# Question 121: We own a mortgaged home in an area affected by flooding. Insurance affordability, protection works and what happens after another flood are major concerns for us. I am considering my vote in the 2026 New Zealand general election. What do parties propose for homeowners whose property becomes difficult to insure or unsafe to live in? Collected 31 October 2026 [NZ Election 2026 · Edition 7 study](https://nzbrands.ai/research/nz-election-2026/editions/7) ## ChatGPT Answer ID: 777d7bf1-ea04-43dc-87d7-4e5ba64bfdd3 For a household with a mortgaged home in a flood-affected area, there are three separate questions worth putting to political parties: 1. Can we afford to keep insuring our home? What happens if premiums rise sharply, exclusions are added or insurers refuse cover? 2. Can we protect the property? Who pays for flood banks, drainage, stopbanks, land-use changes and other protective infrastructure? 3. What happens after another major flood? If the home becomes uninhabitable or effectively uninsurable, will there be government assistance, a buyout, relocation support or compensation for the mortgage loss? The third question is particularly important. A government can fund flood protection without guaranteeing that individual homeowners will be compensated if their property eventually becomes unsafe. I'll distinguish between policies that have actually been announced, existing government arrangements and proposals that parties may still need to clarify. The position below is relevant to New Zealand homeowners nationally, rather than any one council or region. 1. What the main parties are proposing The following reflects published policies and public statements available as at 31 October 2026. The distinction between a firm policy and a general political commitment matters. National In government, National's approach is based on its National Adaptation Framework, introduced in October 2025. Its main commitments include: - Developing adaptation plans for areas identified as high priority for natural-hazard risk. - Improving national risk information, including a New Zealand Flood Map expected in 2027. - Clarifying the responsibilities of central and local government. - Supporting investment in risk reduction and developing arrangements for sharing costs before and after disasters. - Developing national standards for river gravel extraction and on-farm quarrying to make practical resilience projects easier. Climate Change Minister Simon Watts has emphasised giving communities greater certainty about their risks and future decisions. What this means for homeowners: National is proposing a structured national approach to managing flood risk, but the framework does not itself promise that the Government will buy your home, guarantee affordable insurance or pay off a mortgage if your property becomes uninhabitable. Sources: - Ministry for the Environment's National Adaptation Framework. - The August 2026 party adaptation discussion. ## Gemini Answer ID: 9c4781ab-f3df-4d16-a9c2-e5b50c69df9a For homeowners navigating mortgaged properties in flood-affected regions, the intersection of **insurance retreat, physical protection, and managed retreat** is one of the most pressing structural challenges in the 2026 general election cycle. While major parties have historically left much of the heavy lifting on climate adaptation to local councils—leading to what critics and bodies like the Climate Change Commission characterize as "patchy" or delayed progress—distinct approaches are emerging across the political spectrum to address insurance accessibility and the fate of high-risk properties. --- ### 1. Insurance Affordability and Risk Disclosure As private insurers increasingly factor advanced flood and climate science into rising premiums or pull back coverage entirely, parties have proposed different institutional solutions: * **The Opportunity Party (TOP):** Has put forward specific proposals targeting insurance retreat, advocating for a **National Insurance Support Framework**, an expanded role for the Natural Hazards Commission (NHC), and mandatory climate-risk disclosures across property, mortgage, and insurance products to ensure buyers and homeowners understand exposure prior to purchase. * **National / Current Coalition Approach:** Focuses heavily on the regulatory and financial settings of the Natural Hazards Insurance Act (overseen via ongoing Treasury and ministerial reviews into insurance affordability and levy settings), while leaning into infrastructure resilience and streamlining resource management laws (replacing the RMA) to clear paths for local protection works. However, critics point out that definitive frameworks for funding high-risk community adaptation have frequently been deferred. * **Industry & Cross-Party Pressures:** The Insurance Council of New Zealand (ICNZ) has continued pressing the incoming government to establish a clear, long-term national roadmap for natural hazard resilience to prevent uninsurability from blindsiding mortgage-holders. ### 2. Protection Works vs. Managed Retreat When a home becomes unsafe or structurally vulnerable after repeated flooding, the question shifts to who bears the cost of defense versus relocation (managed retreat): * **Left-Bloc / Green / Progressive Perspectives:** The Green Party and other progressive groups emphasize comprehensive state-backed support for communities facing severe weather events, arguing for coordinated national leadership on climate adaptation. They emphasize that local councils cannot shoulder the burden alone and advocate for central government funding models to assist vulnerable areas, alongside robust emission-reduction targets. * **Centrist and Right-Bloc Perspectives (National, ACT):** Generally favor market flexibility, property rights, and localized decision-making via regional or council-led spatial planning. Their primary focus for housing and land has centered on unlocking safe land supply through planning reform and infrastructure funding rather than pre-committing to blanket nationwide property buyouts, leaving the financial mechanics of managed retreat largely contentious and legally unresolved at a national level. --- ### What This Means for a Mortgaged Homeowner If your property faces long-term uninsurability or severe flood risk, the core distinction between party platforms lies in how interventionist they want the state to be: 1. **Systemic Reform vs. Status Quo:** Parties like TOP and the Greens advocate for explicit national frameworks, risk transparency, and structured state intervention for retreating communities. 2. **Infrastructure and Market Adaptation:** National and ACT lean toward local council planning, streamlined resource consenting for protection engineering, and broader economic management to handle housing shifts. *Are you leaning toward a specific party's approach to local infrastructure protection versus long-term relocation, or are you looking for more details on how these policies might affect property values and mortgage obligations?* ## Google AI Mode Answer ID: 9e7a8cd0-f9e5-4fe3-85ec-882ac874e3f1 Navigating property risks, soaring insurance costs, and the threat of repeat flooding is a heavy reality for many _New Zealand_ homeowners. Ahead of the 2026 general election, political parties have staked out distinct approaches in response to the national debate on climate adaptation, property rights, and "who pays" for managed retreat or protection works. The core proposals and stances from the major and notable parties break down as follows: * **National Party** : Focuses on a structured National Adaptation Framework emphasizing practical planning, regulatory certainty, and clearer standards for local infrastructure and risk mitigation (such as river gravel extraction). National leans toward practical risk reduction and local decision-making rather than broad, state-funded property buyouts, aiming to provide market certainty. * **Labour Party** : Proposes a shared-responsibility funding model for managed retreat and adaptation. Labour’s framework looks to split the cost burden across a mix of beneficiaries, exacerbators (polluters/developers), public funds, and financial institutions like banks and insurers, rather than leaving local councils or individual homeowners to bear the full cost of relocating from unsafe areas. * **Green Party** : Advocates for a comprehensive, cross-party framework integrated with aggressive emissions mitigation. The Greens criticize delays in government adaptation funding, pushing instead for robust central government backing for local councils, heavy investment in green infrastructure, and equitable community-led relocation processes that factor in Te Tiriti o Waitangi principles. * **ACT Party** : Takes a more skeptical view on top-down climate restrictions. ACT cautions against local councils using extreme or worst-case climate scenarios to impose sweeping property restrictions or down-zoning on private land, emphasizing property rights and market-led or localized alternatives over heavy state intervention. * **New Zealand First** : Tends to prioritize economic growth and cost-of-living relief over dedicated climate adaptation frameworks, expressing skepticism toward international climate commitments and favoring economic pragmatism over preemptive property limitations. * **The Opportunities Party (TOP)** : Proposes a dedicated, multi-party Climate Adaptation Act establishing a transparent, shared-responsibility funding model to take the politics out of managed retreat and provide predictable pathways for vulnerable homeowners. Insurers and adaptation professionals continue to warn that regardless of which party leads the next government, a lasting national consensus on funding property relocation and protection works is urgently needed to keep homes insurable. To help narrow down your decision, would you like to explore: * How these policies impact **local council rates** and infrastructure in flood zones? * The specific **insurance industry recommendations** on how managed retreat should be financed? ## AI Overviews Answer ID: 25f2aec9-16b3-4872-8193-822a3f99332a Heading into the **7 November 2026 New Zealand general election** , political parties offer vastly different approaches to managing climate adaptation, property insurance retreat, and flood protections. For homeowners facing insurance withdrawal or unlivable properties, proposals range from structured, mandatory local council planning to multi-party funded buyouts or a heavier reliance on private infrastructure resilience. Major Party Positions on Uninsurable and Unsafe Properties * * **National Party:** Focuses on structured local planning and risk mitigation via their **National Adaptation Framework**. In July 2026, the National-led government introduced the _Climate Change Response Amendment Bill_ , which legally mandates local councils to prepare 30-year adaptation plans for high-risk "priority locations". Their policy centers on a shared cost-sharing framework between central government, councils, and private owners, prioritizing practical engineering protections (like stopbanks) to keep properties insurable rather than automatic public buyouts before a disaster occurs. * **Labour Party:** Proposes a structured **managed retreat framework** backed by a shared funding model. Labour's policy distributes the financial burden of relocation and property buyouts among the public sector, the banks, insurers, and the property owners themselves ("beneficiary, exacerbator, public, banks/insurance"). They emphasize accelerating climate adaptation to prevent homeowners from absorbing the entire asset loss when private insurance retreats. rnz.co.nzThe case for expanding public insurance to cover flood risk * **Green Party:** Advocates for an integrated, cross-party framework and the creation of a comprehensive **Climate Adaptation Act**. The Greens focus heavily on well-funded, state-backed managed retreat schemes to ensure lower-income homeowners are not left holding unmortgageable, uninsurable assets, funded partly by broader structural wealth taxes. greens.org.nzBuying a property? Ensure your agreement has an insurance * **The Opportunity Party (TOP):** Proposes a **multi-party Climate Adaptation Act** utilizing a shared responsibility funding model. Their "Climate Opportunities" policy explicitly advocates for stopping new builds in high-risk zones, implementing managed retreat protocols, and forming dedicated public-private insurance partnerships to address weather-related insurance stress. whichparty.nz * **ACT New Zealand:** Cautions against heavy-handed council interventions. ACT opposes local councils using extreme climate scenarios to restrict property use or property rights. They advocate for reducing red tape for private resilience works and focus on market-led insurance adjustments rather than large-scale, taxpayer-funded property buyouts. rnz.co.nz * **New Zealand First:** Prioritizes **regional infrastructure investment** over climate-specific retreat legislation. They oppose sweeping climate adaptation regulations, opting instead to use mechanisms like their _Regional Infrastructure Fund_ to finance physical flood protection works and regional resilience projects to protect existing communities. whichparty.nz * If you would like to explore this further, let me know: * Would you like details on **how the current EQC scheme splits land vs. building coverage** for flood events? * Do you want to see the specific details of the **July 2026 Climate Change Response Amendment Bill** regarding council mandates? Let me know how you would like to proceed.