AM Edition: Top 10 Politics Articles on LiveNews.co.nz for March 26, 2026 – Full Text

Source: New Zealand Government

Good morning, everyone. 

It’s great to be here today. 

I’d like to thank Katie Bradford for the warm welcome and Nick Leggett and his team at Infrastructure New Zealand for hosting today’s event. 

Katie – congratulations on your new role, I look forward to seeing you continue to cover infrastructure at the NZ Herald. 

I’d also like to acknowledge Labour Infrastructure spokesperson, Kieran McAnulty.

Last time we were are at an Infrastructure NZ event together we were wearing the same shoes – I hope that passes as bipartisanship.

In all seriousness, I do think we agree on the fundamentals – which is building consensus on the idea that governments of all stripes should use best practice to plan, select, fund and finance, deliver, and look after infrastructure.

I said it last year, Kieran said it in Parliament the other week, and I’m glad we are getting to this place. 

Today, I’ll run through the how the Government intends to respond to the National Infrastructure Plan, then I’m happy to answer your questions. 

But before I get into it, I want to briefly touch on the context we are operating in. 

Context

Over the last month, global events and uncertainty have impacted New Zealand’s economic recovery. 

The conflict in the Middle East, and its resulting fallout is hurting all kiwis, particularly with higher fuel prices at the pump.

This has exposed an uncomfortable reality for kiwis – 

Not only do we face systemic, decades-in-the-making challenges like low productivity and an infrastructure deficit – we also face significant and more frequent shocks such as extreme weather events and offshore conflicts.

At the same time, Fitch recently put our AA+ credit rating on a negative outlook. 

Currently, the interest bill on Government debt is $8.9 billion per annum and rising. In Wellington I’d say that’s six Transmission Gullys a year on interest payments alone, but here in Auckland maybe a better point of comparison is the City Rail Link project – we could get another 1.5 CRLs per year for that kind of money.

If New Zealand’s credit rating was downgraded and that led to higher bond yields, then our interest payments would go up even more.

Taken together, we effectively have triplet headwinds (1) long-standing systemic economic issues, (2) exposure to shocks, and (3) high debt.

While we don’t have the power to declare peace in the Middle East, we can and must control how we respond.

Support for hardworking families 

To start, we have moved quickly to provide extra support for low-to-middle-income working families. 

From 7 April, about 143,000 working families with children will get an extra $50 a week through a boost to the in-work tax credit. The boost will also expand eligibility to around 14,000 additional working families. 

The increase will be temporary, lasting for one year or until the price of 91 octane petrol drops below $3 a litre for four consecutive weeks. 

This boost will deliver support to working families who are under significant cost-of-living pressure, without making inflation worse or further driving up Government debt as this $373m initiative is being paid for out of Budget 2026 operating allowances. 

The COVID-19 Inquiry stressed that spending in response to crises should be timely, targeted, and temporary. 

That’s what we’re doing. 

The previous Government responded to COVID-19 through profligate, irresponsible spending – racking up debt. It’s clear some people have not learned from this and have called for this Government to make the same mistakes. But we won’t. 

Throwing the kitchen sink at every event that happens is a recipe for fiscal disaster. 

While it may sound simple and appealing, simply borrowing more could lead to a self-reinforcing “vicious cycle” where debt servicing takes up a large (and growing) share of government revenue. 

That forces increased taxes and/or cuts to public services and infrastructure to pay for that debt, which in turn reduces long-term economic growth, which then puts downward pressure on Government revenue, making the debt even less manageable. 

It is naive at best and economically-illiterate at worst to pretend that New Zealand can afford to run structural deficits. 

The Coalition Government understands New Zealand’s fiscal reality, and we know we cannot live beyond our means in the long run.

We are committed to protecting people’s living standards, which depends on strong fiscal discipline. We also know that sometimes extra, targeted support is needed.

We can do both. 

Fuel plan

Right now, we know the conflict in the middle east is causing concerns across the country and across the world about supply of fuel. 

As you know, Government has been keeping New Zealanders informed about our fuel supply situation. 

We have sufficient stocks for now, and we are working hard across diplomatic, commercial, and industry channels to ensure that remains the case.

But this situation is also a reminder of something we already knew – New Zealand is exposed to international fuel markets in ways that carry real risk.

Around half our fuel comes from South Korea and nearly a third from Singapore. 

When global supply chains are disrupted, as they are now, that exposure becomes very tangible for families and businesses who feel the pain at the pump.

We know higher fuel prices are hitting families and businesses hard. That’s why we put in place the targeted cost-of-living relief for low- and middle-income families earlier this week.

But maintaining fuel supply is the most important thing we can do to protect Kiwis from the worst-case scenarios.

Later this week Nicola Willis – who is in charge of our response as a Government – will provide an update on the National Fuel Plan along with further detail around how we see some of the levels playing out in practice. 

We all hope things improve quickly, but as the Prime Minister has said, hope is not a plan.

So, we’re doing the hard yards now to ensure New Zealand has a really solid fuel plan that gets us through whatever the international situation throws at us in the coming months.

Fixing the basics and building the future 

A key part of becoming more resilient to shocks is having strong institutions, functional regulation, and a high-performing economy.

As Paul Krugman observed – “Productivity isn’t everything, but in the long run it is almost everything.”

This Government is supporting growth through policies like Investment Boost and Fast-Track, getting on with building billions in infrastructure, and signing up to more free trade agreements. 

We are also tackling long-standing systemic issues that have accumulated and festered for 20 to 30 years. 

I’m thinking of things like RMA reform, infrastructure funding and financing reform, sorting the Holidays Act, reversing wealth destructive earthquake prone building legislation, opening up competition in building materials, and more. 

I strongly believe that if we get these things right, maintain fiscal discipline, and keep momentum going, the 2030s will be New Zealand’s decade.

National Infrastructure Plan 

Now, I want to touch on how the Government intends to respond to the National Infrastructure Plan.

The Infrastructure Commission released the final Plan on 17 February. 

I’d like to acknowledge Raveen, Geoff, and the team at the Commission for their hard work on this. 

The Plan does not sugar coat things: New Zealand has real challenges ahead.

We spend a lot on infrastructure – around 5.8% of GDP annually, one of the highest in the OECD – yet we rank towards the bottom for efficiency, and we are fourth to last in for asset management. 

Many government agencies do not properly understand what they own nor have long-term investment plans. The assurance system for new projects is also weak and not focused on giving Ministers confidence that we are getting good value for money.

New Zealand’s future prosperity depends on high quality infrastructure. It is central to our quality of life. 

It’s been clear to me since I became Minister that change is needed, and this is what the Plan will help us do.

The Plan puts forward 16 recommendations that sit under four key themes. 

Those four themes are:

1. Planning what we can afford
2. Looking after what we’ve got
3. Prioritising the right projects
4. Making it easier to build better

Many of the recommendations the Commission suggests are long-term system shifts including legislating requirements for long-term investment and asset management plans. 

Now, it’s worth noting that this isn’t the first time we’ve seen some of these recommendations. 

This isn’t even the country’s first infrastructure plan. 

New Zealand actually had plans in 2010, 2011, and 2015. 

Some recommendations in these older plans are identical to the ones in this Plan!

My theory of the case is: 

Previous Governments completed these reports, looked at the recommendations, and said “oh that’s nice”, “that could be ok”, “let’s look into that a bit more” – then, ultimately, pushed the boat out on hard changes. 

I am not going to do that.  

This Government is up for big changes, and we thank the Commission for their challenges and for their recommendations. 

We will be studying these recommendations thoughtfully and carefully. 

Then, we are statutorily required to respond to the Plan in mid-June this year.

I know many people in this room are keen to see more bipartisanship in the infrastructure sector. To the extent that that’s possible, I’m up for it. 

That’s why all parties in Parliament were offered briefings from the Commission on the Plan. 

We also held a Special Debate on the Plan once it was finalised. 

I can’t claim to speak for all parties, but I suspect that almost all of the projects underway right now are supported by everyone.

It’s the high profile and high-cost disagreements that make the headlines. But it’s the low profile and often low-cost projects that actually make New Zealand.

I’ve long held the view that we should move away from the rhetoric of needing a bipartisan pipeline and instead build bipartisan consensus on the idea that governments of all stripes should use best practice to plan, select, fund and finance, deliver, and look after infrastructure.

It was really nice to hear Kieran McAnulty, who is here today say something similar in Parliament the other day. 

He said: 

• “Surely we can make genuine efforts to agree on the settings by which infrastructure is assessed and funded and delivered in this country”. I agree, I think we can do that. 

He also said: 

• If all Crown infrastructure went through the independent assurance process that the Infrastructure Commission has set up, then we will go a long way to avoiding the cancellation of projects that we have seen in the past.

On this, I also largely agree with Mr McAnulty, and I will have more to say on that soon.  

I intend to engage with other political parties in Parliament before finalising the Government’s response in June.

Other improvements to Investment Management System 

Before I finish, I just want to quickly go over initial work we have done to improve data and transparency as it relates to Crown infrastructure. 

Last year’s announcement of ‘$7 billion of Government-funded infrastructure projects entering construction’ actually came about because one day I noticed there were quite a few projects starting in the couple of months. 

So, I asked for a list of projects starting construction in the next six months. 

It took about a month to collect this information centrally, which is emblematic of the system not providing Ministers the information we need in the form we need it.

If I’m honest, Ministers also didn’t have good visibility of agencies’ investment activity and performance. 

This made it difficult to signal to the sector when projects were coming to market, and to intervene when agencies are off-track with a project, aren’t meeting their requirements, have significant lag times between being funded and signing contracts, or – worse – are systemically underperforming across multiple metrics.

This was not acceptable. 

The public deserve to know that their tax dollars are being spent responsibly and effectively. 

To better hold agencies to account and to make sure Ministers can act on issues earlier, we have strengthened Quarterly Investment Reporting. 

Now, each quarter we know key metrics, like how much spend is going out the door and the ratio of agencies’ actual versus planned expenditure. 

New Zealand has long struggled to turn funding into construction quickly, and the market has made it clear that they want higher quality information on upcoming construction activity. The improved QIR now makes it clear which agencies are behind.

The Minister of Finance and I have stressed to Portfolio Ministers the need for accurate reporting and forecasting. It’s early days, but we’re closely monitoring whether underspend improves in 2026.

Conclusion

Thanks again to Nick and the team at Infrastructure New Zealand for inviting me to speak.

It’s great to see so many people here passionate about getting infrastructure right in New Zealand – like Kieran, who I will be talking to shortly about the Government’s response to the National Infrastructure Plan. 

I welcome everyone’s feedback on what else the Government should do to improve the system. 

Because ultimately, I think we’re all in this room because we believe in a better New Zealand with higher living standards for all kiwis – backed by high-quality public services and well-maintained infrastructure.

Thank you. 

MIL OSI

Source: Radio New Zealand

The ACT Party is claiming the government’s proposed ban on surcharges for contactless and credit card payments is dead, but the minister responsible insists it is still being worked on.

The Commerce and Consumer Affairs minister, National’s Scott Simpson, introduced legislation last year to ban in-store card surcharges, so shoppers would not be penalised for their choice of payment.

The ban was expected to be in place by May.

Now, ACT is essentially pulling the pin on the legislation, with leader David Seymour calling it “bad economics,” and ACT did not support it.

“It’s dead. It was always bad economics. It was obviously appealing to take away a fee that a lot of customers hate, but if it only puts that fee on to the small business, it’s not actually a win. It’s just a shift, and often carried by people that can’t afford it at all,” he said.

Seymour said the problem with the ban was if the retailer had to absorb the charge, then they would have to raise prices, and people who paid by cash or eftpos would not be able to avoid that extra cost.

“All policies should be judged by outcomes rather than intentions. It was a good intention to give customers a break from an annoying fee, but if the outcome was putting it on to small businesses, then it was never going to be a good idea. And I would say, always judge policies by their outcomes.”

Retail NZ ‘delighted’

Retail NZ opposed a ban, warning businesses would likely to have to increase their costs elsewhere to recover the payment costs.

Chief executive Carolyn Young said she was “delighted” the bill appeared not to be progressing.

“It’s really clear that it’s actually not going to proceed anywhere in this term. We’ve had confirmation of that from the ACT Party, and without the support across the coalition it won’t proceed, it won’t be able to get passed,” she said.

“I’m sure that the government in an election year, with all of these other pressures that are on the economy in the world right now, they won’t want to be presenting something to the House that’s not going to pass.”

Young said Retail NZ was pleased the government had listened to retailers in not progressing the bill.

But Simpson said Retail NZ was wrong.

“No further decisions have been made on the ban on surcharges,” he said.

“We know Kiwis are sick of facing excessive surcharges. We are working through aspects of the policy, including monitoring whether reduced interchange fees have been passed on to customers.”

Simpson said there would be more to say “in due course.”

Seymour maintained the bill “clearly doesn’t have support” from two of the three coalition parties, after New Zealand First leader Winston Peters said it was “going nowhere” in February.

“And so I think that’s the end of it,” Seymour said.

“I think it’s pretty clear that this is bad economics, bad for small business, and it doesn’t have support.”

Last month, RNZ reported that progress appeared to have stalled on the bill, although Simpson had said at the time he was “hopeful” the ban would be in place by May, as promised.

At the time, the Prime Minister said the government was taking “a breather” on the policy while it understood all of the implications.

Consumer NZ, which said businesses’ costs associated with accepting card payments had reduced since December, had urged the government to press ahead.

ACT had supported the bill through its first reading, but during the Select Committee stage its MP Parmjeet Parmar suggested that businesses could keep surcharges if they offered a free alternative like eftpos or cash.

Young said the ban was a “simplistic solution to a complex area,” and while consumers had a choice now to pay by a method that did not incur a cost, such as cash or EFTPOS, a ban would lead to prices going up and everybody paying more.

“A blanket surcharge ban was not a palatable solution for any retailer. Our members told us that they would increase prices because in this economic environment, they couldn’t continue to absorb any further prices.”

She said in the past ten years, contactless and credit payments had risen from around 40 percent of transactions to 71 percent, and they incurred higher costs than eftpos, which was free to consumers and merchants.

“You’ve got a big change in the way people are paying, and a big change in the cost it is to retailers. The Commerce Commission, ideally, would have an opportunity now to be able to go away and do a full consultation, understand the landscape, and work out what is the fairest solution for both retail and consumers. And that’s what we would support happening going forward.”

The bill currently awaits its second reading, four months after the Finance and Expenditure Committee presented its report.

It sat 19th on Wednesday’s Order Paper, the list of bills currently before the House.

Without ACT or New Zealand First, National would need support from the opposition to pass the legislation.

The Green Party opposed it at its first reading.

While Labour supported it through first reading, it submitted a differing view in the Select Committee report as it did not support “adding costs to small businesses,” and wanted to put forward some amendments in the Committee of the Whole House stage.

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

The country will not be moving up an alert level when ministers announce more details of the national fuel plan at Parliament on Friday.

Finance Minister Nicola Willis has assured New Zealanders in her answers to questions in the House on Thursday that “we will not be changing the fuel response overnight”.

“Tomorrow we will also provide more information about the criteria we will use to assess when a change in the response phase is required.

“This would include changes like the amount of fuel in the country,” she said.

Willis also told MPs in the House that the government’s goal was to “avoid ever getting to response phase three or four”.

“These are envisaged in the national fuel plan as the point at which prioritisation of fuel would be required.

“Our goal is to be doing enough to source the supply of fuel internationally that that does not become necessary, and by taking sufficient actions in response phases one and two, that we wouldn’t reach phase three and four,” she said.

Willis also doesn’t expect the government would need to be “skipping through the response phases” of the alert level framework.

Petrol, diesel, and jet fuel would be able to be treated at different alert levels under the framework.

On how much warning there would be for alert level changes, Willis said, “we are determined to ensure people aren’t in a situation where things change suddenly overnight in ways that aren’t expected”.

“Instead we are intending to have a framework in which we are transparent about the assessment criteria, where we are clear with New Zealanders when an assessment is taking place, and then we announce the decision of what that assessment is.”

Companies importing fuel into the country have legislated minimum stockholding obligations (MSOs) that require them to have at least 21-days worth of diesel at all times.

“What that means is they face fines of millions of dollars if they breach that requirement. That is intended to provide safety and a buffer and we would expect to be notified if there’s any risks of those MSOs being breached, and we haven’t had such notification,” Willis said.

Associate energy minister Shane Jones, who will front Friday’s announcement with Willis, says there’s been no cause for the government to think there isn’t enough fuel on the water headed to New Zealand shores.

He said it’s no great surprise that South Korea, where New Zealand gets 51 percent of its refined fuel from, is discussing whether to keep fuel in-country rather than export it.

“South Korea is a bastion of protectionism and I’m not surprised they’re looking after themselves,” Jones told media on Thursday.

He sought to ressure anyone who was feeling anxious about the current fuel crisis – “yes, people will be looking to moderate their useage, as is my own whānau, but I don’t want anyone taking from any discussion or announcement that it’s a time for alarmism, that’s not accurate”.

On South Korea, ACT leader David Seymour said the government was “very carefully” watching reports that it was considering redirecting export-bound jet fuel to its local market.

“South Korean refineries are important to New Zealand’s fuel supply,” he said. “We’re keeping that relationship very tight.”

Seymour pointed out that Prime Minister Christopher Luxon spoke with Korea’s president on Tuesday night.

In a post on X after that conversation, Luxon wrote that the discussion focused on “the urgent need for de-escalation and the importance of stability to keep our economies moving”.

Labour’s energy spokesperson Megan Woods said she was looking forward to finding out more about the governement’s action plan.

“At the moment, I think there’s a lot of fear, a lot of uncertainty and people not knowing what’s coming next.”

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: Green Party

The Green Party has serious concerns with the proposed changes to NCEA by Luxon’s Government, which will undo decades of progress towards a student-centred system. 

“Luxon’s Government is squeezing our young people back into one-size-fits-all model. Anyone who has met more than one child knows that they are all different,” says the Green Party’s education spokesperson, Lawrence Xu-Nan. 

“Education must be shaped by communities to meet everyone’s needs if we want our mokupuna to thrive.” 

“What the Minister announced today has confirmed what people have been concerned with all along. It is ill-conceived, haphazard, and nothing short of a vanity project. If this proceeds, we will see more students falling through the gaps and being left behind.” 

“Any country with a world class education system knows how important it is to work closely with the sector on any significant changes, but this Government is not interested in genuine engagement with our teachers and education experts.” 

“Education is about encouraging curiosity and nurturing our future generation’s love of learning. Yet this Government has treated education as a box-ticking exercise, exposing themselves as more interested in reporting than learning. It is outrageous that the Minister implied that she wants more students to fail than to pass.” 

“We have seen the harm of standardising assessment, where some students are left further behind—especially Māori, Pasifika, disabled and neurodivergent, and rural students.” 

“The Green Party is committed to working with education communities, including teachers and principals, parents, and students to ensure that any change is centred on the needs and aspiration of individual students, not simply whatever employers want out of them,” says Lawrence Xu-Nan.

MIL OSI

Source: Radio New Zealand

The Green Party is crying foul after the government admitted more than half of families in material hardship will not benefit from its fuel support package.

In question time on Wednesday, Social Development Minister Louise Upston confirmed only 48 percent of those families will get the $50 boost to in-work tax credits.

“According to the latest figures from Statistics New Zealand for 2024-25, 48 percent of children in material hardship are in working households. This support we are providing is intended to be timely, temporary, and targeted at those most in need,” she said.

Ministers – including the Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Finance Minister Nicola Willis – have repeated emphasised the need for relief to be “targeted and temporary” to avoid adding to debt.

Upston did the same.

“Our government is very clear about the fact that what is happening in the Middle East is having an impact on many New Zealanders, with the fuel-price pressure that they are facing,” she said.

“We are also very clear that any response needs to be targeted, timely, and temporary, otherwise every single person in New Zealand would be affected by inflation going up again.”

However, the Greens’ spokesperson Ricardo Menendez March said the figure undercut the government’s claim of focusing on those who most needed support.

“That is 52 percent of parents with children material hardship won’t be covered by the in-work, tax credit boost … this may be children of beneficiaries. That may include people who were recently made unemployed. It may include parents with lifelong health conditions. It may include people who have been struggling with homelessness.

“People on income support including disabled people, still need to access fuel to get to the doctor, to get to job appointments, to pick up their kids from school, and will be the most impacted by the fuel crisis.

“It’s inexcusable and callous for the government to completely exclude them from receiving support.”

Upston on Wednesday acknowledged to RNZ that support was available to beneficiaries and others who might need help – and requests for such help was likely to increase.

“There is already assistance available for costs for those on a benefit to get to an interview if they need it – but if you look at this fuel price pressure it will have an impact on a range of households, so yes, I expect that there will be more seeking assistance.”

Upston and Willis have also pointed to the planned increase to benefit rates coming on 1 April.

However, March said that was disingenous.

“Advances for fuel comes as debt, so she’s basically asking our poorest to enter into debt,” he said.

“The other assistance that exists in the form of the Transition to Work grant is quite limited, and most people don’t get to access it, and it only covers things like job appointments, not necessarily picking up kids from school or doctor’s appointments.

“The increase that people will see to their benefits on the 1 April is something that is legally required … the indexation has nothing to do with the fuel crisis and it’s disingenuous to pretend that this is actually meeting the scale of the challenge that people in poverty will face.”

Speaking to reporters before heading into Question Time on Thursday, Willis pointed to the increase to benefits coming on 1 April.

“Their families will already be receiving an increase in income. The in-work tax credit is different from many other benefits that are paid in that it’s not adjusted for inflation and these are working parents who also face a wider range of obligations.

“So we think it’s appropriate that those working parents are who we target with this relief.”

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 Electoral Commission says it is pushing hard to boost enrolment – particularly among young people – because of the government’s changes restricting voting.

Chief executive Karl le Quesne also says he is confident contingency planning will avoid any problems with getting new digital systems – to protect against the kind of errors seen at the last election – set up in time.

Māori roll campaign to launch next week

The Commission briefed media on Thursday morning ahead of a new campaign to inform Māori voters about new rules enabling them to switch between the Māori and general role before 6 August.

Until March 2023, Māori were only allowed to switch rolls within a four-month period, once every five or six years after the census.

Enrolment packs will be sent out from Monday to about 562,000 voters of Māori descent, informing them which roll they are on and how to change rolls.

“If you don’t receive a pack by 11 April, it means you’re not enrolled or we don’t have the correct address for you,” chief advisor Māori Hone Matthews said.

“You can enrol, check or update your details online at vote.nz/enrol or call 0800 367656 for free and ask for an enrolment form to be sent to you.”

‘Let’s take enrolment to the people’

Le Quesne said the Commission was expecting to have increased numbers of special votes this election, despite changes banning prisoner voting, same-day enrolment votes, or voting if not enrolled at least 13 days before the election.

“It’s really, really hard to say, but that’s why we’re putting so much effort into enrolment and getting people to get enrolled and update their details well ahead of time,” Le Quesne said.

“We’re planning for a similar turnout rate, if not slightly higher, than the ’23 election. We have to plan for any eventuality.”

Special votes take about 10 times longer to count than standard votes.

Le Quesne previously told a select committee the changes – passed in December – would not speed up the final election results, despite government claims that was the purpose of the legislation.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon then criticised the Commission as the “slowest folk on the planet”.

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith has maintained the changes will keep the counting period from extending further in future, but Le Quesne on Thursday said it was “too hard to say” whether the law changes made any impact on how fast the count would be.

“At this stage, we’re still planning for 20 days,” he said, the same as the 2023 election. “If we can do it earlier, we will.”

He indicated any faster count was more likely to be the result of additional resources.

“We’ve done a lot of work looking at how we can make things go more efficiently, and that’s going to help us stay within the 20 days … if the special votes did go up to around that 700,000 mark or higher, it could take longer.”

He said the Commission would be launching its enrolment campaign in August, sending out “a heck of a lot of advertising” and using new methods to push up enrolment rates.

That includes in September setting up 10 enrolment hubs in places with a lot of foot traffic in main centres around the country – like malls and supermarkets – offering to sign people up to vote even if they belong to a different electorate.

“In the Tāmaki Makaurau by-election last year, we had some voting places in malls and supermarkets, and we found we were doing a lot of enrolment activity for people who weren’t even in that electorate,” he said.

“So it occurred to us, let’s take enrolment to the people … we’ll take enrolments anywhere, anytime.”

They would particularly be targeting young people.

“Working with schools, tertiary institutions, other venues where we know these young people, try and get that enrolment rate for young people up, it’s going to be really, really important.”

Email and text reminders will also be sent out en masse, and EasyVote cards – as well as being sent via mail – will for the first time be emailed out.

Le Quesne said the digital cards could be used either printed out or on smartphones.

The commission will also launch a $690,000 community education fund to provide grants to community groups that come up with ideas to help.

Those new measures were being done “off our own bat” as part of the Commission’s statutory role to ensure people were enrolled, with additional funding provided for that purpose.

“We’re not concerned about the workload,” Le Quesne said.

“Get enrolled, update your details by fourth of October. That means it’ll go much quicker for you in the voting place, and there’ll be fewer special votes.”

Commission confident over systems time-crunch

Le Quesne pushed back on a report from The Post published Thursday morning based on Commission documents, showing major risks around security certification for core voting systems.

The $80m modernisation programme followed a report from the Auditor-General that found the final check of official results was done under extreme pressure in the hours before being announced. That check – which normally takes two days – failed to find multiple errors.

Le Quesne said the Commission had done a “huge amount of work” to improve those processes, but he was confident everything would be ready in time.

“I’m not concerned about our preparations. We do a thorough program of testing, simulation, dress rehearsals, we build in contingency time around all of those, and we’re really confident we’re on track to deliver this year’s election,” he said.

“We’re doing simulations through April, we know we’ve got more time if we need it to do some more testing. Generally because we’ve done testing before simulation, we know things are working pretty well spot on. This is just looking for any final things we might need to fine tune – and often it’s about the training as well.”

Chairperson Simon Moore had, however, laid out just how complex delivering an election in New Zealand would be.

“I think very few people have an idea about how many moving parts there are … we have to recruit something between 25,000 and 28,000 people. We need to recruit them. We need to identify them. We need to train them. We need to send them out,” he said.

“Something like 2500 voting places – 800 during the advance voting stage – every one of those places has to be identified, has to be found to be appropriate, needs to be a place where people feel comfortable … and we need to secure short term leases for every single one of them.

“We print something like 9 million voting documents, papers for a voting population of around about 4 million. And those 9 million can’t be printed until we receive the nominations [about one month before election day].”

Le Quesne said the recruiting for those 25,000 to 28,000 roles involved interviews, criminal background checks, and follow-up monitoring.

“We really want to check that people who are working for us can be politically neutral and impartial. That’s really, really important,” he said.

“We just ask them the questions and as we go through the training, we get a sense of how people are responding … there’s a level of supervision and monitoring so we can check how people are going, and we can kind of point them in the right direction if anything’s coming up that’s not as we need it.”

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

Explainer – It’s election year, and attacks are already starting to fly. What happens if comments about a politician cross the line?

While politicians – deservedly or not – come in for equal-opportunity bashing all over social media, their privacy and rights are just the same as anyone else’s, in theory.

The issue of privacy vs public office sparked up again in the recent storm over posts on social media by Labour leader Chris Hipkins’ ex-wife.

Last week, Jade Paul made a series of since-deleted posts on Facebook of claims about her relationship with Hipkins. The claims did not relate to any unlawful activity.

Hipkins told 1News he had sought legal advice over “the potential publication of things against me, allegations against me that are just untrue”.

“Everybody seems to be piling in on social media, in particular, and a lot of that is just absolute fabrication. It is just no basis in fact whatsoever.”

Can a politician sue for defamation?

Yes. But they may have a higher burden of proof than other defendants when it comes to proving their case.

“Politicians are defamed online a lot but there isn’t a constant stream of defamation proceedings,” said Nathan Tetzlaff, a senior associate at Auckland law firm Smith and Partners.

“The reality is that in all but the rarest and most serious cases, for a politician, making a defamation claim is less productive than the alternatives.”

Defamation law is complex, but it offers people a way to push back against false publicly published statements that they feel have harmed their reputation.

“The law of defamation does not distinguish between different plaintiffs,” Wellington media lawyer Steven Price said. “It applies equally to all.”

The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Defences against defamation can be that the statement was truth, honest opinion or given with the complainant’s permission.

“Even if a statement goes too far and can’t be proved true or an honest opinion, there may be another layer of protection,” Tetzlaff said. “The law recognises the defence of ‘qualified privilege’ in a political context.”

Statements made in Parliament also have a unique defence, called “absolute privilege”, meaning they are typically shielded from defamation actions.

There’s also now a defence that can be used against defamation claims called “responsible communication in the public interest.”

What does ‘responsible communication’ mean?

“It means that people – journalists as well as people on social media – can defend themselves even if they’ve published untrue and harmful statements about a politician (or others), if they can show that they were discussing something of public interest and they had behaved responsibly in preparing the publication,” Price said.

Of course, that benchmark can vary from case to case.

“A lot rides on what a court decides is responsible. It’s not entirely clear what it means. But it will usually involve taking reasonable steps to verify information before publishing it, and may involve putting that information to the person being criticised first.”

Judges typically have to walk the line between freedom of speech and protecting people.

“To avoid chilling public discussion of politics, judges will try to find a balance between protecting legitimate criticism of political figures or their policies, and allowing people to get away with making false and unsubstantiated personal attacks,” Tetzlaff said.

They’re public figures. Can’t you just post whatever you like about a politician?

Politicians are people too, and have the same protections against online (and offline) harassment or threats.

“Public figures do experience a higher level of scrutiny and criticism. However, that doesn’t mean anything goes,” said Netsafe CEO Brent Carey.

“Political speech isn’t exempt from harm. Content can cross the line where it involves harassment, threats, hate speech, or coordinated abuse.”

Of course, politicians learn to expect impassioned reactions from the public, Tetzlaff said.

“Politicians are expected to be thick-skinned so statements made in the ‘rough and tumble’ of political discourse may not be considered defamatory if they don’t allege dishonourable or dishonest motives.”

What’s the down side of suing for defamation?

For one, it may give more air to claims doing the rounds.

“It will usually draw more attention to the allegations,” Price said. “Some people will delight in spreading them, and social media makes that easy.”

If opponents spread falsehoods during an election campaign, it could be difficult to get any legal redress in time.

“In a practical sense, political life moves faster than the courts, so any judgment would arrive well after the damage is done,” Tetzlaff said.

“There are lots of other reasons politicians might decide not to sue,” Price said.

“They may have relationships with journalists that they need to preserve. They don’t want to be seen as thin-skinned or heavy-handed. There may be defences in play that make a lawsuit risky.

“Good PR advice might be to deal with it and move on.”

How often have suits happened?

There have been plenty of times New Zealand politicians have sued for defamation in the past – or been sued.

One particularly notable case was former Prime Minister David Lange, who sued for defamation after a 1995 article in North & South magazine that suggested he had been too lazy for parts of the job. After several years, the Court of Appeal ruled in the case of Lange v Atkinson that journalists had a defence of “qualified privilege,” and that they could criticise politicians on the basis of “honest belief”.

“Historical examples, including David Lange’s unsuccessful action against a journalist, illustrate that even serious-sounding claims can fail where the court considers the publication to be opinion, fair comment, or part of legitimate public debate,” Tetzlaff said.

“The Lange case went on for years and ended up with the courts creating a new defence that undermined his lawsuit,” Price said. “On the other hand, Robert Muldoon is said to have brought 18 defamation cases and won 15 of them.”

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters lodged defamation proceedings in 2017 against then-Mediaworks morning TV host Mark Richardson over comments Richardson made about him.

Former Conservative Party leader Colin Craig also took up numerous unsuccessful defamation claims over sexual harassment allegations.

It’s harder for politicians to sue these days, as it probably should be, Price said.

“Colin Craig probably does not look fondly on his experiences with defamation law, though he had some successes.”

“The main change is that the key question has moved from ‘is it true?’ to ‘was it responsibly published?’ which is a tougher and more uncertain standard for politicians mulling a defamation stoush.”

Politicians from all sides of Parliament have also faced comments that escalate into abuse and threats, such as former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. In 2018, Ardern’s partner Clarke Gayford engaged lawyers to deny rumours that were circulating about him being under police investigation, which police also denied.

Former Green MP Benjamin Doyle, New Zealand’s first non-binary MP, resigned from Parliament last September, calling it a “hostile and toxic place”.

They had resigned citing concerns for their well-being after death threats and abuse. New Zealand First leader Winston Peters and others had amplified social media posts about Doyle’s personal social media accounts.

“Social media is not held to a different standard so defamatory statements made on social media are actionable,” Tetzlaff said.

Could Doyle have sued for defamation over some of the comments made online?

“I can’t speak generally because it depends on the wording of the particular posts,” Price said.

“Some may be protected under a defence of honest opinion, for example. Some struck me as pretty extreme, and I think it would be hard to defend those with defences of truth, honest opinion, or responsible communication.”

Tetzlaff said many social media posts can fall in the grey areas of opinion, insult or hyperbole rather than actionable fact.

If you’re standing for office this year, what can you expect?

Candidates do have recourse over false information, Carey said.

“Candidates can report harmful content to platforms, and make a complaint to Netsafe under the Harmful Digital Communications Act.”

Under the Harmful Digital Communications Act, online content or messages that intentionally causes severe emotional distress can be illegal.

“Netsafe can assess the situation, work with platforms, and support resolution. If there are threats or safety concerns, it should also be reported to police.”

Netsafe has also worked with the Ministry of Women to produce a “Free to Lead” Toolkit aimed to support women in public profiles who typically face the highest rates of abuse.

Political passions are sure to boil over in the months before November’s election, but Carey cautioned that it’s still best to think before you post a particularly hot take that might cross the line.

“Sharing content that is abusive, misleading, or designed to cause harm can still breach platform rules or New Zealand law,” he said.

“A good rule of thumb: pause before sharing – if it targets a person in a way that could cause harm or spreads false information, think twice.”

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

A Stats NZ programme to move more business surveys online is helping reduce the burden on businesses, Statistics Minister Dr Shane Reti and Small Business and Manufacturing Minister Chris Penk say.

Stats NZ will begin moving more than 60 business survey forms to an online tool from August, following a successful shift of the Quarterly Building Activity Survey. 

“This is a milestone in improving and modernising the technology used to collect vital information from and about New Zealand businesses. Many of these surveys use older, less efficient digital tools or are paper-based,” Dr Reti says. 

“Businesses have asked the Government to reduce the burden on them and we’re delivering. They can expect a smoother, faster way to provide their data and a more standardised experience with the new tool. Other benefits include the ability to save progress and resume filling out survey forms later.

“In reducing the burden on businesses and making it easier for them to complete surveys, the Government is fixing the basics and building the future, allowing businesses to focus more on what matters most to them.”

Small Business and Manufacturing Minister Chris Penk says digitising government surveys is particularly beneficial for firms with fewer than 20 employees, which make up 97 percent of all New Zealand enterprises.

“Small businesses often have fewer dedicated admin staff, and sometimes none at all, so every hour spent on paperwork is an hour away from serving customers and focusing on the work needed to grow the business.

“Moving surveys online makes it faster and more straightforward to share their valuable experiences and perspectives quickly and conveniently, without adding to their workload or disrupting their day-to-day operations. 

“It’s a simple change that reduces friction, improves response rates, and ensures policy is shaped by timely, real-world insights from the small business community,” Mr Penk says.

The programme will begin with forms for priority economic surveys, including the Labour Cost Index and Business Price Index, which are scheduled to move online in August 2026. 

MIL OSI

Source: New Zealand Government

A bill providing additional temporary support for low-to-middle income working families amid rising fuel prices driven by the Middle East conflict has passed its final reading in Parliament today, Revenue Minister Simon Watts says.

“The conflict in the Middle East is directly resulting in higher prices at the pump, putting additional pressure on Kiwi households,” Mr Watts says.

“That’s why the Government added an amendment to the Taxation (Annual Rates 2025-26, Compliance Simplification, and Remedial Measures) Bill to provide timely, temporary, targeted support to working families most impacted by rising fuel prices.”

From 7 April, about 143,000 working families with children will get an extra $50 a week through a boost to the in-work tax credit. A further 14,000 working families will receive a smaller payment.

“This support is carefully targeted at families in the squeezed middle – parents who are working hard, not eligible for main benefits, and raising kids on modest household incomes,” Mr Watts says.

The Bill also includes measures to remove tax barriers so New Zealand businesses can attract more investment and talent.

“The Government wants to grow the economy, so households and businesses have better opportunities here at home,” Mr Watts says.

“We have revised the thin capitalisation rules to make New Zealand more attractive to overseas investors, especially for infrastructure projects.

“Thin capitalisation rules limit deductions for debt that foreign investors can claim on their New Zealand investments. These rules prevent income being shifted offshore and protects our tax base.

“But these rules can sometimes go too far and discourage investment, particularly for the capital-intensive infrastructure projects that are typically funded by large amounts of debt.

“The changes introduced by this Government makes sure our rules strike the right balance.”

The Bill also includes a range of other measures to help attract and retain capital and talent, such as:

• Allowing new migrants and returning Kiwis to be able to use a new taxation method that taxes realised returns rather than estimated gains.
• Helping startups and listed companies by improving the rules for employee share schemes to allow more flexibility on when tax must be paid.
• Allowing digital nomads to stay longer before being taxed, making New Zealand a more attractive place to visit and spend money.

“These changes ensure New Zealand remains an attractive place to work, invest, and raise a family,” Mr Watts says.

“By supporting working households and strengthening our tax settings, the Government is building a future where the economy is stronger, businesses can grow and Kiwis have more opportunities.”

MIL OSI

Source: Radio New Zealand

Consumer NZ says it is disappointed by news the government may not progress its plan to ban credit card surcharges.

The ACT Party and Retail NZ have both said the proposed ban on surcharges for contactless and credit card payments was dead, although the minister responsible told RNZ it was still being worked on.

Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Scott Simpson (National) introduced legislation last year to ban in-store card surcharges, so shoppers would not be penalised for their choice of payment. The ban was expected to be in place by May.

But ACT leader David Seymour said it would not happen.

“Nobody likes the fees, and like many costs everyone wishes they would just go away,” he posted on Facebook.

“When the payWave surcharge ban was announced, small businesses up and down the country pointed out they wouldn’t go away. Motels, cafes, retailers, they all pointed out they’d eat the fee.

“They might be able to reclaim some of it by putting up the price of what they sell. Sometimes businesses find they just can’t raise prices but, if they did, they would effectively be making customers who paid cash or eftpos fund the payWave costs of others.

“None of those solutions are fair, so ACT’s Dr Parmjeet Parmar put up a simple suggestion to improve the policy. Let businesses charge payWave fees if they offer a free alternative. That way people who want the convenience can pay for it, and those that don’t can avoid the fees.

“The proposal is now stopped, because we listened to the people affected. It could come back in the future, the way Parmjeet has suggested, but not in a way that puts costs on small businesses or other customers.”

Consumer NZ spokesperson Jessica Walker said the organisation was disappointed.

“Our research has found support for a ban is getting stronger – our nationally representative surveying in January found that almost three in five people supported a ban on card payment surcharges, with only 15 percent of people opposing a ban.

“While we understand concerns that some businesses will be forced to raise prices to make up for the cost of the ban, it’s important to remember that interchange fees were reduced late last year. It was estimated that businesses would save around $90 million a year – we remain concerned that those savings will not be passed on to consumers.”

Sign up for Money with Susan Edmunds, a weekly newsletter covering all the things that affect how we make, spend and invest money.

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