A satirical review of the Aotearoa Renters' Survey 2026
I have just finished reading the Aotearoa Renters' Survey 2026. Nearly ten years on from the original People's Review of Renting, Renters United and ActionStation have returned with another report detailing the experience of renters across New Zealand.
The survey highlights some genuine concerns. Although rental affordability is improving, rent still consumes large portions of household income. Many renters still report problems with mould and dampness, with fair criticism about Healthy Homes being a tick box exercise that landlords can do themselves. Also many tenants appear unaware of their rights. On these points, they deserve to be heard.
The recommendations, however, are where things start to get interesting. Very interesting.
The Housing Market Without Owners
The report paints a picture of a rental market where tenants should have greater security, stronger protections, restrictions on rent increases, enhanced purchasing rights, and greater pathways to public, council and iwi ownership.
These are, on the surface, noble aspirations.
The question that remains stubbornly unanswered is this. Who exactly is supposed to provide the houses? The underlying theory appears to be that housing can somehow be separated from the incentives that encourage people to invest in it in the first place. Rent should be constrained. Returns should be constrained. Possession rights should be constrained. Property rights should be constrained. Yet investment levels should somehow remain unaffected.
This is a bit like telling dairy farmers they must charge less, produce more, face higher costs, carry additional regulation and accept greater risk, then wondering why milk suddenly becomes expensive.
Supply does not emerge because a report believes strongly in fairness.
Supply emerges because somebody believes the investment is worth making. Is earning a return from providing rental housing inherently wrong?
Residential Landlords Become Endangered Species
The report's recommendations seem to rely heavily on a creature that conservation authorities may soon have to place on a protected species list. The Self-Sacrificing Landlord. This remarkable sacrificial lamb will do the following.
Pay rates.
Pay insurance.
Pay maintenance.
Pay Healthy Homes compliance costs.
Pay rising interest expenses.
Pay more tax.
Accept increasing regulation.
Accept capped returns.
Accept reduced control over the asset.
And after all of that do you think this creature remains enthusiastic about expanding their investment portfolio?
Rent Controls: The Law of Foreseen Consequences
Let’s now look at rent controls. One of the key recommendations in the report. Rent controls have long been a topic of discussion for the left.The emergence and popularity of New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani has helped bring rent controls back into public debate. Mamdani campaigned on rent controls for New York City, amongst other socialist policies and subsequently won the election. But be careful what you wish for.
It was the Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck who famously observed that "in many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city, except for bombing." While deliberately provocative, the point remains relevant. Housing markets do not respond well to ideology. When returns are artificially constrained, investment can fall, maintenance can be deferred, and the supply of rental housing can shrink. The question is not whether rent controls help some tenants in the short term. The question is what happens to future tenants when fewer people are willing to build, buy, or provide rental housing.
The irony is that policies designed to help renters can sometimes end up helping existing tenants while making life considerably harder for future ones. Housing shortages have an annoying habit of ignoring political intentions.
You cannot tax your way to wealth
Many investors have expressed concern as the election approaches. Policies such as Capital Gains Tax, Land Tax and the prospect of a return of the ban on interest deductibility have all been discussed and tabled by some.
At this point, it is worth talking about the Laffer Curve, the theory that there comes a point where increasing taxes actually discourages the very activity being taxed and reduces the revenue governments hoped to collect. Housing has a similar curve. Every new restriction, cost, compliance requirement, limitation on rent increases and reduction in property rights may appear reasonable when viewed individually. But eventually investors start doing the maths. There comes a moment where a landlord looks at the numbers, looks at the risks, looks at the regulations, and concludes that a term deposit, shares, or a fishing boat might be a better investment. The exact point is open for debate. The existence of the point is not. Once enough investors reach it, the rental stock doesn't disappear overnight. It simply stops growing. Then politicians commission another report asking why there are not enough rentals.
A Survey or a Campaign?
Another observation. The original major survey appeared in 2017. The follow-up appeared in 2026. Both arrived under National-led governments and close to election cycles. Is this a coincidence? Perhaps everyone was simply too busy between 2017 and 2023. Who knows? But when advocacy organisations release highly political reports immediately before elections, it is reasonable to recognise them for what they are. This is more a campaign document than an in-depth survey. And that is where this survey fails. You know the motivations of the group simply because it is an election year and they want the current National led Government removed from power.
What the Report Gets Right
To be fair, dismissing the report entirely would be a mistake. Many tenants genuinely feel insecure. On the other hand, a landlord should be able to get rid of an antisocial tenant. Previously, it was just too hard and complex and time consuming.
What is clear is that many renters do not know their rights or are too frightened to exercise their rights. Better education for landlords and tenants always helps.
There is also a sensible discussion to be had about inspection frequency, enforcement mechanisms and improving the quality of rental housing. Since 2019 landlords have spent enormous amounts complying with Healthy Homes standards. If a significant number of renters still report mould and dampness, should we not ask whether the regulations have delivered the outcomes promised? Good policy should be measured by results, not by the number of compliance checklists completed.
These are practical problems deserving practical solutions. The report is strongest when it focuses on those issues.
It is weakest when it assumes every housing problem can be solved by further reducing the incentives of the people currently supplying most rental accommodation.
The Final Destination
The central problem with the report is not its diagnosis. It is its prescription. The report identifies real frustrations. But it often proposes solutions that depend on private investors behaving exactly the same after being given fewer reasons to invest. That is a considerable leap of faith. If the aim is warm, healthy and affordable housing, most New Zealanders would support that goal.
The challenge is getting there without accidentally discouraging the very investment that creates housing in the first place. Because the housing market ultimately follows a simple rule. If you want more rental housing, make providing rental housing attractive. If you want less rental housing, regulate it, restrict it, tax it, cap it, litigate it, demonise it, and then commission a survey asking why investors seem less enthusiastic than they used to be.
And if the long-term solution is for the state to own more and more of the nation's housing stock, perhaps somebody should tell the taxpayers. Ultimately, they are the ones who will be funding it.
Share this post
Percival M Crane
26 August 2026