay to have insulated sides and bottom, also benefiting from a magnesium-treated water system with no nasty chemicals, with the water heated during the colder months by a heat pump.”
Other features include a separate study, soundproof media room, sauna, master bedroom with dressing room and ensuite, as well as a large undercover outdoor entertaining area.
There is an insulated garage with storage for five cars.
<img src="https://f.datasrvr.com/f1/119/43312/4.JPG" width="640" data-imagetype="External">
“There are only 48 properties within this private estate; surrounded by vines, native trees, and the right to roam over 400 acres of Queen Elizabeth II Trust land. Residents have access to the private 9-hole golf course, tennis court and a fully-equipped pavilion overlooking spectacular views for those extra-large barbecue parties," Mr Leader said.
Havelock North Village, voted the nation’s most beautiful suburb, is only a few minutes drive from the property’s gated community.
Ray White Hastings sales agent Zak Marsden said “The owners are very motivated to have this property sold, and I'm going to sell it."
High Ridge is for sale by tender, closing 3pm (NZDT) on February 12.
</body></html>

High Ridge for sale in gated Havelock North, New Zealand estate

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVATION
New Zealand’s Labour-led coalition government used its first budget to drive step changes in social and environmental outcomes. The investment approach to public policy has become the new orthodoxy for governance.
The investment approach can be defined as using evidence to quantify a public problem and then fund interventions that are likely to improve outcomes and therefore reduce future costs to government.
When the government released its first budget yesterday, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Finance Minister Grant Robertson delivered a document that stands in stark contrast to those of the National government that led the country from 2008 to 2017. This is most apparent in its approaches to social services and environmental protection.
Political and economic context
The coalition government comprises three parts. The centre-left Labour Party is joined by New Zealand First, which espouses economic nationalism. The Green Party, which emphasises good environmental stewardship, agreed to give confidence and supply. The budget could easily have been a train wreck. Its coherence is a major accomplishment.
With the New Zealand economy nearing a decade of continuous growth, the government’s revenue base is sound. This has allowed it to fund new initiatives while keeping the budget in surplus. The government has shown a strong desire to maintain sound economic management, but it is not prepared to sacrifice other valued outcomes to hasten the paying off of government debt. As Robertson said in his budget speech:
"We are committed to being responsible – not just fiscally, but socially and environmentally."
Big priorities
The budget brought good news for health, education, housing, transport and the environment. It also heralded more incentives for business innovation.
In health, the big news concerned reducing the cost of visiting a doctor and improving access to primary care, as well as extending cancer screening and easing access to mental health services.
In education, the government had previously announced its fee-free post-school training and education policy. This means people will be able to attend university and undergo other tertiary training without having to pay fees for the first year. Education also got a boost for the early years, with a large amount of new funding to meet increasing demands for early childhood education.
Auckland’s recent immigration-driven population growth and soaring property prices have had two adverse effects. Homelessness has become an acute problem and bottlenecks have arisen across transportation networks. The 2018 budget made provision for increasing the stock of state housing – the previous government had started selling it off. The budget also provided large amounts for transport infrastructure.
The Greens received their wish, with a $181.6 million funding boost for the Department of Conservation. This was the largest increase since 2002.
Investment approach
In its first budget, the government has adopted the language of investment. This represents both continuity and change.
Under the previous National government, New Zealand experimented with treating public policies as investments. Datasets were developed to gain insights into how various risk factors in young people translated into subsequent costs for taxpayers. Armed with these insights, the government redesigned social services to better meet the needs of those at risk. Australia emulated some of this.
Public policies that help people participate in society and contribute to the workforce generally meet popular support. But the National government didn’t gain that popularity dividend. The likely reason is that its leaders focused on the fiscal savings to be achieved. Individual and social well-being got short shrift.
Times have changed. Grant Robertson made this very clear. Note the language: "Budget 2018 lays the foundations for New Zealanders to have better lives in the decades to come."
Talking of education, he said: "Better education leads to better lives, and today we begin those investments with new energy."
About addressing child poverty he said the aim was that: "New Zealand truly becomes the best place in the world to be a child … if we improve the well-being of our children, we will be a rich society indeed."
Robertson applied the language of investment in talking about rehabilitating prisoners, addressing climate change and foreign policy. The investment approach being proposed is in accord with international evidence of good practice.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96811/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">With its 2018 budget, this New Zealand government has emphasised that it does things differently. While building on established policy frameworks, Jacinda Ardern and her colleagues are showing how responsible economic management and adoption of public policies that are known to be effective can improve the well-being of all citizens.
Michael Mintrom, Professor of Public Sector Management, Monash University
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/nz-budget-2018-government-adopts-investment-approach-to-achieve-valued-outcomes-96811" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

NZ budget 2018: government adopts investment approach to achieve valued outcomes

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Foreign national ownership of property is a growing concern for many countries, including New Zealand and Australia. From 2018, New Zealand is banning foreign ownership of residential property in an attempt to curb housing inflation and high vacancy rates.
What’s going on in New Zealand?
New Zealand residential property inflation reached 10.46% last year. Prices rose by 34% over the past three years.
As a consequence, New Zealanders are increasingly concerned that people on low and medium incomes are being locked out of the property market. Home ownership in New Zealand has reached its lowest level in 65 years – only a quarter of adults under 40 years own their own home compared to half in 1991.
Immigration to New Zealand grew by 19% in the last financial year. Strong immigration, low interest rates and limited housing supplies, particularly in areas affected by recent earthquakes, have fuelled the rise in house prices.
Jancinda Ardern’s new Labour government went to the election with a comprehensive housing platform that included a crackdown on speculative investors. Labour stated that 2015 tax changes applying to investor earnings were not having the desired effect of limiting price growth.
How does Australia compare?
When it comes to housing, New Zealand is both leading the way while behind Australia in other areas of housing policy. The incoming New Zealand legislative changes emphasise the banning of foreign ownership of residential property. Australia’s Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) already applies a ban on foreign ownership for existing (as opposed to new) housing. Like Australia, the New Zealand legislation will continue to allow permanent residents to buy existing homes.
However, there are some significant differences. New Zealand’s law will also apply to foreign trusts and foreign corporations. Australian still allows some foreign trusts and corporations to buy existing homes where staff need to be accommodated. In Australia, overseas residential investment is largely channelled into building new homes.
Many in Australia consider that temporary residents such as students and those here for work should not be allowed to buy existing residential properties. The FIRB allows this. The proposed New Zealand legislation, in its current form, does not.
New Zealand anticipates that removing investor demand by excluding foreign nationals from the market will help stabilise house prices. However, there is little evidence that such measures have successfully slowed price inflation in Australia.
Increases in stamp duty rates for some foreign residential purchases are at odds with the FIRB’s long-standing need to encourage investment to offset foreign trade deficits. In the 2015/16 year, for example, approvals for foreign investment in real estate totalled A$72.4 billion.
However, the New South Wales and Victorian governments both increased stamp duty surcharges for foreign investors in residential real estate to make it less attractive to them. The difference here between the two countries is that in Australia the surcharge is being levied as a state initiative rather than a federal one.
Not all states apply a surcharge to foreign investments in real estate. For this reason, the impact is less likely to antagonise Australia’s major trading partners and investors such as China.
The New Zealand surcharges will be applied nationally. Therefore, the surcharge may be viewed as a protectionist measure.
Protectionism and the Productivity Commission
Concern is growing that a global increase in protectionism (favoured by the Trump administration) could lead to a worldwide recession and lower living standards, including in Australia.
However, although foreign ownership restrictions could hurt New Zealand’s reputation as an open economy, they are unlikely to do so. This is because 58.5% of the funds coming into New Zealand are from Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. These are also the countries that New Zealand most heavily invests in. Where the surcharge remains reasonable, it is unlikely to impact upon investment or be seen as a protectionist measure.
New Zealand has been much slower than Australia to introduce rules on residential property ownership. Its proposed legislation closely mirrors Australia’s legislation in regard to who may buy existing homes. These measures have not significantly slowed housing price rises in Australia.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/87089/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">However, New Zealand also plans to limit residential ownership of property by temporary residents and apply a surcharge nationally. These additional measures may have greater effect on limiting housing price rises than Australia’s restrictions have had so far.
Erika Altmann, Property and Housing Management Researcher, University of Tasmania.
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/foreign-ownership-of-housing-how-do-australia-and-new-zealand-compare-87089" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

New Zealand

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

New Zealand

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News