AM Edition: Top 10 Politics Articles on LiveNews.co.nz for March 29, 2026 – Full Text

Source: Radio New Zealand

The Immigration (Enhanced Risk Management) Amendment Bill has been debated in Parliament for the first time. The government bill, which would amend the Immigration Act, is being shepherded by National MP and Minister of Immigration, Erica Stanford.

The bill describes itself as aimed at better meeting the Immigration Act’s purpose of balancing “the national interest… and the rights of individuals”.

Amendments proposed in the bill would touch on both sides of that equation, with new tools to both deport immigrants and to protect them.

The bill’s main provisions are outlined below, followed by political responses.

The bill: Deportations

The deportation aspect of the bill strengthens the “deportation liability settings” for immigrants on resident visas. It also makes “deportation liability a more likely outcome for lower-level criminal offending”. (All quotes in this section are from the bill’s own Explanatory Note.)

After being granted a resident visa, a migrant remains liable to be deported for subsequent criminal offending. The period of continuing liability varies depending on the severity of the offence. Those liability periods (since receiving a visa) are lengthening.

For offences subject to imprisonment of at least three months, the period of liability lengthens from two to five years. For offences punishable by two-plus years imprisonment, the liability period changes from five years to 10. For offences culpable for five-plus years, the liability period changes from 10years to 15; and for offending punishable by at least 10 years’ prison, it changes from 10 years to 20.

The liability period resets if a migrant with a resident visa is absent from New Zealand for five years.

Criminal conviction outside New Zealand prior to a visa being granted always makes a visa-holder liable for deportation.

Other deportation liability changes aim to fill gaps in current legislation. The bill would clarify “the range of false and misleading submissions that can make a person liable for deportation; and that historic crimes that were committed outside New Zealand can give rise to deportation liability; and how administrative errors can give rise to deportation liability.”

Misleading and false information will also include omission of information that was potentially prejudicial.

More data sharing between government agencies would be allowed, to check things such as applicant’s claims, identity and character; or to check eligibility for funded services or benefits.

Anybody committing a criminal act while in New Zealand on a visitor or temporary visa, as well as those illegally in the country, would be unable to appeal a deportation order on humanitarian grounds.

Victims of serious offenders who are undergoing deportation proceedings would have “the right to be heard during their offender’s deportation proceedings, whether or not the offence against them is the basis of the offender’s liability for deportation.”

The bill: Migrant exploitation offences

The bill also includes changes to offences and penalties related to migrant exploitation. There are three particular changes.

The bill “extends the maximum prison sentence for migrant exploitation offending from seven to ten years”. (All quotes in this section are from the bill’s own Explanatory Note.)

It creates new offences relating to providing “incorrect or incomplete information to the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (MBIE)”, and also for failing to provide wage and time records when requested.

It would also extend MBIE’s timeframe for issuing infringement notices for some offences. Migrant exploitation offences have not always been readily or easily reported by victims, which has allowed some offenders to escape justice by dint of the time limits for proceedings allowed for by the Summary Proceedings Act 1957.

The bill will also seek to prevent the use of temporary asylum visas as a stalling tactic in order to apply for a different kind of visa. An asylum claimant who withdraws that claim would be ineligible for other visas.

Political agreement

The three governing parties are in favour, unsurprisingly. Chris Penk spoke for National, on behalf of the Immigration Minister Erica Stanford.

“This bill provides practical, targeted improvements so that our immigration system can detect, deter, and respond to risk in a firm but fair way, welcoming those who contribute while being clear eyed about misuse and criminal behaviour.”

ACT’s Parmjeet Parmar noted that while ACT supports the bill, they want to further extend deportation liability for residence class visa holders. The current 10-year liability is being extended to 20 years for serious crimes. Parmar wants more.

“Why should consequences expire after 10 years or 20 years if somebody is on a residence class visa? I am proposing an amendment that it should be an unlimited period – the extension of deportation liability should be for an unlimited period – and I’m talking about serious criminal offending.”

New Zealand First offered no amendments. Casey Costello argued the bill fits with the view of American conservative political philosopher Russell Kirk that “every right is married to a duty; every freedom owes a corresponding responsibility”.

Political opposition

Labour’s Phil Twyford (a former associate minister of immigration), strongly opposed the bill.

“This bill is a pretty naked exercise in election-year politicking at the expense of migrants and refugees. The minister of immigration wants to look tough.”

Speaking from his experience as a minister and electorate MP he spoke about humanitarian cases that sometimes involved disabled children.

“I can tell the House that there’s no shortage of cases where Immigration New Zealand has made a sequence of poor decisions, where the interests of the children have not been given the weight required under our international treaty obligations. Justice is, in a significant number of cases, only finally delivered through an appeal to the tribunal on exceptional humanitarian circumstances.”

Green MP Ricardo Menendez March was no less incensed, though his focus was on undocumented migrants.

“This is a Trump administration-inspired, MAGA-loving piece of legislation that deserves to be put in the bin. If you heard the minister’s contribution, you would think that this is a completely different bill from the one I have in front of me.

“In the bill itself, it’s quite clear: this is a bill that seeks to demonise and target undocumented migrants by giving more powers to our immigration officials to target them if they suspect that they may be in breach of their visa conditions.”

Duncan Webb raised an issue with the proposed changes to rules about cancelling an asylum claim. He pointed out that if an asylum seeker fell in love with a New Zealand citizen while awaiting a decision on their claim, they would no longer be able to cancel their claim (in order to obtain a partnership visa) because doing so would make them ineligible for any visa.

Te Pāti Māori did not speak in the first reading debate.

• The Immigration (Enhanced Risk Management) Amendment Billis here.
• The bill’s Parliamentary progress page ishere.
• The Regulatory Impact Statement for the billis here.
• The Departmental Disclosure Statement for the billis here.
• The Hansard report of the first reading debate ishere.
• The Education & Workforce Committee page – for information on submissions etc ishere.

RNZ’s The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament’s Office of the Clerk. Enjoy ourarticles orpodcast at RNZ.

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

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 estimated alcohol-related harm cost Aotearoa around $9.1 billion annually, including about 900 deaths, 1250 cancers, and tens of thousands of hospitalisations.

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

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

Research showed this was 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 was “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 were 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 strengthened rules around alcohol delivery and aimed 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 reflected what they were hearing across their communities.

Chief executive Zoe Witika-Hawke said the reforms risked 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 estimated 1800 to 3000 babies every year may be affected by FASD. That’s roughly eight 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

Source: New Zealand Government

Check against delivery

Kia ora, and thank you so much for inviting me here today. It is great to be with you all.

Can I start by thanking Fran O’Sullivan for her hard work in organising and supporting this annual event, and also NZME and the NZ Herald for sponsoring the event as always.

I would also like to acknowledge our Deputy Mayor Desley Simpson, Councillor Richard Hills, and Councillor Andy Baker.

I also wish to acknowledge the opposition spokesperson for Auckland and Shanan Halbert. Lovely to see you here today.

And I want to acknowledge everyone in this room for the role you play in leading our great city. We are proud to be Aucklanders. We are proud of all this city has to offer, and we are all committed to making it a better place. That shared commitment mirrors our Government’s focus on fixing the basics and building the future of Auckland.

Conflict in Iran

Before I speak about the Government’s priorities, I want to acknowledge the global context we are all operating in. Everything has changed in the past four weeks with the conflict in Iran.

The Strait of Hormuz, the narrow stretch of water between Iran and Oman, carries around 20 percent of the world’s daily oil supply, and the conflict in Iran is leading to significant disruption in global oil markets. Kiwis are feeling that right now at the pump.

Our Government is responding quickly and decisively with two key priorities. First, ensuring New Zealand has continued access to fuel supplies. Second, providing targeted support to those who need it most.

As Finance Minister Nicola Willis has confirmed, we continue to have a stable fuel supply, with combined jet, petrol and diesel stocks equating to around 48.6 days of cover nationwide, meaning there is no need for immediate concern. But we are taking every action we can to shore up our position.

We have aligned our fuel standards with Australia to ensure we have access to more markets to purchase fuel products from. We are working with Australia and other nations to secure the supplies we need. And the Minister of Finance has today announced our Fuel Response Plan, which sets out clearly how we will act if we begin to face disruption in our supply chains.

There are four phases to this plan, of which we have already announced phases one and two in detail. For phases three and four, we will consult closely with industry and sector groups, as these phases would require additional restrictions. As the Minister of Finance has made clear, though, success means not having to move to phases three or four. Our focus remains on our priority: ensuring a secure fuel supply for New Zealanders.

Alongside this, we have announced targeted support for working families. We cannot control global oil markets or international conflicts, but we can soften the impact on working families who cannot easily avoid higher fuel costs. From 7 April, around 143,000 working families with children will receive an extra fifty dollars a week through a boost to the in-work tax credit. That targeted increase will be temporary, lasting for one year or until the price of 91 octane petrol drops below three dollars a litre for four consecutive weeks.

That is what responsible, temporary and targeted relief looks like.

Improvements in Auckland under National

Turning now to Auckland. While what is happening internationally will continue to occupy our attention, today is also an opportunity to take stock of the real progress this city has made over the past two years.

When National came into office, Auckland had been through an extraordinarily difficult stretch. The COVID-19 lockdowns had closed this city repeatedly, as the Royal Commission found, and we now know they went longer than the public health advice supported. The economic toll of those decisions fell hardest here. Businesses that had fought to survive were then hit by inflation peaking at over seven percent, mortgage repayments that had doubled for some families, and a cost-of-living squeeze felt right across the city. And if that was not enough, there were the ram raids. Retailers were boarding up their shopfronts, and a city that had, for a time, lost its footing.

That was the Auckland we inherited. And it is why the work of the past two years has been so focused on getting back to basics: restoring economic stability, restoring law and order, and restoring confidence in our public services.

And we have delivered:

We abolished the 11.5 cents per litre Auckland Regional Fuel Tax, putting money back in the pockets of Auckland households and businesses.
Our water reforms are saving Aucklanders hundreds of dollars on their water bills.
We have made meaningful Auckland governance changes to restore democratic decision-making.
We are progressing time-of-use schemes to improve flow across our motorways.
We’re negotiating a regional deal that gives Auckland a genuine partnership with central government.

The results speak for themselves. The NZIER Business Confidence survey shows the strongest equal result since 1994. The Consumer Sentiment Index has risen to 107, reflecting more optimism than pessimism for the first time in several years. Building activity is up, with a 13 percent increase in new dwellings consented in the year to January. Interest rates have come down meaningfully, which is real relief for homeowners and businesses alike. And the International Convention Centre is now open, already hosting 120 events over the year and generating international visitor spend that flows through the whole Auckland economy.

These are not small things. They are the product of a clear plan focused on fixing the basics and building the future.

Opportunities We Must Seize

With that foundation in place, the question now is: what do we do with it? Because Auckland’s best days are not behind us, they are ahead of us, and there are real opportunities in front of us that we must seize together.

The City Rail Link will open this year. It is the largest infrastructure project in New Zealand’s history, started under a National Government and delivered by a National Government. When it opens, it will transform how people move around Auckland, cut travel times, and unlock development opportunities along the rail corridor. But we need to make sure we capture the full benefit. That means using the planning tools available to us to ensure housing growth happens around the stations, with density in the right places and of the right kind. A rail network only delivers its full potential when the city grows intelligently around it, and we are working to make sure our planning settings support exactly that.

On transport more broadly, the CRL is just the beginning. We are progressing the next generation of projects that will define Auckland’s connectivity for decades to come: Mill Road, Northwestern Rapid Transit, and completing the Eastern Busway. 

On safety, the progress in our city centre has been real and measurable. Through our Housing First initiative, 188 people have been placed into housing by March, up from just 33 when the plan was announced in November. Crime victimisations have fallen from 1,010 in January 2024 to 638 in December 2025. A new Police Station in the CBD and officers increasingly on the beat are making a tangible difference. New move-on powers for Police will give them an important additional tool to address the antisocial behaviour that drives people away from our city centre. Our approach balances support with accountability: helping those who need housing and mental health services, while taking firm action against behaviour that makes people feel unsafe.

On health, waiting times skyrocketed following Labour’s decisions to remove the previous National Government’s health targets, and Health New Zealand was left managing $28 billion on a single Excel spreadsheet following the decisions to restructure our healthcare system in the middle of a pandemic. National has brought back the health targets, and we are seeing encouraging improvements across the board, with Kiwis spending less time in emergency departments, more children being fully immunised by the age of 24 months, and waitlists for elective surgeries and first specialist assessments coming down. 

There is still more work to do, however, our focus on fixing the basics is delivering results.

As part of this continued focus, today I am pleased to announce that Health New Zealand is issuing a Request for Proposal to identified landowners for land in Drury, to support the development of a future South Auckland hospital. This is the next concrete step towards a major new hospital health precinct for one of the fastest-growing parts of this country, and it is a step that has been a long time coming. South Auckland carries some of the highest health burdens in New Zealand, with elevated rates of infectious disease, diabetes, cardiovascular and chronic respiratory conditions, and a population projected to grow by hundreds of thousands by 2050. Drury is the right location. It sits alongside our Roads of Regional Significance and planned public transport infrastructure, meaning patients, staff and visitors can actually get there. Securing the right site now means Health New Zealand can plan with confidence, and future investment goes to the right place, at the right scale.

Conclusion

When I look at the full picture, Auckland has real momentum behind it. Inflation is down. Interest rates are down. Business confidence is up. Crime is down. We are delivering in health and in education. The Convention Centre is open and the City Rail Link is coming. These are the results of a clear plan that is working, and we need to stick to it.

We also need to work in genuine partnership with Auckland Council to deliver on these objectives. We have devolved decision-making to the Council in a number of areas, and that makes sense. But this is not an Auckland versus Wellington thing. The majority of Cabinet Ministers come from Auckland. We live here, we shop here, we sit in the same traffic as everyone else in this room. Ministers are constantly engaging with the Mayor and the Council. We are not here to serve Auckland Council. We are here to deliver for Aucklanders.

Yes, we are living in challenging times. The conflict in Iran is a reminder that we cannot always control what arrives on our doorstep. But what we can control is how prepared we are, how resilient we are, and how well we have set Auckland up to seize the opportunities ahead of it.

Auckland’s best days lie ahead of us. The plan is working. Let’s continue to fix the basics and build the future.

Thank you very much.

MIL OSI

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

The government has fleshed out its National Fuel Plan, outlining rationing measures that would be taken if supplies start running dry.

Resembling the Covid alert levels, the plan has four ‘phases’. New Zealand is at phase one.

Phase 2 would see homes, businesses and the public sector encouraged to conserve fuel.

The higher phases are still under consultation.

Phase 3 would see fuel prioritised for life-preserving services and phase 4 would see stricter intervention in fuel distribution.

Moving up or down levels is decided by a ministerial oversight group based on fuel stocks, restrictions and supply chain data.

“While there is currently no need for fuel restrictions, the public can be assured that the government is planning carefully, acting early and making sure New Zealand is well positioned to respond, whatever the global environment brings,” Finance Minister Nicola Willis said.

“Ensuring New Zealand has the fuel we need to protect jobs, livelihoods and the wider economy is our first priority in managing the impact of global fuel disruption.

“The updates released today give practical effect to the National Fuel Plan established in 2024 and reflect the specific potential risks New Zealand could face as a result of major fuel disruption driven by the conflict in the Middle East.”

Minister Shane Jones, responsible for fuel security, said the updates were developed alongside the fuel industry.

“This is critical because the plan relies on fuel companies cooperating and working constructively with government,” he said.

“My expectation is that we continue to work together as the situation evolves. The industry will play a key role in providing advice to the Ministerial Oversight Group if and when we are required to consider a move between phases.

“New Zealand has sufficient fuel stocks, but we are planning for potential scenarios where obtaining future supply could become increasingly difficult.”

The criteria for changing phases were:

“The plan is designed to keep fuel flowing where it matters most, relying on market settings wherever possible, and only stepping in further if supply is genuinely at risk,” Willis said.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

The Christchurch Methodist Mission is warning that homelessness among older people is at crisis levels and that the situation is rapidly worsening.

The scale of the problem was laid bare during the launch of the charity’s cross-party Doors to Dignity campaign at Parliament on Tuesday night.

The mission said the housing situation for older New Zealanders had deteriorated significantly over the past five years.

Its executive director Jilll Hawkey said that, anecdotally, the number of older people rough sleeping was on the rise.

“We see it from our housing outreach teams, we’ve in recent weeks found a couple of women in their eighties who have been homeless and two men last week in their sevenites who are homeless,” she said.

Hawkey said the housing crisis was especially bad for renters aged 65 and over.

”There is a lot of evidence that this is a growing crisis. The percentage of those aged over 65 years on the social housing register has grown at a faster rate than any other age group.”

The Christchurch Methodist Mission said two out of every three renters aged 65 to 74 spent 40 percent or more of their income on rent.

Hawkey believed the answer to the crisis was simple.

“We need homes to be built that are affordable, accessible and warm, that foster cultural connections and that are embedded in local communities. We know the difference that living in such a home makes.”

The charity’s Doors to Dignity campaign advocated for cross-party support for government investment in what it considered appropriate housing for older people.

Speaking at the launch, Housing Minister Chris Bishop said parliament did not use to take housing seriously enough, but now acknowleged there was a crisis.

He said housing supply did not meet the specific needs of older people.

”Fifty percent of people of the [social housing] register need a one bedroom house. Twelve percent of Kainga Ora stock is one bedroom. We’ve been building the wrong houses for years and years. We need to build simply, low cost affordable units, increasingly for seniors.”

Labour’s housing spokesperson Kieran McAnulty said flawed data was masking the true scale of the homelessness crisis among older people.

”We don’t know how many people are in severe housing hardship. We don’t know how many people are sleeping rough. We, up until now, have been relying on a census that happens once every five years and, frankly, despite the best efforts of all of you and others, if you are living rough filling out a form is not going to be a priority and then we have a five year gap before we have another idea.”

Green Party housing spokesperson Tamatha Paul said New Zealand did not have the infrastructure for older people to have a dignified life.

”Only 2 percent of our overall housing stock is accessible and that’s despite the fact that we have a growing ageing population and also despite the fact that more than a quarter of our population is disabled.”

New Zealand First said the latest Budget would fund hundreds of new social homes in Auckland and help lower borrowing costs for community housing providers.

The Christchurch Methodist Mission said the challenge of older persons’ housing was urgent.

Its Parliamentary petition to increase and target investment in social and affordable housing for older people had 911 signatures.

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: New Zealand Government

The Government has today released updates to the National Fuel Plan to respond to fuel supply uncertainty driven by the conflict in the Middle East, Finance Minister Nicola Willis and Associate Energy Minister Shane Jones say.

“While there is currently no need for fuel restrictions, the public can be assured that the Government is planning carefully, acting early and making sure New Zealand is well positioned to respond, whatever the global environment brings,” Nicola Willis says.

“Ensuring New Zealand has the fuel we need to protect jobs, livelihoods and the wider economy is our first priority in managing the impact of global fuel disruption.

“The updates released today give practical effect to the National Fuel Plan established in 2024 and reflect the specific potential risks New Zealand could face as a result of major fuel disruption driven by the conflict in the Middle East.”

The plan outlines four clear phases that respond proportionately to the risks to New Zealand’s fuel security. These phases are assessed separately for petrol, diesel and jet fuel to reflect their different functions and challenges.

At each phase is a set of measures that would be taken in response to escalating risks to New Zealand’s fuel security.

The Fuel Security Ministerial Oversight Group will be responsible for deciding whether a shift between phases is appropriate, with the group required to consider a move when there is a change in any of the six assessment criteria. These criteria will be used to assess a movement up or down a response phase.

The criteria are:

1. export restrictions – if any of New Zealand’s source refineries introduce or relax export restrictions
2. changes to New Zealand’s fuel stock levels of plus or minus three days since the most recent published update
3. a fuel company informs the government that they are unlikely or unable to fill future orders
4. a breach, or a notification of an imminent breach, of the minimum storage obligations
5. any significant policy changes in Australia or from the International Energy Agency
6. a significant disruption to regional distribution.

“The plan is designed to keep fuel flowing where it matters most, relying on market settings wherever possible, and only stepping in further if supply is genuinely at risk,” Nicola Willis says.

Phase 1 of the plan focuses on monitoring global developments, easing restrictions to increase optionality (such as changing fuel specifications), providing information to fuel consumers of measures to support voluntary reductions in fuel use, and working with fuel companies to keep fuel moving efficiently across the country.

Phase 2 would see more active coordination between government and industry to shore up fuel supply and support increased efforts in demand reduction.

At Phase 2 there would be a stronger push for voluntary uptake by households and businesses of measures that help to conserve fuel, and a reduction in the public sector’s use of fuel where appropriate.

If disruption increases, the plan allows for stronger interventions at Phases 3 and 4 including prioritising fuel for emergency services, freight and food supply chains, and key industries that underpin New Zealand’s economy.

“The measures at Phases 1 and 2 are designed to prevent a move to more restrictive measures. This plan is about staying ahead of the risk, managing pressure in the system and keeping the economy moving,” Nicola Willis says.

“It is prudent, however, to plan for all scenarios so that everyone – the Government, industries, businesses and the general public – is prepared.

“Therefore, we will be engaging with stakeholders over the next two weeks including industry, fuel users, and local government on the implementation details of Phases 3 and 4.”

Shane Jones, who has responsibility for fuel security, says the Government has worked closely with industry on developing the updates to the National Fuel Plan.

“This is critical because the plan relies on fuel companies cooperating and working constructively with government.

“My expectation is that we continue to work together as the situation evolves. The industry will play a key role in providing advice to the Ministerial Oversight Group if and when we are required to consider a move between phases.

“New Zealand has sufficient fuel stocks, but we are planning for potential scenarios where obtaining future supply could become increasingly difficult.”

MIL OSI

Source: Radio New Zealand

A prominent backer of the Lake Onslow pumped hydro scheme says he’s already fielding interest from international investors.

It is a project that has been around for years, picked up by the last Labour government, but then scrapped after the election amid strong criticism from National.

Now it is being backed by a private-sector firm, The Clutha Pumped Hydro Consortium, and the government has agreed to refer the scheme for possible fast-tracking.

Consortium member and also former Meridian Energy chief executive and Transpower chairperson Keith Turner told Morning Report the large infrastructure project was perfect for fast-track consideration.

He said the group was pleased to finally see some momentum and others were taking an interest.

“Projects like this have got real appeal to big international investors that want long-dated revenues.

“I’ve been working in Australia with the New South Wales government doing big renewable energy zones. Global companies from all around the world have turned up for that and they’ve all been whispering in my ear that they’d love to do business in New Zealand.

“So we’ve already got interest from some pretty big companies from overseas and believe it or not a lot of support in New Zealand too.”

He said the group had been in regular communication with local iwi and would be happy to have them on board.

Turner estimated the build would cost around $8-10 billion and if successful, could be up-and-running by 2035.

He said the project was similar in scale to the Manapōuri Power Station and could generate a lot of power for a relatively small lake.

“It can store about 5000 gigawatt-hours and that’s enough to cover a dry year-and-a-half so it’s a very important feature for the future.”

One gigawatt-hour can power roughly 10,000 homes for a year.

Turner said the plant could work as a battery – water could be pumped back into the lake during periods of low energy demand.

“When the prices are low it usually means there’s a lot of spare power … so we would pump the water up to Lake Onslow.

“It can do several things. It can deal with these dry years because it stores a lot, but it can also do this on a daily cycle. So it could generate when every body gets up for breakfast and it can pump overnight when the prices are low and there’s not much demand.”

Turner rejected concerns that the project would undermine energy companies’ long-term planning.

“When you build wind farms they don’t match up to the demand profile. You need something else to help when there’s no wind. A project like this actually provides a floor in the price because it’s going to be buying power to pump and it will provide intermittency support for wind.”

He believed the project would “unlock some very big wind development in Southland”.

A spokesperson for the Ministry for the Environment said the Minister for Infrastructure had issued a decision to refer the project to the Fast-track approvals process.

“It is eligible to lodge a substantive application to be considered by an expert panel.

“Information on the referral decision is available on the Fast-track projects website here: Clutha Pumped Hydro.

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

Advocacy groups are supporting the government’s U-turn on minimum size limits for commercial fishers, but still want the government to consider killing the Fisheries Amendment Bill entirely.

Meanwhile, Seafood New Zealand says it is ironic the change has resulted in an outcome that is “not great for the environment”, and doesn’t provide the incentive to avoid catching small fish.

The Fisheries Amendment Bill – as drafted – would have ditched most commercial size limits, effectively allowing commercial vessels to land and sell baby fish, including snapper and tarakihi.

Recreational fishers argued the changes would decimate future populations.

Fisheries Minister Shane Jones has argued the change would prevent wastage, but was forced into a major U-turn over his plans.

As recently as Monday, he was entirely unapologetic about the change, describing critics as just “noisy voices”. But on Wednesday, coalition parties announced on social media that they had listened to public feedback and would no longer proceed.

ITM Fishing Show host Matt Watson told RNZ’s First Up it was a start and called it a “win” for demonstrating what “people power can do”.

However, he said while the bill had “one of the terrible things taken out of it”, it hadn’t been “thrown out”.

“There is a lot more stuff in there that is equally as bad, if not worse.

“There’s still legalised fish dumping in there. There is still reduction in fines for fishes that overfish their quotas, there’s a removal of environmental considerations, and it does nothing to move us away from destructive fishing methods.”

He called on New Zealanders to “stay vigilant”.

LegaSea – a non profit organisation dedicated to restoring the marine environment – said the minimum size limit proposal was just clickbait.

Project lead Sam Woolford told RNZ the change was too little too late. He said if there was an issue with the amount of fish being caught, or the techniques being used, that should be dealt with first, rather than legislating an outcome.

“It’s completely unacceptable that it’s taken this huge public outcry for the government to pay attention.

“It’s particularly unreasonable they think removing one small aspect of this legislation is going to placate New Zealanders.”

The Environmental Law Initiative (ELI) was also concerned with other changes included in the bill, including the siloing of environmental considerations.

ELI director research and legal Dr Matt Hall said as a whole, the bill systematically weakened sustainability provisions in the current Fisheries Act.

He said the bill could lead to impacts of fishing on the ecosystem being ignored, the use of non-regulatory measures to potentially justify higher take, and the strict limitations on judicial review of fisheries decisions.

Hall said the changes were contrary to New Zealand’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

But Seafood New Zealand chief executive Lisa Futschek told RNZ she was disappointed because the proposal would have strengthened the incentives for commercial fishers to avoid catching small fish.

“We don’t want to catch small fish, our processors don’t want to process small fish, and this proposal would have provided incentives not to catch small fish.”

She said the change would have meant those catching small fish would have needed to balance that fish against their quota: “In other words, they would have to pay for it.

“As it turns out, removing that clause means that the status quo remains. That is, fishers that catch small fish, return them to the sea, as they were required to do under the legislation – and they don’t pay for it.”

She said the proposed changes were “net positive for the environment and for sustainability of our resource”.

Asked about the coalition referencing feedback it had received in making the decision, she said fisheries and seafood were “a very emotive topic”.

“They are part of our culture and our heritage, and understandably, people are passionate about it, and they want to have their say in this situation.”

She said the level of disinformation around what the clause was seeking to achieve led to a whole range of speculation around the motives behind the change, “which were frankly wrong”.

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