AM Edition: Top 10 Politics Articles on LiveNews.co.nz for August 7, 2026 – Full Text

Source: New Zealand Government

Thank you for the invitation to come and speak to the Law Association.

I’ve just come from announcing the opening date for the City Rail Link in Auckland. It may not surprise you to learn that my address to you today is not as exciting as that news!

It is a real privilege to be the Attorney-General. All Ministers and officeholders in New Zealand say that about their jobs, but I genuinely mean it. For someone interested in politics and public law and who is deeply interested in our constitution, it is a dream job. 

I am not ashamed to admit that when I entered politics in 2014 I hoped I would be the Attorney one day. I grew up around the law as my mother did honours at Vic and then profs when I was in primary school. Apparently I spent many an hour at the back of public law lectures sitting quietly while Mum concentrated on the class. Obviously something seeped in.

Some will know from my CV that I studied law at Vic where I had the privilege of being taught by legends like John Prebble, Matthew Palmer, Claudia Geiringer and Campbell McLachlan. Somewhere between debating, mooting, witness examination and the Law Students’ Society I managed to fit in an honours degree. 

I summer clerked at Russell McVeagh and the Crown Law Office, back when they took summer clerks. I am told I am the first ever ex-Crown Law summer clerk to be the Attorney-General. Sadly in these days of modern document management software, I am also the first Attorney-General to have their work as a 23 year old stored on their agency’s computer system. I am told that the electronic records shows a mad rush to look up my work after the PM issued the press release announcing my appointment!

Sovereignty

In the hallway outside my office in the Beehive is a framed copy of the entire judgment of Fitzgerald v Muldoon. Some people have asked me why it is there.

The first answer is because it was a gift from two of my best friends, both now highly credentialled lawyers themselves.

The second is the most important. Because it stands for propositions that are core to my own philosophy as a politician and as a lawyer.

That government is not above the law and must follow the law.

And that Parliament is supreme and sovereign.

It is that second theme that I want to spend a bit of time talking about today.

So what does it mean to say that, of the three arms of government, Parliament is sovereign?

The answer I want to expand on, is that Parliamentary sovereignty means that significant public policy choices should be made by Parliament.

This is because – of the three arms of government – Parliament has by far the best claim to both a democratic mandate, and the necessary institutional expertise, to make public policy choices. 

This position used to be uncontroversial and long-standing, but I think the time has come for a robust assertion of the traditional, orthodox view that Parliament is our country’s supreme law making body.

The courthouse remains an attractive forum for those who have yet to persuade the public – and therefore Parliament – of the merits of their cause. It is, therefore, worthwhile setting out why such choices belong to Parliament, and why the judiciary must continue to protect its processes against attempts to use the courts to relitigate Parliament’s choices.

The history

Let me start with the simple proposition that Parliament is supreme because Parliament is representative. Of the three arms of government, only Parliament represents the people it governs. Its choices have the best claim to represent the views of the people. 

Peter Hogg was a New Zealand lawyer who became a leading authority on Canadian constitutional law. I note in passing he was born in the greatest city in the world, Lower Hutt.

He captured the link between Parliamentary supremacy and its democratic mandate as follows: “The idea underlying parliamentary sovereignty is that in a democratic society important public policy choices should be made in the elected legislative assemblies, and not by non-elected judges” (The late Sir Kenneth Keith made a similar point in the introduction to the Cabinet Manual).

Even where issues are hotly contested, and a broad consensus is not forthcoming, Parliament’s democratic mandate means that everyone has had the opportunity to have a say, whether or not their view ultimately holds sway. Through the democratic process all voters are respected as equal, and therefore each voter is treated as a bearer of rights. If voters don’t like the choices made by Parliament, they can vote to change Parliament’s composition. Parliament’s mandate must be renewed every three years. We are about to go through the process again in three months.

Parliamentary supremacy is part of our common law heritage. The principle developed not through abstract discussions between political philosophers, but to justify a series of attempts to wrest authority from the Stuart kings in seventeenth-century England.

To quote former Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen, writing in the NZ Law Journal in 2004, “the sovereignty of Parliament is not a historical artefact…. It is the assertion that has been the major driving force of English constitutional history.”

First, in the English civil wars the army justified its overthrow of Charles I on the basis that Parliament represented the will of the people. Although the Rump Parliament was hardly representative, the link was firmly made between the will of the people and parliament, which therefore needed to sit regularly and be elected frequently.

Second, the exclusion crisis from 1679-1681. After the restoration of Charles II, opposition arose to the succession of his (Catholic) brother James. In justifying their position that Parliament could pass legislation to disrupt the royal succession, the Whigs developed their constitutional thinking to further link the legitimacy of government with the consent of the governed. John Locke wrote his Two Treatises of Government during the exclusion crisis, refuting the divine right of kings and arguing that where a government rules without the consent of its people it forfeits its power, which the people may take back. Locke’s social contract theory later influenced the American revolutionaries. 

Third, the Glorious Revolution of 1688. When James II was deposed and replaced by the protestant William III of Orange and his wife, Mary II, Parliament enacted the Bill of Rights 1688. This statute, which is part of our law and can be found on New Zealand’s new legislation website, confirmed that “Parliaments ought to be held frequently”, and that James II had subverted the “laws and liberties of this kingdom” by, among other things, “assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws, and the execution of laws, without consent of Parliament”. The supremacy of Parliament to make laws was established.

There are two key points I want to draw from this sprint through 17th-century English history:

In wresting sovereignty from the Stuarts, Parliament linked its legitimacy to the consent of the people. As Parliament has become more representative that legitimacy has been strengthened. Parliament’s authority to make law stems from its democratic mandate.

Secondly, the shift in power to Parliament arose not just because of an argument about who should rule, but because of fundamental differences about the kind of country England should become (eg Anglican or Puritan). While the religious arguments are of another place and time, New Zealand continues to make choices about what kind of country we want to live in. Those choices should be made by the arm of government that has the best claim to represent the people of New Zealand.

I return now to Fitzgerald v Muldoon. 

I note that 2026 marks the 50th anniversary of this celebrated judgment. I do find it surprising there has not been more academic or civic commentary about this. The rule of law and Parliamentary sovereignty does seem to be unfashionable at the moment. We dismiss our heritage at our peril.

The arguments in 17th-century England about who should govern were relied on Fitzgerald v Muldoon.

In 1976 Prime Minister Muldoon sought to put a stop to compulsory contributions to superannuation in advance of Parliament’s repeal of the New Zealand Superannuation Act. Wild CJ drew directly on the terms of the constitutional settlement of 1688 to explain why the Prime Minister’s action was unlawful and then said:

It is a graphic illustration of the depth of our legal heritage and the strength of our constitutional law that a statute passed by the English Parliament nearly three centuries ago to extirpate the abuses of the Stuart Kings should be available on the other side of the earth to a citizen of this country which was then virtually unknown in Europe and on which no Englishman was to set foot for almost another hundred years.

Parliament’s institutional capacity

As illustrated by the history I’ve outlined, Parliament’s authority to make public policy choices is grounded in its democratic mandate. 

But Parliament’s claim to supremacy is also based on its institutional expertise, relative to the executive and the judiciary. That is not to diminish the executive or the judiciary, but to recognise the distinct roles and expertise of each of those three institutions. The processes of Parliament, and the resources available to it, qualify it to make the kind of important public policy choices necessary in a modern nation. 

Parliament is supported by public service officials, who have the necessary policy expertise to develop policy and legislative options for complex problems. 

Even before government legislation is introduced into the House, the responsible minister will have received detailed advice from officials with relevant expertise. Officials are able to organise consultation with any relevant stakeholders. Once the responsible minister is happy with the policy, it goes to other Cabinet ministers for consultation and feedback, and then to Cabinet Committee for consultation. 

Once the policy is approved by Cabinet, drafting instructions are provided to the Parliamentary Counsel Office, who have a deep knowledge of New Zealand’s statute book. Once the responsible minister is happy with the draft Bill, it goes to other ministers for consultation and then to Committee for approval to be introduced as a government bill. The PCO drafters and the ministry officials continue to provide support as the Bill goes through Parliament, including at the Select Committee stage. At Select Committee, the people of New Zealand have an opportunity to directly comment on the Bill and its impacts.

The depth of experience and expertise that Parliament is able to draw on gives it particular expertise when dealing with what are sometimes called “polycentric” problems. These are problems where there are a number of overlapping issues, often requiring varied expertise, and a solution to one part of the problem may create other downstream issues. The American scholar Lon Fuller famously explained polycentric issues using the metaphor of a spider web: “A pull on one strand will distribute tensions … throughout the web as a whole”.

If you want to address any big social problem – whether that’s housing, the environment, or infrastructure – you need to be able to foresee issues across a number of different sectors. You will need access to a range of expertise, and you will probably need to make difficult trade-offs. You may want to consult with the stakeholders who will be applying the legislation.

These are things Parliament is good at, or at least better at than the courts. In short, it has the necessary institutional capacity.

Is Parliament perfect? No. Could it be a better check on the Executive? Undoubtedly. I have my own views on that question, which is the subject for another day. The select committee system could work better. There is a case for a Parliamentary Budget Office. The asymmetry of resources and information available between the Opposition and government makes sensible Opposition work difficult. We legislate too much and probably too quickly.

MPs misbehaving is nothing new. Think of Muldoon and the Moyle Affair. There have been punch-ups in the lobby. Pens thrown across the Chamber, one fingered salutes, and so it goes.

But, as some have said, the idea “we are in trouble as a society and as a democracy” is, respectfully, and in my view, not quite right. We are a mature, robust and lively democracy. Long may it be that way.

The Judiciary

Turning now to the judiciary. Obviously, the courts lack a democratic mandate, which is why important public policy choices are made by Parliament, not the courts. 

But the courts have a vital role in determining disputes by applying the general law to specific situations. As part of this, the courts have an important constitutional role in interpreting legislation and developing the common law. The courts’ institutional capacity reflects its distinctive role.

The judiciary’s authority comes from its legal expertise, its apolitical nature and its independence. Those three characteristics distinguish the judiciary from Parliament, whose members have a broad range of backgrounds, are inherently political, and who are at risk of losing their seats every three years.

In the inquiry into the conduct of Judge Aitken, the Panel linked the high threshold for removal of a judge to the importance of an independent and apolitical judiciary. The harder it is to remove judges, the more independent they are, free from political interference. But the Panel also emphasised that comity goes both ways: judges need to exercise self-restraint and avoid commenting on political issues. They are both protected from political interference and obliged to avoid politics. A judiciary that is both independent and apolitical promotes public confidence in the courts as an institution.

The judiciary’s independence qualifies it to determine disputes between individuals and between individuals and the Crown. In contrast, the legislature’s strongly political character will generally disqualify it from engaging in private disputes. 

Of course, the courts have a long tradition of upholding individual rights, whether against the executive, like Entick v Carrington, or by interpreting legislation consistently with human rights (as now required by the Bill of Rights Act). 

But let me say this. 

There is a difference between adopting a reasonably-available rights-consistent interpretation and interpreting a statutory provision to advance a public policy choice that the legislature has not adopted. 

The courts’ processes and the resources and expertise available to the courts make it challenging for the courts to respond to polycentric problems. Judges do make law, through development of the common law. But they do so in the context of discrete disputes, which means that judge-led developments in the law are necessarily piecemeal and incremental. Nor are courts likely to have access to the breadth of expertise and resources necessary for addressing complex public policy or making radical systemic change.

The separation of powers

The distinctive characteristics of each of the three arms of government dictate how the tasks of government are allocated between them. As Aileen Kavanagh wrote:

In a constitutional democracy, we typically need an institution with energy and efficiency to initiate and propose new policies (the executive); a deliberative and representative body to scrutinise policy proposals and make clear, open, prospective, stable and general rules for the community (a legislative assembly); and an independent body to adjudicate legal disputes about what the law requires in individual cases (the courts).

Separation of powers is not about the separate arms of government standing in “splendid isolation” but about recognising each arms’ distinct specialisation and authority so that they can interact responsibly and with self-restraint. 

The comity principle captures the expectation that the executive, legislature and judiciary each exercise self-restraint in acknowledgement of each others’ distinct roles.

Examples of comity include when ministers refrain from delegitimising the courts, and (as the Judge Ema Aitken Panel explained) when judges refrain from commenting on current political matters.

Judicial Review

The orthodox rules of judicial review have been developed to reflect the distinct roles and expertise of the three arms of government, as I have outlined. The courts uphold Parliamentary sovereignty by reviewing executive decisions to ensure they comply with the intentions of Parliament.

The courts are also careful to ensure that they themselves do not step into the shoes of the statutory decision-maker (eg the minister), through a variety of techniques:

• By focussing on process, not the merits of the decision;
• Through the relief available in judicial review, which generally requires the decision-maker to remake the decision and stops short of directing the decision-maker what to do;
• By sometimes explicitly deferring to the decision-maker where the executive has greater institutional expertise relative to the courts, for example on issues to do with New Zealand’s foreign relations or military discipline. 

Parliamentary intent

The picture I have outlined, with the legislature, executive and judiciary each shouldering its share of the labour of government and exercising self-restraint in recognition of the others’ distinct roles, only works when Parliament makes its choices clear. 

The judiciary cannot be expected to show self-restraint and respect Parliament’s choices if Parliament fudges the hard questions. As a previous Chief Parliamentary Counsel George Tanner KC put it: “If an unpleasant message has to be communicated, and not all legislative messages are pleasant ones, the message ought not to be hidden in a mass of words”.

Clear expression of Parliament intent is an important issue of democracy: 

First, because a state in which people cannot plainly understand the laws might as well be a lawless state. 

Secondly, because if we want legislation that reflects the democratic will of the people, then the House should express them clearly in the first place. 

Section 10 of the Legislation Act sets out a long-established principle that: “The meaning of legislation must be ascertained from its text and in the light of its purpose and its context”. 

I worry that Parliament has lost sight of the importance of legislating clearly. Often we do use, to adopt George Tanner’s words, a “mass of words” when fewer would be better. Or political compromises result in imprecise and difficult drafting. MMP has probably made that more not less likely.

This is not the fault of Parliamentary Counsel, who do an outstanding job. It is the fault of elected politicians.

To quote Cooke P, as he then was, in the Lands Case. “If the judiciary has been able to play a role to some extent creative, that is because the legislature has given the opportunity.”

To ensure the courts can be in no doubt of a statute’s purpose (or to put it another way, “to not give the opportunity”) Parliament needs to be as clear as possible.

This is especially where the legislation is intended to have an effect that is inconsistent with values that are fundamental to our common law traditions.

For example, when introducing a Bill to Parliament, if the government is asking the House to enact a Bill that is retrospective, or that limits a right in the Bill of Rights Act, or that makes property rights less secure, the government should say so clearly. Parliament should be put on notice as to what it is being asked to do. 

The government should use Parliament’s processes, including the debates in the House and any explanatory material, to be as clear as possible about the intended effect of the legislation, the rationale for this, and any ways in which these effects have been mitigated. 

If legislation is intended to be interpreted in a way that will limit rights in the Bill of Rights Act, the Attorney-General’s s 7 BORA report is an important mechanism that puts the House on notice. The government can then make its case in the debate. 

This better promotes transparency and democracy, as well as ensures both the public and the courts can be of no doubt as to the intended effect of the legislation.

The courts should then be under no illusion about the clear intent of Parliament and will uphold it under the usual purposive interpretation rule.

The flip side of Parliament being clear and deliberate is also true.

Parliament expects the courts to apply clear legislation. Development of statute law is for Parliament, not for the courts. Changing social values and mores are reflected in the democratically elected legislature, not an unelected and by definition unrepresentative judiciary.

International Law

The distinct qualifications of the three arms of government have a direct impact on the way that international law is incorporated into New Zealand’s domestic law. 

The traditional approach was that the executive could sign New Zealand up to international law obligations, but they were only enforceable in the domestic courts if Parliament incorporated the international obligation into domestic law. The rationale for this rule is the same one Chief Justice Wild considered in Fitzgerald v Muldoon: the executive government should not be able to change domestic law.

The traditional dualist rule is complicated now by the interpretive presumption of consistency with international law. And in some circumstances an international obligation may support a mandatory relevant consideration.

But the traditional rationale remains persuasive: the courts must continue to be cautious in relying on international law because of the risk that domestic law ends up altered by the executive rather than Parliament. 

Parties will often rely on international instruments in advancing an interpretation of the relevant statute that supports their claim. But there are many international instruments that do not amount to an international obligation or that have not been ratified by New Zealand. These instruments should not support a presumption of consistency or a mandatory relevant consideration.

Finally, reliance on international law still needs to reflect the different strengths of the courts and legislature. Where the international law obligation engages important public policy choices, it is less likely to be appropriate to be read in as a mandatory relevant factor or a constraint on a statutory discretion: it should be left to the legislature to decide whether to incorporate the international obligation into domestic law because of the legislature’s democratic mandate and institutional capacity. 

Smith v Fonterra

Climate change is a good example of the kind of public policy that should be made by the legislature. The coalition government has introduced legislation creating a statutory bar preventing climate change litigation. The statutory bar will apply to the Smith v Fonterra proceeding.

The government’s decision reflects the views I have set out that the legislature is the institution best placed to make significant public policy choices, including those with polycentric issues and complex trade-offs. 

The Supreme Court found on a strike out application that it should wait to hear the evidence before making a decision. But I agree with the Court of Appeal, which held:

In effect Mr Smith is seeking a court-designed and court-supervised regulatory regime. The design of such a system requires a level of institutional expertise, democratic participation and democratic accountability that cannot be achieved through a court process. Courts do not have the expertise to address the social, economic and distributional implications of different regulatory design choices. The court process does not provide all affected stakeholders with an opportunity to be heard, and have their views taken into account. Climate change provides a striking example of a polycentric issue that is not amenable to judicial resolution.

The government agrees and we were faced with a dilemma. Let the legal process play out, which could have taken years, and await a final decision from almost certainly the Supreme Court. In the meantime there would be ongoing anxiety about the possible development of the law and flow-on effects for regulatory certainty in a market economy. Despite what some may say, that matters.

The alternative option was the one the government chose, which is to act swiftly and make the position clear – that climate change should be dealt with through the Climate Change Response Act and ancillary legislative instruments, not through a court-designed regime.

In my view Parliament has been a poor legislator in recent years. But we have also been too passive about acting swiftly on developments that take the law in an unhappy direction, or where it is tolerably clear that the result of a particular case was not what Parliament intended. 

I will be recommending to my colleagues in Parliament a couple of important things.

One, that we should legislate more clearly and more deliberately.

Two, that when the law takes the wrong direction, we should say so clearly and deliberately through legislation.

That, after all, and to return to where I started, is what Parliamentary sovereignty means.

Original source: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/08/06/speech-to-the-law-association/

Source: New Zealand Government

Businesses are about to have enhanced powers to detain and arrest those stealing from them with the Crimes Act Amendment Bill passing its final reading in Parliament today, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says.

“Our government is committed to fixing the basics in law and order, and that means ensuring retailers are being effectively protected, are empowered to stop offending, and that offenders are caught and deterred from doing it again.

“Retailers and security guards face abuse and assault that no New Zealander should be subjected to, and we know the economic cost of retail crime is in the billions.

“The Crimes Act Amendment Bill ensures criminals face stronger penalties for retail crime, attacking first responders, coward punches, and dealing in slaves. This is another significant piece of work as part of the Government’s effort to restore law and order.

“Where others may flee, first responders and front-line corrections workers run towards danger to help those who need urgent assistance. Assaulting them puts multiple lives at risk, so there must be greater consequences for these terrible acts of violence.

“We know how dangerous coward punches are. People can be killed or suffer lifelong brain injuries, yet perpetrators often receive lenient and insufficient sentences. That changes with this legislation.

“We promised to have this passed into law before the election. We’re delivering. The majority of this legislation will take effect within a week.”

The Crimes Amendment Bill includes:

• New specific offences for assaulting first responders or front-line corrections workers, as committed to in the National-New Zealand First coalition agreement.
• Three new specific coward punch offences, as committed to in the National-New Zealand First coalition agreement.
• Additional citizen’s arrest powers.
• A new shoplifting infringement regime, as committed to in the National/New Zealand First coalition agreement.
• Strengthening trafficking and people smuggling laws to stop criminals using loopholes to evade real consequences for crime.

Changes in relation to citizens’ arrest powers are:

• Amending the Crimes Act so that citizens can intervene to stop any Crimes Act offence at any time of the day. (Currently some – including theft under $1000 – apply only between 9PM and 6AM).
• Requiring that a person making an arrest contact Police and follow Police instructions.
• Clarifying that restraints can be used, when reasonable, when making an arrest. 
• Changing the defence of property provisions to the Crimes Act so it is clear that reasonable force may be used. 

Original source: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/08/06/enhanced-citizens-arrest-powers-pass-into-law/

MIL OSI

Source: New Zealand Government

Finance Minister Nicola Willis and Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Cameron Brewer today announced the appointment of James Miller as chair of the Financial Markets Authority (FMA).

“James Miller is one of this country’s most respected directors, and for the best part of 12 years he has been making the case for a renaissance in New Zealand’s capital markets. I am delighted to appoint him to lead the FMA,” Finance Minister Nicola Willis says.

“His expertise in capital markets, corporate governance and financial regulation, including his time chairing the NZX, and as an inaugural director of the FMA, makes him exactly the leader the FMA needs as it steps into its expanded role.

“Every New Zealander with a KiwiSaver account has a stake in our capital markets. They are how your savings become finance for a growing business, a new house, or the infrastructure this country needs. But our markets are too shallow, and New Zealanders miss out because of it.

“That is why this Government is undertaking a programme of capital markets reform. We are cutting the cost and complexity of raising capital here, so growing companies can list in New Zealand rather than looking offshore. Rules written for a different era are being modernised, with a higher climate reporting threshold taking hundreds of businesses out of requirements never designed for them.

“Deeper markets mean stronger KiwiSaver balances and higher wages. It is a core part of our economic plan, and getting the right leadership at the FMA is central to seeing it through.

Mr Miller has been appointed for a five-year term, starting 6 August.

“A fair, efficient and transparent financial market gives Kiwis the confidence to invest and businesses the confidence to grow,” says Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Cameron Brewer.

“Promoting the confident and informed participation of businesses, investors and consumers is core to what the FMA was set up to do. Delivering on that is how we build markets that are not just well policed, but successful.

“With the transfer of consumer credit regulation from the Commerce Commission, the FMA is now the single financial markets conduct regulator. That means balancing strong protection for consumers with markets dynamic enough to drive economic growth. It is a demanding brief, and James Miller is the right person to deliver it.”

Minister Brewer thanked Steven Bardy for acting as FMA chair.

Minister Brewer also announced the appointment of Trevor Janes to the FMA board for a two-year term. Mr Janes was the inaugural chair of NZ RegCo, the NZX’s independent regulatory arm, and brings significant capital markets expertise including in investment management and regulation, and as chair of NZX-listed companies.

James Miller and Trevor Janes are both Officers of the New Zealand Order of Merit, Mr Miller for services to corporate governance and Mr Janes for services to business and public sector governance.

“Getting the right people into these roles is part of fixing the basics and building the future, so New Zealand’s financial markets work for the people and businesses that rely on them,” Mr Brewer says.

Original source: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/08/06/james-miller-appointed-fma-chair/

Source: New Zealand Government

An exciting range of future-focused, industry-led secondary school subjects was launched by Economic Growth Minister Nicola Willis and Education Minister Erica Stanford today, giving young New Zealanders more opportunities to connect what they learn at school with the jobs, training, and careers of the future.

“These subjects are being developed with industry to give students an exciting range of options, so businesses know young people are building the skills their sectors need, and students can gain knowledge that sets them up for work, trades, training or university,” Ms Stanford says.

The subjects are:

Next-Gen Manufacturing 
Applied Intelligent Systems 
Construction and Built Environment 
Energy and Infrastructure 
Engineering Technology 
Food and Fibre Systems 
Health Services and Care 
Hospitality Food and Beverage 
Tourism 

From 2029, students in years 12-13 will be able to study these modern industry-led subjects that are designed to help them develop practical, relevant skills, explore emerging career opportunities, and make confident choices about their next steps.

“The subjects will have parity of esteem with traditional subjects such as English and Maths and count towards students’ secondary school qualifications, and support pathways into university, trades, training or the workforce.

“It is exciting to see businesses like Meridian embracing the chance to work with the education sector on preparing young people for the future. It is a win for employers who need skilled workers, and a win for students who can see how their learning can lead to better employment options and rewarding careers.

Economic Growth Minister Nicola Willis says a growing economy means real opportunities for young New Zealanders, with good jobs, higher wages, and a future worth building here.

“We’re focused on giving students a clear pathway between what they’re learning and where the opportunities are: energy, construction, engineering, food and fibre, health, tourism.

“That’s why we invested $15 million as part of Budget 2026 into creating practical qualifications that students want and employers need.”

“We know students are more engaged when they can see the purpose of what they are learning and how it connects to their aspirations, making staying at school relevant for every child, no matter what career pathway they choose,” Ms Stanford says.

Industry-led Subjects

Subject Title
Focus
Benefits

Applied Intelligent Systems

Electrotechnology, Information Technology, and Creative Industry Skills Board

Students are taught how to solve business challenges using low- or no-code technologies to design, deploy, and evaluate AI-enabled autonomous workflows and agents (for examples, autonomous workflows service agents)

Strong alignment with emerging demand for skills related to day-day use of AI, supportive of broad pathways into technology-augmented roles across the SaaS sector.

Introduces students to critical thinking, creative, analytical and problem-solving skills applicable to a wide range of industries and workplaces.

Construction and Built Environment

Construction and Specialist Trades Industry Skills Board

Students are taught how construction materials, systems, and practices work together to produce the built environment and develop the ability to analyse, evaluate, and make informed decisions about safe, sustainable, and effective building outcomes.

Strong alignment with existing delivery of construction-related programmes and appeal to students.

Introduces students to career pathways across construction and specialist trades. 

Energy and Infrastructure

Energy and Infrastructure Industry Skills Board

Students are taught about energy, water, extractive and infrastructure systems, and apply systems thinking and STEM principles to address real-world challenges in resource use and infrastructure resilience.

Strong alignment with employment prospects and economic priorities in energy supply and water and roading infrastructure.

Introduces students to a range of careers available across energy, water, civil infrastructure and extractives, from apprenticeships and entry-level training through to specialist technical and operational roles.

Engineering Technology

Transport Industry Skills Board

Students are taught about engineering systems, materials and technologies and developing the ability to test and improve solutions and apply engineering thinking to real-world contexts and problems.

Strong alignment with existing delivery of mechanical and automotive engineering, broad appeal to students.

Introduces students to how systems, machines, tools and infrastructure are designed, operated, maintained and improved, across automotive, aviation, freight and logistics, rail, ports, maritime and public transport industries.

Food and Fibre Systems

Food and Fibre Industry Skills Board

Students are taught about the Food and Fibre industries as a connected system and how natural resources are managed sustainably to create value, developing the ability to analyse trade-offs and proposing informed responses to real-world challenges.

Strong alignment with employment prospects in regional economies and existing delivery.

Introduces students to a range of careers, from apprenticeships and entry-level training through to specialist, operational and management roles.

Health Services and Care

Education, Health, and Community Industry Skills Board

Students are taught about health and wellbeing systems, roles and practices and build the practical skills to provide safe, ethical and culturally responsive care in real-world care settings.

Strong alignment with employment prospects and appeal to students.

Introduces students to broad, transferable knowledge and skills for a range of employment settings, including health, disability, aged care, mental health, and community services.

Hospitality Food and Beverage

Services Industry Skills Board

Students are taught about food and beverage systems and processes and how to apply culinary, operational and business knowledge in modern hospitality contexts.

Strong alignment with existing delivery and appeal to students.

Introduces students to the breadth of roles available across hospitality, food, and beverage from culinary arts to business leadership.

Next-Gen Manufacturing

Manufacturing and Engineering Industry Skills Board

Students are taught about modern manufacturing systems and technologies and apply practical and digital skills to produce, improve and evaluate products and processes.

Strong alignment with employment prospects and economic priorities in advanced manufacturing.

Introduces students to pathways into manufacturing, engineering, product design, automation, and logistics.

Tourism

Services Industry Skills Board

Students are taught about the tourism system and how it functions as an interconnected set of people, places, businesses, policies, and environments to create visitor experiences.

Strong alignment with employment prospects, growth priorities, and existing delivery.

Introduces students to the range of roles available across tourism from operations through to destination management, sustainability, digital innovation, and business leadership.

Original source: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/08/06/new-subjects-bring-industry-and-the-classroom-closer-together/

MIL OSI

Source: New Zealand Government

An independent analysis of New Zealand’s minerals royalty regime and the Crown’s return from mineral development has found it is transparent and broadly comparable with similar overseas jurisdictions, Resources Minister Shane Jones says.

The review by Deloitte New Zealand, commissioned by the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment, found the overall government take from mining, including royalties and company tax, was broadly comparable with other countries included in the analysis.

“Importantly, the report provides the Government with an independent evidence base on how different future royalty settings would operate in practice and the trade-offs associated with different approaches,” Mr Jones says.

The report found that in 2025, around 97 per cent of mineral royalty revenue came from permits operating under legacy royalty regimes that pre-date the current framework introduced in 2013. This means much of the revenue the Crown receives from minerals is determined by royalty settings put in place some time ago.

“It is important to note that mining projects don’t happen overnight. A permit granted years ago at the exploration stage could take a decade or more to become a producing mine, and in most cases the royalty arrangements stay with that permit for its life,” Mr Jones says.

“The report also highlights the trade-offs that would need to be considered in any change to the royalty regime, including the balance between Crown returns, investment certainty, and the long-term stability of New Zealand’s minerals sector.

“Royalties from Crown-owned minerals support economic development and help pay for the things we need as a country. Along with the associated spending by mining companies, including wages and tax, the extraction of minerals provides a huge benefit to our regions.

“With the emergence of critical minerals as a source of economic benefit to New Zealand, it’s important we consider our royalty regime and whether it provides a fair return,” Mr Jones says

Policy work on mineral royalty settings will continue, with further advice to be provided in 2027. Decisions on any future changes to the regime will be considered in the next term of government.

New Zealand’s minerals royalty regime was last comprehensively reviewed in 2012. Since then market conditions, minerals prices, industry activity and the broader policy context have changed. The Deloitte report does not include petroleum royalties which are subject to a separate regime

Original source: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/08/06/minerals-royalty-regime-transparent-broadly-fair/

MIL OSI

Source: New Zealand Government

Mental Health Minister Matt Doocey today launched the Mental Health and Wellbeing Strategy, setting a clear 10-year direction to improve mental health and addiction outcomes for all New Zealanders.

“In opposition, I said it was a huge mistake for a mental health strategy not to be included in the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Act, so I introduced a Member’s Bill that was pulled from the biscuit tin in 2023 to fix the previous Government’s shortsighted actions,” Mr Doocey says.

“Ultimately, mental health deserves the same long-term direction and accountability as the rest of our health system. 

“As New Zealand’s first Mental Health Minister, I am pleased to deliver the country’s first Mental Health and Wellbeing Strategy under the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Act.

“It is backed by a detailed three-year Implementation Plan that sets out the actions, milestones, responsibilities and reporting needed to turn this into real improvements people can see and feel.

“The Implementation Plan contains 50 actions to deliver faster access to support, more frontline workers, and a better crisis response. 

“Some key areas of focus coming up across mental health will be:

• Launch AI Navigation to enable people to easily access mental health and addiction services. Often, the first step in seeking support is the hardest, and many people don’t know where to start. We want technology to help people find the right support at the right time.
• Scale integrated services across mental health, housing and employment. We know that having a stable home and meaningful work can make a real difference to someone’s recovery, and too many people still have to navigate these services separately.
• Implement a national plan to eliminate seclusion. The Mental Health Bill recently passed prohibits the use of seclusion for people under the age of 18. I am committed to getting to zero seclusion for everyone, and this provides the path forward to achieving that.
• Co-design a dedicated youth mental health and addiction roadmap with young people. Nearly 23 per cent of young people aged 15 to 24 report high or very high levels of psychological distress, and we will work with young people to develop a roadmap that ensures their voices are heard and that support is designed around their needs and what works best for them.

“Through public consultation we heard from almost 900 people and organisations across New Zealand. I want to thank each of these people for the role they played in shaping this release. Their voices will help deliver a mental health and addiction system that works better for New Zealanders.”

Note to editor:

The Strategy and Implementation Plan can be found here.

Original source: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/08/06/promised-mental-health-strategy-launched/

Source: New Zealand Government

Viet Nam’s President and Party General Secretary, His Excellency To Lam, will make a State visit to New Zealand next week, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon announced today.

“With a population of more than 100 million people and GDP growth of 8 percent last year, Viet Nam is one of Asia’s fastest-growing economies and an increasingly significant partner for New Zealand,” Mr Luxon says.

“Two-way trade reached NZ$3.41 billion in the year to March 2026 – up 72 percent over five years. We want to build on that growth across food and fibre, education, tourism, technology, aviation and investment, supporting more exports and jobs here at home.

“New Zealand and Viet Nam last year marked 50 years of diplomatic relations by elevating the relationship to a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. This is the highest level of partnership with Viet Nam, and it reflects the high ambition and trust between our countries.

“Viet Nam is also an influential member of ASEAN, APEC and the CPTPP.

“Closer ties with Viet Nam will support New Zealand’s prosperity and security.

“I look forward to welcoming President To Lam and discussing the next phase of our relationship, during what will be the first State visit to New Zealand by a President of Viet Nam since 2007.”

President To Lam and his delegation will attend a series of events in Auckland, including a State Welcome at Government House, meetings with the Governor-General, Mr Luxon and Speaker Gerry Brownlee, and a State Lunch hosted by the Governor-General.

President To Lam will arrive in Auckland on Wednesday 12 August and depart on Thursday 13 August.

Original source: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/08/06/new-zealand-to-welcome-viet-nam-president/