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

“This will be a free-for-all, will it?” RNZ host Guyon Espiner – with tongue in cheek – asked Media and Communications Minister Paul Goldsmith on Midday Report last Wednesday.

“We’ve got no Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA), so I can go for it?”

Moments earlier, the minister had announced the government’s intention to scrap our official broadcasting watchdog.

RNZ Nights host Emile Donovan opened his show that night with a blast of bleeped-out spoof swearing. Stuff political reporter

Glen McConnell kicked off his TikTok post with a video volley of bleeped bad language, before explaining the differences between the internet and the airwaves – but airwaves are not a free-fire zone just yet.

Goldsmith’s just-released statement also said new legislation “will be drafted in the coming months”.

“The BSA will continue in its role until it is passed into law.”

There’s also an election in the coming months and Goldsmith went on to tell Midday Report the change wasn’t likely before then.

(The BSA also handles complaints about election advertisements with a fast-track system during the election period. That might come in handy if the campaign is a nasty one)

A change of government may mean it never happens.

Why scrap the 37 year-old watchdog anyway?

Media policy is rarely an election-year priority. National-led governments are usually hands-off.

Internal Affairs Minister Brooke Van Velden scrapped a slow-moving, four-year review of media regulation soon after the current government took over in 2023.

Culling the BSA wasn’t in any of the government’s action plans either, but in the last month, Goldsmith had hinted at it.

ACT, which this week claimed the minister’s announcement as a ‘sweet victory’ – was pushing him in that direction.

ACT ran a public petition and drafted a members’ bill to scrap the BSA. An ACT newsletter last month chided the media minister for not falling into line, asking: “Does Paul Goldsmith get paid over $200k just to sit on the fence?”

ACT’s Parmjeet Parmar, chair of the select committee conducting the BSA’s annual review last week, challenged BSA top brass to “justify its existence”.

The Free Speech Union – which said the BSA was censorious – joined in and so did the Taxpayers Union, condemning the $1.7m annual cost to the taxpayer and the cost to broadcasters, which paid levies for the BSA (although only at $250 for every $500,000 of turnover.)

Big-name broadcasters – including those pinged in the past for breaching broadcasting standards – also joined in on the air. Among them, Mike Hosking who said “good riddance” this week.

The issue that catalysed the calls to kill the BSA in recent months was its decision last year to consider a complaint it had received about Sean Plunket describing tikanga as “mumbo jumbo” on his live-streaming outlet, The Platform.

It’s highly unlikely that comment would be upheld as a breach of standards, even if it did offend more than one complainant. The BSA often rules that offence doesn’t override freedom of expression.

Its critics claimed this extended its authority over the internet. Some claimed the BSA would soon come after blogs and podcasts, although the BSA insisted those were not covered by the law that defined its jurisdiction.

Does no BSA mean broadcasting without accountability?

The BSA itself has been among those calling for reform for years.

Our fractured, pre-internet media regulation system also has the New Zealand Media Council (NZMC) covering non-broadcast news outlets, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and the Classification Office headed by the chief censor.

The BSA is the only one backed with an act of parliament allowing it to financially punish broadcasters and even take them off the air for serious breaches of the standards it applies.

Goldsmith told RNZ broadcasters currently faced more formal oversight than other media – and he preferred the self-regulation of the NZMC.

ACT leader David Seymour agreed.

“In a free society, people form different organisations to achieve together what they can’t achieve alone,” he told journalists last month. “The Media Council is an example of that.

“The BSA is forced on us and the funding of it is forced on people by parliament,”

Founded as the Press Council in 1972 by newspaper publishers, the NZMC now handles complaints about original online content too – including that of broadcasters TVNZ and RNZ.

Media outlets agree to abide by its principles voluntarily to reassure readers they are accountable.

It does not impose fines, prevent publication or order apologies, but members must take their medicine by publishing its rulings on upheld complaints.

Goldsmith has formally urged the state-owned broadcasters to lift public trust in themselves and the wider media too, but the most active media lobby group – Better Public Media (BPM) – claimed this week that taking out the BSA could drive down standards.

Rush to judgement

“He’s removing an enforceable standards regime with a regime that is, in a sense, ‘best intentions’,” BPM deputy chair Dr Peter Thompson told Mediawatch.

“If we expand the role of the NZMC, which by and large does a very professional job, that would extend some of the standards, but I don’t think what is proposed is clear and the fact that the minister hasn’t even worked through the options… suggests that this is a premature announcement.

“Other countries have created platform-neutral models that include both some form of industry self-regulation and co-regulation with a statutory body behind it, so I think we’re remaining an anomaly in the current environment, far from removing one,” said Thompson, an associate professor in media at VuW, who has scrutinised media policy for more than 25 years.

“These standards have evolved over time and the BSA conducts a significant amount of research… and looking at how audiences are engaging in the media. If a member decided that it didn’t want to abide by those standards, the most it could actually get in terms of consequence is public criticism.

“Say, a foreign billionaire coming here to New Zealand, buying up a chunk of the shares in a media company, ousting its board and then dictates a new set of editorial standards. If that billionaire happened to have a penchant for conspiracy theories or a right-wing view of the world, I would say that that’s actually a very dangerous scenario, if there is no mechanism for enforcing [standards].”

Different – but same?

The Media Council’s principles are similar to the broadcasting standards, which also echo the guidelines reputable media companies have for their own newsrooms, but extending the authority of the Media Council over willing broadcasters means they will still have to respond to similar complaints.

Media law expert Stephen Price pointed out this week that the Media Council currently upholds two to three times more complaints than the BSA.

“That’s partly because – irony alert – the BSA takes the right to freedom of expression under the New Zealand Bill of Rights act very seriously,” he wrote. “The Media Council, not so much.”

There’s also no means of appealing a Media Council decision, whereas Broadcasting Standards Authority rulings can be challenged in court. The Media Council frequently asserts the media is not obliged to avoid causing offence (or perceived ‘harm’), but it does not consider complaints about taste and decency or law and/order matters.

Extending its remit to broadcasting complaints would also seriously extend the Media Council. Its members – a mix of senior editors and laypeople – have other jobs, and its annual budget is tiny (currently about $330,000) and shrinking, like many of the media organisations that provide it.

The wisdom of the crowd?

Predictably the BSA opponents and free-speech advocates applauded the government decision, but some journalists and editors resent the watchdog too.

“Complainants to [the Media Council] and the BSA are generally politicised whingers,” veteran political editor Richard Harman declared. “We have a pluralistic media market, that should be enough.”

The broadcasting minister has suggested media that irritate the public will lose support or even go out of business. Maybe media that operate only online – not on public airwaves – should have the freedom to do that unregulated?

“If you are running a media organisation that persistently can reach tens of thousands or even millions of people, then I think you have some degree of power,” Thompson said. “That’s the debate that hasn’t happened here.”

Advertisers under the radar

Another outfit that self-regulates its area of the media without much controversy is the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

The ASA’s annual report also noted pointedly: “Processes anchored in legislation are usually more complex, take longer and cost more – for the parties involved in the complaint or the taxpayer.”

News and editorial content is not the same as advertising, but many complaints about both are about being misled.

“Advertisers need to be aware that, if you can’t prove it, you can’t say it in ads,” longserving ASA chief executive Hilary Souter told Mediawatch.

“I think we dealt with our first internet ad in 2004,” she said. “In general, all of the rules apply, regardless of whether the medium’s 100 years old, 10 years old or was set up last week.”

Its boards accommodate advertisers, agencies, media companies and public members, and – unlike the news media regulators – it’s ‘platform-neutral’.

The ASA 2025 annual report out last week said the number of ads complained about was up 48 percent on 2024. More than three-quarters of ads complained about were accepted for review by the complaints board.

Two of the five ads that generated the most complaints were provocative political advocacy ads that had to be pulled – but generated plenty of coverage.

Is self-regulation working to uphold standards there – and against agents who play fast and loose with rules?

“In 2024, there was a drop,” said Souter, also the current president of the International Council for Advertising Self-Regulation, which meets in Italy this week.

“That was probably the bigger story. Over $4 billion was spent on ad placement in 2025, so the proportion of ads that we get complaints about is pretty small.

“There are quite a few incentives for [brands] to get that right, not wrong in terms of alienating their customer base.”

The ASA’s codes are currently up for review and public input.

Among the things up for debate are ‘shifting community standards’ and ‘widespread offensiveness’.

“If a billboard is seen by lots of people, but we only get three complaints, does that mean it’s not widespread?” Souter said. “It had the potential to be widespread, but people didn’t come to us.”

While Souter is a global advocate of self -regulation, she says our media regulators can all save time and big money for those who object to bad ads or bad news, but can’t afford to go legal to get a verdict.

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 Parliamentary Service says threats against MPs are increasing, but staff feel hampered by MPs’ ”underwhelming” engagement with security efforts.

Parliament’s Petitions Committee has considered a call for an inquiry into the scale and nature of abuse and intimidation targeting women MPs and local body representatives.

Petitioner and former political staffer Sam Fisher said aggressive behaviour and violent threats were discouraging women from entering politics and damaging democracy.

His petition asked Parliament to investigate the scale and nature of threats.

In a submission, the Parliamentary Service told the committee it had noticed an increase in threats and abuse directed towards MPs, both online and in the community, despite what it believed to be a high threshold before MPs reported abuse.

”It believes it is already well established that threats and abuse towards elected representatives, particularly those who are women, is a serious issue requiring attention,” the Select Committee report said.

”The Service told us that its main limitations are resourcing and “underwhelming” engagement by MPs with its security offerings. It plans to continue expanding its offerings and hopes that members will be proactive in learning about and engaging in the services available to them.”

Researchers from the Fixated Threat Assessment Centre also provided a submission to the committee.

Clinical lead Justin Barry Walsh said the prevalence of threats and abuse against MPs was a ”concerning” and ”wicked” problem.

”I would not underestimate the harm that this causes, both to the public figures and their staff, but also I would suggest to our communities and our society,”‘ he said.

Local Government New Zealand told the committee that there had been an increase in harassment of politicians.

”A mid-2025 survey of LGNZ members found that bullying and harassment was very common, reported by 91 percent of women and 83 percent of men surveyed. Women reported more harassment on social media and in everyday interactions outside formal settings,” the report said.

”Survey results showed that most respondents take no formal action, which echoes the concerns of underreporting expressed by the Parliamentary Service.”

Anecdotally, LGNZ’s female members had reported gendered abuse, sexualised comments and threats, with wāhine Māori particularly targeted.

”It notes that much abuse is online and that this abuse is unavoidable when politicians need to use social media to campaign. In-person abuse has taken place at public events, in the supermarket, and at politicians’ homes. Children have been present during instances of in-person abuse and some women reported that their children had been followed home from school,” the report said.

The committee said that consideration of a report from the Ministry for Women would provide a chance for parliamentarians to consider many of the issues raised by the petitioner.

”We consider that opening a separate inquiry is not necessary at this stage.”

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 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

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: Radio New Zealand

The Green Party has criticised the government’s decision to scrap the fees-free tertiary education scheme.

Finance Minister Nicola Willis has confirmed the scheme will be ditched in the upcoming Budget, following comments made by NZ First Leader Winston Peters on Newstalk ZB.

“Ongoing coalition negotiations have led to good budget policy decisions that further the immediate and long-term interests of New Zealanders,” she said.

Willis also confirmed students completing their tertiary studies this year would remain eligible for fees-free, but many of those students completing three-year-courses or longer had already had their first year free.

At the end of 2024, the government modified the system, offering students their last year free, rather than the first, as it was when Labour first introduced the policy.

Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson told RNZ the government should be investing more in the future of young people, not less.

“This is absolutely outrageous – another kick in the guts for our generations of young people particularly and anyone who wants to dream about giving back to their community.”

The Greens would fight to re-instate fees-free support, she said.

“The Greens know that it is a fantastic, wise, smart investment to invest in tertiary education for students and our communities.”

The government should be incentivising tertiary study, given more than 14 percent of young people were not in work or education, she said.

Students disappointed, not surprised

Victoria University Student Association president Aidan Donoghue said he was disappointed the scheme was getting the axe, but not surprised.

“We’ve continually seen attacks on students from this government and this is just another example.”

Fees free encouraged some students to enter or continue study, because debt was a deterring factor, he said.

“To pay an extra $12,000 in fees is not a good pill to swallow.”

Scrapping the scheme would have a particularly tough impact on those from lower-income backgrounds, Donoghue said.

“Students have been calling for more money week-to-week and… we’re not sure that this will be replaced with anything else that will address the concerns of students with the cost of living.”

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

Residents in the Northland town of Dargaville believe their best option is to merge with Whangārei.

Local Democracy Reporting said Kaipara District Council had backed a proposal by North Rodney Action Group to merge with part of the former Rodney District Council, now part of the Auckland Council.

Dargaville Ratepayers and Residents Association chair Rose Dixon questions whether that is politically motivated.

She told RNZ that most of the Kaipara District Council lived in Mangawhai, which was far closer to the Rodney Ward than Dargaville.

“It doesn’t make sense fiscally or economically. It would be very expensive to create a whole new unitary authority in that region.”

The Dargaville Ratepayers and Residents Association has written a letter to Whangārei District Council Mayor Ken Couper and Local Government Minister Simon Watts, as well as NZ First MPs Shane Jones and Winston Peters, to express their concerns.

Councils have been given three months to come up with an amalgamation plan or have change imposed on them.

Local Government Minister Simon Watts and RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop announced the deadline on Tuesday.

Auckland Council is excluded from that edict, as it already amalgamated in 2010.

Dixon said most Dargaville residents were in favour of disestablishing the Kaipara District Council.

“Over 90 percent of respondents said they supported joining up with Whangārei,” she said. “They didn’t feel a connection with North Rodney.

“They felt that, if we moved in that direction, we would just get completely lost and ignored.”

The northernmost town of Auckland, Wellsford is twice as far from Dargaville as it is from Whangārei.

“We aren’t an Auckland suburb,” Dixon added. “Our borders ought to reflect where we actually live.

“It doesn’t make sense for a farmer from Tangowahine to drive all the way down to Warkworth to sort something out with their council, when Whangārei is just down the road.”

Dixon said it would also make more sense financially for Kaipara to merge with a larger ratepayer base.

Kaipara District Council is Northland’s smallest council with 26,800 residents, while Whangārei District Council has about 100,000.

A combined Kaipara-North Rodney Council would have about 80,000.

“We recognise that Whangārei District Council has done a good job managing their region’s infrastructure, whereas our council hasn’t.

“They’ve got a really poor track record when it comes to our infrastructure and, yeah, I’m not so sure about North Rodney’s, but my understanding is that they need and require a lot of investment as well. It doesn’t make sense for us to align ourselves with a North Auckland region that also, like us, needs a lot of investment.”

Dixon said that Dargaville had been neglected by the current Kaipara District Council.

“I think a lot of residents are keen to say goodbye to the Kaipara District Council and hello, hopefully, to a Whangārei District Council, and maybe a Far North District Council that might actually take better care of our region and the environment and our infrastructure.”

Kaipara District Mayor Jonathan Larsen told RNZ it did not back North Rodney Action Group’s proposal as such.

“All that the Kaipara District Council did was attach, as an appendix to its submission on the initial proposal from government, a document that the North Rodney people had written, simply as a matter of having all of the options being presented early on in the reform,” he said. “Auckland is not included in the reform, so any further extrapolation of that idea is not on the table for anybody.”

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

A small Far North settlement could be the first place in New Zealand where an entire community relocates to higher ground to escape repeated floods.

The idea of shifting homes, or even whole towns, out of harm’s way is increasingly being touted as a solution for parts of the country worst affected by climate change.

But in Whirinaki, a settlement of a few hundred people straddling State Highway 12 in South Hokianga, managed retreat is not an abstract possibility.

Planning was already well underway when the valley was once again engulfed by floodwaters on 26 March.

A total of 65 homes were affected with nine left uninhabitable. One of those burnt to the ground a few days later in a blaze blamed on floodwater infiltrating the wiring.

One of the worst affected homes belonged to Bridget Wallace, who had only arrived home after heart surgery a day earlier.

She said she had seen bigger floods in the past, but never one that was so fast.

“Within 12 minutes, everything was underwater. We just had time to get the vehicles out. Everything was floating. And I mean everything,” she said.

“I’ve lost everything. Everything that I owned.”

When RNZ called in, Wallace had finished shovelling away a stinking layer of silt and moved back into her cabin, but her mokopuna were still sleeping in borrowed campervans.

She was philosophical about the damage.

“It’s just material things that we’ve lost. We all still together, and we’re all still alive. That’s the main thing. It’s all that matters.”

Across the road, Christine Ryder is a caregiver for her mother in a home raised on stilts after the devastating 1999 flood.

She had seen plenty of floods before so was not overly concerned about the 26 March rain at first.

However, within 20 minutes the house was surrounded by water.

“It was very, very scary. The more the rain kept coming, the more it was coming up the stairs, the more worried we were getting, because mum’s immobile.”

When they decided to evacuate it was already too late to get out.

Ryder said the water the water stopped rising just short of entering the house, but four cars were wrecked, along with lawnmowers and everything in the sheds.

She woke the next morning to find her mother’s prized rose garden, along with the rest of the property, buried under a thick layer of silt.

She and her sister shovelled the goop into piles, only to find it had spread out again by the following morning.

“We were so deflated and disheartened. But then the whānau from the kāinga [village] came with shovels and spades and wheelbarrows and got stuck in with us. A couple of diggers came in too.”

At the other end of the settlement, Shane Wikaira had also raised his home by two metres after the 1999 flood.

He could only watch as his home became an island in a mud-coloured sea.

“The rain was relentless. It just was like a war zone the next day, with logs everywhere and the debris. The cleanup was massive.”

‘Climate change is definitely upon us’

Long before the March flood, Whirinaki residents had been working on a plan to move their homes onto the hills overlooking the valley.

Chantez Connor-Kingi, of the Northland Regional Council, said the government had allocated funding some years ago for seven communities most at risk from climate change.

The pūtea [money] from the National Infrastructure Fund had helped pay for flood mitigation measures such as stopbanks, a deflection bank, a spillway and improved drainage.

However, no solution could be found for reducing flood risk in Whirinaki.

Connor-Kingi said she took that news, and detailed flood maps, to a community meeting about 18 months ago.

The locals themselves concluded managed retreat was the only answer, which she described as “courageous”.

Whirinaki man Storm Tautari was appointed to manage the hapū-led project, with his sister Ruth Tautari, a teacher and chair of the Whirinaki Trust, assisting.

Then began the search for suitable land to relocate to.

“We asked, ‘Who in this room has land on higher ground, who can move and take other people with you?’”

Several blocks of Māori land were generously offered by local whānau, Connor-Kingi said.

Some turned out to be unsuitable – one would have required the construction of a bridge so would have been too costly, while others were found to be geologically unstable – but two blocks, with space for an initial 26 homes, had so far passed the test.

Connor-Kingi said it was the vital the new homes were close to the existing settlement.

“We didn’t want to create a geographical divide, knowing that these people have been brought up there their whole lives, and they’re probably the eighth or ninth generation to the whenua. So we needed whenua where they could still feel connected to their lands and see it every day.”

Auckland-based planning firm The Urbanist was hired to draw up plans for new papakāinga housing, and the Whirinaki Trust wrote up a detailed business case.

The cost of new homes and community infrastructure, assuming 80 whānau had to be relocated, was put at $60 million.

A series of economic development initiatives, aiming to reverse the area’s high degree of deprivation, would cost another $26m.

According to the business case, about a fifth of that was expected to come from philanthropic groups and foundations, with the rest from central government.

Connor-Kingi said the Whirinaki Trust was currently in talks with the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development.

She said the investment made sense given the high cost of cleaning up after repeated floods.

“When you think about the amount of money you spend on recovery, our whānau wouldn’t have to endure that. You’re actually long-term saving pūtea if these flood events are coming more regularly.”

Connor-Kingi said managed retreat was not entirely new to Whirinaki.

Some residents had rebuilt on higher ground after the 1999 flood, while others had raised their homes on stilts.

However, if the entire settlement moved, that would be a first for the country.

“It’s nothing new for New Zealand to see our whānau flooded. But a total community being relocated, that would be the first of its kind. It just shows you how climate change is definitely upon us and our taiao [environment] is telling us we can no longer be in these harmful pathways.”

She said a door-to-door survey had found 43 homes and about 260 people would need to be moved off the flood plain.

‘Here since the beginning of time’

Whirinaki residents spoken to by RNZ had mixed views about moving to higher ground.

Some, like Bridget Wallace, who lost everything in the March flood, were determined to stay put.

“I’m not interested in that, I’m sorry. No way will I go move. Our tūpuna [ancestors] didn’t run away from their land,” she said.

Shane Wikaira, who had already raised his home, was also reluctant to shift.

“My grandfather was here, my great-grandfather, it goes back generations. We’ve been here, well, since Kupe came, the beginning of time. So it’s more than just land to me,” he said.

Christine Ryder doubted her mother would agree to leave her home and beloved garden.

“I think moving to high ground is a good idea. I just know mum won’t do it.”

However, Dwayne Rawiri would shift tomorrow if he could.

When RNZ visited he was moving his family cabin to a higher part of the property, out of the mud and damp, before winter set in.

“I most definitely would move, now that I’m thinking of not only myself, but I have eight children to think of. I really hope we can move up onto higher ground that we all whakapapa back to.”

Rawiri worried about the future of Whirinaki if the floods kept coming.

“I feel for everyone in our valley, I don’t see a solution for it if it happens again, I think we’re just going to have a whole community busted to be honest, maraes and all,” he said.

“I feel for our children going through this, having to live down here, and look up at the hills. We tatai [connect] to every one of the hills around here. I think that is totally the only solution for us.”

If funding can be secured, the new homes will be built off-site with earthworks starting as soon as October.

‘Long-lasting hurt, grief and fear’

Climate Change Minister Simon Watts said he recognised the disruption and damage communities suffered as a result of severe weather events, including flooding.

“The government remains committed to working with councils and local communities to determine the best way forward for people living in areas exposed to climate risks. Decisions of this nature are best made at the local level and councils have a leading role. I encourage communities to work with their local councils, and we know that’s already happening in some areas.”

Watts said the government had set up a National Adaptation Framework and was working on “an enduring system” that prepared New Zealand for the effects of climate change, while keeping costs as low as possible.

Since 2020, more than $1 billion had been invested in flood protection, including $200 million from the current government’s Regional Infrastructure Fund. The fund had supported resilience projects nationwide, including in Northland, he said.

Just last week the Climate Change Commission released a major report in which it warned climate-driven severe weather events were already causing “long-lasting hurt, grief and fear”, and tens of thousands more people could be exposed to hazards by 2050.

The commission’s chief executive, Jo Hendy, said there were “extreme” shortfalls in policy to address some of the biggest risks, including vital decisions about how to guide and pay for adaptation and relocation.

Hendy said too much money was spent cleaning up after events, instead of on proactive measures to limit damage and build community resilience.

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

When Te Papamārearea (Taupō Māori ward) councillors Ngahuia Foreman and Wahine Murch swore their official oaths last year, they knew their first term would be their last.

The same election that brought them into council chambers included a referendum in which more than 9000 voters voted to get rid of the Māori ward.

It’s something Foreman says now applies to all Taupō councillors. Wellington this week issued an edict requiring councils to tell them which of them should stay and which should go.

“This ‘proposal’ actually means all of us no longer have a seat,” Foreman said.

Councillors all over the country have expressed their concerns that reducing the amount of local councils could reduce local voices.

Fellow Māori ward councillor Murch put it simply, “Nobody understands representation like the under-represented.”

While she was speaking of Māori under-representation, there are concerns her statement could apply to all of Taupō district in the future.

Taupō councillor: ‘I won’t miss it so much’

Duncan Campbell is in his second term as a Taupō ward councillor. The Auckland native was a senior traffic engineer for Waitakere City Council when it merged into the Auckland Super City in 2010.

Having taken part in the largest local government amalgamation in New Zealand history, Campbell sees great potential in a bigger Taupō council, but warns: “Bigger is not always better; the devil will be in the detail and based on the Auckland example, some wheels will inevitably fall off.”

Like Foreman, Duncan sees Wellington’s call for change as curtain call for his council.

“I foresee in a year or two’s time there will be no more Taupō District Council, and I won’t miss it so much.”

Murch and Foreman say function over form is their priority. Both of them want effective representation for their constituents in whatever council replaces their own.

Keeping local government local

Councils have three months to work together and present Wellington with their proposals on how local government will look and operate in the future.

Central government has already stated its preference; it wants local government to go large.

Local Government Minister Simon Watts explained: “Proposals should focus on creating larger, more efficient unitary authorities that streamline functions, reduce duplication and improve decision-making.”

Campbell remembers being in the thick of it during the Auckland supercity merger.

“On Auckland Super City: big promises and big expectations, but a quite a few disappointments all round,” Campbell said.

“The purported efficiency gains of reduced staff numbers were only temporary. Local community influence was lessened, and the bureaucrats in Auckland Council and Auckland Transport gained the upper hand.”

Staying connected with constituents

Murch said contributing to Taupō’s proposal to Wellington would be her top priority.

“These next three months are going to be critical,” Murch said.

“I think what we really need to do, and I’m not speaking for the council, but for myself as an individual elected member, is really wrap our heads around what is being proposed here and then try to position ourselves.”

During her election campaign Foreman became well-known for her old-school style of campaigning. Her lack of online presence sparked a blog entry that asked, “Is she even running?”

Despite being called a “total ghost” in that blog, Foreman won, replacing incumbent councillor Danny Loughlin by 15 votes.

Foreman said her first priority was communicating with her constituents about Wellington’s orders.

“Physically calling and catching up with people in person is my main priority right now,” Foreman said.

“Just to canvas do they know the situation and how urgent it’s going to be. If we’re not in the room to have these conversations, we’re going to miss the boat.”

– LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.

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