AM Edition: Top 10 Politics Articles on LiveNews.co.nz for May 12, 2026 – Full Text

Source: Radio New Zealand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ACT supportive, but wants Māori committee scrapped

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

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

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

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

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

Improvements to human, environmental protections needed – New Zealand First

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National says negotiations ongoing

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

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

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

Simmonds told RNZ in a statement that negotiations were ongoing.

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

“We’ll have more to say soon.”

GMO environmental release concerns organic farmers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MIL OSI

Source: Radio New Zealand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seymour also accused TVNZ of being “politically motivated”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A social media complaint and an apology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Threats to public funding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BSA no more

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

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

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

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

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

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

A high-profile resignation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MIL OSI

Source: Radio New Zealand

The days of yahooing, serious injury accidents, fires, and tragic animal deaths around 5 November may be numbered.

For decades, petitioners have been asking Parliament to ban the public sale of fireworks, and restrict them to official displays.

In all that time, politicians have said ‘thanks for your petition’ and recommended the status quo remain – reluctant to break the kiwi tradition of lighting crackers in our back yards.

But last week there may have been a tipping point in those attitudes, with the Petitions Committee recommending the government overhaul the law.

Three separate petitions had landed on its door, carrying a total of nearly 100,000 human signatures and several thousand paw prints. The paws, hooves and animal scrawls didn’t count, but the committee did think about it.

“We definitely discussed it,” says National MP Greg Fleming, the deputy chair of the committee.

“Their voice – their barks and neighing – were definitely heard in the committee.”

Fleming went into these hearings a fireworks fan, but has changed his mind.

“I reluctantly concluded that there was just no other place that I could land really – I would have had to just ignore the evidence to have concluded anything different.”

He tells The Detail about some of his firework-related exploits as a farm boy in the Wairarapa, exploits he now shudders at.

“Thankfully fire crackers have become a lot safer since then … but the issue is in part about public safety now. Actually what it’s more about is the incredible trauma that it causes to animals.

“There were two things that persuaded me. One was the increasing cost on ACC of the accidents that are happening, and related to that, the reports from FENZ. Whilst there was a drop-off there for a couple of years, the increase that we’ve been seeing for a long time is now back in play, so we are seeing more public damage and fire and the like.

“But the other one, and the one that really swung me, was just the stories from all of the animal welfare agencies – just the trauma.”

Fleming says there is another issue in the distress to families, particularly in cities, of fireworks going off all hours, and well past the four days they’re on public sale for.

“There’s no regulation around when firecrackers can be used,” he says.

And he points out that where once we could let off a few crackers in our back lawn, intensification of housing means there’s less space and less leeway when things go astray.

There’s an argument that fireworks night should be moved to Matariki, in the middle of winter, and that celebrating Guy Fawkes is about a random note in history connected to our colonial past.

Fleming says he has some sympathy for people defending the use of private fireworks who suggest we move the date.

“I’ve sort of steered away from that – from having a problem with fireworks because it’s associated with an odd thing that we’re celebrating.”

But in the end, “no matter how we looked at it, all the evidence to us fell squarely on one side of the debate and led us to the conclusion that we made.”

New Zealand First has a member’s bill in the ballot on a fireworks ban for private use – Leader Winston Peters saying the issue will be a bottom line in any coalition negotiations. But the issue is unlikely to surface before the election.

In today’s podcast Fleming runs through the entire petitions process, from someone raising an issue to how it ends up in Parliament.

We also talk to the SPCA’s Dr Alison Vaughan, who appeared before the Petitions Committee to push for change.

“We told them, to be honest, that a lot of the information has been shared before – so in terms of the level of harm to our companion animals, a lot of people are only too aware of this.

“But another angle the committee might not have considered is the impact on wildlife, especially given the time of year.”

She says that while in the UK Guy Fawkes is in winter and tends to be wet, here it’s often very dry and coincides with the time birds are nesting.

Vaughan says the SPCA was hugely encouraged by the committee’s response.

“Many people will have signed petitions over the years – there’s actually been 14 petitions, including the three that were considered by the committee, and this is the first time ever the committee has come out in favour of recommending the government take action.”

She thinks there’s been a real shift in public opinion.

“We just don’t need to be doing this.”

The government has 60 working days to respond to the committee’s recommendation.

Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here.

You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter.

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

Source: New Zealand Government

Good morning and a warm welcome to everyone. 

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

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

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

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

I want to begin with a story.

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

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

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

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

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

He laughed. And asked what my real job was.

When he realised I was serious, he apologised again.

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

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

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

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

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

So let me tell you where we are at.

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

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

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

What we’ve already done

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

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

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

What’s happening right now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some of the amendments in this Bill will include:

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

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

National Strategy

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

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

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

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

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

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

AML is vital to New Zealand’s economic security

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

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

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

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

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

Government and industry joined up to tackle financial crime

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. 

MIL OSI

MIL OSI

Source: Radio New Zealand

Scrapping of the fees-free policy for tertiary education will be “very disruptive” to students and their families, says former finance minister Grant Robertson

The scheme was introduced under Jacinda Ardern’s government and changed by the current government to cover the final year of study.

Finance minister Nicola Willis confirmed on Friday the scheme will get the chop in the upcoming Budget – adding that that students completing their tertiary studies this year remained eligible for fees-free.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon told Morning Report the harsh reality was the scheme had been “quite a failure”, and it was better to stop it and redirect some of that funding to trades training.

Former Labour minister – and now University of Otago Vice Chancellor – Grant Robertson told Checkpoint on Monday that students and parents have been budgeting with fees-free in mind.

“Really that’s my concern in an environment where I see the impact of the cost of living on the young people around us here at the university and on their parents,” he said;

Robertson said it’s expensive going to university, polytechnic or starting an apprenticeship, and scrapping the policy will reduce accessibility and inclusion for students.

“We’ll see what the government does with the money, and the trades is certainly an area where we want to include more people, but fees-free already did an element of that.”

He wanted the government to investment in tertiary education and research in the upcoming budget, saying it lifts the country’s economic prospects.

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

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

Source: New Zealand Government

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes to editors:

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

MIL OSI

Source: Radio New Zealand

The Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says he’s “very relaxed” about New Zealand First leader and cabinet minister Winston Peters leaking Budget information.

On Friday, Peters revealed the government would scrap the fees-free tertiary education scheme, which covered the cost of students’ third year of study.

“I’ll give you a Budget leak right here, right now,” he told Newstalk ZB’s Heather du Plessis-Allan.

“We’re going to reshape it and repurpose it for the trades and a whole lot of industries where we do need it, and we’re going to get a far better payback for our money, and we’ll pay far less money for doing it.”

Luxon played down the leak at Monday’s post-cabinet press conference.

“I’m very relaxed, we were going to do a pre-budget announcement, he got ‘Heathered’ on the radio, that’s all good.”

It was a failed policy, and a “huge waste of taxpayers’ money” that had not delivered, he said – adding that Peters’ party deserved “real credit” for acknowledging it was not working, despite it being a “big New Zealand First commitment”.

Finance Minister Nicola Willis, who will deliver the Budget on 28 May, would not add anything further.

“The prime minister’s already expressed my views,” she said.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins said it didn’t seem like “much of a leak”.

“It seemed relatively intentional, and certainly there was no anonymity about it, this is Winston Peters just doing his own thing.”

If Willis had not given Peters permission to make the announcement then it was a “clear breach” of Cabinet rules, Hipkins said.

“It doesn’t get much more serious than leaking what’s in the Budget.

“Christopher Luxon has no control of his cabinet, never has done,” he said.

Willis did not clarify whether she had authorised the announcement.

The first iteration of the fees-free policy was brought in by the former Labour government, which made the first year free.

Hipkins would not say whether his party would resurrect it in any form, if elected, adding no decisions would be made before the Budget.

“I want to see the detail of what the government are doing with that money first … where that money is going,” he said.

The policy helped ease the financial burden for students, Hipkins said.

“It’s been a long term goal for the Labour Party to ease the cost that young people face when they’re participating in post school education.”

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