Simplicity Living’s proposed Hinaki Street development in Glen Innes, Auckland (Photo: Simplicity Living/Supplied)
Simplicity Living’s proposed Hinaki Street development in Glen Innes, Auckland (Photo: Simplicity Living/Supplied)

BusinessNovember 16, 2021

The ambitious plan to build 10,000 high quality, affordable rentals

Simplicity Living’s proposed Hinaki Street development in Glen Innes, Auckland (Photo: Simplicity Living/Supplied)
Simplicity Living’s proposed Hinaki Street development in Glen Innes, Auckland (Photo: Simplicity Living/Supplied)

With Simplicity Living, Sam Stubbs and Shane Brealey want to upend the rental property market in New Zealand. Bernard Hickey spoke to them about why the local property development sector is so dire, and how they plan to change things.

This is an edited version of a post first published on Bernard Hickey’s Substack newsletter, The Kākā.

I’ve spent a long time covering the residential property development market in New Zealand, particularly for the type of medium-density dwellings that are desperately needed close to the centre of large cities. It is a sector that has bred its own culture of zero-sum-game cynicism, inflating costs and stunting any attempt at scale and affordability.

It created the finance company crises of 2007-11 that cost savers and taxpayers close to $5b and created the biggest hole in new home creation in New Zealand’s history, along with an exodus of skilled tradespeople to Australia, many of whom have never returned. It was a painful reporting exercise that shaped my view of whether we could ever build houses affordably in the right places for people on regular incomes.

Up until now, residential property development has been designed to take advantage of (or at least live within) a pronounced boom-bust cycle. It is profoundly broken.


Are you a keen reader of The Spinoff’s business journalism? We want to find out a bit more about our business audience, so if you’ve got five minutes, please take this quick survey. 


Now KiwiSaver fund Simplicity and apartment and townhouse developer NZ Living have teamed up to create Simplicity Living and a unique plan for Aotearoa: to build 10,000 homes worth $5b over 10 years with the sole aim of holding them and renting them out at affordable levels. In the process, they hope to expose the waste and hidden costs that currently make building flats painfully expensive.

This is not the way it’s done in local property development – a sector dominated by booms, busts, litigation, short-term thinking, and the overall aim of making tax-free capital gains on land price escalation, rather than building homes people will rent for years and years, possibly even decades.

Our current hodge-podge stack of developers, sub-contractors, buy-and-flick owners, agents and increasingly disenfranchised and desperate renters believe it can’t be done another way. They’re told and tell each other that chronic shortages of land, building materials and skilled tradies – and the focus on homes as investments – mean it is impossible to build houses more affordably. These are the underlying assumptions that have been behind all sorts of government, Reserve Bank, council and investor actions for decades. There is no alternative, we’re told.


Follow When the Facts Change on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or your favourite podcast provider.


But is that true?

On the latest episode of my Spinoff podcast When the Facts Change I speak to Simplicity CEO Sam Stubbs and NZ Living co-founder Shane Brealey, who have both spent years soaking in the industry’s norms and practices. Over the last decade they’ve disconnected themselves from those usual modes of operation to do things differently. Now they have a plan to become one of New Zealand’s biggest home builders and owners, which is able to ride through the ups and downs of the markets to build and operate affordable and liveable homes.

Effectively, they want to dismantle the “stack” that currently dominates house building and find a way to solve the massive challenge our cities face: building tens of thousands of new medium-density apartments and townhouses that cost way less to rent that the current crop, relative to incomes, and doing it in a way that reduces climate emissions and creates stable, safe and nourishing communities.

They’re breaking the usual rules to do it

Simplicity is a not-for-profit KiwiSaver fund manager that has focused on keeping its systems and practices low-cost since it launched five years ago. It now has 75,000 members and $4b in funds under management, with members paying an average of $400 a year in fees, far lower than most for-profit funds. Simplicity is now one of the default KiwiSaver providers. (Disclosure: I’m a Simplicity KiwiSaver member)

NZ Living was set up by Shane and Anna Brearley as a residential property developer using “Kaizen” techniques to strip out waste and cost. A Kāinga Ora developer, NZ Living is on track to build 720 homes over the three years to the end of 2022.

NZ Living don’t run tenders for projects. They don’t try to play suppliers and partners off against each other or try to circumvent local building materials suppliers. Instead, they focus on refining out cost and waste in both materials and processes. They pride themselves on not having groups of subbies standing around high-viz waiting for directions, materials and systems to get through the traffic jam at the gate.

They’ve gone out of their way to avoid a culture that has left dozens of business collapses in its wake – just google Ebert, Mainzeal, Soho Square, Layne Kells, Mark Hotchin, Hanover Finance, Strategic Finance, Orange-H Group, Stanley Group, Bridgecorp and Tower Cranes for examples. That property development culture is the reason second-tier lenders charge double-digit interest rates on short-term interest-only loans that can explode in everyone’s faces if there’s a change of market sentiment, consenting delays or problems for apartment buyers getting funding from banks. It’s the reason contractors layer on cost at every opportunity to make up for the inevitable payment delays, litigation and collapses.

NZ Living’s Shane Brealey, left, and Simplicity’s Sam Stubbs, right (Photos: supplied)

The music will always stop

That property development culture is also the reason few want to build systems and train apprentices, knowing the bust is just around the corner and no one wants to be left holding the parcel of explosive debt, contracting bills and litigation fees when the bust inevitably arrives.

And it’s the reason no one in the sector takes a strategic or long-run approach to planning developments over decades. The culture is fantastic for:

  • Construction industry lawyers and litigators;
  • Mezzanine financiers hoping to lend high, repossess low and sell high;
  • Buy-and-flick merchants using the natural leverage of apartment deposits and never-ending price increases to make property trading gains;
  • Insolvency practitioners and agents able to set their own fees in the restructuring and sale of assets;
  • Cowboy-boot wearing Ferrari-driving property developers with an excellent line in phoenixing their companies and timing their entries and exits to both take advantage of and then avoid the booms and busts.

The losers?

  • The finance company investors left holding worthless paper when they go bust, as many of them will.
  • Renters who pay over 50% of their disposable income to live in insecure, poorly maintained and unhealthy homes, and their kids who bounce from school to school and then into the Emergency Department with skin, chest and brain infections;
  • Employers in the likes of Auckland and Wellington who are mystified as to why they can’t attract staff to work in their offices or keep their existing staff from moving for cheaper rents and the chance of buying a home in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane or the UK.

“The construction industry is kind of like the finance industry – it’s a filo pastry of fees,” Simplicity’s Sam Stubbs says in the podcast.

NZ Living’s Shane Brealey began in the construction industry 35 years ago as an engineer fresh from Canterbury University. He was lucky enough to study Kaizen techniques, often known as the Toyota Way, when working at LendLease, which builds massive amounts of apartments in Australia.

“I’ve been in that pyramid contracting spiral, lowest-price tender game,” Brealey says. “That invariably means tendering at certain points, and the rest cascades into just a jungle of waste and confusion and waiting and overpricing and under delivery and poor outcomes.”

He initially set up his own construction firm 15 years ago, but decided to created an integrated supply chain of sorts that included the design, financing and ownership of apartments and townhouses.

Brealey and Stubbs have done the calculations and believe their top-to-tail system of funding, designing, building and owning cuts out 35-40% of the cost of building these homes.

Simplicity Living’s proposed Hinaki Street development in Glen Innes, Auckland (Photo: Simplicity Living/Supplied)

‘All about waiting and opportunism’

I asked Brealey why the rest of the industry had developed in such a toxic way.

“Two words: waiting and opportunism. If you look at any construction site at any time… tell me how many people are actually building that project, and how many are waiting, standing, talking, chatting, looking for an instruction, looking for approval, waiting for a drawing, and all that type of stuff. It has to be paid for,” he says.

“Which brings me to the second word: opportunism. If you’re a quantity surveyor pricing as a subcontractor or building contractor, you’re only guessing how much waiting you’re going to have to do… And so you invariably put on as much contingency as you think you can get away with, whether you spend it or not.”

A filo pastry of fees

Strip out the waiting and opportunism and NZ Living can focus on the building.

“Michael Schumacher, his favorite thing was go-kart racing rather than Formula One, because it was pure racing. And so what we’re doing here is we’re pure building,” says Brealey.

Simplicity plans to create a rental management operation that offers much longer-term tenancy agreements for homes designed to be rented, and lived in as communities.

“We intend to own these for 100 years and rent them affordably on very long term rental contracts. For 100 years, they got to be built really well. So actually it’s not actually about saving costs. It’s about building something to last,” says Stubbs.

“You can do things much cheaper, but here’s the trick, the secret sauce – most people build development sell homes with a five year view at most. You just want to develop it and sell it to make a margin. So they start thinking about as a property asset, and I want property type margins for all that risk, right? We’re derisking it by vertically owning it, the whole thing.

“We will end up actually owning a whole lot of homes that are incredibly high quality, but also incredibly good value.”

Simplicity’s plan is for certain of its KiwiSaver funds, and its investment funds, to own and provide funding to Simplicity Living through a wholesale funding arrangement. The funds will get the capital growth and income generated.

Stubbs thinks the build-to-rent business is an attractive substitute for fixed-interest investments like bank deposits and investment-grade bonds.

“Rather than stick the money in the bank and get 1% return, instead we can rent them out to people and get two or three times that over 100 years. That’s a fantastic investment. For those of you who are financially inclined, it’s like it’s a perpetual and floating-rate inflation-adjusted bond.

“The instrument doesn’t exist in the New Zealand market. You have to create it by creating long term rental streams.”

A different approach

Stubbs says a longer-term view will be crucial to the project’s success.

“You need to have a lot of money and you have to have it more vertically integrated. You got to be prepared to control and own things, rather than get into this eternal finger pointing that goes on in the industry, blaming someone else for the excessive costs,” he says.

Brealey is looking forward to utilising the NZ Living approach to property development on a grander scale than ever before.

“We’ve got one person doing what we used to have four people doing, and the rest of the market probably takes eight people to do. Our labour costs and our labour numbers have plummeted as we’ve innovated and become more productive,” he says.

“I’m guessing that we’ll probably get first choice on the parties that we want because we’re such low risk, predictable and enjoyable, pleasant sites to work on, when you’re working collaboratively.”

Stubbs is blunt about how different Simplicity Living’s approach will be.

“There’s three magic words there: ‘we trust you.’ It’s amazing what you get out of somebody when you trust them. This industry is so built on mistrust, margin-shaving and litigation and chipping each other. It’s just rubbish.”

Keep going!
Kiwibank’s Steve Jurkovich has led the bank’s commitment to sustainability (Image: Tina Tiller)
Kiwibank’s Steve Jurkovich has led the bank’s commitment to sustainability (Image: Tina Tiller)

BusinessNovember 12, 2021

Steve Jurkovich wants to build a Patagonia for banking in Aotearoa

Kiwibank’s Steve Jurkovich has led the bank’s commitment to sustainability (Image: Tina Tiller)
Kiwibank’s Steve Jurkovich has led the bank’s commitment to sustainability (Image: Tina Tiller)

The farm boy CE of Kiwibank has embraced the full progressive business agenda. He tells Duncan Greive why they did it – and the profits flowing from it.

This interview is part of The Spinoff’s long-term partnership with Kiwibank

Steve Jurkovich doesn’t scan as a radical. He’s the Shore boy son of a farmer and was raised by a hard-working mum with massive support from his grandparents. He spent his early years on a dairy farm outside Paeroa. He loves his golf and sport, has worked in banking for most of his adult life, and is close to titans of the industry like Sir Ralph Norris and Barbara Chapman.

He also has daughters in their teens and 20s. Over the past few years the Jurkovich whānau have “had a lot of conversations around the dinner table about the way things should be”. It’s a microcosm of the big national kōrero that has risen over the past few years, largely driven by younger generations, around issues like indigenous, racial and gender equity, LGBTQ+ rights and addressing climate change. 

These conversations were initially greeted with scepticism by most executives, but have now made their way from social media to the boardroom. The movement nestles under many jargonistic names – stakeholder capitalism, doughnut economics, ESG (environmental, social and governance). Pioneered by the likes of outdoor brand Patagonia, which Jurkovich cites as an influence, a real commitment to sustainability has become increasingly common among the largest organisations in the world. In 2020, 95 of the largest 500 publicly traded companies in the US listed a chief sustainability officer among their leadership ranks, a rise of 228% in less than a decade. Yet that number also shows how far it has to go: the glass is less than 20% full.

In its totality this body of work can feel like a vast and very joined up progressive agenda. It has outpaced public sentiment on certain issues, and in some cases outflanked the politically possible even for countries with left-leaning governments like ours. That this is emanating from the gleaming concrete, glass and steel citadels of capitalism is jarring for many. The left suspect the motive; the old right find the idea of business involving itself in socio-political issues an affront to their worldview.

This movement is far from ubiquitous. Most corporates will over-index on one or two areas, while quietly downplaying others, usually to avoid upsetting clients which might not be as on board with that aspect of the agenda. But there is a small group that buys the whole piece, often identifiable by having signed up to become a B Corp. B Corps commit to a rigorous social and environmental performance certification process, and only a relatively small number of businesses attain it. Along with Patagonia, other prominent examples include Ben & Jerry’s, and New Zealand companies Allbirds and Ethique.

Becoming a B Corp is an arduous exercise. It’s not something a business does lightly. Kiwibank achieved the status in August, joining a group of fewer than 50 local B Corps. It’s a major part of the bank’s just-released debut sustainability report, one that shows just how much of that big progressive agenda has been embraced by the bank. 

For any entity, it would be a significant feat. But banks are known to be conservative, risk-averse, eager to avoid upsetting their customers. Which is what makes Jurkovich’s moves all the more remarkable. He’s barely three years into the job, and yet this son of the rural heartland has somehow completed a major transformation of our fifth-largest bank. I spoke to him about why he did it, and the way these seemingly altruistic moves are already starting to pay business dividends – that mythical balance of people and profit sought by the B Corp evangelists.

Kiwibank CE Steve Jurcovich has led the bank towards a full progressive business agenda (Photo: Supplied)

The following conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity and brevity.

I wonder what a young Steve Jurkovich would have thought about this report and what it contains.

I first joined one of the other banks a long time ago, in 1998. I think that was a different era. I think performance was really valued. I think we were trying to do our best in customer service, those sorts of things.

But to be honest, I would say now there is a reorder of these things. I reflect on it with my own kids. My oldest daughter is 21. She’s been a vegan. She’s a very staunch vegetarian. We’ve had a lot of conversations around the dinner table about the way things should be and how she feels about it. My youngest daughter’s sort of taken after her quite strongly.

I think the world’s changed, hasn’t it? I think the challenge is to try and strike that right balance.

What does becoming a B Corp mean, and why was it the right choice for Kiwibank?

Our chair Jon Hartley has got a really strong passion for the environment. He pushed a book about the story of Patagonia my way. Patagonia is one of the most well understood and best-known businesses in the world, but obviously a very staunch supporter of B Corp.

That book hooked me on getting the right balance between profit and purpose. Around footprint and delivering on what you need to. 

We also spent a lot of time talking to our team. More than 2,000 people participated in a conversation in a business that’s got 2,300 people. They told us that they really love Kiwibank’s purpose, Kiwi making Kiwi better off. But asked what does it mean? What are the goals? What are the things that we’re trying to achieve? It is a bit of a case of don’t talk about it, show me.

Then we started to look into the B Corp work. Like most things, some really passionate individuals inside the organisation really led the charge. They really embraced it and really got across to our board, the ownership holding company, and our team, what undertaking B Corp accreditation would involve and why it would be really important to us.

With the Rainbow Tick, we measure ourselves against accreditation. Same on fair pay, and living wage – on all sorts of things. We seek an external standard to validate what we’re doing. Again that idea of balancing profit and purpose.

That’s not uncomplicated though, right? As a bank, you have to think about who your customers are, what industries they’re involved in. Do you feel like you’ve got a handle on that yet? 

There’s a lot of coverage in Australia around what’s the right level of transition. If you’re a large bank with large emitters as customers, what support are you going to offer them to transition from the current state to the future state? 

You can see in NAB’s results, Ross McEwan, their CEO, he’s facing into that conversation. There will be people in Australia and in New Zealand who think any further support of a large emitter is absolutely the wrong thing. Then there are other people who say, “Well, you’ve got to help businesses transition”. No one wants the lights to go out, so you’ve got to do something in-between. Then there’s those that perhaps want to be wilfully blind to it and just keep on lending.

So I think it is a learning process. I think the first thing you do is you put a line in the sand and you say you don’t want to make the problem worse. I think our Responsible Business Banking Policy was a really clear stance. If you think back to Steve of 20 years ago, I don’t think I would have been part and parcel of a policy that looked like that.

What is that policy?

The Responsible Business Banking Policy is about limiting harm. Harm can manifest itself in a whole lot of different ways. Sometimes, it’s the large emitters. Other times, it might be preying on the vulnerable. It might be lending into areas where we’re not sure people are really clear about the deal that they’re doing or understanding the ramifications.

That means that there are a bunch of customers in areas that we exclude ourselves from. Perhaps there is a customer or profitability cost to that, but that’s one we’re prepared to live with because we think it’s the right thing. That’s the line in the sand.

Jurkovich has been inspired by Patagonia’s approach (Photo: Robert Alexander/Getty Images)

Are there any of your existing customers that you’ve had to test this against? Whether to end your relationship, or to have a tough conversation with them?

I won’t go into naming individual customers but yes, there is. There have also been customers that have approached us because of the type of work we’re doing. There’s this balancing act which is saying, “looks like you guys are on the right track. We’d like to join you”. We’ve also been in a position where we’ve had to say no, we wouldn’t pursue that opportunity. 

We’ve had some hiccups on that front. We might have had a particular view on some areas and then actually, with better information from that group of customers, they have helped us understand actually that it’s a bit different to what we thought. That’s a classic example of living and learning – by no stretch of the imagination do we think we’ve got all the answers.

Another element which has really risen within the bank over the past few years is its Rautaki Māori strategy, of which the staff tikanga project Te Hoe Ākau is a big part. What does that involve and have you participated in it?

Yeah, I have. That’s been one of the really enjoyable things that the executive team has done collectively. As you can see in the sustainability report, actually our chief risk officer is a kind of classic example. She’s a New Zealand citizen but was born in Australia. We had this really interesting conversation when we talked about Kiwi making Kiwi better off – who is a Kiwi? 

What we’re finding is all sorts of people are really interested, curious about te ao Māori and how it makes up the fabric of New Zealand. Learning the language has been really important but just as important, I would say, has been some insights to the tikanga, the habits, ritual, culture. The things that are tapu and noa. I think actually that’s been really, really interesting.

It’s a classic example of balance. You don’t need to lose your own community to be interested in te ao Māori. You don’t have to have whakapapa to a particular hapu or iwi to embrace the idea of what te ao Māori means for New Zealand. One of our strongest and most vocal supporters of embracing and learning about Aotearoa and te ao Māori was also a lead in celebrating Diwali. We can all learn a bit more from each other.

You have a big goal to provide financial education to tamariki – but they’re growing up in a world of Afterpay and Laybuy, but also crypto and NFTs; stuff that is really complex but can’t be ignored.

The genie’s out of the bottle, right? The Afterpays, the Laybuys, and all these companies are massively high profile in terms of their financial markets support. The acquisitions that are going on around them, the investments that have been made by very well-known large organisations.

There’s always been innovation in financial services but it feels like we’re lagging a bit here in New Zealand. Ultimately, this is just about options, right? In a sense, a credit card is a buy now, pay later scheme, right? I think it’s a bit rich for a bank or someone to look at it and say, “that’s the wild west and I don’t know why you would allow that to happen”. When we offer products that are pretty similar in some areas.

I think ultimately there will be a more regulatory impulse, but probably the regulators take a bit of a light touch until they feel like there’s momentum. They don’t want to stifle things. You’ve got to let them grow and flourish a bit to have enough scale. But not so much that there could be a sort of systemic impact. 

I’ve certainly been observing NFTs from the outside but I’m by no way native in that space. It’s a different version of scarcity. I’m old enough and I’ve been in banking long enough to have been on one of these trips to New York and sat down with a 17-year-old with no shoes on in an office in Manhattan as he explained cryptocurrency to me.

I can remember leaving thinking “have I just seen the future?” It’s a pretty interesting space.

Profit and purpose can coexist, says Jurcovich (Illustration: Toby Morris)

Speaking of the future sort of hurtling at you, there’s reference in the report to the escalating flood risk of your lending portfolio. To what extent is that a present concern?

In recent times we engaged with Minister Shaw around this, and he made a very good point. New Zealand was built on the back of a system which built a city next to a port or a river, because that’s the place where commerce and ships can come and people can interact. Unfortunately, building close to rivers and the ocean means you are more susceptible to floods.

Then you’ve got infrastructure that’s been neglected for decades. So you have cities built close to places that are prone to these impacts and an infrastructure that hasn’t been scaling to support urbanisation. There’s a long-term, long-tail problem.

One way to think about it is how are we managing the risk? Because if you come and see us today, we’ll give you a mortgage and we’re probably not expecting you to pay that off for 25 years, say for instance. None of us, I don’t think, believe that on our current trajectory the world will be in the same place in 25 years as it is today. So I don’t think we’re thinking about the risk very well. I don’t think we’re helping customers think about it that well. I think we’re at the start of that education.

If you look at the report overall, it’s a lot of mahi. It feels very joined up. When you’re talking about it with staff, customers, your executive, with your board – do you find people who might not be on board with the whole piece of it? Or who are passionate about one area but don’t see another, or say it’s not a bank’s business? 

I think as human beings, we don’t feel equally passionate about everything in our lives, right? That’s why it’s called a passion. I might think the single most important thing that Kiwibank can do would be lifting our cultural competence in te ao Māori, while the next person I speak to might say, “look, this is all about sustainability and our climate footprint”.

What I try to describe is a triangle. At the apex of the triangle is purpose. Purpose in a lot of ways serves as that guiding star. At the bottom left hand corner of the triangle is culture. How do we have an inclusive culture? How do we have a culture where people feel safe and they belong? How do we embrace things that are unique about Aotearoa, like te ao Māori? How do we create an organisation where I can still be myself but I can also belong? We don’t all have to be the same and we’re not all the same, but I can still belong, I can still feel part of the team.

Then on the other corner, you’ve got sustainability. B Corp, tackling the climate, our footprint, our emissions and those things. Triangles are so strong because they balance things.

We’ve talked a lot about purpose, but what about profit. What are you seeing already and what do you think that you will see over time that will defend and grow your profitability precisely because you care about all this?

I’m going to give you two examples. One, when we launched the Responsible Business Banking Policy, I probably got 300 “you’re on the right track” responses and probably 30 “you don’t understand what you’re doing, we’re not to blame, why don’t you look in your own backyard”  type emails. That’s 10-to-one. I’m not saying that’s very scientific but that’s certainly what I received. I think there are many, many more people who believe that this is the right direction to move in than those that don’t. 

Another recent example was when we issued our latest financial instruments, the AT1 capital instruments. Without getting too technical about it, we had three large investors say to us that the B Corp certification was a really important consideration in whether they would bid for the offer or not. 

Ultimately, we offered our debt at a lower cost to us because there was more demand. The financial benefits of that are millions of dollars. The work to do B Corp has already this year, or over the five years that those bonds are out there, probably saved us $2-$3 million.

So when people say to me this is greenwashing and there’s no financial benefit, I can show them three emails from large, globally relevant, well-known investors who said you’re on our green list because of B Corp. I think that’s a real tangible benefit of how purpose delivers on benefits for the business and benefits for the customer.

This content was created in paid partnership with Kiwibank. Learn more about our partnerships here.


Follow When the Facts Change, Bernard Hickey’s essential weekly guide to the intersection of economics, politics and business on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or your favourite podcast provider.