Some Xero users say a cumbersome compensation process has compounded frustration following last week’s platform disruptions.

A day after it announced record revenues, Xero is facing ongoing fallout from a week-long disruption to its accounting platform that was only fully resolved on Monday.

Some users have described the company’s compensation process as overly complex and frustrating.

Affected customers have received emails offering credits and inviting them to submit compensation claims, but several users told RNZ the process was onerous to the point of not being worth the time involved.

Brisbane-based company director James Hita and Hamilton business owner Hilke Giles said they were directed to a generic online support page that did not include a clear option to request a credit.

Users are required to submit supporting documentation for each claim, and Hita said the promised five-hour response time for queries elapsed without a reply.

He described the process as “a Band-aid on a stab wound”.

Giles said she could not understand why, as a business recovering from the disruptions, customers were required to start from scratch explaining issues on a page that “doesn’t even include ‘request a credit’ as an option”.

On Thursday, Hita finally received an email from Xero confirming a one-week credit would be applied to his subscription as a result of the outage.

However, Giles questioned why credits had not been automatically applied to affected accounts.

“Why couldn’t they provide a simple solution, like crediting customers for the subscription fees during the disruptions, instead of making them jump through time-consuming hoops?” she said.

Some users also expressed concern the disruption could delay tax returns, risking penalties.

New Zealand’s Inland Revenue and the Australian Taxation Office confirmed Xero had contacted them about the issue.

Both agencies said taxpayers and agents affected by the outage should contact them directly if needed, with requests to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Xero responds

RNZ sought comment from Xero, which provided the following statement:

“As our CEO Sukhinder Singh Cassidy shared, some customers recently experienced intermittent disruptions accessing Xero due to a combination of platform issues and the third-party services we rely on. We sincerely apologise to affected customers for the impact this had.

“Affected subscription owners have been sent a link to apply for a credit, which Xero will review and process.

“For our accounting and bookkeeping partners who own multiple subscriptions within their practice, they can log a single credit request for all affected subscriptions with only one entry.

“We have deployed fixes and our services are currently restored. Our engineering teams continue to work round the clock to monitor and resolve any further impact to our services

“We remain dedicated to providing the reliable service our partners and small business customers expect from us.”

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

Xero has reported record full‑year revenue, even as net profit fell due to acquisition costs.

Key numbers for the year ended March compared with a year ago:

• Net profit after tax $167.4m vs $227.8m
• Revenue $2.75 billion vs $2.1 billion
• Underlying earnings (EBITDA) $789.5m vs $638.5m
• Gross margin 83.9 percent vs 89.0 percent
• Dividend: none

Accounting software firm Xero said revenue rose 31 percent to $2.75 billion, driven by strong customer growth and accelerating expansion in the United States.

The company added 506,000 customers over the year, taking its total customer base to 4.9 million worldwide.

Underlying earnings increased 24 percent to $789 million, while free cash flow rose 9 percent to $554 million.

Chief executive Sukhinder Singh Cassidy said the result reflected disciplined execution across Xero’s key markets.

“Our strong full‑year results demonstrate Xero’s disciplined execution and macro‑resilience,” she said, pointing to accelerating growth in the US following the integration of payments platform Melio.

Reported net profit after tax fell 27 percent to $167 million, largely due to transaction costs, higher financing expenses and operating losses associated with the Melio acquisition, completed in October.

Xero said the deal weighed on statutory profit as the company moved from a net cash to a net debt position.

Growth was broad‑based, with revenue in Australia and New Zealand up 18 percent, the UK up 26 percent, and US revenue surging, supported by Melio and strong organic growth.

Singh Cassidy said Xero was positioning itself for longer‑term growth, particularly through artificial intelligence.

“With proprietary data and trust as our foundation, Xero is well positioned to be a long‑term AI winner.”

Xero does not pay a dividend, preferring to reinvest cash into growth.

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

Analysis – Nicola Willis has put her money where her mouth is and reduced her Budget’s operating allowance for a third year running.

For years, the Finance Minister has been relentless in her criticism of the previous minister, Grant Robertson, and his extensive operating allowances – $5.9 billion in 2022 and $4.8b in 2023 – promising to rein in spending and prioritise fiscal discipline.

In her first Budget in 2024 she told reporters in the lock-up that she was “weaning off the addiction to spending” that Robertson had created over six years of a Labour government.

At that year’s Budget, an operating allowance of $3.5b had been forecast, which was ultimately reduced by $300 million to $3.2b.

Last year the slashing was even more aggressive when a forecast $2.4b allowance was chopped in half by her pre-Budget speech to just $1.3b – a reduction of $1.1b.

And on Wednesday the Prime Minister delivered the news for her, telling a Business NZ audience in Auckland that the forecast $2.4b allowance had been nudged down by $300m to $2.1b.

Those operating allowances are tight, but critics will find it difficult to describe them as austerity, especially with the likes of the Taxpayers’ Union arguing the number should be closer to zero.

Singing from that same songsheet traditionally is the ACT Party. When leader David Seymour was asked at Parliament on Wednesday whether he would have liked the cuts to go further, he said his aim would have been a “less than zero” Budget.

“Speaking as the ACT leader, yeah, I think we need to be a lot tougher on reducing the deficit and reducing government spending, but also speaking as the Deputy Prime Minister, I’m proud to be part of this government and I know that we wouldn’t have made the level of savings we have [without ACT].”

Seymour said the savings had ACT’s fingerprints all over them and his ministers were the ones at the Cabinet table putting pressure on the coalition to make “careful use of taxpayer money”.

Willis told RNZ on Wednesday that if it weren’t for the fuel crisis her operating allowance reduction would be larger and more in tune with the cuts seen last year.

“It is the case that without the fuel crisis, yes, we may have been able to have an even tighter allowance, but my view is that we have achieved a great deal by reducing our forecast operating allowance, ensuring that we’re building up buffers for the future, keeping New Zealand financially secure.”

The buffers are needed more than ever given the increasingly volatile world countries are operating in, where in the space of a few weeks a US-Israel attack on Iran can shoot petrol prices at the pump in New Zealand beyond $3 a litre.

That’s required unexpected support packages that are already chewing up some of the operating allowance put aside for this year’s Budget to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

While the operating allowance restraint speaks direct to Willis’ narrative over the past two-and-a-half years, this year’s Budget is accommodating a $2.2b increase on what was forecast for capital expenditure – up from $3.5b to $5.7b.

Christopher Luxon addressed that increase, saying “the recent crisis has acted as a timely reminder that significant levels of capital investment will be required in the coming years”.

But he also signalled it didn’t reflect a “permanently higher rate of borrowing” and that in the years ahead a balance would be found between saving and borrowing.

Seymour also defended the increased capital spend saying it was to deal with “things that are yet to be announced, that I think are significant and timely investment”, adding that in later years in the fiscal cycle the capital expenditure would reduce.

While Budgets are drastically impacted by global and national events and disasters – think the Christchurch earthquakes, the Covid-19 pandemic, or the ongoing fuel crisis – they’re also shaped by individual government’s political decisions.

Willis will be commended by many for slashing the operating allowances at each of her Budgets to date, but remains open to criticism from other quarters about both what the coalition cut and continues to prioritise spending on.

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

Transformational Acquisitions Expected to Contribute to Long Term Growth Starting 2Q26

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

The Opportunity Party’s tax policy is a welcome contribution to the tax debate, but misses the opportunity to tackle wealth inequality and its impact on living standards for ordinary people, says the Better Taxes for a Better Future campaign.

“While it’s great to see a genuine attempt to address inequality through their proposed “citizens income”, the decision to promote a land tax rather than to fairly tax all forms of income and wealth leaves major gaps,” says Glenn Barclay, spokesperson for the Better Taxes campaign.

“We applaud their attempt to propose solutions to problems many people are facing in terms of job insecurity and insufficient income. But ultimately, we need to tackle the root causes of increasing inequality and declining living standards.”

“We also need to close the gaps in tax on big corporates and we need to ensure the wealthiest are paying their fair share. We know that the very wealthiest make most of their wealth not from property (including land), but through financial assets (such as shares in companies) and this wealth goes largely untaxed in New Zealand,” says Barclay.

“Just as the Opportunity Party’s policy came out, the OECD released their report on NZ’s economy, which included recommendations to more comprehensively tax gains from property and shares, and a windfall tax on capital gains from rezoning land. These recommendations highlight the need to take a more comprehensive approach to rebalancing our tax system.”

“Our Tax Policy Statement, sets out a mix of policies that could generate the revenue we need to fund the public services we all rely upon, while ensuring that big corporates and the wealthiest are contributing their fair share to maintaining these services that they depend on too,” says Barclay.

“Fairly taxing all forms of income and wealth is also critical to addressing increasing wealth inequality and supporting a more productive economy that generates jobs and supports good living standards for all.”

MIL OSI

National’s partners ACT and New Zealand First have taken a tumble in support in the latest Taxpayers’ Union-Curia poll, but the coalition bloc is still holding its lead.

Under the results, released on Tuesday, the government bloc would receive 62 seats, down three since April, compared to the opposition bloc on 58, up three.

Labour remained the most popular party on 31.9 percent, but took a sizeable knock since the last survey, dropping 1.5 points.

National edged up 0.2 points to hit 30 percent. New Zealand First was down 1.9 points to 11.7 percent.

The Green Party was in fourth spot on 9.7 percent, also down 1.9 points, while ACT took the biggest hit, down 2.5 points to 6.5 percent.

Te Pāti Māori came in at 4.1 percent, up 1.5 points.

On those numbers, National would bring 39 MPs into Parliament. They would be joined by 15 MPs from New Zealand First and eight from ACT, to make a 62-strong coalition.

Labour would pick up 41 MPs but would not have a pathway to power, even with the 12 Green MPs and five from Te Pāti Māori.

On the preferred prime minister measure, National’s Christopher Luxon retook the lead, climbing 1 point to 21.5 percent. Labour’s Chris Hipkins dropped 2.7 points to 19 percent.

New Zealand First’s Winston Peters is in third spot, on 11.6 percent, down 0.5 points.

The poll was conducted by Curia Market Research Ltd for the NZ Taxpayers’ Union. It is a random poll of 1,000 adult New Zealanders and is weighted to the overall adult population. It was conducted by phone (landlines and mobile) and online between Sunday 03 May and Thursday 07 May 2026. It has a maximum margin of error of +/- 3.1%. The number of decided voters on the vote questions was 914. There were 49 (4.9 percent) undecided voters and 37 (3.7 percent) who refused the vote question.

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

KiwiSaver members in aggressive funds have done better under Democrat US presidents and National governments in New Zealand.

Morningstar has compiled data showing typical returns in various time periods.

KiwiSaver launched in July 2007, when Helen Clark’s Labour government was in power, and George W Bush was the US president.

In the period of Bush’s tenure, conservative funds had an average return of 8.37 percent a year. Balanced funds lost 2.36 percent a year, growth funds lost 8.88 percent a year and aggressive funds 14.33 percent.

During the period of Clark’s time in office, conservative funds made 7.54 percent a year, balanced funds lost 4.18 percent a year, growth funds lost 10.87 percent a year and aggressive funds 16.63 percent a year.

It should be noted that this was the period when the global financial crisis was affecting markets, but most people had small balances so might not have noticed the falls so much.

From US President Barack Obama’s tenure on, all funds returned positive per annum returns on average.

Conservative funds returned 5.06 percent a year by Morningstar’s calculation, balanced funds 7.34 percent a year, growth funds 8.35 percent and aggressive funds 8.85 percent.

Good times (for the markets) continued in Donald Trump’s first tenure.

Conservative funds returned 4.79 percent on average a year, balanced funds 8.4 percent, growth funds 10.14 percent and aggressive funds 11.75.

Under US President Joe Biden, conservative funds’ return dropped to 1.06 percent a year, balanced funds 5.64 percent, growth funds 7.93 percent and aggressive 11. 1 percent.

Things picked up again when Trump returned to office. So far, conservative funds have returned 3.97 percent a year, balanced funds 8.13 percent a year, growth funds 10.13 percent and aggressive 12.91.

“There is an argument that Trump has been quite good for markets,” Koura founder Rupert Carlyon said.

“Tax breaks, deregulation all that kind of stuff… the end of his [first] term was impacted by Covid.

“Generally the markets would prefer a Republic administration it’s just really hard to get the data on that because there’s always a crisis, particularly if you’re there for four or eight years.”

University of Auckland senior finance lecturer Gertjan Verdicket said the average aggressive return under Republican US administrations was 3.44 percent a year.

Under democrats it was 9.97 percent. But for conservative funds, the average under Republicans was 5.67 percent and under democrats 3.06 percent.

In New Zealand, Labour governments had a much lower return for aggressive funds than National governments.

Verdicket said: “In the US, under Democrat presidents, the return is significantly higher for the [aggressive funds]. The return on the conservative portfolio is higher under the Republicans. The latter could point to a ‘light-to-safety’ effect, where people shift from equities to bonds. It’s more a risk-off principle. If you are looking for an explanation: increased economic uncertainty and disaster risk – especially over the longer-term.

“If we compare this to NZ, the flip happens when you look at NZ prime ministers. Labour has a significant underperformance in the most aggressive portfolio, whereas the difference between the two in the conservative portfolio is way smaller. This, to me, could also point to a flight to safety, but then toward the different political ideology – relative to the US. Under Labour, they switch from equities to bonds, that’s why you see the increase in returns of the conservative portfolio.”

He said other literature showed evidence of higher market performance under democratic than republican presidencies.

Under John Key’s government, between 2008 and 2017, conservative funds returned 5.39 percent a year, balanced funds 8.14 percent, growth funds 9.32 percent and aggressive funds 10.18 percent.

Under Jacinda Ardern’s Labour government between 2017 and 2023, conservative funds returned 1.53 percent a year, balanced 4.41 percent a year, growth funds 5.84 percent and aggressive 7.44 percent.

So far, under the National government, conservative funds have returned 5.83 percent, balanced funds 11.75 percent, growth funds 14.58 percent and aggressive 18.38 percent.

Carlyon said, with so much of KiwiSaver money invested offshore, New Zealand politicians were largely irrelevant.

The settings they applied to KiwiSaver were more important, he said,

“I’m not a supporter of either party, by the way… but Labour were the ones that brought in KiwiSaver and also set up the superannuation fund.

“John Key under National, they are the ones that then cancelled contributions into the super fund. They’re the ones that also dropped [contributions] from 4 plus 4 to 3 plus 3, got rid of the kickstart, got rid of half the government contribution.

“The last Labour government left it alone and didn’t touch anything. But we’ve seen continual kind of weakening by the National Party. And probably the most damaging thing that the John Key government did for retirement savings, was the total remuneration rules.

“I think they brought that in in 2009, and that was like, that was probably, was the biggest thing that undermined KiwiSaver of all..”

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

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

More than 100,000 people have claimed a rates rebate so far this year.

The Rates Rebate scheme helps lower-income household who are struggling to pay their council rates.

From 1 July 2026, the maximum rebate will increase from $805 to $830. The income abatement threshold for SuperGold Cardholders will increase from $45,000 to $46,400.

The income abatement threshold for other ratepayers will increase from $32,210 to $33,210.

A household without a SuperGold Card with rates of $2000 a year can get some level of rebate until they earn $42,026 a year.

Every household only earning NZ Super with rates of at least $2000 will be able to get the full rebate.

The Department of Internal Affairs said for the current 2025/26 rating year, it had refunded councils 105,698 rates rebate claims.

That covered the period between July last year and March.

In the previous full year, there were 104,344 claims refunded.

“That means with a few months to go we have already exceeded last year’s claims.”

Local Government Minister Simon Watts said: “We know the cost of living is putting immense pressure on Kiwis, with rising rates adding a further burden to household budgets.

“The government is committed to easing cost-of-living pressures for Kiwis. By making increases to the Rates Rebate Scheme, we are delivering targeted support to low-income ratepayers in need of assistance with paying their rates bill.”

Wellington City Council said it had processed 2223 rates rebate applications so far this year and had 244 active payment arrangements.

Hamilton City Council said it had approved 2908 in the current year, up from 2697 in the whole of the previous year. It had also approved 509 under its own council scheme.

Auckland Council said it had approved 14,500 so far this year, 14,800 in the last full year and 16,000 the year before that. It also had 1508 active payment plans in place.

FinCap, the network for financial mentors, said it was seeing an increasing number of debts to local government among people who sought help but a drop in the median amount of the debt.

“FinCap hears regularly from financial mentors who have assisted people with rates arrears as one of their multiple cost of living pressures. Those on fixed incomes, such as super, being stuck financially are often mentioned in this context,” spokesperson Jake Lilley said.

“The support approaches by councils for people who are having difficulty paying rates on time varies a lot across all the communities that financial mentors support. FinCap has recommended that councils look to the guidance in the framework for debt to government for all the debts they might create.”

The Taxpayers Union’s survey of councils showed the average rates bill across the country is now $3386, up $451 from the previous year. It said the highest average was in Porirua, at $5591, and the lowest in Otorohanga, at $2554.

The government is also working on a rates cap plan.

“Everyone is having to prioritise due to the tough economic times – councils are no different. They need guard-rails so that they can focus on prioritisation and make decisions about what it is best to spend their revenue on,” Watts said.

“Councils effectively operate as monopolies, and we have seen year on year rate increases which ratepayers cannot continue to sustain. That’s why we are introducing a rates cap to keep rates under control.”

Details on the final rates cap model are expected to be announced later this year.

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

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

Cancer diagnostics company Pacific Edge is aiming to raise up to another $24 million as it continues to battle to regain Medicare coverage in the United States, get reimbursement for its tests, and position the business for growth.

The company’s battle was reflected in its financial results for the year ended March, with a bigger net loss of $35.7m compared with a $29.9m loss last year.

Revenue dropped to $11.5m from $21.8m the year earlier, reflecting the Medicare cut, with testing at US labs falling to 18,784 tests from 23,885 tests the year earlier.

The case for more capital

“The new capital we are seeking today will … support the Company and its operations to regain Medicare coverage and assist our move towards the broader adoption of our tests by commercial payers in the US and further afield,” chair Simon Flood said, adding the company had already made progress.

“Backed by robust clinical evidence, the endorsement of our tests in clinical guidelines, and growing momentum in clinical opinion, we have firmly established ourselves as the first mover and market leader in bladder cancer diagnostics.

“We are determined not to lose that momentum. All of Pacific Edge’s Directors intend to take part in the equity raising. We encourage you to support this offer.”

Second round of funding

The company raised $20m and cut costs last year to help it gather scientific evidence to convince Medicare authorities to reinstate coverage, as well as get payment coverage for its tests.

The latest equity offer consisted of a placement of $18m new ordinary shares to eligible investors at 17 cents per share and an offer of $6m new shares to retail investors with an ability to accept over subscriptions.

The case for support

Pacific Edge expected Medicare administrative contractor Novitas to release a draft documentation to support the reinstatement of Medicare approval before September 2026.

Pacific Edge chief executive Dr Peter Meintjes said reimbursement would assist with increasing revenue and reducing average monthly cash burn below the current target of $2.5 million per month for FY 27.

“The capital we are seeking today will set a clear path to reimbursement for our tests … support continued investment in our clinical evidence and invest in product innovation,” he said.

“We are excited by the growth we see ahead, and we encourage shareholders to support us to take advantage of these opportunities.”

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

A 25-year-old earning an average income could end up about $90,000 better off over the course of their working life if reforms suggested by the OECD for the retirement savings system were implemented.

But not everyone is convinced it’s the right way forward.

The OECD’s latest economic survey for New Zealand said New Zealand’s tax treatment of financial savings was unusual.

When New Zealanders save for retirement, their contributions are made from taxed income and their investment returns are taxed, but the eventual withdrawal is not. This is referred to as a tax-tax-exempt, or TTE system.

Australia and Turkey are the only other OECD countries that operate this way, and Australia has tax incentives to encourage saving.

The OECD said almost all other countries use a system where returns are exempt, and sometimes tax the withdrawal.

This can mean better outcomes because untaxed returns are able to compound.

“New Zealand’s TTE taxation of retirement savings significantly suppressed long-term wealth accumulation relative to expenditure tax benchmarks such as EET,” the OECD report said.

The report said, as part of overall reform of New Zealand’s capital and savings income taxation regime, the government should shift the burden of taxation of pension savings from contributions and returns towards withdrawals.

The Retirement Commission said higher-income earners would be the most significantly affected by tax concessions under the EET system. “The value of exempting contributions and fund earnings rises sharply with income and investment returns.”

That was something the OECD noted – it said higher-income people hold 50 percent of all the assets in KiwiSaver.

“A quid pro quo would be to means test their access to public pensions based on the extra revenue they accrue from higher KiwiSaver balances due to the pensions savings returns tax reform. Confining means testing to the top income decile would also help minimise the private pension savings disincentive effects, although these appear to be tiny when tax changes are made inside an autoenrolment scheme like KiwiSaver.”

The commission said there was little evidence that the concessions would increase overall saving and instead were likely to incentivises saving that would have happened anyway.

“Many people have saved under a TTE regime with the expectation that withdrawals will be tax free. Taxing those withdrawals would amount to excessive taxation, while exempting them would require complex grandfathering and parallel systems.”

Shamubeel Eaqub, chief economist at KiwiSaver provider Simplicity, calculated the changes could mean about $90,000 extra in today’s dollars at retirement for a 25-year-old earning an average income.

“The political fight is about who that $90,000 of efficiency gain accrues to, versus who pays for it now.”

Kirk Hope, chief executive of the Financial Services Council, which represents KiwiSaver providers, said the report was a useful contribution.

“Anything that helps Kiwis save more for retirement is worth looking at. Reducing the tax people pay while their savings are growing could help build stronger balances over time.

“But the detail matters. Changes could affect savers, employers, future retirees and the Government’s books, so they need to be carefully thought through.

“Retirement is a long-term plan, so people need confidence that the rules are clear and stable.”

Koura founder Rupert Carlyon said the suggestions made perfect sense.

“I think what they’re actually recommending is a move to the UK-based model which is you tax on the way out versus the way in. In the UK how it works is that you let people contribute pre-tax income and then tax withdrawals. Generally people like it because they withdraw less, they’ve got a lower income in retirement so they end up saving and moving to a lower tax bracket at that point in time.”

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

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

Got questions? RNZ has launched a podcast, ‘No Stupid Questions’, with Susan Edmunds.

We’d love to hear more of your questions about money and the economy. You can send through written questions, like these ones, but even better, you can drop us a voice memo to our email questions@rnz.co.nz.

You can also sign up to RNZ’s new money newsletter, ‘Money with Susan Edmunds’.

I was born in New Zealand and still have a valid NZ passport, started work in 1962 at the age of 15, and one shilling and sixpence of the tax I paid went into social security for my age pension. Where is it?

What happened to it? When did it stop?

After paying taxes for 33 years in NZ, why will the NZ system not pay me an age pension, if I live overseas in southeast Asia. That’s where all my family and friends are?

After working another 17 years in Australia, I retired at age 65, after paying taxes for 50 years, and I do collect the OAP in Australia, but only for 26 weeks and then it stops, which means I have to return to Australia every 26 weeks.

When you are near 80 years of age and have health problems, it is not easy to do.

I’ll take your questions in order.

University of Auckland associate professor Susan St John tells me that, in 1939, a social security tax of one shilling in the pound was imposed on all income. Later, it was increased to one shilling and six pence.

This was paid into a separate fund, but it was not intended to be regarded as a contributory insurance scheme. Revenue from the tax was only expected to cover about half the cost of the social security system.

She said the fund was abolished in 1964 and, in 1969, the social security tax was absorbed into the income tax scales. That money isn’t somewhere you can access now.

“It was not a fund like the NZ Super Fund, with actual invested assets.”

In terms of travelling around the world and receiving a pension, people can sometimes receive a New Zealand pension in another country, depending on what social security agreements are in place between the countries.

It sounds like your entitlement is now coming from Australia, so you probably need to discuss this with that country’s government to determine your path forward.

My wife and I are separated. I live in Tauranga and she in our home in Wellington.

Can you please advise which pension rate I will be entitled to when I reach 65 at the end of the year.

If you’re separated and living separately, you should be entitled to the single rate.

You’ll be asked for details of your living situation when you apply for NZ Super.

I am wanting to find out whom to advise when someone is about to turn 65 please. I understand we need to inform a Government department?

Also, does that mean employer automatically stops contributing to KiwiSaver? Can we still contribute to KiwiSaver and continue to work as per normal?

What is the amount a single person receive after tax? Is there a disadvantage, if you keep working, even if your income is quite low, for example $66,000?

How do we maximize the best bang for the buck, without paying too much tax, or how to navigate paying the correct amount of tax to avoid tax payment at the end of year.

Also, is it good to talk to a financial adviser and what is the best way to find out the right adviser for you? Without all the fluff?

I’ll answer these questions in order too.

You do need to apply to Work and Income to receive NZ Super. You can do this online and the process steps you through it.

If you don’t already have a client number, you’ll need to apply for one, and that can take a day or two.

Your employer does not have to continue to contribute to KiwiSaver once you’re 65, but some do. You can continue working and contributing as normal for as long as you want to.

The after-tax rate will depend on whether you’re working or not. If you’re on the M tax rate and NZ Super is your main income source, the single rate is $1110.30 a fortnight.

If you keep working, you may pay a higher rate of tax on your NZ Super.

As you are probably aware, New Zealand has a marginal tax system. If you earn $66,000 a year, your first $15,600 is taxed at 10.5 percent, then your income between $15,601-53,500 is taxed at 17.5 percent, and your income above that is taxed at 30 percent.

If you earn another $33,600 a year from NZ Super, that means you’re earning a total $99,600 before tax. The amount up to $78,100 will be taxed at 30 percent, but the amount over $78,101 will be taxed at 33 percent.

If you weren’t working, all your pension would be taxed at the 10.5 percent and 17.5 percent rates.

You still end up better off overall for working, but make sure you have the right tax code applied to all your income streams, so you don’t end up being taxed too much or left with a bill.

It’s a great idea to get advice on your finances when you’re approaching a change like this. An accountant can help with the tax stuff or a financial adviser, such as members of Financial Advice New Zealand, could be a good option.

[ https://rnz.us6.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=211a938dcf3e634ba2427dde9&id=b4c9a30ed6 Sign up for Money with Susan Edmunds], a weekly newsletter covering all the things that affect how we make and spend money

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

“This will be a free-for-all, will it?” RNZ host Guyon Espiner – with tongue in cheek – asked Media and Communications Minister Paul Goldsmith on Midday Report last Wednesday.

“We’ve got no Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA), so I can go for it?”

Moments earlier, the minister had announced the government’s intention to scrap our official broadcasting watchdog.

RNZ Nights host Emile Donovan opened his show that night with a blast of bleeped-out spoof swearing. Stuff political reporter

Glen McConnell kicked off his TikTok post with a video volley of bleeped bad language, before explaining the differences between the internet and the airwaves – but airwaves are not a free-fire zone just yet.

Goldsmith’s just-released statement also said new legislation “will be drafted in the coming months”.

“The BSA will continue in its role until it is passed into law.”

There’s also an election in the coming months and Goldsmith went on to tell Midday Report the change wasn’t likely before then.

(The BSA also handles complaints about election advertisements with a fast-track system during the election period. That might come in handy if the campaign is a nasty one)

A change of government may mean it never happens.

Why scrap the 37 year-old watchdog anyway?

Media policy is rarely an election-year priority. National-led governments are usually hands-off.

Internal Affairs Minister Brooke Van Velden scrapped a slow-moving, four-year review of media regulation soon after the current government took over in 2023.

Culling the BSA wasn’t in any of the government’s action plans either, but in the last month, Goldsmith had hinted at it.

ACT, which this week claimed the minister’s announcement as a ‘sweet victory’ – was pushing him in that direction.

ACT ran a public petition and drafted a members’ bill to scrap the BSA. An ACT newsletter last month chided the media minister for not falling into line, asking: “Does Paul Goldsmith get paid over $200k just to sit on the fence?”

ACT’s Parmjeet Parmar, chair of the select committee conducting the BSA’s annual review last week, challenged BSA top brass to “justify its existence”.

The Free Speech Union – which said the BSA was censorious – joined in and so did the Taxpayers Union, condemning the $1.7m annual cost to the taxpayer and the cost to broadcasters, which paid levies for the BSA (although only at $250 for every $500,000 of turnover.)

Big-name broadcasters – including those pinged in the past for breaching broadcasting standards – also joined in on the air. Among them, Mike Hosking who said “good riddance” this week.

The issue that catalysed the calls to kill the BSA in recent months was its decision last year to consider a complaint it had received about Sean Plunket describing tikanga as “mumbo jumbo” on his live-streaming outlet, The Platform.

It’s highly unlikely that comment would be upheld as a breach of standards, even if it did offend more than one complainant. The BSA often rules that offence doesn’t override freedom of expression.

Its critics claimed this extended its authority over the internet. Some claimed the BSA would soon come after blogs and podcasts, although the BSA insisted those were not covered by the law that defined its jurisdiction.

Does no BSA mean broadcasting without accountability?

The BSA itself has been among those calling for reform for years.

Our fractured, pre-internet media regulation system also has the New Zealand Media Council (NZMC) covering non-broadcast news outlets, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and the Classification Office headed by the chief censor.

The BSA is the only one backed with an act of parliament allowing it to financially punish broadcasters and even take them off the air for serious breaches of the standards it applies.

Goldsmith told RNZ broadcasters currently faced more formal oversight than other media – and he preferred the self-regulation of the NZMC.

ACT leader David Seymour agreed.

“In a free society, people form different organisations to achieve together what they can’t achieve alone,” he told journalists last month. “The Media Council is an example of that.

“The BSA is forced on us and the funding of it is forced on people by parliament,”

Founded as the Press Council in 1972 by newspaper publishers, the NZMC now handles complaints about original online content too – including that of broadcasters TVNZ and RNZ.

Media outlets agree to abide by its principles voluntarily to reassure readers they are accountable.

It does not impose fines, prevent publication or order apologies, but members must take their medicine by publishing its rulings on upheld complaints.

Goldsmith has formally urged the state-owned broadcasters to lift public trust in themselves and the wider media too, but the most active media lobby group – Better Public Media (BPM) – claimed this week that taking out the BSA could drive down standards.

Rush to judgement

“He’s removing an enforceable standards regime with a regime that is, in a sense, ‘best intentions’,” BPM deputy chair Dr Peter Thompson told Mediawatch.

“If we expand the role of the NZMC, which by and large does a very professional job, that would extend some of the standards, but I don’t think what is proposed is clear and the fact that the minister hasn’t even worked through the options… suggests that this is a premature announcement.

“Other countries have created platform-neutral models that include both some form of industry self-regulation and co-regulation with a statutory body behind it, so I think we’re remaining an anomaly in the current environment, far from removing one,” said Thompson, an associate professor in media at VuW, who has scrutinised media policy for more than 25 years.

“These standards have evolved over time and the BSA conducts a significant amount of research… and looking at how audiences are engaging in the media. If a member decided that it didn’t want to abide by those standards, the most it could actually get in terms of consequence is public criticism.

“Say, a foreign billionaire coming here to New Zealand, buying up a chunk of the shares in a media company, ousting its board and then dictates a new set of editorial standards. If that billionaire happened to have a penchant for conspiracy theories or a right-wing view of the world, I would say that that’s actually a very dangerous scenario, if there is no mechanism for enforcing [standards].”

Different – but same?

The Media Council’s principles are similar to the broadcasting standards, which also echo the guidelines reputable media companies have for their own newsrooms, but extending the authority of the Media Council over willing broadcasters means they will still have to respond to similar complaints.

Media law expert Stephen Price pointed out this week that the Media Council currently upholds two to three times more complaints than the BSA.

“That’s partly because – irony alert – the BSA takes the right to freedom of expression under the New Zealand Bill of Rights act very seriously,” he wrote. “The Media Council, not so much.”

There’s also no means of appealing a Media Council decision, whereas Broadcasting Standards Authority rulings can be challenged in court. The Media Council frequently asserts the media is not obliged to avoid causing offence (or perceived ‘harm’), but it does not consider complaints about taste and decency or law and/order matters.

Extending its remit to broadcasting complaints would also seriously extend the Media Council. Its members – a mix of senior editors and laypeople – have other jobs, and its annual budget is tiny (currently about $330,000) and shrinking, like many of the media organisations that provide it.

The wisdom of the crowd?

Predictably the BSA opponents and free-speech advocates applauded the government decision, but some journalists and editors resent the watchdog too.

“Complainants to [the Media Council] and the BSA are generally politicised whingers,” veteran political editor Richard Harman declared. “We have a pluralistic media market, that should be enough.”

The broadcasting minister has suggested media that irritate the public will lose support or even go out of business. Maybe media that operate only online – not on public airwaves – should have the freedom to do that unregulated?

“If you are running a media organisation that persistently can reach tens of thousands or even millions of people, then I think you have some degree of power,” Thompson said. “That’s the debate that hasn’t happened here.”

Advertisers under the radar

Another outfit that self-regulates its area of the media without much controversy is the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

The ASA’s annual report also noted pointedly: “Processes anchored in legislation are usually more complex, take longer and cost more – for the parties involved in the complaint or the taxpayer.”

News and editorial content is not the same as advertising, but many complaints about both are about being misled.

“Advertisers need to be aware that, if you can’t prove it, you can’t say it in ads,” longserving ASA chief executive Hilary Souter told Mediawatch.

“I think we dealt with our first internet ad in 2004,” she said. “In general, all of the rules apply, regardless of whether the medium’s 100 years old, 10 years old or was set up last week.”

Its boards accommodate advertisers, agencies, media companies and public members, and – unlike the news media regulators – it’s ‘platform-neutral’.

The ASA 2025 annual report out last week said the number of ads complained about was up 48 percent on 2024. More than three-quarters of ads complained about were accepted for review by the complaints board.

Two of the five ads that generated the most complaints were provocative political advocacy ads that had to be pulled – but generated plenty of coverage.

Is self-regulation working to uphold standards there – and against agents who play fast and loose with rules?

“In 2024, there was a drop,” said Souter, also the current president of the International Council for Advertising Self-Regulation, which meets in Italy this week.

“That was probably the bigger story. Over $4 billion was spent on ad placement in 2025, so the proportion of ads that we get complaints about is pretty small.

“There are quite a few incentives for [brands] to get that right, not wrong in terms of alienating their customer base.”

The ASA’s codes are currently up for review and public input.

Among the things up for debate are ‘shifting community standards’ and ‘widespread offensiveness’.

“If a billboard is seen by lots of people, but we only get three complaints, does that mean it’s not widespread?” Souter said. “It had the potential to be widespread, but people didn’t come to us.”

While Souter is a global advocate of self -regulation, she says our media regulators can all save time and big money for those who object to bad ads or bad news, but can’t afford to go legal to get a verdict.

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

$3.4bn AI Cloud Contract & 5GW Strategic Partnership with NVIDIA

2026 Expansion to $3.7bn ARR On Track¹

2027 Expansion to 1.2GW of AI Cloud Capacity In Build

2028+ Expansion Across North America, Europe and APAC Underway

NEW YORK, May 07, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — IREN Limited (NASDAQ: IREN) (“IREN” or “the Company”) today provided a business update and reported its financial results for the three months ended Mar 31, 2026.

Highlights

• $3.4bn AI Cloud contract with NVIDIA
  • 5-year contract for air-cooled Blackwell GPUs
  • Deploying within 60MW of existing data centers at Childress
  • Targeting ramp from early 2027
• 5GW strategic partnership with NVIDIA
  • Collaboration to support deployment of NVIDIA-aligned infrastructure and architecture across IREN’s 5GW global data center pipeline
  • As part of the partnership, IREN issued to NVIDIA a 5-year right to purchase up to 30 million shares of ordinary stock at an exercise price of $70 per share, resulting in a right to invest up to $2.1 billion, subject to certain conditions including regulatory²
• 2026 expansion to 480MW on track 
  • Horizon 1-4 on track for delivery by year-end
  • Operational capacity fully contracted
  • $3.1bn ARR under contract, targeting $3.7bn ARR by end of CY26^{1, 3}
• 2027 expansion to 1,210MW in build
  • Childress Horizons 5–6
  • Childress air-cooled capacity
  • Sweetwater 1 initial phase
• 2028+ expansion across 5GW secured power underway
  • Additional Sweetwater and Kiowa data center capacity expected to ramp from 2028
  • Acquisition of Nostrum adds 490MW in Spain and GW+ development pipeline
  • Additional development projects in Australia advancing toward connection agreement
• Strengthening AI Cloud delivery with acquisition of Mirantis
  • Strengthens how IREN’s compute is deployed, managed and operated for customers
  • Builds on IREN’s existing software, engineering and customer support capabilities 
  • Enables IREN to serve a broader range of customer requirements over time
  • Supporting delivery of NVIDIA AI Cloud contract
• Multiple GPU, data center and corporate level financing initiatives underway
  • Near term capex expected to be met through combination of existing cash ($2.6bn at Apr 30)⁴, operating cash flows, GPU financing and additional financing initiatives

Q3 FY26 Financial Results

• Results reflected continued progress in the transition from Bitcoin mining to AI Cloud
  • Total revenue decreased to $144.8m (vs. Q2 FY26 $184.7m)
  • Net income (loss) of $(247.8)m (vs. Q2 FY26 $(155.4)m)
  • Adj. EBITDA decreased to $59.5m (vs. Q2 FY26 $75.3m)⁵
• Revenues decreased $39.9m, driven by lower average Bitcoin price combined with decommissioning of mining hardware ahead of GPU installation and billing, partially offset by increase in AI Cloud revenue
• Cost of revenues decreased $25.9m, primarily driven by lower electricity cost resulting from reduced Bitcoin mining capacity
• Net income (loss) impacted by non-cash impairments of $(140.4m) primarily related to decommissioning of mining hardware and unrealized losses related to capped calls associated with convertible notes of $(23.7)m

Management Commentary

“The world is structurally short compute, and the bottleneck is delivered data center and GPU capacity,” said Daniel Roberts, Co-Founder and Co-CEO of IREN. “That plays directly into IREN’s core strengths – securing power, developing land, building data centers and bringing compute online at scale.

This quarter reflected strong execution against that opportunity. We energized the Sweetwater 1 substation on schedule, advanced the Horizon 1-4 liquid-cooled data centers at Childress in support of our $9.7bn contract with Microsoft, and continued transitioning existing data centers from ASICs to GPUs for higher-value AI Cloud workloads. We also signed a 5-year, $3.4bn AI Cloud contract with NVIDIA and entered into a broader strategic partnership that further validates IREN’s key role in the AI infrastructure ecosystem.

The acquisitions of Nostrum and Mirantis will strengthen our platform, adding European sites and teams, together with software, orchestration and support capabilities that will broaden customer access over time as we scale across our global 5GW secured power portfolio.”

Q3 FY26 Results Webcast & Conference Call
IREN will host its Q3 FY26 results webcast and conference call at the following time:

The webcast will be recorded, and the replay will be accessible shortly after the event at https://iren.com/investor/events-and-presentations

About IREN

IREN is a vertically integrated AI Cloud provider, delivering large-scale data centers and GPU clusters for AI training and inference. IREN’s platform is underpinned by its expansive portfolio of grid-connected land and power in renewable-rich regions across North America, Europe and APAC.

Contacts

Investors
ir@iren.com

Media
media@iren.com

Assumptions and Notes

1. ARR of $3.7bn represents expected $1.9bn average annual revenue under Microsoft contract plus estimated $1.8bn ARR from ~74k GPU deployment at British Columbia and Childress sites, based on internal company assumptions regarding GPU models, utilization and pricing. It is not fully contracted, there can be no assurance that it will be achieved, and actual revenue may differ materially. Assumes on time delivery and commissioning of GPUs.
2. The investment will be made pursuant to a Securities Purchase Agreement pursuant to which IREN has agreed to sell investment rights to NVIDIA to purchase an aggregate of 30,000,000 ordinary shares in IREN, subject to certain adjustments in accordance with the terms of the investment rights, in a private placement for aggregate gross proceeds of approximately $2.1bn (if fully exercised and subject to any regulatory limitations).
3. ARR under contract of $3.1bn represents expected $1.9bn average annual revenue under Microsoft contract, expected $0.7bn average annual revenue under NVIDIA contract, plus $0.5bn ARR under contract from GPU deployments at Prince George. ARR under contract includes amounts that are not yet revenue-generating until the relevant GPUs are delivered, commissioned, and in service. There can be no assurance that contracted GPUs will result in such hours or pricing, and actual revenue may vary materially.
4. Reflects USD equivalent, unaudited preliminary cash and cash equivalents as of April 30, 2026.
5. Adjusted EBITDA are non-GAAP financial measures. Refer to page 12 for a reconciliation to the nearest comparable GAAP financial measure.

Forward-Looking Statements

This press release includes “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”), and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”), that involve substantial risks and uncertainties. Forward-looking statements include information concerning possible or assumed future results of operations, including descriptions of our business plan and strategies and trends we expect to affect our business. These statements often include words such as “anticipate,” “expect,” “suggest,” “plan,” “believe,” “intend,” “estimate,” “target,” “project,” “should,” “potential,” “could,” “would,” “may,” “will,” “forecast,” and other similar expressions Forward-looking statements may also be made, verbally or in writing, by members of our Board or management team. Such statements are subject to the same limitations, uncertainties, assumptions and disclaimers set out in this press release.

We base these forward-looking statements or projections on our current expectations, plans and assumptions that we have made in light of our experience in the industry, as well as our perceptions of historical trends, current conditions, expected future developments and other factors we believe are appropriate under the circumstances and at such time. The forward-looking statements are subject to and involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions and you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Although we believe that these forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions at the time they are made, you should be aware that many factors could affect our actual financial results or results of operations, and could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements. Factors that may materially affect such forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to: our ability to obtain additional capital on commercially reasonable terms and in a timely manner to meet our capital needs and facilitate our expansion plans; the amount and terms of any future financing or grant of security, or any refinancing, restructuring or modification to the terms of any existing or future financing or grant of security, which could require us to comply with onerous covenants, restrictions or guarantees, and our ability to service our debt obligations; our ability to successfully execute on our growth strategies and operating plans, including our ability to continue to develop our existing data center sites, design and deploy direct-to-chip liquid cooling systems, provide software, and operate and expand our high-performance computing (“HPC”) business (including our AI Cloud Services business and, potentially, colocation services such as powered shell, build-to-suit and turnkey data centers (“Colocation Services”) (collectively “HPC and AI services”)); our limited experience with respect to new markets and geographies we have entered or may seek to enter, including the market for HPC and AI services, the expansion of our capabilities to include software offerings, and our expansion into new geographies for data centers such as Australia and Europe; our ability to remain competitive in dynamic and rapidly evolving industries; expectations with respect to the useful life and obsolescence of hardware (including GPUs, hardware for Bitcoin mining and any current or future HPC and AI services we offer) and the related impairment charges we may incur upon retirement thereof, which could be material; ability to, and costs associated with, re-purpose data centers historically used for Bitcoin mining for use in any current or future HPC and AI services, along with the related impairment charges we may incur upon retirement of existing Bitcoin mining hardware, which could be material; delays, increases in costs or reductions in the supply of equipment used in our operations including as a result of tariffs and duties, and certain equipment (including GPUs and any other hardware for any current or future HPC and AI services we offer) being in high demand due to global supply chain constraints, and our ability to secure additional hardware (including GPUs and any other hardware for any current or future HPC and AI services we offer), on commercially reasonable terms or at all; expectations with respect to the profitability, viability, operability, security, popularity and public perceptions of any current and future HPC and AI services we offer, including GPU rental rates; our ability to secure and retain customers on commercially reasonable terms or at all, particularly as it relates to our strategy to expand our AI Cloud Services business and potentially diversify into markets for other HPC and AI services; our ability to establish and maintain a customer base for our HPC and AI services business and customer concentration; our ability to manage counterparty risk (including credit risk) associated with any current or future customers, including customers of our HPC and AI services and other counterparties; the risk that any current or future customers, including customers of our HPC and AI services or other counterparties, may terminate, default on or underperform their contractual obligations; our ability to perform under, and observe our obligations pursuant to, service level agreements and other contractual obligations with counterparties, including customers of our HPC and AI services; changing political and geopolitical conditions, including changing international trade policies and the implementation of wide-ranging, reciprocal and retaliatory tariffs, surtaxes and other similar import or export duties, or trade restrictions; Bitcoin price, Bitcoin global hashrate and foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations; expectations with respect to the ongoing profitability, viability, operability, security, popularity and public perceptions of the Bitcoin network; our ability to secure renewable energy, renewable energy certificates, power capacity, timely grid connections, facilities and sites on commercially reasonable terms or at all; delays and costs associated with, or failure to obtain or complete, permitting approvals, grid connections and other development activities customary for greenfield or brownfield infrastructure projects in various jurisdictions, including as a result of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas’s (“ERCOT”) announced amendments to the approval process for large load interconnection requests; our reliance on power, network and utilities providers, third party mining pools, exchanges, banks, insurance providers and our ability to maintain relationships with such parties; expectations regarding availability and pricing of electricity; our participation and ability to successfully participate in demand response products and services and other load management programs run, operated or offered by electricity network operators, regulators or electricity market operators; the availability, reliability and/or cost of electricity supply, hardware and electrical and data center infrastructure, including with respect to any electricity outages and any laws and regulations that may restrict the electricity supply available to us; any variance between the actual operating performance of our miner hardware achieved compared to the nameplate performance including hashrate; electricity market risks relating to changes in laws, regulations and requirements of market operators, network operators and/or regulatory bodies in the jurisdictions in which we operate, including with respect to interconnection of facilities of large electrical loads to the ERCOT grid (for example, via a process that may batch multiple large load interconnection requests), grid stability, voltage ride-through, frequency ride-through and curtailment obligations; heightened complexity and additional constraints in energy markets, including international energy markets with which we are less familiar, including load ramp requirements by utilities or grid operators which may not align with our planned data center development and commissioning timelines; our ability to curtail our electricity consumption and/or monetize electricity depending on market conditions, including changes in Bitcoin mining economics and prevailing electricity prices; actions undertaken or inaction by electricity network and market operators, regulators, governments or communities in the regions in which we operate, including such actions that could result in the estimated power availability at secured sites being materially less than initially expected, available too late, delayed, conditioned upon technical or operational requirements or not available in each case whether at sustainable cost or at all; our ability to secure connection agreements to access power sources and permits or to maintain in good standing the operating and other permits, approvals and/or licenses required for our operations, construction activities and business which could be delayed by regulatory approval processes, may not be successful or may be cost prohibitive; the availability, suitability, reliability and cost of internet connections at our facilities; the pending acquisitions of Mirantis, Inc. (“Mirantis”) and of the Ingenostrum, S.L. (trading as Nostrum Group) (“Nostrum Group”), as well as any other pending or future acquisitions, dispositions, joint ventures or other strategic transactions, including our ability to obtain the requisite regulatory approvals, satisfy the applicable closing conditions and to consummate any such transactions on terms favorable to the Group or at all, as well as to successfully integrate and achieve the anticipated benefits of any such acquisition that may be completed; unanticipated costs or liabilities associated with the pending acquisition of Mirantis or Nostrum Group, or any other pending or future acquisitions, dispositions, joint ventures or other strategic transactions, and any failure to comply with laws, rules, regulations or business practices that we may become subject to as a result of any expansion of our business in connection with the pending acquisition of Mirantis or Nostrum Group or any other such acquisition, joint venture or other strategic transaction; our ability to operate in an evolving regulatory environment; our ability to successfully operate and maintain our property and infrastructure; reliability and performance of our infrastructure compared to expectations; malicious attacks on our property, infrastructure or IT systems; our ability to obtain, maintain, protect and enforce our intellectual property rights and confidential information; any intellectual property infringement and product liability claims; whether the secular trends we expect to drive growth in our business materialize to the degree we expect them to, or at all; any pending or future acquisitions, dispositions, joint ventures or other strategic transactions, including our ability to consummate any such transactions on terms favorable to the Group or at all; the occurrence of any environmental, health and safety incidents at our sites, and any material costs relating to environmental, health and safety requirements or liabilities; damage to our property and infrastructure and the risk that any insurance we maintain may not fully cover all potential exposures; settlement and termination of proceedings relating to the default under certain equipment financing facilities, ongoing securities litigation, and any future litigation, claims and/or regulatory investigations, and the costs, expenses, use of resources, diversion of management time and efforts, liability and damages that may result therefrom; our failure to comply with any laws including the anti-corruption and sanctions laws, rules and regulations of the United States and various international jurisdictions; any failure of our compliance and risk management methods; any laws, regulations and ethical standards that may relate to our business, including those that relate to data centers, HPC and AI services, Bitcoin and the Bitcoin mining industry and those that relate to any other services we offer, including laws and regulations related to data privacy, cybersecurity and the storage, use or processing of information and consumer laws; our ability to attract, motivate and retain senior management and qualified employees; increased risks to our global operations including, but not limited to, political instability, outbreak of war, acts of terrorism, theft and vandalism, cyberattacks and other cybersecurity incidents and unexpected regulatory and economic sanctions changes, among other things; climate change, severe weather conditions and natural and man-made disasters that may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations; public health crises, including an outbreak of an infectious disease and any governmental or industry measures taken in response; damage to our brand and reputation; evolving stakeholder expectations and requirements relating to environmental, social or governance (“ESG”) issues or reporting, including actual or perceived failure to comply with such expectations and requirements; volatility with respect to the market price of our ordinary shares (“Ordinary shares”); that we do not currently pay any cash dividends on our Ordinary shares, and may not in the foreseeable future and, accordingly, your ability to achieve a return on your investment in our Ordinary shares will depend on appreciation, if any, in the price of our Ordinary shares; and other important factors discussed under “Part 1. Item 1.A. Risk Factors” in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2025 and “Part II. Item 1A. Risk Factors” in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2025, as such factors may be updated from time to time in our other filings with the SEC, accessible on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov and the Investor Relations section of IREN’s website at https:// investors.iren.com.

The foregoing list of factors is not exhaustive and does not necessarily include all of the important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in any of our forward-looking statements.

These and other important factors could cause actual results to differ materially by the forward-looking statements made in this press release. Any forward-looking statement that IREN makes in this press release speaks only as of the date of such statement. Except as required by law, IREN disclaims any obligation to update or revise, or to publicly announce any update or revision to, any of the forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

Non-GAAP Financial Measures

This press release refers to certain measures that are not recognized under GAAP and do not have a standardized meaning prescribed by GAAP. IREN uses non-GAAP measures including “Adjusted EBITDA” and “Adjusted EBITDA margin” (each as defined below) as additional information to complement GAAP measures by providing further understanding of the Company’s operations from management’s perspective.

Adjusted EBITDA is defined as net income (loss), excluding income tax (expense) benefit, finance expense, interest income and depreciation and amortization, stock based compensation, foreign exchange gain (loss), impairment of assets, certain other non-recurring income, gain (loss) on disposal of property, plant and equipment, unrealized fair value gain (loss) on financial instruments, debt conversion inducement expense, gain (loss) on partial extinguishment of financial liabilities, increase (decrease) in fair value of assets held for sale and certain other expense items. “Adjusted EBITDA margin” is defined as Adjusted EBITDA divided by revenue.

Beginning in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2026, the Company has changed its definition of Adjusted EBITDA to exclude debt conversion inducement expense. This is a change from the presentation of Adjusted EBITDA in prior periods, and these adjustments did not have any impact on the calculation of Adjusted EBITDA in prior periods.

The reconciliations of these non-GAAP financial measures to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures are shown in the Appendix hereto.

Consolidated Balance Sheet

Consolidated Statement of Operations

Consolidated Statement of Cashflows

Non-GAAP Metric Reconciliation

– Published by The MIL Network

The failure of the economy to fire up means New Zealanders will spend five fewer days paying tax this year.

Business advisory network Baker Tilly Staples Rodway estimated the total tax take rose 1.9 percent on last year, which meant New Zealanders would spend just 130 days paying tax this year, five days less than last year.

Tax Freedom Day, which was the hypothetical date New Zealanders would have paid their tax bill for the year, was expected to take place on 10 May, meaning whatever they earn after that date was theirs.

Baker Tilly Staples Rodway tax director Michael Rudd said the reason for the shorter forecast date was because this year’s tax increase was far less than last year’s increase of 3.9 percent, or 15.6 percent in 2022, when the economy grew 4-point-3 percent.

A flat corporate tax take of 1.2 percent indicated businesses were struggling to grow, with inflation outpacing GST revenues and a sugar rush of trust dividend payments drying up.

“An optimist might say that corporates are managing their tax payments to take advantage of the new Investment Boost regime, which provides a 20 percent year-one tax deduction for new business assets purchased after May 2025,” Rudd said.

However, he said a large increase in the number of business liquidations was probably having a bigger influence.

“The cost of those failures is often borne by suppliers who never get paid, affecting their bottom line.”

In contrast, Rudd said Australians were paying three days more tax this year, not five days less.

However, they celebrated their Tax Freedom Day three weeks ago, which was fairly typical.

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

• OECD says NZ economy recovering slowly, faces Iran conflict based challenges to growth and inflation
• Poor productivity, high debt, weak investment hold back growth
• Tax changes needed for retirement savings; boost needed for capital markets
• Electricity sector needs to break reliance on gas
• Quicker and deeper digitisation of health sector needed

New Zealand needs to reform the pension and electricity sectors, expand and strengthen capital markets, and speed up digitisation of the health sector, according to a report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

In its latest report on New Zealand it said the economy is recovering, but the Middle East conflict would delay growth and stoke a near term spike in inflation, while the economy also faced long standing challenges from low productivity, high public debt, and too little investment in key sectors and companies.

Growth of 1.4 percent was forecast for this year, rising to 2.3 percent in 2027, while inflation was expected to hit a high of 3.4 percent this year before falling back into the 1-3 percent target zone.

“Heightened uncertainty and higher energy prices weigh on real incomes, confidence and domestic demand,” the OECD report said.

“Inflation will rise in 2026 due to higher energy and transport costs before gradually easing toward the 2 percent midpoint, reflecting spare capacity and easing tradeables inflation pressures.

“Although considerable uncertainty surrounds the timing and magnitude of this adjustment, given the risk of further shocks.”

The OECD had a message for the Reserve Bank (RBNZ).

“Our advice is for monetary policy to remain focused on the medium-term price stability while looking through the temporary first round effects of the energy price shock,” OECD director Luiz de Mello said.

The report said the RBNZ’s monetary policy mandate should be held unchanged for five year periods to “reinforce the RBNZ’s strong operational independence and credibility”.

Raise superannuation age, change taxes

The OECD joined other international agencies in calling for the age of eligibility for superannuation to be raised by indexing it to life expectancy, with measures to take account of different ethnicities and work backgrounds.

It also called for a reversal of the taxation of retirement savings from the current charge on contributions and investment earnings but tax exempt withdrawals.

Finance Minister Nicola Willis said there were no plans to raise the eligibility age for NZ super, and rejected the call for tax changes as a big hit on government finances.

“We are trying to get the books back in balance so radical tax reforms that require a deficit on the government books are not something we are exploring right now.”

Other OECD suggestions included measures to improve capital markets, including government financial support, to allow small and medium sized firms to look at listing on the stock exchange and being able to raise finance in New Zealand.

Willis took a swipe at the major local banks that there was nothing stopping them now to lend more money to small firms and the challenge was for them to do it.

Reform the electricity sector

The OECD report also called for changes to the electricity sector to break its reliance on costly natural gas which has underpinned high prices.

“Affordability will remain elusive without breaking the gas-electricity price link by scaling non-gas long-duration firming, expanding demand response and strengthening competition.”

It said there should be a mandatory firming and flexibility market with likely a minority investment from the government in independent-led, long-duration non-gas firming generation.

Firming is the provision of immediate reserve electricity when renewable supplies decline. In New Zealand that has been done largely through burning gas and coal.

The OECD said the proposal to import liquified natural gas (LNG) should be seen only as a short term option.

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

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

Analysis – National’s local government reforms face one of the same problems Labour encountered with Three Waters, with councils at risk of being left out in the cold.

The coalition’s approach offers an illusion of choice which may yet help it avoid the breakdown in relations Labour eventually had to resolve.

RMA Minister Chris Bishop and Local Government Minister Simon Watts on Tuesday delivered their ultimatum to councils: “lead your own reform, or we will do it for you”.

Councils have until early August to do so.

Bishop and Watts have been pushing towards amalgamation as part of Bishop’s RMA reforms, announcing in November a plan to have mayors form boards with some level of government oversight – but consultation suggested mayors would be too busy for that.

Some had already come up with plans to amalgamate – and the ministers presented their plan as a way to enable that, giving councils choice.

The problem is: the solutions one group of councils comes up with could leave others in the lurch.

It is a problem Labour knows only too well from its Three Waters reforms, which also aimed at amalgamating council services and which also struggled to balance effective representation against cost savings.

As I revealed in late 2021, Labour’s Cabinet had agreed to that in June to force councils into its reforms rather than take an opt-out approach – but did not publicly announce it until October.

Cabinet papers showed finalisation of the mandatory ‘all-in’ strategy was delayed to September – with the aim of using the intervening time to build support with the councils, including negotiating with LGNZ to not actively oppose the move, damaging the representative group’s own internal relations.

That secretiveness from Labour, combined with the sustained oppositional campaign led by National, ACT, the Taxpayers’ Union and a breakaway grouping of councils, helped to fuel public opposition.

Of course, the ‘Stop Three Waters’ catchcry also leaned on fears around co-governance and communities losing control of their water assets, but the backlash was effective enough that Labour had to water down its reforms and have Kieran McAnulty visit every council in the country to sell the idea.

By contrast, Bishop and Watts have been relatively upfront about the need for change across the entire sector.

Their warning on Tuesday that oppositional or inactive councils will have reforms imposed on them makes clear the stakes and at least gives some certainty about what the alternative is – a wise move.

But that’s not to say their approach is all sunshine and roses.

Letting councils come up with their own plan may have worked in securing at least acceptance from councils in joining their own water reforms, but it also inevitably meant more groupings and reduced savings.

Applying the same approach to council mergers could end up with some messy, bespoke proposals with their own unique ways of working.

It also risks leaving some councils isolated – without the resources to perform as effectively as their neighbours – and could mean some of the complex structures and processes the reforms aims to eliminate are retained.

The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment wrote to Bishop last month warning that allowing proposals to come from the sector could lead to having “many more unitary councils than the 17 regional entities” which could “pose serious problems for functions such as catchment management, that must not be fragmented”.

It seems unlikely to come to that – with all the complications involved, the government is incentivised to make the new council boundaries as simple and streamlined as possible.

Bishop and Watts were also clear on Tuesday it was Cabinet that would make the final decisions, and while they will take ideas and pay lip service to councils’ preferences, they will also want a solution that best serves all ratepayers.

The shift away from what they had announced in November – where groups of city and district mayors would come up with the plans – is then almost a mirror to Labour’s shift to a mandated approach to water, but with better stage management.

We’re already seeing complications, with LGNZ’s statement on Tuesday warning some regions would face “greater complexity that needs to be worked through”, and asserting that all councils in a given region – including at the regional level – should be included in amalgamation plans.

As with Three Waters, mayors approached by RNZ after the announcement backed the idea of change – but were quick to raise concerns about how they would be directly affected.

What’s more, National faces the problem of having vocally campaigned for “localism and devolution” on the back of Three Waters, but once in government having consistently taken council decision-making powers away.

Think of Christopher Luxon’s speech to LGNZ in 2024, the crackdown on so-called ‘nice to haves’, the legislated change in purpose for councils, and most tellingly the 4 percent rates cap announced last year.

These are actions that fit the mould of “Wellington knows best”, and sharply at odds with the rhetoric of the last election.

Unlike Labour, this government – far more cash-strapped – is also offering councils no additional funding to ensure its reforms are effectively managed.

Where National would surely decry wasteful spending, similarly cash-strapped councils are already feeling ignored with increasingly expensive rates making up only about a 10th of the total tax take – the rest going to central government.

Their repeated calls to have the option to impose a bed tax or to set their own fees and fines have largely faced resistance – although Bishop indicated imminent legislation to enable “development levies”.

The election promise of “regional deals” has also ended up looking relatively ineffectual – Auckland mayor Wayne Brown calling the first one “quite underwhelming” less than a month after signing it, no doubt partly as a result of the lack of funding that had made overseas examples shine.

Regardless of all this, local government reform seems unlikely to become the flashpoint for opposition that Three Waters became.

While Luxon’s pre-election rhetoric is a mismatch with his government’s actions, those moves have been popular with National’s base.

The timing is also far more favourable, with Cabinet not making final decisions on council proposals until 2027 – after the general election, rather than before it – so simmering backlash to any final decisions would come at the start of the next government’s term and land at the feet of whoever is in power.

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

Channel Infrastructure has lifted its full-year profit guidance, as a fuel crisis continues to drive demand for its services.

Board chair James Miller told shareholders at Wednesday afternoon’s annual meeting that the 93-million-litre diesel storage facility commissioned by the government at the Marsden Point facility was on track for completion by end of the month.

The Z Energy jet tank was also expected to be ready for commissioning and generating revenue in July, six months ahead of original schedule.

Revenue from the Higgins bitumen import terminal project was anticipated to generate $57 million over the 15-year contract term, compared with a previous estimate of $45m.

The total cost to deliver the project was forecast to be between $25m – $27m, compared with an earlier forecast of between $17m – $21m, given the expansion in the scope and capabilities of the terminal.

Given the work in progress and additional revenue, Miller said Channel Infrastructure’s full year underlying profit guidance had been raised to between $97m to $105m, from $95m to $100m for the year ending in December.

Chief executive Rob Buchanan said the Channel team and its contractors had proven their ability to deliver when it matters.

“We have proven our ability to execute on large capital-intensive projects safely, on time and on budget.”

He said development of the Marsden Point Energy Precinct continued to be the company’s number one priority, followed by adding value along its supply chain to Auckland Airport.

The company was also looking to grow through acquisitions – either in New Zealand or Australia – such as its recent purchase of a 25 percent stake in the Somerton jet fuel pipeline to Melbourne Airport for A$14m.

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

Are you on track for a tax refund this year?

Inland Revenue now sends automatic tax assessments to people whose only income is salary, wages or investment income that is already taxed.

The department will start issuing income tax assessments from the last weekend in May and will continue into June and July.

People who spot information that is incorrect can ask for the details to be changed.

Who gets a bill?

Even if you’ve been earning income in a straightforward way, you could end up with a bill or a refund.

That can happen when your income has changed during the year, such as if you went to a new job or had some time off work between jobs.

Sometimes it can happen if income is not taxed correctly, or if you received credits that your income should not have meant you were entitled to, such as the independent earner tax credit.

IRD will write off tax to pay if it’s less than $50.

If you get a bill you will have until February 7 next year to pay it.

What if you’re due a refund?

If you have paid too much tax, Inland Revenue will pay your refund into the bank account it has on file for you.

This happens as the assessments are processed so it does not necessarily occur at the same time for everyone.

If you already have debt to Inland Revenue, you could find that the refund is used to pay that down.

How many people discover they’ve paid the wrong amount of tax?

Inland Revenue said in 2025, 3.63 million customers received end-of-year tax assessments automatically. Of those, 2.37 million received refunds and 342,00 had tax to pay.

Deloitte tax partner Robyn Walker said the assessment process was quite straightforward now.

But she said it would be important for people to consider whether they had other income that they should have included in their returns.

Inland Revenue has been warning that people who have made money on cryptocurrencies may have tax to pay on that.

“If someone is in an auto-calc process, they do still need to stop and think about whether that is the correct process and whether they actually have income from sources which don’t have tax withheld at source. That would also capture people like landlords or self-employed people and anyone who has started a side hustle in the last year.”

If you think you need to go through a more detailed process, you may need to request a tax return.

Watch out for scammers

Scammers sometimes take advantage of this time of year, pretending to be the tax department.

Inland Revenue says it will only ask people to log in to their myIR account from ird.govt.nz

It will also not put the dollar amount of a refund in an email or text message and will not as for your credit card or debit card details to pay.

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

ACT’s new immigration policy, which would require a $6 per day surcharge on temporary visa holders, is discriminatory says the Better Taxes for a Better Future Campaign.

“This policy singles out one of the most vulnerable groups in Aotearoa New Zealand for an extra charge that many will struggle to pay,” says Glenn Barclay, spokesperson for the Better Taxes for a Better Future Campaign. “These workers are often poorly paid, and to single them out is discriminatory.”

“Sectors such as horticulture and viticulture rely heavily on temporary visa holders and this tax will not only impact on these vulnerable workers, but also on businesses operating in those sectors,” says Barclay.

ACT’s stated intention behind the surcharge is addressing the country’s infrastructure needs, but the Better Taxes campaign says this is just a smokescreen to avoid addressing the real cause of inadequate funding for infrastructure, and the $80m revenue it would generate would be a tiny fraction of our $200b infrastructure deficit.

“The main reason for our infrastructure problems in this country is lack of investment over many years. We have failed to ensure the wealthy and big corporates, who rely heavily on our public infrastructure to generate wealth and run their businesses, are paying their fair share of tax to maintain it. This is the problem we need to address to fund infrastructure,” says Barclay.  

“Workers already pay the vast majority through income tax and GST, and Treasury released a report earlier this year demonstrating that foreign born New Zealanders comprised 32% of the workforce, yet their share of tax paid was 38%. We shouldn’t be putting more of the load on the shoulders of some of the most vulnerable workers in Aotearoa New Zealand.”

“Political parties scapegoating migrants to shield the super rich and corporate giants from scrutiny over how little tax they pay and their role in declining living standards is one of the oldest tricks in the book,” say Barclay. “But in the context of the current fuel and cost of living crises, it’s increasingly clear to ordinary people in Aotearoa New Zealand that the push for ever greater profits by corporations, their ultra wealthy executives and shareholders is to blame for the pressure we’re experiencing, not hardworking migrants.”

“In fact, as so many New Zealanders are seeking opportunities overseas and our population ages, our economy stands to benefit from welcoming migrants who come to work, live and pay tax here. If only the super rich and big corporates were willing to make the same contribution,” says Barclay.

MIL OSI

A one-off adjustment related to how it accounts for software spending has seen BNZ post a 38 percent drop in profit for the half year to March, to $494m.

Underlying earnings, however, excluding the one-off adjustment, were down just $48m to $747m.

The company said revenue for the half year was broadly flat, up 0.7 percent to $1.76 billion, while operating expenses excluding the one-off adjustment rose 4.3 percent to $701m.

Key numbers for the six months ended March 2026 compared with a year ago:

• Net profit $494m vs $795m
• Underlying earnings down $48m to $747m
• Revenue $1.76m vs $1.75m
• Credit impairment provisions hardly charged at $995m
• Net Interest margin 2.36% vs 2.40%
• Total lending up 4.7% to $113.6b (from $108.5b)

BNZ chief executive Dan Huggins said the result largely reflected the New Zealand economy prior to the Middle East conflict.

“The first half of the year saw many New Zealand businesses anticipating a steady return to economic growth. We saw both housing and business lending increase as household and business confidence improved,” Huggins said.

The bank reported home lending was up 6.6 percent and business lending up 2.2 percent on the prior period, while total lending rose $5.1 billion, or 4.7 percent, to $113.6b.

However, Huggins said “while it was pleasing to see a return to confidence in the New Zealand economy, the Middle East conflict has eroded that positive sentiment and customers have once again had to adjust quickly.”

BNZ’s net interest margin fell 4 basis points, with the bank citing strong competition for customers.

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

Farmers need to be paid to start using methane-busting technology in their herds and on their land, agri-climate leaders say.

Their comments follow earlier warnings from industry and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment that, without penalties or incentives, there are few reasons for farmers to invest in some of the tools.

Climate Change Minister Simon Watts said the government would work with farmers to “maximise the emissions reduction innovation underway” but would not be drawn on whether the government was looking at subsidies or other incentives.

Last year, the government scrapped its previous plans to put a tax on agricultural methane by 2030 and weakened the country’s 2050 methane emissions reduction target.

Instead, it opted for a market- and industry-led approach, with Watts saying that widespread uptake of the new mitigation tools would be “critical”.

The government-industry partnership AgriZeroNZ had so far invested $78 million into developing methane-inhibiting technologies such as vaccines and genetics.

Some, such as low-methane sheep genetic selection and effluent pond treatments, were available now, while others are still in much earlier stages of development.

Overall, the government has committed $400m to accelerate development and commercialisation.

At the annual Agriculture and Climate Change conference in Wellington last week, AgriZeroNZ chief executive Wayne McNee said some of the technologies had a commercial benefit because they also improved animal productivity.

However, many – including a methane-inhibiting capsule or ‘bolus’ being developed by New Zealand company Ruminant Biotech – did not.

“In the absence of productivity improvement, which is often quite hard to prove, there will need to be an incentive,” he said.

Speaking to RNZ afterwards, he said there were already some industry incentives available for the lowest-emitting dairy farmers.

“But to get broader-scale adoption, there’ll need to be a reason for farmers to use them,” McNee said.

“If there’s a productivity improvement, great, that”ll be a key driver. If there’s not, there’ll need to be some sort of payment to the farmer to take the technology up.”

Other countries had used direct subsidies, or made use of voluntary carbon markets.

AgriZeroNZ was “looking at all options”.

“It’s part of our role to get the tools available, but also part of our role to work with farmers and others to get them used.”

Methane – which is a short-lived gas but has a huge warming effect while it exists in the atmosphere – makes up roughly half of New Zealand’s emissions.

Almost all of it comes from farms, especially the burps and breaths of ruminant animals like cows and sheep.

Only 40 percent would use methane vaccine – survey

A 2025 survey of farmers by the Bioeconomy Science Institute (formerly Manaaki Whenua Landcare) found only seven percent of dairy farmers who responded said reducing their emissions would be a major focus in the next two years.

Only 40 percent of respondents planned to use a methane vaccine, if it became available.

Ruminant Biotech market access director George Reeves told the conference that New Zealand risked losing its global competitiveness unless it developed a “robust, long-term, scalable incentive for methane abatement”.

He told RNZ that did not necessarily have to be taxpayer-funded.

Instead, New Zealand could use voluntary carbon markets, or set up a scheme similar to one being developed in Australia, where farmers could earn carbon units by reducing their emissions intensity.

Ruminant Biotech planned to launch its bolus for certain types of beef cattle later this year and expected that “early adoption is going to be okay”, Reeves said.

However, he wanted to see a broader incentive scheme in place by 2028.

AUT industry fellow and climate economist David Hall said a direct government subsidy scheme for deployment of some tools would make sense while they were still new and did not have general buy-in.

“In the economics of innovation, that’s recognised as a justified and reasonable cost.”

Once the tools had a market foothold, that direct support could be withdrawn, and a low-level price on emissions introduced to keep driving uptake, he said.

Incentive to use potential methane vaccine removed

In a speech to a DairyNZ forum in March, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Simon Upton raised concerns about both the timeframe and uptake of some promised technologies.

He pointed out that the government’s baseline emissions projections relied on at least 37 percent of dairy cattle receiving a methane vaccine – which were still at ‘proof-of-concept’ stage – by 2030.

“I personally find this assumption heroic,” he said.

“Not only do we not yet have such a vaccine, but the government’s decision to abandon a price on methane removes the incentive to use one should it materialise.”

Significant taxpayer funding was being invested into vaccines and other technologies.

“Taxpayers are entitled to ask why this outlay should continue if the vaccines are not going to be adopted,” he said.

Subsidies could be a pragmatic approach, “but the quid pro quo has to be uptake”.

In a submission on the amended emissions reduction plan last year, industry group DairyNZ also called the assumptions about uptake “ambitious”.

“DairyNZ has consistently encouraged government to be cautious when making assumptions on technology availability, efficacy and uptake.”

Incentives were essential, but the tools also needed to be practical to implement, and must not affect food safety or threaten overseas trade, the organisation said.

In a written statement, Watts said the government had “increasing confidence in the technology pipeline” and expected to see the first tools that AgriZero had invested in available this year.

“While emission predictions inherently carry some uncertainty, the government is committed to working with the agriculture sector to boost productivity while lowering emissions,” he said.

There would be ” range of opinions” on any new technology, he said.

“However, I have heard from many in the sector who support the development of new methane inhibitors and other incentives that increase production while reducing emissions.”

He did not answer questions about whether any policy work had been commissioned on an incentive or offset scheme, or what would drive uptake in the absence of any productivity gains.

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

A leaked report completed for the TAB NZ by racing insiders says the horse racing industry is “unsustainable” without further tax breaks.

It also recommends allowing TAB NZ to run online casinos, shifting the cost of the industry’s integrity board to the government and making structural changes including consolidating property ownership and management.

Winston Peters is currently the Minister for Racing and the report will eventually be considered by him. He is also the leader of NZ First.

The TAB advisory committee responsible for writing the report was chaired by Sir Peter Vela. Other members of the committee include Sir Brendan Lindsay, Mark Chittick, Greg Tomlinson, Ken Breckon, Chris Waller and Steve Thompson.

Both Vela and Lindsay are donors to NZ First. In 2023, they each donated $65,000 to the party. So far in 2026 Vela has donated $150,000 to NZ First and Lindsay and his wife Jocelyn $100,000. NZ First also received another $50,000 from businesses associated with racing industry player Nelson Schick, who was not on the committee.

During an election year, donations over $20,000 must be declared within 20 days of receipt. In total, $300,000 of NZ First’s $475,000 received to date has been associated with the racing industry. NZ First has, so far, declared the second highest amount of donations of any political party in 2026.

‘Loops of decay’ in racing industry

The racing industry report warned there was a structural deficit of more than $50 million per year and cash reserves would be exhausted at the end of the 2027/28 racing season if there was no further support.

The two main issues contributing to “loops of decay” in the industry were fewer foals and races being frequently cancelled due to poor race track conditions.

There are 500 fewer breeders than there were in 2015 and foal numbers have reduced 22 percent in the past ten years.

Adding to woes were administrative costs of $91m a year, which the report recommended slashing by consolidating the boards of horse and harness racing into one entity.

The report said horse racing’s participants and audience were “ageing” with weak youth engagement, which impacts the number of bets made.

Vela’s U-turn on report request

A leaked letter accompanying the report written by chair Vela said the report was requested by Minister for Racing Winston Peters. The committee had a 90 minute meeting with the minister in February, just weeks before the report was completed.

A spokesperson for Peters said that he had not commissioned the report and that it was an initiative of TAB NZ’s committee.

When contacted by RNZ, Vela said he must have got that fact wrong in his letter.

Without changes outlined in the report being made Vela said the racing industry would be in a very difficult place in the future.

He did not believe his donation would impact the likelihood of the report’s recommendations being adopted.

He said he donated to political parties, “because that’s the way democracy works in our country.”

NZ First party secretary Holly Howard said donations to the party are dealt with by party officials, not ministers or MPs.

“The party is not privy to the work done in ministerial offices. The party has no awareness of the report you’re referring to,” said Howard.

RNZ was told the report is currently with the Department of Internal Affairs for analysis before officials report back to the minister.

A history of concessions

The report describes its recommendations as tax “changes”. But Victoria University of Wellington’s tax specialist Lisa Marriott said some of the recommendations were “absolutely” tax breaks.

These included faster depreciation for brood mares and yearlings, and 100 percent deductibility for New Zealand-bred yearling purchases, which Marriott described as “straight out concessions”.

“As an industry, they’ve had so much by way of privileged treatment and concessions decade after decade.”

Unlike Lotto or pokies, which return all or some of the profits to the community, racing was allowed to return profits to itself.

“I just wonder how much more resource governments are prepared to put into the sector, which does harm.”

Taxpayers have come to the rescue of the industry previously, with a $50m bailout package in 2020, including $26m to pay its outstanding supplier bills. Prior to that it received tax reductions in 2018 related to the purchase of “high quality” horses.

A deal with offshore betting giant Entain threw the industry a lifeline in 2023. The agreement contracted out TAB NZ’s monopoly status to Entain in return for five years of guaranteed minimum payouts. These come to an end in 2028 and it’s expected the money made from the 50/50 split of gross betting revenue would be far lower.

Other tax-related recommendations in the report included standard valuation of $2500 for homebred foals, default pass-through GST treatment for breeding co-ownerships, and to allow groups of up to 15 to own a horse while being exempt from Financial Markets Control Act, an increase from the current five owners currently exempted.

The report said these changes, along with its other recommendations would “unlock industry growth” and ensure the industry continues to remain a high-value export sector.

Spending by the horse racing industry contributed $1.38b to the economy in 2022/23, but the industry is estimated to create $1.87b when considering other factors, such as the number of people it directly and indirectly employs.

On track to become ‘a cottage industry’

Industry veteran Brian de Lore said the days of “rugby, racing and beer” were over for New Zealand. In ten years time he thinks racing will be a cottage industry.

He’s written for and edited Racetrack magazine, managed and owned bloodstock businesses, and more recently written a book on New Zealand’s horse breeding families.

He questioned the industry’s sustainability.

“It’s running out of horses and its costs are too high. There’s a general feeling amongst the public that racing’s becoming a little bit redundant and we’re not getting the crowds that we used to.”

Some of the suggestions in the report would go some way to helping the industry, but he called the tax recommendations “ridiculous”.

“The cost of breeding horses is so high today that just offering a tax incentive to try and turn around the foal crop diminishing … well, it’s just not going to happen.”

The report’s five recommendations:

• Unify racing governance under a single accountable body with clear responsibility for strategy, funding, calendar and marketing.
• Create a Strategic Property Vehicle to unlock and deploy racing industry capital across a rationalised venue network.
• Modernise tax and regulatory settings for breeding investment to address the foal-crop shock and rebuild supply
• Transfer Racing Integrity Board funding to central Government appropriation to remove conflicts of interest and protect social licence.
• Modernise TAB NZ’s legislative settings for revenue diversification so it can compete fairly, recapture offshore leakage and sustain funding beyond the Entain guarantee.

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 Ministry of Education is overhauling school transport for children with safety and mobility needs.

The Specialised School Transport Assistance (SESTA) supports students who cannot travel independently to and from school.

In Wellington, the SESTA service will move from Wellington Combined Taxis to Madge Coachlines, which operates under the Uzabus brand, from the start of term three.

Uzabus director Justin Allan said the ministry is replacing an individual taxi model with a “dedicated specialist service”.

He said the company will use a range of dedicated vehicles tailored to the students’ specific mobility and safety requirements, which will allow more specialised support than a standard taxi network could provide.

“From 1 July, the previous taxi-based network will be replaced with a model that provides dedicated drivers and vehicles specifically for families with children who have special needs,” he said. “Our priority is ensuring these students receive safe, consistent and specialised transport to school that is tailored to their unique requirements.”

A list of SESTA providers suggested most were bus companies.

However, the Ministry of Education said that while some suppliers were companies that also operated bus services, their SESTA services were not delivered using large buses.

School transport group manager James Meffan said SESTA transport continued to be delivered using a range of vehicle types, including taxis.

“SESTA transport is delivered using smaller vehicles that are appropriate to students’ needs,” he said. “These include sedans, vans including wheelchair accessible vehicles and total mobility vehicles.

“Many of these vehicles are operated by providers who also run other transport services, but SESTA services remain distinct.”

Meffan said shared transport was only used where it was assessed as appropriate and safe to do so.

“We continue to provide solo transport or make specific arrangements where required by a student’s particular needs,” he said.

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

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

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