Author: MIL-OSI Publisher

Source: Radio New Zealand

Air New Zealand is struggling in a booming aviation market, and new fears the war in Iran raise fuel costs and questions over whether the national carrier can regain altitude

The koru is said to symbolise growth and resilience, but turbulent financial winds are now buffeting Air New Zealand’s iconic symbol.

A $40 million loss has grounded the feel-good narrative, just as other airlines ride a global travel boom.

Across the Tasman, Qantas has just banked a billion-dollar profit, while in North America, Europe, and parts of Asia, carriers are reporting packed cabins and record revenues.

So today The Detail looks into whether New Zealand’s flagship airline can have a smoother path ahead.

“The result itself was worse than we expected,” says head of research at Forsyth Barr, Andy Bowley, who studies the numbers and writes investment research on Air New Zealand.

“Investors generally have an eye looking forward, more so than an eye looking back. And the outlook for the business is arguably worse than what the result was. So, from an expectations point of view, it was certainly disappointing.”

He pointed to a perfect storm to explain the worse-than-expected result: grounded aircraft due to global engine maintenance issues, softer domestic demand, high airport and operating costs, and persistent inflationary pressure.

“There’s a certain amount of work to be done here,” he tells The Detail. “I don’t think there is a quick fix for the airline. I think there are challenges that they have had in recent times with regard to the broader cyclical backdrop in New Zealand.

“I think there have been challenges with regard to the engine maintenance issues, which have been well documented.

“Those two issues will resolve themselves to some extent over the next 12 to 24 months, but I don’t think those are the only two issues impacting the airline, in terms of its ability to recover from the current woes that it’s in financially.”

He says one of the biggest issues is the level of cost inflation in recent years.

The airline has flagged a “reset” – a strategic review aimed at returning it to sustainable profitability. That could mean route rationalisation, tighter cost control, fleet adjustments, and potentially difficult workforce decisions.

Adding to the uncertainty is escalating tension in the Middle East. Any widening conflict involving Iran could push up global fuel prices and force longer flight paths as airspace closes – a costly combination for airlines operating on thin margins.

For Kiwi travellers, that may mean higher fares ahead.

For nervous staff, questions linger over job security. Labour, says Bowley, is a “big cost bucket”.

“I’m not the one to suggest that people will be laid off, but I suspect if they are looking to make savings, then the big cost buckets – where they can influence those cost buckets – will be under most scrutiny.”

Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour has suggested it’s time to sell the government’s shares in Air New Zealand.

The airline was privatised in 1989, but in 2001, it was bailed out by the government, which still owns a 51 percent stake.

Independent aviation industry commentator Irene King tells The Detail that’s not a good idea.

Air New Zealand, she says, is more than a company. It connects families, fuels tourism, underpins trade, and projects the country’s brand abroad.

Instead, she says, the airline should work on a closer working relationship with Qantas to increase the number of tourists coming here.

“That’s what the real game is, that is the reason we own Air New Zealand, it’s actually not to carry us abroad but in fact to bring more and more international tourists to New Zealand.

“When they have some of those really good, tight, strategic relationships, the New Zealand pie starts to grow. Air New Zealand is a strategic infrastructural asset. And it is about growing the wealth for New Zealand, and we should never escape from that particular notion.

“Privatisation, yes, has the potential to drive some wealth for some people, but Air New Zealand is about driving wealth for the whole of New Zealand. That’s the critical issue.”

King is a loyal and regular Air New Zealand flyer, but says she wasn’t surprised by the airline’s latest result.

“Look, it’s been very tough for them, and they don’t seem to have responded as I would have expected to known problems – well-flagged, well-known – and they sat back and said, ‘oh well, let’s see it happen’. That’s what amuses me.”

She points the finger at the airline’s board.

“Normally, it comes from the board. The board has been in place for quite some time, and under good conditions and bad conditions.

“One of the things with aviation boards is that in bad times, they have to understand the business backwards. And I would have thought they would have put a lot more aviation skill onto that board. If you don’t do that, you pay the price.”

The question now is whether this is a temporary dip in altitude for Air New Zealand or the start of a much steeper descent.

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

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

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

Just minutes after unifying around a new vision statement, a rift on the New Plymouth District Council was laid bare over the appointment of an acting chief executive.

At an extraordinary meeting, councillor Dinnie Moeahu expressed his dismay that the public was to be excluded from debate about the appointment.

“The significance of this matter should involve the community and when we have to make a decision, a significant decision, why wouldn’t we have the community involved?”

Moeahu also took umbrage at senior council staff leaving the chamber at the instruction of outgoing chief executive Gareth Green.

“Why are our executive leaders leaving when they should be right here?

“We are about to make a decision and I have some questions on this matter that I would like addressed before our council executives leave this room.

“And I’m not sure that when we remove the public, why are they leaving? Can someone tell me – through the CE – why are our executive leaders leaving this room?”

Green was happy to oblige.

“Through the chair, because I’ve asked them to. It’s not appropriate for our staff to be privy to the conversation that you’re going to have.

“That would be inappropriate for both the individuals you will be discussing and for them [the staff]. It would be highly unusual for them to be here.”

Moeahu hit back during debate on the motion to exclude even though not a single member of the public had turned up to the meeting.

“I thought this term was going to be the term of transparency. We will be open. We will be honest. We will have our community know what we are doing.

“So, what are we going to do? Exclude our executive team, exclude the public from this decision.

“I will not support the recommendation and I would encourage others to stand up for the community in the realm of transparency because we have the option of including the public.”

Councillors voted 10 to 4 to exclude the public, with one councillor abstaining.

The chief executive was the single member of council staff employed directly by the councillors.

Following the meeting, New Plymouth mayor Max Brough said it was standard practice to exclude the public when employment matters were being discussed.

“You never, ever, ever, in a public space, talk about employment issues when going through the process of choosing a new CE ever.

“Never. No council does that. It’s nonsense. “

Brough accused Moeahu of political point scoring.

Ditching Sustainable Lifestyle Capital vision

Earlier, the two men had been on the same page as council took the first steps towards ditching its “Sustainable Lifestyle Capital” vision statement.

Councillors unanimously supported adopting “Thriving Today, Resilient Tomorrow” as its new vision.

Brough said the slogan – suggested by first-term councillor Gina Blackburn – signalled a change in direction for council towards a more economic focus.

“One of the problems with the Sustainable Lifestyle Capital is there’s all sorts of interpretations sustainable and we all think it’s great to have a lifestyle, but we’ve sort of drifted away from creating an income and generating wealth.”

Moeahu thanked his colleagues for the two days of work on the new strategic framework.

“We worked really hard to try and move forwards together as a cohesive unit and I really appreciated that there was a lot of honesty, and some challenges, but what we have landed on here should be commended.”

Blackburn said the vision statement was about looking forward.

“I think this signals a new direction for us as a council focused on our people, on our place and creating a district that everyone wants to be in, everyone wants to thrive in.

“And where everyone knows and can feel secure that our council is making decisions in the best interests of the future.”

The vision statement would be outlined in next year’s Annual Plan and inform its Mission, Goals and the Strategic Framework of the Long-Term Plan 2027-2037.

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

A think tank says New Zealanders can see and feel rising inequality.

Wellbeing Economy Alliance Aotearoa released polling suggesting most people agree billionaires should pay more tax.

Carried out by Talbot Mills, 68 percent of respondents agreed with the ultra wealthy being taxed more to support public goods like healthcare, housing and climate action.

Thirteen percent disagreed in the poll from 11-26 February of 1033 people.

Half of people surveyed – 50 percent – agreed there should be no billionaires while people struggle affording the basics like housing, food and healthcare.

Think tank director Gareth Hughes told Midday Report there is deep unease about how the economy is handling challenges like housing and the cost of living.

“Kiwis know that our tax system isn’t fair, it’s putting too much of the responsibility on workers, on things like GST, which are incredibly regressive,” he said.

“Yes, they would like those ultra-wealthy to be contributing more for our health and education system.

“That’s two-thirds agree that billionaires should be paying more to fund these public services.”

The numbers were closer together in another question in the poll – whether there should be a “billion-dollar wealth cap” or maximum amount of wealth a person can have.

Among the respondents, 37 percent agreed, while 34 percent disagreed.

“Oh, personally, I would be comfortable with that,” Hughes said.

“I think once you had a billion dollars you could get a certificate saying you’ve won capitalism and you could contribute to society.”

Hughes said he was part of a global network working to try to redesign the economic system “to deliver wellbeing for people and nature”.

He said it was a topic being raised overseas, and Wellbeing Economy Alliance Aotearoa wanted to test the idea in New Zealand.

“I acknowledge it’s a pretty new idea for New Zealanders, the idea of wealth caps,” he said.

“But remember, once upon a time we had very high marginal tax rates for the super wealthy in this country to contribute towards society.”

The National Business Review‘s annual rich list reported last year that New Zealand had 18 billionaires, up from 16 the year before.

“I think the big message though is that billionaires around the world and through corporate influence in New Zealand has seen a system which advantages them,” said Hughes.

“It’s very hard for people to pull themselves by their bootstraps today, you can almost say the ladder’s being pulled up behind the super-wealthy.”

Hughes said it was up to political leaders to put their solutions to the public.

On the question of billionaires paying more tax, 71 percent of people under 30 were supportive, and also 71 percent of people 30-44.

Sixty-eight percent of people 45-59 agreed and 64 percent of people polled over 60.

Eighty percent of Labour and Green voters agreed, 69% percent of Te Pāti Māori voters, 67 percent of the poll’s New Zealand First supporters, 58 percent of National and 44 percent Act.

The poll responses:

How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following:

• The economic system in New Zealand is not set up to effectively address the big issues like housing, healthcare, and climate change. 66% total agree. 10% total disagree.
• No one should be a billionaire while so many people struggle to afford basic necessities like housing, food, and healthcare. 50% total agree, 24% total disagree.

How strongly do you support or oppose the following in NZ:

• Billionaires paying more tax to fund public goods like healthcare, housing, and climate action. 68% total agree. 13% total disagree.
• Introducing a billion-dollar wealth cap – a maximum amount of wealth any person can legally hold. 37% total agree. 34% total disagree.

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

Just minutes after unifying around a new vision statement, a rift on the New Plymouth District Council was laid bare over the appointment of an acting chief executive.

At an extraordinary meeting, councillor Dinnie Moeahu expressed his dismay that the public was to be excluded from debate about the appointment.

“The significance of this matter should involve the community and when we have to make a decision, a significant decision, why wouldn’t we have the community involved?”

Moeahu also took umbrage at senior council staff leaving the chamber at the instruction of outgoing chief executive Gareth Green.

“Why are our executive leaders leaving when they should be right here?

“We are about to make a decision and I have some questions on this matter that I would like addressed before our council executives leave this room.

“And I’m not sure that when we remove the public, why are they leaving? Can someone tell me – through the CE – why are our executive leaders leaving this room?”

Green was happy to oblige.

“Through the chair, because I’ve asked them to. It’s not appropriate for our staff to be privy to the conversation that you’re going to have.

“That would be inappropriate for both the individuals you will be discussing and for them [the staff]. It would be highly unusual for them to be here.”

Moeahu hit back during debate on the motion to exclude even though not a single member of the public had turned up to the meeting.

“I thought this term was going to be the term of transparency. We will be open. We will be honest. We will have our community know what we are doing.

“So, what are we going to do? Exclude our executive team, exclude the public from this decision.

“I will not support the recommendation and I would encourage others to stand up for the community in the realm of transparency because we have the option of including the public.”

Councillors voted 10 to 4 to exclude the public, with one councillor abstaining.

The chief executive was the single member of council staff employed directly by the councillors.

Following the meeting, New Plymouth mayor Max Brough said it was standard practice to exclude the public when employment matters were being discussed.

“You never, ever, ever, in a public space, talk about employment issues when going through the process of choosing a new CE ever.

“Never. No council does that. It’s nonsense. “

Brough accused Moeahu of political point scoring.

Ditching Sustainable Lifestyle Capital vision

Earlier, the two men had been on the same page as council took the first steps towards ditching its “Sustainable Lifestyle Capital” vision statement.

Councillors unanimously supported adopting “Thriving Today, Resilient Tomorrow” as its new vision.

Brough said the slogan – suggested by first-term councillor Gina Blackburn – signalled a change in direction for council towards a more economic focus.

“One of the problems with the Sustainable Lifestyle Capital is there’s all sorts of interpretations sustainable and we all think it’s great to have a lifestyle, but we’ve sort of drifted away from creating an income and generating wealth.”

Moeahu thanked his colleagues for the two days of work on the new strategic framework.

“We worked really hard to try and move forwards together as a cohesive unit and I really appreciated that there was a lot of honesty, and some challenges, but what we have landed on here should be commended.”

Blackburn said the vision statement was about looking forward.

“I think this signals a new direction for us as a council focused on our people, on our place and creating a district that everyone wants to be in, everyone wants to thrive in.

“And where everyone knows and can feel secure that our council is making decisions in the best interests of the future.”

The vision statement would be outlined in next year’s Annual Plan and inform its Mission, Goals and the Strategic Framework of the Long-Term Plan 2027-2037.

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

A Christchurch couple who found more than $200,000 in the ceiling will be allowed to $40,000 of it.

The couple, whose names are suppressed, found the mystery money sealed in plastic bricks tucked in insulation at their property in 2021.

They reported the $232,440 to the police who said the money should be forfeited because it was the proceeds of crime, probably from drug dealing.

A hearing took place this month in the Christchurch High Court.

In a judgment released on Wednesday, Justice Robert Osborne decided the couple could keep $40,000 of the cash, with the rest given to the Crown.

Both parties had reached a proposed settlement in the hearing, suggesting the couple be paid that amount from the cash.

In agreeing to the settlement, Justice Osborne said he had to consider a number of factors, including the strength of the police and couples’ arguments, and the aims of the Criminal Proceeds Recovery Act, which is designed to deter crime, eliminate criminals’ profit-making, and reduce their ability to expand their activities.

He said the case was “highly unusual”, in that the people who found the cash were “wholly innocent citizens” who discovered it and handed it to the police.

There were “strong public policy” reasons for agreeing to the settlement.

Others might be discouraged from reporting similar findings if they weren’t able to keep any of the money, he said.

“If this court were to strip from innocent finders of cash such as these interested parties any prospect of some cash recognition for handing the cash to the authorities, dishonesty could be unintentionally promoted.”

The police had accepted the couple had done the right thing by telling them about the cash, that they were caused stress by finding it and by the risk the true owner might return for it, and that they incurred the cost of alterations to their home after discovering it in the ceiling.

Justice Osborne said his decision wasn’t a finding that people should always be paid 20 percent of found cash when they stumble on it.

He said his responsibility was to determine the settlement had been reached fairly, and was consistent with the purposes of the Criminal Proceeds Recovery Act.

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