600 rental homes planned in Queenstown development
The company owned by KiwiSaver and investment funds is managed by Simplicity NZ Ltd. It has already built 210 homes across Auckland, with another 889 under construction.
It has just acquired a 6.1ha site on Ladies Mile, north of the Stalker Rd roundabout, for its first development outside the City of Sails, with an aspiration to build 2000 homes in the resort.
Simplicity NZ managing director Sam Stubbs said they were working closely with the Queenstown Lakes District Council on the infrastructure required to enable construction to start.
Once that was in place, and they had the necessary consents, "we're ready to go".
Based on the Auckland developments, the first tenants could be living there within 13 months of the start.
"We've always had our eye down here, because we thought that the economics of Queenstown makes sense because it's growing, the rents are good, and there's this massive need for housing people who live here," he said.
The Queenstown development will likely comprise three-storey walk-up apartments, in one-, two- and three-bed configurations, noting there was a huge gap in the market for one- and two-bedders.
Two live-in managers will also be employed.
The units will primarily be built using concrete, brick and local schist, with an expected lifespan of over 150 years.
"The idea for us on this one ... is to do a lot of green space, a lot of carparks, a lot of outdoor storage, because it's got to be Queenstown-specific," Mr Stubbs said.
While initially the homes will be for long-term rent, they may consider selling some to retirees or first-home buyers.
He also believed they would be able to build them "slightly cheaper" than in Auckland and while he could not put a figure on the rental cost, he noted Simplicity Living's rents were usually 5%-10% below market value.
Regardless, Queenstown rents would justify the development cost.
Queenstown Lakes Community Housing Trust chief executive Julie Scott said the proposed development "interconnects" with the work the trust was doing.
The trust had 1480 eligible households on its waiting list, "and we know that we can't ... house them all tomorrow, or even in the next few years".
Before work can start, though, infrastructure to the site needs to be sorted.
Mr Stubbs said Simplicity wanted to help with that, too, but noted the council was getting all of the Ladies Mile landowners together to have a look at what was required — "we've never had that happen before".
Queenstown Mayor Glyn Lewers said the "$60 million question" was who would pay for it.
"We're quite happy for [the developer] to put the infrastructure in, and then we'll offset the development contributions at the other end when it comes to creating title.
"Our debt limits and our capacity to do that front-loading of infrastructure, especially within growth nodes in this district, has become quite tight.
"We'll put in where we can, and where we need to, but the way we're structured financially at the moment, we're looking for partnerships to actually provide this great social benefit."
However, council was committed to working it out because the outcome was "so beneficial" to the area.
Mr Lewers said he had been having "quite intense" conversations with NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi about potential solutions for traffic implications.
"The regional deal construct certainly helps that conversation."
tracey.roxburgh@odt.co.nz
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
a day ago
- Otago Daily Times
Beercycle promises to pedal local brews
A Beercycle pictured during a recent trial run around Queenstown's CBD. PHOTO: TRACEY ROXBURGH Pedal-powered pub crawl business Beercycle is up and cranking on Queenstown's streets. Beercycle Ltd founder and CEO Nick Wilson says one of its beercycles is already doing practice runs around the CBD, and its first paid tour's been booked for next weekend. The company's now got consent from Queenstown's council for the venture. The plan is for beercycles to carry up to 15 people, including a host/driver, and take punters on two-hour tours around the resort with stops at three or four local venues. Wilson, who started with his first beercycle in Auckland nine years ago and has since expanded to Hamilton and Christchurch, reckons Queenstown's going to be the best of the lot. "There's so much to do, and everyone''s in such a good mood. "It'll definitely be the most popular one." He's now waiting for the company's liquor licence application to be approved so beer can be served on the beercycle — a first for Beercycle. To that end, he's in discussions with resort craft breweries Searchlight, Altitude and Crimson Badger. "We're only going to be serving Queenstown beers — we want it to be a fully Queenstown-based experience. "We could sell international beers, but why would you when some of the best beer in New Zealand is made in Queenstown?" The tours will operate daily between 11am and 9pm.
NZ Herald
2 days ago
- NZ Herald
How to create inter-generational family wealth
'The theory is that each time I have a child born, I would invest $22,000. The key is that the investment is not for my children but for my grandchildren. So for example, my child, let's call him Tim. 'When Tim is born I invest $22,000. When Tim turns 65, the investment is worth, say, $1 million. Each of Tim's children (who would be probably 30-40 years old) would be entitled to get a split of the payout. Note Tim does not participate in the investment. 'For Tim's children to receive their share, all they have to do is make an equivalent investment for their children to keep it running. They could make it out of their share of their payment. 'This may sound complicated, but the only difficulty I can see is the initial investment to be made. However, once past that hurdle, the scheme is self-perpetuating and, if you look forward far enough, covers potentially hundreds or thousands of descendants. 'I'm curious if this is a worthwhile idea or not. Considering the opportunity cost, what do you think? Note I have not yet thought through the funds management aspects or the 'trustee' responsibilities in 65 years.' A: I love it – even though your email makes me feel as if I'm back at high school, and I've been conned into helping someone do their homework! Other readers' main objection to doing something similar themselves, I suspect, will be that many couples making babies don't have $22,000 sitting around. But they could start with, say, $5000 or even $1000, and make a point of adding to it as soon as possible. Or in some cases, a grandparent might help. I like that your son isn't committing others in future to putting in money they may not have, given they can use some of their gift to invest for the next generation of recipients. Some issues for your son and others to think about: Your son suggests a return of 6%. That would have to be after fees and tax. It's probably a reasonable assumption if the money is invested in a share fund or a non-KiwiSaver aggressive fund. You would need to stick with it – not switching when the balance falls in a market downturn. If that's likely to be difficult for you, use a lower-risk fund and settle for a lower end balance. As your son acknowledges, inflation will eat into how much a future balance will buy. But it will still be great for the recipient – for perhaps a house deposit, or to repay a chunk of a mortgage. The amount a recipient puts in to keep the scheme running would need to be adjusted for inflation. If you have more than one child, obviously you would want to do the same for all of them. But what if one of your children has more kids than another?Cousins will be treated unequally. Maybe that's okay, but it's worth thinking about. What if one of your children has no offspring? Perhaps you could specify that they give the money to a charity of their choice. As your son notes, this would have to be set up with legal expertise. Basically, he is making the most of the power of a compounding investment over a really long time. I say: 'Go for it!' Small difference becomes big Q: Not a question, but a spectacular example of how a return of 8% versus 6% makes a massive difference after 42 years, is given in an online table I found. The 6% after 42 years provides $597,000. But the 8% provides $986,000, being nearly two-thirds more. A: You're right. Over long periods, a somewhat higher return makes a huge difference. That's why it would be best if the family in the previous Q&A, or anyone who wants to copy the idea, uses a high-risk fund – probably one that holds just shares. Stay with insurance Q: One of the benefits I received at my previous job was fully subsidised Southern Cross health insurance (Wellbeing One plan). Unfortunately, my new role does not include this coverage. I've since been in contact with Southern Cross, and continuing the policy independently would cost around $230 per month. Given that I've made very few claims in the past, I'm considering the alternative of setting that money aside in a dedicated savings account to cover any potential future health expenses. I'm in my late fifties, in good health and maintain a balanced lifestyle with daily exercise and a healthy diet. That said, I'm mindful that health needs can change unexpectedly. My current policy is on hold until the end of August, so I need to make a decision soon. I would really appreciate your thoughts or any guidance you may have on what might be the best course of action. A: There's no clear answer to your question – or the many variations on it that seem to come into my conversations often, now that my friends and I are no longer spring chickens! Let's just say that if I were you, I would keep the health insurance going. You may look back later and say you would have been better off if you had followed your self-insurance plan. But what people often ignore is peace of mind in the meantime. It's worth a lot to know that if you do suddenly develop a serious health issue, you won't have to either wait for perhaps months to get help or find big sums of money for treatment. The last thing you need at that time is money worries as well. And being in good health in your fifties – or sixties or seventies – certainly doesn't come with a guarantee that it will continue. Clearly, leading a healthy lifestyle must help you to fight any health nasties, but it doesn't prevent them. On the other hand, you will be shocked at how quickly health insurance premiums rise as you get older. You can keep costs down to some extent by limiting cover to specialist care, rather than including GP visits, and by increasing your excess – the amount you have to pay before insurance kicks in. How much? Dunno Q: Another health insurance question. My husband and I are both 65 and face the common question of continuing our health insurance or to self-insure. It is hard to make this decision without a ballpark figure for self-insurance. I totally appreciate everyone's health is so variable and I understand the reluctance by brokers to provide a figure, but some guidance would be helpful and appreciated. Can you help? A: Sorry, but no. Or, if you insist, several hundred thousand dollars. Some medical procedures, including scans and surgery, cost thousands. What's more, you can't predict whether you will need several procedures at much the same time, as different parts of your body decide to misbehave. When to switch Q: You often refer to switching funds as locking in your losses. I never fully understood that. It makes sense to me if one switches funds because they are scared during a market drop and switch to a lower-risk fund long term. But in your view: does that apply to all fund switches? What are the risks when switching a fund? If I switch to a higher-risk fund while the market is down, do I still lock in any losses? I know timing the market is futile, but I don't understand what the downsides to switching at any given point are. A: I've been waiting for the markets to wobble again before running this Q&A. Funnily enough, it hasn't really happened for a while. Then again, it could happen between my deadline time and the time you read this. So let's get on with it! First, we'll look at switching to a lower-risk fund during a downturn. Let's say that your account balance falls from $20,000 to $15,000. If you worry it will fall further, and therefore you reduce your risk, you've locked in the $5000 loss. You won't get that money back again when the markets rise, because your new fund doesn't hold many shares, if any. And recovery always happens – although sometimes it takes a while, and occasionally several years. If, however, you had stayed the course, your balance would have returned to $20,000 or higher. You would have lost nothing. In those circumstances I would say, 'Sorry, but if you can't cope with volatility you shouldn't have been in a high-risk fund in the first place. But okay, if you really can't sleep, just take the loss and move to lower risk. And, importantly, stay there'. On other fund switches, it depends. If you move to higher risk during a downturn, that's a pretty good move. You've bought at a relatively low price and will benefit when prices later recover. That's called contrarian investing – moving in the opposite direction to most people. The trouble is it involves market timing which, as you say, is a fool's game. When the market falls, for example, we never know if it might fall a long way further, followed by a slow recovery. So the rule is: reducing risk in a downturn is bad; increasing risk in a downturn may be good – but only if you're lucky. Usually it works far better to just get your money into the correct risk level for you, and leave it there. There are, however, two circumstances in which moving risk makes sense: You're getting nearer to the time you expect to spend the money. In those circumstances, it can work well to move your money in, say, three lots, a month or two apart. That way you avoid happening to make the move at a bad time. You realise you can't tolerate downturns as much as you thought you could. But, as stated above, you must then stay in the lower-risk fund for the long term. Not so possible Q: In regard to your comments on the use of aggressive funds by the elderly or those entering retirement, it is of course possible to do well by transferring money from an aggressive fund to a cash fund or similar when the aggressive fund is showing a peak balance. Over six months to a year, the aggressive fund will rise and fall similar to the Dow or Nasdaq index. Of course it's all about timing, but for those who follow the world indices figures, such as the VOO or similar, it is not too difficult to do. A: It's not just difficult, it's impossible if you want to get it right more than occasionally by luck. As I've said often, it can work well for retired people to hold money they expect to spend in 10 or more years in an aggressive fund – usually a fund that holds shares only. But it's not a good place for shorter-term money. Your balance in such a fund can quite suddenly plunge – occasionally as much as halving. And, as noted above, recovery can sometimes take several years. Meanwhile, the grocery purchases can't wait. You're suggesting we simply watch how the markets are moving and switch to a lower-risk fund at market peaks – in other words, right before a market downturn. The big question – one that every active fund manager in the world would love to be able to answer – is when a market has peaked. Getting that right repeatedly can't be done. Every now and then a fund manager does well, reducing risk right before a crash. Convinced he – or rarely she – has learnt the secret, investors rush into their funds. And once in a golden moon, the fund manager gets it right a second time or third time, and even more investors jump on the wagon. And then, uh oh! If you want to try to do this with a small amount – let's call it play money – go for it. And good luck! But I would never suggest it for others. * Mary Holm, ONZM, is a freelance journalist, a seminar presenter and a bestselling author on personal finance. She is a director of Financial Services Complaints Ltd (FSCL) and a former director of the Financial Markets Authority. Her opinions do not reflect the position of any organisation in which she holds office. Mary's advice is of a general nature, and she is not responsible for any loss that any reader may suffer from following it. Send questions to mary@ Letters should not exceed 200 words. We won't publish your name. Please provide a (preferably daytime) phone number. Unfortunately, Mary cannot answer all questions, correspond directly with readers, or give financial advice.
Techday NZ
3 days ago
- Techday NZ
AI gains momentum in New Zealand workplaces amid calls for oversight
New research from Workday indicates that while New Zealand organisations are rapidly deploying AI agents, employees remain firm in their demand for strong human oversight and ethical governance. According to findings from Workday's global study, "AI Agents Are Here – But Don't Call Them Boss", 75% of workers internationally are comfortable collaborating with AI agents, but only 30% are at ease with the idea of being managed by one. The study, which included New Zealand-specific analysis, sheds light on both the opportunities and limitations of AI agent adoption in the workplace. Rollout gathers pace New Zealand organisations are progressing quickly beyond the trial phase, particularly within finance and human resources. The data reveals that 43% of organisations are currently rolling out AI agents organisation-wide, with another 27% piloting projects on a smaller scale and 27% in early production. Just 1% remain in the early exploratory phase, highlighting robust momentum toward widespread AI integration. This movement is especially pronounced in financial functions. Currently, 56% of New Zealand organisations are rolling out AI agents to support financial reporting, and within three years, 44% expect to scale such solutions further. High-impact finance areas were identified as core beneficiaries, with 61% favouring financial reporting and 39% forecasting and budgeting as the top uses for AI agents. Additionally, 61% of organisations are reporting at least moderate progress in accounting and financial planning enabled by these technologies. Most New Zealand leaders anticipate tangible results from their investments in artificial intelligence in the short to medium term. The report shows that 86% of organisations expect AI agents to deliver a return on investment within 24 months of adoption - half of these expect ROI in 13-24 months, and 36% expect it in as little as 7-12 months. Strategic sourcing and scalability Organisations are favouring scalable approaches to AI integration, with 29% leveraging open-source frameworks and 24% modifying pre-built solutions, while only 5% are developing fully custom AI agents in-house. This pragmatic strategy is designed to accelerate adoption and amplify the operational impact of AI technologies across core functions. Balancing optimism and concern The report demonstrates optimism about AI's potential but also acknowledges clear reservations regarding ethics, security, and governance. Some 95% of New Zealand respondents believe AI agents will increase productivity, and 84% anticipate rapid innovation as a result of adoption. At the same time, 72% believe societal benefits will outweigh challenges. However, persistent concerns remain. The majority (57%) trust humans more than AI to be fair and unbiased in financial and compliance decisions. Only 31% are confident in AI agents making work-related decisions on their behalf. Security and privacy are viewed as the most pressing risks by 45% of respondents, closely followed by ethical issues such as bias and discrimination (31%), while 44% are concerned about the potential for misuse like surveillance or manipulation. Ethics and governance are viewed as significant barriers to further AI adoption (42%), and nearly two-thirds (64%) favour regulation through ethical guidelines. Just under half (49%) prefer strict human oversight of AI agent operations at all times. Policies currently focus on security (71%), monitoring (66%), and ethical standards (65%), but only a minority address global regulations (29%) and explainability (23%). Human oversight takes precedence There is a pronounced preference for maintaining human oversight, particularly in sensitive functions. The research shows 88% believe that IT or technology teams should be primarily responsible for managing AI agents, reflecting a reliance on specialist technical expertise rather than operational or HR-led oversight. The appetite for AI autonomy varies widely depending on context. Respondents report greater comfort when AI acts as a collaborator (73%) or recommends skills development (76%), but far less so when it comes to AI making financial decisions (33%) or managing employees directly (16%). More generally, just 31% trust AI agents to make work-related decisions on their behalf, while only 14% believe AI will surpass human intelligence within five years, reflecting ongoing scepticism about granting AI full autonomy in the workplace. "Our research reveals compelling insight into New Zealand's AI adoption journey. While 95% of organisations believe AI agents will boost productivity and 86% expect returns within two years, there's a clear preference for human oversight, particularly in high-stakes areas like financial compliance where 57% still trust humans over AI to make fair, unbiased decisions. This isn't resistance to change, it's smart, strategic implementation." Jonathan Brabant, New Zealand Director at Workday, noted increasing sophistication in the way local organisations are deploying AI. "What's most encouraging is that organisations aren't just experimenting anymore. Our research finds 43% are already rolling out AI agents organisation-wide, with finance leading the charge. But they're doing it thoughtfully, with 64% supporting ethical guidelines and 88% citing a preference for AI management to be under strict technical oversight. This balanced approach stands to position New Zealand businesses to capture the productivity gains while maintaining the trust and critical thinking that drives real business value." The report also highlights that clear boundaries for AI use are widely supported, with respondents consistently in favour of human control in high-stakes decisions and a cautious regulatory approach to AI autonomy. This is seen as vital to maintaining stakeholder confidence as organisations further integrate artificial intelligence into their operations. Internationally, the findings mirror New Zealand's cautious optimism. Across all surveyed regions, employees and business leaders support strong transparency measures and prioritise human empowerment as central to successful AI adoption. Building trust and balancing productivity gains with ethical oversight remain key priorities as organisations scale up their use of AI agents.
