PM Edition: Top 10 Business Articles on LiveNews.co.nz for March 27, 2026 – Full Text

Source: Media Outreach

“Always with You, Always Ahead,” From banking services to life protection planning, professionally supports your journey with peace of mind

– Published and distributed with permission of Media-Outreach.com.

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

MIL OSI

Source: New Zealand Government

Competition drives economic growth, innovation, and productivity, but New Zealand’s competition laws have not always delivered the outcomes they should, Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Scott Simpson says.

The Commerce (Commerce Commission Reform) Amendment Bill passed its first reading today, making way for a new governance structure for the Commerce Commission.

“Having an effective regulator is essential to fair, thriving and competitive markets. These changes will make the Commerce Commission an even stronger agency,” Mr Simpson says.

An independent review last year, led by Dame Paula Rebstock, found the Commission had outgrown its current structure, with the board’s dual responsibility for governance and regulation no longer working as well as we would expect. The new structure separates these functions.

“This is the model we would adopt if we were starting the Commission from scratch,” Mr Simpson says.

“The new board structure will ensure the Commission effectively carries out its growing powers and responsibilities, now and into the future. Commissioners will be freed up to prioritise decision-making that keeps markets competitive, gives businesses greater certainty and delivers good customer outcomes.”

The new structure will take effect from 1 July 2027. It introduces:

• A new oversight board with a majority of external directors who bring an ‘outside-in’ perspective on strategic issues
• A new panel of commissioners with relevant expertise and experience
• Delegation of regulatory decisions from the board to committees made up of panel members and other external experts as needed
• Phasing out of named commissioners for groceries and telecommunications.

Commission chair Dr John Small will serve as chief commissioner and board chair until his term ends in 2030, while Anne Callinan will be deputy chief commissioner and a board member. Current commissioners will transition to panel member roles, with the Telecommunications and Grocery Commissioners retaining their titles until the end of their respective terms.

“This is a significant change for the Commission, and Dr Small’s confirmation as board chair will create stability and continuity. He will continue to provide both regulatory and strategic leadership during the transition period,” Mr Simpson says.

The Commerce (Commerce Commission Reform) Bill has been referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

MIL OSI

MIL OSI

Source: Media Outreach

As part of the European campaign “It’s Time For European Beef”, the promotional activities carried out in 2025 and those currently underway in 2026 are reinforcing the positive image held by both Singaporean meat importers and end consumers, who appreciate the quality, tenderness, flavour and naturalness of our meat, as well as its rigorous production process, the European Production Model

– Published and distributed with permission of Media-Outreach.com.

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

MIL OSI

Source: New Zealand Government

Tēnā koutou katoa. Good afternoon, everyone. 

Thank you, Mayor John Glover, for your opening remarks, and thank you Associate Professor Susan Houge Mackenzie for convening this important event.

It’s a pleasure to be at the 2026 Otago Tourism Policy School here in Queenstown.

Queenstown captures so much of what makes New Zealand distinctive as a destination – our landscapes, our hospitality and our appetite for innovation. 

It’s an ideal place to come together for an important event on the annual tourism calendar.

When I spoke at this event last year, I announced Round Two of the Regional Events Promotion Fund. This Fund was designed to grow visitation beyond the main centres and outside peak season.

12 months on, I’m delighted to report that across two rounds, the Fund has supported more than 280 regional events. That announcement was the beginning of what has been an exciting year for tourism and hospitality.

Overall, tourism growth has been really encouraging over the past 12 months and we’re looking forward to that continuing. 

I now want to briefly address a topic which I know is top of mind for many in the sector – the current conflict in Iran. 

I’m being kept closely informed through the work of the Government’s Ministerial oversight group and by advice from agency officials. 

I can assure you that along with my Ministerial colleagues, I’m carefully monitoring the situation. This includes for the tourism portfolio and also for wider cost of living implications for New Zealanders.

During the ongoing situation, other flight routes, including those through the Americas and different parts of Asia, do continue to be available and visitors continue to come to New Zealand.

Additionally, and as we know the Middle East is a critical aviation hub, it’s been encouraging to see a resumption of flights on the route, with ultra-long haul routes like Auckland prioritised.

My priorities

The theme of this year’s Otago Tourism Policy School: What should tourism look like in 2050? aligns well with my own priorities.

In June last year, I launched the Tourism Growth Roadmap with two clear priorities: 

One:  growing international tourism – by increasing visitor numbers in the short term and doubling the value of tourism exports by 2034. Tourism is our second‑largest export, contributing 7.7 per cent of GDP. 

Growth in this sector is central to the Government’s wider economic objectives. It means more spending in our regions, bookings in our hotels, full tables in our cafes and restaurants and more jobs created. 

Two:  growing the number of New Zealanders working in tourism and hospitality. The latest Tourism Satellite Account shows one in nine jobs are now supported by tourism and hospitality – a clear signal of the sector’s importance to employment and regional prosperity.

Delivering on these priorities requires partnership across central government, industry, local government, iwi and communities to ensure growth delivers value for visitors and residents alike.

Since launching the Roadmap, we’ve focused on boosting demand, while also undertaking a review of the tourism system to understand where supply‑side constraints and opportunities lie. This Review has been shaped by extensive engagement with the sector, including many of you here today.

So, this year’s theme What should tourism look like in 2050?  absolutely aligns with this work. 

It challenges us all to think long‑term, towards a system that can sustain growth over decades. 

Achievements since launching the Roadmap – boosting demand

International arrivals are now at around 90 per cent of 2019 levels[1] and latest data from the Tourism Satellite Account shows total tourism expenditure at $46.6 billion for the year ending March 2025. 

We’ve also made progress on removing barriers to travel, further boosting visitation. Since the introduction of the visa‑free pathway for Chinese and Pacific travellers via Australia in November, nearly 59,000 requests have been approved, with more than 47,000 arrivals already recorded. 

Major Events and Tourism Package

In September, our Government launched the $70 million Major Events and Tourism Package, designed to drive economic growth and boost international visitor numbers.

This includes the $40 million Events Attraction Package to secure high‑impact events for New Zealand.

As a result, we’re now welcoming global events such as Robbie Williams, Linkin Park, the FIFA World Series, the World Surf League Championship Tour and Ultra Music Festival– with more to come.

We’ve also been working hard to deliver the Events Boost Fund, which has so far supported 34 new and existing events nationwide. 

We’ve continued investing in initiatives to drive outcomes in our regions. 

Round Two of the Regional Tourism Boost has now delivered nearly $10 million to campaigns across New Zealand. Collectively, the nine funded campaigns will attract global visitors, including from Australia, China, Canada and the United States.

The Boost provides a great example of the benefits to be realised when tourism and hospitality collaborate at scale. 

Hospitality is a huge contributor to our economy and workforce, helping drive over $9 billion in GDP and employing people across the country. 

As we attract more international visitors, the flow-on benefits for our hospitality sector become immediate and significant, as well as for our wider economy.

And of course we can’t forget the recent opening of the New Zealand International Convention Centre. What a wait it’s been but an enormous milestone and the benefits for New Zealand will be profound. 

2026 Hospitality Summit

Earlier this month, I hosted the 2026 Hospitality Summit, which brought hospitality associations and businesses together to engage with government and refresh shared priorities for the sector.

Recent progress made demonstrates the positive impacts on economic growth when government, business and communities work together. 

Michelin Guide 

A key recommendation from the 2024 Summit had been to bring the Michelin Guide to New Zealand, and that dream is now a reality. The inaugural Guide will be released in June, covering Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Queenstown.

This is a truly significant opportunity to celebrate our top talent and draw even more international visitors to our shores, further lifting hospitality activity and spending. 

Tourism New Zealand will leverage this with an increased focus on food and beverage in its marketing.

Achievements – Supply-side 

Our Government is committed to economic growth, and tourism is central to that mission.

New Zealand has significant capacity to support further tourism growth, but we know capacity isn’t evenly distributed. 

Growth must be managed in ways which protect destinations and the unique visitor experience they curate.

That’s why I’m taking a balanced approach – continuing to invest in demand-side initiatives which boost visitor numbers, while also stepping up investment in the supply side of the sector. 

This year, IVL investment is looking to prioritise 60 per cent towards demand initiatives and 40 per cent towards supply. 

I look forward to sharing my 2026/27 IVL investment plan in the coming months.

New Zealand Cycle Trails Investment

Investment in our cycle trails continues to deliver really strong returns. 

Over the past year, I’ve announced four investments in cycle trail upgrades through the Major Events and Tourism package. 

This includes $2 million to extend the Dunedin Tunnels Trail and attract more people through the beautiful Otago region we’re enjoying today.

Each year, more than two million people use the Great Rides, contributing an estimated $1.28 billion to regional economies. 

This is exactly the kind of infrastructure we need — supporting both domestic and international growth and enhancing visitor experience.

Tourism System Review

Alongside these investments, I’ve been undertaking a Tourism System Review. I’d like to thank those of you who’ve provided valuable input into this review so far and shared ideas about how we deliver on the objectives of the Tourism Growth Roadmap.

I’ve heard the message from the sector loud and clear: the status quo won’t support long‑term, sustainable growth. Three themes have come through strongly. 

First, clear national leadership.

Our system is fragmented with overlapping roles, multiple funding mechanisms and limited coordination beyond international marketing. This weakens our ability to deliver value and compete as a destination at an international scale.

Tourism presents significant opportunities for New Zealand, but I can see that without a more coordinated and forward-looking system, our full potential won’t be realised.

Second, a more streamlined regional model.

There is an opportunity to achieve greater coordination while retaining strong local voices. Better regional scale can support dispersal, manage seasonality, and lift value per visitor – while still recognising that many core functions must remain at place.

Initiatives like the Regional Tourism Boost are a great example of the benefits to can be realised when we collaborate at scale. I’m open to suggestions on how we can support regions to continue to collaborate to maximise outcomes for communities and visitors. 

While efficiencies can be gained, many of the key functions in our tourism system are, and must continue to be, delivered at place.

Local government’s role in placemaking remains essential. Events, museums and galleries, public spaces and visitor infrastructure are foundational to tourism. 

I’ve had some questions from councils about what the Government’s reforms to focus councils on core services and keep rates increases under control mean for their role in tourism. 

Councils absolutely have a role in ensuring our cities, towns and districts are great places to visit, and that tourism and hospitality businesses can thrive as a result. 

The local government reforms don’t change councils’ important role in that.

To meet our long-term growth objectives, it’s essential any changes to the tourism system ensures local government investment in tourism is maintained into the future. 

There’s no replacement for local insights, expertise and passion. This is precisely what makes our tourism offering distinct and valued, and this must be honoured as we consider our next steps.

Third, sustainable, long-term investment to support a growing tourism sector. 

This isn’t just about public investment, but creating the right settings and providing confidence for private investors.

Short‑term, reactive funding makes it difficult to align activity to long‑term priorities. 

We need greater certainty – for both public and private investment – and a system reflecting tourism’s status as a strategic national asset

From Roadmap to system reform:  Tourism Policy Statement 

Everything I’ve spoken about today – boosting demand, strengthening supply, investing in regions and reviewing the tourism system – has been deliberate and sequenced.

The Tourism Growth Roadmap was about stabilising and growing the sector after a period of disruption. Our demand investments focued on recovery and momentum, and our supply‑side shift has been about supporting capacity, quality and resilience.

The Tourism System Review has tested whether the way our system is structured is fit for the future. That work now brings us to the next step.

Following the Tourism System Review, I’m progressing a Tourism Policy Statement for New Zealand. This is the key announcement I want to leave with you today.

The Tourism Policy Statement will not be a reset, and it is not a stand‑alone document.

It is the next phase of the work underway, translating the Roadmap and the Review into a clear, enduring framework for how tourism is governed, coordinated and invested in over the long-term.

At its core, the Tourism Policy Statement will do three things

First, it will set a clear national direction for tourism. 

It will articulate tourism’s role as a strategic national asset and provide a shared narrative for government, local authorities, iwi and industry about what success looks like – not just in terms of volume, but in value, resilience and community benefit.

Second, it will provide clarity on roles, coordination and investment, both now and in the future

It will respond directly to what we heard through the Tourism System Review about fragmentation, duplication and short‑term funding. The Policy Statement will signal where leadership sits, how coordination should improve across the system, and where public investment (including the IVL) can best unlock long‑term value.

Third, it will give confidence to regions and industry.

By setting out priorities and expectations, the Policy Statement will provide a stronger basis for local government, regional entities and the private sector to plan, invest and collaborate with greater certainty.

This is about moving from a system evolving over time to one that is designed deliberately. This will support growth, protect place and deliver value for both visitors and New Zealanders.

I expect to release the Tourism Policy Statement in Q2 this year. In the meantime, I encourage you to continue engaging through your industry and professional associations. The quality of the thinking in this room is exactly what will strengthen this next phase.

Closing

As a Government, we know the strength of our tourism industry is clear for all to see – and the sector is certainly a key part of National’s plan to fix the basics and build the future. 

Under our watch, New Zealand is open for business and international visitors are returning.

While tourism has always been one of New Zealand’s strengths, its future success will not be accidental.

It will depend on clear choices about how we grow, where we invest and how we organise ourselves as a system. It will recognise tourism not just as a set of markets, but as something that shapes places, communities and livelihoods across the country

Over the past year, our focus has been on rebuilding momentum and restoring confidence. 

The work now underway is about ensuring that growth is intentional, coordinated and sustainable. 

Our next steps must be about designing a system supporting growth, protecting place, and delivering value for both visitors and New Zealander

Thank you for the opportunity to share some of these next steps with you today. I look forward to your questions and to continuing this conversation together.

** Published at approx. 5pm 26 March 2026, subject to check against delivery.

MIL OSI

Source: Radio New Zealand

Facial recognition technology (FRT) trials are underway in 18 Briscoes and Rebel Sports stores across the North Island, the country’s fourth big retailer to have announced a move to adopt or test it.

Foodstuffs’ separate chains in the South Island and North Island have deployed it permanently in 28 supermarkets, and hardware giant Bunnings is about to test it.

Briscoes Group is already halfway through a year-long trial which began in September 2025, outlined on its website.

“A thorough process is in place to ensure we do not negatively impact customers,” it told RNZ.

Retailers use FRT to create a biometric template of every shopper’s face, then check it against a watchlist of known risky people. Images that do not match are deleted quickly, they say.

Proponents say retail violence is growing and the tech makes stores safer.

In the UK, the ongoing debate about FRT in stores has also been about its use to combat shoplifting: “So much theft is driven by addiction – cameras alone won’t solve that,” a police outreach worker told the BBC.

Asked by RNZ if Briscoes anticipated the tech would cut down on theft, it said removing violent people from stores “as a byproduct, may reduce the loss”.

“However, this was not the reason for the FRT trial, this is about the safety of our team members and customers.”

Six other big retailers not using it yet

Briscoes is using a system that Auckland company Auror launched in NZ last September.

Auror said in an email to the sector earlier this month: “In New Zealand, leading retailers are already operating ASR (Auror Subject Recognition), building practical experience with governance frameworks, community engagement, and day-to-day controls that maintain trust while protecting teams.”

It declined to identify which retailers when RNZ asked.

Bunnings and Briscoes were among 11 big box retailers and supermarkets that signed a statement in June 2025 supporting facial recognition to “protect workers and customers” following the Privacy Commissioner giving a cautious tick of approval to the Foodstuffs trial.

Of the others who signed, The Warehouse Group, Farmers, Mitre 10, Woolworths, Spark, and One NZ said they were not currently using FRT. Michael Hill Jewellers did not respond to a request for comment.

‘Violent, threatening or aggressive’

Bunnings is about to begin its own trial in two Hamilton stores, Te Rapa and Hamilton South, in April.

“The FRT system is calibrated to an accuracy level of 93 percent – meaning only matches with an accuracy rating of 93 percent will trigger an alert,” it said online. In Australia it uses a system from Hitachi.

Foodstuffs North Island is using FRT in 15 Pak’nSave stores and 10 New Worlds.

Foodstuffs South Island has deployed it in three Christchurch stores, where a trial ended in January.

“Only people who have previously been violent, threatening or aggressive in our stores are entered into the FR watchlist,” the South Island chain said on its website.

It told RNZ on Wednesday: “We’re taking this step by step. The stores in the trial were picked for a reason – they’ve got solid reporting processes, experienced teams and they’ve been dealing with threatening and harmful behaviour, so they’re well-placed to see if this makes a difference on the shop floor.

“We’re still working through the results, and any call on adding new stores will come down to what’s actually working, how it stacks up from a privacy point of view and whether stores have the right systems and know-how to use it properly.”

The four big retail groups all said only trained staff used the system. They all said they had done privacy impact assessments and engaged with the privacy commissioner.

Bunnings recently had what observers considered a partial win against a challenge in Australia to its use of FRT.

Auror, perhaps not surprisingly, saw it that way: “In Australia, the recent Bunnings appeal decision has opened the door to exploring how FRT can be used in retail settings for the purpose of crime prevention and safety. This decision gives retailers greater confidence,” said the company, which last September said it had only recently become comfortable that the tech was accurate enough in identifying people that it should begin offering it to retailers.

Bunnings on its website said in New Zealand it had engaged a Māori digital sovereignty expert to align with tikanga Māori and also got independent research to understand what New Zealanders think about FRT.

Tech not linked to police

Briscoes said it let customers know about the trial with signs on the store doors.

Only people who posed a risk to team members and customer safety were uploaded to its watchlist, it said in a statement. That comprised customers who offended against staff or were threatening physically or verbally aggressive, and any known to carry weapons.

The system was not linked to police. Instead, a manager would call police to remove someone, but not approach the person themselves for safety’s sake.

Staffers were grateful for it, Briscoes said.

“We will consider any future deployment based on the reduction of harmful events across the full trial period.”

Rule three of the recently finalised national biometric code said companies using FRT must tell people it is being collected and why, say how long data is retained for and make it clear how they can complain or access and correct any of their biometric data that is held.

Auror said its system allowed retailers to focus only on known high-harm offenders, and had multiple points where humans intervened, but with strict access controls.

“It does not allow retailers to retain data of regular shoppers, it reduces bias by prohibiting the collection of sensitive characteristics, and ensures data is not shared between organisations.”

Auror also operated an automated number plate recognition system for stores that generated over 10,000 reports of potential theft or assault or similar crimes to police a month. But it did not provide police access to FRT information, it said.

‘The last thing you want to do… is to violate consumer trust’

Following Bunnings’ announcement, Massey University marketing professor Bodo Lang warned a botched rollout of facial recognition technology could be costly for retailers – and said a business should signal its intention well before implementation.

“Many, many companies spend tens of thousands, or sometimes tens of millions of dollars in advertising to build their brand and get people in the store.

“So the last thing you want to do as a business is to violate consumer trust and I think by front-footing the issue, providing transparent information, you can avoid any erosion of trust.”

He believed most people would accept it in retail as a “necessary evil” but such support could be easily lost.

“I think the public opinion would swing hard against it if they had a sense, a perception, an inkling that this might also be used for other purposes.”

Assurances it was for “one purpose, and one purpose only”, was therefore key to public buy-in.

Security consultant Nicholas Dynon said New Zealand was a laggard on research into how people felt about the tech, with just some data from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner on public attitudes towards privacy, including FRT.

“So we do have some numbers – but they are very limited and they are general,” said Dynon, who wrote ‘Licence to Operate’ for the National Security Journal about public buy-in of FRT.

“What we don’t have is that sort of objective peer-reviewed understanding of how the public in New Zealand feels about FRT.”

Research in other countries showed acceptance varied depending on the environment, and that it had low rates of social licence in retail, compared to, say, at airports, he said.

Dynon also called into question the justification often used for deploying facial recognition, that retail violence was on the up and up.

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