AM Edition: Top 10 Politics Articles on LiveNews.co.nz for March 22, 2026 – Full Text

Source: Radio New Zealand

During his state of nation speech, New Zealand First leader Winston Peters addressed his party’s new proposal to split up energy gentailers, the state of the economy, Covid and his party’s aspirations at this year’s election.

He also spent time taking shots at his political rivals, with sections of his speech dedicated to Labour, the Green Party and Te Pāti Māori.

Peters also acknowledged the country was “navigating a chaotic environment” and that New Zealand’s economy “isn’t where it should be”.

Here are some the topics Peters touched on.

Energy sector overhaul

Peters anchored much of his speech on energy, announcing his party would campaign on splitting up the energy gentailers (generators and retailers).

He said the policy would ensure energy gentailers could “no longer control both the power and the price”.

“The big four power companies control almost 90 percent of the electricity generation and then sell it back to themselves,” Peters said.

“It will mean more power stations. More renewable energy. More competition. More resilience.

“It’s time to secure our electricity system for all New Zealanders.”

New Zealand First Minister Shane Jones had already promised the party would look to split up energy gentailers.

New candidate Alfred Ngaro

New Zealand First also announced Alfred Ngaro as a new candidate, who will run for the party at this year’s elections.

Ngaro – speaking before Peters – said NZ First stood for “what is right” and everything he believed.

“Right now there is a quiet uncertainty in this country, people are working hard but wondering whether things will get better.

“The best days of New Zealand are not behind us they are ahead of us,” he said.

However several people in the crowd questioned who he was, with Ngaro not introducing himself at the start of his speech.

Fonterra and Air NZ

Peters went on to talk about Fonterra’s proposal to sell Mainland, Anchor and Kapiti.

Fonterra had gone from a “propped-up nationalist company, to a sell-out globalist company”, Peters said.

He also labelled calls for the government to sell its stake in Air New Zealand as “economic neoliberal lunacy”.

“Air New Zealand is our national carrier and a national asset.

“As the majority shareholder, the government should be backing its future rather than dragging it down and hocking it off.”

Covid and Labour failures

Peters said the latest Covid-19 inquiry highlighted failures by the Labour party.

“The report brings questions that need to be answered by Hipkins and Verrall and all those other former ministers,” he said.

“They cannot brush this off… Someone needs to be held accountable.”

Peters claimed Labour wasted billions of dollars and did not “properly advise” the public of the vaccine “risks”, a claim Labour strongly denies.

Speech protests

Peters hosted the event at the Atrium Conference Centre in the Tauranga suburb of Otūmoetai, where a group of protesters gathered holding Palestinian and Māori flags.

People protesting Shane Jone’s fishing reform were seen holding signs that read: “Shane Jones = Fishy deal” and “Big fishing wins Kiwis lose”.

The New Zealand Herald reported some of the protesters as being Destiny Church members.

Currently, NZ First is trending upward in the polls. In the latest RNZ Reid Research poll, the party sat at 9.8 percent in the party vote, which would result in 12 seats in parliament – four more than what it currently holds.

Peters was third in the preferred prime minister ranking, at 12.6 percent. Labour’s Chris Hipkins was at 21.1 percent, with Christopher Luxon on 19.4 percent.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

In the early afternoon of 19 March, 2025, a small group of the country’s most powerful ministers joined an online meeting to discuss the future of 180,000 New Zealand workers.

Forty-five minutes later, they logged off having made decisions that would impact women’s earnings for years to come.

Those choices formed the backbone of the government’s overhaul of the once “world-leading” Equal Pay Act – retrospectively stripping nurses, teachers, carers and other female-dominated workforces of the right to pursue pay equity claims under the existing law.

Within five weeks of that meeting, Parliament had passed the Equal Pay Amendment Act under urgency – a move the people’s select committee last month described as “a flagrant and significant abuse of power”.

The legislation was announced then passed all stages of Parliament within three days in May, meaning the public had no opportunity to make submissions through the usual select committee process.

Dozens of in-train claims were stopped. The rules governing future claims were significantly tightened. And $12.8 billion originally earmarked to fix decades of systemic gender discrimination was instead returned to the Crown’s Budget allowances.

The changes severely curtailed the ability of workers in predominantly female industries to prove their work had been historically undervalued. In some sectors, unions said the new law may make future claims almost impossible.

NZEI Te Riu Roa, which had spent four years working on a pay equity claim covering tens of thousands of education workers, warned the new framework effectively shut down any pathway for many education roles to ever achieve pay equity.

“For teacher aides, winning our claim was huge. Women were giving up second jobs and getting to spend time with their families – that was the most amazing thing,” said teacher aide and NZEI negotiator Ally Kingi.

“But the new law cuts out every single person who is a teacher in the country from making the same claim. Primary, secondary, early childhood, te kura, principals, everyone. And teacher aides – whose pay has already slipped backwards – won’t get a review.”

Documents obtained under the Official Information Act show that the most consequential decisions in the Equal Pay Act overhaul were made during that 45-minute March meeting. In several cases, ministers chose to implement harder thresholds than officials had proposed, tightening the law even further.

The government said the changes were necessary to ensure the pay equity system focused on genuine cases of sex-based discrimination and remained sustainable for taxpayers.

But the detail of how ministers reached their decisions – what evidence they relied on, what modelling informed the most restrictive changes, or why the final law was made harsher than officials recommended – remains hidden.

Despite repeated Official Information Act requests, the 19 March meeting remains, in large part, a black box.

How pay equity became law

To understand the impact of that March meeting, it helps to step back.

The Equal Pay Act was originally passed in 1972 and intended to eliminate gender-based wage discrimination – ensuring women were paid the same as men for doing the same job.

Over time, the issue shifted. The problem was no longer only women being paid less than men in identical roles. It was that work historically performed by women – caring, teaching, cleaning, administration – had been systematically undervalued compared to male-dominated occupations requiring comparable skill, effort and responsibility.

That broader concept is known as pay equity.

In 2014, the courts confirmed in the landmark TerraNova case that the Equal Pay Act allowed workers to argue their jobs had been historically undervalued because they were mainly performed by women, including by comparing their roles to those beyond the immediate workplace.

In response, a Joint Working Group – convened under a National government and including unions, business and officials – spent two years designing a process for assessing pay equity claims. Their recommendations formed the basis of the 2020 amendments to the Act.

The 2020 model created a structured process where a claim could proceed if it was “arguable” that the work in question was predominantly performed by women and may have been historically undervalued.

Once a claim passed that threshold, the parties would identify “comparators” – male-dominated occupations requiring similar levels of skill, responsibility and working conditions.

Comparators could be drawn from outside the employer or even the sector if necessary.

The low threshold was meant to allow claims to be investigated rather than filtered out early.

Cross-sector comparators were permitted because, in many female-dominated industries such as aged care, administration or early childhood education, there are simply no male-dominated roles within the same workplace to compare against.

If undervaluation was established, employers were required to negotiate pay adjustments.

By 2023, settlements had been reached for nurses, midwives, care and support workers and others. For many, the pay increases were life-changing.

“We had women who could finally afford to have their grandchildren for the holidays because they could buy food for them, women who could at last buy a lawnmower, or book a flight,” NZEI’s Kingi said. “All these women were able to live their lives, to relax. And that’s what is right and just.”

‘Significant concerns’ about cost

While the settlements were widely celebrated by workers, officials inside government were increasingly focused on their cost.

As early as November 2023, the Equal Pay Act, once described internationally as ‘world-leading’, was being framed internally not as a human rights mechanism correcting structural discrimination, but as a fiscal exposure problem.

Treasury and Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) briefings warned about the cost and structure of pay equity claims, including the idea the regime was “too permissive”.

In its first briefing to the incoming minister, MBIE said questions had been raised about processes for decision-making and the fiscal consequences of pay equity settlements.

Officials later argued the system provided little incentive to “negotiate hard”, pushing costs higher.

Treasury warned that pay equity costs were being treated differently from other wage pressures because of their size and uncertainty, directly affecting the Crown’s operating balance.

It expressed “significant concerns” about the comparators used in the care and support workers’ claim, suggesting they may have produced significantly higher cost outcomes.

Officials described New Zealand as “unusual” in allowing comparators from outside the workplace or sector, and questioned whether the threshold for claims was too low.

MBIE suggested other ministers may wish to discuss options to change current processes, and said it could provide further advice if required.

Pay equity specialist Amy Ross, the former head of the pay equity taskforce, said those briefings exposed what she said was a longheld, ideological view among the agencies: that pay equity was nothing but a risk to the government.

“They never thought about it for what it really was – an evidence-based market correction that had massive downstream benefits for communities – money flowing into households, services improving and the country retaining workers,” Ross said. “They only ever talked about the ‘cost’ of pay equity. But the ‘cost’ is women subsidising labour. It’s actually a cost to women.”

Enter Brooke van Velden

The agencies’ briefings clearly resonated with the new minister for workplace relations. In the first week of December 2023, Brooke van Velden, an ACT MP, sought a briefing on what she called “pay parity”.

Officials responded with a screenshot from MBIE’s website explaining that pay parity and pay equity were two different things, and both were legislated requirements in the Equal Pay Act.

Van Velden’s advisory followed up with questions wanting to know the broader “consequences” of the interaction between pay parity and pay equity.

On 29 January, 2024 van Velden wrote to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon questioning the pay equity framework and signalling her interest in reform.

At that point she was yet to have a full briefing on pay equity.

The letter was not released under OIA, but van Velden said she had written that she was concerned about the “robustness and reliability” of comparing remuneration between different professions in a bargaining framework, and that the pay equity bargaining system had resulted in “significant labour market distortions and high costs to the Crown”.

Critics noted the letter’s framing – painting comparators as distortive, bargaining as unreliable – echoed longstanding BusinessNZ concerns and earlier National Party proposals from 2017, which had included a tighter hierarchy of comparators and a higher threshold for claims.

In March, van Velden received her first full briefing on the issue – a MBIE PowerPoint presentation titled “Pay equity: a short history”.

This briefing was highly critical of the system, pointing to the 2020 amendments by the previous government as the problem. It also framed New Zealand as an international “outlier” for allowing cross-sector comparators; and casted doubt on the validity of current claims, particularly the low threshold for entry to the system; and the way comparators were chosen.

In response to follow-up questions about the comparators from van Velden’s advisor, officials noted anecdotal examples of fisheries officers, corrections officers and customs officers being used repeatedly as benchmarks.

These anecdotes that would later become central National and Act Party talking points after the pay equity reform was announced, were held up as an example of a “wasteful” system that had gone too far.

Fuel on the fire

If ideology lit the fire for reform, the fiscal implications provided the fuel.

Soon after the 2023 election, Finance Minister Nicola Willis also began receiving detailed briefings from Treasury, focused on the scale of potential pay equity liabilities.

The largest claims, particularly teachers and care and support workers, were expected to cost the government – as employer – billions of dollars, Treasury said.

Officials assumed pay increases of roughly 20 percent based on earlier settlements.

Throughout 2024, Willis sought increasingly detailed information about the potential fiscal exposure: how much funding had been set aside, how claims might evolve and how New Zealand’s system compared internationally.

Treasury estimated that $3.193 billion from the public-sector pay equity contingency alone could be returned to Budget allowances if the system was changed.

Across the public and funded sectors combined, as much as $12.8 billion could be freed up, significantly boosting the government’s books.

By the end of 2024, Willis had made the case to Cabinet that changes were needed. Cabinet’s Strategy Committee then directed officials from MBIE, Treasury, the Public Service Commission and Crown Law to develop options.

In late February 2025, ministers were presented with several approaches – ranging from pausing the system to redesigning it entirely.

But a full redesign was expected to take more than a year. Instead, ministers chose speed.

By 4 March, officials had been directed to prepare amendments for Cabinet approval by the end of the month, just in time for Budget 2025.

A draft Cabinet paper was circulated on 14 March. Five days later, ministers met to finalise the policy settings.

19 March

Attendance records show six ministers and a group of senior officials joined the 2pm online meeting on 19 March.

Those invited included Workplace Relations Minister Brooke van Velden, Finance Minister Nicola Willis, Public Service Minister Judith Collins, Health Minister Simeon Brown and Women’s Minister Nicola Grigg. Education Minister Erica Stanford was overseas but sent a staff member.

Officials attending included MBIE chief executive Carolyn Tremain and deputy secretary Nic Blakeley, Treasury Secretary Iain Rennie and official Struan Little, Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche, associate commissioner Arati Waldgrave and Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) chief executive Ben King.

Together they reviewed the policy options outlined in the draft Cabinet paper.

That draft already proposed significantly tightening the pay equity regime – including raising the threshold for work to qualify as “predominantly female” from 60 percent to 66 percent, introducing a stricter hierarchy of comparators, and limiting the re-raising of claims.

But during the meeting ministers chose to go further.

They lifted the threshold to 70 percent. They also initially discussed a 20-year ban on workers re-raising settled claims, a figure eventually changed to 10 years in the final Bill. And they removed the final tier of cross-sector comparators entirely – meaning workers must now find comparisons within their own sector.

Officials noted the risk that some workforces might not be able to identify an appropriate comparator at all. The change was left anyway.

At the same time, ministers killed all 33 existing claims mid-process, some of which had been in progress for years. Those claims collectively covered around 180,000 workers across sectors including education, health, social services and the public sector.

Pay equity specialist Amy Ross said the changes went further than any framework previously proposed.

“If you cut off cross-sector comparators, you’re effectively comparing historically underpaid work with other historically underpaid work,” she said. “You embed undervaluation.”

By raising the threshold of “predominantly female” from 66 to 70 percent, the government effectively legislated several professions out of contention including librarians, probation officers and – the largest group – teachers, which have a 68 percent female workforce.

NZEI believes that was deliberate. “Why else would you pick that number? I can’t see any other reason for that shifting and they can’t provide any other reason as to why it’s 70 percent,” said Kingi.

Marilyn Waring, the chair of the People’s Select Committee which investigated the change, agreed.

“They would have known the exact percentage at which they lost another claimant group,” Waring said. “I think they were greedy. Those ministers just had dollar signs in their eyes.”

Taken together, the changes fundamentally reshaped how pay equity claims could be brought in New Zealand.

A black box

Documents show what happened immediately after the meeting. Within hours, officials were rewriting the Cabinet paper to “better reflect the Minister’s feedback overnight” and scrambling to gather examples to support the changes.

Emails marked “SENSITIVE” show agencies being asked urgently to confirm that they were comfortable with claims that comparators such as fisheries or corrections officers had been used inappropriately, and to provide examples of “broadly scoped claims” and review clauses that went beyond sex-based undervaluation.

The DPMC’s Policy Advisory Group was heavily involved in the process, and the Prime Minister was briefed repeatedly on progress.

A DPMC official who attended the meeting wrote to MBIE afterwards saying ministers had been “universally impressed” with the “clear answers and direction” provided by officials.

Yet, when RNZ filed Official Information Act requests for the records of the discussion, the paper trail was limited.

Treasury, the Public Service Commission, and the offices of Willis, Brown, and Grigg all claimed they had no contemporaneous minutes, records or notes. Collins and Stanford’s offices refused to release their records. MBIE confirmed an official took handwritten notes but also refused to release them under the Official Information Act’s “free and frank” provision.

Requests for modelling underpinning key decisions – including raising the threshold to 70 percent – produced nothing. RNZ has been unable to confirm if this information exists and is being withheld, or if no such modelling of the far-reaching, late change was considered by ministers before making their decision.

Officials have already acknowledged no Regulatory Impact Statement was prepared for the reforms. The policy was developed within a “severely compressed timeframe”, with limited opportunity to assess evidence or test assumptions, MBIE said.

A spokesman for Willis said the absence of detailed minutes from the meeting was “not unusual for meetings where decisions are recorded via papers”. The papers prepared for the meeting and capturing the decisions taken at it were released and are publicly available online.

In its report released this month, the People’s Select Committee was scathing of the policy development process. As part of its investigation it examined what little material was made public, and found it severely lacking. “No minister was ever fully briefed on the measure’s human rights consequences,” the report said.

“Every piece of information is bite-sized, simplistic and undeveloped – a slide show. No one is ever required to read anything meaningful or comprehensive.”

The committee said the process left serious questions about how ministers were able to assess the impact of the reforms before the law was passed.

“My belief is they don’t want the information to be public because they know they don’t have a leg to stand on because their analysis was so poor,” Waring told RNZ this week. “But of course we should be able to see the evidence.”

A group of unions is taking a High Court case to argue the law change breached the Bill of Rights Act, which Waring believed would flush out further information on the process.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

Winston Peters will be making his State of the Nation address in Tauranga on Sunday, purposely timed after the release of the quarterly GDP figures.

It also comes off the back of heavy questioning by the New Zealand First leader about the previous Labour government’s decisions during the Covid-19 pandemic, following the release of the second phase of the royal commission of inquiry.

Peters has been accusing Labour ministers of not passing on critical vaccine information to the public, which Labour strongly denies.

Currently, NZ First is trending upward in the polls. In the latest RNZ Reid Research poll, the party sat at 9.8 percent in the party vote, which would result in 12 seats in parliament – four more than what it currently holds.

Peters was third in the preferred prime minister ranking, at 12.6 percent. Labour’s Chris Hipkins was at 21.1 percent, with Christopher Luxon on 19.4 percent.

Last year, Peters faced disruptions from hecklers during his State of the Nation speech to a packed crowd on a range of topics, including the “war on woke”, diversity targets, water fluoridation and the Paris Climate Agreement.

This year, it was expected Peters would address the cost of living and the state of the economy, as well as make an election policy announcement.

Recently at Parliament, he said he would not make his State of the Nation speech until after the GDP figures were released. He noted other party leaders were premature making their speeches before this information was available.

On Thursday, Stats NZ data showed gross domestic product (GDP), the broad measure of economic growth, rose an anaemic 0.2 percent in the three months ended December, to be 1.3 percent higher than a year ago. On an annual average basis, the economy grew 0.2 percent over the year.

Expectations were for quarterly growth in a range of 0.2 to 0.5 percent, although the growth of the previous quarter was revised lower to 0.9 percent from 1.1 percent.

Late last year, Peters signalled he was willing to criticise his coalition partners after he savaged National’s suggestion of asset sales as a “tawdry silly argument”, which he said it was falling back on after having failed to fix the economy fast enough.

“Because they’ve failed to run the economy properly, they want to go to the assets of a time when the country was run properly, when we were number two in the world and built up by our forefathers and to start to flog those off … to so-called balance their books,” Peters said.

The recent attack on Iran by the United States and Israel had the government monitoring developments, along with how fuel and supply chains could be disrupted in New Zealand.

And last week the finance minister indicated the worst-case scenario Treasury had outlined was a rise in inflation to 3.7 percent.

Peters will likely address the global instability, and how that will impact New Zealanders.

He will also likely take a swipe at the opposition. In 2024, Peters used roughly half of his State of the Nation speech to criticise the previous Labour government, along with the media and the Green Party, before outlining New Zealand First’s plans for the country.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: New Zealand Government

The Government has introduced a Bill to amend the Policing Act 2008, reaffirming Police’s ability to record images and sounds in public places, and some private places, as well as expanding temporary area closure powers.

Following the decision of the Supreme Court in the Tamiefuna case, Police’s ability to record images and sounds in public places, and collect personal information for lawful purposes, including intelligence was constrained.

“This created uncertainty and made the collection of evidence, and therefore the prosecution of criminals, much harder” says Police Minister Mark Mitchell.

“The government has introduced a bill to reaffirm the prior common law position, making it clear that Police can collect and use images in public places, and some private places, for lawful policing purposes. This includes intelligence gathering, crime prevention, and other policing functions.

“These changes will enable that and strengthen Police’s ability to detect and prevent crime, and hold offenders accountable for their offending. Ultimately it will help Police keep Kiwis safe.”  

The Government is also expanding Police’s existing temporary road closure powers to cover a broader range of areas, such as parks, reserves, beaches, and carparks.

The changes will give Police new tools to manage non-compliance with temporary closures, including the ability to direct people to leave a closed area, stop vehicles, obtain identifying particulars for the purpose of issuing infringements, and arrest without warrant those who fail to comply.

The new powers will also leverage existing powers that are being progressed through the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill, led by Minister Chris Bishop.

“These new powers will provide clarity and consistency for frontline Police, ensuring they have the necessary tools to support the Governments Law and Order agenda,” Mr Mitchell says. “They will be useful tools to help Police respond to incidents like street racing and dirt bike riding in public parks.”

MIL OSI

Source: Radio New Zealand

The government is seeking proposals from operators to restore and operate the historic Chateau Tongariro hotel in the Central North Island at the base of Mt Ruapehu.

The heritage building has been sitting empty since it was closed in February 2023 due to earthquake risk, after more than 90 years in business.

Conservation Minister Tama Potaka has announced the new process will identify operators capable of restoring the building, while also respecting the area’s unique conservation values.

Ruapehu mayor Weston Kirton says it’s a significant step forward for saving the heritage building and bringing more tourists to the district.

It’s situated near the Tongariro Crossing Alpine Walk which brings in around 100,000 visitors each year for the spectacular 19 kilometre volcanic hike.

“We’ve got two parts to it, one is that we’ve got the tender process for the Chateau,” Kirton said

“The other is to see what the government is saying about the concessions, meaning that anyone that is going to bid for the Chateau needs to have certainty that they’ve got it for a reasonable period – some were suggesting 100 years.”

The Chateau was built in 1929 within the boundaries of the Tongariro National Park to encourage tourism within the park.

The conservation minister said it has long been an iconic destination for visitors and was an important part of the region’s identity.

“The Request for Proposals (RFP), opening on 19 March 2026, invites interested parties to put forward plans that recognise both the heritage significance of the Chateau and the cultural importance of Tongariro National Park,” Potaka said.

“The Chateau is a landmark many New Zealanders have visited for holidays to school trips and international visitors experiencing Tongariro for the first time.”

Restoring the building will help ensure the area continues to attract visitors while supporting local businesses and tourism in the wider region.

“We are looking for proposals that balance commercial viability with conservation values, respect for tangata whenua aspirations, and the unique character of Tongariro National Park.”

The RFP process will help identify operators capable of restoring the building while ensuring it remains consistent with the values of one of New Zealand’s most important national parks.

National Party MP for Whanganui Carl Bates has welcomed the announcement calling it “great news”.

“The Chateau is a landmark many New Zealanders have visited for holidays to school trips and international visitors experiencing Tongariro for the first time. Restoring the building will help ensure the area continues to attract visitors while supporting local businesses and tourism in the wider region.”

Kirton said it showed the government was serious about restoring the building and bringing certainty around the lease of the land.

“We know now that the government is serious about looking for potential bidders – those who have balance sheets to revitalise the Chateau.”

He was aware of companies that could bring the heritage-listed building back to its former glory.

“There are people around. We’ll be meeting one of them this weekend,” he said.

“I think it’s a long way towards saving it, but there’s a lot of work to be done on behalf of the Department of Conservation and the National Park Acts of Parliament need to be adjusted.

“The government could well work through the existing legislation to allow this to proceed. All I can do is relay to the government that it’s important for our district and the country to save the chateau because of its heritage status.”

Tenders are open from 19 March to 21 April 2026.

Potaka said a panel will assess all proposals it receives.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

The government is ordering a complete review of the decades-old Dog Control Act after sustained criticism the current law is not enough.

It comes after a spate of incidents, including the death of a woman in Northland last month after she was attacked by a pack of dogs.

The SPCA says it has been calling for changes for more than a decade.

Council animal control officers have also been calling for more powers.

Local Government Minister Simon Watts says recent attacks have been horrific.

“New Zealanders are appalled by recent attacks by aggressive and out-of-control dogs. People are reporting that they are avoiding areas in their neighbourhood because they have been attacked or have reason to believe they will be,” he said.

“Kiwis should be able to walk, run, or take their kids to the park without worrying about being harmed.”

Watts said the government has heard clearly from Local Government NZ and councils that the Dog Control Act is outdated and stopping them doing their jobs.

This was putting unnecessary strain on the wider system he said.

The scope of the review is still being worked out but will look at areas that may be putting barriers in place.

It will also delve into penalties and consequences for dog owners who are not compliant and obligations around desexing.

“We are also updating enforcement guidelines so dog control officers have a consistent approach to their work, with clarity on how they should respond and what tools are available to them,” the minister said.

But Watts said dog control issues were best managed locally by councils, which already have enforcement powers under the existing law.

He has sent a letter to every council outlining what he says are his expectations, and to encourage them to make full use of the powers they have now.

“As we review the Act, I want councils to be able to confidently say they are using every power available to tackle this issue,” Watts said.

Police Minister Mark Mitchell said while the review is underway, police will support dog control officers when they need help.

“Police have a role to play in dog control when council staff have safety concerns while dealing with dangerous and high-risk dogs. Police will accompany council staff where Police-only powers are required or there are significant safety risks,” Mitchell said.

Conservation Minister Tama Potaka said th Department of Conservation will step up monitoring on conservation land and expand its professional hunter response so cases involving feral or uncontrolled dogs can be dealt with quickly.

Speaking to RNZ’s Checkpoint before the Northland death, Simon Watts said there would not be time for law changes before the election.

However the prime minister later said he was open to the government intervening.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

Analysis – An unexpected address from the Prime Minister in Wellington this week spoke volumes about the economic crisis the government is staring down the barrel of.

Finance Minister Nicola Willis and the minister responsible for fuel security, Shane Jones, have been doing the heavy lifting on what the impacts may or may not be for New Zealand’s economy if the conflict in Iran drags on.

Already suffering a cost of living crisis, New Zealanders are really starting to feel the pinch from the United States and Israel’s attacks as fuel prices soar past $3 at the pump and the flow-on effects mean almost everything else – food, services, flights – also climb to unaffordable levels.

It’s an attack on the economy and that’s an issue National has pinned its electoral hopes on in November after promising in 2023 to get the country back on track.

Late last year Labour surpassed National as the party most trusted to respond to the economic challenges, and in the most recent Ipsos Monitor this month the two parties were neck-and-neck on the issue.

Labour is also seen as more capable on inflation and cost of living.

That’s no small concern for the major governing party as it prepares for a tightly-contested election, while simultaneously dealing with an economic shock not of its own making.

Enter Christopher Luxon.

While the foreign affairs’ nuances of the war in Iran are certainly not Luxon’s forte, on the economy he feels more comfortable and has a reputation at least as a former chief executive for knowing what he’s talking about on that front.

But until Thursday he wasn’t doing the talking – Willis and Jones were.

Luxon had tasked the pair with leading the work and then jumped on a plane for four days to the Pacific at about the exact time the situation reports got bleaker back home.

The ministerial advisory group is having online meetings every morning to get updates from officials, and Willis has been doing blanket coverage media interviews and press conferences for the past couple of weeks.

Jones has taken the lead on the fuel security element and has been very much second in command.

So not surprising Luxon chose to high-tail it down to the Beehive for a face-to-face meeting with his officials on Thursday morning about what the state of play is.

For the seven days prior he’d only been receiving updates via reports and phone calls and was keen to hear the lay of the land from those at the coal face of the government’s response.

It led to a last-minute decision to hold a media conference at Parliament, alongside Willis, where the substance of what the government was doing hadn’t changed but the tone certainly had.

The purpose of the media conference was two-fold: tell New Zealanders they need to be realistic about what might be coming down the line and how bad it might get, and put the prime minister in charge of a looming crisis.

The hope for National is that it can claw back the narrative of being a safe pair of hands when the economy is in choppy seas, but the flip side is that if things do get worse before they get better and things haven’t improved at all for Kiwis’ backpockets come the election, then it’s Luxon and Willis who will wear all of it.

The war coming to an end soon is crucial to their success because even if it does end in the next week or three, the lag effect is such that it will still take time for the economy to bounce back.

With an election just shy of eight months away, it isn’t a lot of runway.

The biggest take-away from Thursday’s update was the work being done to prepare cost-of-living relief for some people if the pain at the pump, the supermarket, and almost everywhere else, continues.

Willis has signalled she’s tasked Inland Revenue with finding the best way to get targeted, temporary, and timely funding to those working Kiwis who will be impacted the most.

The biggest problem she has isn’t how to administer it, but when to pull the trigger on it.

Go too early and the government books end up looking worse for longer, but go too late and voters feel like they’ve been abandoned.

Expect discussions on the specifics of that payment to be high on the agenda at Monday’s Cabinet meeting.

National has talked a big game on being fiscally prudent.

If there’s even a whiff of Willis and Luxon sliding into cost-of-living relief creep to try keep as many voters as possible happy in the months ahead, it will be deputy prime minister and Act leader David Seymour shouting the loudest.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

With the cost of fuel and other essentials rising due to the conflict in the Middle East, the government is looking at ways to ease the cost pressure for those feeling it the most.

Finance Minister Nicola Willis told Morning Report the price increases are extremely tough and affecting all New Zealanders, but said some are feeling it more than others.

“I can’t solve the pain for everyone. The cost of doing that would potentially involve levels of spending that would drive inflation higher, and certainly would put us in a more fragile position in terms of debt.

“So what we are looking at, is there something very targeted and temporary that we could do to assist those workers in particular who are most acutely impacted by these household budget squeezes?”

Willis said she doesn’t want to see a situation where people can’t drive to work, and has instructed the IRD and Treasury to come up with a package that could be implemented with urgency ahead of the Budget, but Cabinet will ultimately decide on timing.

Willis wouldn’t say what the income thresholds would be, but said the package would take into account household income and number of children.

“We’re also looking at forecasts at the moment and putting together a budget, all of which involves questions that we have to address on the way through. But I do want to stick to our fiscal strategy,” Willis said.

Fuel supply disruption

Willis also discussed rising fuel prices, and said the message remains the same, “this is not the time to panic, we’ve got plenty of fuel in the country and on its way.”

On Thursday, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon acknowledged a “big shift” in the government’s messaging around the war in the Middle East, warning New Zealanders the fuel situation could get worse before it gets better.

Willis said the government was preparing for scenarios where supply from Singapore and South Korea, where New Zealand gets petrol, diesel, jet fuel from, could be disrupted.

“We know that they are having challenges getting crude oil out of the Middle East and so are either reducing the amount of products they’re refining or, in South Korea’s case, looking to prioritise domestic customers.

“So what we’re anticipating is there could be a point down the line where that makes it harder for our fuel importers to get the refined products they need out of Asia.”

Willis also defended the government’s LNG plans, despite the attacks on Iran’s South Pars gas field and [https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/590133/oil-prices-surge-stocks-sink-on-energy-shock-fears Qatar’s Ras Laffan.

Willis said the focus was still for New Zealand’s energy to be “largely renewable”, but having LNG as a back up remained the government’s strategy.

Not our conflict

Willis said the fighting in the Middle East was “not our conflict”, and reiterated calls for a humanitarian end.

“What we want to see is that the rules of international engagement are upheld, which involves not targeting civilians and protecting human life.

“We are not involved, we haven’t been asked for authorisation, we haven’t been asked for support, we haven’t been asked for assistance.

“Our opinion has not been relevant to the events that are unfolding in that region of the world.”

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: New Zealand Government

The Government has ordered a comprehensive review of the Dog Control Act to crack down on roaming and uncontrolled dogs, following a number of horrific attacks.

“New Zealanders are appalled by recent attacks by aggressive and out-of-control dogs. People are reporting that they are avoiding areas in their neighbourhood because they have been attacked or have reason to believe they will be,” Mr Watts says.

“Kiwis should be able to walk, run, or take their kids to the park without worrying about being harmed. 

“Dog owners must take responsibility and keep their animals under control to protect their families and visitors, as well as the wider public, wildlife and pets.”

Reviewing the Dog Control Act

“We have heard clearly from Local Government New Zealand and councils that the Dog Control Act is outdated and is preventing them from doing their jobs effectively. This is putting unnecessary strain on resources and the wider system,” Mr Watts says.

“That’s why the Government has ordered a comprehensive review of the Dog Control Act to ensure the law empowers councils to keep communities safe.” 

While the scope of the review is still being considered, it will include looking at clauses which may be imposing barriers or resource pressure on councils, as well as penalties and consequences for non-compliant dog owners, desexing obligations, and stronger powers for council officers.

“We are also updating enforcement guidelines so dog control officers have a consistent approach to their work, with clarity on how they should respond and what tools are available to them,” Mr Watts says.

“Alongside the review and updated guidelines, I have sent a letter to every council outlining my expectations around dog control and encouraging them to make full use of their powers.

“Dog control issues are best managed locally and councils already have enforcement powers under the Dog Control Act.

“As we review the Act, I want councils to be able to confidently say they are using every power available to tackle this issue.

“The letter also reinforces that the Government wants to work alongside them as we review the Act and continue to update the dog control enforcement guidelines.”

Other measures in the response 

While the review is underway, there are several measures in place to respond to dog attacks and support public safety.

Police Minister Mark Mitchell says the police will continue to work with local councils and to provide ongoing support to dog control officers where assistance is required.

“Police have a role to play in dog control when council staff have safety concerns while dealing with dangerous and high-risk dogs. Police will accompany council staff where Police-only powers are required or there are significant safety risks.”

Conservation Minister Tama Potaka says on public conservation land, DOC will step up monitoring in high-risk areas and expand its professional hunter response so incidents involving feral or uncontrolled dogs can be dealt with quickly.

“This will focus on places where dogs pose a risk to people or vulnerable native wildlife, with DOC working closely with councils, iwi, landowners and communities to support early detection and coordinated action where problems arise,” Mr Potaka says.

Earlier this week the Government announced a targeted $468,000 grant to the SPCA for dog desexing. The SPCA will contribute a further $700,000 bringing the total investment to almost $1.2 million.

“Dog overpopulation is a significant problem and is often linked to irresponsible breeding. This grant funding supports a practical, preventative measure to help reduce the number of unwanted dogs,” Mr Watts says.

“The Government’s response is about backing councils to keep their communities safe and holding dog owners responsible for their animals.”

MIL OSI

Source: Auckland Council

Auckland Council has welcomed the government’s announcement of a ‘comprehensive review’ of the ageing Dog Control Act 1996 and urges that this progress with urgency, and a firm timeline, given the significant issues many regions are facing.

The council’s Director of Community Rachel Kelleher says Minister Watts’ letter to mayors, chairs and chief executives this morning is a welcome step in the right direction. In particular it acknowledges that the Dog Control Act is not fit for purpose, signals the potential for a much-needed overhaul of the legislation and highlights work on enforcement, guidelines and existing tools – that Auckland Council is already throwing all available resources at.

“In the last year alone Auckland Council has invested an additional $10m in region-wide initiatives to tackle our burgeoning dog problem in Tāmaki Makaurau.

“Every cent collected from responsible dog owners’ licence fees along with infringement fees and anything else we can appropriately allocate, has gone back into trying to make our streets safe places for children, families, older Aucklanders, visitors, dog owners and their pets. But we need more.

“The current legislation is not enabling us to get on top of the increasing number of dogs roaming our streets or to take action in circumstances where we know a dog poses a risk to public safety.

“Mayor Wayne Brown, Councillor Josephine Bartley the Chair of our Regulatory and Safety Committee (whose own dog was attacked this week by an aggressive roaming dog) and all of our councillors have supported us to do everything we can to bolster council’s Animal Management services, under the powers currently available to us.

“They have added their voices, on behalf of their communities, to our appeals to government to strengthen those powers – I expect that we will continue to make our voices heard to ensure that this commitment doesn’t get forgotten,” says Kelleher.

What can we do to help?

In frequent correspondence with policy makers and Ministers, Auckland Council has signalled its commitment to add its knowledge, expertise and resources to a review of the Act.

“We have already carried out an extensive review of the legislation in our efforts to see what more we could do to address the challenges Auckland is facing.  We have reached out to our counterparts in government, at other councils and in the local government sector’s professional bodies to share what we have been doing, how our work to date might be used to inform change, and have offered to take on a leadership role in a review process. 

“Thorough work takes resource and momentum. We don’t want either of those things to stand in the way of our ability to keep our communities safe, so we’ve made it clear that we will do all we can to help the government and the sector do this work and would like to see this progressed with urgency and clear timeframes.” 

Our commitment to Aucklanders

In its announcement today the government emphasised its expectation that councils must use all powers available to them under the current Act.

“Ministers have made a fair point about councils ensuring they’re already using all tools available to them. Auckland Council’s Policy on Dogs was last reviewed in 2025 and strengthens every lever available to us. 

“We agree that council policies must include tools like requiring menacing breeds be desexed – ours does,” says Kelleher.

Auckland Council’s additional $10m funding has increased capacity at shelters, including through the introduction of a new dog adoption centre; enhanced all of our existing programmes and enforcement capabilities, including recruiting more Animal Management Officers and veterinary staff; and delivered new hard-hitting campaigns to try to make this problem resonate with more dog owners.  

“We have established an in-house dog desexing clinic, where we will desex around 2,000 dogs this year from high-risk areas ourselves, expanded our shelters and run campaigns to appeal to irresponsible dog owners to step up and be better citizens.  

“We have also stepped up our own game, by coming down hard on enforcement. Infringement actions have increased from 6,000 in 2024 to 17,000 in 2025 in an effort to tackle irresponsible ownership behaviours,” she says.

Where owners are repeatedly failing to meet their obligations, we pursue probationary ownership or disqualification.  This can be a lengthy process and what we frequently seeing is probationary owners continuing to infringe despite the risk of losing their dogs.  

“In 2025 we were able to disqualify 50 owners and put 123 owners on probation – these numbers don’t capture the complexity behind carrying out the lengthy disqualification process set out under the Act; nor monitoring the probationary conditions.

“We currently have 160 active cases going through our court prosecution process for attacks on people and pets.

“What remains is having stronger tools to compel owners who repeatedly ignore the rules to manage, contain and desex their dogs, to do so. Or for us to be able to do it for them.” 

MIL OSI