AM Edition: Top 10 Politics Articles on LiveNews.co.nz for March 24, 2026 – Full Text

Source: Radio New Zealand

The Citizens Advice Bureau says people are going to need significant support as fuel prices continue to rise, and is hopeful whatever relief the government is set to offer will include support for those not in paid work.

Cabinet has signed off on what support the government will offer, with details to be released later on Tuesday.

The Finance Minister has hinted it would be targeted towards low and middle income families.

“It must be targeted, it must be timely, and it must be temporary and not drive inflation or debt higher, because as we steer New Zealand through this immediate challenge, we must also continue to look to the future and bend the debt curve down,” Nicola Willis said on Monday.

The fact the Inland Revenue Department and Treasury had been tasked with going over the options, and a previous admission from the government it would use existing mechanisms, indicated it could be looking at changes to Working for Families.

The In-Work Tax Credit (IWTC) was paid out depending on someone’s income, the weeks they worked, and how many children they had.

In April, the government would raise the abatement threshold (the income level at which the credit would reduce) from $42,700 to $44,900.

There was also the Independent Earner Tax Credit (IETC) for people earning between $24,000 and $70,000.

The IETC was designed to help people on lower to middle incomes that were not eligible for Working for Families.

People earning between $24,000 and $66,000 received a tax credit of $10 per week. It decreased by 13 cents for every dollar someone earned over $66,000.

Asked on Monday whether the abatement thresholds would be temporarily changed, Willis said she would wait to comment until the details of the package were announced.

The Citizens Advice Bureau’s national policy advisor Louise May said there were already “high levels of stress” amongst the client base, and the latest hike in the cost of living could plunge people further into hardship.

“We’ve got a lot of clients coming in for help who are just unable to make ends meet. That includes clients with work and those without, and we are really concerned that those clients are going to be in even more dire financial and material hardship situations,” she said.

May hoped both people in work and people receiving income support who did not have paid work were offered relief, and also called for relief for support services such as food banks and emergency accommodation.

“Any measure to increase money coming into the pockets of people who are struggling should definitely be looked at. One thing we’re really concerned about is the fact that there hasn’t been mention of families who don’t have paid work,” she said.

“We think it’s really important that any relief package that’s introduced as a result of this latest crisis also includes families and people who don’t currently have paid employment. They are the ones who are going to be most affected.”

May said it was not just about what people were paying at the pump, but rent and food prices were also high, and people were struggling.

Infometrics chief executive and principal economist Brad Olsen said changes to the IWTC or IETC would be quick and effective.

He said the difficulty of using the tax system was it would not be as easy for households to see the money come into their back pockets compared to a helicopter payment such as the 2022 Cost of Living Payment, but it would mean the government could run it out quickly and then run it back quickly.

“It does seem like probably the best way to move things through is to use the tax system. Whether or not it’s enough, any little bit will help at the moment, given the sorts of pressures that some households are under. I guess the most workable thing using the tax system around the Independent Earner Tax Credit and the In Work Tax Credit is that they can be targeted to those on lower incomes already, and so you are getting the support there through to people who probably need it most.”

Olsen said the government would be trying to balance providing support and limiting the costs.

“There’s no extra money in the system, and to fund whatever package the government is coming out with either requires an increase in debt or something else in the government system to be cut back on,” he said.

“They want to provide as much support as possible, but keep the limitations tight so they’re not sort of spending a huge amount. And for some people, that does mean that they will feel that they’re not getting the support they might expect from government. But equally, the wider you go, the more money it costs, and therefore at some point, the more the country has to repay.”

Olsen said one of the risks of using tax system changes was they were sometimes “so fiendishly complex” that households may not know what they were entitled to, and sometimes neither did the government.

“They get too much or too little, and then you only find out after the fact that they actually either deserve more, or sometimes in the worst case, they have to start paying this money back, which would almost be the complete opposite of what the government wants to try and support at the moment.

“So you want to, from a government point of view, try and balance these changes, to make them as absolutely blunt and simple as possible, to get that money out the door, to support those who need it, but also have it go through enough of a workable system, which is a more complex tax system that we have to try and provide that sort of targeted focus.”

Labour leader Chris Hipkins was reserving judgement on what the government would offer until he had seen the details, but said the “principle” was that it should be offered to all people on low and fixed incomes.

“Anyone on a fixed income or a low income is going to be suffering at the moment because of the high price of fuel. That includes superannuitants, it includes people living on benefits, it includes people caring for others and not currently earning an income, not just those who are on low incomes in the workforce.”

Hipkins would not, however, offer up what Labour would do differently if it was in power, saying it was up to the government to present a plan.

“At the moment, the onus has to be on the current government to lead the country through that,” Hipkins said.

The Green Party has proposed an urgent support package including free public transport, relief payments for low income and rural people to help meet additional transport costs, temporarily expanding eligibility for school buses and reversing cuts to school bus routes, reversing planned cuts to the Total Mobility Scheme, increasing mileage rates to care and support workers who receive well below standard IRD mileage, and a windfall profits tax.

Asked why the Greens could propose policies but Labour could not, Hipkins said minor parties could “promise a lot of things” during election campaigns.

“They get a lot more luxury to promise whatever they want, compared to the bigger parties,” Hipkins said.

In a post on social media on Monday night, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said he had spoken with Singapore Prime Minister Lawrence Wong about what more they could do to deal with difficulties in fuel and other supply chains.

Luxon said about a third of New Zealand’s fuel was refined in Singapore and the two leaders agreed it was important to keep the trade of essential goods flowing between the two countries.

“We’re working hard to ensure New Zealand’s fuel needs are met amidst the conflict in the Middle East, which is causing disruption to supply and higher prices at the pump,” he said.

“When I visit Singapore in May, we will sign the Agreement on Trade in Essential Supplies, a deal that will help keep supply chains flowing for fuel, food and other products.

“Building on the great platform we’ve built with one another, we also talked about what further work our Governments can do together as we navigate through these supply chain challenges.”

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: Christopher Luxon’s personal performance and that of his party is worse, and more people think the country is headed in the wrong direction under his government.

Those are the bleak messages being sent by voters in the latest RNZ-Reid Research poll.

The poll has National on just 30.8 – only just scraping above the death knell threshold of anything with a 2 at the start of it.

For Luxon personally his preferred prime minister score is 17.3 – down from 19.4 in RNZ’s last poll in January.

While there’s been speculation in recent weeks off the back of another bad poll that Luxon’s time as leader could be running out, the RNZ-Reid Research poll doesn’t point to any obvious successors.

Housing Minister Chris Bishop only reached 0.6 percent – down from 1.3, while often tipped future leader and Education Minister Erica Stanford registered 1.4 percent, up slightly from 1.2 at the last poll. Not exactly threatening results.

For Luxon, however, it’s his net favourability – the difference between those who think he’s doing well and those who rate his performance badly – where things really take a dive.

The Prime Minister has a net favourability score of -20.6, even worse than the dismal result he got in the last poll of -14.

If it’s the economy that Luxon will turn to for a brighter outlook, it’s only bad news there too.

Half of respondents – 50 percent – now think the country is headed in the wrong direction under this coalition government, while just 32.3 think it’s headed the right way.

Compare that with January when 46.6 percent picked wrong direction versus 36.3 that picked right and it’s another public sentiment tracking the opposite way to what Luxon and his team would like.

It’s worth noting 72.6 percent of National voters felt the country was headed the right way but a much smaller number for Act – just 57.5 percent – and an even worse showing for New Zealand First – only 26.6 percent – paints a story of coalition supporters also feeling gloomy.

While the net figure for wrong and right direction has been dropping since the first RNZ-Reid Research poll in March 2025, it did lift slightly in the last poll in January, only to plunge to an even lower score this time round.

The grim warnings are hot on the back of another poll that had National on 28 percent.

The Taxpayers’ Union Curia poll that was published on March 6 was a catalyst for questions over Luxon’s leadership and speculation that grew so fevered he had to go on air at the last minute for an unscheduled interview to dampen it down.

On RNZ-Reid Research’s poll numbers Labour, New Zealand First and the Greens had a slight improvement on their party vote while everyone else suffered drops.

Labour has the biggest share with 35.6, while New Zealand First is on 10.6, the Greens 10.1, Act 7 and Te Pati Maori 3.2.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins was also down in his preferred prime minister rating, on 20.7, while his net favourability was comfortably ahead of Luxon’s on +0.3.

While this poll covers the period in which Hipkins was in the media denying a number of allegations made by his ex-wife, which she had posted to social media, at least half of those polled had already been counted before that story broke.

If this poll result played out on election night, both the centre-right and the centre-left blocs would get 60 seats – not enough to form a government, leaving a hung parliament.

It’s been a tough month for New Zealanders already suffering a years-long cost of living crisis, with spiking prices at the pump, at the supermarket, and on other services like flights.

The ongoing war in Iran and no end-date in sight has people feeling nervous about the months ahead.

Winter is also looming, when Kiwis inevitably feel the pressure of sky-rocketing power prices.

It’s a less than rosy outlook and what this poll suggests is that National is wearing a lot of the responsibility for that and people aren’t enamored with Luxon.

Unpopular prime ministers have won elections before and it’s still seven months out from polling day, but the runway for turning the economy around is growing shorter by the week.

The problem with campaigning on getting the country back on track, as National did in 2023, is that sometimes situations well outside of its control can have an overwhelming impact on whether that’s achieved or not.

Rather than quietly cursing the policy-light Opposition at home, it’s political friends (perhaps turned foes) abroad who are causing Luxon the most grief.

*The RNZ-Reid Research poll covered the period of the 12th to the 20th of March and interviewed 1000 respondents online. It has a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percent.

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

The finance minister will reveal “targeted and temporary” support for hard-hit families on Tuesday, as fuel costs continue to rise.

Nicola Willis gave notice of the announcement at Monday’s post-Cabinet media briefing, alongside Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Associate Energy Minister Shane Jones.

Jones also announced plans to align New Zealand’s fuel standards with that of Australia, allowing the import of fuel destined for Australia to New Zealand instead.

Willis said the decisions on support had been taken at Cabinet, and while some of the details were still being worked out, that would not affect how quickly families could get it.

“This conflict is impacting just about every New Zealander, it has pushed up the price of petrol, diesel and jet fuel and those increases are already hurting our people and our businesses. Unfortunately the government is not in a position to mitigate that impact on everyone,” she said.

“The approach we are taking is consistent with the findings of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the response to the Covid pandemic, which highlighted the damage that can be done by untimely, untemporary and untargeted spending.”

It was unclear when the support would be rolled out, with Willis saying that would be made clear when it was announced.

Motorists should fuel up as and when they needed to, she said, with the government’s solution set to target income rather than fuel prices.

‘No concerns’ about fuel supply

For now, there were no concerns about fuel supplies in New Zealand, she said.

“To date, all shipments have arrived as scheduled and fuel importers have not raised any concerns about shipments that are due here in future.

“It remains the case that we have to be prepared for the possibility of disruptions in the medium to longer term, particularly because the refineries in Southeast Asia from which we import more than 90 percent of our fuel may have challenges getting the feedstock crude oil that they need.”

Luxon said the country had at least enough fuel for the next seven weeks, although the government was preparing in case of long-term further disruption.

“If you are someone who has just faced a 30 percent increase in your fuel bill or a 60 percent increase in your diesel bill since the actual crisis, since this conflict has commenced, it’s real.

“We cannot do the Covid learnings and mistakes, which was just spray a heap of money around that has short term gain but long term pain – massive long-term pain – and equally we’ve got to find a way to get people support in a temporary, targeted kind of way.

“The reality is that we are not going to be able to alleviate the pressure of rising prices for everyone, but what we’ve been clear about are the parameters for any support that we provide, which is that it must be targeted, it must be timely, and it must be temporary and not drive inflation or debt higher.”

The latest data from Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment showed stocks for about 47 days of fuel, including about 50 days worth of petrol, 46 days of diesel, and 45 of jet fuel.

The data, accurate to last Wednesday, marks about two days fewer than was reported last week.

One new fuel shipment arrived on Sunday, and two more – carrying between them another 20 days of each kind of fuel – are expected to arrive in the next fortnight.

The next update is due on Wednesday, but the ministry says New Zealand is not yet experiencing the kind of sustained disruption that would justify emergency measures under the national fuel plan.

Luxon said nothing had changed about New Zealand’s position on the Iran conflict, but that Iranians “holding hostage a whole bunch of ships to bring fuel and critical supplies … that’s not acceptable”.

“What we want to see is a quick resolution to this conflict and that means that actually respecting civilians and civilian infrastructure is really important … we think the best thing is de-escalation.”

Willis confirmed some consideration had been given to which industries could be prioritised if fuel rationing was needed, but this would not be revealed until a later date.

“We will not be having to hit the button tomorrow, but we will outline what our proposed phasing of response is … we recognise that it’s useful for people to understand what could be coming under a range of scenarios,” she said.

She noted the high prices would also naturally limit fuel use.

“It is pinching people’s pockets already and that is changing people’s choices. So Auckland transport have reported they had their biggest day of public transport use in seven years, I think that’s people deciding to use their cars a little bit less because it’s pretty expensive right now.”

‘Anzac pact’ in fuel and other standards

Jones outlined the government’s plan to temporarily allow fuel that meets Australian specifications to be supplied to the New Zealand market for up to a year.

Fuel companies had said this could allow them to secure shipments more quickly, and from a wider pool of suppliers.

Jones said long-range vessels typically carried about 120 million litres, and New Zealand consumed about 24 million litres of fuel a day – with about 47 percent of that being diesel, about 35 percent being petrol, and the remainder being aviation fuel.

“Should such a vessel be on its way to Australia then we would have the ability to also benefit from such a vessel.”

He said fuel refined to Australian standards was compatible with New Zealand vehicles, and met safety and quality expectations, pushing back on the suggestion it would allow dirtier fuels than under current standards.

“It’s unkind of us to refer to our Aussie compatriots as dirty,” he said. “There’s two things – whether or not fuel used in a high-temperature northern Australian environment, we are advised that a lot of that fuel is suitable for the North Island … with the South Island the fuel importers assure us that they will have the optionality to service both of those markets.”

He said officials had spoken to Australian counterparts.

“We pushed the idea that at some point in time we should explore and ANZAC pact and I would say to you this is the first step that we’re taking to join forces.

“It’d be fair to say that I’ve got a fair degree of support in our Cabinet to actually move towards permanent harmonisation of not only these standards but a variety of other standards in the economy.”

Willis and the associate ministers of finance would make further improvements, he said.

The government would not follow Australia’s lead in relaxing standards to allow higher-sulphur fuel, he said, at least not yet.

“At this stage it’s not our intention to do so, however, we will take advice should the situation change – and that could be an option that expands our supply.

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

Tuvalu Prime Minister Feleti Teo will visit New Zealand this week, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has announced. 

“We share a warm and close partnership with Tuvalu, underpinned by strong development, cultural, economic, and people to people links,” Mr Luxon says.

“I look forward to discussing how we can deliver on our shared ambitions and regional priorities, and hearing about the Pre-COP31 Leaders’ Event Tuvalu is hosting in October.”

New Zealand has a long-standing development partnership with Tuvalu, including support for education, health, economic development and coastal resilience. 

While in New Zealand, Prime Minister Teo will meet Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters, Pacific Peoples Minister Dr Shane Reti and Climate Change Minister Simon Watts. He will also attend community events and engage with the Tuvaluan diaspora.

Prime Minister Teo’s visit to New Zealand will be his first official visit since he was elected Prime Minister in 2024. He will be accompanied by Tuvalu Foreign Minister Paulson Panapa and Tuvalu Minister for Transport, Energy, Communication and Innovation Simon Kofe.

MIL OSI

Source: Radio New Zealand

Both the previous government and the current one kicked the can down the road on making ‘sensible’ changes to road rules, but now the changes are back on the agenda

Every day, across the country, kids break the law by riding their bikes on the footpath.

Every now and again they might get a growling from a grumpy passerby, but for the most part, Kiwis recognise that it’s a safer alternative to a child riding where they’re technically supposed to – in a cycle path, or on the road.

“I think most parents who have got kids riding their bikes will probably be doing it on the footpath,” director of greater Auckland Matt Lowrie said.

But now, the government has proposed changes to road rules that would mean children 12 and under are free to ride where it’s safest – on the footpath.

In a press release, Transport Minister Chris Bishop said the changes were aimed at “fixing the basics” for big and small forms of transport.

They come in two packages with the first including:

• Allowing e-scooters in cycle lanes
• Kids 12 and under being allowed to bike on the footpaths
• Mandatory passing gaps around cyclists and horses
• Drivers in 60 kilometres or under speed zones to allow buses to merge into traffic
• Better signage for berm parking

The second package relates to heavy vehicles.

This article is focused on the first package and what it means for drivers, riders and pedestrians.

These changes aren’t a new concept.

National announced similar rules in 2025 and the previous Labour government proposed changes to footpath rules in 2020.

Matt Lowrie, who is an avid cyclist, said these changes had been a long time coming.

“A lot of these are quite common sense changes and so the government are now getting back to it again and looking to get them approved.”

New Zealand director of road safety charity BRAKE, Caroline Perry, said the organisation welcomed the changes, but would like clearer guidance on some aspects.

“There are some small parts to it that we would like some clarification on in terms of things like children up to the age of 12 being able to cycle on footpaths. What about their parents or guardians?”

Currently e-scooters are allowed to ride on the footpath and the road, but it’s illegal to ride in the cycle lanes, but this would change under new rules.

“In legislation, only bikes can be on cycle lanes, whereas actually in terms of the speed that e-scooters are generally going, they actually match more appropriately the speeds that are on the cycle lanes, so that makes sense that e-scooters could use those lanes rather than footpaths,” Perry said.

The proposed change to this rule could help improve safety for e-scooter riders – especially important with e-scooter-related ACC claims on the rise.

Between 2022 and 2025, new ACC claims involving e-scooters increased by 55 percent across all age groups.

Young people under the age 25 made up close to half of ACC claims between the beginning of 2026 and early February.

Perry said more could be done to minimise riding risks.

“We need more investment in infrastructure, particularly for active modes.

“Part of making it safer to walk and cycle is to have more of those dedicated facilities for them such as bike lanes.”

Despite all the negative commentary that can come with e-scooters, Lowrie says the positives do outweigh the negatives.

“What e-scooters do is open up the first mile, last mile connection.

“E-scooters can really help with addressing those issues and making public transport – walking, cycling – more attractive and [allowing people to] get around our city easier, and often faster.”

These proposed road rules are currently open for consultation and close on the 25th of March.

Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here.

You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter.

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

Source: New Zealand Government

The number of electric vehicle (EV) public chargers around New Zealand will more than double thanks to $52.7 million in zero-interest loans from the Government and co-investment from ChargeNet and Meridian, Transport Minister Chris Bishop and Energy & Climate Change Minister Simon Watts say.

“Many New Zealanders have thought about getting an EV, even before the fuel challenges we’re currently facing. But research shows that the lack of public chargers is holding many back from making the switch to an EV,” Mr Bishop says.

“The private sector is reluctant to invest in charging infrastructure until there’s sufficient demand, but demand won’t grow until the lack of public chargers stops putting buyers off. Just as the previous National-led Government did with the ultrafast broadband network rollout, we’re taking action to break that deadlock.”

ChargeNet and Meridian Energy were selected through a contestable, value-for-money bid process. Both companies are co-investing a combined $60 million of their own capital alongside the Government loans, taking the total investment to over $110 million.

“Concessionary loans bring forward private investment in public EV charging infrastructure by lowering the cost of capital, while keeping the taxpayer’s contribution to a minimum,” Mr Bishop says.

“In this case, the average loan per charge point is $20,000, but once repayments are factored in, the net cost to the Crown is around $10,000 per charger, roughly a quarter of what a direct grant would cost.

“We’re also changing our planning rules to make the installation of public EV chargers a permitted activity under the RMA, meaning in most cases no consent is required – another factor that will help to speed up delivery.”

The 2,574 new charge points include 1,374 DC fast chargers and 1,200 AC chargers. DC fast chargers deliver power directly to the battery and can charge a car in 20 to 60 minutes, making them suited to highways and destinations where people stop briefly. AC chargers are slower and better suited to places where cars are parked for longer periods, like shopping centres, workplaces, and residential areas.

“About half the new chargers will be spread across Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga, the Wellington region, Christchurch, and Dunedin, with the other half throughout the regions, so drivers outside the main centres will benefit too,” Mr Bishop says.

“New Zealand currently has a bit over 1,800 public charge points, which is among the lowest charger-to-EV ratios in the OECD. Another 161 charge points are also in progress. Combined with the investment being announced today, the national total will be around 4,550. The Government is working towards 10,000 charge points by 2030, roughly one for every 40 EVs.”

“Owning an EV in New Zealand already makes strong financial sense. Electricity is cheaper than petrol and almost entirely generated from renewable sources like wind, geothermal, solar, and hydro,” Mr Watts says. 

“Kiwis are already making the shift to electric vehicles as a cost-of-living choice, and we have seen uptake grow. In February 2026, EV sales were up 10.5 per cent on the same month last year – and anecdotal evidence suggests even greater interest over the past couple of weeks as conflict in the Middle East has seen fuel prices increase.

“At a time when global fuel markets are volatile, that matters. 

“A better charging network means more New Zealanders can take advantage of it, and that’s good for household budgets and our emissions profile alike. EVs produce at least 60 percent fewer lifecycle emissions than petrol vehicles.”

Notes to editor: 

• Concessionary loans are loans at below-market interest rates (in this case, zero-interest) which incentivise charge point operators to invest in charging infrastructure ahead of demand. The repaid capital can be used for new loans if co-investment is still required or allocated to other initiatives.
• The loans are administered by National Infrastructure Funding and Financing (NIFFCo), the successor organisation to Crown Infrastructure Partners (which delivered Ultra-Fast Broadband). EECA will provide assistance as required.
• The Government has allocated $66.145m of capital funding for concessionary loans.
• The concessionary loans will fund up to 50 percent of project capital costs, have a zero percent interest rate, and a maximum tenure of 13 years. The loans have been awarded through a contestable co-investment bid process.
• Applications were assessed against value-for-money criteria to ensure loans are awarded to projects of greatest benefit and that New Zealand’s EV charging network grows at pace.
• Consumer monitoring by EECA consistently shows that some of the main perceived disadvantages of EVs include that the driving range is not suitable for long distance travel, and that there are not enough public chargers available. Increasing the availability of public charging infrastructure gives drivers the confidence to switch to an electric vehicle. See EECA’s EV Charging research October 2025 update – EV Charging Research 

MIL OSI

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

A cheaper bus or train fare would be far better than working from home to avoid rising fuel prices, say commuters, despite the local government minister ruling it out.

Simon Watts says the government is not looking at any change or incentive model in regards to public transport.

“Public transport usage by New Zealanders has already increased, we’ve seen that flow through in our major urban cities,” he said.

“That’s obviously a result of Kiwis making the conscious decision to take public transport versus driving their vehicle and that’s what you’d expect with prices at the pump being higher.”

He said it should be up to New Zealanders to make their own decisions, based on their own circumstances.

But petrol has sky-rocketed by more than 83 cents a litre and diesel has shot up $1.33 since the US and Israel began attacking Iran.

Auckland Transport, Greater Wellington, and Canterbury Regional Councils are asking the government to encourage people to use more buses, trains, and ferries – rather than work from home.

People RNZ spoke to in central Auckland on Monday said they would prefer that.

“I do like working from home but working in the office is also really nice, it’s more collaborative,” said one commuter.

“I would prefer to have cheaper public transport,” said another.

Shay Peters from Robert Walters Recruitment Agency said a lot of jobseekers preferred to work from home.

“As we’re in tougher economic times, people are probably erring on the side of caution and will like to be in the office but I know a number would also like the opportunity on balance to be able to just save cash and be working from home at the moment.”

Last Tuesday was Auckland’s busiest day on public transport since 2019, and the capital has seen 10 percent more passengers on the train – and six percent on the bus – within the past month.

Greater Wellington Regional Council Public Transport Committee chair Ros Connelly would also like to see subsidised fares.

“There’s no doubt in my mind and from the surveys and customer feedback that we receive that the cost of public transport still is a significant barrier to people. Obviously since we’ve seen the fuel crisis, comparatively the cost of public transport has decreased but still it is extremely expensive.”

She said the train from Masterton to Wellington can cost up to $22.50 each way, per day.

“That is a barrier for many people and so they will look at other options. Working from home is definitely popular but if there was an increased subsidy we’re really confident that we would see more people on public transport and as fuel prices increase this is one way that the government can ensure that people get to work.”

Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said it was a no-brainer to make public transport free.

“Fares have gone up by as much as a third in Canterbury, by a quarter in the Manawatū-Whanganui region and Auckland also has seen fare increases in the realm of 15 to 20 percent over the last three years. We need to remove those barriers to access and also be reserving fuel supply for those who actually need it and don’t currently have the option.”

Stacey van der Putten from Auckland Transport would welcome that.

“We’re monitoring it daily so there will be adjustments that are needed but the system does have flex to be able to support it.”

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 is taking practical steps to strengthen New Zealand’s fuel resilience by temporarily allowing fuel that meets Australian specifications to be supplied to the New Zealand market, Associate Energy Minister Shane Jones says.

“In a tight global fuel market, flexibility matters. Countries that can access a wider range of shipments are better placed to keep fuel flowing. This decision removes unnecessary technical barriers and helps ensure New Zealand isn’t excluded from available supply our neighbours across the Tasman are accessing,” Mr Jones says.

The temporary alignment will open up more options for fuel importers by allowing fuel refined to Australian specifications to be supplied domestically.

“The change reduces the risk of supply disruptions driven purely by technical specification differences. Fuel companies have told us this could allow them to secure shipments more quickly and from a wider pool of suppliers.

“Our fuel specifications are already very similar to Australia’s. Fuel refined to Australian standards is compatible with New Zealand vehicles and meets safety and quality expectations.”

New Zealand will not, at this stage, be following Australia’s lead and relaxing standards to allow higher sulphur fuel. Australia has made the decision so it can access high-sulphur fuel from its Brisbane refinery.

“However, we will keep an eye on whether further changes to fuel specifications could open up further supply channels if necessary,” Mr Jones says.

“This is a sensible, time‑limited step that gives importers access to a broader range of fuel shipments, including those already in our region.

“We are closely monitoring market conditions and will keep under review any further practical measures that could strengthen New Zealand’s fuel supply resilience while global conditions remain uncertain.”

The temporary alignment with Australian specifications could remain in place for up to 12 months if needed.

Editors’ note:

Fuel specifications set the minimum technical and environmental requirements that petrol, diesel and other transport fuels must meet before they can be supplied in New Zealand. Each country has its own fuel specifications.
Where there are differences in fuel specifications for the purpose of catering to different climatic conditions, this is dealt with by the requirement that fuel sold in New Zealand must still be ‘fit for common purpose’. For example, this means diesel for hot climates cannot be sold in very cold ones. 

MIL OSI