AM Edition: Top 10 Politics Articles on LiveNews.co.nz for April 3, 2026 – Full Text

MIL OSI

Source: Radio New Zealand

The fuel crisis has left a feeling of anxiety among Māori communities who do not know how much fuel is in their rohe, Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer says.

Ngarewa-Packer, the party’s energy spokesperson, sat down for a wide-ranging interview with Mata host Mihingarangi Forbes and said while tikanga-led covid-19 responses proved Māori were resilient, planning a response for the fuel crisis was difficult without the most up to date information.

She said that was particularly evident in her rohe of Te Tai Hauāuru.

“We have large rural communities that don’t have public transport. We have pockets of hauora, pockets of main hospitals where whānau have to travel to for treatment to even see GPs.

“We have whānau that have to transport their tamariki to kura because there aren’t buses available. Day to day living here is extremely reliant on the ability to mobilise…. at the same time, we have a large proportion of our community, especially that have been wanting to transition away from fossils, who have been fighting seabed mining for years and have been pushing for alternative solutions in our infrastructure – they’re not seeing the alternative solutions coming.”

Ngarewa-Packer sent a letter to the government requesting a cross-party committee on energy security and cost of living mitigation – a letter she said was ignored.

“A couple of days after, MBIE reached out and the Prime Minister’s Office reached out to give us a brief on what it is that they know we’re doing, but, of course, it’s not in real time,” she said.

“Even the data that we get on the supply of fuel… Monday’s data was from Wednesday midnight [and] yesterday’s data was from Sunday so it was lip service.”

She said the committee would have been a chance for the government to put aside their political differences and come up with proactive and pre-emptive responses to the crisis.

“What’s really concerning is that this is a government that hasn’t had a great relationship with Māori, with our communities, and has created some real harm.

“What it would look like is an inclusive response and that’s what we’re really pushing for and just get over each other’s politics and actually think about our communities that are going to be hurt the most.”

Ngarewa-Packer said whānau in the region should begin their rationing fuel on their own.

“We should be applying our own manāki, our own rangatiratanga and mana motuhake in how we do this.

“I’m seeing it already, our kura and our sports are using vans to pick up everyone. I’m seeing some of our local iwi are now set up ability to work in different pods and offices within their own communities so they don’t need to travel. I’m seeing thinking and planning being done to be able to identify vulnerable people, including our kaumātua, to be able to get their groceries and things.

“That’s really easing in and understanding it and starting that community thinking. When you live collectively and you think collectively, you plan differently. I don’t think the government is doing that.”

The full interview is available on the RNZ website and on Youtube.

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

Racing Minister, Winston Peters has welcomed the passing of legislation to end greyhound racing saying it is a decisive step reflecting the clear will of New Zealanders and delivers certainty for animal welfare, industry participants, and the public. 

“The Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment has passed its third and final reading with overwhelming cross-party support, (112 votes to 11)” says Mr Peters.

“This action wasn’t taken lightly, but independent reviews in 2013, 2017 and 2021 provided clear evidence of serious animal welfare concerns. 

“While improvements were made, those gains plateaued and injury/death rates remained unacceptably high to the point the sport had lost its social licence. Action had to be taken,” Mr Peters says.

This decision reflects a wider global shift away from greyhound racing, with sport now surviving in only a small number of countries. Since New Zealand announced its intention to end greyhound racing, further jurisdictions, including Scotland, Wales and Tasmania have signaled they will also end the sport.

Mr Peters said the end of racing is only one part of the Government’s responsibility, with equal focus being placed on ensuring a safe, orderly, and compassionate transition.

“The passing of this Bill enables the establishment of a transition agency to oversee the wind‑down of racing and the rehoming of dogs, and we are now moving into the formal setup phase.”

The transition agency will be headed by the current members of the Ministerial Advisory Committee on greyhound racing, Heather Simpson (chairperson), Murray Johnson and Dr Lindsay Burton, with a fourth member to be appointed later. 

Key elements of the transition agency’s work include:

• Assistance for greyhound owners, to ensure dogs receive a high standard of care while awaiting rehoming, including housing, training and behavioural support for the dogs.
• Partnerships with existing rehoming agencies, with practical support in place to expand their rehoming capacity and the number of dogs adopted.
• Retraining and redeployment support for industry workers, delivered in partnership with the Ministry of Social Development, to help affected workers move into new jobs.
• Mental health and wellbeing support services for people whose daily lives have been closely tied to greyhound racing.

Mr Peters rejected claims that those affected by the closure will be left without support, saying “There has been a great deal of misinformation suggesting that people and dogs are being abandoned. That is simply wrong. 

“This Bill underpins a structured transition, with funding, agencies, and support mechanisms in place. We are not walking away from our responsibilities; we are meeting them head on.”

The ban on greyhound racing will take effect from 1 August 2026, allowing time for a responsible and carefully managed transition. 

“This is a good day for greyhounds,” says Mr Peters. 

“It’s a rare moment when Parliament speaks with such a strong majority, principled voice. Those moments matter, and this is one of them.”

MIL OSI

Source: Radio New Zealand

An armed man sent a manifesto to schools, the police and the government promising to “kill everyone” and become the country’s “most deadly mass shooter”, police allege.

The man – who has never had a firearms licence – is accused of possessing a pump action shotgun with more than 350 shotgun cartridges, “suspected components of an improvised explosive device” and Nazi literature, it can now be revealed.

The 20-year-old faces an array of charges including two representative charges of threatening to kill, three charges of threatening to destroy property and four representative charges of unlawful possession of firearm/explosive.

He had also been charged with three representative charges of possessing an objectionable publication – including the Christchurch terrorist’s manifesto and video – and two charges of failing to carry out obligations to computer search.

Do you know more? Email sam.sherwood@rnz.co.nz

The man, who has pleaded not guilty to the charges and has name suppression, is set to go on trial in July. RNZ has been granted access to a court document that details the police allegations against him.

The document accused him of sending a manifesto to various addresses at 1.40am on 12 March last year.

The recipients included Waiuku College, Rutherford College, Pukekohe Police Station, Te Atatu Police Station and Parliament.

Police said the email was titled “This is my manifesto” and stated that another person was the author. It made several claims, including that the author had been “subject to constant bullying and harassment”.

“I have finished making weapons, body armour and suicide vest that will be needed for what I will do to get revenge on bullies.”

The author said they had finished 3D printing and assembling a Rogue 9 submachine gun and had about 200-300 armour piercing bullets, some 3D printed Glock magazines, a pistol and about 100 bullets.

Police alleged the email said the submachine gun and pistol had been tested and the author knew “they will work for ‘what I am going to do tomorrow morning’”.

“I have body armour so that I will not die in a shootout with police,” the manifesto was alleged to say.

According to the police the email author claimed to also be in possession of Molotov cocktails and ingredients for explosives. The manifesto also said explosives had been sent in various packages to Waiuku College, Rutherford College, Pukekohe Police Station, Te Atatu Police Station and the Beehive.

“The rest of the … explosive was in the suicide vest that I will detonate even if defeated in a gun fight and kill everyone around me.

“I will go to Rutherford College or Waiuku College early and … become New Zealand’s most deadly mass shooter.”

It also promised “a big tragedy” if there were not enough police at the school, and threatened to set schools on fire and take hostages.

“The only way out of this is for a plane to be provided to me and safe passage out of New Zealand.”

Later that morning, police said they received an online form submission to a Police Service Improvement webform link, detailing the manifesto that had been sent.

When the schools became aware of the threat students and staff had already started to arrive for school.

As a result, Waiuku College put the school into lockdown for several hours, before staff and students were sent home.

Rutherford College restricted access to the property and had armed police posted at the school for the duration of the day.

Police said they spoke with a person who had been named as the author of the manifesto. They denied being the author and instead identified the defendant as a possible suspect.

On 13 March, police raided two properties associated with the defendant.

At one of the properties, police said they found a 12-gauge pump action shotgun under his bed, as well as 359 shotgun cartridges.

They said they also found a 3D printer, a machete in sheath, blueprints showing the assembly components of an AR15 rifle and Nazi literature.

The court document said “suspected components of an improvised explosive device” were also seized from the property. This included electrical chipboards, timers and household chemicals.

While searching the other property, police said they seized a phone, an iPad, two laptops, a USB drive, a desktop computer, 134 spent shotgun shells and a large knife.

When asked for the passcodes for the iPad and one of the phones, the defendant allegedly provided incorrect passcodes.

“When suggested that he was providing the wrong passcodes, the defendant claimed not to remember the passcodes,” the court document said.

Police analysed the defendant’s devices and said they found several objectionable materials, including a copy of Brenton Tarrant’s manifesto, a video of the Christchurch mosque attacks and a copy of a manifesto written by Ryan Palmeter, who killed three people in Jacksonville, Florida, in 2023.

There were also two copies of “an instructional book on how to make explosives, weapons, drugs and other dangerous or illegal activity” and videos of the Russian Moscow ISIS concert hall terror attack and the Buffalo, New York, mass shooting.

When spoken to by police, the defendant denied being involved in any of the alleged offending.

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 will today introduce legislation to amend the Resource Management Act and reduce the minimum housing capacity required for Auckland Council’s Plan Change 120, Housing and RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop says.

“Housing growth in Auckland is critical to fixing our housing crisis, driving growth and raising living standards for New Zealanders,” Mr Bishop says.

“Aucklanders have been clear that they want housing growth, so long as it happens in the right places and where infrastructure can support it.

“Cabinet has agreed to revise the minimum housing capacity required by Plan Change 120 down from 2 million to 1.4 million homes.

“Our expectation is that this revised capacity number finally brings consensus on this important issue. Aucklanders deserve certainty on this city-shaping plan change.

“Advice from officials estimates that capacity enabled by PC120 is still likely to be around 1.6 million homes once mandatory requirements under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development and upzoning around the City Rail Link are taken into account.

“This means Auckland Council will still need to provide for significant housing growth, including upzoning around key transit corridors and town centres.

“The legislation also addresses a transitional issue affecting approximately 400 developers and property owners following the withdrawal of an earlier plan change in 2025.

“Some people had already started projects under the Medium Density Residential Standards and were left in limbo when those rules were withdrawn.

“This legislation provides certainty. Where approvals were already in place or projects were partway through the building consent process, those projects can continue.

“Alongside PC120, I intend to investigate planning provisions that may be holding back Auckland’s city centre, with a view to making regulations under the RMA if the statutory criteria are met. If further opportunities for housing development are enabled through this work, they will count toward PC120’s revised capacity requirement.”

Auckland Council’s Guiding Principles

“Auckland Council has set guiding principles for how it will change the plan in response the new minimum housing capacity,” Mr Bishop says. 

“The guiding principles include: downzoning in areas where homes are more susceptible to natural hazards such as flooding; enabling intensification in mandatory areas including around stations benefiting from investment in the City Rail Link; reducing housing capacity in areas more than ten kilometres from the city centre as a starting point; and reassessing requirements in places that are less well-served by public transport.”

Next steps 

The legislation will be progressed quickly to minimise disruption to the existing Plan Change 120 process.

“Plan Change 120 has already received more than 10,000 submissions. Those submissions remain valid,” Mr Bishop says.

“Once the new capacity requirement is in place, Auckland Council will decide which parts of the plan change to withdraw or amend.

“If parts are withdrawn, the existing Auckland Unitary Plan zoning will remain in place.

“For parts that continue, updated provisions and maps will be made publicly available, and Aucklanders will have further opportunities to provide feedback.”

“This process will be transparent, and Aucklanders will be able to have their say.

The independent hearings panel will then consider submissions and make recommendations before Auckland Council makes final decisions on Plan Change 120.”

MIL OSI

Source: Radio New Zealand

Labour’s Chris Hipkins has thrown his support behind the government’s moves to explore ‘tickets’ and temporary offshore fuel storage as the Iran conflict deepens.

Associate Energy Minister Shane Jones and Finance Minister Nicola Willis on Monday said there had been an “unsolicited proposal” from a commercial operator to “do a swap” which would give New Zealand access to more refined fuel.

But there was concern that fuel – though voluminous – would not be suitable for New Zealand’s needs, and could take a long time to get here, possibly 45 days.

“We consume 24 million litres a day – about 50 percent is diesel, about 30 percent is petrol, and the remainder is aviation fuel,” Jones told Morning Report on Tuesday.

“And we believe – subject to the right deal – the tickets, as you put it, the virtual fuel, the put options we have, would equate to about 960 million litres of fuel. So if you do the mathematics, it’s quite a long period of time.”

Jones would not name the operator that made the suggestion.

“The challenge is we hold the options in America, Japan, and I think the UK, and that feedstock has to be compatible with how the refineries in Southeast Asia work because that’s the closest site in terms of bringing fuel here.

“So it would be a transfer, it would be a trade, it would be refined, and obviously the successful party or perhaps one of the existing fuel companies would continue to bring the fuel into New Zealand.”

Jones said the government had also received an unsolicited proposal to set up a “floating terminal off Marsden Point”.

“A large vessel, we’re told, is capable of 120 million litres, and then they call the other vessels slightly smaller milk-run vessels, and they’re up for 40, 50, 60 million, and those vessels are capable of going into some of our smaller ports, and they could pull up there as well.”

The Labour leader said prioritising supply over demand was the right thing to do “at the moment”.

“Doing everything that they can to avoid there being a supply shock is the right focus for them. So that should include looking at tickets and whether we should be exchanging tickets that we currently hold for crude oil, for refined oil, for example – that’s the right thing for them to focus on.”

That included a potential temporary storage facility.

“Anything they can do to smooth supply – that includes storing more fuel here. It means securing more fuel from further afield. Bearing in mind that cashing in those tickets will often involve buying fuel that comes from further afield than we normally buy our fuel from, so it’ll take longer to get to New Zealand.

“So those are all difficult balances for the government to make in terms of when the right time is to pull those particular levers. But they’ll have much better information than we publicly can see. And so, you know, we have to, I guess, place our trust in them to make the right calls.”

But they should also be planning “for the worst” too, Hipkins added.

“Aim for the best and certainly do everything we can to achieve the best outcome, which is not having a supply shock, but plan for the worst in the event that it happens anyway.”

Rationing difficulties

Hipkins questioned how easily a rationing regime could be put in place, as the higher levels of the government’s national fuel plan prescribe.

“If we get to a point where we are having to actively ration the fuel that we have available, we need to know now what that’s going to look like. So who’s going to have access? Who’s not going to have access? And the sooner people know that, the sooner they can make their own contingency plans.”

He said the Covid-19 experience showed the importance of detail when it came to defining who was in what group, for example essential workers.

“This is a different scenario, very different to Covid, but how will people access the fuel? So do they just show up to any petrol station? Is it the forecourt attendant who’s going to determine whether they’re eligible or not? How is that actually going to work in practice?”

Aside from supply, Hipkins said both the government and private sector could reduce demand by encouraging working from home where possible.

“I acknowledge there’s a downside to that, particularly for hospitality businesses and the CBDs, some upside for hospitality businesses out in the suburbs. But there will be an impact on that. But being flexible now and allowing people to make pragmatic choices now will make a difference.”

He accused the government of raising public transport prices. A subsidy allowing half-price public transport subsidy was put in place by Labour in response to price spikes following the Russian invasion of Ukraine and falling use following Covid-19, to expire.

The subsidy for people 25 and over was allowed to expire in 2023, while Labour was still in power, and for everyone else in 2024, following the coalition taking over.

“Anything we can do to encourage people onto public transport is welcome,” Hipkins said.

“The government cut the reductions in public transport that we had put in place. So we made it much cheaper to use public transport and they increased the fares again.

“I’d like to see a focus on making public transport more widely available and cheaper for people, because, regardless of just this crisis, generally speaking, public transport is a good cost of living option.”

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

It’s a pleasure to be here at the Sprout Summit, surrounded by people who are quite literally designing the future of agrifood, ag‑tech and deep‑tech innovation in New Zealand.

The theme of this year’s summit “The Catalyst: Connecting Industry, Innovation, and Investment”, is timely. 

It speaks to the kind of system New Zealand needs to build: one where science, ideas, and capital connect seamlessly, and where innovation can move quickly from concept to commercial reality.

New Zealand is at an important economic turning point.

After several difficult years, marked by high inflation, weak productivity and declining business confidence, the economy is slowly turning a corner, notwithstanding external shocks.

Strengthening that recovery, and our ability to rebound after shocks, and lifting New Zealand’s long-term economic performance is a priority for the Government. 

That is why two of this Government’s major agendas – Going for Growth and the Science, Innovation and Technology System Reforms – are deeply intertwined; the latter being one of the five key mechanisms in the Going for Growth agenda.

Nowhere is that more obvious than in the sectors represented here today: agritech, agrifoodtech, deep tech, and biotechnology, sectors where New Zealand has natural advantages, deep expertise and global potential. 

We need smarter, more resilient technologies in energy, transport, and food production. Agritech and agrifood innovation are important components to resilience.

Opportunities in advanced technologies 

Advanced technologies are already reshaping the agrifood economy — from AI enabled automation, to climate resilient crop systems and precision fermentation.

We also see it through companies like Halter, which is demonstrating how locally developed technology can scale globally while delivering tangible productivity gains on farm. 

As you know, Halter has pioneered virtual fencing and precision livestock management through its solar-powered smart collars and software platform, enabling farmers to herd, monitor and manage cattle remotely without physical fences. 

Adoption across New Zealand’s dairy and beef sectors has been rapid, driven by clear benefits including reduced labour pressure, improved animal welfare, better pasture utilisation and increased farm system flexibility. 

Backed by significant venture capital – just last week the business attracted funding valuing it at more than $2 billion – and led by a strong, farmer-focused product vision, it has become a flagship example of agritech commercialisation. It shows how advanced technology, when deeply grounded in real farm needs, can achieve strong market traction and global growth potential.

I am pleased to have Halter founder and chief executive Craig Piggott on the PIMSITAC board, which I will speak more of shortly. 

A further example of agritech success is last year’s Prime Minister’s Science Prize awards that went to AgResearch for developing an endophyte microorganism which enhances the health and productivity of the ryegrass common on New Zealand farms.

We need more of these stories across the economy. 

Innovation is critical to resilience

Our ability to turn research into innovation, and innovation into growth is going to be critical to economic resilience and building our future success.

In Denmark – a country like New Zealand of around five million people – recent pharmaceutical breakthroughs have delivered a modern economic miracle – creating a tidal wave of growth, employment, and opportunity.

When I came into this role, one thing was immediately clear: New Zealand produces excellent science, but our system does not consistently turn those ideas into commercial success.

The Science Advisory Group report identified this as one of many problems to fix, including too much competition, too little competition, underutilisation, poor collaboration, poor connection with industry, poor alignment with government priorities, complex disconnected funding panels, and poor commercialisation. Apart from that, everything was fine! 

Too many promising ventures stall at the research and proof of concept stages and cannot develop to a stage in which they can access venture capital. 

They can also lack the capability support and capital they need to scale.

Too much intellectual property is left on the shelf, including IP disclosures that become effectively dormant.

Comparing public science funding with Australia suggests we do well at the discovery phase but do not push on into spinouts and start-ups, as well as they do. 

Changes to science system

Part of this is in our hands, where capital flows in our economy have been misaligned for years. Not enough investment has been targeted at the creation of new technologies, new products, and new companies.

That is why the Government is undertaking the most significant modernisation of the science, innovation and technology system in more than three decades.

Our goal is simple: A science system that produces world‑class research and turns it into world‑class companies.

Key reforms in the past year alone show the huge amount of work that’s been done in just one year holding the portfolio, including:

• A shift to a strategy‑driven funding system that aligns public investment with national research priorities
• A new national intellectual property framework to strengthen incentives and pathways for researchers to commercialise breakthrough ideas.
• Consolidation of the seven CRIs into three Public Research Organisations, including the Bioeconomy PRO, which will be pivotal for agrifood and agritech innovation.
• Creation of PMSITAC as the national strategic science council.
• Creation of Research Funding New Zealand, aligning investment with national priorities and economic opportunity.
• Establishment of the New Zealand Institute for Advanced Technology, backed by $231 million, with a statutory mandate to commercialise frontier technologies such as quantum, AI and synthetic biology.

Our science reforms must be matched with strong support for businesses at every stage of the commercialisation pipeline.

At the early stage, our revamped science system will ensure public R&D investment is maximised.

At the scaling stage, tools like Elevate, the R&D Tax Incentive, InvestNZ and NZTE are helping firms grow globally.

In the middle, the critical point between proof of concept and investability, we see great opportunity for improvement.

This is where capability support such as incubators, accelerators, commercialisation coaches; and early capital such as PreSeed‑ Accelerator Fund, Technology Incubators, Aspire; must be aligned. 

We are now working to ensure a joined‑up, coherent pathway so founders can get the right support at the right time.

Role of PMSITAC 

Last year in his state of the nation speech, the Prime Minister also announced the establishment of the Science, Innovation and Technology Advisory Council (PMSITAC) to set research priorities and ensure funding is targeted for maximum impact. I chair that council and acknowledge deputy chair and chief science advisor John Roche from MPI who is also in the room.

Earlier this year, the Prime Minister asked the Council to be bold; to tell the Government how to build a system that is focused, effective and equipped for the future. 

He said that the prize – if we can get it right – could be game-changing for New Zealand.

The council’s role was not simply to diagnose long-standing issues, but to chart a path forward. 

The Council has done just that and delivered recommendations which the Government is backing.

Today, I am pleased to announce the release of the Prime Minister’s Science, Innovation and Technology Advisory Council (PMSITAC) Report on Prioritisation in New Zealand’s Science, Innovation and Technology System.

It sets out how we will refocus science investment into areas that will make the biggest difference for New Zealand. 

This report focuses on science funding in the portfolio and not the almost equal amount of science funding in other portfolios including MPI, DoC, TEC, Centres of Research Excellence, and TREF – previously PBRF. Those funds are outside this report.

This report focuses on science funding in the SIT portfolio, and not the almost equal amount of science funding elsewhere, including MPI, DoC, Callaghan, TEC and MoE funded centres of research excellence, and TREF previously known as PBRF, the $315 million a year which funds university research. Those funds are outside this report. 

The key elements of the report are:

1. Four priority pillars
2. Investigator-mission led reweighting
3. Rebalancing agriculture and environmental investment with advanced technology
4. A simplified strategic and funding pathway with reduced bureaucracy.

1 – Priority pillars 

The Council’s report signals four areas, or pillars, where Government’s science investment can make the biggest difference for New Zealand. 

These are:

• Primary Industries and Bioeconomy
• Technology for Prosperity
• Environmental Sustainability and Resilience
• Healthy People and a Thriving Society

These four pillars reflect where New Zealand has existing strengths and capability, but also where there is opportunity for us to do more. The SAG report consistently focused on science prioritisation that we are or should be good at.

For investors, the PMSITAC report is a strong signal of long-term‑ policy alignment.

The Council’s advice is clear:

New Zealand under invests in advanced technology research, and is overweighted in agricultural and environmental research, compared to similar economies, including taking into account the primacy of our agricultural sector.

Some of this reflects how our system and economy has evolved. 

However, if we want science and innovation to more strongly drive economic performance, wellbeing and national resilience, we need a different balance of investment.

At the heart of the report is a new Technology for Prosperity pillar, which will crosscut across all science endeavours.

It is not designed to grow a single sector, but to build national capability. 

Investments in areas such as quantum technologies, AI modelling, next generation sensing and engineered biological systems, will enable innovation across all four pillars, including agrifood and agritech.

2 – Investigator/mission-led reweighting 

The Council recommends adjusting the funding balance within these pillars to be 60 per cent mission-led (aligned to national priorities and outcomes) and 40 per cent investigator-led (competitively funded, curiosity-driven research).

This replaces the current approximate 45 per cent mission-led and 55 per cent investigator-led balance, and positions New Zealand alongside other leading small, advanced economies who are similarly positioning towards more mission-led science.

3 – Rebalancing agriculture and environmental investment with advanced technology

The Council recommends that we increase investment in advanced technology through a gradual reallocation of some of the agriculture and environmental research funding. 

Cross cutting will clearly position some of this funding back into those areas, just from a different pillar and with an emerging technology lens. For example, through something like AI-driven robotic harvesting technology. 

This does not mean starting again or discarding what we do well.  Rather, it is to build on our existing strengths and direct more investment toward areas where New Zealand has a genuine comparative advantage, where we need research that addresses the unique needs and challenges of New Zealanders, and where emerging technologies are shaping future opportunities.

In short, redirect resources for an outsized impact.

Will humanities and social sciences still be supported? 

Yes. It is a whole pillar in itself; one of the four.

Is matauranga still supported?

Yes. The $42 million biodiversity platform is evidence of that. 

Will investigator-led, foundational research still be supported?

Yes. Up to 40 per cent of research funding would still fit into this category. 

4 – Simplified science funding with less bureaucracy

The fourth key to the report is simplified science funding with less bureaucracy. The PMSITAC Priorities Report provides a clear path forward. It will inform the development of the Science Investment Plan or SIP, which will set New Zealand’s long‑term research priorities and align public investment with national missions. This plan will be released later this year.

The upcoming Science Investment Plan is the response to this report and will direct Research Funding New Zealand – RFNZ – as the one-stop-shop that operationalises the the PMSATIC strategy. This will be done through Pillar Investment Plans – PIPS.

The simplified system then has:

• PMSITAC, sets out national priorities
• SIP, to detail the strategy
• RFNZ, to operationalise the national strategy
• PIP, to operationalise pillar strategies.

I know that is a few new acronyms, but this aligns with simplified science funding structures in other small, advanced economies. That is less bureaucracy and more funding for researchers. 

This more aligned approach will help ensure New Zealand’s deep‑tech, agrifood and advanced‑technology sectors are positioned to take full advantage of future opportunities, here and globally.

Shifting investment priorities

This transition must be supported by the foundations of the system — our workforce, our research infrastructure, our commercialisation pathways, and our global partnerships.

It strengthens the fundamentals of New Zealand’s agrifoodtech opportunity by shifting investment toward the data, biology, engineering and automation layers that form the foundation of globally scalable agritech companies.

This moves public investment toward platform technologies, for example AI, genomics, sensors, synthetic biology and digital twins, that can generate intellectual property and global revenue. 

For the investment community, this alignment reduces policy risk and increases confidence that New Zealand will continue to produce agri-tech companies at scale capable of competing in large international markets.

The changes also aim to improve the efficiency of the innovation-to-commercialisation pipeline. A more mission-led system, clearer national priorities and simplified funding architecture mean fewer fragmented projects and more concentrated effort behind technologies with real market pull. 

These proposals improve the risk–return profile of agri-tech investment. Stronger upstream public investment lowers technical and regulatory risk, clearer priorities support better capital allocation, and a growing advanced-technology talent base strengthens the founder pipeline. 

This aims to translate into higher-quality deal flow, faster time to scale, and increased potential for international partnerships, follow-on capital and exits. 

Shifting our funding in this way will mean we see more of the benefits that investments in advanced technology is already delivering – boosting farm productivity, reducing environmental impacts, and enabling smarter, data-driven decisions that improve health, resilience and sustainability across New Zealand.

In a tight fiscal environment, public investment must be targeted, efficient and evidence-based‑. Every dollar must do real work.

Funding needs confidence

This report describes reprioritisation and not a reduction in science funding. 

We all agree that more funding is important if we are to retain research capability and deliver on the potential New Zealand has. That funding needs to come from both private and public sources.

As you all know, funding for any venture requires a business case. 

In a sense, the science and research reforms we are undertaking is part of a developing “business case” that the Government needs, to give it the confidence to consider putting more funding into the sector. 

It’s a highly competitive process getting the attention and time of politicians that is needed for consideration of any new money. The case has to be strong.

We all need to prove that we are fixing the basics – by establishing these new entities, having them running smoothly, making sensible and informed decisions that support the national interest and the priorities laid out. 

The Government is committed to building a prosperous future.

We can make policy and create interventions, but it will also require evidence, to build confidence that the sector is contributing and worth investing more in.

Evidence that is easy to digest, links to national benefit and demonstrates that it is delivering real results and returns.

Close 

In closing, I want to thank the Council for their expertise and contribution. Their advice is helping ensure New Zealand’s science and innovation investments deliver enduring value for the country.

To everyone here today, founders, CEOs, researchers, farmers, investors — thank you for the ambition, creativity and drive you bring to this sector. You are building the future of New Zealand’s bioeconomy and delivering solutions the world needs.

Alongside you, I have built the second largest biotechnology Institute in the world and a focused, simplified funding mechanism to advance those goals. 

With a modernised, prioritised science and innovation system, aligned investment signals, and a growing advanced technology capability base, I am confident that New Zealand can remain a global leader in agrifood and agritech-‑innovation.

MIL OSI

Source: Radio New Zealand

The housing minister says nothing has fundamentally changed as the government scales back Auckland’s minimum housing target even further.

Auckland Council had been progressing a plan to accommodate up to 2 million homes in the next 30 years. But in February that was reduced to 1.6 million, and on Tuesday that dropped again to 1.4 million homes.

The council opted out of medium-density rules that apply to most major cities on the proviso it set up zoning for 30 years of growth, instead adopting its own process called Plan Change 120. RNZ previously reported this approach was made under pressure from proponents of heritage homes, who raised concerns about further intensification in character areas that were already seeing major development.

Chris Bishop told Morning Report on Wednesday 1.4m was the new legal minimum, but with upzoning around the City Rail Link (CRL) stations and other areas, officials were expecting to settle closer to 1.6m.

“We’re just making sure we can get some certainty into the Parliament and into the community. And I think hopefully – he says, crossing his fingers behind his back – that this will settle the issue once and for all… Nothing’s actually fundamentally changed. It’s still the same process. And actually, what Auckland Council’s doing right now, they can just charge on with because there’s no actual change to any of that.”

In response to a suggestion it was a “bit confusing”, Bishop responded: “Yeah, well, tell me about it.”

“On the margins, the 1.4m will allow the council a bit more flexibility, but I’m told that with all of the legal requirements around the national policy statement, urban development, rapid transit stations, for example, and the CRL, that the practical effect will be the council ends up at about 1.6m, which is a big improvement on the status quo and will make a significant difference to housing and development opportunities in Auckland, which is ultimately what I’m trying to achieve here.”

He said much of the debate around PC120 last year was “not exactly that helpful”, and the original target of 2m homes “became a bit of a lightning rod”.

“Everyone wants Auckland to grow, but we want to make sure it grows in the right places. We want to make sure that there’s a social license and community consensus around density. There’s no point having endless debates without making a lot of progress. And so that’s what I’ve been focused on, actually making progress.”

As for which suburbs might see less or more development under the latest plan, Bishop said that was up to Auckland Council.

“Having made this decision, we are now kicking the issue into Auckland Council’s hands and saying, ‘It’s now over to you. You wanted more flexibility over the medium density standards, we’ve given you that. You wanted to take the number down, we’ve given you that. It is now over to you and Auckland communities and constituents and councillors to work out exactly where density in Auckland happens.’ So it’s now over to the council…

“And 1.6m is a big advance on the current Auckland plan, the Auckland Unitary Plan, which is about 1.2m. So we are making progress in Auckland.”

Mayor Wayne Brown said in a statement on Tuesday the change would give Auckland more flexibility to grow into the city it wants to be, “a global city, not embarrassingly the world’s biggest suburb”.

“This has been going on for years, over successive governments. If we waited for everyone to agree, we’d never get anywhere. It’s time to stop the talk, for Wellington to get out of the way, and let Auckland get on with building Auckland.”

He also noted it would give greater ability to downzone for natural hazards and retain intensification where it makes the most sense, such as along major transport routes and the CRL.

National’s coalition partner ACT wanted fewer homes built if they were not going to be greenfields developments.

“The council has said they don’t want to do that. I think that’s really disappointing. They’ve said that they want most development to be within 10km of Queen Street,” leader David Seymour said.

“That’s their right and their choice as a council, but it’s also caused a change in the target number that the government has set.”

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: Green Party

The Green Party has released data showing 9000 students across more than 70 schools and pre-schools faced unsafe drinking water in 2025, with water breaching safe Drinking Water Standards at some point during the year. 

“No child should face a health risk from the water coming out of a drinking fountain at their school. The data paints a troubling picture of the state of drinking water in Aotearoa,” says Green Party Co-leader Marama Davidson. 

“While many of these schools had treatment systems in place, for whatever reason the treatment has failed.” 

“Drinking water standards set safe limits for things like bacteria, chemicals, and other contaminants in drinking water, which must be met at all points in a water system after treatment.” 

“When a school’s water is found to be unsafe, drinking fountains are shut down, children are told to bring water bottles from home, and in serious cases schools may have to close. Children should be focused on learning not worrying about whether their water is safe.” 

According to the Minister of Education, no additional treatment barriers were installed at any of the schools in 2025 and there is no estimate of the cost to bring drinking water treatment facilities at those schools where ‘do not drink’ notices were issued in 2025 up to a standard where water is safe and reliable. 

“Schools should have all the resources they need to provide safe drinking water. Instead, the Government installed no new treatment systems at any of these schools in 2025 and cannot even tell us what it would cost to fix the problem.” 

The data follows an earlier 2024 report by Taumata Arowai which found a “stubbornly high” 71 schools reported at least one incidence of E. coli in their drinking water that year, meaning faecal contamination was present. 

“The data reinforces why the protection of drinking water at its source, in rivers, lakes, and groundwater, must be a priority.” 

“Almost all New Zealanders get their drinking water from a river, lake, or underground aquifer. If we protect those sources from pollution, we can be far more confident that what comes out of the tap is safe, even when something goes wrong at a treatment plant.” 

“Keeping source water clean also avoids the enormous cost of removing contaminants like nitrate and sediment, which are extremely difficult and expensive to treat, particularly for smaller towns and communities.” 

Green Party environment spokesperson Lan Pham has called for the Government to learn the lessons of the Havelock North Drinking Water Inquiry. 

“The Havelock North Drinking Water Inquiry was clear that source protection should be treated as a matter of national importance in resource management law,” said Pham. 

“The Inquiry found that protecting the source of drinking water provides the first and most significant barrier against contamination and illness.” 

“Despite those recommendations, the Government’s resource management overhaul only requires decision-makers to ‘have regard to’ effects on drinking water quality. That falls well short of what the Inquiry called for.” 

“If this Government were serious about keeping our water safe, they would be enshrining source protection in law.” 

In answers to written questions, the Minister of Education confirmed she was not aware of ‘Do Not Drink’ notices that had been issued at schools in 2025, had received no advice on water quality at the affected schools, had no estimate of the cost to fix the issue, and had not corresponded with the Ministers for Local Government or Health about the matter. 

“The Minister is treating this as someone else’s problem. Parents sending their kids to school have a right to expect that the water is safe. They deserve a Government that takes that seriously,” says Davidson.

MIL OSI

Source: Radio New Zealand

The Tourism and Hospitality Minister intends to have “a chat” with ACT’s tourism spokesperson after he criticised the government’s funding of a football game between two “billionaire-owned” clubs.

English Premier League club Tottenham Hotspur is set to play Auckland FC in a friendly at Eden Park in July.

The match, part of the International Football Festival, will be supported through the government’s $70 million major events and tourism package, although the government will not disclose the specific funding amount for the event for commercial reasons.

ACT’s tourism spokesperson Todd Stephenson took to social media to criticise the funding.

“Why are taxpayers subsidising an event featuring billionaire owned football clubs?” he posted.

“Tottenham and Auckland FC aren’t charities. They’re backed by owners worth billions. Good luck to them, but they don’t need help from Kiwi taxpayers.”

Why are taxpayers subsidising an event featuring billionaire owned football clubs?

Tottenham and Auckland FC aren’t charities. They’re backed by owners worth billions. Good luck to them, but they don’t need help from Kiwi taxpayers.

This funding is coming from the Government’s… pic.twitter.com/GDbpwuRS4D

— Todd Stephenson MP (@toddmstephenson) March 30, 2026

Stephenson said the package was “just a slush fund”, accusing politicians of “picking winners and spraying public money around in the hope of a headline”.

Tourism and Hospitality Minister Louise Upston said New Zealanders were “wildly excited” about Tottenham coming to New Zealand, and she would speak to Stephenson.

“People are entitled to their views. Normally, I would have thought in coalitions that we talk to each other about it, so I’ll be making sure I have a chat to that MP,” she said.

“I’m the sort of person who has conversations to someone’s face. If you’ve got something to say, bring it on.”

The match would be the first time a top-flight English club has played in New Zealand since 2014, when Newcastle United and West Ham United both toured.

Upston was not concerned that the marketing of Spurs as “Premier League icons” was in jeopardy if the club was relegated to the Championship, English football’s second tier.

Tottenham currently sits in 17th place on the Premier League table, just one point above the relegation zone with seven games still to go.

“Oh look, I think AFC, for them to be playing a team of that calibre will be exciting, will be great for the fans,” Upston said.

“And I think playing it on a Sunday afternoon is a really good move, because we know that football is a really big family sport. So I think it’ll be really positive.”

Stephenson’s post also said that previous visits from the likes of West Ham, Wrexham, Boca Juniors, and LA Galaxy did not need a “government hand out.”

But Upston said the point of the fund, which was also being used to support Robbie Williams’ upcoming tour and State of Origin, was to help New Zealand compete harder to attract big events.

Asked why the government could fund $70m for major events, but only $15m for food banks in the last Budget, Upston said the package was about increasing economic activity and economic growth, which would boost incomes.

“When you provide more customers, and support business activity and economic activity, then actually you further down the track stop having to fund things like food banks.”

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