AM Edition: Top 10 Politics Articles on LiveNews.co.nz for March 28, 2026 – Full Text

Source: Radio New Zealand

Concerns are growing among health providers and whānau about the governments proposed alcohol reforms, with warnings they could increase harm in vulnerable communities.

A young māmā from East Auckland says the reforms feel like “profit over people”, and “a slap in the face,” especially for advocates who have worked hard to decrease alcohol visibility in their rohe.

Twenty-five-year-old Tiana Kiro is calling for the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Improving Alcohol Regulation) Amendment Bill to be scrapped, after it was introduced to Parliament in March by Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee and Regulation Minister David Seymour.

Kiro, who was born and raised in Glen Innes, said liquor stores were part of “everyday life” growing up and she did not want the same for her pēpi.

“For my community, alcohol is everywhere,” she told RNZ.

“When I left my whare every day to go to school, it was at every corner. It was normalised like milk, sugar, bread.”

The mother of one, who is expecting another baby, said that environment shaped the people around her.

“I don’t want that around my babies. I don’t want it normalised.”

She said the proposed reforms risked embedding that even further.

“To me, that looks like putting profit before people.”

What are the proposed reforms?

The government says the Bill aims to reduce red tape, make it easier for businesses to obtain licences, and trust adults to make their own choices.

Key changes include:

• Limiting objections to licence applications or renewals to only those living or working in the same council area, or within 1 kilometre of the proposed licensed premises.
• Allowing licence applicants to respond to objections
• Preventing licence renewals being declined due to local alcohol policies
• Expanding who can sell alcohol, including clubs and some restaurants
• Making it easier to host events with alcohol
• Allowing licensed venues to open outside normal hours for major events – like the Rugby World Cup
• Letting barbers and hairdressers offer limited alcohol without a licence
• Expanding tasting rules beyond wineries
• Simplifying rules for low and zero alcohol options
• Clarifying responsibilities for alcohol delivery services

McKee said the changes would make the system “fairer” and less bureaucratic, while Seymour said adults in a “free society” should be trusted to make their own choices.

The Bill is expected to be considered by Parliament in the coming months.

A 2024 report by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research estimates alcohol-related harm costs Aotearoa around $9.1 billion annually, including about 900 deaths, 1250 cancers, and tens of thousands of hospitalisations.

Māori experience disproportionate harm and are more than twice as likely to die from alcohol-related causes than non-Māori. Māori are also more likely to be apprehended by police for an offence that involves alcohol.

Tamariki Māori are also exposed to alcohol marketing significantly more often than Pākehā children.

Research shows this is closely linked to environmental factors, including higher exposure to alcohol outlets, greater levels of deprivation, and reduced access to health services.

In a statement to RNZ, McKee said the $9.1 billion figure cited by critics is “a gross cost estimate that tells us nothing about which specific policies reduce harm or at what cost.”

“Good policy requires that discipline. We should be asking whether each rule is delivering measurable harm reduction proportionate to its costs, and removing those that aren’t.

“The single biggest driver of that figure is fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, which accounts for $4.8 billion of the total. FASD is a serious harm and the government is taking it seriously, directing more of the alcohol levy toward identifying and funding cost-effective interventions to reduce it.”

McKee said licensed premises are controlled environments with trained staff and legal obligations, and making it easier for people to drink in those settings could reduce harm compared to unsupervised drinking.

She also rejected concerns the reforms would silence communities.

“Everyone will continue to maintain the ability to object to liquor licences and renewals in their local community,” she said.

“Our changes are about stopping those who are not impacted, such as people on the other side of the country, or even overseas, from objecting.”

McKee said the reforms also strengthen rules around alcohol delivery and aim to improve access to zero-alcohol alternatives.

“Every New Zealander deserves policy focused on what actually reduces harm. That is the standard these reforms are held to, and it is the right standard for all New Zealanders regardless of their background.”

But critics say the reforms weaken safeguards and prioritise economic growth over public health, especially in communities where access “is already a problem.”

“In our town centre alone, there’s like three or four liquor stores, and we’re not even that big,” Kiro said.

She also raised concerns about proposals to allow alcohol in spaces like salons and barbershops.

“You go get your nails done, you get offered a drink, then another, and then you’re driving home,” she said.

“For some people, it’s not easy to say no.

“Someone might have a few drinks and then get behind the wheel, and then who do you blame? Profit over people, that’s what it feels like.”

For kaupapa Māori provider Ki Tua o Matariki, those experiences reflect what they are hearing across their communities.

Chief executive Zoe Witika-Hawke said the reforms risk deepening existing inequities.

“These changes might seem small on their own, but together they make alcohol more present in our everyday environments, and that matters.

“We know alcohol outlets are more concentrated in lower-income communities, while access to health support is often more limited.

“That imbalance shapes the environments our whānau are living in every day.”

She said alcohol harm was not just about individual choice.

“It’s shaped by how available it is, where it shows up, and what becomes normal.”

Witika-Hawke pointed to the impact on future generations, including FASD, a lifelong condition caused by prenatal alcohol exposure.

“Every increase in alcohol availability increases risk, particularly for māmā hapū navigating stress and systemic barriers.”

Te Whatu Ora estimates 1800 to 3000 babies every year may be affected by FASD. That’s roughly 8 babies per day.

“We need to be clear, this is not about blaming māmā. Stigma has never prevented harm. Safe environments and strong support systems do.”

Witika-Hawke said communities had already been clear about what they wanted.

“They don’t want alcohol shops everywhere in their communities.”

Hāpai Te Hauora chief operating officer Jason Alexander said the reforms ignored strong evidence linking alcohol availability to harm.

“Anything that makes alcohol more accessible and visible will inevitably cause more harm,” he told RNZ.

“We know that people’s hauora is affected by the environment in which they live. If alcohol is more accessible, then people will access it more.”

He said alcohol harm extended beyond just the individual.

“Alcohol harm doesn’t happen in isolation. It is shaped by the environments we create, how widely alcohol is available, how it’s marketed, and how many outlets operate in a community.”

Restricting objections to licences, he said, limited community voice.

“That is essentially silencing those communities.”

Alcohol Healthwatch executive director Andrew Galloway told RNZ the scale of alcohol harm was significant in Aotearoa, and that the reforms appeared to remove effective protections.

“It does seem like that is giving the alcohol industry a wish list of changes,” he said.

“We know that when alcohol becomes more available, these increases are strongly linked to increased hazardous drinking.”

“We also see higher rates of cancer, and we know there is no safe limit.”

Polling commissioned by Health Coalition Aotearoa and the Cancer Society found 76 percent of respondents supported limits on the number of alcohol outlets in neighbourhoods.

“So changes that reduce community say, go directly against that support,” he said.

“We’re really disappointed that this package introduces very few restrictions and more liberalisation.”

Galloway said the direction of the reforms contradicted other government strategies, including suicide prevention efforts that put an emphasis on reducing alcohol harm.

“It just makes logical sense that we would look to restrict alcohol, not make it more available.”

Pre-colonisation, Māori were among the few known societies not to have manufactured or used alcohol – or psychoactive substances.

Quoted by Rev. W J Williams, ‘In the Beginning. Period up to 1886’, “The white man and the whisky bottle came to New Zealand together.”

The Māori word for alcohol is ‘waipiro’, translating to ‘stinking water’.

Witika-Hawke told RNZ, alcohol was used as a tool to take away their land – specifically in their iwi Ngāti Paoa.

“We’ve worked really hard to tell another story about our relationship with alcohol. And the alcohol industry has really, I think, picked on us in regards to ensuring that we’re trapped in the thinking of alcohol as part of who we are.

“It’s not part of who we are. It wasn’t part of who we were prior to colonisation. And returning to that state of health where it isn’t in our communities, I think, is the journey that we all want, and need, so that we remain healthy and don’t go back to a place where alcohol is thought to be who we are.”

At a time where fuel prices and the costs of living increases, Kiro said many whānau are already under pressure, and changes like these revert away from the issue.

“We’ve got bigger things to worry about, rent, food, petrol,” she said. “And now you’re adding more alcohol into the mix.”

She said addiction was a reality in many communities.

“Unless you’ve actually been around it, you don’t understand how hard it is.

“We’re not saying no alcohol forever… We’re saying stop oversaturating communities that are already struggling.

“Do I need seven liquor stores in my community? No, not really.”

She said whānau had spent years advocating for change, only to feel ignored.

“It’s a bit of a slap in the face. We did the mahi. We showed up. We told them what’s happening in our communities.

“And now it feels like they’re not listening.

“If they don’t listen now, by the time they realise something’s gone wrong, it’s going to be too late.”

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

MIL OSI

Source: Radio New Zealand

• A new bill would give police new powers but just how far it goes will now be fought over in select committee.
• The Privacy Commissioner says it sets the bar too low, but a Justice Ministry push for more safeguards was rejected.
• A criminal procedure expert warns it leaves so much up to police discretion it will likely land them in lots of court challenges.
• A hurry around the bill led to limited consultation with the public, Māori and over impacts on children.

A big step towards mass surveillance or restoring common sense powers to police to collect evidence and fight crime?

A bill just introduced to Parliament delivers new powers to police to move or detain someone, but just how far it goes depends who you listen to.

Alarm and reassurance were both in play when Mark Mitchell tabled the Policing Amendment Bill at its first reading before a nearly empty Parliament on Tuesday evening.

“I want to be very clear that this bill will not provide additional powers to police that could be construed as enabling mechanisms for mass surveillance of the New Zealand public,” the Police Minister told the House.

Labour’s Camilla Belich retorted that it was too vague to be sure.

“We don’t want a situation where we have an Orwellian society of mass surveillance, where there is unreasonable collection of personal data, which is then in some instances used to charge people with offences and … there isn’t enough detail in this bill to date that … should assure the House that situation will not arise,” she said.

The bill allowed for police to record short live videos in public if they judged that was justified.

Law professor Gehan Gunasekara bridled at Mitchell’s repeated statements that the bill “restored” police powers.

“It doesn’t restore the status quo. It changes the status quo,” he said.

‘Safeguards’

The bill in a preamble said two events “have together narrowed the law” so that police now had less power to photograph or record people in public than a regular person.

One was official inquiries sparked by RNZ in 2020 exposing how officers for years had casually snapped tens of thousands of people, mostly Māori teenagers.

Ruled illegal, the practices were curtailed – albeit reluctantly and soon after police won bipartisan political support to change the law amid a rise in ramraids on shops.

That change had taken till now, but not before a Supreme Court ruling last year further narrowed what officers could do, according to the bill.

ACT’s Todd Stephenson gave qualified backing to reverse that.

“This bill does clarify and expands the police’s power to collect, record and use information, including images, sounds, for lawful policing purposes,” he said in the debate.

But with a kicker.

“Our support is conditional on ensuring that there is strong privacy protections and safeguards against mass surveillance powers.”

‘Low bar’

The Privacy Commissioner was not convinced about the safeguards, saying the bill set a “low bar”.

“It permits collection of people’s information for ‘an intelligence purpose’ which is not defined and establishes a low bar for police to meet (the police employee collecting the information only has to ‘consider that the information will or may support the Police in performing a function’),” said Michael Webster in a statement.

The Justice Ministry meantime had recommended tailormade safeguards.

But that was “deemed unnecessary” because the bill was not displacing any privacy principles or the Commissioner’s powers, said the bill disclosure statement.

However, the ministry largely supported the bill and said it did not breach the Bill of Rights Act.

Webster’s office in 2021 made one of two investigations of police taking so many photos so casually.

The Privacy Act did not permit “baseless or indiscriminate collection”, he said, but now the bill sought to set up a broad authorising framework.

“Overly broad or insufficiently clear intelligence gathering powers will impact on the privacy rights of everyday New Zealand[ers] and has the potential for chilling effect on people’s civil and political rights.”

Green MP Tamatha Paul said at the first reading that maybe Mitchell was right when he said the bill would not impact everyday New Zealanders: “Maybe he’s right, because this bill is going to impact Maori.

“Rather than tightening up the practice and protecting children, they’re changing the law to make it legal,” she said.

Police did make changes over several years as ordered by the Privacy Commissioner but failed to find a technology solution to identify and delete all the unlawfully taken photos.

Council of Civil Liberties’ Thomas Beagle saw not power restored to police but a power grab.

“It is trying to give the police whatever they want at the price of the people of New Zealand,” he said.

“It’s expanding surveillance powers for police drastically by allowing them to use any form of recording [of] visual or audio data that they can capture from public or private places without any oversight.”

‘Time pressures’

“Time pressures” meant there had been little or no consultation with the public or Māori or consideration of Te Tiriti, said the disclosure statement, and a regulatory impact statement (RIS).

Police consulted Te Puni Kokiri, which raised these concerns.

For the same reason, impacts on children and teenagers had not been delved into – even though the bill arose in part from officers photographing and fingerprinting them.

“This proposal is not seeking to legislate any additional protections for the collection, use, and retention of personal information on children and young people,” said the RIS.

Existing protections combined with police seeking “to ensure operational policy and guidance is aligned with our legislative obligations” was enough, it added.

Police would deal with any disproportionate impacts, the disclosure statement said.

Children’s Commissioner Dr Claire Achmad said she had real concerns especially for mokopuna and rangatahi Māori, “given the previous breaches of their rights by the exercise of police power in photographing them”.

A police policy team talked to her office and invited more feedback “but due to very short time-frame provided by police, this was not possible”.

‘We’re striking the balance’

The Police Association’s Steve Watt said it was not over-reach.

“Look, it is important to consult a wider group when these types of bills come out. However, I’m sufficiently satisfied that there’s safeguards in place that minority groups won’t be targeted as a result,” Watt said.

“Ultimately … what this does is it gives our officers certainty around the information that they can collect and store as part of their day-to-day duties.

“We’re striking the balance between what was occurring in the past but allowing the freedom and ability for police to be able to perform their duties and functions appropriately.”

He echoed Mitchell in stating that internal and external controls were adequate – Mitchell noted the establishment of the Inspector-General of Police role sparked by the McSkimming scandal – and how any information gathered could be tested in the courts.

But criminal procedure expert professor Scott Optican of Auckland University said that was the problem.

“The definitions are vague, the reasonable standards are vague, and I think it’s going to invite continuing challenges in court,” said Optican.

“I don’t think it does the police any favours.”

Giving police general intelligence-gathering powers was a laudable goal, but should be done after wide consultation to arrive at “proper standards, clear guidance that adequately balances the need for criminal investigation against the protection of personal privacy, [and] that creates standards of reasonableness that we all understand and live with”, he said.

Part two

The bill is in two parts: The first is on intelligence gathering; the second would give police new powers to declare a wider range of public areas off limits earlier, before, say, boy racers kicked off or other public disorder, including the power to fine people $1000, get their details or if they refused, to fine or jail them for up to three months.

Part two would “deter antisocial driving behaviour”, the bill said.

But it also would let a constable temporarily close off a place if they believed on “reasonable grounds” that “public disorder exists or is imminent at or near the place”, or a danger to a member of the public.

It “expands the police’s existing temporary closure powers to include circumstances that are broader than vehicle-related offending, as well as expanding the geographical size of areas that may be subject to temporary closure”.

Beagle said that was unreasonable and open to abuse, for instance, to close off protests.

“This, combined with the police powers to move on homeless people, are reducing the right to be in public places,” he said.

The bill has now gone to select committee to be reported back to Parliament on 27 July.

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 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: New Zealand Government

Introduction

Good afternoon. Thank you, Brett, for the introduction and everyone for the warm welcome.

I am excited to be here to talk with you today about transport funding, the transition to Road User Charges, and improvements to road safety, including our road toll and oral fluid testing.

I’d like to acknowledge Deputy Mayor Desley Simpson for her opening address today. We’ve seen a lot of each other lately, but it’s always good to see you!

I’d also like to acknowledge AA Chief Executive Nadine Tereroa and President Brett Flintoff.

Finally, I’d like to also acknowledge the many AA district councillors and AA staff who are here today. Thank you for the work you do to serve your members and be an advocate for the things that matter to New Zealand motorists.

Fuel Supply Shock

To begin, I would like to acknowledge the challenges the transport system, and all New Zealanders, are currently navigating due to the current fuel supply shock as a result of the conflict in the Middle East.

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

We have sufficient stocks in New Zealand 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 are already seeing significant shifts in behaviour across the country, and as a government we are closely monitoring these changes so we can respond to their impacts if needed. 

Using data from a sample of vehicles across the country, we can start to get a rough idea of how people are responding to this conflict. 

Comparing the two weeks pre-conflict in mid-February against 7-day rolling averages for subsequent weeks, we have seen a reduction of approximately 20% in the vehicle kilometres travelled by cars. Not necessarily surprising when petrol prices have gone up 30%. 

Also not surprising is that people are responding in a predictable way so far: they are using public transport more, with boardings up by more than 10% in Auckland and Wellington. MOT will be publishing updated data regularly, starting later today. 

Interestingly, last week saw more than 1,000 electric vehicles registered, close to double the week prior. This makes it the biggest week in EV registrations since the end of 2023. Year-to-date registrations are nearly 2,000 higher than this time last year.

Heavy vehicles are also down around 5% over the last few days, despite an increase of 70% in diesel prices. This is expected – those who rely on heavy vehicles for freight or commercial use have far less ability to respond to these kinds of price shocks with immediate alternatives. 

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

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 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 driving inflation up higher 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 is also what Treasury says.

That’s what we’re doing. 

The previous Government responded to COVID-19 through profligate, irresponsible spending – racking up debt. 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. 

I understand the calls for broad, across the board, fuel tax cuts.

The government won’t be doing that, for a few reasons. 

One, as people here know, every dollar from petrol tax and RUC goes into the National Land Transport Fund, which funds our transport system.

Across the board fuel tax cuts are also extremely expensive, and they are untargeted.

We’d rather focus support on those who need it most.

The reality is that maintaining fuel supply is the most important thing we can do to protect Kiwis from the worst case scenarios.

Later today 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 steps 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 solid fuel plan that gets us through whatever the international situation throws at us in the coming months. 

Our Transport Funding Challenge

We have significant transport funding challenges.

I am determined to be upfront with the public about this.

Our transport system is supposed to be user pays. In other words, road users pay petrol tax and road user charges and the money goes out the other end on maintenance, upgrades and new projects.

But in recent years, Crown funding has been tipped in more and more, which comes from general taxation – in other words, all taxpayers.

The 2018-21 National Land Transport Programme outlined expenditure of $17 billion over 3 years, and was largely funded by road users, who contributed $13 billion.

Fast forward to the 2024-27 NLTP, and the total investment has nearly doubled at $32.9 billion, but road users are still contributing roughly the same amount, $14.3 billion.

The increased investment has come primarily from Crown funding, with around $12.8 billion of direct Crown funding provided over 2024-27.

Capital contributions from general taxation have to compete with every other important priority the government has to fund.

Every dollar of extra Crown capital we put into roading is a dollar that can’t go into health, or education, or defence, or any of the other calls on capital the Crown has.

Of course, all of these areas have significant deficits and similar funding challenges.

So that’s a real problem.

Then you add in all of the calls for transport investment.

We have real resilience challenges on our state highway network. The recent weather events on the East Coast have shone a spotlight on that.

We have significant deferred maintenance and renewal work required on the Wellington and Auckland metro rail network.

The country needs a second harbour crossing in Auckland.

City Rail Link will open later this year, and soon the conversation will turn to what the next big public transport project is in Auckland.

We have pipeline of Roads of National Significance, important growth-enhancing projects around the country.

So how do we make all of this add up?

One option is to lift petrol tax and RUC.

Petrol tax has not risen since 2020 and has not kept up with inflation. In 2023, we campaigned on not increasing petrol tax in our first term. This was the right thing to do when there was a cost of living crisis, but we have to be honest about those consequences. It has deferred the issue until later.

Petrol tax is currently due to go up by 12c per litre in 2027, by six cents on 1 January 2028, and 4 cents in each year after that.

I have to be honest with you, the idea that we would put up fuel tax during a fuel crisis seems like a non-starter to me.

I’m thinking hard about the funding challenge we’ve just laid out and I’ll have more to say soon.

Later this year we’ll publish a draft Government Policy Statement for Transport funding from 2027 onwards, which lays out how we intend to confront some of these challenges.

And we’re also intending to publish what I’ve been calling a Major Transport Projects Pipeline.

This is about building a credible, long-term pipeline of transport projects with a variety of funding options and in a logical sequence, so that when funding becomes available, the sector and the public knows what project is coming next, and can plan and prepare for it.

New funding tools

We are pushing forward with our reforms to increase the number of funding tools we have in the toolkit to deliver transport projects.

Last year, we introduced the Land Transport (Revenue) Amendment Bill to move towards a fairer, simpler, and more modern transport funding system.

The Bill introduces a more flexible tolling framework and enables simpler, technology-enabled ways to pay road user charges, so everyone pays their fair share for the roads they use.

At the heart of these reforms is fairness. Every road user should contribute in proportion to their use of the network.

Transition to RUC

Our road user charges system is outdated. It was designed in the 1970s and still relies on manual paperwork and paper licences.

Right now, drivers paying RUC have to track their odometer readings and stick paper labels to their windscreen.

The Bill opens the door for new payment models like subscriptions or post-payment, and allows private companies to offer easy, set-and-forget billing options – similar to how many of us already pay for power or streaming services.

The changes, to modernise the system, will also help us prepare for abolishing the fuel excise duty and transition everyone over to RUC.

The abolition of petrol tax, and the move towards all vehicles (whether they be petrol, diesel, electric or hybrid) paying for roads based on distance and weight, is the biggest change to how we fund our roading network in 50 years.

As our vehicle fleet changes, so too must the way we fund our roads. It isn’t fair to have Kiwis who drive less and who can’t afford a fuel-efficient car paying more than people who can afford one and drive more often.

The Government’s plan will eventually see all vehicles pay based on actual road use (including weight) regardless of fuel type.

Tolling

On tolling, we are giving ourselves the flexibility to deliver the big projects New Zealand needs, sooner.

Tolling is a key tool for bringing forward investment, and the Bill introduces a number of changes.

Enabling corridor tolling will allow tolling on parts of an existing road where users clearly benefit from a new project in the same corridor.

The Bill gives us new tools to manage diversion from toll roads, including restricting heavy vehicles from unsuitable alternative routes like they do overseas, and allowing toll revenue to help maintain those alternative routes when councils can’t.

We are also introducing annual CPI adjustments to make tolling fairer and more predictable, as well as shifting liability from the driver to the registered person to improve collection efficiency.

Time of Use Charging

Other legislation passed last year gives local authorities the tools to tackle the problem of congestion.

Sitting in traffic wastes time, costs money, and drags down productivity. 

Our three largest cities are significantly more congested than comparable Australian cities with similar population sizes and densities, with Auckland congestion alone estimated to cost up to $2.6 billion by 2026.

Time-of-use charging is a commonsense tool to encourage people to travel at off-peak times or by other modes. It’s about keeping our cities moving.

The legislation allows local authorities to partner with NZTA on targeted time-of-use schemes to ease gridlock, improve travel time reliability, and support economic growth.

Auckland Council is well advanced in shortlisting scheme design options and the Ministry of Transport and NZTA officials are supporting them with implementation planning.

Road safety 

Finally, I want to spend a moment on what we’re seeing in road safety outcomes, and what’s sitting behind them.

Road deaths have trended down since 2022. In 2024, there were 292 deaths and 2,461 serious injuries on our roads. That’s good progress, and it matters. 

But we need to be careful not to draw simple conclusions from complex data. No single factor explains year‑to‑year changes in deaths and serious injuries, and it’s still too early to say whether this represents a long‑term downward trend.

What we do know is that the biggest gains come when we focus on the highest‑risk behaviours and invest in proven, cost‑effective interventions. 

That’s exactly what the Road Safety Objectives are designed to do — with a clear focus on the main contributors to fatal crashes, including alcohol and drugs.

Enforcement is a critical part of that picture. The Government has invested a record $1.335 billion over three years, from 2024 to 2027, into the Road Policing Investment Programme. That funding supports frontline policing and enforcement activity, particularly during high‑risk times. 

Each year, the programme targets 3.3 million passive breath tests and breath screening tests, with more than two million of those carried out when risk is highest. 

Importantly, funding is also ring‑fenced for 50,000 roadside oral fluid drug tests each year from the first year of implementation.

I also want to share what we’re hearing directly from Police as roadside drug testing beds in.

Since testing was introduced across the Wellington region in December, Police have been gaining valuable operational insight into how this new road safety tool works in practice. 

Testing has been carried out right across the district — from Wellington central through to the Wairarapa and Kapiti — and that experience is already shaping how the national rollout will be delivered.

As of 18 March, Police have conducted more than 650 roadside drug screening tests, resulting in 24 positive tests. The positivity rate at the roadside is broadly in line with what Police see for alcohol.

While it’s still too early to draw conclusions about national trends, Police have seen an increase in positive results as testing activity has expanded across Wellington.

Importantly, officers report favourable feedback from the public during testing. Police are continuing to collect data, but at this early stage the focus is on learning, refining processes, and getting ready.

Feedback from frontline staff has been positive, with Police telling us they are geared up and ready to support the nationwide rollout, with testing across New Zealand by mid‑2026.

But enforcement alone isn’t enough. The Road Safety Objectives also focus on improving the safety of the roads themselves. As the recent AA research report points out, where we have made significant investment in improving the roads we see the benefits of reduced deaths and serious injuries.

Vehicles are another important piece of the puzzle. The overall safety of New Zealand’s has continued to improve over time. In 2025 alone, there were nearly 40,000 fewer one‑ and two‑star vehicles on the road.

Alcohol interlocks 

Finally, we’re looking closely at what works for repeat high‑risk offenders. One key, underutilised, tool here is alcohol interlocks. 

A recent Ministry of Transport study using the Integrated Data Infrastructure database affirms that alcohol interlocks reduce the risk of alcohol-impaired driving.  

Here’s some very interesting data. 

Drink-driving offenders given alcohol interlock orders are:  

• 9% less likely to reoffend within four years,
• 45% more likely to remain in employment, and
• 22% less likely to depend on welfare than comparable drink-drivers given driving disqualification orders. 

It’s clear that alcohol interlocks are effective when they’re installed and used properly.  

Despite their effectiveness, the uptake of alcohol interlocks is lower than it could – and frankly should – be. Many eligible offenders are not given alcohol interlock sentences, and many offenders who are ordered to get alcohol interlock devices do not do so. 

I am actively investigating how to increase the uptake of interlocks with Paul Goldsmith, the Minister of Justice.

Tackling New Zealand’s toughest road safety challenges means focusing on what works and making sure it’s used as effectively as possible.

Conclusion

Thank you for listening and I welcome any questions you have.

MIL OSI

Source: Radio New Zealand

The government may put on hold its plans to raise fuel taxes next year, as it deals with how to respond to the fuel crisis.

National campaigned on not lifting fuel taxes at all in its first term, which Transport Minister Chris Bishop maintains was “the right thing to do” in a cost of living crisis.

Instead, the government plans to bring in a 12 cents per litre increase from January 2027, followed by a 6 cents per litre rise in 2028, and 4 cents per litre in subsequent years.

Fuel taxes are set at a flat rate per litre, meaning they do not go up or down as the price of fuel does.

The government has been resistant to cutting the fuel tax in the crisis, wary that doing so would subsidise demand.

The transport system is supposed to be user-pays, but Bishop said increasingly it was coming from general taxation.

Speaking to the Automobile Association’s annual conference on Friday morning, Bishop admitted that not raising fuel excise duty had deferred the issue of how the government funds transport infrastructure until later.

But he hinted the government may defer the anticipated rise further.

“I have to be honest with you, the idea that we would raise fuel tax during a fuel crisis doesn’t seem like a starter to me. So we’re thinking hard about these funding challenges. They are real, and they do exist.”

The government’s intention is to replace all fuel excise duty with road user charges, which diesel and electric vehicles already pay.

Bishop also said people’s transport habits were changing in response to the conflict.

Comparing the two weeks pre-conflict in mid-February with seven-day rolling averages in the subsequent weeks, Bishop said there had been a reduction of approximately 20 percent in vehicle kilometres travelled by car.

“This is not necessarily surprising when petrol prices are up about 30 percent. Also not surprising is that people are responding in a predictable way, they’re using public transport more.”

Public transport boardings were up more than 10 percent in Auckland and Wellington.

Last week also saw the highest number of electric vehicles registered since the end of 2023, around the time the new government abolished the Clean Car Discount scheme.

Year-do-date EV registrations were nearly 2000 higher than this time last year.

But Bishop was adamant the government would not bring back the discount, saying people who did not have the ability to make the transition to EVs were having to pay more, to give money to people who could make the transition.

“It was a regressive wealth transfer policy, and so we will not be bringing back the Clean Car Discount.”

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

As the Iran war affects the global economy, Americans are asking if their ties with Israel look like the tail wagging the dog.

The United States was one of the first countries to recognise an independent Israel in 1948, and since then their ties have deepened.

But in the last two years, two conflicts – in Gaza and in Iran – into which America has poured billions in the form of military aid into Israel – have had a sizeable effect on the way young Americans in particular are seeing that relationship.

They’ve seen horrific images on social media of victims in Gaza, an attack on Iran that has been deemed illegal under international rule, and it’s causing huge economic hardship and disruption.

US President Donald Trump seems to be looking for an offramp from the Iran conflict but Israel differs on the next steps – they’re no longer quite as in lockstep as they used to be.

Today on The Detail we speak to two foreign affairs experts, Otago University’s Professor Robert Patman and geo-political analyst Dr Geoffrey Miller, about the special relationship between the two nations, and why it might be changing.

“The United States sees Israel as one of the few democracies in the Middle East region,” says Patman.

“It sees Israel as a very close strategic partner, and that closeness is symbolised by the fact that the United States provides about $4 billion in military assistance every year to Israel.

“Interestingly in terms of diplomatic goals they have drifted a bit, but with the advent of the second Trump administration the relationship has got even closer. And Mr Trump and Mr [Benjamin] Netanyahu seem to have an exceptionally close relationship.”

A crucial factor in explaining the closeness between the two countries is the Israeli penetration of domestic politics in the US.

“AIPAC – the American-Israeli support lobby – [is] a very powerful, influential group in United States politics. The Israeli lobby funds both major parties, Democrats and Republicans, and that’s been a factor going back to the 70s.

“Israel I think by the 70s realised it had to become a player in American domestic politics, and it has successfully done so.

“Although interestingly since the Gaza crisis, AIPAC has become, at least when it comes to funding Democratic candidates for office, much less visible because there is certainly a change of opinion within the United States amongst young people, particularly in progressive politics.

“Sometimes closeness to AIPAC is seen as a disadvantage, particularly with the ICJ [International Court of Justice] indicating that war crimes were committed in Israel’s reaction to the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.”

Patman believes it was a catalyst in the transformation of many young people’s views about Israel.

Another issue for Americans is their President’s inability to be clear about the reasons for invading Iran, including that it was to stop a threat – when last June after another skirmish in Iran, Trump said the threat had been obliterated.

Religious basis

Miller says some of the connection is based on religion.

“The idea of Christian Zionsim, the belief that the return of Jews to the Holy Land is a Biblical pre-requisite for the second coming,” he says.

“The Republican Party [in the US] relies very heavily on Evangelical voters, and particularly from the 1970s onwards there was a real push from Evangelicals to demand greater support for Israel as part of Republican candidates’ platforms.

“It’s just been a truism that if you want to be successful in politics and you are on the Republican side you have to support Israel very, very, strongly. Even on the Democratic side that has largely become a truism.”

He says Israel on its part sees the United States as the only true friend they can rely on.

“European countries place far more conditions on support than the United States does. When it comes to weaponry, for example, many European countries wound down sales to Israel after October 7; limited supplies and so forth. The United States did not.”

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

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

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

Good afternoon, everyone. 

I’d like to thank Denise for the warm welcome and Leonie, and the rest of Property Council NZ for inviting me to speak.

It’s been about six months since I spoke to you at The Property Conference in Queenstown – 

I’m disappointed to see there is no pool this time!

Since September last year, we have seen strong year-on-year growth for building consents in each month. 

For instance, when it comes to residential buildings consents grew: 

• 27% in the year to September 2025
• 24% in the year to October 2025
• 13% in the year to November 2025
• 26% in the year to December 2025
• 15% in the year to January 2026

Today I’ll run through where we are at on RMA reform, with a focus on housing and property, then touch on Development Levies. 

I’m also very excited to give you all a sneak peek into initial findings from an economic analysis I commissioned into the cost of viewshafts in Auckland. 

Then I’m happy to answer any question you guys have. 

Context

But before I get into it, I want to briefly touch on the context we are operating in. 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 Gully’s a year on interest payments alone. 

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, forcing 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, the 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 I mentioned before.

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 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.

RMA reform

The single biggest thing this Government is doing to unlock New Zealand’s economy is RMA reform. 

Our new planning system will make it significantly easier to build the homes New Zealand needs. 

The Resource Management Act 1991 is the root cause of so many of our challenges. 

It has been a handbrake on growth and opportunity. It is directly responsible for New Zealand’s housing crisis – despite us having a land mass comparable to the United Kingdom but just five million people.

And it’s also allowed council planners to delay the delivery of social housing because the “grass colour is too similar to the concrete colour”. Or because “the colour of pipes on the house is too contrasted to the colour of the house itself”. Or because council was concerned there was no signage so people could find their house. 

These are all real examples from Kainga Ora. 

I am sure you have a laundry list of your own examples. But these are example of the past!

Our new planning system will radically change how we approach development, while still protecting the environment.

A specific goal of the new Planning Bill is for the system to enable competitive urban land markets by making land available to meet current and expected demand for business and residential use and development. 

National Direction will follow, including the establishment of housing growth targets, rules making it easier for cities to expand outwards, requirements to enable greater mixed-use zoning, and prohibitions on minimum floor area and balcony requirements.

My ambition is to deliver the most significant pro-housing reforms in a generation. In practice, this will mean: 

Everyone will be able to do more without needing council consent. The new system won’t control for things like the layout of your house, balconies, or private outdoor space – giving people more freedom to use their land how they see fit.

Developers will be able to use the same designs anywhere in the country. Right now, New Zealand has more than 1,100 different zones, each with its own set of rules. Under the new system, we’ll reduce that complexity by using standardising zones nationwide and applying consistent rules for key things like building height, site coverage, and daylight access. No more juggling different rules for Upper Hutt versus Lower Hutt, or Christchurch versus Selwyn.

Getting a consent will be simpler. If you do need one, the process will be simpler and cheaper. Rules will be clear, in more cases only affected people can take part in the consent process, and a new planning tribunal will help resolve disputes at low cost.

Land will be released faster through a mechanism that removes the need for extra plan changes or long consultations where the land has been previously identified as suitable for development.

And developers will have greater certainty to invest. Long-term spatial plans will show where new housing and infrastructure will go, so developers can plan projects and invest with confidence.

All of these changes – along with others – will finally give New Zealand the planning settings it needs to grow. 

Development Levies 

But as all of you here know, liberalising land markets and removing red tape is – on its own – not enough. 

We also need a flexible infrastructure funding and financing system to match our new flexible planning system. 

We have heard from the sector, and from the Property Council in-particular that we must get infrastructure funding and financing right – I agree.

So, we are making a suite of changes to the toolkit including:

• Replacing Development Contributions (DCs) with a Development Levy system, where growth pays for growth
• Establishing independent regulatory oversight of these Levies to ensure charges are fair and appropriate
• Amending the IFF Act to make it easier to use and to broaden the providers that can use it

I want to go over where we are at on Development Levies. 

Late last year, we released an exposure draft on development levies to get the sector’s feedback. 

I’d like to thank Property Council for their submission. I’m told my officials and office had an initial workshop with Property Council on their submission, and I’ll be meeting with them next week to continue the conversation.

It’s clear the exposure draft doesn’t have everything right just yet, but that’s why we went out for consultation early – so we can take your feedback on board. For me, it’s vital that the sector has trust in the new system. 

We have heard your calls for more transparency on how much councils collect from developers for growth infrastructure, and how they use those funds.   

That is why we are getting the independent Commerce Commission to regulate Development Levies – with a focus on strong information disclosure requirements. 

My intention is also for the Commerce Commission to set the standardised methodology for calculating development levies. I can promise both councils and the sector that there will be consultation on this methodology. 

The Commission’s role will focus on ensuring levies are transparent, fair, and deliver value for communities, while safeguarding against anti-competitive behaviour. 

I think we can all agree that the current regime is not working. 

Our new Development Levies system, and our wider infrastructure funding and financing toolkit aims to do two things: be flexible to match our new flexible planning system, and strike a balance and be designed in a way where growth pays for growth in a fair and appropriate way.

I’m confident we can get there. 

We will continue to work with developers, councils, and groups like the Property Council to make sure we do. 

Once the legislation for development levies passes in 2027, councils will have time to establish their new levy policies. 

We expect the first councils to begin charging development levies in 2028/2029 – about the same time the new planning system comes in. 

Now, this alignment of “turning on” development levies and the new planning system at the same time is intentional and important – particularly when it comes to preparing new spatial plans and land-use plans.

We know this shift may increase charges for some developers, particularly those who’ve already bought land. 

That’s why the exposure draft proposes a three‑year phase‑in for any price increases where councils move early.

We’re looking closely at feedback on these transition settings to make sure the shift is manageable.

There will also be further opportunities to provide feedback through the select committee process.

We are committed to getting this right – it’s a once in a generation change to ensure we fund growth properly. 

I look forward to meeting with the Property Council on Development Levies next week. 

Viewshafts and Auckland CBD

Now, to finish, I’ll briefly touch on the work Government is doing on Auckland City CBD and give you a sneak peek of some economic analysis I commissioned on viewshafts. 

I don’t want to get into the whole PC120, PC78, MDRS, NPS-UD acronym soup speal so I will just say this: 

The Government believes there is significant unrealised potential in the CBD. Existing provisions, such as setback requirements, tower dimension controls, and height limits, constrain development and should be revisited. 

Enabling more growth in the city centre will unlock productivity and increase the benefits of CRL even further. 

However, for largely unfathomable RMA legal reasons, the City Centre Zone is not included in PC120 work, and the Council does not have a simple mechanism to unlock this potential.

Therefore, Cabinet has agreed that I will start an investigation into these planning provisions that are holding back Auckland’s city centre, with a view to making regulations under the RMA – similar to what we have just announced for Eden Park. 

This investigation will contribute to the Auckland we are trying to build which is an international, world-class city. 

*Now, on viewshafts – I’m told the Auckland Unitary Plan designates over 80 protective viewshaft cones and 10 height sensitive areas that impose building height limits on affected properties.

While the cultural and amenity rationale for these protections is well established, the height restrictions also impose a substantial economic cost on Auckland which is less understood. 

Work done by Geoff Cooper in 2018 found that the E10 viewshaft (which protects views of Mount Eden for southbound motorists approaching the Harbour Bridge around the Onewa onramp) was limiting development at a cost of $1.4 billion.

This is material, and I wanted to get a better and more up to date understanding of these costs. So, last year I commissioned a report on all 80 volcanic viewshafts. 

The report is yet to be finalised, and numbers could still change, but I wanted to share a statistic which I though was compelling, and a good comparison to work already done by Geoff Cooper. 

The draft report indicates that, based on current zoning patterns across Auckland, the harbour bridge viewshafts (E10 and E16) are limiting development in the central city at a cost of $4 billion. 

In other words, there is $4 billion of value locked up in just these two viewshafts. 

In addition to this, the draft analysis shows that viewshafts across the central isthmus are depressing disposable incomes in Auckland by an average of $2,500 per household per year due to transport and location-based inefficiencies.

I am looking forward to receiving the final report shortly and will publish it in the next month or two.

Conclusion

I’d like to thank the Property Council for inviting me to speak. 

Changes to our planning and housing systems are fundamental to this Government’s ambition to create a more prosperous future for New Zealand. 

Now it is up to all of us to do the hard work required to turn this ambition into reality.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions. 

MIL OSI

Source: Radio New Zealand

Iranian New Zealanders gathered at Parliament on Tuesday night to celebrate Nowruz, or Iranian new year, while grappling with a “mix” of feelings due to the ongoing conflict.

Those in attendance told RNZ they hoped a new year would bring new hope, and that “peace prevails”.

The event was also a memorial to those who were killed in Iran’s deadly crackdown earlier this year, and the scores of children killed at an Iranian girls’ school by a targetting mistake in a US strike.

One organiser for the event, Hoda, told RNZ last year was the inaugural event at Parliament, and it was a “happy moment”.

“But this time, the event is a little bit different. It’s a mix of feeling – Nowruz is felt differently by people, they are sad but hopeful.”

She explained Nowruz meant ‘new day’, or a new beginning: “This is the first year that we felt that from the bottom of our hearts, there might be some hope.

“People, they are sad, but they are hopeful.”

She said she hoped for a “big change” and a “new life for our people”.

“They’re suffering from many years, and finally, they can see that some change might happen.”

Another organiser for the event told RNZ they had prepared a Haft-Seen table, a traditional part of the new year where seven symbollic items starting with the letter ‘s’ are spread on a table representing hope, renewal and prosperity.

One item was serke (vinegar), meaning patience.

“It also tells us that the new year is not always going to be a happy year, and we need a lot of patience, especially during these difficult times that Iran is going through right now,” said one member of the community.

She pointed to the posters representing those killed “as a result of the brutality of the regime or the war, especially there is one poster dedicated to the children of Minab, who were killed”.

There was also a dance performance, a moment of silence held and dates were served alongside the wall of remembrance.

Other members of the Iranian community were in attendance including Soodeh who joined with her husband and young son.

She said Nowruz was an important cultural celebration in Iran, and always celebrated.

“It’s very important for us. It doesn’t matter how we feel. We always celebrate this celebration. That’s why we are here.”

She also hoped something new was going to start in Iran by changing the regime and installing a new leader.

Both Soodeh and Hoda said one thing the New Zealand government could do in response to what was happening was to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist entity, as other countries around the world had done.

The designation has been under consideration for some time. The issue was raised again last year following Australia’s decision to make the designation.

Soodeh also criticised a lack of media coverage in New Zealand regarding the protests in Iran earlier this year, which led to a deadly crackdown.

Mehdi told RNZ he hoped peace would prevail, but also indicated the wish of those in Iran was “freedom” and he hoped that was implemented.

“Freedom of women, freedom of country, and freedom of thought is what what they need.”

He said the use of ideology in a bad way was the “worst thing that can happen” and that was what happened in Iran, and “really upset people”.

Ehsan agreed, saying they wanted a new democratic system. He did not want a regime based on any idea, religious or non-religious. He wanted a system where what people were saying was accepted, and the ruler accepted the majority consensus.

That was what the war was about, he said.

“We don’t like war, but this is imposed on us.”

Labour MP Megan Woods hosted the event, and acknowledged those who could not gather “so freely”.

“As the Haft-Seen table reminds us – with its symbols of renewal, growth, and health – this is a time for both personal reflection and shared solidarity.”

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

Does New Zealand have robust enough checks and balances to stop politicians lying in election ads – or should we be looking to Australia for stronger laws

In South Australia, by law, politicians aren’t allowed to lie in their election ads.

You might think that it would be normal that politicians don’t lie in their election ads, and that this would be an unnecessary rule.

But redundant or not, commentators say the fact that they check themselves before sending out their official messaging has helped turn the heat down during election campaigns.

The law is popular with voters and has been praised internationally as a tool for regulating political speech, but it’s also been criticised as labour-intensive to police, and something that has become weaponised by political parties.

It only governs advertising, not statements, what’s said on the campaign trail or on social media.

In New Zealand our watchdog over political advertising is the same body that governs all advertising – the Advertising Standards Authority. It doesn’t have the force of criminal penalties behind it, but it is a mechanism to have false information removed.

If there is a complaint, that board will often make a decision within 48 – 72 hours, and if it finds the message incorrect, it will be taken down. The ASA is the referee in this area, and all parties so far abide by it.

The subject of electoral law is a specialty topic for political commentator David Farrar. He says there is actually a law in New Zealand governing truth in politics, but it’s much wider – although it only applies for the 48 hours before an election. It’s section 199A of the Electoral Act.

“It actually can apply to anyone in New Zealand who states something false which could influence the election,” he says.

“It basically says it’s a corrupt practice – so that means you can go to jail for what’s a criminal offence – to make a knowingly false statement within 48 hours of an election, designed to influence the election.”

The law’s been in place for several decades and Farrar says it reflects a time before the news cycle was sped up, and before advance voting came in, so it’s pretty out of date.

“It’s from the days if you pop out say, a pamphlet to every household on the Friday before an election and there was something false in there, back in the old days there’d be no way to correct that. It would be too late and then you might have an election outcome that got decided on false information. Now, my view is, that’s not the case today.”

He says these days, it would be questioned on social media within 10 minutes, and reported on by media within an hour.

“It’s still on the books – Parliament hasn’t removed it – I don’t think there’s ever been a prosecution under it, but I do recall Winston [Peters] threatening me with it around 20 years ago for something – which was accurate by the way – that I published on my blog on a Friday before the election.”

Farrar says where it gets interesting though, is the question of what is actually false.

‘Those tricks are as old as the hills’

That’s a point also emphasised by Tim Hurdle, a political consultant and long-time political campaign manager who ran Auckland mayor Wayne Brown’s campaign, and the National Party’s campaign in 2020.

“Even with numbers you get into the old quote, ‘lies, damn lies and statistics’ because people look at base years; they can stretch out over what, quarters or months; or they can decide to use a real or nominal number when it comes to economic numbers … those tricks are as old as the hills. They’re used by every political party.

“I don’t think you can necessarily determine it’s an incorrect method – it’s the choice of the person who’s using them.

“But often if they are used in an almost farcical way then they will get called out, but generally they may be technically true or correct and pass some sort of legal test, but are they actually credible with the public is actually the ultimate political test.”

Mostly though, Hurdle points out that politicians don’t want to be caught out in a lie – because it hands their opposition a weapon with which they can attack.

The editor of The Post, Tracy Watkins, says New Zealand has self-regulation and laws which oversee not just political advertising but the broader advertising environment.

“The basis of those is that something has to be factually correct and truthful,” she says.

“Definitely the South Australian [law] does seem to be a much more robust law in that it’s got very strong powers to enforce, and to fine, and to order take-downs and things; but the Advertising Standards Authority I think operates under a self-regulatory regime, same as the Media Council.

“But there’s quite a lot of power in that, because under that sort of regime the media organisations have to agree that the referee’s word is final, and they have to abide by what the referee has said, and to a certain extent everyone benefits from that, even though sometimes we disagree.”

Watkins says we don’t necessarily need a new law to deal with lying.

“I think we’ve got enough guardrails in place to deal with that.”

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

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

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