Mr Bishop’s earlier comments prompted surprised remarks from a few commentators. Politicians from National and Labour, including former prime ministers Jacinda Ardern and Chris Hipkins and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon have all been happy to bemoan the housing crisis and high prices.
They have been wary, though, about alienating the homeowning classes by telling them their big asset will be worth considerably less. It is the homeowners who vote in large numbers. The boomers among them, too, carry hefty electoral clout.
As Dan Brunskill from interest.co.nz put it, successive New Zealand governments have provided homeowners with an implicit guarantee that all policy decisions would protect residential house prices and ensure they only go up.
That political promise was forfeited when Mr Bishop doubled down on his intention to hack down house prices.
Such is New Zealand’s appalling housing inaffordability that rising incomes — even if that is possible — will not make a serious dent. Steady levels with inflation nibbling away at real prices is also insufficient. Good progress relies on actual prices to fall.
Then, yesterday, Mr Bishop launched the first part of a plan to "flood" the market. This is supposed to make homes cheaper, and that should flow through to lower rents.
We shall see. Mr Bishop talked up a big game and now comes the delivery and the inevitable complications and pushback.
There remain, as well, the next two stages to be announced and implemented.
Highlighted yesterday were plans to make land more available and therefore cheaper. Land is a large part of the cost of a new house.
Councils will have to "live-zone" for 30 years of growth based on high-demand projections. There must also be more scope to relax city limits, the idea being that more options will flow to cheaper land everywhere. Cities should grow out as well as up.
Obvious questions arise about infrastructure — the details to come in the second stage — and about protection of elite soils. More is to come on that, too, although the two highest soil levels will be safeguarded.
Intensification rules are to be strengthened, notably along transport corridors and in "walkable zones".
Intensification is positive in theory for many reasons, that is until someone loses their sun or views, or heritage character is lost.
Mixed-use is to be encouraged, where shops, workplaces and living can be more integrated. This has potential, while also scope for negative "sensitivity" issues.
The deletion of mandatory minimal floor areas and balconies for apartments to make many less expensive could have a place. But we must be wary of creating apartment slums.
Mr Bishop places much store on what he says is providing opportunities for people and developers to make decisions on where and how they live, rather than planners. The market is to deliver choice.
Mr Bishop’s third stage will be about incentives for councils, including a revenue stream tied to housing. He wants councils to benefit from growth rather than expansion being a burden.
Again, it is ironic the government has proclaimed the importance of local decision-making and then decreed from Wellington whenever that suits its policies.
House prices, at least, have not increased this year as earlier predicted. For once, the new home supply in Auckland has exceeded population growth.
But this is contributing to, along with high interest rates, a fall in housing consent numbers and the construction industry’s slump.
Yet, most parts of New Zealand desperately need more and lower-cost dwellings for personal, social and economic reasons.
Mr Bishop’s ambitious programme, should it succeed, could be well timed. There is a lot of devil, however, in the detail, a plethora of issues and much to be worked through.
