Five Million Voices

Should property vendors be required to obtain a purchaser's written consent (or a court order) before invoking a sunset clause to cancel a sale?

This member's bill would amend the Property Law Act 2007 to require a vendor to get the purchaser's written consent before initiating a sunset clause, with a court-application pathway as an alternative. It was defeated at first reading.

MPs’ arguments for and against the bill

Why support it
  • Supporters argued the bill would stop developers acting in bad faith from cancelling contracts after delays and reselling properties at higher prices.
  • Supporters said it brings parity between buyers and sellers and would protect first-home buyers from losing their deposits and opportunities.
  • Supporters noted it retains exceptions—through court recourse or buyer consent—and pointed to similar laws being backed by the sector in parts of Australia.
Why oppose it
  • Opponents argued there is little evidence that misuse of sunset clauses is a widespread or systemic problem in New Zealand.
  • Opponents said sunset clauses serve a legitimate purpose, allowing both parties to manage genuine delays such as supply chain issues, and the change could create a chilling effect on housing supply.
  • Opponents argued the measure was placed in the wrong legislation, suggesting the Building Act would be a more suitable vehicle, and that rising house prices are better addressed through other means.

These are claims MPs made in Parliament’s debate — not verified facts.

Full bill summary & link to official bill page

A member's bill amending the Property Law Act 2007 to curb misuse of "sunset clauses" in off-the-plan property sales. A sunset clause lets either party cancel an agreement if a development is not finished by a set date. The bill targets cases where a developer uses such a clause to cancel a buyer's contract — often after prices have risen — so the property can be resold at a higher price. It would require the purchaser's written consent, or a court order, before a developer cancels under a sunset clause, with a court allowing cancellation only where it is "just and equitable." It mainly protects first-home and off-the-plan buyers.

Origin: a private member's bill from Labour MP Ingrid Leary. Argument for: it rebalances power toward buyers who commit their finances early and can be "tipped out" when prices climb, stopping developers profiting from cancellation. Argument against: the extra regulation could create one-sided contracts, discourage off-the-plan development and reduce housing supply, and critics say there is limited evidence the problem is widespread.

See the Parliament.nz ↗ site for the full bill.

Oppose (No) Support (Yes)

Property Law (Sunset Clauses) Amendment Bill · First Reading, 30 Jul 2025
Parliament voted 54–68 — it was voted down.