Foreign buyers ban: Winston Peters says change to be announced this year, denies NZ First ‘softening'
A proposal to loosen the current ban is unlikely to face resistance from David Seymour (right). Photo / Mark Mitchell
It was introduced in 2018 when Labour was in a coalition with NZ First. Classifying residential housing as 'sensitive' in the legislation meant non-residents and non-citizens couldn't purchase existing residential homes.
Rumours have swirled for months that the Government is eyeing changes to the ban, with Peters suggesting on several occasions he is open to considering an adjustment.
Foreign investment has been a critical focus for ministers as part of the coalition's growth agenda. The Government has changed the Active Investor Plus Visa – the so-called Golden Visa – to reduce the minimum amount foreigners need to invest, and has begun establishing Invest New Zealand to streamline overseas investment.
In an interview with the Herald this week, Peters denied his party was 'softening' its approach but did say an announcement will come this year.
Asked about a possible reversal of the policy, Peters rejected allowing foreigners to purchase houses worth $2 million.
It was National's 2023 election policy to impose a 15% tax on overseas people who want to purchase property valued at more than $2m.
The policy's costings received criticism during the campaign, but National stood by it. However, the tax proposal did not make it through coalition negotiations.
'The idea that for $2 million you could come into this country and get a key and that's your investment was a nonsense,' Peters told the Herald.
'We said so before the election. We also debunked the costings for it, and were joined not long after that by economists who said that New Zealand First was right.
'We're saying if you're coming here with millions of dollars to invest in this country, then yes, you could buy a house, and we're setting the terms for that.'
And what is the threshold, if not $2m? Peters said: 'We will announce it to you before too long.'
He confirmed that would be this year.
NZ First's Winston Peters says an announcement will be made this year. Photo / Mark Mitchell
The Herald asked if someone who invested in New Zealand through the Active Investor Plus Visa (it previously required a minimum investment of $15m, but the minimum option is now $5m) should be able to buy a property.
'If you are going to put $15 million in the country, I think you should be able to buy a house, yes. But not a $2m house,' Peters said.
He said any investors purchasing property in New Zealand would need to do so on 'our conditions' like 'smart economies' require.
National didn't want to comment for this story, but Luxon has previously admitted his party's previous $2m threshold may have been too low and has suggested lifting it to around $5m.
Former Prime Minister Sir John Key last week spoke about investor immigrants being put off by the foreign buyer ban.
'If I'm turning up with $100 million, are you telling me the best I can do is rent a house?' Key said.
'We're a little country at the bottom of the world. And to make that work, you need foreign capital. You need smart foreigners to come here. You need positive population growth, migration.'
He didn't think the ban was keeping house prices down as intended.
'If I'm a billionaire in China, I'm not going to wake up and think I want to buy a $800,000 house in Pakūranga,' he said. 'They might buy a $50m property on the lakefront in Queenstown.'
Jamie Ensor is a political reporter in the NZ Herald press gallery team based at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub press gallery office. In 2025, he was a finalist for Political Journalist of the Year at the Voyager Media Awards.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
Letters: Political interference in commodity prices is never a good look
Trump-like economic interventions such as tariffs will eventually end badly for domestic consumers. Bruce Eliott, St Heliers. NCEA concerns The recent Government briefing highlighting significant concerns about the credibility of NCEA is yet another damning indictment of our education system. However, just as disturbing is Erica Stanford's comment about the confusion among parents about how NCEA works and that 'parents struggle to guide their children on the right pathways'. Taking a quick look at some of the subjects' explanatory notes on the NCEA website, one is confronted with what amounts to a word salad that would confound a lawyer. No wonder parents are confused. This should not be the case. Students and parents should be able to understand what is going on with their children's education. This would ensure parents have consistent lines of communication with teachers and are aware of their child's progress, challenges and needs. Parents and teachers need to work together to achieve this. A strong partnership between both parties benefits everyone but this will not be achieved if parents don't know what is going on. Bernard Walker, Mt Maunganui. Auckland's troubles Your correspondent Gary Hollis (letters, July 24) sees a glimmer of hope from Chris Luxon and Simeon Brown as Auckland MPs, regarding the preservation of what's left of Auckland's once-pristine suburbs. Unfortunately, the destruction of these suburbs is being driven by their colleague Chris Bishop (from Lower Hutt), and Luxon and Brown, together with the Government's other Auckland MPs, have been noticeably silent about it. Perhaps it is time they stood up for Auckland and restrained him? John Burns, Mt Eden. Transgender sport How very sensible that the Government has told Sport NZ to abandon its transgender guidelines even for community sport. Where males identifying as females competed in female sports, this not only compromised fair competition, but was at times very dangerous. Fair and equal competition in New Zealand must always be the accepted benchmark. Dr Hylton Le Grice, Remuera.
NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
Signs of a brewing building crisis cannot be ignored
OneRoof reported this week that building inspectors are warning they are seeing more low-quality and non-compliant work. More than a third of residential new builds in greater Auckland failed their final inspection in the year to May. The OneRoof investigation also found fears about 'cowboy' builders, consent-free granny flats becoming future 'slums', a string of apartment projects failures and home owners' lives ruined by defective dwellings. It comes amid an ambitious Government reform programme aiming to make building easier and more affordable. Changes include removing the building consent requirement for dwellings up to 70sq m, allowing 'trusted professionals' to sign off their own work, axing 'overly rigid' insulation rules and making it easier to use thousands of foreign building products. The cowboys are also in the reform crosshairs, with plans for stronger disciplinary powers, new waterproofing licences and an improved complaints process. The Government will review liability rules for bad builds that have often left ratepayers footing the bill, penalties for practitioners responsible for poor workmanship and company rules that enable directors to shut up one failed shop and start over with barely a trace. Building sector leaders emphasise that the vast majority of practitioners in New Zealand are skilled, trustworthy and unfairly tarred by a few shoddy brushes. That's of little comfort, however, for people whose lives have been ruined by a tricky tradie or dodgy development. Tens of thousands of Kiwis embark on new builds each year. They deserve a trustworthy system that arms them with the information they need to protect their biggest asset, and the confidence that if something goes wrong, those responsible will be held to account. Like moisture trapped in a wall, the scale of a construction disaster may not initially be outwardly obvious, but could lead to an enormous fallout. New Zealand is still recovering from the financial, emotional and reputational devastation of the leaky homes saga. Signs suggesting issues of similar scale could be developing again must be addressed before the rot sets in. Sign up to the Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
‘He really miscalculated the reaction' - new curbs on anti-corruption watchdogs have alarmed Ukrainians
The protesters arrived with their children and dogs, on prosthetic legs and in wheelchairs, carrying blue-and-yellow Ukrainian flags and shouting for the Government to revoke the law, which has stoked immense public outrage, alarmed former officials and raised consternation among Ukraine's European allies who are becoming the country's main lifeline for weapons and economic aid amid uncertain support from the United States. A woman stands wrapped in a Ukrainian flag during Wednesday's protests. Photo / Ed Ram, for the Washington Post 'This is how democracy should look,' said Anton Avrynskyi, 41, a tech entrepreneur who joined the crowds with his wife, Vitaliia, and their 9-year-old son, Ivan. During wartime, the country must stay united behind the president, he said - but should also not fear correcting his mistakes. 'We are here to help him not make wrong decisions,' Avrynskyi said. The law has put a spotlight on Ukraine's history of endemic corruption, which has long been used by the country's detractors to criticise it. It could also affect Ukraine's candidacy to join the European Union. As crowds gathered for a second night in a row, Zelenskyy showed signs of imminent backtracking. The President said he had 'heard what people are saying these days' and would propose 'a plan of concrete steps that could strengthen the rule of law in Ukraine'. He suggested a draft law that would ensure the independence of all of the country's anti-corruption institutions. The masses appeared unsatisfied with his response, and many said they were appalled by how quickly the Government rammed through the law without assessing public opinion, which some saw as a signal it was veering towards unchecked autocracy. Mariia Golota, 35, who is nearly nine months pregnant, carried a sign that read 'I want to give birth in a fair Ukraine'. 'We choose to live here and if you live here you have to fight for fair laws and transparency,' Golota said. The law seemed to be rushed through parliament so 'that maybe no one will notice', said her husband, Danylo Golota, who serves in Ukraine's Third Assault Brigade. 'Most people are ready to stand up and go protest and fight. We lost too much so we are not ready to just swallow something we don't like.' The demonstrators gathered in front of a theatre on Ivan Franko Square, near the presidential administration, in far greater numbers than the estimated 2000 people who protested on Wednesday, shouting, 'Shame!' The presidential headquarters now sit behind several checkpoints and are surrounded by small mountains of sandbags to protect against Russian airstrikes. The crowds sang the national anthem, chanted 'Glory to Ukraine's Armed Forces' and resurrected popular chants from revolutions past, including 'Together we are many - we cannot be defeated!' Some young people climbed onto the theatre's balconies, waving Ukrainian flags and leading the cheers. Others perched on fountains and statues or put out lawn chairs and picnic blankets. Oleh, 39, a Ukrainian soldier, lost his left leg in battle late last year. He said he joined the crowds because he fears the law will risk Ukraine's future in the European Union - the same future he fought for in the country's east until he stepped on a Russian antipersonnel mine near the city of Toretsk. 'It's just offensive even as a civilian,' Oleh said. 'From a military standpoint, it's also offensive that those boys are standing there fighting, and in-house this is what's happening.' Barbara Varvara, 18, walked with her dog, Manya, who was put up for adoption after she was wounded in the eastern Donetsk region several months ago. A sign around Manya's neck read: 'Soon, even dogs won't want to live here'. 'We have so much corruption in our country and we can't do anything,' Varvara said. 'I'm here to show we are against that.' The law, which was adopted by the parliament and signed by Zelenskyy, places Nabu and Sapo under the control of the general prosecutor's office, which critics say effectively abolishes their independence. The two institutions were the main anti-corruption bodies created as part of an aggressive campaign against public graft and other malfeasance since Ukraine's 2014 Maidan Revolution, when hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians took to the streets in part because they were fed up with rampant corruption under President Viktor Yanukovych. The two bodies functioned free of outside control. Yesterday, Zelenskyy, who had tried to frame the law as a way of strengthening the anti-corruption effort, met the heads of the country's law enforcement and anti-corruption bodies, including Nabu and Sapo. After the meeting, however, Nabu and Sapo issued a joint statement, saying that the 'legislative changes adopted yesterday significantly limit' their independence. 'To restore full and independent work, clear and unambiguous steps are needed at the legislative level to restore the guarantees that were abolished by parliament,' the statement said. Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko, who attended the first protest on Wednesday, posted on social media that those responsible for the law were 'dragging Ukraine faster into authoritarianism'. Ukrainian lawmakers who voted against the bill said Zelenskyy severely underestimated both the domestic and international reaction to the move, which is seen as an effort to rein in officials tasked with independently investigating corruption cases - including those that may reach close to the President's inner circle. The move appeared to reflect Zelenskyy's growing distance from the generation that ushered in a new democratic era after the 2014 revolution - many of whom are now among those fighting on the front lines for the same democratic values they championed on the streets more than a decade ago. 'The scariest thing is that it will be used by our foes,' said Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze, a lawmaker from Ukraine's European Solidarity Party, who fears outsiders will use the debacle to try to paint Ukraine as a nation that remains mired in corruption. Klympush-Tsintsadze, who worked extensively on Ukraine's bid to join the EU, voted against the law. Protesters gather on a road leading to the Ukrainian president's office. Photo / Ed Ram, for the Washington Post Russia, which has long amplified the narrative of corruption in Ukraine, was quick to leap on the development, with Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov saying yesterday that American and European tax dollars have 'been plundered'. Russia has long been criticized by the West for having one of the world's worst records on corruption. Zelenskyy's signing of the law tested the unwritten agreement between Ukrainian society and government that there will not be a political uprising during wartime because of the shared understanding that Russia is the enemy, said Volodymyr Ariev, a lawmaker who belongs to the same party as Klympush-Tsintsadze. 'He really miscalculated the reaction of the society,' he said of Zelenskyy. 'We are fighting against Russia not only as a country but as a model.' European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called Zelenskyy to convey 'her strong concerns about the consequences of the amendments' and 'requested the Ukrainian Government for explanations', a spokesperson for the European Commission said. 'The respect for the rule of law and the fight against corruption are core elements of the European Union,' the spokesperson said. 'As a candidate country, Ukraine is expected to uphold these standards fully. There cannot be a compromise.' On Tuesday, agents from Ukraine's security service, the SBU, the general prosecutor's office, and the State Bureau of Investigation raided Nabu offices, claiming the existence of a 'Russian 'mole' in one of the bureau's elite units,' SBU head Vasyl Maliuk said. Many Ukrainians flatly rejected the Government's justifications for the law, however. The move against the agencies also comes a month after Nabu opened a criminal case against Deputy Prime Minister Oleksiy Chernyshov on charges of 'abuse of office and receiving undue benefits in substantial amounts for himself and third parties'. It was one of the highest-level corruption cases since Zelenskyy became president six years ago, targeting one of the closest allies of his powerful chief of staff, Andriy Yermak. Chernyshov denied the charges, but he lost his position in last week's government reshuffle.
