Author: MIL-OSI Publisher

Source: Radio New Zealand

Labour leader Chris Hipkins has taken aim at the government’s cost of living and climate policies in his State of the Nation speech in Auckland.

Hipkins did not announce any new policy in the speech on Monday, repeating his promise that the public would see a “different” Labour to 2023.

“Labour didn’t get everything right last time – and some of you don’t hold back in telling me,” Hipkins told the Auckland Business Chamber audience.

“We tried to do too much, too fast, and we lost our focus.”

But what New Zealanders got instead, he said, was rising costs, job losses, and a shrinking economy.

“I’m not promising perfection. Where we make mistakes, I’ll take responsibility,” he said.

“But I am promising this: a government that puts the cost of living first. A government that partners with business to create jobs and raise wages. A government that invests in our people and backs our potential.”

Wary of Labour’s previous propensity to over-promise, Hipkins said he would put affordability at the heart of all decisions he made, and would expect ministers to do the same.

Hipkins said 2000 New Zealanders were leaving every week because they did not see a future here.

“I see young New Zealanders – smart, hardworking, full of potential – making calculations that no young person should have to do. Do I stay in the country I love? Or do I leave to build the life I’ve worked for?

“It breaks my heart. Because it means we are failing them. Not because they aren’t good enough for New Zealand. But because we haven’t made New Zealand good enough for them.”

Riffing off National’s slogan “Fixing the Basics, Building the Future”, Hipkins said New Zealanders would have a choice between two different futures.

He also called for stronger climate action.

“We can carry on treating each disaster as if it’s an isolated event, clean up and move on. Or we can recognise that the cost of inaction on climate change now far exceeds the cost of action.”

He did not give specifics on climate policy, but said New Zealand had an opportunity to be a “renewable energy superpower” but was instead being locked into a volatile global market.

“We would invest in the industries that cut emissions, build resilience, and create jobs. Because that is how you build a stronger economy. Not in spite of climate action, but because of it.”

Hipkins confirmed Labour would oppose the government’s plans to build a new liquefied natural gas terminal, and would not go through with any deal if it entered government before a deal was done.

“We won’t add new charges onto people, like increasing every household’s power bill to pay for a gas import terminal, or tolling the Auckland Harbour Bridge to pay for a new crossing.”

The Infrastructure Commission modelled that tolling the existing bridge and a new Waitemata Crossing could bring in up to $9 billion.

The government has said a toll is something under consideration, but has not confirmed whether it would go ahead with it.

While no new policy was announced, Hipkins repeated Labour’s promises to fund three free GP visits a year, funded through a capital gains tax on investment and commercial property.

Hipkins pushed on energy plans

Hipkins was quizzed on energy policy by Auckland Business Chamber chief executive Simon Bridges (who, as former National leader, described himself as Hipkins’ one-time sparring partner).

Bridges, a former energy minister, agreed that New Zealand should be a renewable superpower, and asked Hipkins how he would tackle the country’s gentailers.

“Like governments, business also operates on social licence,” Hipkins said.

“The energy companies were reporting massive profits, but customers were seeing their bills go up.

“Those things aren’t going to wash with the public.”

Hipkins denied the oil and gas exploration ban, brought in by the previous government, was the reason power prices were as high as they are.

He said the government was asking the right question around how to make power bills cheaper, but had landed on the wrong answer.

“The more we’re reliant on fossil fuels, the more our energy bills are going to increase.”

Labour was the highest-polling party in the most recent RNZ-Reid Research poll, but the coalition would still have the numbers to return to government.

The party has seen two high-profile departures from its Māori caucus, with former Speaker Adrian Rurawhe already bowing out, and former Tāmaki Makaurau MP Peeni Henare also announcing his exit.

Henare will deliver his valedictory on 4 March.

State of the Nation speeches are a chance for party leaders to set out the priorities for the year ahead.

Earlier this year, Luxon confirmed the government would continue to run a tight Budget, and observed a “rupture” in the rules-based system.

Last weekend, ACT leader David Seymour took aim at “bureaucratic” governments that aren’t balancing their books, and confirmed ACT would again campaign on a smaller ministerial executive.

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters is set to deliver his speech in Tauranga in March.

The Greens, which prefer to call their address State of the Planet, are yet to confirm details of a 2026 speech.

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

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

Requiring police officers to shift rough sleepers from one place to another could see other crime work delayed or dropped, the Police Association’s boss says.

The government is giving officers new powers to move on rough sleepers or people displaying disorderly behaviour in town and city centres.

Breaching an order, which requires someone to leave an area for up to 24 hours, risks a fine of up to $2000 or three month jail term.

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith and Police Minister Mark Mitchell said it will be left to police officers to decide what support a person needs, if any.

Prime Minister Luxon told Morning Report police were capable of doing that.

But Police Association boss Steve Watt told Midday Report the police have limited resources, and it was unclear how big a job it would be to get people off the street and into a social agency.

“Until we just get that detail it’s really tough to gauge, but there’s no doubt that it will have a drain on policing resources.

“It means that potentially someone won’t have a cop turn up to their burglary, or they’ll be delayed, because they’re having to deal with this issue.”

Watt said there were already laws in place to deal with disorderly behaviour.

“What we’re talking about here is individuals that have got a multitude of issues, mental health, financial, housing, and you’ve gotta ask the question, are the police the right agency … to deal with this, or should it be some other social agency?”

It was also unclear how far people had to be moved, Watt said.

“Rough sleepers have a lot of property sometimes, shopping carts full of it, so is it an expectation of our members to wheel the cart down with the beggar down the street … just to simply displace the problem?”

Emails released to RNZ show the Mitchell had expressed a reluctance towards police leading a homelessness response in central Auckland, and expected other agencies to “step up and own” social issues.

In the email, dated 5 November, a staff member said: “Feel it is important just to flag that Minister Mitchell does not believe that police has a leadership role in this and has in the past ended up picking up the work of other agencies, which stretches their resources in other areas.”

Watt agreed.

“In reality, it’s not a policing problem, it’s an all-of-society problem, and that’s the way we need to start looking at it.”

Move on orders deal with disruption and disturbance, ministers say

Goldsmith said New Zealand’s main streets and town centres had been “blighted” by disruption and disturbance, with businesses “declining” as bad behaviour went unchecked.

He said police officers currently had limited options to respond, particularly if behaviour did not reach the level of offending, leading to “disruptive, distressing and potentially harmful acts”.

Social agencies have widely condemned the move, saying shifting people around cities would do nothing to solve homelessness or mental health and addiction problems that many rough sleepers were dealing with.

But Auckland business leaders welcomed it, saying it would make the city centre safer and a more desirable place to be.

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

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

Lawyers and health professionals are urging the government to slow down a law change, making it legal to claw back welfare supports once someone has been backpaid for an ACC claim.

The coalition, with Labour’s support, is moving to quickly pass amendment legislation to align the law with long-standing policy at the Ministry of Social Development (MSD).

It comes after a significant High Court ruling made it clear MSD was breaking the law in clawing back payments for supplementary supports like the winter energy payment once someone had received ACC backpay.

The legislation is being considered by MPs for just one week before returning to the House to be read a second time.

Interested groups made verbal submissions to MPs during the Select Committee this morning.

‘Unfair and unjust’ – lawyers

Community Law Centres Aotearoa (CLMA) acted as an intervener in the High Court case against MSD and today argued the bill was “unfair and unjust” and should be “rejected in its entirety”.

“It’s really important to challenge any perception that this bill is about preventing double-dipping or treating beneficiaries in different categories fairly, because a person who’s fought for years to get their ACC and requires assistance in the meantime is not in the same position as somebody who received ACC when they were entitled to it.

“So, in our submission, the bill is not about ensuring fairness, it actually perpetuates unfairness,” barrister Jack Wass said.

CLMA’s law reform coordinator Rupert O’Brien said the organisation took particular issue with the retrospective nature of the law change.

“This bill really does present a genuine threat to the rule of law. It overhauls the High Court’s legislative interpreting role and we don’t think that going back in time in this retrospective way is appropriate in the circumstances.

“We recommend that if the bill is to pass, that the retrospective nature of it is removed. If it is going to be retrospective in some nature, we recommend that the Parliament consider the importance of the savings clause… that prevents this bill from affecting active litigants in the appeals authority and the high court.”

O’Brien also highlighted the law change would unfairly impact those who had applied for a sensitive claim as a result of suffering state abuse as children.

He suggested there be a carve-out to accommodate them.

“We recommend that the select committee and Parliament consider excusing those people from having to repay these debts. It’s double punishment for those people.”

The New Zealand Law Society’s Gareth Richards submitted any retrospective law change that had carried detrimental impacts, in this case putting people into debt, was uncommon and required a proper inquiry.

Law change will affect new mothers with birth injuries – health professional

Pelvic health specialist Dr Melissa Davidson told MPs the urgent speed at which the bill was progressing didn’t leave enough time to consider its full impact, particularly on women with maternal birth injuries.

“When the legislation moves faster than understanding the harm does not fall equally, it falls on those least able to absorb it, Dr Davidson said.

“In the maternal birth injury space, there are systematic failures occurring daily. ACC claims have been declined or taken many months to be accepted through no fault of the woman themselves and the delays are often caused by ACC processes and health system failures, not by missing eligibility.”

Dr Davidson said new, injured mothers would not seek the help they needed if they had to pay it back.

“In New Zealand, women put their families first and themselves last. When supplementary assistance is provided, it’s meant to cover essential costs, but the reality of living with a birth injury includes far more than just water rates, power, food.

“It also includes treatment co-payments for the injury to get treatment for recovery, transport to and from appointments, childcare to attend those appointments if they can’t bring the baby and basic medical resources such as continence, products and pads, scar management, supplies and equipment.

“They face higher living costs while living on reduced incomes. We’re then asking them to repay costs that they reasonably believe are covered and it places them under additional psychological, physiological, physiology, physical and financial stress, again, through no fault of their own.”

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