Since 2018, foreigners have been banned from buying residential property in New Zealand. Before then, the market was open — both residential and commercial. Today, while commercial and industrial property remains accessible (except where sensitive land is involved or the value exceeds NZ$100 million), residential real estate is still off-limits to most foreign nationals.
Yet, ironically, New Zealand’s revamped golden visa scheme — officially the Active Investor Plus visa — is attracting a surge in interest from high-net-worth individuals across the globe, particularly from the United States. According to government data, over 100 visa applications covering 346 people were lodged in just six weeks, representing a potential NZ$620 million in capital investment.
If sustained, this could mean over $10 billion entering our economy annually. But there’s a catch: these investors still can’t buy a home.
The government wants foreign capital. The golden visa invites it. But the foreign buyer ban sends a contradictory message.
Investors can:
…but not buy a family home.
As I recently told Bloomberg,
“A sensible way forward would be that anyone who successfully obtains a residence visa under the golden visa scheme is eligible to buy a family home here.”
Currently, we’re telling millionaires they’re welcome to invest — just not to unpack. That’s not just confusing — it’s counterproductive.
This isn’t just a local issue — international media is taking notice.
In a recent Bloomberg article (May 2025), I was quoted discussing the contradiction between welcoming investment and blocking home ownership.
Jim Rohrstaff of Legacy Partners, also speaking to Bloomberg, described the “tremendous amount of pent-up demand” among wealthy Americans. He noted:
“They’re staying in some of the beautiful luxury lodges around the country... But there is an expiration date to that visit.”
Without a change in policy, that demand may never materialise into long-term economic benefit.
The current foreign buyer ban was introduced during the Ardern administration, partly in response to:
But that moment has passed. Today, the global economic landscape, migration flows, and capital markets have shifted dramatically. So too must our policies.
The Active Investor Plus visa has proven effective. Applicants are serious. But denying them the ability to buy a home without delay, or requiring complex applications to the Overseas Investment Office (OIO), risks undermining the entire effort.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon noted that lifting the ban “is not the be-all and end-all of attracting investment.” But it is a critical enabler of making relocation viable.
New Zealand’s tax system interacts oddly with our immigration settings. Under golden visa rules:
Still, if they do wish to buy a home, they face hurdles — unless they become NZ tax residents or go through the OIA process, assuming they are eligible.
Before the 2023 election, National proposed lifting the ban for foreign buyers purchasing homes over $2 million, claiming this would:
The coalition partner, New Zealand First, opposed this at the time. But recently, Rt Hon Winston Peters suggested that allowing foreigners to buy luxury homes might be a reasonable compromise (we predict $5 million to be the threshold).
We expect to see this change formalised into law in the coming months.
If this proceeds, it may mean the following groups could trade in residential real estate:
In contrast, Australia is doubling down on policies that encourage home ownership. Labour’s new Home Guarantee Scheme, coming into effect in 2026, will:
For many young, skilled Kiwis, the pull to Australia is getting stronger — and our own policy settings may be pushing them away.
A pressing challenge is how the new golden visa intersects with:
Currently, there’s matters remain confusing. The FIF rules are being reviewed. No doubt the Government will ultimately need to generate more tax. And from time to time we observe that key decision-makers do not fully understand the complexity of the systems they are fiddling with and designing.
We anticipate that there may be significant issues arising in the future around pushing millionaires into the Growth category. Instead of investing $10 million for 5 years, an applicant can invest $5 million for 3 years (and spend less time onshore). In New Zealand, most business loans are secured by way of property. The AIP rules have made investment in property more clunky. Such things happen sometimes when inexperienced bureaucrats are pulling levers resulting in unintended and poorly designed consequences.
As it stands, the policymaking approach resembles more of a “touch it once, touch it wrong” philosophy than the strategic alignment we need.
New Zealand is competing globally for talent and capital. We have the fundamentals to succeed: a clean environment, stable political system, and attractive lifestyle. But our real estate policy is out of sync with the opportunity in front of us.
Reforming the ban isn’t about “selling out” — it’s about strategic alignment.
If someone:
…then most will concur that they should be able to buy a home here.
Whether through reforming the current OIO pathways or legislating a $5 million exemption threshold, we need to send a clear message to the world:
New Zealand is open for investment — and open to smart, long-term residents who want to make Aotearoa home.
Want to Know More?
If you’ve read this far and want to discuss further, contact:
Marcus Beveridge
Managing Director – Queen City Law
EMAIL MARCUS or EMAIL ANDREW
Disclaimer: This blog is general commentary only and is not legal advice. Always seek tailored legal advice before making investment or immigration decisions.
📰 Source: