Minister for Trade and Investment Todd McClay says considerable uncertainty is likely to remain with the latest moves in the US on tariffs.

The US Supreme Court ruled the sweeping tariffs US President Donald Trump imposed on nearly every country were illegal.

Trump has hit back, announcing a new 10 percent levy on global imports.

McClay said New Zealand exports have been holding up well overall in the US market since the original 15 percent tariff was imposed.

While any tariff reduction was welcomed, he did not believe the 15 percent charge was warranted, given American goods coming into New Zealand faced a tariff of just 0.3 percent, he said.

“Our embassy in Washington will engage with their counterparts to get more information so we can continue to work with exporters, however uncertainty around US tariff policy is likely to remain for an extended period of time.”

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

More than three-quarters of tenants at Wellington’s biggest social housing agency will not be able to access the cheap rent it was set up to provide.

Te Toi Mahana, a Wellington City Council organisation, took over the council’s housing portfolio in 2023, managing more than 1600 properties.

It was formed so tenants could access the government’s Income Related Rent Subsidy (IRRS) which capped rent at a quarter of their income – because by law, council housing tenants were not eligible.

Over time, as existing council housing tenants leave, new tenants get the subsidy.

However, the government allocated community housing providers a certain number of IRRS “places”.

Te Toi Mahana only had 380, a cap that was agreed between the council and housing ministry in 2022.

It expected those would be filled by June, which means only 23 percent of its households would get the subsidy.

Te Toi Mahana would continue to take on new tenants, but they wouldn’t be eligible for the subsidy, partnerships and community manager Seb Bishop said.

“Once our current IRRS places are filled, there is an open question as to the exact type, tenure and funding for future developments and tenancies.”

Wellington mayor Andrew Little said he intended to advocate for Te Toi Mahana being allocated more IRRS places.

“My understanding is MHUD [the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development] sort of wanted Te Toi Mahana to prove itself, to attract new tenants and conduct itself as a CHP [community housing provider].

“We have to stand in the queue, or at least argue for the allocation of new spots, and that’s what Te Toi Mahana is required to do.”

When new places became available in Wellington, Te Toi Mahana would make a case for them, he said.

MHUD said it was in regular contact with Te Toi Mahana about their provision of places.

But since July 2024, the ministry had not been accepting any new social housing tenancies for existing housing stock, unless by exception.

“This is to encourage delivery of newly built social housing places, rather than existing houses, to increase housing supply,” it said.

“Any additional social housing places that are allocated to Wellington will be provided by community housing providers (CHPs) in accordance with the Government’s Housing Investment Plan.”

Under the plan, at the end of February community housing providers across the country will be able to apply for a ‘flexible fund’ which will pay for up to 770 new homes (via funding IRRS places).

Wellington has been allocated 40 to 50 homes, which can be either new builds, or leasing or buying existing stock from the market.

Meanwhile, Te Toi Mahana was planning two new developments in Tawa and Crofton Downs which would deliver 59 affordable homes – a mixture of two bedroom townhouses and one bedroom apartments.

It expected to begin building them in “early 2026”.

Councillor calls for wider access to rent subsidy

Wellington City councillor Diane Calvert, who’s also on Te Toi Mahana board of trustees, urged the government to change the regulation which makes council housing tenants ineligible for the IRRS.

“If they meet the income criteria, it should be no difference whether you’re in a council social housing or a Kāinga Ora social housing or any other community housing provider,” she said.

“If you meet the income criteria, you should have access. It’s as simple as that.”

Successive governments were at fault, she said.

Housing Minister Chris Bishop would not commit to any changes.

He previously told RNZ social housing funding was limited, and best targeted at adding to the overall stock of subsidised housing.

Previous governments said extending the subsidy to council housing tenants would be too expensive.

It’s effectively created a two-tier rent system for Te Toi Mahana tenants, with tenant A paying significantly more than tenant B in an identical flat next door.

The landlord agreed it was inequitable.

The IRRS was introduced in 2000.

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

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

• The Infrastructure Commission has released the country’s first National Infrastructure Plan
• Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop requested the plan and is pushing for cross-party buy-in
• The plan sets out 16 recommendations, and 10 priorities for the next decade

The country’s first National Infrastructure Plan has landed, laying out an ‘affordable’ plan to tackle the country’s infrastructure woes.

The 226-page report discusses “formidable challenges” to New Zealand’s roads, water pipes, power lines, hospitals, schools and courts.

It said building and maintaining infrastructure was becoming more expensive as climate change was making the natural hazard risks more severe.

On top of this, much of what had been built in the past decades was wearing out and needed to be replaced, the report said.

Infrastructure Commission chief executive Geoff Cooper said the plan set out a practical, affordable pathway to deliver the infrastructure the country needed over the next 30 years.

“While the plan looks at the long term, it’s clear that we need to take action now. Weather events and infrastructure failures make very clear the importance of investing to renew and build resilience into the networks that sustain our way of life.

“We can’t keep doing what we’ve always done. Each year we invest just over $20 billion on infrastructure, yet on a dollar-for-dollar basis we achieve less than many of our more efficient international peers.”

Cooper said the plan was “ambitous, but centred on affordability” to give decision makers a clear, system-wide picture of where pressures were emerging and where investment would deliver the greatest value.

The National Infrastructure Plan’s 16 recommendations (detailed version below)

1. Needs-based capital allowances

2. Land transport funding and oversight

3. Long-term investment planning

4. Predictable government funding signals

5. Multi-year budgeting

6. Asset management performance reporting

7. System-wide assurance

8. Asset management assurance

9. Investment readiness assurance

10. Project information coordination

11. Stable resource management framework

12. Integrated spatial planning

13. Optimised infrastructure use

14. Accelerated electricity investment

15. Coordinated workforce development

16. Public sector project leadership

Cooper said the plan charted an affordable way to meet a diverse set of infrastructure demands over time and identified how to best prioritise and sequence a large programme of significant investments such as roads, rapid transit, and hospitals.

“The plan demonstrates a fundable and affordable programme of works that futureproofs existing services, while incrementally building on the network as the country grows and develops,” he said.

“A plan by itself won’t change anything. The National Infrastructure Plan charts the course, but progress depends on how decision-makers, delivery agencies, industry, and communities use the plan to do things differently.

The National Infrastructure Plan’s 10 priorities for the next decade (detailed version below)

1. Lift hospital investment for an ageing population

2. Complete catch up on renewals in the water sector and restore affordability

3. Implement time of use charging and fleetwide road user charges

4. Prioritise and sequence major land transport projects

5. Manage assets on the downside

6. Prioritise adequate maintenance and renewals

7. Identify cost-effective flood risk infrastructure

8. Commit to a durable resource management framework

9. Commit to upzoning around key transport corridors

10. Take a predictable approach to electrify the economy

Responding to the release of the report, Bishop said delivering and maintaining better infrastructure was a key part of the coalition’s plan to fix the basics and build the future.

“The government has spent a lot of time in the last two years making a start on fixing the basics of our system, but there is a lot more to do.

“The Investment Management System has been strengthened, long-term investment plans are beginning to be developed, and ministers are demanding higher quality information from agencies.

“We have launched a comprehensive programme of work to improve asset management in the public sector.”

Bishop said the coalition would study each of the recommendations carefully and publish its response to the plan in June 2026.

“As part of our response to the National Infrastructure Plan I intend to engage with other political parties in Parliament.

“Infrastructure Commission officials will make briefings available to parties who wish to take a deeper dive into the detail behind the recommendations, and I will be writing to Parliament’s Business Committee seeking time for a special debate on the plan.

“Infrastructure lasts for generations. Where we can build durable consensus, we should.

“Fixing the basics and building the future of New Zealand infrastructure is central to lifting living standards and driving our prosperity. The National Infrastructure Plan is a great contribution to this shared agenda for everyone in New Zealand. Now it is up to all of us to do the hard work required to turn ambition into delivery.”

The commission consulted on a draft plan last year before giving the final report to Bishop on 22 December 2025.

The National Infrastructure Plan’s 16 recommendations (detailed version)

1. Needs-based capital allowances: Ensure fiscal strategy and capital allowances are informed by the commission’s independent assessment of long-term needs and agencies’ infrastructure asset management and investment plans.

2. Land transport funding and oversight: Reform the land transport funding and investment oversight system to ensure financial sustainability and enhance economic and social outcomes by aligning investment expectations with available revenue and strengthening efficiency and accountability in delivery.

3. Long-term investment planning: Introduce legislative requirements for capital-intensive central government agencies to prepare and publish longterm investment and asset management plans aligned with the government’s fiscal strategy.

4. Predictable government funding signals: Extend the horizon over which governments plan their infrastructure funding intentions and communicate these intentions to agencies and the public.

5. Multi-year budgeting: Adopt multi-year budgeting arrangements that leverage and reinforce high-quality infrastructure planning, delivery and asset management practices.

6. Asset management performance reporting: Require, through legislation, capital-intensive central government agencies to report on asset information and asset management performance, including progress against their investment and asset management plans.

7. System-wide assurance: Establish a consolidated assurance function that provides ministers with a system-wide view of infrastructure planning, delivery, and asset management performance and risk.

8. Asset management assurance: Establish an assurance function for capital-intensive central government agencies covering asset management and investment planning activities.

9. Investment readiness assurance: Strengthen investment assurance by applying a transparent, independent readiness assessment to major government-funde investment proposals.

10. Project information coordination: Require all infrastructure providers to maintain up-to-date data in the National Infrastructure Pipeline and strengthen arrangements for improving data quality over time.

11. Stable resource management framework: Commit to maintaining a stable legislative framework for resource management that enables infrastructure development while managing environmental impacts.

12. Integrated spatial planning: Ensure spatial planning within the resource management system aligns infrastructure investment with land-use planning and regulation.

13. Optimised infrastructure use: Set land-use policies to enable maximum efficient use of existing and new infrastructure.

14. Accelerated electricity investment: Establish clear, consistent, and coordinated government policies to accelerate electricity infrastructure investment that supports economic growth and emissions reduction.

15. Coordinated workforce development: Align workforce development planning and policy with infrastructure investment and asset management plans and the commission’s independent view of longterm needs.

16. Public sector project leadership: Strengthen public sector project leadership through a consistent, system-wide approach to appointing, developing, and supporting infrastructure leaders.

The National Infrastructure Plan’s 10 priorities for the next decade (detailed version)

1. Lift hospital investment for an ageing population: Increase investment as a share of GDP to address ageing population demands and maintenance backlogs through clear long-term planning.

2. Complete catch up on renewals in the water sector and restore affordability: Sector affordability can be restored through national guidance on demand management, resourcing the economic regulator and providing assurance over investment proposals.

3. Implement time of use charging and fleetwide road user charges: This is essential for improving the efficiency of our urban road networks, particularly in congested cities.

4. Prioritise and sequence major land transport projects: Restore affordability by timing major road and rapid transit investments based on demonstrated demand and cost benchmarking, while using low-cost and targeted improvements first to lift network performance.

5. Manage assets on the downside: Actively plan for declining demand scenarios arising from changing demographics, technology and climate change, and explore asset recycling opportunities within portfolios to maintain value and affordability.

6. Prioritise adequate maintenance and renewals: Central government agencies must prioritise adequate funding to prevent asset deterioration and costly reactive fixes.

7. Identify cost-effective flood risk infrastructure: Climate change will intensify flooding and impact infrastructure, requiring effective community risk management approaches.

8. Commit to a durable resource management framework: New Zealand needs a durable legislative framework with spatial planning and national standards that can evolve through incremental amendments.

9. Commit to upzoning around key transport corridors: This will lead to more efficient use of water and other networks and maximise the value of transport infrastructure investments.

10. Take a predictable approach to electrify the economy: Achieving electrification and net zero carbon targets requires predictable market rules and policy settings rather than non-commercial government investment in electricity supply.

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

Gas and energy industry specialist Andy Knight has been named as chair of the expert panel appointed to advise the Government on projects applying to the $200 million Gas Security Fund, Resources and Regional Development Minister Shane Jones says.

“Mr Knight’s depth and breadth of experience in gas industry regulation and energy production and supply makes him uniquely qualified to lead the panel that will provide expert advice on the technically and economically complex projects targeted by the fund,” Mr Jones says.

The $200m Gas Security Fund opened for applications on 12 January 2026. It was created to unlock opportunities to improve gas supply and storage by focusing on activities that have short- to long-term benefits, including from existing sites, in response to declining gas production.

“New Zealand’s history of affordable and secure domestic gas has underpinned major parts of our economy – and this Government wants that to continue by shoring up our domestic supply, supported by the import of LNG which can provide flex to supplement our gas requirements in the meantime,” Mr Jones says.

Two other members appointed to the panel are geophysicist Tim Allan, who has extensive international experience in the industry, and John Pagani who brings experience of working with boards and management of energy firms and industry associations in New Zealand and Australia. Officials continue to assess options for two more members to be appointed in due course.

Mr Jones as Resources Minister and Associate Finance Minister Chris Bishop are the decision-making ministers for applications to the fund. 

“The panel members’ direct commercial and technical oil and gas expertise, and experience of New Zealand’s complex gas exploration and market conditions, means they will be able to provide valuable independent advice,”

“These are high-calibre individuals with impressive technical and industry expertise. We look forward to working with them,” Mr Jones says.

The Gas Security Fund is administered Kānoa – Regional Economic Development & Investment Unit. For more information, including how to apply, go to www.growregions.govt.nz/gas-security-fund. 

Biographies:

Andy Knight

Mr Knight is the former chief executive of The Gas Industry Co, one of the gas sector’s co-regulators. He is chair of Taranaki Iwi Holdings Management and a director of the Energy Efficiency Conservation Authority (EECA) as well as of related iwi entities and private investments. He was previously a director of Powerco, CEO of New Zealand Oil & Gas and has held executive roles with Vector Limited, the NGC Holdings Limited Group of Companies, The Australian Gas Light Company and Fletcher Challenge Energy.

Tim Allan

Mr Allan is a resources industry professional, with more than 30 years’ international experience. Most recently he was the exploration stakeholder lead and senior exploration geophysicist (Australasia) for OMV. His experience covers the full spectrum of oil and gas exploration, appraisal, development and production operations, in a wide range of land and marine environments.

John Pagani 

Mr Pagani is the external relations manager for the Gas Industry Company. He has been involved in the energy sector since 2012 and was previously general manager corporate services at New Zealand Oil & Gas. Mr Pagani has worked with boards and management of energy firms and industry associations in New Zealand and Australia. 

MIL OSI

Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop today welcomed the release of the National Infrastructure Plan and tabled it in Parliament.

“New Zealand’s future prosperity depends on high quality infrastructure. It is central to our quality of life and to the Government’s “Going for Growth” agenda,” Mr Bishop says.

“Delivering and maintaining better infrastructure is a key part of the Government’s plan to fix the basics and build the future New Zealanders both need and deserve.

“Creating a 30-year plan for New Zealand’s infrastructure was a key campaign commitment for the National Party in 2023, and I asked the independent New Zealand Infrastructure Commission to begin work on it shortly after we formed government. 

“The resulting National Infrastructure Plan, released today, sets out a 30-year view of how New Zealand can improve the way it plans, funds, maintains and delivers infrastructure. The final Plan follows consultation on a draft released last year and identifies four themes for change and 10 priority actions for the decade ahead.”

“The Plan does not sugar coat things: New Zealand has real challenges ahead. 

“We spend a lot on infrastructure – around 5.8% of GDP annually over the last 20 years, one of the highest in the OECD – yet we rank towards the bottom for efficiency, and fourth to last in the OECD for asset management. Many central government agencies do not properly understand what they own or have long-term investment plans. The assurance system for new projects and long-term investments is fragmented and inconsistent.

“The Government has spent a lot of time in the last two years making a start on fixing the basics of our system, but there is a lot more to do. The Investment Management System has been strengthened, long-term investment plans are beginning to be developed, and Ministers are demanding higher quality information from agencies. We have launched a comprehensive programme of work to improve asset management in the public sector. 

“On top of this, we have established National Infrastructure Funding and Financing to connect private capital with public projects, clarified roles and responsibilities across the system, published Funding and Financing Principles, updated guidance material for PPPs, and improved the quality and transparency of the National Infrastructure Pipeline.

“It is encouraging that many of the Commission’s top 10 priorities for the decade ahead (page 14) reflect work already underway by the Government:

• Lifting hospital investment for an ageing population – Health New Zealand now has a long-term capital infrastructure plan, and this Government is providing record investment in both capital and maintenance spending for health.
• Completing catch-up on water renewals and restoring affordability – The Local Water Done Well reforms are well underway, including stronger economic oversight.
• Implementing time-of-use charging and fleetwide road user charges – Legislation enabling time of use pricing was passed last year, and the government is working with Auckland Council on scheme options. We have begun the transition to Electronic Road User Charges (E-RUC) across the transport fleet.
• Prioritising and sequencing major land transport projects – the government will soon publish a Major Transport Projects Pipeline.
• Managing assets on the downside and prioritising maintenance first – Phase 1 of the government’s Asset Management Work Programme has provided practical tools and guidance to agencies so that they can up their game in asset management. Phase 2 is about driving more fundamental changes to system settings.
• Identifying cost-effective flood resilience infrastructure – The Government has developed a National Adaptation Framework to help reduce and manage the growing risks we face. The Regional Infrastructure Fund (RIF) has invested nearly $200 million into 74 flood resilience projects across the country.
• Committing to a durable resource management framework – The government has introduced legislation to replace the Resource Management Act with a more enabling and stable system, with spatial planning and national standards at its heart.
• Upzoning around key transport corridors – the government’s housing and planning reforms are focused on enabling transport-oriented-development, particularly around the new City Rail Link stations.
• Taking a predictable approach to electrification – we are focused on creating stable policy settings to unlock investment in electricity generation and transmission.

“The Plan contains a series of recommendations for long-term system shifts, including legislative change to require long-term investment and asset management plans, a consolidated assurance function for Ministers, and better linkages between the Commission’s assessment of long-term needs and fiscal strategy.

“We will be studying these recommendations carefully and the Government will publish a response to the plan in June 2026.

“As part of our response to the National Infrastructure Plan I intend to engage with other political parties in Parliament. Infrastructure Commission officials will make briefings available to parties who wish to take a deeper dive into the detail behind the recommendations, and I will be writing to Parliament’s Business Committee seeking time for a special debate on the Plan. 

“Infrastructure lasts for generations. Where we can build durable consensus, we should.

“Fixing the basics and building the future of New Zealand infrastructure is central to lifting living standards and driving our prosperity. The National Infrastructure Plan is a great contribution to this shared agenda for everyone in New Zealand. Now it is up to all of us to do the hard work required to turn ambition into delivery.”

MIL OSI

You’ve probably heard warnings about how New Zealanders are likely to need to work until later in life.

Treasury has pointed out the pressure an ageing population will put on the country’s finances – and the message was repeated at last week’s University of Waikato economic forum by Milford Asset Management.

But what if you’re having none of that, and actually want to retire early?

It’s not impossible, but might require a bit of planning.

How much do you need?

One way to retire is to amass a significant enough sum of money that you can tap into a bit of it each year to replace your income.

This is what most people are already planning to do with KiwiSaver – but if you’re retiring early, your amount may need to be larger because you won’t have the support of NZ Super until you are 65.

Koura founder Rupert Carlyon said people should figure out what they were spending money on at present and which expenses might stop if they stopped working. Then they would need to think about additional things they might start spending money on.

Once you know what you need to be able to pay for each week, you can work backwards to determine what lump sum you need to generate sufficient income to cover that.

He said it would work for most people to draw down 4 percent of the value of their investment portfolio each year.

“The amount you need is going to be quite a lot … basically for simplicity’s sake, you kind of times [your income] by 20. If I’m saying I want $100,000 a year to live off for the rest of my life, I’m going to times that by 20, and that’s about my number.”

That calculation would mean that someone wanting $100,000 a year would need to have $2 million saved. But that does not account for NZ Super being available from 65, which would provide a portion of the $100,000 annual income.

Ana-Marie Lockyer, chief executive at Pie Funds, said based on a “no frills lifestyle” as described by Massey University’s Retirement Expenditure Guidelines, someone would need about $350,000 to $500,000 if they wanted to retire at 60 and about $550,000 to $700,000 if they wanted to retire at 55.

“These are indicative figures and assume you own your home mortgage-free. Home ownership makes a significant difference. If you’re still carrying a mortgage or renting, the amount required increases substantially.

“Lifestyle expectations also matter – there’s a meaningful gap between a basic and a more comfortable retirement. Location plays a role too, with Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch generally more expensive than provincial areas.”

Other people might live off the income their investments generated, such as rental properties.

Investment coach Steve Goodey said people could retire when they had a big enough portfolio of properties.

“A minimum four or five if they have low or no debt.”

He said people could aim to have seven and then sell a couple when they were ready to retire to reduce their debt.

Claire Matthews, author of the Massey University guidelines, said the amount people needed to save would depend on what their goals were for retirement, and whether they were planning to work at all.

They would also need to consider whether they were happy to use up all their money or wanted to preserve some.

“Owning your own home without debt would be helpful. But perhaps early retirement means living in a campervan and travelling around the country, in which case you don’t need a house – although it’s not as simple as that sounds.”

Opes Partners economist Ed McKnight said some people might be able to live on a partner’s income.

“Property investors might have rentals paying them an income. But most Kiwis will be relying on liquid assets – cash, shares, or managed funds they can draw down. And this needs to be outside KiwiSaver, since you can’t touch that until 65 either.

“Where does this money come from? Some people save it up. But more often it comes from selling an investment property or a business.

“One of our clients has a significant managed fund investment and draws down $60,000 a year. Her returns are strong enough that the balance doesn’t really go down.”

He said people should talk to a financial adviser to run through the numbers.

“Because it’s scary watching your balance drop. But if you run the numbers and know your spending will decrease once NZ Super kicks in, that gives you the confidence to actually pull the trigger.”

How much will your expenses really drop?

If you own your own home, there are likely to be some costs that you can’t avoid.

RNZ earlier found that just rates and insurance would add at least $6000 in costs each year.

“The first $100 to $150 a week of your income is just rates and insurance before we’ve even started on maintenance,” Carlyon said. “There’s all these kinds of costs that are absolutely skyrocketing,”

He said people who retired early generally weren’t doing it to sit around not doing much, so you’ll need to be realistic about how much money you will really need.

Can you rely on the government?

You could retire and decide to live off government support but it’s probably not advisable or much fun.

Basic JobSeeker for a single person is only $361.32 a week after tax and before additional supports. You can’t access the accommodation supplement if you have more than about $8000 in assets.

There are also expectations that people receiving a benefit of this nature are looking for work.

Sign up for Money with Susan Edmunds, a weekly newsletter covering all the things that affect how we make, spend and invest money.

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

A prison expansion is on such a fast track that it prompted officials to ask if compromises were being made.

Corrections is rushing to build two new high security units to cope with an unexpectedly rapid rise in the prison population nationwide since last year.

Hawke’s Bay Regional Prison was chosen as it had available land, official reports showed. The project was using a stripped-back design of no roofs between cell blocks, which was “untested” for operational, maintenance and amenity impacts.

This was to speed up to finish by next January.

“Speed of delivery will be the biggest driver,” Corrections told ministers.

A prison architecture expert called it a “band-aid” solution that could force inmates to be locked up for longer in bad weather.

Christine McCarthy of Victoria University had been reading the plans.

“They’re very clear; they are not intending to use this design again,” she said. “It’s kind of like, we have to do something, we don’t have any options.”

‘Less amenities’

Papers released under the Official Information Act showed officials last year suggested that ministers asked Corrections: “Have compromises been made in the shortened project development/design that create delivery risks or that impact on operational efficiency, adaptability, future costs, future investment requirements or create prisoner management risks?”

The government said it had been advised there would be no compromises on the highest standards of security and safety.

Corrections’ own business case said the new design was “seen to represent a compromise in amenity compared to the X-wing design” for Waikeria Prison’s much bigger, longer expansion.

The cells would be regular ones, but the shared spaces were changed. It might necessitate additional security measures.

“It has less amenities for prisoners… and is untested in terms of its ‘no roof’ design and the operational and maintenance impacts that may result from that.”

On the flip side of the Hawke’s Bay rush, Christchurch Men’s Prison’s expansion – again, much bigger and longer-term – had been going so slowly by last July that Treasury officials held it up as a case study in “significant lag between funding and action”.

‘Rapid unexpected’ growth exacerbates risks

Prisoner numbers topped a record 11,000 in January and were forecast to reach more than 14,000 in a decade. Over 40 percent of inmates were on remand awaiting a court hearing or sentencing.

Risky prisoners were having to be held in lower security, “increasing operating costs and risks”.

Just months after the government’s 2024 long-term prison plan was completed, it was already outdated, while not even factoring in more muster rises from the government’s new tough-on-crime policies and law changes.

“Rapid unexpected actual and projected growth means capacity limits may be exceeded by 2027, exacerbating operational and security risks,” said a report last July to Chris Bishop’s new Infrastructure and Investment Ministers Group, released to RNZ.

The prison population is now projected by next June to be 1853 higher than the 2024 projections. In response, the government hatched the Accelerated Capacity Programme or ACP mid-year.

“Our work to restore law and order is paying off,” said Mitchell in November, announcing ACP’s cornerstone, the expansion by 316 beds at Hawke’s Bay.

Corrections told RNZ it had accelerated the project “while still retaining checks and safeguards”.

‘Complete commitment to a compromised building’

McCarthy said the department was just reacting to the fact that double-bunking everywhere and reopening old facilities could not cope with a bed shortfall forecast to peak in 2027-29.

“This is a smart way in the situation that has been created, but it’s not going to be the last time this happens.

“This is really quite a fundamental question … can we build our way out of this? So that’s what’s interesting here: there’s a complete commitment to a compromised building.”

The UK, by contrast, said no, it cost too much to keep expanding prisons, and was looking for alternatives, she said.

Reports showed the UK was adding cells https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prison-building-boom-to-make-streets-safer but was also looking at the likes of early release for good behaviour amid “a broader overhaul of sentencing policies aimed at cutting the number of inmates before cells run out”, according to the New York Times.

Labour said National talked tough but could not deliver, with prison projects “stalled in Christchurch and rushed planning in Hawke’s Bay”.

‘Without any compromises to … safety and security’

Corrections told RNZ changes to the Hawke’s Bay design were “to allow for faster delivery without any compromises to the safety and security of the facility”.

The papers released under the Official Information Act revealed how the department planned to speed things up:

• to place the tender on 1 July, weeks before Cabinet approval
• finalise the business case weeks after the tender
• leave out the usual “Gateway” review before seeking Cabinet approval
• Cabinet sign-off was on 18 August.

The speed of this prompted officials to suggest in July 2025 that Bishop’s ministerial group ask, “Why was the RFP [tender] released prior to Cabinet approval? How will the resulting risks with the market be managed?”

And: “What plans does Corrections have to manage the risks of not undertaking independent assurance of the project at an early stage, and how will any adverse findings of the proposed Gateway review in early October be managed?”

Corrections Minister Mark Mitchell told RNZ the Gateway review “commended the department for active efforts to manage all risks”.

He supported the approach, he said in a statement.

“My expectation is that the new units … will meet the highest standards in safety and security, and I have been advised there will be no compromises on that.”

Corrections said it was saving four to six months on an otherwise 22-month build.

The fast track had built-in “off-ramps” if an affordable solution could not be found.

Corrections said it got independent assurance and review, including the cost estimates and a risk estimate, from industry experts.

Builder Naylor Love won the job on 31 October. The expansion is being funded from the department’s baseline. The cost was blanked out of reports.

Double bunking: ‘They’re going to get angry’

Corrections told RNZ the design had less internal communal space but an open-air courtyard instead. It had less admin space for staff, but there was space for that in other parts of the prison.

It was more efficient and better for keeping tabs on prisoners than a courtyard design.

The 160 new cells will nearly all have double-bunking. Squeezing inmates in that way was regularly widely criticised, and New Zealand is a signatory to a convention against it.

Howard League prison reformer Cosmo Jeffrey said the crowding would cost lives.

“So you can’t even walk around each other without banging into each other,” said Jeffrey.

“It’s like, what do they think is going to happen… locking people up like that? Obviously, they’re going to get angry.”

There were three double-bunk deaths at Mt Eden prison last year. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/581339/three-double-bunk-deaths-at-mt-eden-prison-in-a-year

‘Significant lags’

At Christchurch Men’s Prison, earthworks had begun.

The privately operated prison expansion is a $1.5-billion-plus four-phase project that aims to open its first new beds in 2029, and others from 2032.

Jeffrey said some inmates had already been moved out to make way for the expansion.

“This guy’s waited four years to get on the rehabilitation programme, and with 24 hours’ notice, he gets shunted down to Dunedin.

“To put it mildly, he’s heartbroken.”

Another inmate he knew had just started a prison job at Christchurch, then been shifted south.

Corrections said the project should sign up a builder in July. Three groups were shortlisted last year – one had a private US prison operator, Honeywell, on board, and another was multinational Serco that already ran Auckland South prison.

Treasury told ministers last year that the 15 months or so it was taking between Budget 2025 funding and signing the contract had put Christchurch Men’s into a group of two major projects – another was a mental health build – for a time lag of over a year.

It suggested the ministers shared “lessons” from the lag.

“Billions in new Crown funding are being committed each year, but we are seeing significant lags between Budget decisions, signing contracts, and commencing delivery and construction activity,” the report for the June 2025 quarter said, looking ahead to Budget 2026 bids.

Mitchell told RNZ he had been assured Christchurch Men’s was on schedule. It was very different from Hawke’s Bay and should not be compared, he said.

Hawke’s Bay’s existing high-security units overheated in summer, sparking a fix-it project last year.

Corrections said when it planned prisons, it took into account basing prisoners close to family where it could, the security level of prisoners, as well as the services they required.

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

The six-monthly company reporting season is about to start, with high hopes that earnings will start to reflect the turnaround in the economy.

Investment firm Forsyth Barr said 2025 looked to have ended on a strong note and it would be looking for revenue and profit margin growth.

“Many NZ corporates have had three-plus years to right size their businesses, therefore how they speak to operational improvements, cost control, and operating leverage will be key,” Forsyth Barr analysts said.

“This season will be the first litmus test.”

Sharesies head of data and analytics Jordan Cunningham said its customer base would be looking closely at the dividend payout of the big four power companies – Meridian, Contact, Mercury and Genesis.

“Expectations going into this earning seasons are quite subdued, but we think that our investors will be looking to New Zealand stocks in particular for dividends, if they’re looking for that growth potential for New Zealand.”

Power companies were also regarded as defensive stocks, often able to avoid or withstand market volatility.

Cunningham said only about 15 percent of the funds invested on the platform were in NZX-listed companies, with strong support from Air New Zealand, Auckland Airport and Spark.

“Despite that strong US focus, there really is still growing trading in New Zealand, and a really strong buy-to-sell ratio… In recent months for every dollar sold $1.50 was bought.”

The good, the bad, the ordinary

Forsyth Barr expected about 40 percent of reporting companies to have a positive outlook, including speciality milk company A2 Milk, healthcare and pet food firm EBOS, Port of Tauranga and casino operator SkyCity, despite its torrid time in recent years.

A similar proportion was likely to have a neutral outlook, with a handful of companies with potential to disappoint the market.

Among them was the national carrier Air New Zealand, which was expected to deliver a first-half loss, but with hopes of a more positive second-half outlook.

Forsyth Barr senior analyst Matt Montgomerie said companies most exposed to the economic cycle and which were hard hit by the recession such as building product firms, retailers, and service businesses might surprise on the upside.

He said many of the firms had aggressively cut costs, but might not be in a hurry to start spending again.

“This reluctance to re-expand costs creates strong operating leverage … As a result, net earnings growth during upswings can surprise to the upside, often materially outpacing consensus expectations.”

Window on recovery

Amova Asset Management head of equities Michael Sherrock said company reports should provide a steer on the economic turn around, with companies such as transport firm Freightways something of a bellwether.

“For the likes of Freightways, what is customer volume growth looking like? Six months ago, they started to see some pickup in that customer volume growth. How that’s tracking since they last updated the market.”

“The likes of SkyCity as well, somewhat cyclically exposed, but also some regulatory type of issues as well.”

Sherrock, the casino and hotel operator, has been required to implement carded play on pokie machines, and has just taken over the International Convention Centre, which would be pointers for the company’s future earnings.

Others to watch included Fletcher Building, pharmaceutical supplier and pet retailing chain EBOS and Sky Television.

“The market will be very, very focused on (EBOS) given that stock (price) has fallen … on the back of a disappointing result last year. They’ve got a new CEO. What are they telling the market ? And hopefully it’s a positive story, and there’s no disappointments.”

He said Sky TV would be watched to see if it delivered on plans to pay a dividend this year.

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

Less than a year after it was refreshed, the Active Investor Plus (AIP) visa is bringing $3.39 billion into New Zealand, Immigration Minister Erica Stanford announced today.

“These results show that the significant changes the Government has made to the visa is achieving our goal of making an investor visa available that attracts high-value global investors and supports the Government’s Going for Growth approach,” Ms Stanford says. 

To date, 573 applications have been made, totalling $3.39 billion. In comparison, 116 applications were received with around $70 million of investment committed over two-and-a-half years under the settings introduced by the previous Government.

Ms Stanford made the announcement today during a visit to Hectre, an orchard‑technology firm that has received AIP investment to support its growth and create high‑skilled jobs.

“Hectre is another excellent example of New Zealand innovation and potential taking flight, supported by great investors who are keen to create value together with us and do business here.

“International investment is critical for lifting productivity, supporting jobs, and helping New Zealand businesses to expand. The results we are seeing indicate strong overseas confidence in our direction and economic ambition.”

Since the April 2025 refresh:

• 573 applications have been received
• $1.05 billion is already invested with $2.34 billion in the pipeline, expected in the next six months
• The Growth Category is the most popular, with most investment flowing through managed funds.

“Investments are already supporting growth across various sectors, including in tech, healthcare, aged care, horticulture, and digital media,” Ms Stanford says. 

“Benefits are numerous, with AIP investment helping our companies access critical capital for growth – that is helping local firms to expand, hire more skilled workers, and grow export revenue.” 

Ms Stanford says that investment has also been unlocking productive capital for businesses across New Zealand, from cybersecurity and cloud technology to regional infrastructure.

“These investors bring not just capital, but global experience, expertise, and networks. I have had the pleasure of meeting some of these investors over the last year and I have seen firsthand their love for, and commitment to, New Zealand.

“I am delighted that our new visa settings are helping to open up possibility and opportunity for investment. New Zealand is famous for its ingenuity. Overseas investment and partnership with extremely talented people is boosting our economy and helping us to build for the future.

“New Zealand is open for business. I look forward to seeing the jobs, development, and long-term growth our changes continue to generate in key sectors.”

To encourage deeper connection to New Zealand, investor visa holders can also now buy or build one home valued at $5 million or more.  

Note to editors: 

• The Growth category for the AIP visa focuses on higher-risk investments, including managed funds and direct investments in New Zealand businesses. It requires a minimum investment of NZD $5 million for a minimum period of 3 years.
• The Balanced category focuses on mixed investments, with the ability to choose ones that are lower risk. There is a minimum investment of NZD $10 million over 5 years.
• More information on the Active Investor Plus visa can be found online:

MIL OSI

The Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation, manager of the $90 billion NZ Superannuation Fund, has appointed Qing Ding to the newly-created role of Head of Portfolio Strategy and Research.

Ding rejoins the Guardians from ANZ Investments, where she was Head of Asset Allocation. During her previous time at the Guardians, Qing worked in the Tactical Credit and Asset Allocation teams, and was a key contributor to the 2020 review of the Guardians’ Reference Portfolio.

She had earlier worked as a Senior Investment Analyst at both the Government Superannuation Authority and Westpac NZ, having started her career at AMP Capital Investors.

Guardians Co-Chief Investment Officer Will Goodwin says Ding’s job will be to help ensure the Fund’s investment decisions fully consider current market conditions as well as the Fund’s long-term beliefs, structural advantages and investment objectives.

“Asset allocation is every investor’s most important decision. Qing’s skills and experience will help us to construct the right portfolio to meet our mandate and continue to deliver strong returns for all New Zealanders over the long run,” Goodwin says.

“As a member of the Investment Leadership Team, Qing will make an important contribution to the future strategic direction of the Investment Group and to the performance of the Fund.”

Ding says she is looking forward to the challenge of her new role, and to again being part of the Guardians’ investment team.

“I made some very good friends at the Guardians. It will be great to be working alongside them again.”

MIL OSI

New Zealand and Singapore have signed a new electronic certification arrangement that will streamline trade and reduce costs, Trade and Investment, and Agriculture Minister Todd McClay says.

Export health certification confirms products meet the importing country’s regulatory requirements, including in animal or plant health, hygiene, and food safety.

The current paper-based system will be replaced by the new arrangement which enables real-time digital exchange of export health certification between New Zealand and Singapore for trade in food and primary products.

“It will streamline border processes, improve efficiency, reduce costs, enhance supply chain security and integrity, and help products clear borders and reach markets sooner,” Mr McClay says.

“Singapore is one of our closest trade partners, and last year we marked 60 years of diplomatic ties between our countries. The new arrangement speaks to the strength of this relationship and will enable trade growth.

“It also progresses us towards New Zealand’s aspirational goal of doubling the value of exports in 10 years. This Government is focused on building the future and delivering prosperity for New Zealanders.”

New Zealand’s food and primary product exports to Singapore reached $1.2 billion in the year to 30 November 2025.

The arrangement, signed in Singapore, forms part of New Zealand’s and Singapore’s Joint Plan of Action under the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership.

MIL OSI

Uniting Networks from Over 17 Countries to Drive Cross-Border Collaboration and Sustainable Regional Growth

– Published and distributed with permission of Media-Outreach.com.

PERTH, Australia, Feb. 11, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Paladin Energy Ltd (ASX:PDN, TSX:PDN, OTCQX:PALAF) (“Paladin” or the “Company”) advises that it has released its December 2025 Half Year Financial Accounts and Management Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) for Paladin Energy Ltd and its controlled entities for the three and six month periods ended 31 December 2025 (“FY2026 Interim Financial Results”).

Half Year Highlights

• Revenue of US$138.3M driven by strong sales of 1.96Mlb U₃O₈ at an average realised price of US$70.5/lb U₃O₈¹, reflecting the quality of the Langer Heinrich Mine (LHM) contract book and strengthening uranium pricing environment
• Cost of sales totalled US$112.3M in the period, reflecting the continued ramp up of production at LHM
• Gross profit of US$26.0M for the period, a significant increase from previous period
• Net loss after tax of US$6.6M driven by the ongoing production ramp-up at LHM, business expansion following the Fission Uranium Corp (now Paladin Canada Inc.) acquisition and TSX listing and financing activities
• Successful completion of a fully underwritten A$300M equity raising and a A$100M share purchase plan (SPP), primarily to advance the development of the Patterson Lake South (PLS) Project towards a final investment decision alongside the ongoing ramp up of the LHM
• Enhanced balance sheet following completion of the equity offering, and the restructure of the syndicated debt facility with cash and investments of US$278.4M and an undrawn US$70M Revolving Credit Facility at year end

“The first half of the year demonstrated strong and continually improving performance at Langer Heinrich Mine as our team increased its knowledge and experience of how to optimise the production process, including the mining activities that were gathering pace at the start of this financial year. With the remaining mining fleet arriving on site, the foundations are now in place to successfully complete our ramp-up at Langer Heinrich Mine during the remaining months of the year.

The half year results also highlight the robust financial position of Paladin Energy with increasing revenue from strong sales augmented by a successful equity raising and a restructure of the debt portfolio that will enable us to complete our ramp-up activities at the LHM and continue to progress the PLS Project in Canada, including our winter drilling program.”

Paul Hemburrow
Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer

Financial Performance

LHM sold 1.96Mlb of U₃O₈ at an average realised price of US$70.5/lb, generating sales revenue of US$138.3M. Cost of sales totalled US$112.3M, reflecting the continued ramp up of production, with a higher proportion of mined ore fed into the plant resulting in higher production and sales volumes.

This resulted in an increased gross profit for the period of US$26.0M (H1FY2025: US$0.9M).

Net loss after tax of US$6.6M (H1FY2025:US$15.1M) was driven by the ongoing production ramp-up at LHM, business expansion following the Fission Uranium Corp (now Paladin Canada Inc.) acquisition, TSX listing and financing activities.

Financial Position

Total unrestricted cash and investments increased by 213% during the period to US$278.4M (30 June 2025: US$89.0M), following the successful completion of a fully underwritten A$300M equity offering and a A$100M share purchase plan (SPP) (both before transaction costs).

On 19 December 2025, Paladin completed the restructure of its Debt Facility with its lenders, Nedbank Ltd (acting through its Nedbank Corporate and Investment Banking division), Nedbank Namibia Ltd and Macquarie Bank.

The restructure aimed to right-size the overall debt capacity, reducing it from US$150M to US$110M leveraging Paladin’s enhanced liquidity position following the successful completion of the equity raise and SPP. The restructure also reflects Paladin’s increasing maturity as a uranium producer as it continues to progress the ramp up at LHM, while providing greater undrawn debt capacity and balance sheet flexibility.

The restructure provides Paladin with a US$110M Debt Facility including a US$40M Term Loan Facility (following a repayment of US$39.8M as part of the restructure) and an undrawn Revolving Credit Facility of US$70M (US$50M prior to the restructure). No additional debt was drawn during the period.

Presentation of information
This announcement should be read in conjunction with the Condensed Interim Financial Report lodged on 11 February 2026 and available on Paladin’s website (https://www.paladinenergy.com.au/investors/asx-announcements/). The Condensed Interim Financial Report relates to the six month period ended 31 December 2025. This Condensed Interim Financial Report also includes information relating specifically to the three month period ended 31 December 2025, which has been included in this Condensed Interim Financial Report to comply with quarterly reporting disclosure requirements of the Toronto Stock Exchange. Further information regarding the inclusion of the 31 December 2025 quarterly information is included in Note 1 to the Condensed Interim Financial Report.

This announcement has been authorised for release by the Board of Directors of Paladin Energy Ltd.

Contacts

About Paladin

Paladin Energy Ltd (ASX:PDN TSX: PDN OTCQX:PALAF) is a globally significant independent uranium producer with a 75% ownership of the world-class long life Langer Heinrich Mine located in Namibia. In late 2024 the Company acquired Fission Uranium Corp. in Canada, resulting in a dual-listing on the both the ASX and TSX. With the integration of Fission’s operations, the Company now owns and operates an extensive portfolio of uranium development and exploration assets across Canada, which include the Patterson Lake South (PLS) Project in Saskatchewan and the Michelin project in Newfoundland and Labrador. Paladin also owns uranium exploration assets in Australia. Paladin is committed to a sustainability framework that ensures responsible, accountable and transparent management of the uranium resources the Company mines – both now and in the future. Through its Langer Heinrich Mine, Paladin is delivering a reliable uranium supply to major nuclear utilities around the world, positioning itself as a meaningful contributor to baseload energy provision in multiple countries and contributing to global decarbonisation.

Forward-looking statements

This document contains certain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Australian securities laws and “forward-looking information” within the meaning of Canadian securities laws (collectively referred to in this document as forward-looking statements). All statements in this document, other than statements of historical or present facts, are forward-looking statements and generally may be identified by the use of forward-looking words such as “anticipate”, “expect”, “likely”, “propose”, “will”, “intend”, “should”, “could”, “may”, “believe”, “forecast”, “estimate”, “target”, “outlook”, “guidance” and other similar expressions. These forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements regarding continued development of the PLS Project; permitting approvals and community engagement; advancement of the PLS Project through to FID; development and ramp-up of operations at the LHM; LHM guidance for FY2026; the equity offering; debt and related restructurings and the receipt of all necessary regulatory approvals.

Forward-looking statements involve subjective judgment and analysis and are subject to significant uncertainties, risks and contingencies including those risk factors associated with the mining industry, many of which are outside the control of, change without notice, and may be unknown to Paladin. These risks and uncertainties include but are not limited to liabilities inherent in mine development and production, geological, mining and processing technical problems, the inability to obtain any additional mine licences, permits and other regulatory approvals required in connection with mining and third party processing operations, Indigenous Peoples’ engagement, competition for amongst other things, capital, acquisition of reserves, undeveloped lands and skilled personnel, incorrect assessments of the value of acquisitions, changes in commodity prices and exchange rates, currency and interest fluctuations, various events which could disrupt operations and/or the transportation of mineral products, including labour stoppages and severe weather conditions, the demand for and availability of transportation services, the ability to secure adequate financing and management’s ability to anticipate and manage the foregoing factors and risks. Readers are also referred to the risks and uncertainties referred to in the Company’s “2025 Annual Report” released on 28 August 2025, in Paladin’s Annual Information Form for the year ended June 30, 2025 released on 12 September 2025, and in Paladin’s Management’s Discussion and Analysis for the quarter ended December 31, 2025, released on 11 February 2026, each of which is available to view at paladinenergy.com.au and on www.sedarplus.ca.

Although as at the date of this document, Paladin believes the expectations expressed in such forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, such statements are not guarantees of future performance and actual results or developments may differ materially from the expectations expressed in such forward-looking statements due to a range of factors including (without limitation) fluctuations in commodity prices and exchange rates, exploitation and exploration successes, environmental, permitting and development issues, political risks including the impact of political instability on economic activity and uranium supply and demand, Indigenous Peoples engagement, climate risk, operating hazards, natural disasters, severe storms and other adverse weather conditions, shortages of skilled labour and construction materials, equipment and supplies, regulatory concerns, continued availability of capital and financing and general economic, market or business conditions and risk factors associated with the uranium industry generally. There can be no assurance that forward-looking statements will prove to be accurate.

Readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements, and should rely on their own independent enquiries, investigations and advice regarding information contained in this document. Any reliance by a reader on the information contained in this document is wholly at the reader’s own risk. Recipients are cautioned against placing undue reliance on such projections without conducting their own due diligence with appropriate professional support. The forward-looking statements in this document relate only to events or information as of the date on which the statements are made. Paladin does not assume any obligation to update or revise its forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. No representation, warranty, guarantee or assurance (express or implied) is made, or will be made, that any forward-looking statements will be achieved or will prove to be correct. Except for statutory liability which cannot be excluded, Paladin, its officers, employees and advisers expressly disclaim any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the material contained in this document and exclude all liability whatsoever (including negligence) for any loss or damage which may be suffered by any person as a consequence of any information in this document or any error or omission therefrom. Except as required by law or regulation, Paladin accepts no responsibility to update any person regarding any inaccuracy, omission or change in information in this document or any other information made available to a person, nor any obligation to furnish the person with any further information. Nothing in this document will, under any circumstances, create an implication that there has been no change in the affairs of Paladin since the date of this document. To the extent any forward-looking statement in this document constitutes “future-oriented financial information” or “financial outlooks” within the meaning of Canadian securities laws, such information is provided to demonstrate Paladin’s internal projections and to help readers understand Paladin’s expected financial results. Readers are cautioned that this information may not be appropriate for any other purpose and readers should not place undue reliance on such information. Future-oriented financial information and financial outlooks, as with forward-looking statements generally, are, without limitation, based on the assumptions, and subject to the risks and uncertainties, described above.

Non-IFRS measures
Paladin uses certain financial measures that are considered “non-IFRS financial information” within the meaning of Australian securities laws and/or “non-GAAP financial measures” within the meaning of Canadian securities laws (collectively referred to in this announcement as Non-IFRS Measures) to supplement analysis of its financial and operating performance. These Non-IFRS Measures do not have a standardised meaning prescribed by IFRS and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other issuers.

The Company believes these measures provide additional insight into its financial results and operational performance and are useful to investors, securities analysts, and other interested parties in understanding and evaluating the Company’s historical and future operating performance. However, they should not be viewed in isolation or as a substitute for information prepared in accordance with IFRS. Accordingly, readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any Non-IFRS Measures. The Non-IFRS Measures used in this announcement are described below.

Average Realised Price
Average Realised Price (US$/lb U₃O₈) is a Non-IFRS Measure that represents the average revenue received per pound of uranium sold during a given period. It is calculated by dividing total revenue from U₃O₈ sales (before royalties and after any applicable discounts) by the total volume of U₃O₈ pounds sold. This measure provides insight into the actual pricing achieved under the Company’s uranium sales contracts and spot sales during the reporting period, taking into account the mix of base-escalated, fixed-price and market-related pricing mechanisms within contracts. The Company uses Average Realised Price to assess revenue performance relative to market prices, contractual pricing structures, and production costs. It is also a key measure used by investors and analysts to evaluate price exposure, contract performance, and profitability potential.

It is important to note that Average Realised Price is distinct from both the spot market price and the term market price for uranium, and it may vary significantly from quarter to quarter based on timing of deliveries, customer contract structures, and the prevailing market environment.

Revenue from uranium sales is reported in the Company’s financial statements under IFRS. The Average Realised Price is derived directly from IFRS revenue figures and disclosed sales volumes.

The table below reconciles the Average Realised Price for the quarters ended 31 December 2025 and 31 December 2024:

1.   Includes 85,000lb loan material delivered into existing contracts
2.   Includes 200,000lb loan material delivered into existing contracts

Cost of Production 
The Cost of Production per pound represents the total production costs divided by pounds of U₃O₈ produced. The Cost of Production is calculated as the total direct production expenditures incurred during the period (including mining, stockpile rehandling, processing, site maintenance, and mine-level administrative costs), excluding costs such as cost of ore stockpiled, deferred stripping costs, depreciation and amortisation, general and administration costs, royalties, exploration expenses, sustaining capital and the impacts of any inventory impairments or impairment reversals. This measure helps users assess Paladin’s operating efficiency.

Cost of Production per lb = Cost of Production ÷ U₃O₈ Pounds Produced.

Cost of Production is a unit cost measure that indicates the average production cost per pound of U₃O₈ produced. This is not an IFRS measure but is widely used in the mining industry as a benchmark of operational efficiency and cost competitiveness. Paladin’s Cost of Production metric is calculated as the total direct production expenditures as defined above (in US dollars) incurred during the period, divided by the volume of U₃O₈ pounds produced in the same period. The Company uses Cost of Production per pound to track progress of operational performance, to assess profitability at various uranium price points, and to identify trends in operating costs. It is also a key metric for investors and analysts to evaluate how efficiently the Company is producing uranium, independent of depreciation and accounting adjustments.

This measure allows stakeholders to monitor trends in direct production costs and to assess the Company’s operating breakeven threshold relative to uranium market prices. Investors are cautioned that our Cost of Production metric may not be comparable with similarly titled “C1 cash cost” metrics of other uranium producers, as there can be differences in methodology (e.g., treatment of royalties or certain site costs). Paladin’s Cost of Production figure as defined above, focuses strictly on the on-site cost to produce uranium concentrate in the current period. All figures are in US$/lb U₃O₈. We provide this information in good faith to enhance understanding of our operations; however, the IFRS financial statements (particularly the Cost of Sales line in the income statement) should be considered alongside this metric for a complete picture of our cost structure.

The table below reconciles the Cost of Production for the for the quarters ended 31 December 2025 and 30 December 2024:

Net Cash/(Debt)
Net Cash/(Debt) is a non-IFRS liquidity measure that represents the surplus of cash and cash equivalents over total interest-bearing debt. It is calculated by subtracting gross debt (including face value and accrued interest on borrowings) from unrestricted cash and cash equivalents. The Company uses Net Cash/(Debt) as an indicator of the Company’s net liquidity position at a point in time, providing a simple measure of financial flexibility after accounting for existing debt obligations. This measure is useful to investors and analysts because it isolates the Company’s net cash or net debt balance, enabling better assessment of balance sheet strength and funding capacity, particularly as it relates to capital allocation decisions and ability to finance operations and growth.

Net Cash/(Debt) is distinct from individual IFRS line items as it combines and offsets gross financial liabilities and cash balances into a single figure. As such, it is classified as a non-IFRS measure.

The table below reconciles the Net Cash/(Debt) at the end of the quarters ended 31 December 2025 and 30 June 2025:

^{_______________________________________
1} Average Realised Price is a Non-IFRS Measure. See “Non-IFRS Measures” for more information
² Refers to LHM’s operational results on a 100% basis
³ Cost of Production is a Non-IFRS Measure. See “Non-IFRS Measures” for more information
⁴ The percentage movement is not meaningful due to nil balance in the prior period
⁵ Excludes shareholder loans from CNNC Overseas Limited (CNOL) and capitalised transaction costs
⁶ Net Cash/(Debt) is a Non-IFRS measure. See “Non-IFRS Measures” for more information

– Published by The MIL Network

[Keynote delivered at the New Zealand Economic Forum, 12 February 2026]

Tēnā koutou katoa, and good morning.

Thank you to Professor Jennifer Kerr and the University of Waikato Management School for hosting us. 

It is great to be here in the Waikato – a region that is building capability for the future, from innovation in agritech, to world-class events in the new BNZ Theatre, and soon to producing much-needed doctors and medical research through the new Medical School.

To my parliamentary colleagues, mayors, representatives of local government, members of the diplomatic corps, business leaders, economists, academics, students, and guests from across New Zealand – thank you for being here.

It is a privilege to open the 2026 New Zealand Economic Forum.

The theme of this year’s forum is Big Choices for a Small Nation. And there is one choice I want to be clear about at the outset.

We are fixing the basics and building the future by choosing smart investments that increase performance and decrease debt.

New Zealand does not grow by taxing more and investing less, and our Government is choosing a better course.

We grow by backing ambition, cutting red tape, and rewarding success.
That is the choice this Government is making.

We are meeting at a time when that choice matters.

The global environment is unsettled. Markets are volatile. Geopolitical risks are rising. Climate events are increasing. And the economic recovery has taken time, with real pressure on hardworking Kiwis.

In moments like this, it can be tempting to drift, or to reach for higher spending as an easy answer. But after the last Government more than doubled debt to 41.8 per cent of GDP, New Zealanders know the cost of that band-aid approach – it is simply not sustainable.

Small, open economies succeed by making deliberate choices.

History shows New Zealand’s biggest gains have come from disciplined decisions at home – managing the public finances responsibly, backing investment, staying open to the world, and building institutions that support long-term growth.

That is what this Government is focused on.

This morning I want to set out three things:

• how we are managing the public finances and restate the case for why fiscal credibility matters;
• how New Zealand is positioning itself in a more volatile global environment; and
• how we are strengthening the foundations of growth – by backing ownership, investment, and productivity through a wide-ranging reform agenda.

This is about backing New Zealanders with settings that reward effort.

When we make the right choices, there is no reason New Zealand cannot grow faster, lift incomes, and build resilience – not despite our size, but because of it.

1. Fiscal positioning and economic leadership

Let me begin with the fiscal context.

New Zealand has been through a long and difficult economic adjustment. The post-Covid period brought inflation that lingered too long, interest rates that hurt too many households, and a downturn that took time to unwind.

The most recent Treasury forecasts show the economy has begun to turn a corner. Growth strengthened through the second half of last year, unemployment is stabilising, and confidence is returning. Momentum is building – but sustaining it requires discipline and focus.

At the same time, the Crown’s balance sheet remains under pressure.

Core Crown expenses are still elevated relative to pre-pandemic levels. Debt-servicing costs are significantly higher than they were five years ago. Demographic pressures, particularly in health and superannuation, continue to intensify.

That context explains the fiscal strategy we are pursuing.

Our objectives are clear and worth restating:

• to return the operating balance to surplus by 2028/29;
• to place net core Crown debt on a downward track toward 40 per cent of GDP; and
• to rebuild fiscal resilience so future governments have options when the next shock inevitably arrives.

Those are not arbitrary numbers. They reflect the hard-won credibility New Zealand has built internationally over decades. They underpin our sovereign credit ratings. They protect households from higher interest rates. And they preserve room for governments to respond when crises occur.

They are targets easily forgotten by politicians who wish to spend more in election campaigns. But if we forget those targets, New Zealand’s economic strength will be impugned. And my view here is that fiscal credibility is not ideological. It is practical – and it is essential.

That is why Budget 2026’s operating allowance is $2.4 billion per annum. This is a ceiling, not a floor. Every dollar must be justified. Every new initiative must come with a clear case for value.

Over the past two years, this Government has made decisions delivering around $11 billion a year in savings and revenue measures. Those decisions were not easy. But they have stabilised the public finances, protected frontline services, and enabled investment in long-term growth.

That approach of delivering savings will be continuing in this budget and every future budget I deliver. Fiscal discipline is not the end goal. It is, in fact, the foundation for everything else we wish to achieve, because without it, everything else – growth, investment, resilience – becomes harder.

2. New Zealand’s position in a volatile world

We are making these choices in a world that is more uncertain than at any point in recent decades.

Geopolitical competition is sharper. Supply chains are more fragile. Energy markets remain volatile. And technological change – from artificial intelligence to advanced manufacturing – is accelerating faster than policy systems typically adapt.

Yet New Zealand’s position in this environment is stronger than we sometimes allow ourselves to believe.

We are politically stable in an unstable world. We have strong institutions, high-quality regulation, low corruption, and an independent central bank. 

We produce food, fibre and energy the world genuinely needs. And we continue to generate globally competitive firms across agritech, software, advanced manufacturing and aerospace.

Our challenge is not a lack of potential.

It is whether our policy settings organise that potential, or suppress it through uncertainty, cost, and delay.

Much of what matters for New Zealand’s prosperity remains within our control: predictable policy, efficient infrastructure, credible fiscal management, secure energy supply, and settings that reward ownership and investment.

Resilience is not just about surviving shocks. It is about having the capacity to adapt, recover, and sustain growth.

3. Ownership, investment and productivity: backing growth

This global context brings us directly to the choices we are making at home to back growth 

For decades, New Zealand’s productivity growth has lagged behind comparable economies, and the consequences are clear, lower wages, less fiscal headroom for investment in public services, from medicines through to classrooms, fewer globally scaled firms, and in my view, too much reliance on population growth and house price growth rather than genuine productivity gains. 

And so, the task that our Government faces is not simply to repair the basics which were damaged post Covid, but to build foundations in our economy that allow us to address these long-standing productivity challenges. 

Our Going for Growth agenda, which I published at last year’s forum, is grounded in a simple proposition: productivity responds to incentives. Productivity is not resolved through one silver bullet, but ongoing, substantive, systemic reform.

When people are confident, they own assets, invest in capital, and earn a return without those settings being constantly reopened, they invest more – and they invest earlier.

That is why this Government is explicitly backing ownership, investment, and productivity-enhancing settings.

Not through subsidies or short-term stimulus.

But through durable policy settings that reward productive activity.

The Investment Boost tax policy introduced in Budget 2025 was designed to do just that – change investment behaviour in favour of more capital intensity in our firms. 

And it would have been easy to say at the last budget, we can’t afford a productivity-enhancing tax measure at this point, because that will require us to make difficult savings elsewhere. But the choice we made is that we can’t afford not to. We can’t afford to keep waiting to make productivity enhancing changes to our tax system. 

And so, Investment Boost is not about rewarding investment that would have happened anyway. It is about tipping decisions – bringing investment forward, increasing scale, and anchoring capital in New Zealand.

And we are already seeing that happen.

Early evidence from Inland Revenue shows that among firms that invested recently, 40 per cent say Investment Boost increased their investment spending over the past year, including 11 per cent reporting a significant increase directly because of the policy.

Looking ahead, the impact is even clearer. Nearly half – 49 per cent – of firms intending to invest over the next five years say Investment Boost is positively influencing those plans, with 14 per cent anticipating a large increase in investment as a result.

What matters is not just that businesses are investing more, but how they are investing.

More than half of firms report adjusting the timing, scale and type of investment. Projects are being brought forward. Capital is being prioritised into productivity-enhancing assets. And businesses are choosing to own capital rather than lease it.

We can see that on the ground.

Dunedin-based United Machinists has brought forward investment in robotics and automation, rather than phasing it over several years.

Foot Science International has accelerated investment in automation and renewable energy infrastructure.

Christchurch-based Vynco is investing in advanced manufacturing equipment that will lift efficiency and expand capacity.

These are not abstract policy effects.

They are real businesses making real decisions – earlier, larger, and more productively – because the incentives have changed.

That matters, because capital deepening is how productivity rises. And productivity growth is how wages grow sustainably over time.

But there is a broader issue that needs to be confronted.

Investment Boost only works in the longer term if businesses believe it will endure.

Firms do not invest in long-lived capital – plant, machinery, buildings – if they think the rules may change after the next election.

So, my question to Mr Hipkins is straightforward.

Will they commit to retaining Investment Boost as a permanent fixture of our tax settings to unlock growth or will it be sacrificed to fund higher spending and new taxes?

This Government’s position is clear.

We back ownership.

We back investment.

And we back productivity-enhancing tax settings.

Policy stability, long-term reform and the growth opportunity

I want to make a broader point about policy stability, because this is where long-term growth is won or lost.

Business investment decisions depend on confidence: confidence in the regulatory environment, confidence in the tax system, and confidence that major settings will not be reopened or rewritten after every election.

There is strong evidence, here and overseas, that uncertainty around tax policy has a chilling effect on investment. When businesses hear ongoing debate about capital gains taxes, wealth taxes, inheritance taxes, or new taxes on investment and savings, they delay decisions, reduce scale, or take capital elsewhere.

That uncertainty is not theoretical. It has been lived.

This Government is taking a different approach.

We are committed to stability where stability supports growth. Not because change is never needed, but because constant churn comes at a real economic cost.

Good economic policy is not about novelty or relitigating the same arguments every three years.

It is about credibility, consistency, and giving people the confidence to invest, train, and build for the long term.

That principle runs through our broader reform programme.

If we step back, the question is not just what grows the economy this year, but what kind of economy New Zealand becomes over the next 10 to 20 years.

We have emerging sectors with enormous potential. From agritech and advanced manufacturing to digital services, biotech, clean energy and critical minerals. Unlocking that potential requires more than one-off incentives. It requires long-term settings that endure across economic cycles.

That is why we are backing reforms that strengthen both the economic and human foundations of growth.

Our reform agenda is not Band Aid solutions or quick fixes, but systemic changes, from competition reform to procurement reform to real transformation of the public sector and its delivery of services, digitising public services, enabling housing growth through investing in new funding and financing tools in competitive land markets, infrastructure funding and financing and planning. 

This real reform doesn’t happen overnight, but it is essential, and in too many cases, overturned. Today, I want to focus on just three key areas where that reform agenda is significant. 

The first is education. Here we are lifting performance by fixing the basics, because productivity ultimately depends on skills.

That is why we are:

• refocusing the system on core skills
• strengthening curriculum clarity
• investing in structured literacy and numeracy,
• and beginning the work to replace NCEA with a more credible, coherent qualification

These reforms are essential to give New Zealanders the skills to succeed, and give employers confidence in the workforce they are investing in. And no one will argue with the fact that achievement of those who are undergoing structured literacy has increased significantly. 

According to our studies that doesn’t just mean that productivity growth, or GDP, will be increased in the next quarter, but that achieving better skills for our students is essential to our 20-year productivity goals. 

The second area where we are strengthening ownership and long-term savings is through our policy to increase KiwiSaver contributions over time. 

As Finance Minister, we made that commitment in last year’s Budget, and KiwiSaver default contributions will now increase half a per cent from this year and rise again in two years. 

As National Party’s finance spokesperson, I’ve been proud to announce our policy of increasing KiwiSaver contributions beyond that over time – lifting domestic capital, strengthening household resilience, and supporting investment in New Zealand businesses.

And the third area is our reforms to the planning system, because growth cannot happen if building is blocked.

Replacing the Resource Management Act is one of the most important economic reforms underway. The two new Bills Chris Bishop has put forward fundamentally rebalance the system by:

• reducing unnecessary delay
• clarifying decision-making pathways
• improving certainty for investors
• enabling nationally significant infrastructure to proceed, and making growth easier rather than harder

If we are serious about lifting productivity, we cannot continue with a system that makes it harder to build than to object.

And we are making strategic investments in human capital that will strengthen our workforce and our economy for decades. That includes expanding medical education right here with the University of Waikato Medical School.

From 2028, the Waikato Medical School will train an additional 120 doctors each year, focused on primary care and community health, helping reduce reliance on overseas workforce and improving access to timely care for families, especially in rural and provincial areas. 

This is a long-term investment in people – building the pipeline of doctors we need, creating new jobs, and strengthening the health workforce across this region and the country. And significantly, is occurring not just with Government funding, but with the contribution of the university and philanthropy as well.

We are also already seeing what disciplined reform can deliver.

A year into Kāinga Ora’s Turnaround Plan, performance is improving while debt is being brought under control. When this Government came into office, Kāinga Ora’s debt had grown from $2.3 billion to $16.5 billion, with forecasts showing it heading toward almost $25 billion. Clear direction and tighter discipline have changed that trajectory. Operating costs have been cut by $211 million in a single year, and peak debt has been reduced by $9.5 billion, now expected to top out much lower.

Importantly, this has occurred while outcomes have improved. Build costs are falling, renewals are accelerating, rent arrears are down by nearly 3000 households, and tenancy satisfaction has risen to 87 percent. It is a practical example of what happens when government focuses on accountability, value for money, and delivery – lifting performance, while reducing debt.

Taken together, these reforms share a common purpose.

They back ownership.

They reward investment.

They lift productivity.

And they provide the policy consistency New Zealand needs to grow with confidence over the long term.

That is what economic leadership looks like, and it is the platform on which sustainable growth is built.

Closing reflection

Let me finish where I began – with choices.

New Zealand’s future will be shaped by whether we back the people who invest, build, and create opportunity, or burden them with uncertainty and cost.

This Government has made its choice.

We are backing ownership.

We are backing investment.

We are backing productivity.

We are fixing the basics and building the future.

Others may argue for higher taxes and more spending.

But every one of those choices comes with a price – and that price is paid by hard working Kiwis.

If we make disciplined choices grounded in the simple belief: that New Zealand succeeds when people have confidence in the future, clear rules to operate within, and the freedom to invest and grow.

Then New Zealand’s future is not something to be cautious about, 

It is something to be confident in — and something to build. 

Thank you.

MIL OSI

Finance Minister Nicola Willis is challenging Labour to commit to keeping her Investment Boost policy if elected.

The centrepiece of last year’s Budget, the boost, allows businesses to deduct 20 percent of a new asset’s value from taxable income on top of normal depreciation.

When launched in May, it was expected to boost New Zealand’s GDP by 1 percent, wages by 1.5 percent and capital stock by 1.6 percent over the next 20 years.

Willis talked up the policy’s effects so far in a speech to the New Zealand Economic Forum in Hamilton on Thursday.

She said about 40 percent of firms investing in the next five years said the policy had increased their investment spending over the past 12 months, with 29 percent of those reporting a “moderate” increase and another 11 percent a “significant” increase.

Looking ahead, 49 percent planning to invest in the next five years were saying Investment Boost was positively influencing their plans, with 14 percent expecting a large investment.

“These are not theoretical ideas. These are real businesses making real decisions earlier, larger, more productively because their incentives have changed.

“That matters because capital deepening is how productivity rises and productivity growth is the only way we will grow wages sustainably over time.”

She said the policy would only work if businesses believed it would endure.

“Firms do not invest in long-lived capital, plant, machinery and buildings if they think the tax rules may change at the change of an election.”

She called for Labour’s leader Chris Hipkins and his Finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds to commit to not reversing the policy.

“Will they commit to retaining Investment Boost as a permanent fixture of our tax settings to unlock growth, or will it be sacrificed to fund higher spending? This government’s position is clear.

“I would put to you that those who say they are on the side of growth and productivity but would sacrifice this effective policy are speaking out of both sides of their mouth.”

Edmonds, who is set to speak to the forum on Thursday afternoon, has previously said the Investment Boost policy is overall good for business, but stopped short of committing to retain it.

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

The Government’s Investment Boost is already changing investment behaviour, bringing projects forward, increasing scale, and lifting productivity across the economy, Minister for Economic Growth Nicola Willis says.

New Inland Revenue survey data shows the policy is working, tipping investment decisions early, increasing scale, and bringing capital forward.

“Among firms that invested in new assets and were aware of Investment Boost, 40 per cent say it increased their investment spending over the past year, including 11 per cent reporting a significant increase directly because of the policy,” Nicola Willis says.

“Looking ahead, the impact is even clearer. Nearly half of firms planning to invest over the next five years say Investment Boost is positively influencing those plans, with 14 per cent expecting a large increase in investment as a result.

More than half of firms surveyed report changing the timing, scale or type of investment they are making, including bringing projects forward and shifting toward productivity-enhancing assets.

“Inland Revenue modelling shows the policy reduces the effective marginal tax rate on new capital investment by around five to six percentage points on average, making previously marginal projects viable and encouraging more investment to proceed.”

This data underlines the importance of policy certainty to long-term growth.

“When it was launched, Inland Revenue estimated that Investment Boost would lift New Zealand’s GDP by 1 per cent, wages by 1.5 per cent and capital stock by 1.6 per cent over the next 20 years, with around half of those gains expected in the first five years – todays data shows we are well on track to reaching those marks.

“The Government has been clear it backs ownership, investment and stable productivity-enhancing tax policy.

“New Zealand does not grow by taxing more and investing less. It grows by backing ambition, rewarding success, and giving businesses the confidence to invest for the long term.”

Notes to editors:

 Investment Boost changes are already visible on the ground:

• A Dunedin manufacturer, United Machinists, has brought forward investment in robotics and automation rather than phasing it over several years;
• Foot Science International in Christchurch has accelerated investment in automation and renewable energy infrastructure, while;
• Vynco is investing in advanced manufacturing equipment to lift efficiency and expand capacity.

MIL OSI

A proposed liquefied natural gas terminal will bypass even the fast-track process in order to be built in time for winter next year, documents show.

The government plans to rush through as many of the required approvals as possible ahead of the election, “to give the preferred supplier greater policy certainty that New Zealand is committed to developing the facility”, a Cabinet paper said.

A critic of the proposal says pushing the entire process through so quickly is unwarranted and the public and local communities should be properly consulted.

Energy Minister Simon Watts said this week that the government would proceed with plans to commission a liquefied natural gas (LNG) import facility in Taranaki, with whole-of-life costs spread across all electricity users through a levy.

Watts said it would result in overall savings to households, because it would help to lower electricity premiums during dry years when hydro lakes ran low.

The Cabinet paper, released after the announcement, noted that “timing is very tight” to get the facility up and running in time for winter 2027.

“An LNG terminal will require regulatory consents and approvals if it is to be operational ahead of winter 2027, and the existing Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 processes are unlikely to be sufficient,” Watts wrote.

“I propose developing an Enabling Liquefied Natural Gas Bill to provide the necessary consents, approvals, levy power and any modifications to existing legislation to enable the preferred LNG facility to be built and operational ahead of winter 2027.”

That would protect against the risk of late project delivery, the paper said.

The paper also warned that a future government might not proceed with LNG, and recommended signing contracts by the middle of this year to lock the concept in.

Expediting consents through special legislation would also help, it said.

“Our objective is to provide as many of these approvals as possible before the election.”

There were still risks even with a rapid consent process.

“LNG import facilities are highly technical in nature,” the paper said.

“Further, New Zealand does not have an ideal location (large deep-water port close to the main gas pipeline) to locate an LNG import facility, meaning that the technical challenges of importing LNG here are more significant than in some other countries.”

The government should carry out further technical analysis before proceeding with a preferred proposal, and “be prepared not to proceed with an accelerated proposal should further analysis suggest that the proposal(s) is/are unworkable”.

That could include considering options that might not be up and running until late 2027 or early 2028.

However, any construction and delivery delays could mean “substantial industry exits”, the paper warned.

During the 2024 energy crisis, several industrial users paused operations while others closed completely.

2027 not ‘a magical winter’

Environmental Defense Society chair Gary Taylor said the LNG proposal and the timeframe “sounds like another rushed project, redolent of the [Interislander] ferry fiasco”.

“Good policy, particularly when it involves significant capital investment, should not be rushed like this,” he said.

“I don’t see why the winter of 2027 is a magical winter. If time is constrained, then let’s go for winter 2028 and do it properly.”

Claims of more industry exits if a dry year occured in the meantime were just that, he said.

“Those with vested interests do tend to wave shrouds to support their cause.”

Instead, additional time could be used for a more considered analysis of the proposal and its alternatives, along with more meaningful engagement during the political process.

“It would enable much better consideration than you’re going to get through a rushed select committee process if this proposed bill is put through the House under urgency,” Taylor said.

Multiple reports, including one commissioned by the government, have warned that imported LNG should only be considered as a last resort.

An annex to the Cabinet paper, comparing LNG to alternatives such as diesel peakers, concluded LNG could be brought online faster than any other option – though it gave a timeframe as late as 2029 to get a facility operational.

No substantive consideration was given to grid-scale battery storage systems, or rooftop solar.

Large-scale battery technology had not progessed enough to cover “long-duration cover needs”, while rooftop solar would not provide enough additional energy during winter, when supply was most likely to be a problem, the annex said.

Cabinet proposal mirrors independent report details

Much of the detail in the Cabinet paper mirrored the findings of an independent report commissioned from Boston Consulting Group (BCG) last year by the four gentailers – Contact, Genesis, Mercury and Meridian.

That report recommended LNG only as a fuel of last resort and recommended a $2 per megawatt hour (MWh) levy across all gas and electricity users to make it economically feasible.

The Cabinet paper referenced the BCG report several times, including its estimate of a $10/MWh saving on electricity prices.

A spokesperson for Watts’ office said the $10/MWh was “estimated by MBIE based on Concept Consulting modelling and MBIE’s analysis”, but said it was also consistent with the BCG estimate.

That $10 figure – together with the final proposed levy of between $2 and $4 – appeared to be the basis of the government’s claim that households would save an average $50 on their annual power bills.

A net $8/MWh saving – if it were passed on in its entirety – would translate to between $56 for an average household using 7MWh of electricity a year.

Watts’ spokesperson did not confirm whether that calculation was the same one the government had arrived at.

The Cabinet paper underscored the importance of not creating an ongoing dependency on LNG, which it said would risk an overall increase in power bills.

“Put simply, LNG should function as an insurance product: available when required but used only infrequently. Perhaps counterintuitively, LNG provides the greatest benefit when it is available as back-up and rarely used.”

BCG partner and report author Richard Hobbs said having LNG as a stand-by option in that way broadly made sense, but BCG had made many other recommendations.

“In and of itself, it’s not a silver bullet. There are a lot of other things that need to be done.”

The government needed to keep up the pace of renewables development, and address domestic gas supply and demand.

That included focusing on extracting what remained in existing gas fields – not exploring for new fields that could take a decade or more to come online.

The major gap was “really around the demand side, where there is not a programme to support users to transition from gas to electricity or biomass”, Hobbs said.

His report had recommended a $200 million fund to assist that transition.

The government scrapped the Labour-led government’s Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry (GIDI) fund, which served a similar purpose.

The Cabinet paper noted the need to “continue efforts to strengthen domestic gas supply and ensure alternatives like biomass and electrification continue in parallel, to create optionality, not dependency [on LNG]”.

It noted the BCG recommendation to set up a transition fund but did not endorse or suggest such a policy.

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

SINGAPORE / KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA – Media OutReach Newswire – 11 February 2026 – Point Hope, a local investment firm, has published a new research note examining the implications of accelerating artificial intelligence (AI) investment, infrastructure constraints, and evolving competitive dynamics within equities markets.

The research addresses two dominant concerns currently shaping investor sentiment. The first is whether AI will disrupt incumbent businesses, particularly in capital-light software sectors. The second relates to whether physical constraints — especially power generation, permitting, and grid capacity — may slow the rollout of AI infrastructure and temper expectations embedded in current market valuations.

According to the firm’s analysis, both concerns warrant careful consideration. Power generation remains capital-intensive and time-consuming, suggesting that AI deployment is likely to progress unevenly rather than in a linear fashion.

At the same time, the scale of capital investment underway is unprecedented. Large technology companies have outlined plans for an estimated US$600–700billion of AI-related capital expenditure in 2026, with a significant portion directed toward data centres, chips, servers, and supporting infrastructure. These commitments reflect their belief that AI will become a core input across the global economy.

The research argues that for equity investors, the more consequential question is not whether AI adoption will continue, but how it will reshape competitive advantage among incumbent businesses.

Recent market volatility has highlighted increasing scepticism toward established software companies, particularly those operating capital-light, subscription-based models. However, Point Hope cautions against assuming widespread displacement. Large software incumbents that possess entrenched enterprise relationships, network effects, and proprietary data, are likely to also have high switching costs for their customers, particularly in regulated or mission-critical environments.

Furthermore, the research notes that technological adoption does not necessarily imply wholesale reinvention. In many cases, AI is expected to reinforce incumbents’ competitive positions rather than undermine them.

This durability-focused perspective underpins Point Hope’s long-term equity investment approach, which emphasises resilience to disruption, cash-flow generation, and the ability to compound value across market cycles.

“We view earnings and cash-flow durability as the ultimate arbiters of value,” says Guan Zhen Tan, Chief Investment Officer of Point Hope. “That perspective encourages patience during periods when market narratives move faster than fundamentals.”

Point Hope’s research concludes that while markets will ultimately resolve these questions through earnings releases in the coming months, periods of heightened narrative-driven volatility may reward patient investors willing to prioritise fundamentals over short-term themes.

https://www.pointhopegroup.com/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/point-hope/posts/
https://x.com/AnchorGenAssets

Hashtag: #PointHope

The issuer is solely responsible for the content of this announcement.

– Published and distributed with permission of Media-Outreach.com.

Small- and medium-sized businesses SMEs are handling more work than usual, with nearly 40 percent reporting an increase in levels normally expected in the first quarter, according to a recent survey of more than 500 businesses.

The first quarter survey by accounting software firm MYOB indicates a quarter of SMEs had less work than usual in the pipeline, though there was an increase in the number expecting an increase in trade over the first three months of 2026.

Several key sectors, including 38 percent of manufacturing SMEs, 37 percent of retail businesses and 33 percent of the construction and trades businesses surveyed reported an increase in orders or work commissioned before the end of March.

MYOB chief customer officer Dean Chadwick said many SMEs were still navigating uneven demand and ongoing cost pressures, though the survey results suggested business activity for the new year had started on firmer footing.

“SMEs ended 2025 with largely steady trading conditions in the final few months of the year, though performance varied across the sector,” he said.

“While more than a quarter of businesses exceeded their sales expectations and most met their forecasts, a quarter saw a softer-than-predicted performance.”

The survey indicated SMEs were moving on their own spending plans, with 44 percent of those surveyed planning to bring forward deductible business purchases on things like supplies or equipment, before 31 March.

“We know from our research at the end of last year that many local businesses are planning to take advantage of the Investment Boost to maximise business investment this year,” he said.

“We can also see from the latest data that businesses are making good on the growth ambitions they signalled at the end of last year – not only seizing opportunities to increase sales before the end of the financial year, but also upping their own spending on plant, supplies and equipment to boost their operations.”

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

The country would be better off burning the coal it has in reserve than building a billion-dollar liquefied natural gas terminal, a renewable energy advocate says.

The government said this week it would proceed with plans to build a liquefied natural gas (LNG) import facility in Taranaki, with the estimated $1 billion capital cost spread across all electricity users through a levy.

Energy Minister Simon Watts said that it would result in overall savings to households, because it would help to lower electricity premiums during dry years.

A rapidly declining domestic gas supply – with availability half of what was expected three years ago – had left the electricity sector exposed during such years, when hydro lakes ran low, Watts said.

Several reports, including one commissioned by the government, have found that LNG would be a feasible but costly option, and should only be used as a last resort.

Rewiring Aotearoa chief executive Mike Casey said there was no disagreement that New Zealand had a dry-year energy security issue that needed to be fixed urgently.

In the long term, large-scale renewables along with small-scale household and business solar would solve the problem, he said.

“The issue is how do we solve it in the next few years, because we can’t see what happened [in 2024] when prices spiked and businesses started shutting down.”

LNG was the wrong solution, because it had an expensive upfront capital cost and locked the country into yet another imported fossil fuel option, he said.

Instead, the country should be eyeing diesel and “our giant mountain of coal” at Huntly Power Station, Casey said.

“What’s the cheapest capital option to keep the lights on in New Zealand, keep power prices lower and to increase our energy security?

“To me, that is probably a combination of the coal seam that we already have available, the coal that we already have in the country, combined with potentially diesel peakers, which is running those peaker power plants using diesel.”

Casey acknowledged the “mild” irony of a renewables advocate pushing for coal and diesel.

“But we’re in a situation, through an energy system that hasn’t been serving New Zealanders for so long … where unfortunately we do need some fossil fuels,” he said.

“The way we get out of it is not investing in more fossil fuels, it’s using the fossil fuels that we currently use, and figuring out how to reduce that consumption as fast as we can.”

Late last year, the Commerce Commission granted permission to the four gentailers – Genesis, Meridian, Mercury and Contact – to stockpile coal at Huntly Power Station.

The government considered, and rejected, diesel peakers as an option but did not provide detailed reasons for doing so in its announcement on Tuesday.

Additional details would be available when the relevant Cabinet paper was published, a factsheet accompanying the announcement said.

Diesel was more expensive per megawatt-hour, but had “much, much cheaper” upfront capital costs, Casey said.

“I think the diesel peakers solve the dry-year problem. Marsden Point is set up – it’s already got all the cables going away from it, that’s where all the diesel comes into New Zealand.”

The peakers could then be sold when long-term energy security had been locked in through the pipeline of renewables, he said.

A Boston Consulting Group report commissioned by the gentailers last year said diesel was “easily accessed and [could be] used immediately in current facilities for generation”.

It found that LNG would be cheaper – but only if the capital cost was spread across the entire electricity system through a levy, similar to the one now proposed by the government.

“Importing LNG is then not economically justified when LNG fixed costs are recovered via fuel, knowing diesel would be cheaper and entails lower capital and infrastructure risk.”

The cost-comparison to diesel, and the projected savings to households, were not at all guaranteed, Casey said.

“The price of LNG is very volatile. We saw the prices spike massively when Russia invaded the Ukraine.”

Casey believed the government was also overstating the dry-year benefit.

“I think dry-year is also solved very conveniently with an LNG terminal, but this is really about prolonging industry use of gas, prolonging household use of gas.”

Diesel peakers would not solve that problem, and the government needed to pay attention to how to transition large industrial users off gas as fast as possible,

Analysis from the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) showed about two-thirds of current industrial gas use could be electrified.

“A third of it could be electrified with no subsidy, and for the billion dollars that they’re suggesting that they put on the LNG gas terminal, that could be put towards the electification of a lot of our industry, which would free up an awful lot of our domestic supply.”

The government had “lambasted” the now-scrapped Government Investment in Decarbonising Indiusrty (GIDI) fund as corporate welfare when it was in opposition, he said.

“I can agree with that argument but on the other side of that, we’re now basically forcing New Zealand’s electricity consumers to subsidise another solution that also costs a billion dollars – and this time it’s to keep gas going for longer.”

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

Advances multi-typology brand expansion into more than 10 new cities in Asia Pacific and Europe, including lyf in Wellington and Ascott in Taipei

– Published and distributed with permission of Media-Outreach.com.

MIL OSI

Auckland mayor Wayne Brown says the government is unqualified to lead the city’s economic recovery and should leave it to local council.

The comments came as Brown again renewed calls for a bed levy tax, despite the government’s opposition to the move.

A suite of events were set to be held in Auckland throughout the year, as major infrastructure projects neared completion.

The long-delayed International Convention Centre was finally due to open on Wednesday.

Construction of the Convention Centre began back in 2015 and was initially supposed to take 38 months, but had been plagued by a budget blow-out and legal wrangling.

“We’ve been waiting for such a long time. [Convention centres] are hard to make money out of.

“I understand it’s booked up pretty well, so it will bring in conventions and it will be part of the tourist offering. But that whole tourist thing is a bit of a question for us.”

The New Zealand leg of SailGP also returned to the waters of Waitematā Harbour this weekend.

Brown told Morning Report both events were a positive for the supercity.

“Those are two good things on this week, that’s for sure,” he said.

“It’s a big year really when you think about it.

“The Polo finals and the Blues and Chiefs are playing shortly. There’s a lot of sport,” he said.

Another long overdue milestone, the City Rail Link was also due to be completed later this year.

The Ocean Race, formerly known as the Round the World Race, was scheduled to return to the City of Sails in 2027.

Brown wasted no time pointing to the small matter of the Election, another major event pertinent to Auckland residents, he said.

“If you don’t win Auckland, you don’t get to be the government.”

Brown had long campaigned for a bed tax on visitors to help fund destination marketing and events.

He again expressed his desire for the scheme.

“The government can’t bring itself to do that yet, so that they’re raiding tourists at the border. And then central government will tell us how we spend on things, which is something we don’t like.

“All these big events want some money up front. And if we have the bed night levy we will have the money up front.”

Tourism and Hospitality Minister Louise Upston, said a bed tax was not something she was pursuing this term.

“Our government has already announced a number of initiatives to boost tourism and events across New Zealand and in Auckland, including our $70 million major events and tourism package and a regional tourism boost announcement which invests in campaigns to market New Zealand (and Auckland) to overseas visitors.”

Upston said the government was firmly focused on growing the economy, including the Auckland economy, and tourism and major events remained integral to that.

“I recognise there’s been an interest in bed tax and am also aware of Wayne Brown’s recent comments.”

In response to Auckland’s lagging economy and high unemployment rate, the mayor said “it had its own ideas”.

Council-led initiatives such as the Auckland Innovation & Technology Alliance showed the council was better suited than the government in driving investment into the city, Brown said.

“Economic development; we’ve decided that council will lead this, because the government doesn’t quite know how to do that.”

When asked if he felt the government had dropped the ball, he replied “they hadn’t didn’t pick it up”.

“They’re not quite sure where it is/ There’s a lot we can do ourselves as well. Instead of them initiating things, we just want them to help with what we’re going to initiate.

“There’s too much centralised decision making in this country.”

Minister for Auckland, Simeon Brown said the government was focused on rebuilding the economy and Auckland was central to that.

“That’s why we’re fast-tracking major infrastructure like the $200 million Port of Auckland extension and incentivising business investment through Investment Boost and our Going for Growth agenda.

“The opening of the International Convention Centre and the City Rail Link later this year will further lift jobs and economic activity.”

Simeon Brown said business confidence in Auckland was at its highest in over a decade.

“GDP is up 12.1 per cent on 2019, labour force participation is 72.8 per cent, and CBD office vacancies have fallen for the first time since 2022 – a clear sign businesses are backing the city again.

The Mayor and Auckland Council would be wise to focus on keeping costs down for Aucklanders.”

Supporting a rates cap last week would have been a good first step, Simeon Brown added.

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