AM Edition: Top 10 Politics Articles on LiveNews.co.nz for March 27, 2026 – Full Text

MIL OSI

Source: New Zealand Government

Introduction

Good afternoon. Thank you, Brett, for the introduction and everyone for the warm welcome.

I am excited to be here to talk with you today about transport funding, the transition to Road User Charges, and improvements to road safety, including our road toll and oral fluid testing.

I’d like to acknowledge Deputy Mayor Desley Simpson for her opening address today. We’ve seen a lot of each other lately, but it’s always good to see you!

I’d also like to acknowledge AA Chief Executive Nadine Tereroa and President Brett Flintoff.

Finally, I’d like to also acknowledge the many AA district councillors and AA staff who are here today. Thank you for the work you do to serve your members and be an advocate for the things that matter to New Zealand motorists.

Fuel Supply Shock

To begin, I would like to acknowledge the challenges the transport system, and all New Zealanders, are currently navigating due to the current fuel supply shock as a result of the conflict in the Middle East.

Right now, we know the conflict in the Middle East is causing concerns across the country and across the world about supply of fuel.

We have sufficient stocks in New Zealand and we are working hard across diplomatic, commercial, and industry channels to ensure that remains the case.

But this situation is also a reminder of something we already knew: New Zealand is exposed to international fuel markets in ways that carry real risk.

Around half our fuel comes from South Korea and nearly a third from Singapore.

When global supply chains are disrupted, as they are now, that exposure becomes very tangible for families and businesses who feel the pain at the pump.

We are already seeing significant shifts in behaviour across the country, and as a government we are closely monitoring these changes so we can respond to their impacts if needed. 

Using data from a sample of vehicles across the country, we can start to get a rough idea of how people are responding to this conflict. 

Comparing the two weeks pre-conflict in mid-February against 7-day rolling averages for subsequent weeks, we have seen a reduction of approximately 20% in the vehicle kilometres travelled by cars. Not necessarily surprising when petrol prices have gone up 30%. 

Also not surprising is that people are responding in a predictable way so far: they are using public transport more, with boardings up by more than 10% in Auckland and Wellington. MOT will be publishing updated data regularly, starting later today. 

Interestingly, last week saw more than 1,000 electric vehicles registered, close to double the week prior. This makes it the biggest week in EV registrations since the end of 2023. Year-to-date registrations are nearly 2,000 higher than this time last year.

Heavy vehicles are also down around 5% over the last few days, despite an increase of 70% in diesel prices. This is expected – those who rely on heavy vehicles for freight or commercial use have far less ability to respond to these kinds of price shocks with immediate alternatives. 

We know higher fuel prices are hitting families and businesses hard. That’s why we announced targeted cost-of-living relief for low- and middle-income families earlier this week.

From 7 April, about 143,000 working families with children will get an extra $50 a week through a boost to the in-work tax credit. 

The increase will be temporary, lasting for one year or until the price of 91 octane petrol drops below $3 a litre for four consecutive weeks. 

This boost will deliver support to working families who are under significant cost-of-living pressure, without driving inflation up higher or further driving up Government debt as this $373m initiative is being paid for out of Budget 2026 operating allowances.

The COVID-19 Inquiry stressed that spending in response to crises should be timely, targeted, and temporary. That is also what Treasury says.

That’s what we’re doing. 

The previous Government responded to COVID-19 through profligate, irresponsible spending – racking up debt. Some people have not learned from this and have called for this Government to make the same mistakes. But we won’t. 

Throwing the kitchen sink at every event that happens is a recipe for fiscal disaster. 

I understand the calls for broad, across the board, fuel tax cuts.

The government won’t be doing that, for a few reasons. 

One, as people here know, every dollar from petrol tax and RUC goes into the National Land Transport Fund, which funds our transport system.

Across the board fuel tax cuts are also extremely expensive, and they are untargeted.

We’d rather focus support on those who need it most.

The reality is that maintaining fuel supply is the most important thing we can do to protect Kiwis from the worst case scenarios.

Later today Nicola Willis – who is in charge of our response as a Government – will provide an update on the National Fuel Plan along with further detail around how we see some of the steps playing out in practice.

We all hope things improve quickly – but as the Prime Minister has said, hope is not a plan.

So, we’re doing the hard yards now to ensure New Zealand has a solid fuel plan that gets us through whatever the international situation throws at us in the coming months. 

Our Transport Funding Challenge

We have significant transport funding challenges.

I am determined to be upfront with the public about this.

Our transport system is supposed to be user pays. In other words, road users pay petrol tax and road user charges and the money goes out the other end on maintenance, upgrades and new projects.

But in recent years, Crown funding has been tipped in more and more, which comes from general taxation – in other words, all taxpayers.

The 2018-21 National Land Transport Programme outlined expenditure of $17 billion over 3 years, and was largely funded by road users, who contributed $13 billion.

Fast forward to the 2024-27 NLTP, and the total investment has nearly doubled at $32.9 billion, but road users are still contributing roughly the same amount, $14.3 billion.

The increased investment has come primarily from Crown funding, with around $12.8 billion of direct Crown funding provided over 2024-27.

Capital contributions from general taxation have to compete with every other important priority the government has to fund.

Every dollar of extra Crown capital we put into roading is a dollar that can’t go into health, or education, or defence, or any of the other calls on capital the Crown has.

Of course, all of these areas have significant deficits and similar funding challenges.

So that’s a real problem.

Then you add in all of the calls for transport investment.

We have real resilience challenges on our state highway network. The recent weather events on the East Coast have shone a spotlight on that.

We have significant deferred maintenance and renewal work required on the Wellington and Auckland metro rail network.

The country needs a second harbour crossing in Auckland.

City Rail Link will open later this year, and soon the conversation will turn to what the next big public transport project is in Auckland.

We have pipeline of Roads of National Significance, important growth-enhancing projects around the country.

So how do we make all of this add up?

One option is to lift petrol tax and RUC.

Petrol tax has not risen since 2020 and has not kept up with inflation. In 2023, we campaigned on not increasing petrol tax in our first term. This was the right thing to do when there was a cost of living crisis, but we have to be honest about those consequences. It has deferred the issue until later.

Petrol tax is currently due to go up by 12c per litre in 2027, by six cents on 1 January 2028, and 4 cents in each year after that.

I have to be honest with you, the idea that we would put up fuel tax during a fuel crisis seems like a non-starter to me.

I’m thinking hard about the funding challenge we’ve just laid out and I’ll have more to say soon.

Later this year we’ll publish a draft Government Policy Statement for Transport funding from 2027 onwards, which lays out how we intend to confront some of these challenges.

And we’re also intending to publish what I’ve been calling a Major Transport Projects Pipeline.

This is about building a credible, long-term pipeline of transport projects with a variety of funding options and in a logical sequence, so that when funding becomes available, the sector and the public knows what project is coming next, and can plan and prepare for it.

New funding tools

We are pushing forward with our reforms to increase the number of funding tools we have in the toolkit to deliver transport projects.

Last year, we introduced the Land Transport (Revenue) Amendment Bill to move towards a fairer, simpler, and more modern transport funding system.

The Bill introduces a more flexible tolling framework and enables simpler, technology-enabled ways to pay road user charges, so everyone pays their fair share for the roads they use.

At the heart of these reforms is fairness. Every road user should contribute in proportion to their use of the network.

Transition to RUC

Our road user charges system is outdated. It was designed in the 1970s and still relies on manual paperwork and paper licences.

Right now, drivers paying RUC have to track their odometer readings and stick paper labels to their windscreen.

The Bill opens the door for new payment models like subscriptions or post-payment, and allows private companies to offer easy, set-and-forget billing options – similar to how many of us already pay for power or streaming services.

The changes, to modernise the system, will also help us prepare for abolishing the fuel excise duty and transition everyone over to RUC.

The abolition of petrol tax, and the move towards all vehicles (whether they be petrol, diesel, electric or hybrid) paying for roads based on distance and weight, is the biggest change to how we fund our roading network in 50 years.

As our vehicle fleet changes, so too must the way we fund our roads. It isn’t fair to have Kiwis who drive less and who can’t afford a fuel-efficient car paying more than people who can afford one and drive more often.

The Government’s plan will eventually see all vehicles pay based on actual road use (including weight) regardless of fuel type.

Tolling

On tolling, we are giving ourselves the flexibility to deliver the big projects New Zealand needs, sooner.

Tolling is a key tool for bringing forward investment, and the Bill introduces a number of changes.

Enabling corridor tolling will allow tolling on parts of an existing road where users clearly benefit from a new project in the same corridor.

The Bill gives us new tools to manage diversion from toll roads, including restricting heavy vehicles from unsuitable alternative routes like they do overseas, and allowing toll revenue to help maintain those alternative routes when councils can’t.

We are also introducing annual CPI adjustments to make tolling fairer and more predictable, as well as shifting liability from the driver to the registered person to improve collection efficiency.

Time of Use Charging

Other legislation passed last year gives local authorities the tools to tackle the problem of congestion.

Sitting in traffic wastes time, costs money, and drags down productivity. 

Our three largest cities are significantly more congested than comparable Australian cities with similar population sizes and densities, with Auckland congestion alone estimated to cost up to $2.6 billion by 2026.

Time-of-use charging is a commonsense tool to encourage people to travel at off-peak times or by other modes. It’s about keeping our cities moving.

The legislation allows local authorities to partner with NZTA on targeted time-of-use schemes to ease gridlock, improve travel time reliability, and support economic growth.

Auckland Council is well advanced in shortlisting scheme design options and the Ministry of Transport and NZTA officials are supporting them with implementation planning.

Road safety 

Finally, I want to spend a moment on what we’re seeing in road safety outcomes, and what’s sitting behind them.

Road deaths have trended down since 2022. In 2024, there were 292 deaths and 2,461 serious injuries on our roads. That’s good progress, and it matters. 

But we need to be careful not to draw simple conclusions from complex data. No single factor explains year‑to‑year changes in deaths and serious injuries, and it’s still too early to say whether this represents a long‑term downward trend.

What we do know is that the biggest gains come when we focus on the highest‑risk behaviours and invest in proven, cost‑effective interventions. 

That’s exactly what the Road Safety Objectives are designed to do — with a clear focus on the main contributors to fatal crashes, including alcohol and drugs.

Enforcement is a critical part of that picture. The Government has invested a record $1.335 billion over three years, from 2024 to 2027, into the Road Policing Investment Programme. That funding supports frontline policing and enforcement activity, particularly during high‑risk times. 

Each year, the programme targets 3.3 million passive breath tests and breath screening tests, with more than two million of those carried out when risk is highest. 

Importantly, funding is also ring‑fenced for 50,000 roadside oral fluid drug tests each year from the first year of implementation.

I also want to share what we’re hearing directly from Police as roadside drug testing beds in.

Since testing was introduced across the Wellington region in December, Police have been gaining valuable operational insight into how this new road safety tool works in practice. 

Testing has been carried out right across the district — from Wellington central through to the Wairarapa and Kapiti — and that experience is already shaping how the national rollout will be delivered.

As of 18 March, Police have conducted more than 650 roadside drug screening tests, resulting in 24 positive tests. The positivity rate at the roadside is broadly in line with what Police see for alcohol.

While it’s still too early to draw conclusions about national trends, Police have seen an increase in positive results as testing activity has expanded across Wellington.

Importantly, officers report favourable feedback from the public during testing. Police are continuing to collect data, but at this early stage the focus is on learning, refining processes, and getting ready.

Feedback from frontline staff has been positive, with Police telling us they are geared up and ready to support the nationwide rollout, with testing across New Zealand by mid‑2026.

But enforcement alone isn’t enough. The Road Safety Objectives also focus on improving the safety of the roads themselves. As the recent AA research report points out, where we have made significant investment in improving the roads we see the benefits of reduced deaths and serious injuries.

Vehicles are another important piece of the puzzle. The overall safety of New Zealand’s has continued to improve over time. In 2025 alone, there were nearly 40,000 fewer one‑ and two‑star vehicles on the road.

Alcohol interlocks 

Finally, we’re looking closely at what works for repeat high‑risk offenders. One key, underutilised, tool here is alcohol interlocks. 

A recent Ministry of Transport study using the Integrated Data Infrastructure database affirms that alcohol interlocks reduce the risk of alcohol-impaired driving.  

Here’s some very interesting data. 

Drink-driving offenders given alcohol interlock orders are:  

• 9% less likely to reoffend within four years,
• 45% more likely to remain in employment, and
• 22% less likely to depend on welfare than comparable drink-drivers given driving disqualification orders. 

It’s clear that alcohol interlocks are effective when they’re installed and used properly.  

Despite their effectiveness, the uptake of alcohol interlocks is lower than it could – and frankly should – be. Many eligible offenders are not given alcohol interlock sentences, and many offenders who are ordered to get alcohol interlock devices do not do so. 

I am actively investigating how to increase the uptake of interlocks with Paul Goldsmith, the Minister of Justice.

Tackling New Zealand’s toughest road safety challenges means focusing on what works and making sure it’s used as effectively as possible.

Conclusion

Thank you for listening and I welcome any questions you have.

MIL OSI

Source: Radio New Zealand

The government may put on hold its plans to raise fuel taxes next year, as it deals with how to respond to the fuel crisis.

National campaigned on not lifting fuel taxes at all in its first term, which Transport Minister Chris Bishop maintains was “the right thing to do” in a cost of living crisis.

Instead, the government plans to bring in a 12 cents per litre increase from January 2027, followed by a 6 cents per litre rise in 2028, and 4 cents per litre in subsequent years.

Fuel taxes are set at a flat rate per litre, meaning they do not go up or down as the price of fuel does.

The government has been resistant to cutting the fuel tax in the crisis, wary that doing so would subsidise demand.

The transport system is supposed to be user-pays, but Bishop said increasingly it was coming from general taxation.

Speaking to the Automobile Association’s annual conference on Friday morning, Bishop admitted that not raising fuel excise duty had deferred the issue of how the government funds transport infrastructure until later.

But he hinted the government may defer the anticipated rise further.

“I have to be honest with you, the idea that we would raise fuel tax during a fuel crisis doesn’t seem like a starter to me. So we’re thinking hard about these funding challenges. They are real, and they do exist.”

The government’s intention is to replace all fuel excise duty with road user charges, which diesel and electric vehicles already pay.

Bishop also said people’s transport habits were changing in response to the conflict.

Comparing the two weeks pre-conflict in mid-February with seven-day rolling averages in the subsequent weeks, Bishop said there had been a reduction of approximately 20 percent in vehicle kilometres travelled by car.

“This is not necessarily surprising when petrol prices are up about 30 percent. Also not surprising is that people are responding in a predictable way, they’re using public transport more.”

Public transport boardings were up more than 10 percent in Auckland and Wellington.

Last week also saw the highest number of electric vehicles registered since the end of 2023, around the time the new government abolished the Clean Car Discount scheme.

Year-do-date EV registrations were nearly 2000 higher than this time last year.

But Bishop was adamant the government would not bring back the discount, saying people who did not have the ability to make the transition to EVs were having to pay more, to give money to people who could make the transition.

“It was a regressive wealth transfer policy, and so we will not be bringing back the Clean Car Discount.”

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

Source: New Zealand Government

Good afternoon, everyone. 

I’d like to thank Denise for the warm welcome and Leonie, and the rest of Property Council NZ for inviting me to speak.

It’s been about six months since I spoke to you at The Property Conference in Queenstown – 

I’m disappointed to see there is no pool this time!

Since September last year, we have seen strong year-on-year growth for building consents in each month. 

For instance, when it comes to residential buildings consents grew: 

• 27% in the year to September 2025
• 24% in the year to October 2025
• 13% in the year to November 2025
• 26% in the year to December 2025
• 15% in the year to January 2026

Today I’ll run through where we are at on RMA reform, with a focus on housing and property, then touch on Development Levies. 

I’m also very excited to give you all a sneak peek into initial findings from an economic analysis I commissioned into the cost of viewshafts in Auckland. 

Then I’m happy to answer any question you guys have. 

Context

But before I get into it, I want to briefly touch on the context we are operating in. Over the last month, global events and uncertainty have impacted New Zealand’s economic recovery. 

The conflict in the Middle East, and its resulting fallout is hurting all kiwis, particularly with higher fuel prices at the pump.

This has exposed an uncomfortable reality for kiwis – 

Not only do we face systemic, decades-in-the-making challenges like low productivity and an infrastructure deficit – we also face significant and more frequent shocks such as extreme weather events and offshore conflicts.

At the same time, Fitch recently put our AA+ credit rating on a negative outlook. 

Currently, the interest bill on Government debt is $8.9 billion per annum and rising. In Wellington I’d say that’s six Transmission Gully’s a year on interest payments alone. 

If New Zealand’s credit rating was downgraded and that led to higher bond yields, then our interest payments would go up even more.

Taken together, we effectively have triplet headwinds (1) long-standing systemic economic issues, (2) exposure to shocks, and (3) high debt.

While we don’t have the power to declare peace in the Middle East, we can and must control how we respond.

Support for hardworking families 

To start, we have moved quickly to provide extra support for low-to-middle-income working families. 

From 7 April, about 143,000 working families with children will get an extra $50 a week through a boost to the in-work tax credit. The boost will also expand eligibility to around 14,000 additional working families. 

The increase will be temporary, lasting for one year or until the price of 91 octane petrol drops below $3 a litre for four consecutive weeks. 

This boost will deliver support to working families who are under significant cost-of-living pressure, without making inflation worse or further driving up Government debt as this $373m initiative is being paid for out of Budget 2026 operating allowances. 

The COVID-19 Inquiry stressed that spending in response to crises should be timely, targeted, and temporary. 

That’s what we’re doing. 

The previous Government responded to COVID-19 through profligate, irresponsible spending – racking up debt. It’s clear some people have not learned from this and have called for this Government to make the same mistakes. But we won’t. 

Throwing the kitchen sink at every event that happens is a recipe for fiscal disaster. 

While it may sound simple and appealing, simply borrowing more could lead to a self-reinforcing “vicious cycle” where debt servicing takes up a large (and growing) share of government revenue, forcing increased taxes and/or cuts to public services and infrastructure to pay for that debt, which in turn reduces long-term economic growth, which then puts downward pressure on Government revenue, making the debt even less manageable. 

It is naive at best and economically-illiterate at worst to pretend that New Zealand can afford to run structural deficits. 

The Coalition Government understands New Zealand’s fiscal reality, and we know we cannot live beyond our means in the long run.

We are committed to protecting people’s living standards, which depends on strong fiscal discipline. We also know that sometimes, extra, targeted support is needed.

We can do both. 

Fuel plan

Right now, we know the conflict in the middle east is causing concerns across the country and across the world about supply of fuel.

As you know, the Government has been keeping New Zealanders informed about our fuel supply situation.

We have sufficient stocks for now, and we are working hard across diplomatic, commercial, and industry channels to ensure that remains the case.

But this situation is also a reminder of something we already knew – New Zealand is exposed to international fuel markets in ways that carry real risk.

Around half our fuel comes from South Korea and nearly a third from Singapore.

When global supply chains are disrupted, as they are now, that exposure becomes very tangible for families and businesses who feel the pain at the pump.

We know higher fuel prices are hitting families and businesses hard. That’s why we put in place the targeted cost-of-living relief for low- and middle-income families I mentioned before.

But maintaining fuel supply is the most important thing we can do to protect Kiwis from the worst-case scenarios.

Later this week, Nicola Willis – who is in charge of our response as a Government – will provide an update on the National Fuel Plan along with further detail around how we see some of the levels playing out in practice.

We all hope things improve quickly – but as the Prime Minister has said, hope is not a plan.

So, we’re doing the hard yards now to ensure New Zealand has a really solid fuel plan that gets us through whatever the international situation throws at us in the coming months.

Fixing the basics and building the future 

A key part of becoming more resilient to shocks is having strong institutions, functional regulation, and a high-performing economy.

As Paul Krugman observed – 

“Productivity isn’t everything, but in the long run it is almost everything.”

This Government is supporting growth through policies like Investment Boost and Fast-Track, getting on with building billions in infrastructure, and signing up to more free trade agreements. 

We are also tackling long-standing systemic issues that have accumulated and festered for 20 to 30 years. 

I’m thinking of things of things like RMA reform, infrastructure funding and financing reform, sorting the Holidays Act, reversing wealth destructive earthquake prone building legislation, opening up competition in building materials, and more. 

I strongly believe that if we get these things right, maintain fiscal discipline, and keep momentum going, the 2030s will be New Zealand’s decade.

RMA reform

The single biggest thing this Government is doing to unlock New Zealand’s economy is RMA reform. 

Our new planning system will make it significantly easier to build the homes New Zealand needs. 

The Resource Management Act 1991 is the root cause of so many of our challenges. 

It has been a handbrake on growth and opportunity. It is directly responsible for New Zealand’s housing crisis – despite us having a land mass comparable to the United Kingdom but just five million people.

And it’s also allowed council planners to delay the delivery of social housing because the “grass colour is too similar to the concrete colour”. Or because “the colour of pipes on the house is too contrasted to the colour of the house itself”. Or because council was concerned there was no signage so people could find their house. 

These are all real examples from Kainga Ora. 

I am sure you have a laundry list of your own examples. But these are example of the past!

Our new planning system will radically change how we approach development, while still protecting the environment.

A specific goal of the new Planning Bill is for the system to enable competitive urban land markets by making land available to meet current and expected demand for business and residential use and development. 

National Direction will follow, including the establishment of housing growth targets, rules making it easier for cities to expand outwards, requirements to enable greater mixed-use zoning, and prohibitions on minimum floor area and balcony requirements.

My ambition is to deliver the most significant pro-housing reforms in a generation. In practice, this will mean: 

Everyone will be able to do more without needing council consent. The new system won’t control for things like the layout of your house, balconies, or private outdoor space – giving people more freedom to use their land how they see fit.

Developers will be able to use the same designs anywhere in the country. Right now, New Zealand has more than 1,100 different zones, each with its own set of rules. Under the new system, we’ll reduce that complexity by using standardising zones nationwide and applying consistent rules for key things like building height, site coverage, and daylight access. No more juggling different rules for Upper Hutt versus Lower Hutt, or Christchurch versus Selwyn.

Getting a consent will be simpler. If you do need one, the process will be simpler and cheaper. Rules will be clear, in more cases only affected people can take part in the consent process, and a new planning tribunal will help resolve disputes at low cost.

Land will be released faster through a mechanism that removes the need for extra plan changes or long consultations where the land has been previously identified as suitable for development.

And developers will have greater certainty to invest. Long-term spatial plans will show where new housing and infrastructure will go, so developers can plan projects and invest with confidence.

All of these changes – along with others – will finally give New Zealand the planning settings it needs to grow. 

Development Levies 

But as all of you here know, liberalising land markets and removing red tape is – on its own – not enough. 

We also need a flexible infrastructure funding and financing system to match our new flexible planning system. 

We have heard from the sector, and from the Property Council in-particular that we must get infrastructure funding and financing right – I agree.

So, we are making a suite of changes to the toolkit including:

• Replacing Development Contributions (DCs) with a Development Levy system, where growth pays for growth
• Establishing independent regulatory oversight of these Levies to ensure charges are fair and appropriate
• Amending the IFF Act to make it easier to use and to broaden the providers that can use it

I want to go over where we are at on Development Levies. 

Late last year, we released an exposure draft on development levies to get the sector’s feedback. 

I’d like to thank Property Council for their submission. I’m told my officials and office had an initial workshop with Property Council on their submission, and I’ll be meeting with them next week to continue the conversation.

It’s clear the exposure draft doesn’t have everything right just yet, but that’s why we went out for consultation early – so we can take your feedback on board. For me, it’s vital that the sector has trust in the new system. 

We have heard your calls for more transparency on how much councils collect from developers for growth infrastructure, and how they use those funds.   

That is why we are getting the independent Commerce Commission to regulate Development Levies – with a focus on strong information disclosure requirements. 

My intention is also for the Commerce Commission to set the standardised methodology for calculating development levies. I can promise both councils and the sector that there will be consultation on this methodology. 

The Commission’s role will focus on ensuring levies are transparent, fair, and deliver value for communities, while safeguarding against anti-competitive behaviour. 

I think we can all agree that the current regime is not working. 

Our new Development Levies system, and our wider infrastructure funding and financing toolkit aims to do two things: be flexible to match our new flexible planning system, and strike a balance and be designed in a way where growth pays for growth in a fair and appropriate way.

I’m confident we can get there. 

We will continue to work with developers, councils, and groups like the Property Council to make sure we do. 

Once the legislation for development levies passes in 2027, councils will have time to establish their new levy policies. 

We expect the first councils to begin charging development levies in 2028/2029 – about the same time the new planning system comes in. 

Now, this alignment of “turning on” development levies and the new planning system at the same time is intentional and important – particularly when it comes to preparing new spatial plans and land-use plans.

We know this shift may increase charges for some developers, particularly those who’ve already bought land. 

That’s why the exposure draft proposes a three‑year phase‑in for any price increases where councils move early.

We’re looking closely at feedback on these transition settings to make sure the shift is manageable.

There will also be further opportunities to provide feedback through the select committee process.

We are committed to getting this right – it’s a once in a generation change to ensure we fund growth properly. 

I look forward to meeting with the Property Council on Development Levies next week. 

Viewshafts and Auckland CBD

Now, to finish, I’ll briefly touch on the work Government is doing on Auckland City CBD and give you a sneak peek of some economic analysis I commissioned on viewshafts. 

I don’t want to get into the whole PC120, PC78, MDRS, NPS-UD acronym soup speal so I will just say this: 

The Government believes there is significant unrealised potential in the CBD. Existing provisions, such as setback requirements, tower dimension controls, and height limits, constrain development and should be revisited. 

Enabling more growth in the city centre will unlock productivity and increase the benefits of CRL even further. 

However, for largely unfathomable RMA legal reasons, the City Centre Zone is not included in PC120 work, and the Council does not have a simple mechanism to unlock this potential.

Therefore, Cabinet has agreed that I will start an investigation into these planning provisions that are holding back Auckland’s city centre, with a view to making regulations under the RMA – similar to what we have just announced for Eden Park. 

This investigation will contribute to the Auckland we are trying to build which is an international, world-class city. 

*Now, on viewshafts – I’m told the Auckland Unitary Plan designates over 80 protective viewshaft cones and 10 height sensitive areas that impose building height limits on affected properties.

While the cultural and amenity rationale for these protections is well established, the height restrictions also impose a substantial economic cost on Auckland which is less understood. 

Work done by Geoff Cooper in 2018 found that the E10 viewshaft (which protects views of Mount Eden for southbound motorists approaching the Harbour Bridge around the Onewa onramp) was limiting development at a cost of $1.4 billion.

This is material, and I wanted to get a better and more up to date understanding of these costs. So, last year I commissioned a report on all 80 volcanic viewshafts. 

The report is yet to be finalised, and numbers could still change, but I wanted to share a statistic which I though was compelling, and a good comparison to work already done by Geoff Cooper. 

The draft report indicates that, based on current zoning patterns across Auckland, the harbour bridge viewshafts (E10 and E16) are limiting development in the central city at a cost of $4 billion. 

In other words, there is $4 billion of value locked up in just these two viewshafts. 

In addition to this, the draft analysis shows that viewshafts across the central isthmus are depressing disposable incomes in Auckland by an average of $2,500 per household per year due to transport and location-based inefficiencies.

I am looking forward to receiving the final report shortly and will publish it in the next month or two.

Conclusion

I’d like to thank the Property Council for inviting me to speak. 

Changes to our planning and housing systems are fundamental to this Government’s ambition to create a more prosperous future for New Zealand. 

Now it is up to all of us to do the hard work required to turn this ambition into reality.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions. 

MIL OSI

Source: Radio New Zealand

Warning: This story contains reference to suicide.

• Residential eating disorder facility says without funding from Health NZ, only those who can afford the cost can access care.
• Two former patients and their families share their eating disorder stories, and how Recovered Living NZ helped them.
• Labour calls on government to fund community organisations with proven track record; minister says he expects funding to be directed where it’s needed.

A North Canterbury eating disorder residential facility that’s proved a lifesaver for those admitted there can’t attract government funding, leading to concerns about who can access care.

Recovered Living NZ offers a different experience from the public system, catering for only nine people at a time in residential care that’s far removed from beds on a mental health ward.

Patients live in the facility and can stay for months, but this comes at a cost of about $1050 a night.

The not-for-profit charity has a contract with ACC for sensitive claims patients, but has been passed over for Health NZ funding to open the service to more people.

Family borrows to afford treatment

Gabby Greally’s in no doubt about Recovered Living’s effect on her.

“I think it saved my life and I think that’s the case for a lot of other people I know who went there. They provided treatment that I think the public service is too strained to give me, and that goes for a lot of people.”

Admitted there in July 2024, Gabby was initially reluctant, but she had run out of options in the pubic system, where she’d initially faced a seven-month wait to see a specialist.

Mum Genevieve said a psychologist told them about Recovered Living.

“She became so sick to the point that she had no other option. She had to go to residential care. She was medically unstable.

“That gave us the mandate as parents to say, ‘Either you go or we’ll have to try something more drastic,’” Genevieve said.

Because there’s no funding to go through the public health system, Gabby’s family dug deep to pay for her stay.

“The funding situation is difficult. We didn’t have the money. We had to borrow the money. So many other parents are in that situation. The girls down there, most of them weren’t wealthy.

“People were remortgaging their houses and things like that. It’s pretty unobtainable for most people…

“For Gabby, we’ve got a girl who either would not be here or who would be in and out of the public system for the rest of her life, and instead now we’ve got a girl who’s well and engaged and will contribute so much to New Zealand in the future.”

Gabby said Recovered Living offered more than just eating and weight restoration, focusing too on exercise and reintegrating to everyday life after six months at the facility. There was group and individual work.

Now, the 21-year-old’s studying law and environmental studies at Victoria University in Wellington as well as working in hospitality, progress that seemed unthinkable two years ago.

“The public service is doing a fantastic job considering how strained they are, but I think they need more support through different routes,” she said.

“I think the nature of eating disorders is very complex and the fact we have only one route to go doesn’t reflect their complexity.”

‘You’d do anything to help your child’

Amanda Holland’s daughter Bridie also went to Recovered Living, for five months in 2024, followed by months of part-time programmes after years battling an eating disorder as a teenager.

Bridie was on a waiting list for over a year to see a specialist in the public sector, only for that relationship to eventually fall over when the specialist said they couldn’t help Bridie because she didn’t want to be helped.

Her condition worsened when she moved to Christchurch from Nelson to study at university, and she was hospitalised twice.

Her mum is telling her story with Bridie’s permission.

“Bridie attempted to take her life while she was home with us for holidays and ended up in the ICU at Nelson Hospital,” Amanda said.

“She was very, very unwell in the ICU when they admitted her. They just brought her back…

“She was in ICU overnight while they monitored her.”

Bridie was discharged after less than a day. She and her family had nowhere to turn to for help.

“How do you get help? How do you advocate for them? How do you keep your children safe when they’ve got a mental health conditions that’s destroying them?

“It’s such a lost, helpless feeling watching them unravel and not being able to help.”

Amanda heard about Recovered Living through her sister, but the family had to find the means to pay for what turned out to be $195,000 of care.

“You’d do anything to help your child, anything at all. A thousand bucks a day, that’s just money isn’t it when it gets to that?

“The cost was what it was. We were fortunate that we had some retirement funds that we were able to liquidate to pay for her care,” Amanda said.

“She was able to get to a point where we could talk about food and eating plans with her.

“Everything’s very closed off and secretive with an eating disorder. It’s just so isolating for the person that’s struggling with it and they cut everybody, including us, as their parents, out of their world.

“They just shut down from everyone, so to get to a point where Bridie learned how to talk about her feelings and let people back into her world again was just incredible.”

Bridie’s back at university now and doing well, but Amanda worries for others unable to access the help they need if they can’t afford it.

Concerns about equity of care

Recovered Living chair Gerard DeCourcy said there was a cost to provide care, but because of its small scale, the home-style facility, which opened almost three years ago, didn’t fit the public-funding model .

“The issue for Health NZ is we’re quite small, with nine beds, and the public money is spent to reach greater numbers.

“The trade-off, however, is that the contract involves quite small amounts of money, relatively, but it still makes a huge difference to the lives of the clients who come to Recovered Living.”

DeCourcy said due to the cost there was an issue with equity of access.

“A Health NZ contract would enable this recovery-based therapy to be accessible,” he said.

“We operate in a small country. There are a number of very worthwhile charities all chasing private support.

“It is difficult for a charity like Recovered Living to build up enough working capital to give it financial security, so we need a reliable pipeline of clients who come to access our service to ensure that we remain financially viable.”

He would like to see a greater partnership between Health NZ and community providers.

Health NZ didn’t say why it doesn’t fund Recovered Living, but it confirmed a senior official met with the organisation late last year.

“Health New Zealand aims to provide a range of accessible, high-quality services for those with eating disorders, from early intervention through to specialist care, prioritising patients with the greatest clinical risk,” said Phil Grady, Health NZ’s national director for mental health and addiction.

“Wait times vary for different services across the country, but help is always available for those in urgent need.”

He said there was a standard application process for contestable funding.

There were 23 inpatient beds nationwide.

It’s estimated about 100,000 New Zealanders have an eating disorder.

Labour mental health spokesperson Ingrid Leary said she’d like to see the government fund organisations with proven track records, rather than just measuring numbers of patients.

She said that’s what Labour would do if it were in power, and she compared the cost of a facility such as Recovered Living with the $1600 it would cost to keep someone in hospital each night.

“Clearly, this is an organisation that has good results and good evidence. Why isn’t it being funded?”

Minister for mental health Matt Doocey said he met with Recovered Living late last year and then contacted Health NZ’s director of mental health to arrange a meeting “to address the funding issue raised”.

“It is important to note that funding decisions are made independently by Health New Zealand.”

Doocey said last year he announced the first, refreshed eating disorders strategy in 16 years, which was supported by a $4 million a year funding boost.

“This represents a 20 percent increase and brings total annual investment in eating disorders services to more than $23m.

“I expect Health NZ to ensure that this funding is directed to where it is most needed, so that people experiencing eating disorders can access the support they need.”

Where to get help:

If it is an emergency and you feel like you or someone else is at risk, call 111.

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

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

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

The higher phases are still under consultation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The criteria for changing phases were:

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

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

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

Government documents show changes aimed at strengthening deportation levers could disproportionately affect Pacific Island nationals, but the Immigration Minister says that won’t happen.

Erica Stanford said it was “not about racial profiling, it never has been”, but the Greens are concerned the “MAGA-loving immigration Bill” could scapegoat migrant communities.

The Immigration (Enhanced Risk Management) Amendment Bill was up for its first reading at Parliament on Thursday, and will give immigration officers the power to ask suspected overstayers for identification in homes and workplaces.

The government said it was closing a compliance gap in the deportation system, while critics argued it was a step towards the immigration conditions that had allowed the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids seen in the United States.

Proactively released documents by the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment show a paper outlining further decisions on the Bill.

It noted the population groups most likely to be “potentially liable for deportation” had historically been Pacific Island nationals.

“As a result, the proposal to expand the powers of immigration officers to request identity information from those they have ‘good cause to suspect’ may be liable for deportation, could disproportionately affect these same population groups.”

Stanford rejected the suggestion the Bill would lead to disproportionate impacts on Pacific communities, saying it was a “really small technical change” in very “limited circumstances”.

“This is not about racial profiling. It never has been,” she said.

Stanford explained that currently immigration officials who come across people “hiding” or “jumping out windows” or “escaping” aren’t able to ask them for identification documents.

“This is not about randomly stopping people on the street or targeting them because of their ethnicity. This is a particular behaviour in a particular situation, and it was a request from immigration officials for that change.”

She said she wasn’t scared of history repeating itself.

The Greens immigration spokesperson Ricardo Menéndez March said he was extremely concerned the “MAGA-loving immigration bill” would scapegoat migrant communities.

“The government is taking a Trump-like approach to immigration by targeting undocumented migrants, including our Pacific communities, who have already faced the intergenerational damage of the Dawn Raids.”

He said the government had been advised that Pacific people will be disproportionately affected by the bill and it needed to be scrapped.

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 new bill would give police new powers but just how far it goes will now be fought over in select committee.
• The Privacy Commissioner says it sets the bar too low, but a Justice Ministry push for more safeguards was rejected.
• A criminal procedure expert warns it leaves so much up to police discretion it will likely land them in lots of court challenges.
• A hurry around the bill led to limited consultation with the public, Māori and over impacts on children.

A big step towards mass surveillance or restoring common sense powers to police to collect evidence and fight crime?

A bill just introduced to Parliament delivers new powers to police to move or detain someone, but just how far it goes depends who you listen to.

Alarm and reassurance were both in play when Mark Mitchell tabled the Policing Amendment Bill at its first reading before a nearly empty Parliament on Tuesday evening.

“I want to be very clear that this bill will not provide additional powers to police that could be construed as enabling mechanisms for mass surveillance of the New Zealand public,” the Police Minister told the House.

Labour’s Camilla Belich retorted that it was too vague to be sure.

“We don’t want a situation where we have an Orwellian society of mass surveillance, where there is unreasonable collection of personal data, which is then in some instances used to charge people with offences and … there isn’t enough detail in this bill to date that … should assure the House that situation will not arise,” she said.

The bill allowed for police to record short live videos in public if they judged that was justified.

Law professor Gehan Gunasekara bridled at Mitchell’s repeated statements that the bill “restored” police powers.

“It doesn’t restore the status quo. It changes the status quo,” he said.

‘Safeguards’

The bill in a preamble said two events “have together narrowed the law” so that police now had less power to photograph or record people in public than a regular person.

One was official inquiries sparked by RNZ in 2020 exposing how officers for years had casually snapped tens of thousands of people, mostly Māori teenagers.

Ruled illegal, the practices were curtailed – albeit reluctantly and soon after police won bipartisan political support to change the law amid a rise in ramraids on shops.

That change had taken till now, but not before a Supreme Court ruling last year further narrowed what officers could do, according to the bill.

ACT’s Todd Stephenson gave qualified backing to reverse that.

“This bill does clarify and expands the police’s power to collect, record and use information, including images, sounds, for lawful policing purposes,” he said in the debate.

But with a kicker.

“Our support is conditional on ensuring that there is strong privacy protections and safeguards against mass surveillance powers.”

‘Low bar’

The Privacy Commissioner was not convinced about the safeguards, saying the bill set a “low bar”.

“It permits collection of people’s information for ‘an intelligence purpose’ which is not defined and establishes a low bar for police to meet (the police employee collecting the information only has to ‘consider that the information will or may support the Police in performing a function’),” said Michael Webster in a statement.

The Justice Ministry meantime had recommended tailormade safeguards.

But that was “deemed unnecessary” because the bill was not displacing any privacy principles or the Commissioner’s powers, said the bill disclosure statement.

However, the ministry largely supported the bill and said it did not breach the Bill of Rights Act.

Webster’s office in 2021 made one of two investigations of police taking so many photos so casually.

The Privacy Act did not permit “baseless or indiscriminate collection”, he said, but now the bill sought to set up a broad authorising framework.

“Overly broad or insufficiently clear intelligence gathering powers will impact on the privacy rights of everyday New Zealand[ers] and has the potential for chilling effect on people’s civil and political rights.”

Green MP Tamatha Paul said at the first reading that maybe Mitchell was right when he said the bill would not impact everyday New Zealanders: “Maybe he’s right, because this bill is going to impact Maori.

“Rather than tightening up the practice and protecting children, they’re changing the law to make it legal,” she said.

Police did make changes over several years as ordered by the Privacy Commissioner but failed to find a technology solution to identify and delete all the unlawfully taken photos.

Council of Civil Liberties’ Thomas Beagle saw not power restored to police but a power grab.

“It is trying to give the police whatever they want at the price of the people of New Zealand,” he said.

“It’s expanding surveillance powers for police drastically by allowing them to use any form of recording [of] visual or audio data that they can capture from public or private places without any oversight.”

‘Time pressures’

“Time pressures” meant there had been little or no consultation with the public or Māori or consideration of Te Tiriti, said the disclosure statement, and a regulatory impact statement (RIS).

Police consulted Te Puni Kokiri, which raised these concerns.

For the same reason, impacts on children and teenagers had not been delved into – even though the bill arose in part from officers photographing and fingerprinting them.

“This proposal is not seeking to legislate any additional protections for the collection, use, and retention of personal information on children and young people,” said the RIS.

Existing protections combined with police seeking “to ensure operational policy and guidance is aligned with our legislative obligations” was enough, it added.

Police would deal with any disproportionate impacts, the disclosure statement said.

Children’s Commissioner Dr Claire Achmad said she had real concerns especially for mokopuna and rangatahi Māori, “given the previous breaches of their rights by the exercise of police power in photographing them”.

A police policy team talked to her office and invited more feedback “but due to very short time-frame provided by police, this was not possible”.

‘We’re striking the balance’

The Police Association’s Steve Watt said it was not over-reach.

“Look, it is important to consult a wider group when these types of bills come out. However, I’m sufficiently satisfied that there’s safeguards in place that minority groups won’t be targeted as a result,” Watt said.

“Ultimately … what this does is it gives our officers certainty around the information that they can collect and store as part of their day-to-day duties.

“We’re striking the balance between what was occurring in the past but allowing the freedom and ability for police to be able to perform their duties and functions appropriately.”

He echoed Mitchell in stating that internal and external controls were adequate – Mitchell noted the establishment of the Inspector-General of Police role sparked by the McSkimming scandal – and how any information gathered could be tested in the courts.

But criminal procedure expert professor Scott Optican of Auckland University said that was the problem.

“The definitions are vague, the reasonable standards are vague, and I think it’s going to invite continuing challenges in court,” said Optican.

“I don’t think it does the police any favours.”

Giving police general intelligence-gathering powers was a laudable goal, but should be done after wide consultation to arrive at “proper standards, clear guidance that adequately balances the need for criminal investigation against the protection of personal privacy, [and] that creates standards of reasonableness that we all understand and live with”, he said.

Part two

The bill is in two parts: The first is on intelligence gathering; the second would give police new powers to declare a wider range of public areas off limits earlier, before, say, boy racers kicked off or other public disorder, including the power to fine people $1000, get their details or if they refused, to fine or jail them for up to three months.

Part two would “deter antisocial driving behaviour”, the bill said.

But it also would let a constable temporarily close off a place if they believed on “reasonable grounds” that “public disorder exists or is imminent at or near the place”, or a danger to a member of the public.

It “expands the police’s existing temporary closure powers to include circumstances that are broader than vehicle-related offending, as well as expanding the geographical size of areas that may be subject to temporary closure”.

Beagle said that was unreasonable and open to abuse, for instance, to close off protests.

“This, combined with the police powers to move on homeless people, are reducing the right to be in public places,” he said.

The bill has now gone to select committee to be reported back to Parliament on 27 July.

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

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

Source: New Zealand Government

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The criteria are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MIL OSI

Source: Radio New Zealand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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