By Ava

New Zealand is at a pivotal moment, reassessing its foreign buyer ban with a targeted exemption for high-net-worth investors. By linking luxury property ownership to substantial business investment under the Active Investor Plus visa, this policy aims to attract global talent and capital, while safeguarding housing affordability and embedding world-class safeguards against speculation and money laundering.

Introduction: The Crossroads of Investment and Housing

New Zealand's coalition government is at a critical juncture, actively considering a significant policy shift that could recalibrate its approach to foreign investment. The proposal on the table is to relax the stringent 2018 ban on foreign ownership of residential property for a select group: high-net-worth (HNW) individuals seeking residency through investment. This move has ignited a national debate, creating a palpable tension between two core objectives: the strategic goal of attracting substantial foreign direct investment (FDI) to stimulate a sluggish economy, and the pressing social need to maintain housing affordability for its citizens.

The policy under consideration is not a wholesale repeal of the ban but a targeted exemption. It aims to make New Zealand a more compelling destination for global capital and talent by adding a crucial lifestyle incentive—the ability to own a family home. This article provides a comprehensive analysis of this proposed change, dissecting the economic arguments, potential social impacts, and international precedents. It seeks to evaluate whether a carefully crafted exemption can unlock significant economic benefits without undermining the long-cherished Kiwi dream of homeownership, offering a roadmap for a viable policy pathway forward.

Executive Summary

New Zealand is considering a targeted exemption to its 2018 foreign buyer ban, allowing holders of the Active Investor Plus (AIP) visa—high-net-worth individuals investing NZ$5–10 million in New Zealand businesses—to purchase luxury residential property valued at NZ$5 million or more. This proposal aims to attract significant foreign direct investment, enhance economic competitiveness, and draw global talent, while safeguarding the mainstream housing market and addressing concerns about affordability. Evidence from academic studies and international comparisons suggests carefully framed exemptions would have negligible impact on first-home buyers, given the narrow luxury focus and robust anti-money laundering and character safeguards. The viability and success of this policy hinge on transparent, tightly enforced eligibility criteria and clear communication to the public about its economic and social benefits.

Policy Recommendations

1. Adopt a Targeted Luxury Exemption: Restrict foreign property purchases to AIP visa holders, with a minimum home value of NZ$5 million, to ensure the policy targets only those making significant, productive investments.
2. Limit to Single Principal Residence: Permit eligible buyers to purchase only one residence for personal/family use to prevent speculative accumulation and insulate the broader market.
3. Enforce Rigorous Safeguards: Maintain strict anti-money laundering checks, source of funds verification, and comprehensive "fit and proper person" tests as prerequisites for all property transactions.
4. Require Transparent Tracking and Reporting: Mandate public reporting of the number and value of exempt luxury purchases and the total FDI associated with the program, ensuring government, stakeholders, and the public can evaluate the policy's impact.
5. Engage Stakeholders and Public: Continue robust consultation with housing advocates, local councils, industry, and the public to promote transparency and build legitimacy.
6. Communicate the Policy's Purpose Clearly: Emphasize that the exemption is a secondary benefit to productive investment, not an invitation for property speculation, and that it will not affect affordability for ordinary New Zealanders.

Part 1: The Current State of Play: Policy, Politics, and Proposals

To understand the significance of the proposed change, it is essential to first grasp the existing legal framework, the specifics of the new proposal, and the political currents shaping the debate. The 2018 ban was a landmark piece of legislation, and any modification, however targeted, represents a notable evolution in policy.

The 2018 Foreign Buyer Ban Explained

In 2018, the Labour-led government enacted the Overseas Investment Amendment Act, a policy born from widespread public concern over a housing crisis. At the time, New Zealand's property market was among the world's least affordable, with house prices soaring far beyond income growth. The Act's primary mechanism was to classify all residential land as "sensitive," thereby bringing it under the purview of the Overseas Investment Act 2005. This effectively barred most non-residents and non-citizens from purchasing existing homes.

The stated objective was to cool the overheated market by curbing speculative demand from offshore buyers, thereby improving affordability for locals. However, the ban was not absolute. Key exemptions were carved out, most notably for Australian and Singaporean citizens, due to obligations under free trade agreements like the CPTPP. Furthermore, pathways remained for foreigners to invest in new, large-scale housing developments or apartments "off-the-plan," provided these investments contributed to increasing New Zealand's housing supply (EstateListings.co.nz analysis).

The New Proposal: A "Golden Visa" Exemption

The current coalition government is now weighing a precise and strategic amendment. The proposal is not to open the floodgates, but to create a narrow exemption for holders of the **Active Investor Plus (AIP) visa**. This visa, often referred to as a "golden visa," is designed for HNW individuals who commit to significant investments in the New Zealand economy.

The specifics of the proposal, as reported by sources familiar with cabinet discussions, involve two key parameters:

• Eligible Buyers: The right to purchase a home would be restricted to those approved for the AIP visa, which requires a minimum investment of NZ$5 million to NZ$15 million into approved New Zealand businesses and managed funds (Immigration New Zealand).
• Property Threshold: The exemption would only apply to the purchase of luxury homes valued at **NZ$5 million (approx. US$3 million) or more** (Bloomberg report).

It is crucial to note that this is not a standalone real estate visa. The ability to buy a home is positioned as an ancillary benefit to attract individuals who are already making substantial, productive investments into the country.

Luxury properties, particularly in scenic locations like Queenstown, are the focus of the proposed policy change

Political Landscape and Key Voices

The path to implementing this change is paved with political negotiation. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Finance Minister Nicola Willis have publicly signaled that a cabinet decision is imminent, framing the move as a pragmatic tool to attract foreign capital (The Economic Times). The real estate industry has also been abuzz with "growing murmurs" of an impending announcement, anticipating a boost to the high-end market, especially in hotspots like Auckland and Queenstown-Lakes (OneRoof).

However, the policy's fate hinges on coalition dynamics, particularly the stance of New Zealand First and its leader, Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters. As a co-author of the original 2018 ban, his support is critical. Peters has indicated a nuanced position: while reaffirming that the broader ban will remain, he has expressed openness to an exemption for genuine high-value investors. He has publicly stated, "We’re talking about investors. They’re bringing billions to this economy," distinguishing them from simple property buyers (MPA Magazine). This suggests a compromise is achievable, provided the economic benefits are substantial and the scope of the exemption remains tightly controlled.

Part 2: The Economic Imperative: Why Relax the Ban?

The primary driver behind the proposed policy shift is economic. Proponents argue that in a competitive global market for capital and talent, New Zealand must use every tool at its disposal. Relaxing the buyer ban for a select few is presented not as a housing policy, but as a strategic investment attraction policy.

Making New Zealand a More Attractive Destination

For the ultra-wealthy individuals targeted by the Active Investor Plus visa, the decision to relocate or invest is multifaceted. While financial returns are paramount, lifestyle factors play a crucial role. The inability to purchase a family home is a significant deterrent. As one immigration expert noted, "Knowing they can secure a family home... makes New Zealand an even more compelling long-term destination" (IMI Daily). In a world where HNW individuals have numerous options, from the UAE to the USA, such barriers can cause New Zealand to lose out on valuable investment. Real estate agents have reported deals collapsing because investors could not first secure a home to settle in (Queen City Law).

Unlocking Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)

The Active Investor Plus visa is the central mechanism for attracting this capital. Even with the property ban in place, the program has shown significant promise. As of August 2025, it had received 267 applications covering 862 people, with potential investments from this cohort reaching **NZ$1.63 billion** (The Economic Times). Attaching a property-buying incentive is seen as a powerful catalyst to convert this interest into committed, on-the-ground FDI.

This investment is not passive. The AIP visa mandates that funds flow into productive areas of the economy, such as direct investment into private companies or managed funds that support New Zealand businesses (Immigration New Zealand). The broader economic benefits of FDI are well-documented, including job creation, technology and knowledge transfer, and capital for infrastructure, all of which contribute to long-term prosperity (KPMG FDI Analysis).

Data sourced from reports indicating U.S. applicants account for 40-45% of the total, followed by China and Hong Kong (Outbound Investment, The Economic Times).

The "Safe Haven" Appeal and U.S. Interest

A notable trend fueling this debate is the surge in interest from affluent Americans. Reports indicate that U.S. nationals now account for up to 45% of all AIP visa applicants. This is often attributed to a desire to find a "safe haven" amid political and social instability in their home country (Outbound Investment). New Zealand's reputation for stability, robust democratic institutions, and high quality of life are powerful assets. By combining these intrinsic advantages with a more welcoming investment policy that includes property rights, New Zealand can strategically position itself to attract a significant flow of capital and talent from the world's largest economy.

Part 3: The Housing Affordability Dilemma: A Threat to First-Home Buyers?

The most potent argument against relaxing the ban is the potential impact on housing affordability. The memory of the pre-2018 crisis is still fresh, and any policy perceived as benefiting wealthy foreigners at the expense of local first-home buyers faces immense public and political scrutiny. A careful analysis, however, suggests these fears may be overstated if the policy is correctly targeted.

Defining the Scope: Luxury Market vs. First-Home Market

The core of the counterargument rests on market segmentation. The proposed NZ$5 million threshold operates in a completely different stratosphere from the market for first-home buyers. Recent data shows the median price paid by first-home buyers in New Zealand is approximately NZ$685,000 (Rapson & Co). There is virtually no overlap between a family seeking to enter the property market and an investor purchasing a multi-million dollar luxury estate.

Furthermore, transactions in this top-tier bracket represent a tiny fraction of the overall market. Commentators have noted that sales of homes over NZ$5 million comprise less than 2% of total annual transactions (Queen City Law). Therefore, activity within this niche segment is unlikely to create ripple effects that meaningfully impact prices or competition in the mainstream market.

Evaluating the Impact of the Original 2018 Ban

To predict the effect of partially lifting the ban, it is instructive to examine the effect of its imposition. While politically popular, the economic consensus on the 2018 ban's effectiveness is mixed. A 2022 academic paper studying the policy using synthetic control methods concluded that New Zealand's ban on foreign buyers had no statistically significant effect on house price growth (Hartley, Ma, Wachter & Zevelev, 2022). Other economists have argued that while the ban reduced a marginal part of demand, its influence was dwarfed by more powerful factors like historically low interest rates, domestic speculation, and a chronic shortage of housing supply (Stuff.co.nz). This suggests that re-introducing a very small number of foreign buyers at the very top of the market is unlikely to be the primary driver of future affordability trends.

Potential for Positive Spillover vs. Negative Pressure

The arguments against the change often focus on the risk of price pressure. However, there are potential positive effects to consider. Allowing sales in the luxury tier could increase market liquidity, encouraging owners of high-end homes to sell. This activity generates revenue through taxes and fees, and can stimulate related sectors like high-end construction, architecture, and interior design.

The primary risk is one of public perception. Even if the direct economic impact on first-home buyers is negligible, the policy could be seen as favouring the global elite. Therefore, the government's challenge is not just economic but also communicative. It must clearly articulate that the policy is narrowly targeted at attracting productive investors who build businesses and create jobs, not speculators who simply park cash in property. The focus must remain on the "investment" part of the Active Investor Plus visa, with the property purchase framed as a secondary, conditional benefit.

Part 4: A Global Perspective: How Other Nations Manage Foreign Ownership

New Zealand's policy debate does not exist in a vacuum. Nations around the world grapple with the same tension between attracting foreign capital and protecting local housing markets. A comparative analysis reveals a spectrum of approaches, providing valuable context for New Zealand's decision.

Australia: The Nuanced Gatekeeper

Australia employs a more nuanced, approval-based system. Foreign investment is managed by the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB). Generally, non-residents are prohibited from buying established dwellings. However, the policy strongly encourages investment in new housing stock, allowing foreigners to buy new builds or vacant land for development (BDO Australia). This channels foreign capital towards increasing supply, a key factor in addressing affordability. This contrasts with New Zealand's proposed model, which focuses on existing luxury homes as an incentive for business investors.

Canada: The Protectionist Stance

Canada's approach is most similar to New Zealand's original 2018 ban. Citing concerns that foreign money was pricing Canadians out of urban markets, the government introduced the Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Non-Canadians Act in 2023. This outright ban has since been extended and will now run until January 1, 2027 (Department of Finance Canada). This policy demonstrates a clear political choice to prioritize the domestic market over attracting real estate-focused foreign capital, making it a key point of comparison for New Zealand's more protectionist voices.

United Kingdom: The Open, Tax-Based Model

The UK represents the other end of the spectrum, maintaining a completely open market with no legal restrictions on foreign ownership of property, regardless of residency status. Instead of prohibition, its primary regulatory tool is taxation. Non-UK residents purchasing property in England and Northern Ireland must pay a 2% Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) surcharge on top of standard rates (Investropa). This liberal approach prioritizes capital inflow, using fiscal policy to capture a share of the value for the public purse rather than restricting the transaction itself.

United States: Openness with a Security Filter

The U.S. market is also generally open to foreign buyers. There is no direct link between property purchase and investor visas like the EB-5 program, which requires investment in a job-creating commercial enterprise. The main regulatory overlay is national security, with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) authorized to review real estate transactions that could pose a risk, particularly those near sensitive sites (U.S. Department of the Treasury). The default is openness, with targeted intervention for security concerns.

"Golden Visa" Jurisdictions: Property as the Primary Lure

Many countries, particularly in Europe, use real estate as the primary tool to attract capital. Nations like Greece, Portugal, and Malta have offered residency (a "golden visa") directly in exchange for a real estate purchase above a certain threshold (e.g., €250,000 in Greece) (Get Golden Visa). This model is fundamentally different from New Zealand's proposal. In these countries, property is the qualifying investment. In New Zealand, the qualifying investment is in businesses and funds; the property purchase is proposed as a secondary, ancillary benefit.

Part 5: Crafting a Balanced Policy: Safeguards and Strategic Options

Synthesizing the economic arguments, social concerns, and global precedents, it becomes clear that if New Zealand proceeds with relaxing the ban, the "how" is more important than the "if." A successful policy must be built on a foundation of robust safeguards that balance economic goals with national interests.

Viable Policy Options

The government faces three primary pathways:

1. The Targeted Exemption (Current Proposal): This appears to be the most likely path. It involves linking property rights exclusively to Active Investor Plus visa holders at a high value threshold (NZ$5M+). Its strength lies in its precision, directly targeting high-value investors while leaving the mainstream market untouched.
2. A Broader Tax-Based Model: The government could revisit its original campaign promise of a foreign buyer tax (e.g., 15%) on purchases above a lower threshold (e.g., NZ$2M). The main advantage is revenue generation. However, this was politically abandoned once before due to coalition disagreements and may not be a strong enough deterrent for the ultra-wealthy (Forbes Global Properties).
3. The Status Quo: Maintaining the full ban is the simplest option. However, it carries a significant opportunity cost, risking the loss of billions in potential FDI and the high-skilled individuals who bring it, as they opt for more welcoming jurisdictions.

Essential Safeguards to Mitigate Risks

Should the government choose the targeted exemption, embedding the following safeguards is critical to ensure its integrity and maintain public trust:

• Strict Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Source of Funds Checks: New Zealand has a robust AML/CFT (Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism) framework, which was extended to real estate agents in 2018 (Department of Internal Affairs). Any property transaction under this new exemption must be subject to the highest level of scrutiny. This includes rigorous verification of the lawful source of all funds, preventing the luxury property market from becoming a vehicle for laundering illicit proceeds (First AML).
• "Fit and Proper Person" Test: The integrity of the investor is as important as the integrity of their funds. The AIP visa already includes a stringent character test, requiring applicants to declare they have not been involved in business fraud, financial impropriety, or been investigated by bodies like the Serious Fraud Office (Immigration New Zealand). This test must be rigorously applied.
• Limit to a Single Principal Residence: To prevent speculative accumulation, the exemption should be explicitly limited to the purchase of one residential property intended for the investor's personal use as their primary family home in New Zealand. This reinforces the policy's goal as a lifestyle incentive, not a channel for building a rental portfolio.
• Maintain Focus on Productive Investment: The policy's messaging and legal structure must consistently emphasize that the core requirement is the qualifying investment into New Zealand's productive economy. The property right is a consequence of, not a reason for, the visa. This ensures the focus remains on FDI that creates jobs and fosters innovation.

Conclusion: A Strategic and Guarded Opening

New Zealand stands at a pivotal moment, re-evaluating a policy that sits at the nexus of economic ambition and social equity. A blanket ban on all foreign buyers, while politically simple, is a blunt instrument that may be deterring billions in valuable, economy-boosting investment. The evidence suggests the original ban had a negligible impact on overall housing affordability, which is driven by more fundamental domestic factors of supply and credit.

A carefully calibrated relaxation of the ban, specifically for high-value Active Investor Plus visa holders, appears to be a pragmatic and strategic solution. It allows New Zealand to compete effectively for a mobile pool of global talent and capital while insulating the mainstream housing market from any direct impact. This is not about selling houses; it is about using the prospect of a home as a final, compelling piece of the puzzle to attract individuals who will invest substantially in New Zealand's future.

The ultimate success of this policy will hinge entirely on its implementation. By setting a high value threshold, limiting the right to a single principal residence, and embedding the world's best-practice safeguards against speculation and illicit funds, New Zealand can strike a strategic balance. It can open a small, guarded door to attract wealth and innovation, while ensuring the great Kiwi dream of homeownership remains firmly within reach for its own citizens.

Read more »

September 26,  2024....

 Immigration New Zealand has made a quiet change. From from October 7 2024, accredited employers seeking to hire migrants in lower-skilled roles could no longer be represented by their immigration professionals when dealing with Work and Income. 

At first glance, this looks technical. A small line in the operational manual. But small lines carry big signals. What this really suggests  is that when a licensed professional shows up, the system does not see assurance. It sees risk.

For large companies with HR teams, this is another process to navigate. For small and medium-sized businesses, arguably the backbone of New Zealand’s economy, it is a burden that increases their chance of tripping up. 

The irony is obvious: take away professional guidance and you don’t reduce mistakes, you multiply them.

I am not writing about this announcement in terms of a sad professional being attached  to  paperwork, nor about losing a stream of professional fees. I am writing about this change in terms of  what regulation is supposed to mean.

 A licence should be a guarantee of competence and integrity, not a trigger for exclusion.

INZ’s justification is that employer's direct contact makes the labour market test more “genuine,” less open to conflicts of interest. Advisers, it is feared, tilt the process toward migrant outcomes. 

But let's breath and pause for a moment. if licensing itself cannot guarantee trust, then what is licensing for? If a Code of Conduct, statutory oversight, and the power to be struck off are not enough to earn credibility, then what could ever be?

Look abroad. In Australia, migration agents handle labour market testing every day. In Canada, licensed consultants prepare LMIA cases for employers. In Ireland and the United Kingdom, regulated lawyers and advisers support businesses with labour market obligations. 

Conflict of interest exist in all these places and in many regulated industries and more prominent in a country as small as New Zealand.

The issue then, is not the risk of a perceived conflict as such but how  the risk of that conflict tainting a process or favouring an outcome is managed. Examples of how it can be managed are through disclosure, audits, and professional discipline. 

When it comes to assisting employers to test the labour market test via WINZ, New Zealand has chosen a different path. We have decided not to manage the risk, but to erase the immigration professional from such an important stage in the labor market test. 

And so the message between the lines is clear. If an immigration professional is involved, something must be wrong. If a professional stands beside an employer, the process itself is suspicious. If regulation says we are competent, INZ does not believe it. What I am seeing here is not just a policy change; to me this signals the redefinition of our professional standing.

The alternative in my opinion, did not need to be complicated. Require immigration professionals to declare their involvement in the WINZ process and affirm that they will not influence the outcome. Build that declaration into the form. Audit the cases where professionals are engaged. And if misconduct occurs, sanction it through the Immigration Advisers Authority or the Law Society.

These are proportionate safeguards. They use licensing as the protection it was designed to be and not as a reason for exclusion

What worries me most as a Licensed Immigration Adviser is the precedent. In my humble yet strong opinion, this is not about losing one step of a process I might otherwise be paid to handle. It is about the principle. 

If government and Immigration New Zealand assume that regulation is meaningless, if licensing becomes a reason to exclude rather than include, then we have set the wrong signal. 

We tell employers: you are on your own. We tell professionals: your qualification makes you suspect. We tell migrants: trust is optional. And that message extends far beyond this single (meaningless to many colleagues) policy change. It goes to the heart of what professional regulation is supposed to mean. Beyond what the right to representation means. 

A small line in an operational manual can have large consequences. Today it is the Work and Income process. But tomorrow? Is this a one-off adjustment, or the opening chapter in the erosion of a (regulated) profession? Was this a correction, or the inauguration of something much larger?

Because if licensing no longer signals trust, then what lies ahead are more wrong signals. And each one chips away at the very idea of a profession at all.