Reserve Bank to consider housing impact

The Reserve Bank of New Zealand. Photo: Alexander Robertson, RNZ.

The Reserve Bank is now required to consider the impact on housing when making monetary and financial policy decisions, Grant Robertson announced today.

Changes have been made to the Bank's Monetary Policy Committee's remit requiring it to take into account government policy relating to more sustainable house prices, while working towards its objectives.

'The Committee retains autonomy over whether and how its decisions take account of potential housing consequences, but it will need to explain regularly how it has sought to assess the impacts on housing outcomes,” says Grant Robertson.

A direction has also been issued (under section 68B of the Reserve Bank Act) to the Reserve Bank requiring it to have regard to government policy on housing in relation to its financial policy functions.

'The Bank will have to take into account the Government's objective to support more sustainable house prices, including by dampening investor demand for existing housing stock to help improve affordability for first-home buyers.

'The Reserve Bank's objectives remains the same, which is to maintain price stability, support full employment and promote a sound and stable financial system.”

The Minister has also asked the Reserve Bank to provide advice on debt-to-income ratios and interest only mortgages.

'I want to understand the extent to which interest-only mortgages (particularly to speculators) pose risks to financial stability, and whether restrictions should apply.

Some jurisdictions, like Australia, have in the past applied restrictions on interest-only mortgages due to financial stability risks.

'Following the Bank's request that the Government allow it to make use of tools such as debt-to-income ratio limits, I've asked for further advice on how the Bank might implement such tools.

'I have made clear that in principle I would want these to apply only to investors. It's important that any potential restrictions do not disproportionately affect first-home buyers and low-income borrowers.

'Today's announcement is just the first step as the Government considers broader advice about how to cool the housing market.

'We know the rapid increases we have seen in recent months are not sustainable, which has meant many first-home buyers are struggling to access the market. We'll be making further announcements in the coming weeks on other policy responses,” Grant Robertson said.

You may also like....

6 comments

Land Crisis

Posted on 25-02-2021 20:26 | By Fernhill22

This government seems hell bent on focusing their attentions on mum & dad investors. The real issue stems from a lack of government investment into infrastructure which has held up numerous developments across the country creating a Land Crisis. If people can't purchase existing properties or or complete a House & Land Package due to no sections being available they need to rent homes. So investors do have a vital part to play in the housing market. If the Government & Councils released more land & actually managed the sale of this directly to First Time Home Buyers instead of selling it to Developers then they can control the price of land to make it affordable to build. They also need to put pressure onto the banks to make it easier for First Time Home Buyers to qualify for mortgages if they have less than a 20% deposit.


Tom Ranger

Posted on 26-02-2021 10:59 | By Tom Ranger

The govt has also increased house prices by way of over-regulation of the building industry for years and years and is getting worse every time they stick their beak in. Creating an over-inflated and under-educated industry. Council just clips the ticket and throws monkey wrenches at builders whom don't know the answers anymore. Building inspectors are usually failed builders. etc etc etc Any addition to the process adds a lot of taxes to the govt coffers.


Supply & demand

Posted on 26-02-2021 14:33 | By morepork

We continue to bring in thousands of new people, without providing the infrastructure needed to support it. It is pretty obvious that we don't have enough housing for our current population. The obvious answer is to cut the train of new people and increase the building efforts. Probably about 5 years of that would see a significant adjustment to housing availability and pricing. Then we could look at controlled immigration, with smaller limits, until we can model what is viable.


And the screws turn.............

Posted on 26-02-2021 21:26 | By groutby

..a little tighter still, to ensure the populous are not able to think and do for ourselves...slowly as it is, reform to crush any hopes and dreams of those wishing to achieve personal dreams with hard work will be removed policy change by policy change...until 1984 arrives....


@Tom Ranger

Posted on 27-02-2021 14:10 | By morepork

I noted your comment, Tom and defer to your knowledge of building regulation and requirement. The only thing that worries me about "loosening" the regulations is the following: I had a friend who was looking for a country to live in where she could afford to buy a house. She opted for Turkey (which is an earthquake zone like us), and where the "building regulations" are virtually non-existent. She bought an apartment in Sile, on the Black Sea... very beautiful. A few years later, there was a minor quake and the building collapsed like a house of cards. Fortunately, she was home in NZ visiting family, but she lost her entire investment. It made me glad we have more "rigid" regulation here. I guess there is a fine line between "regulation" and "overregulation"?


Tom Ranger

Posted on 12-03-2021 14:26 | By Tom Ranger

@morepork. This is where personal education and acquired skillset comes in. If we are educated enough within our family units (We all have a builder/plumber/electrician) somewhere within our families that we can call on. No problem. I'd suspect that your friend had a feeling that would happen in an earthquake. It is a balancing act. But I am strong in the mindset that educating ourselves and our people is much much better than relying on so called experts. Danny Cancian was one of these qualified experts. Educate. Let Caveat Emptor rule.


Leave a Comment


You must be logged in to make a comment.