Last week's headlines suggested another wobble in housing reform. Signals from the Prime Minister about easing Auckland's intensification settings appeared to undercut Housing Minister Chris Bishop. 

One policy adjustment will not break the economics of housing supply. But it will not help either. Density rules are a means, not an end.  

What matters is whether developers have abundant alternatives. If land can be brought to market easily, through both intensification and urban expansion, prices are disciplined. If not, scarcity persists. 

That is the core logic of competitive urban land markets. But logic depends on credibility. When a Prime Minister signals retreat, it is not only developers who notice. Public servants committed to the status quo are emboldened to continue resisting. 

Our recent three-part podcast series traces the reform arc from Bill English to Phil Twyford to Chris Bishop, focused on the need for competitive urban land markets. Twyford and Bishop joined us to tell the story. 

In Part 3, Minister Bishop made a striking observation. The divide on housing, he argued, is no longer primarily partisan, but generational.  

Many young New Zealanders experience housing as the defining constraint on their lives. Older cohorts may not perceive it as a priority. He is right. And that divide cuts across parties and officials. 

We often describe councils as captive to vocal incumbents, funding gaps and election cycles. But central government behaves in the same way. When reform becomes uncomfortable, discretion reasserts itself. 

Jacinda Ardern championed housing reform in her first term, then retreated. Now Luxon is pulling back too. Different party, similar pattern. 

Housing reform cannot rely on good ministers alone. Part 3 of our podcast explores how to break this pattern.  

The solution lies in shifting from discretion to rules. But how? Sharing GST, as Oliver suggests in the preceding column?  

We need enduring institutions, not policy that changes according to political whim. In the podcast, Bishop reaffirms his commitment to embed competitive urban land markets as an explicit goal of the planning system, written into law, as a first non-negotiable step. 

If the system holds, this week's wobble will fade into background noise. If it does not, the pattern will return again and again. 

The question is no longer whether competitive land markets are the right answer. It is whether we can embed that answer deeply enough that it survives its champions. 

You can listen to our latest podcast episode with Hon Chris Bishop here. For earlier episodes in our 'Housing Affordability' series, listen here for Part 1 and Part 2.