AM Edition: Top 10 Politics Articles on LiveNews.co.nz for May 22, 2026 – Full Text

Source: Radio New Zealand

The move-on orders legislation has passed its first reading, following a heated debate at Parliament.

Around 80 people were sat in the public gallery to watch the debate, following a call to action from the Green Party.

Even though the legislation has passed its hurdle, a long debate on when the select committee has to report back on the bill has to be extended into next week.

The Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill would give police the power to issue move-on orders to people who are displaying disorderly, disruptive, threatening, or intimidating behaviour.

They will also apply to people who are obstructing or impeding someone entering a business, breaching the peace, begging, rough sleeping, or displaying behaviour indicating an attempt to inhabit a public place.

After being issued with such an order, the person has to leave a specified order for up to 24 hours, and what the officer deems to be a “reasonable distance” away.

People as young as 14 would be subject to the orders.

The legislation has been heavily criticised by opposition parties, homelessness organisations, and the Police Association.

Speaking at the first reading on Thursday, justice minister Paul Goldsmith said the bill was not criminalising homelessness, but would simply give police the power to issue move-on orders.

Only people who refused to follow the orders would face prosecution, and people lawfully protesting or conducting charitable or not-for-profit fundraising would be exempt.

Goldsmith said there had been “unprecedented” levels of disruption in city centres with businesses, residents, and visitors playing the price.

“Our focus is ensuring that we reclaim those streets and those town centres for the enjoyment of people who live there, who work there, who visit there,” he said.

He said many “disruptive, distressing, and potentially harmful” acts could occur before police had any means of intervention, and that was what the legislation sought to change.

“You’d be hard-pressed to find anybody who lives, works, or visits our city centres that hasn’t witnessed disorderly behaviour.”

Goldsmith insisted there were “many tools” to help people in need, including access to the welfare system, additional Housing First homes, more funding for frontline services, and expanded wraparound support.

“It’s often said, ‘oh well, what about your empathy for those who are in genuine need?’ And I’d just say this, my empathy lies particularly with those New Zealanders who have put their life savings into a small business, who get up every day to do their business, to provide for their family, for their community, and for their customers,” he said.

“And they find a number of people lined up outside their businesses abusing those who come and go, and make it difficult for them to succeed, and to live, and to provide for their families. That’s where my empathy lies.”

‘Would you like them to go sleep in a bush?’ – Opposition parties slam bill

Labour’s deputy leader Carmel Sepuloni said the bill was “purely ideological” and insisted it did criminalise homelessness.

“You stand up in this House and say you’re not criminalising, despite the fact if they don’t move on they can be fined or they can be sentenced.”

Sepuloni said it was “crazy” that the government would talk about disorderly behaviour when two of the categories that would trigger a move-on order were homelessness and begging.

“It’s not nice, and it’s hard when you have to explain it to your kids, but it’s even worse for the people that are actually living as homeless people, because they have nowhere to lay down with a roof over their heads at night time.”

Green MP Tamatha Paul said the government was misleading the public by saying it was not criminalising homelessness.

“If they comply and go home, they’re not going to be charged. The minister realises they don’t have a home, right? Where exactly are they supposed to move on? Should they go to your house?”

Paul was particularly aggrieved that the orders applied to people as young as 14.

“Where exactly are these kids meant to go? Would you like them to go sleep in a bush? Would you like them to go sleep under a bridge? They have nowhere to go, they have no parents, they have no responsible adults, and now they will be caught up in the justice system for the rest of their life.”

Paul, who had organised to get people into the public gallery, said those watching on worked on the frontline, and urged the government to listen to them.

Both Paul and Labour MP Willie Jackson mentioned that Goldsmith had advocated for a similar policy as an Auckland City councillor.

Jackson said Goldsmith had now “got his wish” almost 20 years later.

“Congratulations Minister Goldsmith, well done, what a political achievement,” Jackson remarked sarcastically.

“Hold on to anger towards the poor long enough … and you too can be a National cabinet minister.”

Bill gets coalition backing

National’s coalition partners ACT and New Zealand First voted in favour of the bill.

ACT MP Simon Court said there had been “political gaslighting” around the bill, and all it did was equip police to deal with public disorder.

“You are denying the lived reality of young people who I’ve worked with, in the central city, in K Road and other business, who told me they were afraid to come to work until it was light because of the intimidation and fear they felt from people who they could identify as being regularly occupying places in public spaces,” he said.

“The Greens and Labour are denying the reality of people who choose to live in urban centres, with all the enormous investments and infrastructure like City Rail Link in Auckland, we want people to come and live.”

New Zealand First’s Casey Costello, said as minister for seniors she wanted older people to be able to feel safe and part of the cities they lived in.

“It is returning our streets to the communities that own them, not allowing us to be intimidated and to be frightened, to just be in our own cities.”

MPs debate report back timeframe

Goldsmith wanted the Justice Committee to report back on the bill by 3 September.

“The reason for this slightly faster turnaround of three and a half months, rather than the usual period, is because this government wants to get on with this legislation, and have it enforced quickly, and because we believe three and a half months does provide plenty of time for full consideration of the issues,” he said.

It prompted a filibuster attempt from the opposition.

Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan argued it should be moved to 22 September – two days before the House is expected to rise before the election.

Xu-Nan said the bill had a Section 7 report by the Attorney-General, which had found removing rough sleepers and beggars did not appear to be justified.

The Green MP said this deserved further scrutiny, and also noted the government could have introduced it sooner, given it received a Regulatory Impact Statement in November.

“If they introduced something like this earlier in the year, they could in fact allow for a full six month select committee, without having to have a truncated process. Instead the bill has decided to introduce bills of a lesser significance, despite knowing something like this would have an impact and undermine our Bill of Rights.”

Labour agreed the report back timeframe was too short, with Justice Committee member Duncan Webb tabling his own amendment to stop the committee from meeting while the House was sitting.

Because Parliament had to rise at 6pm, the debate on the report back date was interrupted.

It means, despite the bill passing its first reading, the debate on exactly when it will next appear before the House will resume next Tuesday.

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

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

Original source: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/05/21/move-on-orders-bill-passes-first-reading-following-heated-debate/

Source: New Zealand Government

Legislation which provides Police with the power to issue move-on orders as a tool to deal with disorderly behaviour in public places has passed first reading in Parliament today, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says.

“Our government is committed to fixing the basics in law and order, and building a future where everyone feels safe to visit, work and live in our central cities. 

“Our streets and town centres have endured unprecedented levels of disruption in recent years. Many people no longer want to be there. Businesses, residents and visitors are paying the price. 

“You would be hard-pressed to find anyone who lives, works or visits our city centres that hasn’t witnessed disorderly behaviour. That’s why so many people and central city businesses support move-on orders. Many are just trying to make a living, but have to face disruptive people camped outside their store, day in day out. 

“We currently have many tools to help those who are in need, including access to one of the most generous welfare systems in the world, but we have limited tools to deal with disorderly behaviour. It means many disruptive, distressing, and potentially harmful acts can occur before police officers have any means of intervention. This legislation changes that. 

“There has been much said about this legislation, so let me set the record straight, the Government has no policy to criminalise homelessness. 

“What we do have, is a policy to give Police the power to issue move-on orders to people displaying disorderly behaviour in public places. Only people who refuse those orders, will face prosecution. A move-on order is not a criminal charge.

“This is about reclaiming our streets and our city centres for the enjoyment of everybody.”

Under this legislation Police will have the power to issue move-on orders to people who are: 

• Displaying disorderly, disruptive, threatening or intimidating behaviour.
• Obstructing or impeding someone entering a business.
• Breaching the peace.
• All forms of begging.
• Rough sleeping.
• Behaviour indicating an intent to inhabit a public place.

These orders will: 

• Require a person to leave a specified area for a specified amount of time, up to 24 hours.
• Require a person to move on a reasonable distance from the area, as specified by the constable.
• Apply to people aged 14 or older.
• Be issued in writing or electronically, as is operationally appropriate.

“New Zealanders are fair-minded people, and our culture is one where we seek to help those who are in need. But that doesn’t mean we should accept our city centres, particularly our showcase tourist spots, as places of intimidation and dysfunction.”

Original source: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/05/21/move-on-orders-pass-first-reading/

Source: Radio New Zealand

The Prime Minister’s office says it has no evidence to back Christopher Luxon’s claim that Winston Peters micharacterised his view of the Iran War.

Luxon had personally declined to offer such evidence, instead pointing to public government statements reflecting the official view.

RNZ requested under the OIA “any additional documentation that can be provided outlining more clearly the prime minister’s view, and to support the contention that he was merely wanting to test New Zealand’s position against that of Canada and Australia”.

“This includes any record of the DPMC request the emails themselves were responding to.”

Luxon’s office referred the latter part of the request to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, but said the remaining information simply did not exist.

“As concerns the remainder of your request, searches of this office’s information holdings have located no relevant emails. I am therefore refusing your request under section 18(e) of the Act, as the information requested does not exist.”

The response restated – without evidence – that Peters’ release of emails had mischaracterised the PM’s position, saying it was his job “to always challenge the advice he receives and, in this case, he sought to test New Zealand’s position against those of Canada and Australia”.

Luxon’s office also referred RNZ to Hansard – the official transcript of Parliament – for 3 March, during which the prime minister stated New Zealand’s official position on the war which would “acknowledge” but not explicitly support the war.

However, this was the day after Luxon had struggled to clearly articulate the government’s position during a post-Cabinet media briefing, which had followed the discussions with Peters’ office about what that position should be.

The dispute between the pair made headlines late last month after Peters’ office released under the Official Information Act two emails showing MFAT staff discussing Luxon’s “preference for more explicit support of the US’ action” in launching assaults on Iran in late February.

That assault led to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the resulting fuel crisis.

The emails showed MFAT staff discussing how Peters, the Foreign Minister, did not wish to move towards explicit support like Australia and Canada had expressed – seeing value “from a foreign policy perspective, in walking the careful line we established yesterday … which neither condemns nor gives explicit support”.

Luxon was outraged by the emails’ impending release and – the night before they were made public – went to Peters’ office to discuss the matter.

A statement from Luxon’s office later said Peters’ office had not consulted them, that the decision to release the emails “clearly put politics ahead of the national interest”, that after their discussion Peters had “acknowledged he made a mistake”, and that “the PM would expect Mr Peters to show better judgement after more than 40 years in politics”.

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

Original source: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/05/21/no-evidence-to-back-luxons-claim-peters-mischaracterised-view-of-iran-pms-office-says/

Source: Radio New Zealand

Analysis – Much like every other political party in Parliament, New Zealand First isn’t really planning to use taxpayer money to buy back BNZ.

The idea is a bold and bizarre one given the potential price tag of anywhere between $7 billion and $30b, depending on who you believe.

Winston Peters himself couldn’t say what it would cost when asked on Morning Report on Monday, but he doesn’t need to.

Be under no illusions: this is not a make-or-break policy for New Zealand First, and it won’t be an election bottom line.

The country has been feeling the effects of a cost-of-living crisis since late 2021 and for many it hasn’t got any better. For plenty, it’s got worse.

Add to that an international fuel crisis, business confidence tanking, and inflation struggling to get back into the desired 1 to 3 percent bracket.

There isn’t a political leader who would realistically prioritise spending billions of dollars to buy back an Australian Bank at this point in time, or anytime in the near future.

What New Zealand First set out to achieve at the weekend was much simpler than spending billions of dollars buying the country an expensive and potentially out-of-reach bank.

The clue is in its name – putting New Zealand First – and reminding voters less than six months out from an election that the party that believes in nationalism, “taking back our country”, and holding onto state assets isn’t National, nor is it ACT.

Peters is the political leader who has spent the past 33 years reusing large sections of the same speech at his public meetings where he talks about New Zealanders keeping more of their own money, profits not going overseas, and state-owned assets staying that – state-owned.

It’s all part of a wider strategy of getting everybody else to spend their time talking about New Zealand First.

It’s one Peters, for decades, has mastered far better than any other politician, and MPs new to politics, like the Prime Minister, time and time again fall into his trap.

Responding to these sorts of policies is exactly what Peters wants, and day after day Luxon, and a string of other National Party ministers and MPs, have done exactly that – for five straight days.

There have been stories ad nauseam about coalition partners and the opposition parties pooh-poohing the idea, never mind the economists, columnists and experts commenting and writing endless paragraphs about it.

Finance Minister Nicola Willis told media it was “attention-seeking” and not serious policy.

Willis has a point – Peters sought to get attention, but it’s his coalition partner who took the bait most of all.

New Zealand First has had a successful week notching up wins between the BNZ narrative taking flight exactly as planned, and convincing Willis to exempt his pet ministry – foreign affairs and trade – from her cost-cutting public service exercise for a third year running.

ACT has had its win too, with the public service cuts being centred on a head count reduction and department mergers – two ideas straight out of the party’s policy playbook making it easy for David Seymour to claim victory on saving the Budget for two years running.

The Budget is the pride and joy of any finance minister and the product of a lot of hard work, sleepless nights, sweat and at times, probably tears.

Thursday will be Willis’ day to shine and the National Party will hog most of the spotlight for that reason.

The week leading up to Budget Day has been all about New Zealand First and ACT.

Willis has seven days to wrestle the attention back.

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

Original source: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/05/21/minor-parties-steal-spotlight-from-nicola-willis-budget/

Source: Radio New Zealand

Replacing public servants with artificial intelligence could come with more costs that will eat into any savings, say critics.

The government says the plan to cut another 8700 people sector jobs in about 40 core agencies will save $2.4 billion over four years.

The coalition government’s basic recipe for cutting the public sector size and wage bill is to reduce the head-count and increase use of artificial intelligence (AI) technology.

When Roger May, a retired forestry consultant of Motueka heard this, he emailed Finance Minister Nicola Willis to say that “is going to take time and money”.

He then told RNZ: “8700 knowledgeable bureaucrats are about to be axed. She expects that AI will replace a lot of these people.

“But there’s not been any explanation of the costs and time involved, and I wouldn’t mind betting that’s going to eat into their $2.4 billion.”

He got back an acknowledgement from the minister’s office.

‘I’m not aware of a current local AI provider’

Labour tried to get some details on Wednesday afternoon in Parliament, asking what the rollout and licensing cost of AI would be.

Digitising Government Minister Paul Goldsmith responded: “I don’t have that exact figure at the moment, but of course it varies.

“And what we inherited, of course, was a wide variety of arrangements in place across many government departments, and that is precisely why we’re putting together a more coherent and centrally guided system.”

Goldsmith was then asked if it would use local or overseas AI technology.

“Mister Speaker, I’m not aware of a current local AI provider in the scale of Claude or Copilot, but what I would say is that we’ll be making use of the best technology available.”

Claude and Copilot are leading AI models from US companies Anthropic and Microsoft.

ACT’s David Seymour then asked if the public sector would build its own silicon chips or import them.

Goldsmith replied, “My suggestion is that we focus on the things that we do well and sell them to the world and then we purchase the things that other people in the world do better than us and hopefully if we have made enough money in our economy we can afford to have the best ones.”

Professor Alexandra Andhov, chair of law and technology at the University of Auckland, foresaw huge challenges to the government’s savings goal, quite apart from the lack of clarity at how it settled on the $2.4b figure.

“The published material doesn’t really show the cost side of the AI,” she said on Wednesday.

Enterprise-scale AI was not a one-off buy but had ongoing costs in licence fees, model upgrades and responding to companies dictating when and how models were replaced or integrated, plus audit and oversight of its operations, Andhov added.

“And even I think more importantly, it’s to recognise that the costs that we pay for AI today are heavily subsidised while the AI companies are trying to capture as much of the market, these are not the real costs that AI will cost.”

Real-world pricing, and cyber security demands “will push up the cost of AI and generally any kind of digital infrastructure to such an extent that I think that we are not yet even in a position to foresee”, Andhov said.

The security landscape is in flux after Anthropic released its new model Mythos recently to a select few organisations to test how good it was for hacking. In response, one of the world’s largest cybersecurity firms Palo Alto Networks put out 26 security advisories at once last week – when it normally issues five a month – because Mythos had found so many more vulnerabilities than usual.

“We intend to fix every vulnerability we find before advanced AI capabilities become widely available to adversaries,” the US firm said.

Here, Treasury told public agencies last year they must prepare for the encryption-breaking threat of quantum computing due in 2030.

Andhov said there was still more cause for pause.

“But wait a second, who we are actually using, who are these AI providers?” she asked.

“To my understanding, the majority of the providers that government is considering are not New Zealand companies, not the companies that are governed by New Zealand law, but they are US-based companies that only need to comply with the US law, given the fact that also New Zealand doesn’t want to regulate AI.”

(The government has chosen a lighthanded approach to regulation.)

“If the New Zealand government ultimately uses, let’s say, Microsoft’s AI … then they’re paying OpenAI, which is based in California, which doesn’t pay any taxes [here].

“All of this amount is taken to the US and actually brings nothing back to New Zealand … and it has involved loss of jobs here.”

Australia is undergoing its own AI moves across its public sector AI, and it also relied on US Big Tech, said Jeannie Paterson, Professor of Law and director of the Centre of AI and Digital Ethics at the University of Melbourne.

But it had some things New Zealand did not have, like a new AI Safety Institute and a new AI Employment and Workplaces Forum that just had its first meeting with unions and businesses.

Australia also has a new central registry the public can use to check how agencies are using AI, [www.gov.au/articles/new-central-register-ai-transparency-statements-commonwealth-entities stating], “Bringing this information together in one place provides a clearer, more complete picture of AI use across government.”

“The first question to ask is, what’s the framework for deploying AI?” said Paterson.

“Because we know that AI is not the genie … and that there’s a number of risks. AI only works well with expert humans around it.

“So unless there’s an investment in training and resources from humans and a pretty clear democratic commitment to what role AI should be playing in society, then it’s sort of a rush to lowest, to the bottom.”

The New Zealand government has issued a Digital Government Target State for a centralised approach to improve tech while saving billions.

RNZ approached ministers Willis and Goldsmith for comment but they did not respond by deadline and they declined to do a recorded interview.

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

Original source: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/05/21/replacing-public-servants-with-ai-could-come-with-hidden-costs-critics-warn/

Source: Radio New Zealand

The Breast Cancer Foundation is calling for women with symptoms to be referred directly for diagnostic imaging, bypassing the GP.

Chief executive Ah-Leen Rayner, speaking at a pink ribbon breakfast at Parliament on Thursday morning, said this could remove up to eight weeks of delay, cut pressure on primary care, and reduce inequities.

Right now, women who attended routine screening but reported a lump or other symptom were turned away and told to see their GP, she said.

Allowing BreastScreen Aotearoa to refer symptomatic women directly to diagnostic imaging “could remove up to eight weeks of delay, cut pressure on primary care, and reduce inequities for women least able to self-advocate or pay privately”.

International evidence showed every four-week delay in starting treatment from diagnosis increases the relative risk of death by 8 percent, she said. A 12-week delay from diagnosis increased the relative risk by 26 percent.

Early prevention could also save the system money, she said, as treating late stage breast cancer cost $120,000 to $150,000 per patient, compared to less than $30,000 for early stage cases.

In Auckland, only 60 percent of women received their first treatment within 28 days of diagnosis, and that fell to 22 percent in Northland.

“This adds weeks of delay and pressure to primary care.”

Right now, 55 percent of diagnoses happened only after symptoms appeared, and 15 percent of those diagnosed still died from the disease, despite it being “increasingly treatable and curable”.

Bottleneck in pathology slowing down diagnosis

Rayner explained even when screening found something, there was another bottleneck most people never saw – pathology.

“Every treatment decision flows through it,” she said. “Yet our public system remains largely analogue, pathologists staining tissue, counting cells one by one through a microscope. It’s slow and it’s workforce constrained.”

Health New Zealand estimated a pathology workforce shortage is projected to reach 11 percent by 2030.

Rayner worried this would increase delays, and encouraged a shift toward digital pathology.

RNZ previously reported artificial intelligence could soon be used to screen for breast cancer in the public system.

Health Minister says age extension already catching cancers

Health Minister Simeon Brown, who hosted the event on Thursday morning, said the government had made good on the election commitment to extend the upper age for funded breast screening from 69 to 74, in October last year.

“And when this is fully rolled out by 2029, an additional 52,000 women each year will be screened, building on the 270,000 already screened annually.”

Since October, more than half of the extra 31,800 women invited for screening had taken up the opportunity, he said, catching 190 breast cancers that wouldn’t have been detected under the old rules.

“These are women who may otherwise not have known they had breast cancer until much later, when treatment can be more difficult and outcomes much poorer,” Brown said.

His government had also increased funding for Pharmac by $604 million, enabling access to new medicines, including Keytruda and Hertu, for eligible people with advanced breast cancer.

He also recently announced the expansion of community infusion services around the country.

Survivor says she regrets delaying her mammogram

Andi Shirtcliffe was diagnosed at the age of 57 in October 2022.

A lump was picked up on screening that wouldn’t have been detected by self-examination, “so I was extremely lucky to be within the screening-eligible age group”.

But she had delayed that screening, she said. “I was too busy. You know the story. We’re in the middle of the pandemic and my country needed me.”

She said she wished she had acted faster. “I may not have had to live with the long-term effects of the medicines or having lymph nodes removed.”

She had two surgeries to remove the affected tissue, and then chemotherapy, to which she had a bad reaction that left her immune system depleted. It caused repeated hospitalizations, and finally, she underwent radiation therapy.

She wasn’t yet at the five-year post-cancer mark, she said. “I still have two years to go, but so far so good.”

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

Original source: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/05/21/women-with-breast-cancer-symptoms-should-be-sent-to-specialist-directly-foundation/

Source: Radio New Zealand

Hawke’s Bay mayors have written to McCain asking the international company to pause its closure of the Hastings processing plant.

More than 100 growers are impacted by McCain closing its frozen vegetable factory in Hastings, a decision the company said it made after reviewing operations and being “unable to identify a sustainable pathway under the current model”.

However, a group of growers are now looking at whether they could take over the processing operation.

Hastings District Mayor Wendy Schollum and Central Hawke’s Bay Mayor Will Foley wrote to McCain Foods requesting an eight-week pause on any major changes to the company’s Hawke’s Bay processing plant while growers explore the potential for an independent feasibility study into the future of the sector.

The proposed study would assess whether a viable pathway existed for a grower-owned processing operation that could retain large-scale food manufacturing capability in Hawke’s Bay, and protect the wider economic ecosystem built around McCain’s long-standing presence in the region.

Schollum said the request was intended to allow time for the study to be completed before decisions are made that could limit future opportunities.

“We are asking for a short period to complete the work while the facility remains substantially intact. This will help to determine whether there is a credible commercial pathway forward for the sector,” she said.

It follows a series of meetings between mayors, growers, government ministers and members of parliament.

Foley said the mayors respected McCain’s commercial position and were seeking a constructive and pragmatic process.

“We acknowledge the realities McCain is working through and this request is not intended to challenge the company’s right to make business decisions,” he said.

“However, given the significance of this industry to Hawke’s Bay, we believe there is value in allowing this assessment to be completed before key infrastructure or processing capability is lost.”

The proposed feasibility study would examine infrastructure requirements, market opportunities, logistics, energy and water considerations, workforce needs and overall commercial sustainability.

Government support

Foley and Schollum said government support would be critical to ensuring the work could be undertaken quickly, independently and with the level of commercial and technical rigour required.

“This is a significant piece of work with potentially important implications for Hawke’s Bay and New Zealand’s wider food production sector.

“Government support would help ensure growers have access to the expertise and analysis needed to properly assess whether a sustainable long-term future remains possible for the sector,” Foley said.

And they are hopeful, after meeting with central government and MPs from across Parliament in recent weeks.

“These discussions extend well beyond a single processing site. They go to the future of regional manufacturing, grower confidence and New Zealand’s broader food resilience and security,” Schollum said.

The mayors confirmed they remain committed to working collaboratively with growers, government and McCain Foods as discussions continue.

McCain has been contacted for comment.

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

Original source: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/05/21/hawkes-bay-mayors-ask-mccain-to-pause-plant-closure/

Source: New Zealand Government

A new advisory group has been created to bring lived experience and frontline leadership knowledge to the government’s decision-making and strategic direction around preventing family violence and sexual violence. 

Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence Karen Chhour can now announce the formation of the Family Violence and Sexual Violence Ministerial Advisory Group. 

“Addressing family violence and sexual violence requires coordinated action across all-of-government and communities,” says Minister Chhour.

“This group brings together many of the most highly respected authorities in prevention and behaviour change to provide expert, independent, lived experience, and community informed guidance. 

“These leaders will provide advice on legislation, policy, and strategic direction. Their wealth of knowledge will highlight system issues, emerging risks, and opportunities for improvement. 

“Family violence and sexual violence are complex and ingrained issues that require collaboration and long-term planning to address. 

“These leaders’ extensive knowledge, contacts, and leadership will be a great asset to myself and will be utilised to shape how government sees and addresses these challenges. 

“I will encourage them not to tell me what they may think I want to hear, but to say what needs to be said so we can meaningfully address the national shames of both family violence and sexual violence.”
 

List of Advisory Group members:

Debra ‘Debbs’ MURRAY (Chair) – Founder, Director, and Facilitator of ECLIPSE Family Violence Services. Debbs has contributed to analysis, design, and workforce development across government and community sectors. 

Matthew ‘Matt’ BROWN – Co‑founder and Creative Director of the anti-violence movement ‘She Is Not Your Rehab’. Matt has created and facilitated a barbering programme in men’s prisons. His work focuses on trauma‑informed engagement with men (particularly Māori, Pasifika, and men from marginalised communities) to disrupt intergenerational violence. 

Peter Anthony ‘Tony’ CHAMBERLAIN – Executive Trustee and Pou Whakahaere at Tautoko Tāne Aotearoa. Tony has more than a decade of experience in sexual violence policy, strategy and advocacy, including a specific focus on male survivors of sexual violence.  

Caroline HEREWINI – Kaiwhakahaere (Chief Executive) of Te Whare Tiaki Wāhine Refuge. Caroline has experience developing trauma‑informed kaupapa Māori services, services for crisis intervention, emergency housing and long-term support for wāhine Māori and their whānau. 

Patricia ‘Trish’ MCMURTRIE – Manager of the West Coast Women’s Refuge. Trish has lived experience of family violence and her career has included frontline advocacy, service development, and rural service delivery. 

Chystal WALKER – Family Violence and Sexual Violence Community Practice Leader at Family Focus. Chrystal is an active leader of local multi‑agency responses, and contributes to workforce development, education and survivor‑centred practice. 

Original source: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/05/21/family-violence-and-sexual-violence-advisory-group-announced/

Source: New Zealand Government

The Government is launching a multi-year reform of New Zealand’s social housing system to make support fairer, better targeted, and more focused on encouraging independence, Housing Minister Chris Bishop and Social Development Minister Louise Upston say.

“Some people will always require housing support. Social housing should be there for those who genuinely need it, for as long as they need it. But it should also be a pathway to independence where that’s possible, not a place where people get stuck,” Mr Bishop says. 

“We have made good progress to fix the social housing system by turning around Kāinga Ora, funding Community Housing Providers to deliver over 2000 additional social houses, supporting lower-cost borrowing, and creating a Flexible Fund to get the right homes in the right places for the people most in need.

“But there is more to do to ensure that the system is fair, delivers value for taxpayer money, supports upward mobility, and gets help to those who need it.

“The current system is unfair. Similar households can get very different support depending on whether they are in social housing or a private rental. On average, social housing tenants on a main benefit have $105 more a week left after housing costs than comparable private renters receiving the Accommodation Supplement.

“The system is also expensive and our stock is not being used efficiently. Over the past decade, total housing support spending has more than doubled to $5.5 billion, while the social housing waitlist has grown approximately six-fold.

“Social housing is a high-cost intervention and should be targeted to those who need it most. Modelling shows that if 10 per cent more tenants exit after five years, around 6000 more vacancies could open up over a decade.”

Louise Upston says another problem with the system is that it can trap people into long-term dependence. 

“We know that 30 per cent of tenants have been in social housing for over 10 years. Households are now forecast to remain there for an average of 16.7 more years. Too often, support is not regularly reassessed, and tenants are not incentivised to gain more independence.”

The Government is making three key shifts to address these issues.

1. Refocusing social housing more tightly on those who need it most

Social housing will be more tightly prioritised for people who need it most. The social housing needs assessment will be redesigned to be more focused on severe and persistent barriers that people face when trying to access private housing, including supply issues, selection bias, and challenges such as mental health or addiction issues. 

Affordability will remain relevant for social housing assessment. But if it’s the main challenge for people, then they are best supported through a subsidy (like the Accommodation Supplement) rather than a social house.

2. Improving flows out of social housing to housing independence

The Government is also exploring changes to support more movement through and out of social housing, including:

• defined tenancy durations, with exemptions where need is ongoing, 
• a responsibilities framework to support progress toward independence,
• better support to help households overcome barriers to private housing,
• more regular engagement to assess changing needs and eligibility, including tenancy reviews.

3. Improving fairness and financial incentives toward independence 

The Government will narrow the gap between the cost of private and social housing, so that support settings are fairer and better encourage work, increased hours of work, and movement into private rentals where appropriate.

Budget 2026 will increase the minimum Income Related Rent contribution for social housing tenants and those in emergency and transitional housing, from 25 per cent to 30 per cent of income from 1 April 2027. The Income Related Rent change for social housing tenants will be phased in over 12 months at each tenant’s annual review or their next notification of change of circumstances.

“It will increase rents for around 84,000 households by an average of about $31 a week from next year, but even then, most social housing tenants will still generally pay less than comparable households in the private market,” Ms Upston says.

“This change is expected to deliver $387.5 million in operating savings over the forecast period and most of those savings will be reinvested in higher maximum weekly Accommodation Supplement rates, with support increasing by between $10 and $30 a week at a cost of $374.3 million over the forecast period.

“At the same time, the Government will reduce the maximum rate of Temporary Additional Support to better reflect its original purpose as temporary hardship support, generating $195.6 million in operating savings over the forecast period,” Louise Upston says.

Officials will hold targeted discussions in the second half of this year with iwi, community housing providers, Kāinga Ora, and social service providers as the next stage of reform is developed.

“Reforming social housing will involve hard choices, but change is needed. The current system is unfair, costly, and not targeted enough to those with the greatest need,” Mr Bishop says.

“We want a system that supports people who need help, while also backing people to move forward where they can and making sure support is available for others who need it.”

Notes to editors:

Budget 2026 rebalances housing support to improve fairness and incentives.

• Minimum Income-Related Rent contribution will rise from 25 per cent to 30 per cent of income, so social housing tenants pay rents closer to, but still below, what low-income private renters pay. Thirty per cent is a figure widely used internationally as a benchmark for housing affordability.
• This change will be phased in over 12 months from April 2027, at the time of each tenant’s annual review or their next notification of change of circumstances (whichever comes first).
• Rents for around 84,000 households will increase by an average of about $31 per week however after the change, social housing tenants will still be better off on average than comparable households in the private market.
• The change is expected to generate $387.5 million in operating savings over the forecast period, which will be reinvested in higher maximum weekly Accommodation Supplement rates.
• Maximum rates of the Accommodation Supplement will increase by between $10 and $30 per week. 

The maximum rate of Temporary Additional Support will be adjusted to better reflect its original purpose as temporary hardship support, rather than a long-term income top-up.

Original source: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/05/21/delivering-fairer-social-housing/

Source: New Zealand Government

Good morning, everyone.

I’d like to thank Murray Pugh and the team at Apōpō for hosting this event and inviting me to speak.

I’d also like to acknowledge our international friends from the Global Forum for Maintenance and Asset Management, and World Partners in Asset Management including members from Japan, France, Canada, the UK, and South Africa.
 
It’s great to be speaking with you. I’m sorry I couldn’t be there in person – last minute plane changes.

I remember dialling into Apōpō’s annual conference in Christchurch last year. Now, I’m not trying to make this a tradition/habit, and if I’m still around next year, it would be great to see you all in person.

Last year, I announced the Government’s work programme to improve infrastructure asset management and performance. 
Today, I want to give you an update on this work.

Then, I want to make a small announcement on advancing better corridor management and underground asset data.

But before I get into it, I want to go over the once-in-a-generation reform programme this Government is driving across planning, housing, earthquake-prone building laws, construction materials, education, infrastructure funding and financing, and more.

This Government is driving real change.

It’s clear to me that previous Governments of all flavours have put tough issues like poor asset maintenance, poor infrastructure performance, and low productivity in the too-hard basket.

Even worse – some Governments have irresponsibly thrown billions at problems or projects instead of fixing the fundamentals.

But I’m not going to do that.

And that’s not what this Government is about.

Achieving genuine economic prosperity is the great challenge driving this Government.

New Zealand is nowhere near as wealthy as we sometimes like to think we are.

Currently, our GDP per capita, on a purchasing power parity basis, is about the same as Slovenia, Lithuania, Poland, and the Czech Republic. Now, they went through 40 years of communism.

Our great challenge as a country is how we lift our long run growth rate and productivity – which are main determinants of prosperity.

And that is what we are tackling through fixing underlying systemic failures that have accumulated and festered over the last 10 to 30 years.

We are putting in a new planning system to replace the failed Resource Management Act once and for all. This is projected to save $13.3 billion in administrative and compliance costs over the next 30 years and increase GDP by at least 0.56 per cent annually by 2050.

Our new planning system is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to unleash growth. We are making the most of this by progressing Local Government reforms, and establishing the Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT). The intention here is to ensure both local and central governments are easier to work with.

23 projects have been granted consent under our Fast-Track legislation – including three in the Waikato – representing thousands of jobs and billions in investment.

In infrastructure funding and financing, we are making it easier for cities to grow both up and out through tools where “growth pays for growth”. This includes updating the Infrastructure Financing Act so that greenfield developers can get economically viable projects off the ground without being held back by council debt limits and balance sheets. 
We are also replacing the failed Development Contributions regime with Development Levies – a new flexible funding and financing tool to match our new flexible planning system.

In education, we are reversing the 30-year experiment on our kids of pretending that basic knowledge and facts don’t matter. We’re restoring standards, teaching the basics, and focusing on achievement. Minister Stanford has significantly reduced the cost of a classroom – down from $1.2m to as low as $620k.

We are also reversing wealth destructive earthquake prone building legislation, opening-up competition in building materials, and tackling joint and several liability.

We’re finally sorting the Holidays Act. And major reforms are underway to employment law and health and safety.

Now, these changes don’t happen overnight, nor are their benefits felt immediately.

This approach isn’t about ‘sugar hit’ economics, and, although it’s not always popular, it’s the right thing to do.

The changes we are making are foundational, beneficial shifts to our economy that we should have implemented years ago.

They will set the country up for long-term success.

I truly believe that if we follow through with these reforms, the 2030s will be New Zealand’s decade.

It’s important we get on with fixing our infrastructure system and fixing our country.

Asset Management Work Programme

Now, I’ll go over where we are at on our central government asset management work programme.

The objective of this programme is to provide safer and more reliable infrastructure services to New Zealanders; and to achieve better value for money by making the most of what we have.

This work is taking place across two phases.

Phase 1 is about providing clarity on what ‘good’ looks like and ensuring that there are better tools and guidance to help central government agencies succeed.

Phase 2 is about driving more fundamental changes to system settings.  

Phase 1

Phase 1 is largely complete and was rolled out in 2025. It includes: 
•    The Infrastructure Commission’s Public Investment Management Assessment of New Zealand.
•    Detailed asset management guidance from the Commission, which was released in December last year.   
•    And a “Community of Practice” for public service asset management professionals, which the Commission and Apōpō run together.
As part of Phase 1, the Government committed to investigating the feasibility of a National Underground Asset Register.

More on that soon.

Phase 2

Now, Phase 2 will largely be informed by the Government’s response to the National Infrastructure Plan, which was publicly released in February this year.

The Plan has 16 recommendations, and 10 priorities for the decade ahead.

When it comes to asset management, the Commission makes it clear that New Zealand has lots of work to do.

This case for change is supported by international findings that we rank fourth to last in the OECD for asset management.

To drive better infrastructure performance, the Commission makes several recommendations to strengthen central government’s Investment Management System (IMS) including:  

•    Strengthening the Public Finance Act to require agencies to periodically develop proper long-term investment and asset management plans.
•    Strengthening reporting requirements to lift transparency over asset management outcomes and spending and maintenance and renewals. 
•    Establishing oversight and independent review or audit requirements for asset management and investment planning and performance. 
•    Explicitly incorporating assessments of bottom-up infrastructure needs, including spending on asset management and renewals, into fiscal strategies.
•    And strengthening incentives for better asset management practice by, for example, linking investment decision making to agency asset management capability or ringfencing depreciation funding.  
We have already taken steps to improve the IMS by strengthening assurance for central government-funded infrastructure – ahead of the Government’s formal response to the Plan in June.

Strengthening Investor Assurance

Since coming into Government, the Minister of Finance and I have been concerned by the quality of information provided on infrastructure including what we own and its condition, the forward investment pipeline, assurance on individual projects and programmes, and agency performance.

When it comes to assurance, there are multiple project review tools across the investment system that serve slightly different purposes and have different assessors, information requirements, reporting formats, and outputs.

However, none of these tools provide Ministers with unapologetically strong, clear, and actionable assurance that is focused on substance – as opposed to bureaucracy – so that we can make well-informed investment decisions.

We want experts to give us their free and frank advice; is it a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’?

Instead, it seems the modus operandi is to let investments move through the system and let bad projects gain momentum – until it’s too late – wasting tens or hundreds of millions of taxpayer money on Business Cases and early design and feasibility work for phantom projects.

Multiple assurance products like the Infrastructure Priorities Programme and Gateway Reviews are also causing duplication and overcomplication for both Ministers and agencies.

Put simply, there are too many assurance tools, but none of them do what is needed – support ministers to make good decisions.

This is alarming considering it’s Ministers who ultimately make these significant investment decisions. It’s clear change is needed.

So, Cabinet has agreed to strengthen assurance for central-government funded projects, with a focus on infrastructure.

This is being progressed through five changes.

Firstly, on 1 November 2026, we will transfer responsibility for providing external investment assurance on central-government-funded infrastructure proposals from the Treasury to the Infrastructure Commission. This will allow Government to leverage the Commission’s expertise and independence.  

This means the Commission will analyse all major infrastructure investments funded by central government including hospitals, schools, prisons, courthouses, and more.

Treasury will continue to lead policy across the Investment Management System and provide holistic advice to Ministers on investments – including on prioritisation, sequencing and fiscals.

Secondly, Government has agreed to establish a formal assurance function for asset management and long-term investment plans, which will apply to capital-intensive central government agencies and other entities.

The Commission will be responsible for running the ruler over these plans, and the Treasury will be responsible for policy.

Thirdly, going forward, external investment assurance will be focused on what Ministers need to make good decisions on behalf of New Zealanders.

This means simplifying the external assurance space by consolidating existing products like the Commission’s Infrastructure Priorities Programme (IPP) and Treasury’s Gateway Review – taking the best elements of both.

Fourthly, for all Business Cases seeking Cabinet endorsement, Treasury will provide Ministers with a standardised “Fitness Assessment” that has holistic, high-quality information on proposals.

The assessment will also provide Ministers strategic advice by putting the project in context of the entity’s past performance and the fiscal landscape.

Lastly, to test the quality and credibility of investments, the Infrastructure and Investment Ministers Group will review High-Profile-High-Risk investments, and Long-Term Investment Plans before they go to Cabinet, and monitor delivery after decisions are made.

These changes directly respond to and accept recommendations 7, 8, and 9 in the Plan under the theme of, prioritising the right projects.

For Ministers, these changes mean they can confidently say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to projects and long-term investment plans – early – knowing that their decisions are informed by strong evidence and independent, expert advice.

For taxpayers, these changes mean more projects that meet their needs and represent good value for money. Stronger assurance can also be a tool for the public to hold Ministers to account. If a government funds a project that did not receive a favourable assessment, then that’s a good basis for scrutiny.

For the sector, these changes will mean less stopping and starting of projects as good projects rise to the top, and unrealistic, unfunded projects quickly sink to the bottom.

Of course, central government agencies will need to up their game on asset management plans, asset registers, data collection and reporting, monitoring the condition of assets, long-term investment plans – which likely means getting more capacity and capability in these areas.

The NIP recommends further changes here – so watch this space for the Government’s formal response next month. 
Now, I’ve heard concerns from agencies about “lack of funding” for these functions. From my perspective, good asset management is BAU. If agencies can’t fund it out of baselines, then they shouldn’t be infrastructure providers or asset owners.

Central Government holds regulated utilities, and local government to these standards, certainly a higher standard than it does itself, and it’s time that changed.

Government response to the Plan

Just taking a step back – it’s important to note that the National Infrastructure Plan is a strategy document and is rightly produced independently from government.

As such, improving our infrastructure system and improving asset management will ultimately be implemented through the Government’s formal Response to the Plan.

Improving corridor management and underground asset data

Another issue I have been keen to address is the co-ordination of the work of utility providers in transport corridors.

As I noted earlier, as part of Phase 1 of the Government’s asset management work programme, we are investigating the feasibility of a National Underground Asset Register.

So, last year, I commissioned an independent review from New Zealand Utilities Advisory Group (NZUAG) to investigate options to improve the planning, delivery, and management of work in infrastructure corridors – with a focus on the National Code of Practice for Utility Operators’ access to Transport Corridors.

Today, we are releasing NZUAG’s review.

I’d like to thank Jim Donovan and his team for their good work on this.

Overall, the review found that information on many underground assets is difficult to access, poor quality, or incomplete – and where it does exist, it is under shared.

This is creating disruption and costs that could have been avoided.

Three key costs stand out to me:

•    There are 6,000 reported asset strikes annually in New Zealand, with the true number likely much higher. This has an estimated direct cost of $50 million per annum to the sector and generates $1.45 billion in indirect costs to New Zealanders through traffic delays and loss of utility services.
•    Unknown assets found on site can also lead to delays and additional costs to the sector. These are estimated to impact anywhere between 4 to 50 percent of projects, creating an additional direct cost of $7 million to $92 million annually. 
•    Outdated information also creates costs. Design practices relying on outdated utility information are costing industry an estimated $165 million annually, as designers are re-digitising paper or PDF plans as part of the process. 
The review also found that a lack of works coordination is leading to more disruption in transport corridors than is necessary.

There are frequent examples of newly resurfaced roads being dug up for works soon after other works had just been completed.

I’m told each organisation tends to optimise its own work programme because there are poor incentives to co-plan. 
This speaks to a broader problem – the system has no teeth and compliance is weak.

The Review shows New Zealand is less developed than several international comparators, with heavier reliance on voluntary, sector-led arrangements.

Compliance with the Code relies largely on voluntary uptake, local interpretation, and relationship-based enforcement. 
NZUAG, who currently administers the Code, has very few mechanisms to verify data, compel reporting, or address persistent non-compliance.

It’s clear that New Zealand would benefit from a National Underground Asset Register.

BUT a tool like this will only be effective if:
•    The register is populated with high-quality data, 
•    Utility operators and transport corridor managers use it, and – most importantly – 
•    The system adopts stronger leadership, process, rules, as well as enforcement and monitoring mechanisms to ensure works are better co-ordinated. 
This requires more fundamental changes beyond an Underground Asset Register.

Announcement

Today, I am happy to announce that the Government is taking two initial actions to strengthen corridor management.

Firstly, we are establishing an active, central government system steward for corridor management.

From 1 July 2026, the new Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions, and Transport (MCERT) will be the lead agency responsible for reviewing and administering the Utilities Access Act, and updating, monitoring, and enforcing the Code that sits underneath.

Secondly, through Budget 2026, MCERT has been given $2.5 million in operating funding to strengthen rules and requirements by reviewing and refreshing both the Utilities Access Act 2010, and the Code.

This funding has come from reprioritisation and is an example of what can be achieved within new organisations that share common functions.  

As part of this work, MCERT will complete further policy analysis building on NZUAG’s independent review, and will explore the development of:

•    A national utility locating standard, to provide a framework for the collection, classification, and communication of information about underground assets 
•    Transparency requirements, for example, making it mandatory to report on the number of asset strikes 
•    Stronger compliance powers, like introducing sanctions, penalties, and fines for non-compliance with the Code
•    Compliance incentives, like making funding conditional on meeting rules and requirements
•    Training and guidance, building on existing certification and training programmes
•    Planned works coordination, by encouraging or mandating further uptake of the National Forward Works Viewer
•    A National Underground Asset Register.
It’s worth noting that the NZTA Board has already strengthened corridor management by making co-funding of transport projects conditional on the use and publication of a Road Controlling Authority’s Forward Works Programme.

NZTA has also adopted reporting requirements on the extent of works published on the Forward Works Viewer, with full publication expected by 30 September 2027.

This is a good start, but more can be done.

National Underground Asset Register

Now, on the National Underground Asset Register – NZUAG’s review concluded that central government should develop one in partnership with the private sector.

However, both NZUAG and officials advise me that this is secondary to policy and potential legislative and regulatory changes in the system– including those to strengthen oversight and enforcement of Code obligations – which could incentivise greater adoption of existing asset register tools in the market.

I’m still keen to progress a register – or something that functions similarly, and I expect MCERT to consider this as part of its more fulsome review of the system.

Conclusion

To finish, I’d like to thank Apōpō again for inviting me to speak.

Getting asset management right is one of my top priorities as Minister for Infrastructure.

It’s always a pleasure to get into the detail and progress what may seem like small changes in the scheme of things – but are actually extremely important shifts that will improve the lives of Kiwis through better infrastructure services and improved productivity across New Zealand.

Fixing the infrastructure system is a slow grind, but I’m committed to getting it done.

Thank you.
 

Original source: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/05/21/speech-to-apopo-congress-2026/