It is a truism that politicians from countries around the world claim to be in the midst of a housing crisis. A critical evaluation of the emergence and scope of political discourse connected to the housing crisis in New Zealand under three National Party-led governments (2008-2017), with a view to better understanding the ways in which the issue has been problematized in politics and operationalized in the policy. Although researchers draw upon multiple strands of evidence and recognize housing as a complex problem, the political framing of a housing crisis is simpler and shows a closer relationship to long-standing ideological perspectives, notably an inefficient planning system and low supply of development land. This raises critical questions for how housing researchers can better influence politics and challenge both the lived experience of crisis and existing claims of normalcy.

Housing crisis may be commonly discussed in terms of demand, supply, or affordability, notions of crises have implications that intersect with multiple policy arenas, as an increase in rents (both in the public housing sector and private rental markets). Discourses are further complicated by societal expectations concerning housing. In countries such as the UK, the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, homeownership and all that the ‘dream’ evokes has cultural dimensions connected to notions of responsible citizenship, belonging, and the logical progression through life. As housing is both a home and a highly productive class of financial asset, and access to it is increasingly uneven, the notion and framing of a ‘housing crisis’ warrants significant interrogation. As the opening quotes argue, the discourses associated with crises—in particular the acceptance of a problem and the reasons for its existence—play a critical role in shaping the selection and effectiveness of the public policy strategies deployed in response (Roitman, 2014: 49-50). Put differently, crises are truth claims: they are invoked, they define, and, in doing so, they privilege certain ideologies or policy ‘solutions’ over others. If the problem is variably positioned as due to an excess of ‘red-tape’, too much immigration, or a generous taxation regime, then these may all require very different interventions. Beyond policy, the framing of crises also influences the allocation of political responsibility.