AM Edition: Top 10 Politics Articles on LiveNews.co.nz for May 11, 2026 – Full Text

Source: Radio New Zealand

When there is a Cabinet reshuffle, I tend to feel a little sorry for fresh ministers who get elevated up the rankings and landed with a big new job, or three.

A new ministry to run may be a dream realised. But for an MP who is conscientious or self-aware, it’s surely also a terrifying responsibility. So, how do they manage that transition, and how are ministers assisted and guided into their new roles?

The House asked a newish minister, recently further elevated, who has a reputation for being both competent and conscientious. Here is the edited conversation.

Chris Penk (National, MP for Kaipara ki Maharangi), is Minister of Defence, Space, the GCSB and SIS, Building and Construction, Veterans, and Associate Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery. He admits it’s a lot but professes to “enjoy it all”.

Learning on the job

How did you transition to becoming a minister?

A certain amount of it is learning on the job. For a very new member of Parliament becoming a minister probably is a challenge because they are learning two new jobs all at once.

Operating in Parliament, you’re aware of what ministers do, and you’re aware of the need for different skills, knowledge, and experience that you simply don’t have to have until such time as you reach that particular role.

As an MP, you’re contributing but you’re not really in charge of anything.

The reality is, it’s not the case that you’re making decisions on an individual basis as an MP. However, as a minister, there are decisions you make. Yes, government decisions are made almost by definition with Cabinet collective responsibility, but you propose things as a minister to your ministerial colleagues. (You don’t always get them across the line, by the way). And then there are statutory powers that the minister has to make in a particular area.

[Note: Legislation often delegates ongoing powers and specific decisions to individual ministers.]

A lot of people come to Parliament having never really been the boss of anything. You were a partner in a law firm and you’d been an officer in the Navy.

I’d been in charge of a couple of quite small teams, and so I had at least that experience, and whereas some people come to this place without having been in a leadership role and possibly find it difficult when they are asked to make a decision and every eye around the table is on you, waiting for you to pronounce as to your decision.

Conversely, colleagues who come in who have been used to being in decision-making roles, and [then] they don’t get much decision-making power, at least until they become a minister.

So when you became a minister you have to learn a lot of new rules before you actually have an enormous stack of papers land on your desk.

The papers come pretty well from day one. But yes, the briefings do as well, in terms of how to conduct your role. And some of it is just the mechanics of what the Cabinet Manual says about, you know, decision making, disclosures of interest, different rules for declaring gifts.

So, the rules of the game are different and you do need to get your head around that, but you also have to move very quickly to be able to do your job from day one. So the information flows, the decisions are needed.

[It can be much harder] if there’s a change of government. Inevitably, you have a large number of new ministers, and [issues requiring decisions will have built up], and suddenly you’re right in the deep end.

You would have a lot of decisions to make all at once and a lot of catching up to do, and a whole lot of people who maybe hadn’t done it before, and so no one much to mentor you either.

Usually, even in a new government, there will be some colleagues who have been ministers before. Coming in 2023, we had the benefit of former ministers from previous National administrations to talk to the new National ministers about how things work, and we had the ability to ask any [political] questions that wouldn’t have been appropriate [to ask] of the Cabinet Office.

You were already busy with building and construction, and veterans. But you’ve added a stack of extra portfolios. What happens when you take on new roles? Are there briefings, people to meet, places to visit? How do you get your head around it?

You do have to prioritise a bit. The inevitable elements are a BIM (Briefing to Incoming Minister) for each new portfolio, even if you’re transitioning from associate minister to minister.

The BIM sets out what’s within your control from a government point of view, but also the state of the sector more generally. In defence that was pointing out the shape of the Defence Force, the state of that, and also an update of upcoming decisions needed to keep the show on the road.

Also there’s the outside world in which one interacts. For example in building and construction, there are a couple of government-adjacent bodies, but also there’s a whole private sector of builders and other tradies who you need to be interacting with. Otherwise you can get the view only from the Beehive and not out in the real world. So all that is necessary as quickly as possible coming into a new role.

The team, the ministry, and the papers

We’re in your office in the Beehive. People might picture a vast team of helpers guiding you. But you haven’t got a big team, have you? Ministerial offices are small, especially as an international comparison.

Yeah, I think we’ve got a team that is appropriately small on the political side of things, so to speak. So in my role, I have one press secretary, one ministerial advisor, an SPS (someone who runs the office) and one person on the front desk. Between us, we do a lot.

There are the agencies or ministries themselves, but crucially, there’s a role which is halfway-between, which is what we call a private secretary, but you might call a secondi, or from a Defence point of view, they call a mil-sec (Military Secretary). That’s someone who comes from their agency to work in your ministerial office in the Beehive, and they provide a vital link between the agency and the minister and his or her team.

Yeah, a minister will have two or three of them for each of the departments or ministries or groups that they’re responsible for, right?

I’ve usually had only one private secretary for each of my portfolios until now. I’ve got one in the building and construction portfolio, but there are more in defence because they cover the Defence Force itself, also there’s Veterans (with different responsibilities and a lot of different work that needs to be done there), and there’s the Ministry of Defence, which is different again.

Those people help keep you apprised, but when the people with lots of brass on their shoulders turned up for meetings you must have felt a bit like a wee hamster; desperately sprinting, trying not to be the only guy in the room that didn’t know what was going on.

Yeah, that’s right. It’s literally the top brass in the room when it comes to defence.

[I have] a little bit of a defence background, but seeing these very senior figures coming in, it is an interesting, different way to operate and it’s very humbling to be their champion inside the Beehive and to be responsible for getting across the line, the things that they need to do their job safely and well.

You end up inevitably working closely with people, and the degree of trust personally between chief executives and ministers, I think, is really important if you’re to be successful in your role.

They run the department, and you are their champion, their front person, in a governorship role, right?

That’s right, but also you have to avoid appearing as though you’re captured [co-opted], and of course, avoid actually being captured. It’s not my role simply to do the things [an agency] wants to be done; but to understand, respect and acknowledge the importance of the work they do, and to represent that well, and to go into bat for them (consistent with the government’s aims), is the balance that every minister needs to try to strike.

Every ministry has a list of things they desperately want. But you’re between that rock and the hard place (the finance minister). You have to make difficult calls, I suppose.

It can seem very much like that. A classic of the genre, of course, is Yes Minister, or for modern audiences, Utopia is a brilliant documentary (as opposed to comedy). Just to echo that famous characterisation. But I think, all satire aside, I think there’s a genuine but healthy tension that needs to be struck between the … public sector … on the one hand, and the elected members of the Government.

The continuity and the stewardship of the public sector functions are important, but at the same time it’s important that the minister is able to represent not only the wishes of the government, but the people of New Zealand.

Ministries give their ministers copious briefings. How do you stay afloat? [Lists of ministerial briefings are often proactively released. The most recent examples from Defence include a very busy May 2024.]

Yeah, there’s a huge amount of information. The trick is to understand what’s most important; and to weigh that which is urgent with that which is important. Part of that is just judgement that you develop.

I think also you need a degree of trust in the government agencies, and in your staff, to highlight the things that are most worthy of your limited attention. But also, if you’ve got background or experience in a particular area, then you can make some of those value judgements yourself.

Having been a lawyer and also a naval officer, there are aspects of the role on which I’ve got a bit of a head start. I speak the language to some extent. I don’t know some other areas of the Defence Force so well, but then again, in my day job as MP for Kaipara ki Maharangi, the Whenuapai Airbase is within that so I’ve had a bit of interaction with the Air Force over time. So it’s all grist to the mill.

But on the other hand, coming into an area fresh, sometimes enables you to ask questions as an outsider with fresh eyes in a way that actually is helpful and quite healthy.

The fuller, audio version of this conversation is available at the link near the top of the article.

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

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

The government still intends to pass legislation to liberalise gene technology laws, but cross-party disagreement is slowing the controversial reform.

The Gene Technology Bill sought to end an effective 30-year ban on the use of genetic technologies outside the laboratory, currently regulated by the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO).

Transgenics and new breeding techniques like gene editing were currently legal in Aotearoa, but heavily regulated and kept within confined laboratory conditions.

The Bill, first proposed in late 2024, featured in the National party’s coalition agreements with both ACT and New Zealand First.

Last year, 15,000 people made public submissions on the bill, with most opposing it.

Following that, the Health Select Committee released its report in October, recommending that the bill proceeded, and it now rested with Cabinet ministers negotiating possible amendments.

It was originally intended that the legislation would be passed by the end of 2025.

But a date for its second reading was still unconfirmed, as the Bill stalled in the lead-up to the general election in November.

Such delays could be down to a lack of majority support to take the Bill to second reading, or the Parliamentary Counsel Office that drafted legislation might need extra time to develop complex changes being put forward.

Meanwhile, the new Leader of the House – National’s Louise Upston – said the government intended to progress all legislation on the Order Paper.

ACT supportive, but wants Māori committee scrapped

A spokesperson for the ACT Party said it saw real opportunity in liberalising gene technology.

“Modernising these laws would give our agricultural sector and scientists the tools they need to stay globally competitive,” they said.

But the party did not support the establishment of a Māori Technical Advisory Committee, as the bill proposed, around which discussions were ongoing.

“Our issue with the Bill as it stands is that it risks tying up that scientific and economic potential in co-governed bureaucracy.

“The Bill has not yet advanced to its second reading and it remains with Cabinet, where decisions on its progress or timeline will be made.”

Improvements to human, environmental protections needed – New Zealand First

As part of its coalition agreement with National, New Zealand First agreed to liberalise genetic engineering laws, while ensuring strong protections for human health and the environment.

The party said previously it would withhold support for the bill, unless major changes towards improving these protections were made.

Its office told RNZ the stance had not changed and it was still undertaking party consultation on it.

In November, party leader Winston Peters addressed hundreds of people on Parliament steps who gathered to oppose the Bill.

“What we’ve said is this Bill’s going nowhere unless we’re satisfied and we’re confident that it doesn’t represent any danger,” he told the crowd last year.

“Let me tell you, if the Bill can’t be fixed up, it won’t be going ahead.”

Bill proposes ‘rushed’ approach to risky outdoor uses – Labour

RNZ understands National had been in talks with Labour to try to come to some agreement.

Labour’s Reuben Davidson said while there was broad agreement that gene technology regulations were outdated, reform must carefully balance innovation with protection.

“This reform was an opportunity to modernise our framework in a way that strengthened New Zealand’s science system, honoured Māori perspectives, safeguarded our primary industries, and protected our international reputation.

“The Bill, in its current form, does not achieve that balance.”

Davidson said the Bill proposed a rushed approach, bundling together widely supported applications of gene science, like in medical research or industrial fermentation, with far riskier outdoor uses.

“If the government was functional, the Bill would have been passed already, but the coalition can’t agree on outcomes,” he said.

“Once again National have allowed internal bickering to get in the way of what they promised.”

The Green Party did not support what Steve Abel labelled as ‘radical de-regulation’ that risked the country’s GMO-free status marketed globally.

National says negotiations ongoing

Since the Bill was first introduced by then-Minister for Science Innovation and Technology, Judith Collins, the National-held portfolio had changed hands among ministers.

Minister Shane Reti took over the role, but with both he and Collins announcing their retirement from politics throughout 2026, incumbent minister Penny Simmonds now held the portfolio alongside Tertiary Education (and Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment).

When asked a parliamentary question by the Greens last month, if amendments or changes were intended for the Bill, Simmonds said it was still under active consideration.

Simmonds told RNZ in a statement that negotiations were ongoing.

“Negotiations and subsequent policy changes as a result of the public select committee process, are ongoing,” she said.

“We’ll have more to say soon.”

GMO environmental release concerns organic farmers

Biotechnological benefits from reformed gene technology laws could include for plant and seed production, emissions mitigations and improved productivity, as touted by Collins.

But the reform would also bid farewell to New Zealand’s GMO-free status

Allowing field releases of GMOs into the environment caused concern among organic producers, a sector worth $1.2 billion – half of which are exports.

Hawkes Bay farmer Scott Lawson of Lawson’s True Earth Organics told a webinar held by industry group Organics Aotearoa New Zealand last month that New Zealanders were largely unaware of how vulnerable to sector was to the reform.

“People are aware of the organic industry, but they’re not aware of just how big we are, how important we are… and how vulnerable we are to the impact of something like this Gene Tech Bill. Because once released there is no containment, no co-existence.”

As it stood, an independent regulator would be set up within the Environmental Protection Authority to assess applications for using these technologies in the environment.

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

Analysis – The relationship between politicians and the media is symbiotic, but it’s increasingly coming under pressure as political parties turn to other platforms, and evade traditional newsrooms, to speak direct to voters.

The three parties making up the coalition – National, ACT and New Zealand First – have ramped up their commentary and criticism of the media this term, whilst also jostling for political differentiation in the lead-up to the election.

RNZ has taken a look at the swipes and threats over the past term.

‘I suspect that he won’t be answering the call at RNZ for much longer’ – David Seymour

Last month, ACT leader David Seymour, who is a shareholding minister for both RNZ and TVNZ, lashed out at both organisations and their management teams during an interview on The Platform.

He suggested changes were coming for RNZ’s leadership and appeared to single out chief executive Paul Thompson, without naming him.

“Look, that guy’s got an awful lot to answer for, and I suspect that he won’t be answering the call at RNZ for much longer.”

Seymour went on to say that the government was replacing RNZ’s board with the aim of changing the organisation’s management and direction.

Seymour also accused TVNZ of being “politically motivated”.

He later rejected any suggestion his comments had stepped outside the bounds of the law.

At the time, commentators said he’d gone too far.

Last year, Seymour said funding cuts to RNZ’s budget would have sent “a message” to the state broadcaster about its journalism.

Seymour has repeatedly criticised media coverage during this term and regularly posts footage of media stand ups online under the title David vs The Media. Recent videos are named: ‘The Ayatollah doesn’t care about your soap opera’, ‘The Greens defended WHAT?’ and ‘MAIKI SHERMAN BOMBSHELL’.

Seymour argues his clips are “changing the media”, as he considers the shorter clips used in reporting unfair.

He’s not the only politician utilising social media in this way.

A social media complaint and an apology

In late February this year, Police Minister Mark Mitchell posted on social media complaining about a 1News story showing gang members narrowly outnumbered police officers.

The report aired the same day the latest Crime and Victims survey reported 49,000 fewer victims of violent crime in the year to October 2025 than two years previously.

Mitchell said it was “absolutely unbelievable” 1News engaged in unbalanced journalism by running a story about gang membership with none of the context “around the outstanding work our Police are doing in cracking down on gangs in New Zealand”.

Justice and Broadcasting Minister Paul Goldsmith said it was “very frustrating” the story “completely ignored those figures.” He said that was “sometimes how the media works in this country.”

Five days later, 1News ran a second story which reported on the crime statistics that the government had announced the previous week.

Newsroom covered the issue with the headline ‘Govt gets its wish from 1News – a headline on fewer crime victims’.

Goldsmith then confirmed he’d spoken to the 1News journalist after the first story aired.

“Just like I often do when I’m not happy with a story, I ring the journalist and give them the benefit of my opinions.”

Mitchell said after he put up his post, he had received a call from a “senior” TVNZ person to apologise, but he had not contacted anyone at TVNZ.

Goldsmith later confirmed he also had a “very short” call from the chair of TVNZ’s board, Andrew Barclay, “on a range of matters”, and the story came up in passing, “but I hadn’t raised the issue”.

Threats to public funding

Last year. New Zealand First leader Winston Peters took aim at former Morning Report host Corin Dann during an interview about the party’s proposal to define “woman” in law.

Towards the end of the interview, Peters also threatened to “cut” RNZ’s funding.

“The fact is, you’re paid for by the taxpayer and sooner or later we’re going to cut that water off too, because you’re an abuse on the taxpayer.”

At the time, Labour leader Chris Hipkins said it was unacceptable for a minister to threaten an independent media organisation’s funding because he objected to how he was being interviewed.

ACT leader David Seymour downplayed Peters’ remarks, pointing out the NZ First leader alone does not have the power to defund RNZ – that lies with Cabinet.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said he would not intervene, and put it down to a “rather Winston way of communicating with media”.

It’s not the first time Peters has made comments about changes to public broadcasting. He also implied a desire for a “better” show during an interview with Jack Tame on the publicly funded Q+A during the 2023 election.

“You’ve made a case for us to make sure we get the broadcasting portfolio after this election,” he said towards the end of the interview.

“Is that a threat, Mr Peters?” Tame replied.

“That’s not a threat – it’s a promise that you’re going to have an operation that’s much more improved than it is now.”

BSA no more

Last week the government announced it planned to scrap the Broadcasting Standards Authority, with the minister-in-charge, Paul Goldsmith, telling RNZ it would “set the sector free”.

The decision came after the BSA faced backlash from government ministers following a decision to begin regulating podcasts and online media.

At the time, Peters accused the BSA of “Soviet-era Stasi” censorship, and said it was “blatant overreach” and “highly concerning”.

The ACT Party had also said it was time for the BSA to go, and its MP Laura McClure submitted a members’ bill that looked to abolish it.

In response to the news, McClure said it was “absolutely fantastic news for freedom of speech in New Zealand”.

But others have criticised it, with media professor and Better Public Media spokesperson Peter Thompson saying it was a “momentous” move and called it “politically expedient” and “democratically indefensible”.

A high-profile resignation

TVNZ political editor Maiki Sherman’s resignation on Friday came after a period of scrutiny over an incident that occurred more than a year ago.

Sherman had used a homophobic slur against Stuff journalist Lloyd Burr, in response to “deeply personal and inappropriate remarks” she said. She apologised at the time and informed her manager.

The resignation also came after a five-day suspension from parliament due to breaching parliamentary rules by pursuing an interview with National’s chief whip Stuart Smith, during a period of scrutiny on Luxon’s leadership.

National’s campaign chair Simeon Brown had complained about TVNZ’s pursuit of Smith, and he publicised his complaint on social media.

Luxon subsequently cancelled his weekly slot on TVNZ’s Breakfast with co-host Tova O’Brien, who had left the prime minister red-faced in several of his regular interviews.

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

The Environment Select Committee has recommended disestablishing the Ministry for the Environment, despite overwhelming public opposition.

In its report, the committee said the creation of a new Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport mega ministry under a bill currently before Parliament would not significantly change the functions of the current ministry.

The committee received 588 written submissions. All but five submissions were overtly opposed to the bill.

It has recommended by majority that the bill be passed, despite strong opposition from Labour and Green Party members.

The Green Party members slammed the bill as ”yet another action by the most anti-environment government that Aotearoa New Zealand has ever had.”

The Labour Party members said they were ”appalled by the constant attacks on the environment by this government.”

Greens environment spokesperson Lan Pham said the government’s plan to get rid of the Ministry is ”an absolute travesty for New Zealand.”

”The Ministry for the Environment was established because years ago New Zealanders decided that a voice for the environment at the heart of government was actually essential. It was established at the same time as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, reflecting how important New Zealanders believed environmental oversight should be,” she said.

”Now, this government is pushing to bury that Ministry inside a mega-ministry focused on development and economic growth, despite no party campaigning on this and overwhelming opposition from experts, iwi and communities.”

Pham also raised concerns about transparency.

”We had no assurance as a Select Committee, for example, that expenditure that comes from government that goes towards the Ministry for the Environment will actually be transparent and clear.”

The bill is expected to return to Parliament for its second reading on Tuesday.

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

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

Source: New Zealand Government

Good morning and a warm welcome to everyone. 

I’m delighted to be back here at this annual immersion of all things Anti-Money Laundering. 

My thanks to AML Solutions for bringing you all together again.  Having the AML experts and AML compliance peers in one room to discuss changes and innovations each year is worthy of acknowledgment. Thanks again for inviting me to be a part of it. 

This year’s conference theme is “Practical Insights for Every Organisation – supporting entities to turn complex requirements into clear and actionable steps that make a real difference in everyday compliance”.

The theme is exactly right. Because for too long, the gap between what the rules require and what actually makes sense has been too wide. That’s what I’m here to fix.

I want to begin with a story.

Earlier this year I was part of a trade delegation to Latin America – promoting New Zealand as a safe, trusted place to invest and do business. A strong, well-functioning, AML system is a big part of that pitch, as you all know.

But before I left, I went to get some foreign currency.

The person at the exchange counter, who had no idea who I was, kept apologising for all the paperwork and blaming the AML rules. He was embarrassed by it.

Then he asked if I was travelling with some other MPs who’d been through earlier. I said yes.

He asked what I did and I said: “I’m the Minister responsible for AML laws.”

He laughed. And asked what my real job was.

When he realised I was serious, he apologised again.

And I said: “No – I should be the one apologising. But we’re fixing it. Hopefully next time I come through, you’ll be able to thank me instead.”

That exchange has stuck with me. Because that man wasn’t complaining about fighting financial crime. He was complaining about paperwork that made no difference to anyone, least of all criminals. And he was right.

The people in this room know that better than anyone. You’ve been doing the hard work of AML compliance for years, often with one hand tied behind your back. 

Three supervisors giving inconsistent guidance. Rules that didn’t flex with risk. A system that treated opening a child’s savings account with the suspicion that could only be reasonably expected from a high-value international transfer.

I suspect a few of you have your own versions of that currency exchange story.

So let me tell you where we are at.

Since speaking to you all a year ago, I’m pleased to report that our reforms of the AML/CFT system are making great progress. We are on the cusp of making a fundamental structural change to how businesses are supervised and supported. 

The system will be more focused on making a difference in detecting and getting crimes off our streets, with less effort on low-risk transactions that do nothing to fight crime. It’s designed to make your jobs more effective, more focused, and frankly, more rational.

You all know that our laws and requirements are highly complex, time-consuming and fail to take a truly risk-based approach. My legislative reforms are making leaps and bounds to address this.

What we’ve already done

The Statutes Amendment Bill came into law last November and made immediate changes to address a number of pain points for businesses. Businesses no longer have to complete strict address verification on low-risk customers.

It’s a straightforward change, but for the elderly widow who couldn’t open a bank account in her own name because she had no utility bills, her husband had always handled that, it matters enormously.

I hope you and your customers are already seeing the benefits of this amendment too. This is the first of many changes being made to take a common-sense approach to compliance, and cutting unnecessary red tape.

What’s happening right now

The next two amendment bills are due to pass into law this week.

I had hoped to have them completed before the Summit. In fact, the third reading debate is already well underway – we got through 10 of the 12 speeches before Parliament rose at the end of the last sitting block in April.

The good news is that all parties have signalled their support, so we’re very close to getting these reforms over the line. Watch this space.

The first of those amendment Bills, is the AML/CFT Amendment Bill, it introduces a number of changes, including relaxing customer due diligence requirements for lower-risk family trusts. This Bill also removes the requirement for people to submit a border cash report if they have received cash from someone who physically moved the cash into New Zealand, as this is needless duplication.

These changes will come into effect immediately following the law passing.

The second amendment Bill, the AML/CFT Supervisor and Levy Amendment Bill, is where the reforms are really getting down to business.  This amendment will represent the biggest reform in the history of the AML/CFT regime and focuses on structural changes.

Under this law, the Department of Internal Affairs will become the single supervisor of all AML supervisory functions from 1 July 2026. I will leave DIA to talk to you more, later on this morning, about the strategic shifts they will be making.

I am confident the transition from three supervisors to one supervisor will create greater clarity and consistency for industry and ultimately customers

I’m honoured to be leading this change to create a more efficient, effective, and risk-based supervisory structure – one that reduces unnecessary compliance costs for lower-risk businesses and transactions, and removes the need for multi-supervisor efforts.

Over the next year, we will see a single supervisor that is more responsive to ever-changing risks, and better resourced to deliver consistent and timely guidance to support businesses on the front line, where money laundering is happening. With a holistic view across the AML/CFT supervisory environment, DIA will be able to look for and realise opportunities as they arise.

The second component of the Supervisor and Levy Bill, as the name implies, is the levy.

Many of you will have provided feedback on the early design and, more recently, the detailed proposed structure of the levy. Thank you for your input. It’s important for officials and me to hear your perspectives.

Officials have spent the past month analysing the submissions and picked out the key themes from their engagements with you. I have received initial advice and can confirm that industry feedback was reflected in that advice and incorporated where practicable. I am looking forward to discussing the final recommendations with my Cabinet colleagues over the next weeks.

As well as enhanced supervision, the levy will pay for resources to invest in better intelligence that will enhance guidance to industry.

Those entities who do end up paying the levy will have a more active role in shaping the performance and direction of the AML system and how the levy is used. This will be based on annual reporting from the Ministry of Justice and regular industry engagements as we turn our attention to developing the next National Strategy from 2031.   

The third component of the Supervisor and Levy Bill updates inflexible regulation that can result in ineffective use of our resources and undetected crime. Organised crime syndicates are becoming increasingly innovative, using new methods and emerging technologies to outpace regulation.

Likewise, regulations are not keeping pace with advances in technology and developments within industries. If businesses are following rigid compliance rules that don’t keep up with the times or changes in risk, innovation gets stifled.

That gets in the way of business growth and our economy. This Bill will allow agencies to make regulatory changes through alternative forms of secondary legislation such as rules and notices. This will make the system much more agile and responsive to different levels of risk and the changing needs of industry.

Still to come is the fourth and final AML/CFT bill I have instructed officials to develop to deliver further regulatory relief, wider legislative changes to implement international standards required by the Financial Action Task Force, and support law enforcement to tackle organised crime.

Some of the amendments in this Bill will include:

• Reforms to reduce the burden of customer due diligence checks
• Providing regulatory supervision of existing requirements for targeted financial sanctions
• Changes to FIU powers and the offences and penalty regime to ensure they are fit for purpose; and 
• changes to Designated Business Group requirements.

My plan is to introduce this Bill to the House later this Parliamentary term.

National Strategy

Turning my attention now to the National Strategy which I released in February this year. This new National Strategy sets out a four-year work programme and vision for our AML system. The Strategy comes into effect from 1 July this year.

Many of you here today have shaped the development of this document too. Thank you. 

It sets a clear direction for the Government’s priorities and objectives, and importantly ensures that the system works better for you and your businesses.  

The activities in the work programme and wider reforms will be partly funded by the new industry levy. Government contributions most certainly remain. You have been telling Government for some time that the system is not meeting your needs, and requires more funding and resource.

The National Strategy lays out our response. Over the next four years, the Ministry of Justice, Internal Affairs and the New Zealand Financial Intelligence Unit will deliver the work programme, in partnership with industry.

I’ll be handing over to the Ministry of Justice shortly to tell you more about this important National Strategy and its delivery.

AML is vital to New Zealand’s economic security

While these reforms make tangible changes to cut red tape for individual businesses and customers, at the macro level, the changes make a major contribution to our economic security.

A well-functioning AML system is vital for supporting trade, overseas investment and access to international markets and international banking partners.

You will know that compliance with international standards is incredibly important for our global reputation and financial standing. The Financial Action Task Force’s standards apply globally and are becoming tougher.

Other FATF member countries are implementing measures to ensure their businesses trade and invest only with countries that maintain comparable standards.

This sets a strong expectation that New Zealand meets these new international standards in the context of our country’s context and risks. We cannot be left behind. We must do our part in the global fight of organised crime, money laundering and terrorist financing.

Government and industry joined up to tackle financial crime

Finally, for me, the key to successfully strengthening the AML/CFT system through these reforms is collaboration and leveraging your expertise. We need people like you who have the experience and knowledge to get involved.

The new hybrid funding model creates a new platform for Government and industry to work together to tackle financial crime.

No single agency, regulator or business can do this in isolation from each other. We’ll achieve better results if we work in partnership.

That’s why the National Strategy and what it’s delivering under the new funding model will be under the microscope and closely monitored to ensure what we are delivering, works for everyone and is achieving results. 

You will have an important role to play in shaping these results with your first-hand visibility of customer behaviours, transaction patterns and emerging risks.

Once again, thank you for your ongoing contribution to our shared vision of an AML system that makes it easy to do business and hard to commit crime.

I am excited and proud that this reform programme is on track to deliver the most significant regulatory relief since the Act came into force in 2013.

And next time I go to get foreign currency before a trip – I’m hoping the person behind the counter doesn’t need to apologise.

It’s been a pleasure to talk to you today, and I hope you enjoy the remainder of the Summit. 

Thank you. 

MIL OSI

MIL OSI

Source: Radio New Zealand

The government is taking 10 initiatives to protect vital undersea Internet and power cables.

Sabotage and accidental damage of cables in Europe and Asia have sparked efforts there to safeguard them better.

A newly released government report showed, compared to international best practice, New Zealand was “generally well set up”, but the growing international threats prompted Assistant Transport Minister James Meager to ask for 10 “no-cost, low-effort” options to counter the greatest vulnerabilities.

Eight were done or underway, but two depended on partners, the nine-page report said.

One of the 10 included the first exercise simulating a data cable break on 10 March.

Another was a biannual threat assessment, although in the report to Meager, most of the assessment was blanked out, apart from references to fishing, anchoring and earthquakes were the likeliest threats.

Officials presented the minister with the first threat assessment last October.

A third of the 10 initiatives was setting up a national surveillance warning capability, which was trailed successfully late last year. The MOT paper asked Meager if he wanted to launch a full system.

Last year, National Security and Intelligence Minister Christopher Luxon ordered a review of critical underwater infrastructure (CUI), saying, “A new threat has emerged“.

In 2024, officials had warned that submarine cables were “attractive espionage targets”.

The latest report to Meager sketched examples of compromised cables, including several in waters between Taiwan and China.

It said an exercise called ‘Iceland Unplugged’ last year simulated all four of the island’s telecom cables to Europe being severed and “is of such direct relevance that we judge that we do not need to model the impact on New Zealand currently”.

“Feedback from industry indicates that, if we lose one of the five current international cables, then we would not be noticeably impacted.

“This is because the cables are designed to have spare capacity and the companies work cooperatively, so that the disrupted cable’s traffic would be immediately rerouted.”

Iceland’s exercise showed, if more than one cable was lost, the main impact was overseas web pages would not load, causing loss of productivity.

For electricity, a long outage of the Cook Strait power cables – they provide up to 30 percent of the North Island’s power during peak demand – could “seriously impede” supply nationally and push up wholesale prices.

The “most effective hedge against disruption is having more CUI and having it more geographically dispersed”, said the latest report.

A new cable from the US to New Zealand would cost about $1 billion and the main thing companies wanted from the government was “an effective regime to protect these investments”.

Encouraging investment was “working well”, with work begun on one new international cable and planning advanced for one other.

One of the two initiatives not begun as of March 2026 was a ship-tracking system called AIS transmit – or Automatic Identification System – that would allow cable operators to detect vessels near cables.

Another initiative mentioned surveillance for “suspicious vessel behaviours”, but it was not clear if or how that was being done.

The country has cable protection zones and penalties aimed to discourage mariners from going in them, although not for all cables.

In the Pacific, under a marine maintenance agreement, a cable repair ship is either laying cable or on standby to respond to cable breaks from its home port in Fiji.

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

The Government’s unprecedented contract with Z Energy for close to 90 million additional litres of diesel, equivalent to around nine days’ supply, has been signed, Finance Minister Nicola Willis and Associate Energy Minister Shane Jones say. 

“Two weeks ago, we announced that the Government was in negotiations to firm up New Zealand’s fuel resilience by securing additional supply through an agreement with Z Energy. We are pleased to announce this deal has now been finalised,” Nicola Willis says.

“We have now placed an order for the fuel and expect the diesel will be in the refurbished tanks at Marsden Point as early as the end of June.

“Channel Infrastructure is working at pace to get the tanks ready to store the additional diesel, with the project due to be completed in the coming weeks.

“This is an ambitious project that will help strengthen New Zealand’s fuel storage capacity, providing a valuable contribution to our short-term supply needs,” Nicola Willis says

“This Government has shown that we take New Zealand’s fuel security seriously and are willing to invest where it counts, with this agreement being the first of its kind here,” Shane Jones says.

“We are continuing to monitor the impacts of the conflict in the Middle East very closely and will assess whether any further action is needed to secure additional fuel supplies.

“While our fuel system is built to manage uncertainty, and we have already taken significant steps to strengthen our fuel security, New Zealand is exposed to international supply chains. The conflict in the Middle East has reinforced the importance of building strategic resilience.

“Working with industry to establish reserve fuel supplies and increase our fuel storage capacity is exactly the kind of action we need to be taking right now to give ourselves the insurance we need.”

Notes to editors:

• The agreement limits the Crown’s exposure to any long-term fall in fuel prices.
• Z Energy will procure, own and manage the volume of diesel under the agreement while the Crown will control its release into the market. 

MIL OSI