A ruling banning a Christchurch Airbnb unit from offering visitor accommodation is likely to send shockwaves through the short-term rental sector.

In a decision that could affect thousands of properties across New Zealand, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) has ruled that a unit in the central city’s east frame housing area does not meet Building Code standards for guest accommodation.

Like most homes, it was built to comply with rules for a residential dwelling, not the stricter rules for guest accommodation which apply to motels, hotels and hostels.

The differences relate mainly to access for people with disabilities, and fire regulations.

The Gloucester St unit was built by housing developer Fletcher Residential in the Gloucester Green complex near the Margaret Mahy playground.

An MBIE decision on a unit in this complex in Gloucester St, Christchurch, could have nationwide implications for the short-stay guest accommodation sector. An MBIE decision on a unit in this complex in Gloucester St, Christchurch, could have nationwide implications for the short-stay guest accommodation sector. Photo: KAI SCHWOERER / THE PRESS MBIE’s ruling says the property owners must either make significant alterations to the apartment or no longer use it for Airbnb or other short-term rental platforms.

It released the ruling after being approached by Christchurch City Council seeking clarification of the issue, following a complaint from a member of the public.

Asked about the implications of the ruling for property owners, a council spokesperson said it would be inappropriate to comment while an appeal period remains open, although the council will not be appealing.

Read more: Nearly 500 new homes in CBD but only 50 new residents An MBIE ruling can only be appealed through the courts.

Council figures indicate that of the 500 new central Christchurch homes built in a year, most are being used for short-term guest stays.

Anthony Brien, associate professor of hotel and business management at Lincoln University, said the MBIE ruling had widespread national implications.

Lincoln University associate professor Anthony Brien says councils should be very concerned. Lincoln University associate professor Anthony Brien says councils should be very concerned. Photo: BEJON HASWELL/ STUFF “Councils should be very concerned. This determination is fair and appropriate, based on the evidence presented, and it does set quite a strong precedent.”

Building codes are about keeping people safe, Brien said.

“Now that the (Christchurch City) council knows, they have to act. If someone in an apartment has an accident or there is a fire, the council will be in a very difficult position”.

He said a register of short-stay visitor platforms was needed, as is done in Europe.

“Otherwise how are they going to know what people are doing? Are they going to stand outside the door?”

A spokesperson for Fletcher said all the company’s east frame homes, including those in Gloucester Green, are developed under the residential building code.

The Gloucester St units have only recently been completed. The Gloucester St units have only recently been completed. Photo: KAI SCHWOERER / THE PRESS “Our internal sales team actively engage with our purchasers to reinforce this, and it is clear in the sales and purchase agreements for these developments that the homes are designed to be permanent residences and are not appropriate for transient accommodation,” the spokesperson said.

“Owner-occupiers are our primary customers, and our developments are planned and designed with the needs of long-term residents at their core.”

The body corporate chair of one large Christchurch complex with both full-time residents and Airbnb-type owners said they still need to get to grips with the implications of the ruling.

He said most units could probably not be easily altered to the higher standards.

Airbnb and similar platforms advertise short-term rental accommodation. Airbnb and similar platforms advertise short-term rental accommodation. Photo: 123RF.COM The chair, who did not want to be named, said most people thought a resource consent allowing a home to be used as an Airbnb was sufficient.

“But this is under a whole different law. There will be a ton of properties operating as short-term rentals that don’t comply.”

The city council and many other councils require owners using a residential property for short-term accommodation for more than 60 nights a year to obtain a resource consent.

Matthew Horncastle, co-owner of Williams Corporation which is the city’s biggest builder of units and obtains short-term rental resource consents for many of its complexes, said the MBIE ruling is an overreach and should be challenged.

Williams Corporation co-owner Matthew Horncastle believes the MBIE ruling does not follow the law. Williams Corporation co-owner Matthew Horncastle believes the MBIE ruling does not follow the law. Photo: Iain McGregor / The Press “My gut feeling is, MBIE just doesn’t understand what they are ruling on. It’s an example of a Government department being out of touch with what the market is doing.”

Horncastle said rules that made sense for hotel construction do not necessarily make sense for individual units.

The company intended to write to the ministry to seek clarification, he said.

“We don’t think the Government is following the law. They need to respect private property, leave us alone, and go back to Wellington.”

Ski touring in the Craigieburn Range

Interesting Chart from Stuff

Andrea Vance is National Affairs Editor for The Post and Sunday Star-Times.

OPINION: If there is one thing that reliably gets under MPs’ skin, it is scrutiny of their salaries, pensions and perks.

Dare to question these entitlements, and you’ll set off a chorus of defensive whining inside the parliamentary precinct accompanied by practised, solemn hand-wringing about the unforgiving hours, the brutal sacrifice of public life, and the great tragedy of stepping away from the private sector to serve the nation.

It’s not just generous pay that they are guarding so fiercely. The state has beautifully designed a cradle-to-grave lifestyle insulation package that completely detaches our lawmakers from the economic realities endured by the rest of the country.

Read more: MPs shouldn’t claim $52k allowance to live in homes they own: Labour Kāpiti-based MP rents back his Wellington flat at taxpayers’ expense 23 MPs rent back their own homes at the taxpayers’ expense From July, thanks to yet another pay rise, a backbench MP will drag home a base salary of $181,200.

Climb up the greasy pole into the Executive, and the numbers hike: standard ministers sit on a comfortable cushion between $276,000 and $327,100, while the Prime Minister will peak at $520,500.

Shane Jones, Nicola Willis, David Seymour, and Chris Bishop celebrate printing their budget with gourmet pies. Bruce Mackay / The Post The Speaker pulls the same cash as a Cabinet Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition sits a whisker below them at $309,000. Even junior under-secretaries pull a tidy $214,800.

But because watching that base salary erode would be far too stressful, they are also handed a tax-free annual expense allowance of up to $19,300 on top.

It’s a little pocket-money to absorb the minor indignities of daily life, like their meals, club memberships, and constituent gifts, leaving their actual six-figure salaries untouched.

Then we get to the real racket: real estate. For politicians who suffer the great inconvenience of maintaining a primary home outside the capital, the state funds their Wellington living arrangements. Common or garden MPs can draw up to $36,400 a year for capital housing, a figure that balloons to $52,000 for ministers.

Here is the tasty part: because this money is paid out as a convenient continuous lump sum rather than a strict, receipt-checked reimbursement, MPs can - and routinely do - funnel this taxpayer cash straight into properties they already own in the city.

It is an exquisite bit of alchemy: struggling renters and mortgage holders hand over their tax dollars so that wealthy politicians can passively service their own capital mortgages or build private equity.

The domestic travel perks nicely expand this protection to the entire family, and ensures no politician is ever exposed to the raw volatility of the market, like the rest of us plebs.

When travelling on business, hotel caps are remarkably generous, featuring automated emergency top-ups of an extra $100 to $120 a night the second a storm or a late night in the House causes a minor booking inconvenience.

Layered over this is a lavish matrix of funded domestic travel for partners and dependent children, who get dozens of free flights a year. For the senior ranked, the perks dissolve into luxury: their families get free travel and discretionary access to a fleet of VIP chauffeur-driven cars. Yes Minister, indeed.

But the best bit of this perks system is how it cushions the abrupt exit from office.

Out in the real world, losing your job or retiring means an unsettling financial time.

In Parliament, defeated or retiring backbenchers continue to draw their base rate for 12 weeks, while ministers enjoy full executive pay until the exact day their portfolios are formally handed over. There is one upside to prolonging those coalition negotiations...

And for the final act, MPs’ retirement is spectacularly leveraged. Through a superannuation scheme that would give a private sector CFO conniptions, the taxpayer matches an MP's retirement contributions at a staggering ratio of $2.50 for every $1 invested.

On back-of-the envelope calculations, this gold-plated set-up would allow a two-term MP (who never elevated beyond the backbench) to walk out of office with a private retirement nest egg worth roughly $300,000.

At the absolute apex, anyone who manages to survive as PM for two years is guaranteed a non-taxable annuity for the rest of their natural life, with spousal entitlements that legally endure even after they die.

The 2026 Budget offered very little cost of living relief. DAVID UNWIN / The Post In the context of last week’s lean and mean Budget that offered no cost-of-living relief and boasted endlessly about restraint, responsibility, and discipline, these perks are now, well, a bit awks.

Especially when Social Development Minister Louise Upston is simultaneously moving to tighten access to the accommodation supplement, lifting the threshold for homeowners from 30 to 40% of income spent on housing before support even becomes available.

Shame the language out of the Minister's mouth about “better targeting” didn’t float across the parliamentary perimeter, where MPs are dodging the question about whether their own generous housing benefits should be slashed.

Because of her policy, $320,000-a-year Upston has become the target of quite reasonable accusations of hypocrisy. (It doesn’t help that while telling low-income families to do more with less she’s bunging millions of dollars to rock stars under the banner of economic growth.)

But she’s not the only trougher banking that $1000 a week. Across the House, 28 MPs are claiming the allowance to boost their assets. That’s up from 23 in 2024 and cost the taxpayer $1,070,473 last year.

To tell homeowners drowning with ever-rising bills that they are too wealthy for a supplement, while writing massive cheques to international stadium acts and drawing taxpayer cash to clear your own Wellington mortgage, makes that fiscal discpline strategy stick in the craw like a $15 gourmet pie.

The transportation rules put a fine point on this glaring double standard. For most households, buying fuel is a live, weekly exposure to global price swings that dictates whether they can afford to drive to work. For MPs, it is a totally blunted and reimbursed cost.

So, while the language of government is increasingly about discipline and telling the public to tighten their belts, the lived reality inside the political system is absolute insulation from the economic frost they are making everyone else survive.

To preach the gospel of a lean budget to people skipping meals while sitting on a leather-lined bench that pays you $2.50 for every dollar you save is delusional. And they wonder why peoples’ rage boils on social media and voters are growing ever more detached from politics?

Yet when pinned on the hypocrisy, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon hits the moral mute button and retreats behind the constitutional firewall of the Remuneration Authority, which is an arm’s-length, independent body that sets pay and perks.

The tired defence for all of this largesse is that these salary packages have to be extraordinarily generous to attract the best and brightest of society to the job.

Looking at the current talent pool on display, does anyone honestly feel like we are getting value for that money?

For a while I've been working on an offline topo maps site for NZ and its finally in a state worth sharing.

• mountains and routes from ClimbNZ
• hut locations
• slope angle for assessing avalanche danger
• 3d view