Why I've told my principal I will not teach the new proposed English curriculum
David Taylor, head of English at Northcote College, outlines why he will refuse to teach the latest draft of the English curriculum.
'I'll look no more, / Lest my brain turn, and the deficient sight / Topple down headlong.' (King Lear, Act 4, Scene 6)
Since 2007, New Zealand schools have had an excellent curriculum, acknowledged the world over and used successfully in diverse communities throughout the country. In 2021, I began working with other secondary English teachers, primary school teachers, educational researchers, and academic experts to update or 'refresh' the curriculum for the English learning area. In September 2023, this refreshed curriculum was released, but with an election coming, the Ministry of Education lost their bottle, and quickly paused its implementation – a political decision rather than an educational one.
The incoming government ditched the new version and began work on a new-new one, one that shifts, ideologically, away from supporting students to thrive as its starting point, to one based on a politics of fear and conservatism.
This new-new version was released three weeks ago and is currently out for consultation before a final version will be sent out in term four and expected to be taught in 2026. So far, much of the debate has centred around whether Shakespeare 'should' be taught. In the context of what is at stake here, that discussion is irrelevant – though just to be clear, Shakespeare is not AWOL, he has never left the building, so everyone can just calm the fustian foolery down. Focussing so much on Shakespeare misses the fundamental problems with this new national directive. I have already met with my principal to tell her that I am not prepared to teach, or lead people to teach, this new curriculum, and I believe all English teachers and Heads of Department have a professional responsibility to do the same.
Here are the five main reasons:
1. The 2025 curriculum document enables systemic racism
This might sound exaggerated, but let's look at the evidence. It's not just that there is not one single mention of Te Tiriti. For all the talk of the 'science of learning', this curriculum deliberately tries to steer teachers and students away from what we know works to improve educational outcomes for Māori students: progress-based learning; creative, and expressive writing; collaborative projects; active integration of Te Tiriti o Waitangi; real-world competencies; engaging critically with media and society; high flexibility allowing student voice, choice and agency.
The disparity for many Māori students in the education system is a direct consequence of colonisation. By trying to stop the decolonisation of the curriculum, this document, and its writers, are expressly trying to stop teaching strategies which help Māori students to achieve at the same level as their peers.
Head of the English curriculum writing group Elizabeth Rata has publicly said that ' a decolonised curriculum does not provide quality content '. Here she is deliberately trying to equate mātauranga Māori, and successful pedagogical approaches to helping Māori students thrive, to a lack of rigour, importance and value. It is the science of prejudice and racism. It runs contrary to the experience of teachers who have been endeavouring to deliver equitable outcomes for Māori students. It is an act of re-colonisation, an enterprise that has racism at its core. The Treaty principles bill may have been voted down, but it is still being enacted here. Anyone who objected to that bill should take a strong interest in opposing this curriculum.
2. Reading for pleasure has been demoted
The 2023 curriculum, based on copious evidence from around the world of its importance, placed reading for pleasure as one of the four central activities students would do in English from years 1–13.
In the 2025 version, reading for pleasure has been seriously demoted: rather than a core part of learning, teachers should 'support' and 'encourage' reading for pleasure under the heading 'Working with Text'. This is from years 9 – 13. There is no mention of reading for pleasure for students in years 7 — 8. It is an activity empirically proven in multiple studies to have enormous benefits for student success far beyond the subject of English. This is a curriculum focussed on telling students what they have to read, not helping them to find what they should, need, or want to read.
3. Its trumpeting of 'science' is simply ironic
The latest version of the curriculum uses phrases like 'science of learning' and 'knowledge-rich' and yet proven knowledge of the benefits of a decolonised practice and of reading for pleasure have been rejected. We have been given a curriculum that declares books written between midnight of December 31, 1799 and midnight of December 31, 1899 are better for our students than any texts (other than Shakespeare) written in any other time period. I'd like to see the scientific proof of the benefits of this narrow offer.
The loss of student-centered, collaborative, inclusive and diverse practices which align with real-world contexts, in favour of ready answers for a pub quiz literature round, makes the 'scientific' claims of the new document farcical.
4. The rhetoric used in the new curriculum undermines diversity of knowledge
As for 'knowledge-rich', the writers of our new national curriculum have worked hard repeating this phrase in order to imply that previous iterations of our curriculum have lacked knowledge: it is an attempted justification for an enormous shift in ideology behind what, and how, we teach the nation's children.
Students throughout Aotearoa currently enjoy knowledge-rich curricula. The expert knowledge of teachers – not just about their subject, but about their students and their communities – provides rich learning opportunities for young people to develop skills, knowledge and confidence in authentic and meaningful ways. We already have a knowledge-rich curriculum, but the rhetoric employed in the current process deliberately undermines this.
The real question here is not what knowledge, but whose? The claims of universal truths about knowledge and quality are in reality an exercise in marginalisation.
5. The new curriculum lacks an awareness of students and their needs
Any competent teacher will tell you that knowing your students is an essential aspect of being able to meet their educational needs. The subject of English has traditionally provided many opportunities for students to meaningfully explore their own lives, as well as the lives of others, and the world in general. English teachers have the privilege of working with, and getting to know, students as they tell their own stories – both in fiction and non-fiction; and using written, oral and visual language.
In an era where so many adolescents struggle with moderate to severe mental health challenges, safe and structured outlets like these could be seen as essential. However, the 2025 curriculum moves significantly away from emphasising students' own storytelling as a central curriculum goal, choosing to frame text creation more as a procedural aspect of 'Language Studies'.
It is predominantly a curriculum that talks at them, with little interest in listening to them, or understanding them. There is a concerning lack of real-world awareness of young people and their needs. It marginalises the voices of our young people just when they are facing the significant challenges of the adolescent years and working out who they want to be as adults.
This curriculum must be actively and rigorously opposed. I will be using previous versions of the English curriculum in my teaching. Some will say that it is my job to teach the curriculum. Usually I would agree. But now I am in the situation of having to choose between robotically following damaging dictates from a hot mess of a curriculum, or continuing to do my best to deliver rich, aspirational learning opportunities which help all students to develop the knowledge, skills and confidence that will allow them to thrive in the real world.
Essentially, if the ministry is unable to provide us with something fit for purpose, it is not my job to compound the harm it will cause to my students, but to protect them from it.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
Resource Consent Exemptions For Granny Flats And Papakāinga
Press Release – Science Media Centre The government is asking for public feedback on proposed changes to how we can create more housing in Aotearoa, such as 'granny flats' in backyards and papakāinga on Māori ancestral land. Proposed National Environmental Standards (NES) for granny flats would require all councils to permit a granny flat of up to 70 m2 on an existing property without needing to get a resource consent, subject to certain conditions. The new NES for papakāinga would create uniform standards across the motu, and would allow Māori landowners to build up to 10 homes for small papakāinga without needing a resource consent. Submissions on these and many other proposed changes to the Resource Management Act are open until Sunday, 27 July. The SMC asked experts to comment. Jade Kake, Senior Lecturer, Huri te Ao School of Future Environments, AUT, comments: Comment on New NES for papakāinga: 'Papakāinga provisions vary widely throughout Aotearoa, with territorial authorities either having no provisions at all or provisions with varying approaches, rules, and definitions of papakāinga. This issue was raised in the Office of the Auditor General's 2011 report and in the 2014 follow-up. Whilst a number of individual territorial authorities have initiated plan change processes in the intervening years to adopt papakāinga policies, many have yet to initiate this process. The proposed NES will be welcomed by Māori housing advocates, including Te Matapihi he tirohanga mō te Iwi Trust, who have long advocated for consistency at a national level with regards to papakāinga provisions. 'The NES for papakāinga is an important step towards unlocking Māori land for the development of papakāinga, providing national direction to territorial authorities to introduce minimum standards for papakāinga within their district plans. For some, this will mean introducing new papakāinga policies; for others, this will mean making changes to existing ones. These are minimum standards, which means that although territorial authorities can set their own rules, these must meet or exceed the minimum standards (be more enabling) but cannot be less enabling. 'A major issue is that much of Māori land is zoned rural, with density provisions of around one dwelling per 10 hectares, limiting the ability of whānau Māori to establish or re-establish kāinga on their ancestral lands. Under the proposed provisions, the NES will remove the need for notified consents for papakāinga (of up to 10 dwellings) within all territorial authority areas. Māori landowners (of Māori ancestral land as defined in the NES) will be able to develop up to 10 residential units, marae, and a number of ancillary non-residential activities (such as commercial, conservation, educational, health, sports and recreation activities, provided these are directly associated with the papakāinga) as a matter of right without the need for resource consent (for the activity – consents can still be required for other matters, such as earthworks, wastewater, Indigenous vegetation clearance, etc). The NES also includes provisions for medium and larger papakāinga: medium-sized papakāinga (11-30 units) will be a restricted discretionary activity, and more than 30 units will be a discretionary activity.' Comment on New NES for Granny Flats (Minor Residential Units) Regulations: 'Similar to the NES for papakāinga, these changes direct territorial authorities to amend their district plans to allow for one minor residential unit per site in residential, rural, mixed-use, and Māori purpose zones across all of New Zealand. Many district plans already provide for minor residential units as a permitted activity, and some are more enabling, however, the NES will ensure that all territorial authorities adopt this standard as a minimum. Outside of papakāinga provisions, this will provide greater opportunities for multigenerational living on a single site, enabling whānau to develop a minor dwelling or granny flat without the need for resource consent.' Conflict of interest statement: 'Not a conflict, but I have a background in policy advocacy and have provided policy advice to government and political parties and provided expert commentary both in an independent capacity and in a previous role for Te Matapihi he Tirohanga mō te Iwi Trust, an independent national Māori housing advocacy organisation.' Dr Timothy Welch, Senior Lecturer in Urban Planning, University of Auckland, comments: Note: Dr Welch also recently wrote an in-depth piece on this topic for The Conversation. 'While New Zealand's granny flat exemption removes important regulatory barriers, we need to be honest about its limitations. Adding 13,000 small units over a decade – just 2.6% more housing supply – won't solve a crisis of this magnitude. With construction costs reaching $300,000, these units primarily benefit existing property owners who can access capital, not the young families and essential workers most in need of affordable housing. 'The real challenge isn't just regulation – it's infrastructure capacity and construction costs. Our water networks are already strained, and dispersed infill development only adds pressure. The policy's design constraints, requiring standalone single-storey units, deliver the least efficient form of density possible. 'This is progress, but incremental progress. We should embrace these reforms while acknowledging they're no substitute for the comprehensive urban development our housing crisis demands. Granny flats can be part of the solution, but only if we view them as one small component of much larger reforms needed to house New Zealanders affordably.' No conflicts of interest. Professor John Tookey, School of Future Environments, AUT, comments: 'The proposal for broadening the opportunities to construct 70m2 'granny flats' is a useful way of generating additional housing, specifically by creating rental properties in the category of 'home with income' subsidiary dwellings. The initial reporting around this issue in effect predicted a housing free-for-all where any proposals would likely be approved. In reality this was always misleading. The new proposals indicate more reservations in that zoning will need careful consideration of the cumulative effects of all the critical infrastructural loads servicing the proposed property. These include such issues as provision of potable water, managing stormwater, sewerage, on/off street parking, traffic volumes, schools, hospitals etc. In short, this will not and cannot be a free for all for development. In reality, councils will likely err on the side of caution in their announcements of zones suitable for the new granny flats because of these infrastructural impacts. Hence the outcome is unlikely to be a panacea for developing affordable housing in our cities. More likely a measured additional option rather than a 'go to' across the country.' No conflicts of interest. Bill McKay, Senior Lecturer, School of Architecture and Planning, University of Auckland, comments: Granny Flats 'Granny flats are additional, detached 'minor residential units' on a property with an existing family home. The size limit of 70m2 will enable two bedrooms plus living area, kitchen, bathroom etc. They can be self-contained in contrast with 'sleep outs' which don't have kitchens or bathrooms. The government consultation received a lot of supportive public feedback from the public, not so councils. 'This policy will introduce consistency as the rules currently vary across many councils. It won't solve the housing crisis but it will allow families more flexibility to solve their own housing issues. Granny flats aren't just for grandparents, they can be for young adults as well. They can improve accommodation for intergenerational living. Or they could be rentals to improve family income. The proposal is to allow them without resource consent (council planning permission) or building consent, but the devil will be in the detail: They need to comply with the Building Code, how will this be ensured without building consent or inspections? Councils will want records of what is built for their statutory requirements such as property files and Land Information Memorandum. Councils will want to know what plumbing and drainage is connected to the systems they maintain. These issues explain why a detailed proposal and legislation are yet to appear.' Papakāinga 'To do a granny flat / minor dwelling unit you need land with a family home on it already. A lot of public feedback on the granny flats proposal, particularly from Māori, focused on the desire to do small houses as of right on 'empty' land. As a result, the government has now proposed papakāinga. What's a papakāinga? Basically a small group of housing where mostly related people live together. So this proposal will allow as of right up to 10 homes on Māori or Treaty settlement land. You can build on up to 50% of the land and you can also have non-residential activity: 100m2 of commercial, accommodation for eight guests, educational and health facilities, sports and recreation activities, marae, urupā, food gardens and so on. And if you want more housing than 10 homes, that's 'restricted discretionary' meaning you will need to apply for resource consent / planning permission from your council. Just a proposal at the moment, open for consultation. 'I commend this as giving power / opportunity to Māori. A few centuries of Pākehā patronage hasn't really worked out for them so this papakāinga proposal can allow some self-determination. It hasn't got much publicity so I would encourage people to get in there and support it. And the success of this can open the door for others to build small homes on chunks of land, whether individually, such as tiny homes, or collectively such as co-housing groups or community housing providers.'
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
Resource Consent Exemptions For Granny Flats And Papakāinga
Press Release – Science Media Centre Proposed National Environmental Standards (NES) for granny flats would require all councils to permit a granny flat of up to 70 m2 on an existing property without needing to get a resource consent, subject to certain conditions. The government is asking for public feedback on proposed changes to how we can create more housing in Aotearoa, such as 'granny flats' in backyards and papakāinga on Māori ancestral land. Proposed National Environmental Standards (NES) for granny flats would require all councils to permit a granny flat of up to 70 m2 on an existing property without needing to get a resource consent, subject to certain conditions. The new NES for papakāinga would create uniform standards across the motu, and would allow Māori landowners to build up to 10 homes for small papakāinga without needing a resource consent. Submissions on these and many other proposed changes to the Resource Management Act are open until Sunday, 27 July. The SMC asked experts to comment. Jade Kake, Senior Lecturer, Huri te Ao School of Future Environments, AUT, comments: Comment on New NES for papakāinga: 'Papakāinga provisions vary widely throughout Aotearoa, with territorial authorities either having no provisions at all or provisions with varying approaches, rules, and definitions of papakāinga. This issue was raised in the Office of the Auditor General's 2011 report and in the 2014 follow-up. Whilst a number of individual territorial authorities have initiated plan change processes in the intervening years to adopt papakāinga policies, many have yet to initiate this process. The proposed NES will be welcomed by Māori housing advocates, including Te Matapihi he tirohanga mō te Iwi Trust, who have long advocated for consistency at a national level with regards to papakāinga provisions. 'The NES for papakāinga is an important step towards unlocking Māori land for the development of papakāinga, providing national direction to territorial authorities to introduce minimum standards for papakāinga within their district plans. For some, this will mean introducing new papakāinga policies; for others, this will mean making changes to existing ones. These are minimum standards, which means that although territorial authorities can set their own rules, these must meet or exceed the minimum standards (be more enabling) but cannot be less enabling. 'A major issue is that much of Māori land is zoned rural, with density provisions of around one dwelling per 10 hectares, limiting the ability of whānau Māori to establish or re-establish kāinga on their ancestral lands. Under the proposed provisions, the NES will remove the need for notified consents for papakāinga (of up to 10 dwellings) within all territorial authority areas. Māori landowners (of Māori ancestral land as defined in the NES) will be able to develop up to 10 residential units, marae, and a number of ancillary non-residential activities (such as commercial, conservation, educational, health, sports and recreation activities, provided these are directly associated with the papakāinga) as a matter of right without the need for resource consent (for the activity – consents can still be required for other matters, such as earthworks, wastewater, Indigenous vegetation clearance, etc). The NES also includes provisions for medium and larger papakāinga: medium-sized papakāinga (11-30 units) will be a restricted discretionary activity, and more than 30 units will be a discretionary activity.' Comment on New NES for Granny Flats (Minor Residential Units) Regulations: 'Similar to the NES for papakāinga, these changes direct territorial authorities to amend their district plans to allow for one minor residential unit per site in residential, rural, mixed-use, and Māori purpose zones across all of New Zealand. Many district plans already provide for minor residential units as a permitted activity, and some are more enabling, however, the NES will ensure that all territorial authorities adopt this standard as a minimum. Outside of papakāinga provisions, this will provide greater opportunities for multigenerational living on a single site, enabling whānau to develop a minor dwelling or granny flat without the need for resource consent.' Conflict of interest statement: 'Not a conflict, but I have a background in policy advocacy and have provided policy advice to government and political parties and provided expert commentary both in an independent capacity and in a previous role for Te Matapihi he Tirohanga mō te Iwi Trust, an independent national Māori housing advocacy organisation.' Dr Timothy Welch, Senior Lecturer in Urban Planning, University of Auckland, comments: Note: Dr Welch also recently wrote an in-depth piece on this topic for The Conversation. 'While New Zealand's granny flat exemption removes important regulatory barriers, we need to be honest about its limitations. Adding 13,000 small units over a decade – just 2.6% more housing supply – won't solve a crisis of this magnitude. With construction costs reaching $300,000, these units primarily benefit existing property owners who can access capital, not the young families and essential workers most in need of affordable housing. 'The real challenge isn't just regulation – it's infrastructure capacity and construction costs. Our water networks are already strained, and dispersed infill development only adds pressure. The policy's design constraints, requiring standalone single-storey units, deliver the least efficient form of density possible. 'This is progress, but incremental progress. We should embrace these reforms while acknowledging they're no substitute for the comprehensive urban development our housing crisis demands. Granny flats can be part of the solution, but only if we view them as one small component of much larger reforms needed to house New Zealanders affordably.' No conflicts of interest. Professor John Tookey, School of Future Environments, AUT, comments: 'The proposal for broadening the opportunities to construct 70m2 'granny flats' is a useful way of generating additional housing, specifically by creating rental properties in the category of 'home with income' subsidiary dwellings. The initial reporting around this issue in effect predicted a housing free-for-all where any proposals would likely be approved. In reality this was always misleading. The new proposals indicate more reservations in that zoning will need careful consideration of the cumulative effects of all the critical infrastructural loads servicing the proposed property. These include such issues as provision of potable water, managing stormwater, sewerage, on/off street parking, traffic volumes, schools, hospitals etc. In short, this will not and cannot be a free for all for development. In reality, councils will likely err on the side of caution in their announcements of zones suitable for the new granny flats because of these infrastructural impacts. Hence the outcome is unlikely to be a panacea for developing affordable housing in our cities. More likely a measured additional option rather than a 'go to' across the country.' No conflicts of interest. Bill McKay, Senior Lecturer, School of Architecture and Planning, University of Auckland, comments: Granny Flats 'Granny flats are additional, detached 'minor residential units' on a property with an existing family home. The size limit of 70m2 will enable two bedrooms plus living area, kitchen, bathroom etc. They can be self-contained in contrast with 'sleep outs' which don't have kitchens or bathrooms. The government consultation received a lot of supportive public feedback from the public, not so councils. 'This policy will introduce consistency as the rules currently vary across many councils. It won't solve the housing crisis but it will allow families more flexibility to solve their own housing issues. Granny flats aren't just for grandparents, they can be for young adults as well. They can improve accommodation for intergenerational living. Or they could be rentals to improve family income. The proposal is to allow them without resource consent (council planning permission) or building consent, but the devil will be in the detail: They need to comply with the Building Code, how will this be ensured without building consent or inspections? Councils will want records of what is built for their statutory requirements such as property files and Land Information Memorandum. Councils will want to know what plumbing and drainage is connected to the systems they maintain. These issues explain why a detailed proposal and legislation are yet to appear.' Papakāinga 'To do a granny flat / minor dwelling unit you need land with a family home on it already. A lot of public feedback on the granny flats proposal, particularly from Māori, focused on the desire to do small houses as of right on 'empty' land. As a result, the government has now proposed papakāinga. What's a papakāinga? Basically a small group of housing where mostly related people live together. So this proposal will allow as of right up to 10 homes on Māori or Treaty settlement land. You can build on up to 50% of the land and you can also have non-residential activity: 100m2 of commercial, accommodation for eight guests, educational and health facilities, sports and recreation activities, marae, urupā, food gardens and so on. And if you want more housing than 10 homes, that's 'restricted discretionary' meaning you will need to apply for resource consent / planning permission from your council. Just a proposal at the moment, open for consultation. 'I commend this as giving power / opportunity to Māori. A few centuries of Pākehā patronage hasn't really worked out for them so this papakāinga proposal can allow some self-determination. It hasn't got much publicity so I would encourage people to get in there and support it. And the success of this can open the door for others to build small homes on chunks of land, whether individually, such as tiny homes, or collectively such as co-housing groups or community housing providers.'
Scoop
4 hours ago
- Scoop
Resource Consent Exemptions For Granny Flats And Papakāinga
The government is asking for public feedback on proposed changes to how we can create more housing in Aotearoa, such as 'granny flats' in backyards and papakāinga on Māori ancestral land. Proposed National Environmental Standards (NES) for granny flats would require all councils to permit a granny flat of up to 70 m2 on an existing property without needing to get a resource consent, subject to certain conditions. The new NES for papakāinga would create uniform standards across the motu, and would allow Māori landowners to build up to 10 homes for small papakāinga without needing a resource consent. Submissions on these and many other proposed changes to the Resource Management Act are open until Sunday, 27 July. The SMC asked experts to comment. Jade Kake, Senior Lecturer, Huri te Ao School of Future Environments, AUT, comments: Comment on New NES for papakāinga: 'Papakāinga provisions vary widely throughout Aotearoa, with territorial authorities either having no provisions at all or provisions with varying approaches, rules, and definitions of papakāinga. This issue was raised in the Office of the Auditor General's 2011 report and in the 2014 follow-up. Whilst a number of individual territorial authorities have initiated plan change processes in the intervening years to adopt papakāinga policies, many have yet to initiate this process. The proposed NES will be welcomed by Māori housing advocates, including Te Matapihi he tirohanga mō te Iwi Trust, who have long advocated for consistency at a national level with regards to papakāinga provisions. 'The NES for papakāinga is an important step towards unlocking Māori land for the development of papakāinga, providing national direction to territorial authorities to introduce minimum standards for papakāinga within their district plans. For some, this will mean introducing new papakāinga policies; for others, this will mean making changes to existing ones. These are minimum standards, which means that although territorial authorities can set their own rules, these must meet or exceed the minimum standards (be more enabling) but cannot be less enabling. 'A major issue is that much of Māori land is zoned rural, with density provisions of around one dwelling per 10 hectares, limiting the ability of whānau Māori to establish or re-establish kāinga on their ancestral lands. Under the proposed provisions, the NES will remove the need for notified consents for papakāinga (of up to 10 dwellings) within all territorial authority areas. Māori landowners (of Māori ancestral land as defined in the NES) will be able to develop up to 10 residential units, marae, and a number of ancillary non-residential activities (such as commercial, conservation, educational, health, sports and recreation activities, provided these are directly associated with the papakāinga) as a matter of right without the need for resource consent (for the activity – consents can still be required for other matters, such as earthworks, wastewater, Indigenous vegetation clearance, etc). The NES also includes provisions for medium and larger papakāinga: medium-sized papakāinga (11-30 units) will be a restricted discretionary activity, and more than 30 units will be a discretionary activity.' Comment on New NES for Granny Flats (Minor Residential Units) Regulations: 'Similar to the NES for papakāinga, these changes direct territorial authorities to amend their district plans to allow for one minor residential unit per site in residential, rural, mixed-use, and Māori purpose zones across all of New Zealand. Many district plans already provide for minor residential units as a permitted activity, and some are more enabling, however, the NES will ensure that all territorial authorities adopt this standard as a minimum. Outside of papakāinga provisions, this will provide greater opportunities for multigenerational living on a single site, enabling whānau to develop a minor dwelling or granny flat without the need for resource consent.' Conflict of interest statement: 'Not a conflict, but I have a background in policy advocacy and have provided policy advice to government and political parties and provided expert commentary both in an independent capacity and in a previous role for Te Matapihi he Tirohanga mō te Iwi Trust, an independent national Māori housing advocacy organisation.' Dr Timothy Welch, Senior Lecturer in Urban Planning, University of Auckland, comments: The Conversation. 'While New Zealand's granny flat exemption removes important regulatory barriers, we need to be honest about its limitations. Adding 13,000 small units over a decade – just 2.6% more housing supply – won't solve a crisis of this magnitude. With construction costs reaching $300,000, these units primarily benefit existing property owners who can access capital, not the young families and essential workers most in need of affordable housing. 'The real challenge isn't just regulation – it's infrastructure capacity and construction costs. Our water networks are already strained, and dispersed infill development only adds pressure. The policy's design constraints, requiring standalone single-storey units, deliver the least efficient form of density possible. 'This is progress, but incremental progress. We should embrace these reforms while acknowledging they're no substitute for the comprehensive urban development our housing crisis demands. Granny flats can be part of the solution, but only if we view them as one small component of much larger reforms needed to house New Zealanders affordably.' No conflicts of interest. Professor John Tookey, School of Future Environments, AUT, comments: 'The proposal for broadening the opportunities to construct 70m2 'granny flats' is a useful way of generating additional housing, specifically by creating rental properties in the category of 'home with income' subsidiary dwellings. The initial reporting around this issue in effect predicted a housing free-for-all where any proposals would likely be approved. In reality this was always misleading. The new proposals indicate more reservations in that zoning will need careful consideration of the cumulative effects of all the critical infrastructural loads servicing the proposed property. These include such issues as provision of potable water, managing stormwater, sewerage, on/off street parking, traffic volumes, schools, hospitals etc. In short, this will not and cannot be a free for all for development. In reality, councils will likely err on the side of caution in their announcements of zones suitable for the new granny flats because of these infrastructural impacts. Hence the outcome is unlikely to be a panacea for developing affordable housing in our cities. More likely a measured additional option rather than a 'go to' across the country.' No conflicts of interest. Bill McKay, Senior Lecturer, School of Architecture and Planning, University of Auckland, comments: Granny Flats 'Granny flats are additional, detached 'minor residential units' on a property with an existing family home. The size limit of 70m2 will enable two bedrooms plus living area, kitchen, bathroom etc. They can be self-contained in contrast with 'sleep outs' which don't have kitchens or bathrooms. The government consultation received a lot of supportive public feedback from the public, not so councils. 'This policy will introduce consistency as the rules currently vary across many councils. It won't solve the housing crisis but it will allow families more flexibility to solve their own housing issues. Granny flats aren't just for grandparents, they can be for young adults as well. They can improve accommodation for intergenerational living. Or they could be rentals to improve family income. The proposal is to allow them without resource consent (council planning permission) or building consent, but the devil will be in the detail: They need to comply with the Building Code, how will this be ensured without building consent or inspections? Councils will want records of what is built for their statutory requirements such as property files and Land Information Memorandum. Councils will want to know what plumbing and drainage is connected to the systems they maintain. These issues explain why a detailed proposal and legislation are yet to appear.' Papakāinga 'To do a granny flat / minor dwelling unit you need land with a family home on it already. A lot of public feedback on the granny flats proposal, particularly from Māori, focused on the desire to do small houses as of right on 'empty' land. As a result, the government has now proposed papakāinga. What's a papakāinga? Basically a small group of housing where mostly related people live together. So this proposal will allow as of right up to 10 homes on Māori or Treaty settlement land. You can build on up to 50% of the land and you can also have non-residential activity: 100m2 of commercial, accommodation for eight guests, educational and health facilities, sports and recreation activities, marae, urupā, food gardens and so on. And if you want more housing than 10 homes, that's 'restricted discretionary' meaning you will need to apply for resource consent / planning permission from your council. Just a proposal at the moment, open for consultation. 'I commend this as giving power / opportunity to Māori. A few centuries of Pākehā patronage hasn't really worked out for them so this papakāinga proposal can allow some self-determination. It hasn't got much publicity so I would encourage people to get in there and support it. And the success of this can open the door for others to build small homes on chunks of land, whether individually, such as tiny homes, or collectively such as co-housing groups or community housing providers.'
