AM Edition: Top 10 Politics Articles on LiveNews.co.nz for May 5, 2026 – Full Text

Source: Radio New Zealand

Explainer – Could government planning reforms lead to more development in the Waitākere Ranges? Here’s why locals are concerned.

The Waitākere Ranges are one of the jewels of Auckland, encompassing thousands of hectares of dense coastal forest hills and beaches.

But many in the community are concerned that the impending replacement of the Resource Management Act (RMA) may loosen longstanding protections for the area.

“You can’t have growth at all costs,” said Waitākere Ranges Local Board deputy chair Greg Presland, who has organised a petition to amend the RMA reform legislation currently before a parliamentary select committee.

Here’s what the debate is about.

Why are people concerned?

The Waitākere Ranges cover about 27,000ha of public and private land nestled in the hills, foothills and coast around West Auckland, including the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park which takes up about 60 percent of the land. Its borders include communities like Titirangi, Piha, Laingholm, Oratia and Karekare and it’s a home to threatened kauri trees.

It’s a place people are passionate about, and a variety of groups including Forest & Bird, Environmental Defence Society, The Tree Council, the Waitākere Ranges Protection Society and others are wanting to ensure the ranges are explicitly protected in RMA reforms.

In 2008, the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act was put into place. It’s meant to address concerns about the effect of development and preserve the natural character and cultural heritage of the area. That legislation cross-references the soon to be replaced 1991 Resource Management Act – which also specifically mentions the Waitākere Act and the similar Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000.

But neither one of those acts is referred to in the replacement Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill, which Presland has written “would render large parts of the Heritage Area Act meaningless”.

The Planning Bill will lay out how land can be used and developed including planning for housing growth, while the Natural Environment Bill will lay out the rules for managing the use of natural resources and protecting the environment.

Without the Heritage Area Act being specifically mentioned in the new legislation, many Waitākere locals and groups are concerned it could lead to creeping changes.

In its submission to Parliament, the Waitākere Ranges Local Board said leaving the Waitākere Ranges outside of the RMA reform “would strip consent processes, Regional Spatial Plans and Land Use Plans of their duty to protect the ranges”.

“In short: the ranges could be weakened by a thousand cuts. Subdivision of the ranges would be more likely and decision makers would not have to have as one of their guiding principles the protection of the ranges.”

A petition to Parliament Presland started, ‘Save the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area’, had nearly hit its goal of 6000 signatures as of Monday.

“My impression is that the vast majority appreciate and support the Heritage Act,” he said.

“I live in the area and want it protected,” one person wrote in signing the petition, while another said, “I want future generations to be able to feel that same connection and find the same peace of mind in the Waitākeres: it is a good antidote to the madness of the modern world!”

Around 150 people also turned up at a recent local community meeting about the issue, Presland said.

Sir Bob Harvey, a former mayor of Waitākere City, told that meeting, “I never believed we would have to save the Waitākere Ranges all over again.”

Presland said the exclusion of the ranges from the proposed legislation may not be intentional, but the response indicates how important the ranges are seen to many in Auckland.

“I think [it’s an] omission – the government doesn’t have enough people working on these particular reforms. But it’s crazy that it’s got this far without it being addressed.”

What does the government say?

The gist so far from the government is that they’re aware of the concerns and will consider it as the legislation progresses.

In official transcriptions of Question Time in Parliament last week, Housing and Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop, who is also the minister responsible for RMA reform, acknowledged the 2008 act.

“To maintain the intent of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act under the new planning system, consequential amendments will be needed, and the Environment Committee will be considering that as part of its scrutiny of the bills,” he said.

Bishop said “around 100” consequential amendments would be required for the RMA reforms legislation.

“It’s not just about the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act, it’s about 100 other pieces of legislation that require consequential amendments, which the select committee will be considering.”

Presland said, “They’ve acknowledged there’s a problem,” and said the public campaign has drawn a lot of engagement.

“I’ve heard that their email boxes have been filled up,” he said of ministers and MPs.

Te Pāti Māori MP for Tāmaki Makaurau Oriiini Kaipara asked Bishop during Question Time, “What assurances, if any, can he give to the people of Tāmaki Makaurau that his RMA reforms will not impact the protection of the Waitākere Ranges?”

Kaipara referred to “strong opposition from local communities and mana whenua” and pushed Bishop to answer “what specific safeguards, if any, will remain to prevent irreversible environmental degradation” in the ranges.

Bishop referred to previous discussion on the legislation and responded to Kaipara, “If she was listening, she would find out that that’s not what I’m doing.”

What about property owners and their rights?

“When this act was designed, we had this basic mantra was people could keep their existing rights,” Presland said.

However, Auckland councillor for Waitākere Ward Ken Turner wrote on social media recently that while he does support the RMA reforms specifically including references to the Heritage Act, he also believed it is currently difficult for some locals to make changes to their private properties and called for more relief support for homeowners.

“Is the protection of the Waitākere Ranges under threat because of changes to the RMA,” he wrote. “No! Because it is not the rules and regulations of a few politicians and bureaucrats that protect the Waitākere Ranges. It is the respect and effort of the many Aucklanders who love, live in, and visit the area.”

Turner wrote that he supports establishing a regulatory relief process – which the government defined by saying, “A council must provide for regulatory relief when a proposed plan includes certain kinds of rules that are likely to significantly impact a landowner’s reasonable use of their land.”

That compensation could include things like cash payouts, rates relief, bonus development rights, land swaps or other methods.

Turner described “a complex tension between ‘character’ and ‘use’ across the 10,500 hectares of private land within the heritage area”. He said that some rules have been set aside for public projects such as the estimated $1 billion-plus expansion of the Huia Water Treatment Plant or trail walkways and infrastructure in the area.

“For local people, who are the backbone of Waitākere Ranges protection, undertaking even the smallest types of improvements to their private properties, like building a deck or adding extra car parking space, comes with consenting processes and costs designed to prohibit,” Turner wrote.

During the Question Time in Parliament, ACT leader David Seymour asked if the changes would permit long-awaited developments for some locals.

“Is there any chance that these changes might allow families with a horse paddock in Henderson, where they’ve been trying to build homes for decades, to actually provide those homes that would do a lot more for mana whenua and many others complaining than any of the carping we’ve heard in this question so far?”

But Presland called the idea of introducing regulatory relief a “significant concern”.

“Most of the Heritage Area is covered by a significant ecological area overlay and if compensation was demanded by landowners this would be a significant liability on the part of council.

“As a concept it is retrograde and would lessen the action that council could take to protect the environment. It suggests that financial considerations could top environmental considerations and it ignores the collective benefit that a healthy environment provides us all.”

How does current legislation protect the ranges?

The 2008 act came into place at the request of the former Waitākere City Council and “puts in place a number of measures to ensure that the core nature of the area is protected”.

Under the act, monitoring reports are issued every five years on the state of the heritage area’s environment.

“It’s been indicating that it’s been working as planned,” Presland said. “I think there’s been 700 or 800 new dwellings in the area since the act started, so it’s progressing as practical.”

Last year, the Waitākere Ranges Deed of Acknowledgement was also signed, which “gives practical effect” to the rights of tangata whenua laid out in the 2008 legislation.

That deed aims to create a framework for closer collaboration between Te Kawerau ā Maki, Auckland Council, the Department of Conservation and local communities, although it was also criticised by NZ First’s Shane Jones and ACT leader David Seymour who had concerns over “co-governance”.

Are there broader fears for the Waitākere Ranges and development?

“The heritage area fulfils a number of functions,” Presland said.

It’s also a major water catchment area with five large water supply dams. “We get 17 percent of the city’s water from it,” he said.

It was also hit hard by the 2023 Auckland Anniversary Weekend flooding, Cyclone Gabrielle and other recent storms, with roads destroyed and many homes damaged or lost in landslips.

“Titirangi, you can see after the last storm, it’s very fragile. There’s a real practical reason to stop further development here.”

Presland said he has heard a lot of concern about possible “boundary creep” into the heritage area.

“The boundary is the place where the biggest issues are. You hold that line or if you don’t hold that line it’s just going to keep happening and it’s death by a thousand cuts.”

Presland said there is a benefit to the entire community for landowners to keep their properties forested and in good health.

“A landowner may insist on their right to cut down trees but this may affect the stability of neighbouring properties let alone their own. This is one of the primary reasons why the significant ecological area overlay was established.

“To require council to pay compensation in a situation where protection needs to be enhanced could have a direct effect on neighbours and communities.

“Protecting the environment is not only preserving a nice to have. It is ensuring that people in communities do not have their local areas degraded.”

Auckland has been grappling with housing intensification plans which would add more than a million homes in the next 30 years. Presland said those plans should focus on central suburbs like nearby Glen Eden.

“We’ve seen significant intensification around Glen Eden for instance. If you want a compact city that’s growing, that’s the way you do it. …You intensify around the rail stations and you protect your countryside.”

Presland also expressed concern that the new legislation would give too much power to the minister responsible.

Clause 204 of the Planning Bill notes that ,”The Minister may direct a local authority to take any action that the Minister considers necessary to achieve an outcome specified by the Minister in the direction.”

“From what I can see there is no comparable RMA power,” Presland wrote in the local board’s submission on the bill. “The level of ministerial power is on the face of it is extreme and the local board does not understand the justification for this power.”

“We never anticipated a minister would have that sort of power when the act was designed,” Presland told RNZ.

During his remarks in Parliament last week, Bishop said he has seen a lot of feedback on the Waitākere Ranges.

“It is true that I have had a number of emails around the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act seeking that it be entrenched in law,” Bishop said.

“I’ve also had emails from people who actually live there who wish to do simple things with their property, like subdivide to put another house on, who find themselves unable to do that.”

In her remarks in Parliament last week, Kaipara asked Bishop whether he would accept any responsibility for “irreversible damage” to the ranges if protections are weakened.

Bishop responded by saying the overall RMA reforms would create “the prosperity that we have been denied as a country because of the straightjacket of the RMA.”

“If the government’s planning reforms work as intended, I will take responsibility for the abundant development opportunities that will land in this country.”

What’s next?

The select committee’s report is due to be presented on 26 June. The next step is a second reading of the bill and possible further amendments could then be considered.

Presland said the community response shows the keen interest in the future of the Waitākere Ranges.

“I’ve been really impressed, actually. People have shared the hell out of the petition on social media and everyone’s talking about it.”

Presland said the completed petition would be presented soon, and other meetings are also scheduled with ministers.

“We’re trying to figure out the optimal time. So the select committee are going through reviews now, probably next week or two is the optimal time to present it to them.”

In the House last week, Bishop maintained that the select committee will consider all possible amendments before the legislation moves forward.

“What’s important is that the select committee … work its way through that, consider the consequential amendments made, and I look forward to the report back to the House.”

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

Financial Markets Authority chair Craig Stobo has resigned after an independent review found his public commentary failed to meet the standards of political neutrality expected of the head of an independent regulator.

Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs Cameron Brewer accepted Stobo’s resignation following the completion of a review into his conduct, led by Wendy Aldred KC.

His public submission and remarks on the Treaty Principles Bill were found to be “laudatory” of the government, critical of the opposition and in breach of public service requirements to be impartial.

The review cleared Stobo of allegations of an inappropriate relationship with a former staff member and of misuse of FMA travel, but found shortcomings in how he managed conflicts of interest and, critically, in his public political commentary.

Three Board members of the FMA had met Minister Brewer over their concerns. Stobo stood aside temporarily last December after the review was announced.

Steven Bardy will continue as acting chair while a process is undertaken to appoint a permanent replacement.

The review findings

The independent review by Wendy Aldred examined several matters raised by members of the FMA Board.

The review found:

• No evidence of an inappropriate relationship between Stobo and a former staff member;
• Stobo acted reasonably in disclosing a governance-related interest and later in agreeing to resign from it, but he should not have delayed his resignation as long as he did;
• Stobo’s applications for FMA travel were not inappropriate;
• However, aspects of Stobo’s public commentary “did not meet the standards of political neutrality expected of the Chair of an independent Crown entity and financial markets regulator”.

The focus of the finding was around comments and a public submission Stobo made to Parliament on the Treaty Principles Bill. The review described it as “laudatory” of the coalition government and critical of the opposition, so it breached the Public Service Commission code of political impartiality.

The review said the final finding alone, was sufficient on its own to justify his resignation.

His remarks came after FMA senior managers had raised the need to be cautious about public comments.

Financial industry veteran

Stobo is a 35-year veteran of the finance sector, with a wide range of roles in investment banking and taxation, and directorships of listed companies.

He has been on taxation advisory groups to Labour and National-led governments, which led to the current approach to the tax system for KiwiSaver funds and was extended to overseas investors.

His LinkedIn profile also says he is founding director of the Auckland Future Fund, building an investment portfolio after the sale of council shares in Auckland International Airport.

He also lists his certificates as including being a Chevalier of the Confrerie des Chevaliers du Tastevin, a group promoting Burgundy wines and gastronomy.

But the review – and Stobo’s resignation – may not be the end of the story for the FMA

After the findings were released, a statement was released by former FMA senior advisor Kyla Bottriell, who said she welcomed the release of the review as it confirmed she had an “entirely professional relationship’ with Stobo.

The report’s findings mattered because false and damaging rumours about her were allowed to circulate within the FMA and to media, she said, causing her both personal and professional harm.

“The report corrects the public record, but it does not repair the harm, or answer wider questions about how a conduct regulator allowed misinformation to escalate causing lasting damage to my reputation.”

She said she had raised legitimate concerns through proper channels about the FMA’s internal culture, rumour‑spreading, lack of accountability and leaking of internal matters, and that those issues remain unaddressed.

“I expect the FMA to acknowledge the harm caused to me and to support a credible independent review of the conduct and culture issues that allowed this to occur.”

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

David Seymour says ACT’s immigration policy is a long-held approach aimed at tackling real challenges, and those claiming he’s competing with New Zealand First should be more constructive.

Prominent critics of his immigration policy include opposition parties, an immigration lawyer, a sociologist – and his coalition partner.

But Seymour doesn’t agree with them.

“Some people like to belittle our political debate as a soap opera. I view it as politicians listening and responding to people’s concerns to produce better policy for our country,” he told RNZ.

“When you have 20,000 overstayers at large in the country, when you have literally 100 times more fast food workers than biomedical engineers coming in under the skilled visa, and when you have a serious problem with infrastructure keeping up with population growth, I think it behooves political parties to respond to that.”

Asked for evidence of the fast food claim, ACT pointed to 2480 fast food workers being approved since 2022, compared to 30 biomedical engineers.

‘Straight-up dog whistle’ or ‘doesn’t even touch the sides?’ – the criticisms

NZ First leader Winston Peters on Monday posted on social media the policy was a “good effort”, but “unfortunately it doesn’t even touch the sides”.

“We would encourage ACT to watch this space for when NZ First will be announcing what a real and comprehensive immigration policy actually looks like.”

That came a day after Seymour unveiled the policy, which promises more deportations, renewed focus on overstayer enforcement, a $6-a-day infrastructure fee for temporary work visas, and a five-year ban on welfare payments for residence-class visa holders.

Immigration Minister Erica Stanford said it was a very complex sector, “which is why knee jerk policy at the election that’s not carefully considered and well thought through can be quite damaging”.

She said the $6-a-day fee ignored the moves already afoot to “carefully, proportionately and reasonably collect additional levies from migrants for some of the costs that they directly impose in like the health or education sector”, and the fee would put off the best and brightest from coming to New Zealand.

“They’ll just go somewhere else, but those employers who desperately need migrants like in our rural sector for example, they will be the ones who end up paying that fee.”

She said it amounted to an $11,000 upfront payment at the application stage, plus another $11,000 for their partner.

“No other country levies a migrant like that at such a high rate anywhere in the world, we would be a massive outlier. And so the question is, who’s going to come? And the answer is nobody. And the second thing is, who will pay? And the answer is the employer.”

She said people were uncomfortable with Labour’s post-Covid approach to “throw the floodgates open”, but Seymour “doesn’t understand immigration”.

“He said ‘oh, we have to renew the categories every year’ – there is no category for fast food workers, no categories like that exist … we have a demand driven system. I

“If you are in an area and you need a fast food worker, you have to check that there are no New Zealanders available to do the job … the fact is that there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of outlets across New Zealand who prepare fast food, and they need workers.”

Labour’s immigration spokesperson Phil Twyford said it showed a “bidding war” between ACT and NZ First on immigration, and it was “pure election year politics”.

“The parties of the right are feasting on each other’s votes right now, and they’re in a struggle for survival, and I think that immigration policy is too important to New Zealand’s future to allow it to be politicised by these small parties who are chasing a few votes,” Twyford said.

“NZ First is consciously copying the political tactics of the Reform Party in the UK. But I don’t think actually that there’s large numbers of people in New Zealand who are extremely anxious about immigration … it should have no place in our politics and our society.”

Asked what he thought of the policy overall, Green Party immigration spokesperson Ricardo Menendez March’s first words were that ACT was “competing with NZ First to see who can blame our migrant neighbours”.

“This is a Trump-inspired approach that reeks of wanting to set up an ICE-like unit in our own country, to effectively lead to deportation of undocumented migrants that are not the source of unaffordable housing or a lack of adequate infrastructure,” he said.

He said it was “a straight-up dog whistle”.

“David Seymour first came for the Treaty, then beneficiaries and low-wage workers, and now he’s after our migrant communities. It’s all he knows how to do – play the politics of division.”

Sociology professor Paul Spoonley told Morning Report on Monday it was surprising to see ACT propose more bureaucracy and a new tax, but Seymour was clearly “not prepared to concede the strict controls on immigration space to New Zealand First”.

He also questioned what values migrants would be asked to sign up to, and who would decide that.

“I mean, is there the Treaty of Waitangi in there? I suspect not … how do immigrants demonstrate agreement with those values? And of course, what happens if you breach those values? So, it’s all a bit vague for me.”

Immigration lawyer Alistair McClymont also told RNZ the policy did not add anything to the current system, and it seemed ACT “has seen the success that New Zealand First has had with xenophobic dog-whistle politics”.

Twyford would not go so far as to say ACT’s policy was dog-whistling, but it was “all about trying to look tough – and they are definitely trying – it’s a defensive move politically against New Zealand First”.

“It’s politics. It’s not about what is the best policy for the future of New Zealand.”

‘There are real challenges’ – Seymour

Seymour rejected those criticisms.

He said he had worked with McClymont, who lived in his electorate of Epsom, and he would have hoped he would enter the debate in a “more constructive spirit”.

“I think it’s a shame that someone like Alistair … tends to reduce things to almost a sort of soap opera version of politics. He needs to recognise that there are real challenges with immigration policy. It’s not delivering what it says on the tin.”

He pushed back at Peters’ tweet, saying the NZ First leader was ignoring the position was a long-held ACT view.

“These policies are things that I’m on the record talking about as far back as 10 years ago,” Seymour said.

He also said Peters was wrong to oppose the Free Trade Agreement with India on the basis of immigration – because the projected increase in migrants would only amount to about 6 percent of visas currently issued to Indian nationals.

“To oppose the Indian Free Trade Agreement and all its benefits on the basis of immigration concern, that’s not just barking up the wrong tree, it’s barking in the wrong forest,” Seymour said.

“If we’re worried about immigration we should address immigration policy, not chop our nose off to spite our face.”

In terms of democratic values, Seymour highlighted fraud and overstayers as things that should be targeted.

“Illegal overstayers, you’ve got people whose first act in New Zealand is to break the law – and as someone who’s helped many migrants over the years – have seen the stigma that migrants can face – it doesn’t help and it’s not fair when there’s a whole lot of other people who just aren’t following any of the rules.”

Those concerns would be tackled with the additional deportations and the new overstayer taskforce in Immigration, he said.

He also rejected suggestions from Spoonley that the changes to the Accredited Employer Work Visa scheme could unnecessarily increase bureaucracy.

“We tend to get types of skills that we don’t necessarily need so much of, and they just linger on for a long time while new skill shortages are not always recognised in a timely fashion, so an annual upgrade or review of what sorts of skills can have new visas issued is what we have proposed.”

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

Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Cameron Brewer has accepted Financial Markets Authority (FMA) Chair Craig Stobo’s offer of resignation, following the completion of an independent review into his conduct.

“Mr Stobo agrees that it is important the FMA remains fully focused on its core regulatory role and continues to command the confidence of Ministers, regulated entities and stakeholders,” Mr Brewer says.

The independent review, undertaken by Wendy Aldred KC, examined several matters raised by members of the FMA Board.

“The review had four findings:

• There was no evidence of an inappropriate relationship between Mr Stobo and a former staff member;
• Mr Stobo acted reasonably in disclosing a governance-related interest and later in agreeing to resign from it, but he should not have delayed it for as long as he did;
• Mr Stobo’s applications for FMA travel were not inappropriate;
• However, aspects of Mr Stobo’s public commentary did not meet the standards of political neutrality expected of the Chair of an independent Crown entity and financial markets regulator.

“It is therefore appropriate for Mr Stobo to resign from the role.”

Mr Stobo’s decision to step down reflects the importance of protecting confidence in the FMA and ensuring its work can continue without distraction.

“The Financial Markets Authority’s primary role is promoting and facilitating the development of fair, efficient and transparent financial markets in New Zealand. Confidence in the independence and integrity of the regulator, and in its leadership, is fundamental,” Mr Brewer says.

The Minister thanked Mr Stobo for his contribution to the organisation.

“I want to thank Mr Stobo for his service to the FMA. During his time as Chair, the FMA has worked through significant change across the financial services sector and continued work on the development of New Zealand’s financial markets regulatory framework, including engagement with regulated entities and cross‑sector agencies.”

“The Government remains committed to a strong, independent financial markets regulator that operates with integrity and maintains the confidence of New Zealanders,” Mr Brewer says.

Steven Bardy will continue as Acting Chair while a process is undertaken to appoint a permanent Chair.

Notes to editors:

• The Financial Markets Authority (FMA) is New Zealand’s financial markets regulator. It is responsible for promoting and facilitating the development of fair, efficient and transparent financial markets, and for monitoring and enforcing compliance with financial markets legislation.
• Attached is the review by Wendy Aldred KC. It is also available here.

MIL OSI

MIL OSI

Source: Radio New Zealand

A powerhouse business delegation attending the inaugural NZ-Singapore leaders’ forum has been sent a clear message from their prime ministers: get creative about how to trade more and do deals in an increasingly volatile world.

It’s the first event in the whistlestop 48-hour tour of Singapore, which began with prime ministers Christopher Luxon and Lawrence Wong having a private dinner at the Fullerton Hotel on Sunday evening.

The forum is a similar format to that of New Zealand and Australia’s and speaks to the closeness of the relationship with Singapore that the southeast Asian nation was keen to follow suit.

Of all the countries New Zealand has treaties and trade agreements with, it is Singapore that the most have been signed with in the 60 years of formal ties between the two nations.

While the forum is very much business lead, the two prime ministers attended the opening session on Monday afternoon NZT ahead of their own bilateral and signing of the essential supplies’ treaty.

That first-of-its-kind deal was born last October when the two leaders met in New Zealand to update the relationship to a comprehensive strategic partnership.

Four months later when the United States and Israel struck Iran and fuel prices soared, the deal that ensures the safe and secure passage of goods during a crisis sprung to life.

While it’s being officially signed on Monday, it has already verbally been in place as the fuel crisis has worsened since February, ensuring New Zealand would continue to have access to fuel stocks and in return Singapore had a safety net for food supplies.

Speaking to industry leaders on Monday, Luxon painted a picture of the world business is now done in.

“If economics was the primary language of international relations, we’re now in a world where security dominates many of our leader conversations interdependence.

“The source of so much of our economic growth is being weaponised, whether when countries exploit supply chains through economic coercion or when they interfere with the cables and pipelines that stitch our economics together, that same interdependence allows far away conflicts to ricochet into our societies, and we’ve just seen that in the past few weeks,” Luxon said.

“Military strikes in Iran translate very quickly into back pocket pain for Kiwis and Singaporeans.”

Luxon spoke of the “unique powers” countries like Singapore and New Zealand have, and the ability to come together and build, defend, adapt, and reform the world-based order.

The essential supplies agreement being signed is a rare example of countries looking to each other for help, rather than turning inward.

It’s caught the attention of other like-minded countries who are now discussing the possibilities for signing similar deals to give some confidence and security during times of crisis.

“It’s a deal that demonstrates that New Zealand and Singapore have each other’s backs. We don’t just talk about the problems of the day, we work together, and we come up with the practical and creative solutions to solve them,” Luxon said.

Both Luxon and Wong, when addressing the room of business leaders, encouraged them to be creative and innovative and bring ideas back to government so the leaders can find ways to break down barriers to allow business to do more between the two countries.

“We look forward to hearing some bold and practical and actionable recommendations. And once you come up with those nuggets, I promise you both our governments will take those ideas incredibly seriously,” Luxon said.

Likewise, Wong in his remarks encouraged the business leaders to spend the day getting to know each other to the point they “have one another’s phone numbers on speed dial” at the end of it so when an issue pops up, they can solve it together.

He said there’s no guarantee in this new world that markets will “function as before” and that means diversifying and trading more, especially with close partners like New Zealand.

“We are now dealing with disruption from the Middle East crisis, and these episodes remind us that perhaps such shocks are no longer one-off. They are becoming part of the new normal in our business environment.”

Wong said the business forum was an opportunity to deliver “concrete practical solutions that will strengthen our partnership further”.

“I hope you use it well to build relationships, exchange ideas, and start partnerships that will take our cooperation further in this changed world, we cannot afford to stand still,” he 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

MIL OSI

Source: Radio New Zealand

Farmers need to be paid to start using methane-busting technology in their herds and on their land, agri-climate leaders say.

Their comments follow earlier warnings from industry and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment that, without penalties or incentives, there are few reasons for farmers to invest in some of the tools.

Climate Change Minister Simon Watts said the government would work with farmers to “maximise the emissions reduction innovation underway” but would not be drawn on whether the government was looking at subsidies or other incentives.

Last year, the government scrapped its previous plans to put a tax on agricultural methane by 2030 and weakened the country’s 2050 methane emissions reduction target.

Instead, it opted for a market- and industry-led approach, with Watts saying that widespread uptake of the new mitigation tools would be “critical”.

The government-industry partnership AgriZeroNZ had so far invested $78 million into developing methane-inhibiting technologies such as vaccines and genetics.

Some, such as low-methane sheep genetic selection and effluent pond treatments, were available now, while others are still in much earlier stages of development.

Overall, the government has committed $400m to accelerate development and commercialisation.

At the annual Agriculture and Climate Change conference in Wellington last week, AgriZeroNZ chief executive Wayne McNee said some of the technologies had a commercial benefit because they also improved animal productivity.

However, many – including a methane-inhibiting capsule or ‘bolus’ being developed by New Zealand company Ruminant Biotech – did not.

“In the absence of productivity improvement, which is often quite hard to prove, there will need to be an incentive,” he said.

Speaking to RNZ afterwards, he said there were already some industry incentives available for the lowest-emitting dairy farmers.

“But to get broader-scale adoption, there’ll need to be a reason for farmers to use them,” McNee said.

“If there’s a productivity improvement, great, that”ll be a key driver. If there’s not, there’ll need to be some sort of payment to the farmer to take the technology up.”

Other countries had used direct subsidies, or made use of voluntary carbon markets.

AgriZeroNZ was “looking at all options”.

“It’s part of our role to get the tools available, but also part of our role to work with farmers and others to get them used.”

Methane – which is a short-lived gas but has a huge warming effect while it exists in the atmosphere – makes up roughly half of New Zealand’s emissions.

Almost all of it comes from farms, especially the burps and breaths of ruminant animals like cows and sheep.

Only 40 percent would use methane vaccine – survey

A 2025 survey of farmers by the Bioeconomy Science Institute (formerly Manaaki Whenua Landcare) found only seven percent of dairy farmers who responded said reducing their emissions would be a major focus in the next two years.

Only 40 percent of respondents planned to use a methane vaccine, if it became available.

Ruminant Biotech market access director George Reeves told the conference that New Zealand risked losing its global competitiveness unless it developed a “robust, long-term, scalable incentive for methane abatement”.

He told RNZ that did not necessarily have to be taxpayer-funded.

Instead, New Zealand could use voluntary carbon markets, or set up a scheme similar to one being developed in Australia, where farmers could earn carbon units by reducing their emissions intensity.

Ruminant Biotech planned to launch its bolus for certain types of beef cattle later this year and expected that “early adoption is going to be okay”, Reeves said.

However, he wanted to see a broader incentive scheme in place by 2028.

AUT industry fellow and climate economist David Hall said a direct government subsidy scheme for deployment of some tools would make sense while they were still new and did not have general buy-in.

“In the economics of innovation, that’s recognised as a justified and reasonable cost.”

Once the tools had a market foothold, that direct support could be withdrawn, and a low-level price on emissions introduced to keep driving uptake, he said.

Incentive to use potential methane vaccine removed

In a speech to a DairyNZ forum in March, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Simon Upton raised concerns about both the timeframe and uptake of some promised technologies.

He pointed out that the government’s baseline emissions projections relied on at least 37 percent of dairy cattle receiving a methane vaccine – which were still at ‘proof-of-concept’ stage – by 2030.

“I personally find this assumption heroic,” he said.

“Not only do we not yet have such a vaccine, but the government’s decision to abandon a price on methane removes the incentive to use one should it materialise.”

Significant taxpayer funding was being invested into vaccines and other technologies.

“Taxpayers are entitled to ask why this outlay should continue if the vaccines are not going to be adopted,” he said.

Subsidies could be a pragmatic approach, “but the quid pro quo has to be uptake”.

In a submission on the amended emissions reduction plan last year, industry group DairyNZ also called the assumptions about uptake “ambitious”.

“DairyNZ has consistently encouraged government to be cautious when making assumptions on technology availability, efficacy and uptake.”

Incentives were essential, but the tools also needed to be practical to implement, and must not affect food safety or threaten overseas trade, the organisation said.

In a written statement, Watts said the government had “increasing confidence in the technology pipeline” and expected to see the first tools that AgriZero had invested in available this year.

“While emission predictions inherently carry some uncertainty, the government is committed to working with the agriculture sector to boost productivity while lowering emissions,” he said.

There would be ” range of opinions” on any new technology, he said.

“However, I have heard from many in the sector who support the development of new methane inhibitors and other incentives that increase production while reducing emissions.”

He did not answer questions about whether any policy work had been commissioned on an incentive or offset scheme, or what would drive uptake in the absence of any productivity gains.

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

Strong progress is being made to bring more overseas-trained doctors already living in New Zealand into the primary care workforce, with half the planned placements now underway, Health Minister Simeon Brown says. 

“Making it easier for New Zealanders to see a doctor is one of the Government’s top priorities,” Mr Brown says.

“We know the biggest barrier for Kiwis is simply getting an appointment with their GP. Supporting 100 overseas-trained doctors already living here to complete their registration and build long-term careers in general practice is a key part of fixing that.”

A total of 180 overseas-trained doctors expressed interest in the new Government-funded training programme designed to boost New Zealand’s primary care workforce. 

The programme helps qualified international doctors gain registration, with a strong focus on those wanting to enter general practice roles. It also creates a clear pathway for international doctors already in the country and ready to contribute to our health system.

So far, 49 international doctors have commenced through the programme, with additional cohorts to be rolled out over the coming months as it scales nationally. These doctors are already contributing to primary care services across Auckland, Northland, Waikato, Lakes, Bay of Plenty, Capital Coast, Hutt Valley, Wairarapa, Canterbury, and the West Coast.

“Doctors on the pathway gain valuable hospital experience and up to 18 months in community-based general practice. That means they are trained and placed where they are needed most – right in the communities they will serve. Every doctor who completes this pathway is another doctor helping Kiwis get the care they need, when they need it.

“There are many overseas-trained doctors here, qualified, and ready to help. This programme ensures they can get the training they need to deliver care where it’s needed most.

“This programme is part of a wider Government plan to make it easier for Kiwis to see a doctor, with expanded digital and after-hours services, stronger support for GP clinics, and a growing primary care workforce – so more appointments are available and care can be delivered closer to home.

“Our focus is clear: ensuring Kiwis can see a GP when they need one – and that means building the future of the healthcare workforce. Supporting overseas‑trained doctors already living in New Zealand will strengthen access to care for communities across the country for years to come,” Mr Brown says.

MIL OSI

MIL OSI