Steven Gaskell: Waikato-Tainui’s Homeownership Scheme - Fair Deal for All or Insider Windfall?

Nothing says “equality” quite like a government-backed property giveaway — as long as you belong to the right iwi, of course. Waikato-Tainui is planning to sell 17 houses and one section to tribal members at cost, citing the noble goal of boosting homeownership among iwi. To make this possible, legislation had to be bent and twisted: Kāinga Ora laws were adjusted, and the Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act dusted off, suddenly allowing a perfectly legal handout of a slice of the property market to a select group based purely on tribal membership. But one has to ask: does this pass the litmus test of fairness for all New Zealanders, or just the politically connected?

The batch of properties spans Hamilton, Papakura, Pukekohe, and Te Awamutu, with individual prices ranging from $425,000 for land in Hamilton to $735,000 for a two-bedroom standalone property in Papakura. Sounds generous, right? Tribal members can buy “at cost,” which conveniently keeps out everyone else. After all, why bother with open competition or market pricing when you can legislate exclusivity and handpick who gets in on the deal? It’s a sharp reminder that “fairness” in 2025 often translates to “if you tick the right ethnic box, the rules bend in your favour.” Meanwhile, ordinary Kiwis are left watching from the sidelines, their hopes for homeownership quietly shrinking in the process.

And then there’s the small matter of profit. While the stated aim is homeownership, savvy buyers have historically discovered that “at cost” doesn’t mean “forever locked in.” Across the country, some discounted iwi properties have been quietly flipped for quick gains, turning what was supposed to be social benefit into fast cash. For example, a property purchased at $425,000 could be resold in Auckland or Hamilton for $550,000, netting a tidy $125,000 profit — all perfectly legal under the current setup, and entirely at odds with the stated purpose of boosting homeownership. In some cases, these schemes inadvertently create a mini-insider market, where timing, knowledge, and access matter more than financial need.

Legislation aside, one has to question the social philosophy behind the plan. Waikato-Tainui’s scheme reads less like a community-driven housing initiative and more like a tightly controlled marketplace for insiders. Yes, it increases homeownership for some, but for everyone else, the takeaway is clear: fairness is optional, profit is prioritised, and legislation can be rewritten to suit the chosen few. It’s not difficult to imagine a future where such schemes are extended to other iwi, each operating under its own set of rules, creating a patchwork of privileged access across the country. One wonders if the next step will be a lottery for access or a subscription plan for membership — because equality, evidently, is now just a tribal affiliation away.

In the end, Waikato-Tainui’s plan may be “legal” and perhaps even laudable within the context of Treaty settlement obligations, but it also highlights the growing tension between ethnically targeted social programmes and the broader principle of equal opportunity. When legislation can be bent to favour certain groups, and profit incentives sneak into a programme designed for public good, it’s worth asking whether anyone outside the inner circle truly benefits. Meanwhile, the rest of the country can only watch, knowing that in 2025, homeownership is increasingly not about saving and earning, but about which law or settlement you happen to fall under.

Steven is an entrepreneur and an ex RNZN diver who likes travelling, renovating houses, Swiss Watches, history, chocolate art and art deco.