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

MIL OSI

Source: Auckland Council

MIL OSI

Source: Radio New Zealand

Analysis: When stuck in a bind, Christopher Luxon can always rely on talking about law and order.

It’s one of the few things National continues to outpoll Labour on in the Ipsos Issues Monitor, and something he took with him to the Pacific.

Luxon has weathered the storm of some bad polls, and the Pacific is always a perfect location to get away from the grind of Wellington and leave the sticky issues to his ministers.

Though this trip almost got derailed before it had even began, he will be returning from Samoa and Tonga satisfied that the New Zealand government is doing its bit to help its Pacific neighbours with transnational crime and the fight against drug trafficking.

But questions over what specific support New Zealand can offer on fuel resilience remain, as does the pain point on visa access.

Those calling for New Zealand to allow its Pacific family to have the same rights as people from 60 other countries, and be granted visa waivers at the border, would have felt Luxon’s trip was a perfect opportunity for him to announce a liberalising of immigration laws.

Instead, just ahead of the trip, the government announced a trial of cheaper visas, which Luxon pointed to as New Zealand doing its bit.

The gesture was certainly appreciated by Tonga’s prime minister, Lord Fakafanua, but Samoa’s more bellicose prime minister La’aulialemalietoa Leuatea Polataivao Fosi Schmidt will continue to make the call for New Zealand to go further.

On the eve of the trip, La’aulialemalietoa caused a minor diplomatic incident, which threatened to overshadow Luxon’s entire time in Samoa.

The ‘did-he-didn’t-he-no-he-didn’t-stop-asking-about-it’ over Luxon’s matai title Tuisinavemaulumoto’otua is likely to be the subject of ongoing discussion in Samoa even as he leaves Apia behind, as will whether New Zealand should be doing more in compensation for the sinking of the HMNZS Manawanui. On that point, Luxon was clear that the compensation was full and final, but is open to further discussions on the wreck’s future.

There is no doubt Luxon was annoyed by the entire matai title episode, though he would never admit it. He was keen to brush the incident off, and instead talk about where he and La’aulialemalietoa were aligned.

Luxon will take home a feeling that he dodged a bullet somewhat, escaping what was on the verge of turning from a minor diplomatic headache into a full-blown squabble.

It did not help that every time New Zealand made it clear he did not ask for his matai, La’aulialemalietoa would dig in deeper, telling an gala dinner audience in front of Luxon (but speaking in

Samoan so Luxon would not immediately hear) that it took phone calls in the wee small hours of Monday morning to smooth things over.

His rapport with Lord Fakafanua was certainly calmer, with Luxon speaking fondly of the time he had lunch with the prime minister nearly two years ago, when he was still the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly.

While it is normal for leaders to recall previous meetings, the warmth and specificity of Luxon’s memories of the occasion look like he has found another strong ally in the Pacific, joining the likes of Dalton Tagelagi and Sitiveni Rabuka as leaders he has genuinely enjoyed strong rapport with.

The fuel crisis is of growing concern in the Pacific, and Luxon and his Pacific counterparts have vowed to share whatever information they get with each other.

Both Tonga and Samoa are focused on having enough energy-in country, with Tonga’s prime minister less concerned about the prospect of Air New Zealand cutting back its Pacific connections than he is on ensuring he manages his people’s expectations. For now, Lord Fakafanua is reassuring Tongans that the fuel supply is fine.

Both countries see information-sharing as the main thing they can do for each other, for the moment. Luxon sees the question of whether New Zealand would divert some of its fuel to Samoa or Tonga as a hypothetical, but the longer the conflict goes on, the more New Zealand may have to think about the options. It would be a good gesture to a friend and neighbour, but if New Zealanaders start paying significantly more at the pump, it may be politically unpalatable.

Transnational crime, as well, will rely on New Zealand, Samoa, and Tonga scaling up their information-sharing. Agreements between police and customs, more money for detector dogs, and allowing Samoa and Tonga to subscribe Starboard’s maritime intelligence platform were all welcomed by Luxon’s hosts.

The presence of the police commissioner, chief executive of customs, and the police minister on the trip were all a sign of how seriously New Zealand takes the matter (although Mark Mitchell’s main responsibility appeared to be as morale booster – raising the flag at a school rugby league game as sports minister, and ably attempting to fill time before a long-delayed joint-Cabinet meeting in Apia by talking rugby league and wondering whether the long wait was because the prime ministers had decided to get a head start on the roast pig.)

It will take a lot more to solve the problem, but these are all good starts, and show the Pacific uniting on a response to a Pacific problem. Luxon will be keen to get updates if he does end up attending the Pacific Islands Forum in Palau later this year.

Luxon leaves Samoa and Tonga with a renewed satisfaction the countries are on top of the drug crisis, but also returns with some rather special gifts.

In addition his matai title, a fue, and model fale and school buildings, Luxon was also presented with a portrait, painted by students from a local Methodist church.

It was slightly less flattering than the one they painted of La’aulialemalietoa, but Luxon laughed it off. Exactly where it will be displayed is still to be determined, with Luxon saying it would go “straight to the pool room.”

Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters is known to distribute some of the many gifts he receives amongst his staff, so perhaps one lucky Dignitary Protection Service staffer will have something to take home with them.

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

A woman who works overnight shifts as a cleaner at Auckland Airport says she is feeling the effects of surging petrol prices.

The Finance Minister said she was looking at targeted, temporary support for some households if the Middle East conflict worsened.

Nicola Willis said the help could be available, for example, to a cleaner needing to drive to work early in the morning when there was no public transport.

E tū union member Ayesha Paki had a roughly 30-minute drive, six days a week, to her job at Auckland Airport.

“Everything is expensive and now the petrol has affected all of us cleaners and low pay workers. We are so worried,” she said.

Paki, who worked 10pm to 6am shifts, said it was a very tough time.

“Petrol is going up everytime I go in my car,” she said.

“We are renting and we have to pay the bills, electricity, put the food on the table, it’s hard for us.”

Paki said any government support would be appreciated.

“If our wages go up it will be easier for us. That’s why we fight for our Fair Pay agreement but then they scrapped it, and we cleaners are suffering and struggling.”

On Monday, Willis said the government was “anticipating, and to the extent possible mitigating the impact on the New Zealand economy, including what could potentially be acute cost of living pressures for some households”.

“From the government’s point of view, we need to ensure that any support we provide to households is temporary, is targeted and is timely,” she said.

Willis said official advice was that reducing fuel excise would “send the wrong signal” and not be sufficiently targeted.

Willis said her household would not need as much help financially as others, using the example of a South Auckland airport cleaner who could not take the bus to work.

“We need to make sure that we have in mind those New Zealanders who face the most acute cost of living pressures rather than having blanket responses which tie up a lot of others.”

She would not give a price petrol would have to reach at the pump before the government would take action, saying prices had been higher in the past.

“I am working with the Treasury and we will have a range of options,” she said, which would be discussed with Cabinet. She said whatever the government did would have to be prudent and not contribute to inflation.

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

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has 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.

Speaking at a media conference at Parliament on Thursday, Luxon said it had become clear the conflict would have ongoing effects on supply chains, even “in the unlikely event” it was resolved tomorrow.

“Hope is not a plan,” he said. “And so we are preparing for the worst-case scenario where the conflict is prolonged.”

Luxon said ministers, officials and industry were all keenly focused on the next eight to 12-weeks.

“New Zealand has sufficient fuel supplies. But I do want to be straight with New Zealanders: things could get worse before they actually get better. And [as] a responsible government, we need to take a prudent response and be very prepared.”

Standing alongside him, Finance Minister Nicola Willis said she wanted to reassure New Zealanders the government was taking the situation seriously in case future fuel supplies were disrupted.

“We live in challenging times,” she said. “We’re not just sitting back and saying, well, the fuel supplies are fine now. They are fine now… but we are actively preparing for scenarios where they are disrupted in future.”While the tone of the media conference was sharper than previous ones, the substance of the government’s plan remained largely as outlined earlier in the week.

That included engaging with other countries around accessing refined fuel and keeping in close contact with fuel companies to stay on top of any challenges.

Willis said she would provide an update next week on the steps which could be taken at each level of the National Fuel Plan, but stressed no escalation was required right now given the country had seven weeks’ worth of fuel either in the country or on its way.

Officials would soon begin giving public updates on the country’s fuel levels twice a week, up from just once a week now.

Petrol stations across the country are seeing a surge of drivers filling up as petrol prices rises amid fears of rapidly jumping prices and potential shortages.

On Thursday, New World’s Levin station had no 91 or diesel. The local Z also had no diesel but was expecting some after midnight.

Willis said that was being driven by the individual fuel companies’ logistics and distribution, not by a national fuel shortages.

“They have sufficient supplies in the country to replenish their stocks and petrol stations. So they will be able to do that.

“But when people are buying more petrol, then they go through more at the petrol station than is normally the case. They are working to ensure that their logistics, their distribution, is working as effectively as possible.”

Regarding potential cost-of-living support, Willis said she had instructed Inland Revenue and Treasury to work on some options relating to the “tax and transfer system”.

But she stressed the government would not be able to allievate all of the cost pressures.

“We have to be careful not to raise an expectation that we will be able to blunt all of the pain that is occurring for people across the world because of the conflict in the Middle East.”

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 Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) spy agency has taken six times longer than it should have to address questions about lax cyber security identified in a Treasury report.

The report last year mentioned that government data was “being managed or held by unvetted third parties”.

It gave no details, so RNZ sought them.

Director-general Andrew Clark apologised for taking 120 working days to respond, instead of the statutory 20 under the Official Information Act (OIA).

He then refused to answer virtually all of the dozen questions.

Clark said they had to keep incidents and vulnerabilities confidential or people would not share with them, and they needed that information to counter threats.

The Treasury report said government agencies had continued to raise concerns about the security of third-party vendors’ products and services, including poor security controls and unpatched software.

“Some agencies reported that vendors had offshored some services without their prior approval, meaning government data was being managed or held by unvetted third parties,” said the quarterly investment report for the three months to December 2024. Such reports are released publicly many months after they are done.

New Zealand’s small size as a market was biting it, the report suggested.

“Agencies assess that poor service delivery is likely driven by lower competition and less resourcing for comparably smaller contracts in New Zealand versus larger markets,” it said, under the title ‘Other emerging … issues’.

“Low competition, coupled with poor service delivery from some vendors, has also led to high reliance by many Government agencies on the same few vendors, which creates risk to service delivery across the public sector should those vendors suffer a cyber security incident or event.”

Many government agencies had become increasingly reliant on cloud-computing services from US Big Tech companies.

RNZ asked the GCSB, National Cyber Security Centre and Internal Affairs who the problem vendors were. Clark in his response would not name them or say anything about them.

“Providing this information would likely have commercial implications for these vendors” so that was refused on the grounds of unreasonably prejudicing someone’s position.

What about the government agencies that had raised the alarm?

“I am refusing those parts of your request where you have asked for information that has been provided to the GCSB in confidence by agencies,” was the reply, otherwise it might prejudice the supply of such info in future.

The unvetted third parties were not disclosed, and neither were the risks to service delivery that Treasury had told ministers were in play.

The risks information was refused on the grounds the GCSB “does not hold this information in the manner or format you have requested”.

Work was underway on digital investment and procurement, Clark said.

Asked what measures were taken, he said the National Cyber Security Centre provided a range of advice, and they had recently developed “minimum cyber security standards” to focus on the basics and encourage good practices.

The subsequent three quarterly reports after this one did not mention the threat again.

But other weaknesses did come up in them, and in one case Treasury was called out for them, in the latest quarterly report, to September 2025.

It said many data and digital projects did not include information relating to cyber security management or improvement.

It went on to fault the Treasury’s investment management system because it did not recognise the ongoing cost of cyber security, “making it difficult” to upgrade old systems and move away from on-site hardware to ‘as-a-service’ tech “which we know deliver better security results”.

“The current financing rules and settings around capital and operating expenditure are preventing agencies from modernising and improving their cyber security.”

Agencies’ approach to procuring IT systems or services was called “outdated and fragmented” by the government chief digital officer in the September quarterly report, six years after Treasury told the public sector to take an all-of-government approach to try to cut the IT upgrade bill of multi-billions of dollars.

The long wait for the response to the OIA request was put down by the GCSB to consultation and the “volume of information requested” by RNZ.

Most of Clark’s three-page response was taken up outlining the grounds for refusing the information.

RNZ asked for any report that focused on the threat, but did not get one.

Clark apologised for the wait.

“Our response … did not meet the statutory deadline and I do apologise for that. Thank you for your patience while we completed our response.”

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: Auckland Council

Auckland’s Future Housing Plan – Proposed Plan Change 120 – makes important changes to Auckland’s planning rules, and there is discussion happening in communities across the city. 

The plan change strengthens the rules for building new homes in places at risk of flooding and other natural hazards while also meeting central government direction on housing capacity.   

It aims to better protect people and property, while enabling more new homes in well-connected areas near jobs, shops, services and fast, frequent public transport.

But some of the things being shared aren’t accurate, from forcing homeowners and tenants to relocate, new homes being built immediately to comparing Auckland to different situations in different cities.

Here are some quick questions and answers to help you understand what Proposed Plan Change 120 does – and what it doesn’t do.

Question: Does Plan Change 120 make people leave their homes?

Answer: No, it has nothing to do with relocating or moving people out of their homes. Plan Change 120 does not require anyone to leave their home or relocate – that is not how planning rules work. 

Instead, it strengthens rules for building in areas with known hazard risks, like flooding, so future buildings are more resilient or reduced in the most vulnerable areas, meaning people living in these areas are better protected. Existing homes remain and development will still happen but with tougher rules.

Question: Will the whole city be “blanketed” by higher-density homes indiscriminately?

Answer: No, taller buildings are only proposed in certain areas, mostly enabled near train stations, rapid busways (like the Northern Busway), frequent bus routes, and town centres where jobs, shops and services already exist.

These are locations where research shows public transport access and housing demand are strongest, and which help to support higher productivity across Auckland. 

Not every property will be developed that way. What gets built depends on what the market determines, property owner choices, and what can feasibly be built, not just planning rules. Development usually happens gradually, typically over many years and even in areas allowing taller buildings, there will still be a mix of housing types. 

Question: Has Plan Change 120 changed the floodplains? 

Answer: Auckland Council has continuously published information it has on flooding and other natural hazards – Plan Change 120 only introduces updated rules in the Auckland Unitary Plan that manage development in these areas.

Information on natural hazards change over time. This is due to changes in modelling inputs and assumptions, understanding of climate change and improved technology. In recent years new modelling has been undertaken to consistently reflect latest climate change information across the region.

The newer modelling has also been able show a greater level of detail about potential flooding risk than previously understood – for example, anticipated depths and velocities of floodwaters.

Question: Are homes being put into flood plains? 

Answer: Plan Change 120 allows residential development in flood plains in existing developed areas where the hazard is low, medium or high, as long as the risk can be maintained at or reduced to a tolerable level, for example through the provision of a safe evacuation route and a floor above the flood level.

Any new development will need to go through the resource consent process to determine its appropriateness against the relevant policy settings.

For sites that are constrained by very high flood hazard flooding, the zoning has changed to limit development to the Residential – Single House zone.

For all other sites, in some cases the zoning has changed to allow for additional intensification opportunities. However, the level of development that is suitable on those sites will be dependent on a site-specific assessment and the hazard conditions on site.

Question: Didn’t Christchurch push back on intensification, so Auckland should too?

Answer: No, Christchurch made significant changes to its planning rules to meet government’s intensification requirements.  

Christchurch only withdrew from some parts of the government’s housing intensification requirements because it could prove that its updated planning rules enabled enough housing capacity to meet what the legislation required – 30 years of capacity that has been shown to be commercially feasible to build. This is the legal test that applies to Christchurch. 

Auckland’s housing capacity requirement is completely different. The legal test for Auckland is that the new Plan Change 120 must enable at least the same amount of housing as the withdrawn Plan Change 78 (the previous plan change required by central government) would have enabled. 

Christchurch and Auckland are very different cities with different growth-related challenges, different legislation and their legal housing capacity requirements are not calculated in the same way.

Question: Isn’t housing capacity just a target and does leads to more choice?

Answer: No, housing capacity is not a building target, but it does provide more housing choices over time. Housing capacity required by Plan Change 120 is the theoretical number of homes that could be built if every suitable site across Auckland was fully developed to the maximum the rules allowed.

In reality, far fewer homes are built, even over many decades, and not every site will be developed. Plan Change 120 allows for the same housing capacity as the previous planning rules from central government called Plan Change 78. Capacity is not a construction target. Taking-up opportunities for development depends entirely on property owners and developers.

Capacity is set deliberately high, so developers and property owners have more choices in different locations and for different housing types. This flexibility helps to respond to changing market demands and helps improve affordability over the long term, which is supported by economic data and analysis. 

Question: Will I be forced to sell or develop my property?

Answer: No, nothing forces you to sell or develop. Property owners can continue to live in, sell, maintain, improve or redevelop their home as the planning rules allow, what happens with their property is entirely up to them. 

Plan Change 120 sets tougher standards for the future development of new homes or buildings, so they are more resilient, or to limit how much new housing can be built in areas most at risk from hazards like flooding to help reduce future risks to people and property.

There is no requirement to develop. It is entirely up to owners whether they want to sell, develop, or do nothing at all.

Question: Will my suburb change overnight with new buildings appearing?

Answer: No, Plan Change 120 doesn’t trigger immediate development. Planning rules only set out what’s allowed to be built, they do not require that homes get built or that development happens. Plan Change 120 simply enables where different types of housing could go in future. Not every property would be suitable for taller buildings. What actually gets built depends on property owners, what is determined by the market and other rules such as resource consents. 

Homes cannot be built at that speed anyway. When development does occur, it happens gradually, even over decades, and varies widely across neighbourhoods.

Question:  Won’t housing in expensive places still be unaffordable?

Answer: Allowing for more housing density can help make homes more affordable over time. For most homes, land is the biggest cost. Allowing more homes on one property spreads that cost, so each home can be more affordable than a single house on a full section. 

Areas near jobs, shops and transport are in high demand, which pushes up land values, so more homes in these areas provide more housing choices.

While homes won’t suddenly be “cheap,” more choices — like townhouses and apartments — give people more choice at different price points and creates competition in the market, helping ease price pressure over time.

What does Proposed Plan Change 120 do?

Here’s the simple version, plan change 120 proposes to:

• Strengthen rules for building new homes in areas at risk from flooding and other hazards, with the worst-affected areas mainly limited to single houses.
• Enable more homes within walking distances of the city centre, other town centres, train stations, stops on the northern and eastern busways and along some frequent bus routes.
•  Meet central government direction for significantly more housing capacity and taller buildings around key train stations to support investment in the City Rail Link.

This could mean:

• Better protection for people and property by strengthening the rules we already have, reducing exposure to hazards that are becoming more common with climate change.
• More new homes where it makes more sense, in well-connected places close to jobs, shops, and fast, frequent public transport – where demand for housing and transport access is strongest.
• More housing choices in more locations with easier access to everyday services and facilities.
• More transport choice, less congestion, and better access to game-changing infrastructure that all Aucklanders have paid for – helping to get the best return on billons of public investment.

MIL OSI

Source: Radio New Zealand

There is more discord in the music industry over the government helping fund two Robbie Williams concerts.

It has contributed an undisclosed amount from its $70 million Major Events and Tourism Package, $40 million of which is to secure large-scale international events that will attract international visitors.

But some in the industry say it is corporate welfare and believe commercially viable big-name acts would still come here without the funding.

Rob Warner, who has been involved in the local music industry for over 30 years, told Checkpoint the government is being taken for a ride by big players.

“It should worry both taxpayers and anyone who likes live events or values music culture. The schemes, as happened in Australia, have taught the biggest promoters they can hold events to ransom and the minister and MBIE apparently don’t recognise they’re being taken for a ride. Or they’re more concerned about looking good in the lead up to this year’s election.”

Dion Brant is CEO Of Frontier Touring, the company bringing Robbie Williams.

He told Checkpoint the money would not go directly to the popstar but instead make it viable to put on two Aotearoa shows, contributing to around half of what the freight to and from Australia and New Zealand will cost.

He did not disclose how much the government had put towards the shows, and said it was commercial in confidence.

While he said the money wasn’t paying Williams directly to come and play, the money makes it “worthwhile” for the star to play in New Zealand.

“Robbie Williams has a lot of places he can go and play concerts around the world, and these major concerts generate a really big economic impact for the cities and the places they play.

“He’s popular in a lot of places around the world. He has to prioritise that time, and he has to work out where he can get the best return for the machine that is Robbie Williams.”

Brant said putting on the show came with many costs, and the government contribution was a way of ensuring the costs don’t outweigh the returns.

He could not confirm whether Williams would have been able to play the shows without the funding but said it would have been “touch and go”.

“It certainly helps make the balance or the ledger look better, then when we put the options in front of Robbie, it allows him and his people to make a decision.

“[It’s] a way in which the returns on the incredible cost to get there and play there and for the infrastructure is able to be recouped without relying on lots of people buying lots of really expensive tickets.”

Brant said the benefit returned the taxpayer with the livelihood international shows bring to Aotearoa’s shores.

“Cities are alive when these shows are on. You can’t sit in the foyer of a hotel, you can’t sit in a cafe, you can’t walk around the shops without seeing, you know, hundreds of people wearing a T-shirt and dining in the restaurants and eating in the cafes and catching the Ubers and the taxis.”

While each show was expected to bring a $3.50 return for every $1 invested, Brant said he didn’t have any numbers reflecting how much of this would come from international visitors.

Attracting international visitors with big events is a key part of the fund’s purpose.

Brant said Frontier pitched the Williams concert to the government using results from past concerts.

“[What the] audience profiles were like at those concerts, and the budgets for these concerts. So therefore, what we’re projecting in terms of audience, sales, costs.”

Frontier will report back to the government after the two shows.

“We’ll report back who’s come to the shows, where they’ve come from, there’ll be some surveys on how long they’ve spent in the city, if they’re from out of the city.”

Splore Festival producer Fred Kublikowski applied for event funding through the Major Events and Tourism Fund but was denied.

Kublikowski told Checkpoint there needs to be more transparency around the fund.

“I think when taxpayer money is involved and it’s going into a pool that’s going to, international interests, if there’s no clarity around that, people ask questions.”

Kublikowski said there have been a countless number of successful international shows both in and outside of New Zealand without the government funding.

While it was hard to say whether the government was being influenced by these multinational promoters, Kublikowski said similar things had occurred in Australia.

“There’s been examples where funding’s been made available and it’s easy for large conglomerates to access that.

“Certainly easier than local homegrown events without the resources or the backup of that kind of admin facility.”

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

Health New Zealand (HNZ) has been warned that keeping financial control is “one of the thorniest” aspects of the government’s rapid push to devolution.

The government blamed loss of financial control when it sacked the central agency’s board two years ago.

Health Minister Simeon Brown on Tuesday promised regions and districts would get more say over budgets and hiring from 1 July so that decisions on medical care were made closer to the patient.

Late last year he ordered HNZ to decentralise rapidly, and this week he said, “This is the most significant structural change our government is making to improve how the health system operates.”

But the latest HNZ internal report on devolution said “people capability is an extreme risk” in the finance and operations area, with centralisation diverting resources.

“Many local teams are under-resourced in financial management,” said the report done in January for a new devolution committee.

Brown on Wednesday said there was a “huge” amount of work underway to build back the local leadership disempowered by over-centralisation.

“We are making sure we’ve got the capability around operations, around finance, human resources, all of those things are being looked at.”

The January report by consultants Deloitte laid that out, he said.

The report has not been publicly released though RNZ has seen parts of it.

‘Clearly underpowered’

Former HNZ Te Whatu Ora board chair Rob Campbell expressed serious misgivings.

“They quickly need to get some financial resources into those regions and districts which are clearly underpowered in this respect,” Campbell said on Wednesday. “That’s the first thing they have to do.”

The devolution plan puts executive regional directors in charge of rebuilding the capability but at a time when money was exceedingly tight said the report.

“The financial challenges are going to increase in 2026/27, meaning there will be even more pressure on financial controls to reduce the deficit …. from $200m to breakeven.

“Currently there will be little to no capacity remaining within the baseline next year without significant productivity improvements and prioritisation decisions,” it said.

Campbell said it was an unenviable task.

“They’re being told they’re getting more autonomy. The truth is they’re really not, and they don’t have the money to do that anyway.”

‘Fully coming into effect’ on 1 July

The devolution report contains self-assessments by Health NZ’s various business units showing some progress, and a lot of risks, around devolving key clinical and service decisions back to the four health regions and 20 districts.

One section on “reduced financial visibility” said, “One of the thorniest aspects of devolution is financial control – ‘who holds the purse strings’ and how to prevent overspending or inequities.”

Financial visibility was fragmented across 20 health boards before 2022’s centralisation, then smeared after it by “confusion … and weak controls” at Health NZ Te Whatu Ora. It then began its nosedive towards a forecast billion-dollar-plus deficit.

The centralisation also pulled experience and skills into the centre in Wellington, the report said.

This was compounded by hundreds of cuts to support jobs since 2024 in a savings drive.

The January report outlined “critical” current gaps and “staff churn” in the workforce, such as in data and digital, analysis and finance, that supports the frontline doctors and nurses.

Under a heading ‘Options to accelerate devolution’ it said, “There is a risk of not understanding cost structures or nuances between districts, further compounding the risk that pushing the funding allocation and management of each region and district to the lower levels quickly may result in loss of financial visibility across the sector again.”

It said some fixes might take 18 months to three years.

However, Brown said on Tuesday the changes underway would “ensure a nationally planned, locally and regionally delivered health system, will come into effect on 1 July”.

Hospitals would be able to recruit and deploy staff without central sign-off but with delegated budgets and responsibility to meet targets in the district or region.

On Wednesday Brown reiterated the 1 July delivery date.

The Deloitte report talked about the many initiatives being done by HNZ “to make sure that districts and regions are ready for 1 July when the devolved operating model … is fully coming into effect”, he said.

“Of course there’s risks in changing an operating model but at the same time the last government … left local clinicians not able to make some of the key decisions.”

Globally, health ran better when a devolved operating model split decision-making between national, regional and local levels, Brown said.

New policy on who decides what

The devolution plan depended on four executive regional directors at the top being “best placed to manage performance and build capability, which can vary significantly between districts”.

Already, a new policy on who gets to decide on hiring and firing, and on spending, was being rolled out.

Papers RNZ has seen showed the policy was approved by the board in December.

They showed there must be consultation with the regional or national head of human resources for all hires, or for creating new positions within budget; and to create any new positions outside budget needed “consultation/approval” from either of these heads or from the executive leadership team.

Campbell said, “You start off looking like they’ve got a lot of power, and then when you really read through it, they don’t.

“Even on items that are within budget and full-time equivalent allocations, there is a need for … consultation, and in a hierarchical organisation like this consultation means getting approval.”

The biggest difference was a bigger regional element compared to what HNZ was building at the time he was sacked in 2023 for a political attack on National’s water infrastructure policy.

Yet it was “still very tightly controlled” and regional and district managers were “in a no-win situation”, Campbell said.

‘Divergent approaches’

In addition to lack of finance staff, the January report added “fragmentation” to the hurdles for devolution.

“Without strong governance structures and clear national guardrails, regions and districts risk adopting divergent approaches, weakening system-wide alignment and equity in service delivery,” it said.

Those governance structures were still being set up.

Campbell said good governance meant having a business model everyone grasped. “People throughout the organisation still find it very hard to understand what the responsibility for particular issues is.”

The report said Health NZ had had to build national financial guardrails after its lurch towards a big deficit.

“If HNZ devolves too quickly or carelessly, they risk losing the opportunity to use its current … structure and scale” to address system problems, it said.

On the plus side, devolution could help districts take more responsibility for day-to-day spending and not expect topdown bailouts, citing how Australian state hospitals used to have a “rollercoaster of budget blowouts and rescues”.

Brown’s plan retained the Wellington-based bureaucracy for strategy, planning, policies, standards and system integration.

However, the report said many of the national plans existed in name but “have not yet been developed or published, and the decision-making framework to support accountability is still developing”.

Building districts’ financial capability an ongoing focus – HNZ

Late on Wednesday Health New Zealand told RNZ that according to the Deloitte report the agency’s budgeting, planning, reporting, and performance management disciplines had been strengthened since a review of financial management at the end of 2024.

“These improvements have ‘reduced the risk of a loss of financial control levers’,” it quoted.

Building financial capability of districts and regions was an ongoing focus, said executive national director of strategy performance improvement, Jess Smaling.

“Regions and districts will have clear budgets, and delegated authority to make decisions based on the unique local needs,” she said in a statement.

“Budgets will be based on expected activity to meet those local needs, within the resources available to Health New Zealand.”

A national funding board and human resources oversight committee had been replaced by four regional investment committees and “people and culture committees”, along with a national version of that to consider human resource policies so there was national consistency.

A new national investment committee would make funding decisions above the authority of the four executive regional directors.

“Hiring decisions will be made in the regions and districts, within available budgets,” said Smaling.

Those within existing FTE and budget would only require the approval of the hiring manager’s immediate manager.

Decision-makers using delegated authority had to stay within approved budgets and limits, and comply with Health NZ policies and legislation, she added.

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: Auckland Council

Auckland Council’s Policy and Planning Committee today approved new changes to the city’s planning rules to better protect people and property from floods and other hazards, while focusing more new homes in safer, well-connected places near jobs and public transport. 

The decision sees the current planning requirements – called Plan Change 78 – withdrawn and replaced with a new plan change for Aucklanders to have their say on, through public submissions. 

The new plan change – Plan Change 120 – will introduce stronger rules to steer buildings away from high-risk areas for flooding, coastal erosion, and inundation. This includes more restrictive consenting rules for new builds and, in the worst affected areas, limiting development to single houses.  

Mayor Wayne Brown says today’s decision will future-proof Auckland.

“We need a physically and financially resilient future. This will allow us to downzone flood-prone land and build up in areas that make sense—like around transport corridors, walkable catchments, and where we have invested significantly in infrastructure, in water pipes, roads, and train lines. It’s really not rocket science.

“Today’s decision allows for a rational discussion on how and where we live, based on fact. The public will get to have their say through hearings, submissions and through their local representatives. I look forward to hearing the public debate,” says Mayor Brown.

Addressing flood and natural hazard risks

Councillor Richard Hills, chair of the Policy and Planning Committee, says the decision gives Auckland a simpler path to safer, better-connected housing choices while meeting government requirements for capacity. 

“In 2023, Auckland experienced one of its most significant natural disasters. The floods devastated our communities, causing billions of dollars of damage, and most shattering of all, loss of life.  

“Aucklanders are clear that they want stronger rules to limit development in high flood risk areas. We started seeking the legal ability to do this immediately after the 2023 floods, with law changes being made in August this year.

“Today’s decision lets us better protect people and property from flooding and other natural hazards more quickly than we could under Plan Change 78, while focusing more homes where housing demand and public transport access are highest.

“I encourage all Aucklanders to give their feedback and be part of shaping this proposal,” he says.  

Better access to existing infrastructure

Plan Change 120 will see the removal of blanket rules allowing three storey housing on most residential sites across Auckland. Instead, it focuses homes near town centres with easy access to jobs, services and fast, frequent public transport. This follows the council’s compact city approach.

“This proposal gives more people better access to transport infrastructure that all Aucklanders have paid for. With $5.5 billion invested in City Rail Link, trains will be running every few minutes carrying tens of thousands of passengers from next year – people should be able to live and work nearby. It helps get the best return on public investment.

“It’s not just about the number of homes, it’s about whether they are in locations that can meet people’s needs and make it easier to reach they services and facilities they use every day. Strong evidence shows Aucklanders want to live near jobs, public transport, shops, and services. That’s where housing demand is strongest.” says Cr Hills.  

The law behind Plan Change 78 did not allow the council to introduce more restrictive zoning in high-risk hazard areas or opt out of blanket rules allowing three-storey homes across Auckland – including areas with limited transport connections, until the law changed in August 2025.    

Plan Change 120 creates capacity for approximately two million homes, as did Plan Change 78, and as is required by central government. This does not mean two million homes will be built. Instead, it provides a wide choice of locations for homes, and housing types, to meet long-term market demands.

What changes under Plan Change 120?

Plan Change 120 will: 

• introduce stronger planning rules in high-risk flood and natural hazard areas, quickly and simply, reducing future risk to people and property. 
• remove blanket three-storey housing rules (known as the Medium Density Residential Standards) across almost every residential area across Auckland. 
• focus new homes around the city centre, town centres, rapid transit stops such as train stations and the Northern and Eastern Busways, and frequent bus routes. This includes the $5.5 billion investment in the City Rail Link. 
• meet government directions for increased building heights around five key Western Line stations: 15 storeys at Maungawhau, Kingsland and Morningside; and 10 storeys at Baldwin Avenue and Mt Albert stations. 
• give infrastructure providers a clearer picture of where growth is expected, compared to Plan Change 78. This helps them plan and prioritise future investment. 

What happens next? 

• By 10 October 2025: The council will write to the Minister for the Environment seeking approval to notify the new replacement plan change. 
• 30 October 2025: Public notification is expected, subject to the minister’s agreement. 
• 3 November to 19 December 2025: Public submissions are expected to open, subject to the minister’s agreement. 
• Following submissions, public hearings will be held by an Independent Hearings Panel. 

MIL OSI