Category: Politics

Source: Radio New Zealand

The government says a new survey shows its traffic light system for those on a job seeker benefit is working as planned.

In August 2024, the coalition set up a traffic light system – alongside sanctions – for beneficiaries who don’t meet their obligations.

Social Development and Employment Minister Louise Upston said an evaluation had now found MSD clients were more on top of their job search responsibilities.

“Ninety percent of clients surveyed as part of the Ministry of Social Development’s latest evaluation said they found the traffic light system has been helpful for understanding their obligations, which include a range of activities towards finding employment.

“We’re also seeing nearly 99 percent of clients are fulfilling their obligations, along with a 10.6 percent drop in the number of sanctions issued between the September 2024 and September 2025 quarters.”

Upston said the traffic light system had been designed to reset expectations for those on welfare and it was clear the reset was working.

“The traffic light system ensures the welfare system is more integrated and helps jobseekers understand and navigate their obligations, helping them to be prepared, proactive and seize opportunities when they come along.

“Welfare is conditional on recipients meeting their responsibilities.”

Upston said the coalition remained committed to reaching its target of 50,000 fewer people on Jobseeker Support by 2030.

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

The Prime Minister says only the US and Israel have the intelligence to back up their attacks on Iran – and New Zealand won’t be asking to see it.

Christopher Luxon was asked if he believed the attacks were a breach of international law in his weekly post-Cabinet media conference Monday afternoon.

“Issues of legality [are] for Israel and the US to talk to because we’re not party to that information or that intelligence they may have,” he said.

Luxon went on to say it wasn’t guaranteed New Zealand would ever see this intelligence – and his government would not be asking to see it.

“We’ve had a long standing commitment under successive governments that any actions that stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is a good thing, any actions that take to stop them from sponsoring terrorism is a good thing, any actions that stops them from killing their own people is a good thing.

“This is not a good regime and that has been a long standing position of New Zealand governments under different administrations.”

Asked if New Zealand’s support for “any actions” extended to “carpet bombing” Iran, Luxon made several attempts at answering the question before repeating his earlier lines.

“We’ve long supported actions under our governments, under successive political parties, that actually stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

“There have been endless rounds of diplomacy where Iran has flagrantly disregarded international law with respect to nuclear weapons programmes. That has not worked.”

Luxon was asked if New Zealand’s support for “any actions” extended to the bombing of a girls’ school that – according to reports by the BBC – killed at least 153 people.

“That is up to them [the US and Israel] to present what has happened there because I’m not in a position to judge that from sitting in New Zealand.”

Asked to clarify if he meant to say he couldn’t make a judgement call if a children’s school being bombed was a good or bad thing, Luxon said civilians should be protected.

“We want to make sure that any action is consistent with international law but we also need Israel and the US to explain their actions and their understanding of that event and that is for them to explain.”

The coalition has condemned the Iranian regime, focusing its criticism on the regime’s killing of civilians and pursuit of its nuclear programme.

The New Zealand government’s criticism has not extended to the United States and Israel’s actions, even after former Prime Minister Helen Clark said they clearly breached international law.

Asked if the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade had advised the government on the legality of the US and Israel’s attacks, Luxon said he couldn’t comment.

In terms of advice he had received from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Luxon said he couldn’t go into it.

“I just can’t comment on that. Cabinet rules preclude me from doing so.”

Hard ‘no’ from Labour on supporting the US and Israel’s attacks

Fronting reporters shortly after the post-Cabinet briefing, Labour leader Chris Hipkins was asked if his party supported the actions of the US and Israel.

“No,” he said.

Hipkins said he had been taken aback by Luxon’s language around New Zealand supporting “all actions” to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

“I was somewhat shocked to see that comment…that does not reflect the position that successive New Zealand governments have taken.

“Successive New Zealand governments have expressed significant concern about the Iranian regime but that does not justify any action, particularly when it breaches international law.”

Hipkins said New Zealand should, as it had in the past, stand up for its values and international law.

“When it came to the invasion of Iraq, New Zealand stood apart from what was a lot of international support for that action, and said no we did not think that was the right thing to do and I think we should do so here as well.”

Hipkins said there was “never a justification for killing school children”.

“International rules still matter. New Zealand has been very clear and consistent in its position of condemning the actions of the Iranian government and that’s been across successive governments.

“But that doesn’t justify simply ripping up the international rule book. There’s a need for a return to diplomacy, a return to international institutions. This is why bodies like the United Nations were established in the first place.”

Hipkins said if he were prime minister, he would be asking for New Zealand’s Five Eyes partners for more information about the situation.

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

Firearms owners say the government’s overhaul of gun laws doesn’t go far enough to undo the “damage that was done” after the 15 March terror attacks.

A Muslim leader, meanwhile, told MPs to consider public safety over what was convenient for firearms owners.

Parliament’s Justice Committee has been hearing in-person submissions on the country’s new gun regulations, put forward in the Arms Bill.

Many licensed firearms owners expressed concerns the changes don’t go far enough, while the Police Association has criticised the new regulator being set up without sworn officers.

Support ‘with reservations’ from firearms groups

On Monday morning, MPs heard from firearms groups, gun control advocates, and the union representing police.

Much of the submissions from firearms groups focused on their problems with the existing legislation, and whether they thought the new bill would assuage them.

The New Zealand Deerstalkers Association supported the bill, with “some reservations,” feeling it did not go far enough.

“It fails to meaningfully unwind many of the bad policy decisions, the over regulation and the structural failures introduced since 2019, said chief executive Gwyn Thurlow.

“Farmers, land owners, and conservation agencies are calling for more effective game animal control and pest eradication and biodiversity outcomes but successive governments had stigmatised the use of firearms. This has not been resolved by this bill.”

Thurlow felt political fear and media pressure had “constrained” the bill.

“When lawful, fit and proper people exit the system because it has become too difficult, too intrusive, too hostile to engage with, public safety is not improved.”

Zac Dodunski, from the Taranaki branch of the New Zealand Antique and Historical Arms Association said the new legislation was the “first steps” in the right direction, considering the “damage that was done” post-Christchurch.

Fish and Game New Zealand supported the bill, but suggested “practical gaps” could be filled, such as making agency-owned firearms registered to the agency, not the individual employee.

The bill would also keep the firearms registry implemented after the 15 March attacks.

Despite supporting the intent of the bill, the Council of Licensed Firearms Owners (COLFO) said there remained a level of mistrust from firearms owners that information would be kept safe.

“The continued perception that the registry will magically solve gun crime, despite worldwide evidence to the contrary, will continue to be a bureaucratic burden around the New Zealand taxpayer’s neck,” said COLFO’s chair Brad Gallop.

New regulator questioned

The new regulator, without sworn police officers, was also met with concern.

The Police Association’s president Steve Watt said it was appropriate that the governance of the regulator and the enforcer were the same.

“Police being part of the FSA is an extremely important issue for us, as it does provide safety and security for our members, in the sense that there is coherent information sharing, and there is a robust system in place whereby we can share that information and make sure that safety and security is at the forefront,” he said.

“When we consider all the things that can be simplified, firearms isn’t one of them.”

Philippa Yasbek, co-founder of Gun Control NZ, said the bill’s “hostility” towards police involvement in the regulator was risky.

Yasbek said the bill was “not terrible, but it is messy” and anticipated Parliament would have to fix the legislation “many, many times” if the bill was passed in its current state.

But COLFO supported the change, with Gallop calling for a separate legal entity to ensure distinct separation of powers.

He had concerns that the FSA would still be part of police from a budgetary perspective, meaning police could still have influence on the FSA.

“There are still some issues around the bureaucracy that has been created by the FSA that have overly complicated licensed firearms owners to both renew their license and also transact on a day to day basis with the FSA,” he said.

“The issue we have is not with licensed firearms owners’ ability to register their firearms. The issue is the mistrust within the firearms community of the ability of the police at the moment to keep that information safe.”

The process of appointing a chief executive to the FSA was “significant,” Yasbek said, as she felt it was an “unconstitutionally precedented arrangement.”

She called for a merit-based appointment, with the process led by the Public Service Commission, instead of one appointed by the Governor-General.

“The risk cuts both ways, it could be that someone’s appointed who I think is far too close to the gun lobby. Alternatively, governments change, and suddenly it’s someone who’s seen as completely hostile to gun owners.”

Abdur Razzaq from the Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand also opposed the method of appointing a chief executive.

“There needs to be a merit-based approach, and when that merit-based approach is bypassed by political appointees, under whatever guise, I don’t think we could accept that.”

Razzaq said the convenience of lawful firearms owners should never come above public safety, and called on the committee to keep the “tangible grief, the lasting grief, the memory, and the legacy” of the 51 people who died in the terror attacks in mind as it considered the bill.

“The bill is not only about making the whole licensing system more efficient, it is not only about making the system more convenient for lawful users, and there are many Muslim licensed gun users. It should also be about, does it make New Zealand safer? We request this last metric be the central argument in your deliberations. That should be the litmus test.”

He told the MPs on the committee the future of the nation’s safety and wellbeing was in their hands.

“You will be accountable,” he said.

What does the bill do?

The bill as introduced would repeal and replace the 1983 Act, introducing new penalties and tougher restrictions for gang members.

Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee had sought a carve out for competitive shooters to access military-style semi-automatic firearms, but failed.

It would also reform the Firearms Safety Authority without sworn police officers, and headed up by its own chief executive, who would report to the firearms minister, instead of the police minister.

At its first reading in December, Labour supported the bill, while the Greens and Te Pāti Māori opposed it.

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

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

National has announced that, if re-elected, it would ban ring-net fishing in some areas of the Hauraki Gulf, but the policy they’ve promised to reverse was their own

The battle has been long – fish versus fishing.

Now, the fight over the future of the Hauraki Gulf has erupted again, this time over politics, promises and what policy critics call a backflip.

Nine months out from the election, the National Party has pledged to ban the controversial practice of ring-netting in 12 high protection zones and to review rules around bottom trawling corridors. Currently, two high-protection zones can be accessed by five commercial fishers.

Announced by conservation minister Tama Potaka, the new policy pushes against a decision his own government made last year and comes as a “confusing” blow to Seafood New Zealand.

“The health of our oceans and the sustainability of our fisheries resources are absolutely critical to us,” Seafood New Zealand chief executive Lisa Futschek tells ‘The Detail’. “Without that, we don’t have businesses, we don’t create jobs and we don’t supply healthy protein to Kiwis,

“We work really hard on these credentials, but the policy reversal… I really do question whether it is about sustainability.”

She says the five fishers allowed to fish in the two high-protection areas “run small family businesses, they have been fishing in the area for decades, it’s really low impact, they have small boats… and their nets are hand set and hauled”.

“It’s hard to argue this is a sustainability measure,” Futschek says. “It’s really unfortunate, because these ring-net fishers were caught in what are now high-protection areas, lines were drawn, their operations weren’t considered and it really is unfair.”

“The exceptions that the government made were just transitions for these guys, so they could adapt their businesses and prepare for some time in the future, when those exceptions were no longer allowed.

“The fact that the National caucus has decided to roll those back early – or certainly they are electioneering on that promise – is really confusing to us, because it isn’t about sustainability and we would like to understand what it is really about.”

Newsroom senior business journalist Andrew Bevin, who is covering the story, tells ‘The Detail’ the policy backflip is a surprise move by the National Party.

“It’s not often you see someone campaigning to undo their own decision as an election policy,” says Bevin, whose story ran under the headline ‘Fisheries emerges as unlikely election battleground’.

“To come out with a fisheries policy nine months before the election tells you that this is something we are going to have a real discussion about this year.”

He says National has opted to campaign for this new policy, because the current situation is “just so unpopular”.

“It’s become a poster child of what has been seen as an anti-environmental agenda from the coalition and this perceived favouring of industry over fishing rights for the public – recreational fishermen, who are cut out of these high protection areas.”

Environmental groups, scientists and recreational fishers have long been vocal that the Gulf is under pressure like never before.

They point to declining biodiversity, stressed fish stocks and seabeds scarred by trawling, but Futschek argues that commercial fishers are being unfairly painted as ocean villains when, in their view, they’re among the most regulated fishers in the world.

“To say that the commercial fishing industry is responsible for the decline in biodiversity and ecosystems in the Gulf is simply wrong,” she says. “Putting the blame at our feet is completely unfair and I reject that.”

She says quotas, monitoring and strict rules already govern what they can catch – and further bans could cripple businesses, coastal jobs and food supply chains.

She believes the current setup works.

“New Zealand can be hugely proud of a quota-management system that has seen our stocks revive, has seen us fishing sustainably, has seen us the envy of the world, really, in terms of the way we manage our fishery.”

She says the seafood industry is adapting – trialling new gear, reducing seabed impact, investing in sustainability – but trust, she admits, is harder to rebuild than a fish stock.

That may be the real battle here. Not just fish versus fishing – but credibility versus suspicion.

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

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has told Morning Report the Iranian regime is an evil one and has been a destabilising force in the Middle East.

But he would not be drawn on whether the government supports the strikes by the United States and Israel against Tehran.

Asked by presenter Corin Dann whether New Zealand supported the attacks on Iran, Luxon said it condemned the Iranian regime as evil and as having claimed countless lives.

“We understand fully why the Americans and the Israelis have undertaken the independent action that they’ve taken.

“Our position is the same as the Australian position.”

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said on Sunday the government supported the United States acting to stop Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

Pressed on whether the strikes were legally right, Luxon said it would be up to the US and Israel to explain the legal basis for their attacks the attack.

Former Prime Minister Helen Cark has called the government’s stance a disgrace and says New Zealand should support a rules-based international order.

Luxon said what was disgraceful was the repressive Iranian regime which had killed thousands of its own people who had taken to the streets calling for freedoms.

“Iran has been a destabilising force. It has supported armed proxies throughout the region. It has seen tens of thousands of people murdered by own government, who were asking for freedom and rights.”

In a statement on Sunday, Luxon and Foreign Affairs Minister and Winston Peters said New Zealand had consistently condemned Iran’s nuclear programme and its “destabilising activities” in the region and “acknolwedged” the strikes.

“Iran has, for decades, defied the will and expectations of the international community. The legitimacy of a government rests on the support of its people. The Iranian regime has long since lost that support,” they said.

“In this context, we acknowledge that the actions taken overnight by the US and Israel were designed to prevent Iran from continuing to threaten international peace and security.”

Luxon and Peters condemned in the “strongest terms Iran’s indiscriminate retaliatory attacks” on neighbouring states.

The statement also said “we call for a resumption of negotiations and adherence to international law.”

Clark told Morning Report said the statement was a disgrace.

“What was wrong with it was it didn’t call out the illegal strike against Iran in the middle of diplomatic negotiations “which were going quite well and further talks were scheduled”.

“The whole point of international law is to put rules around when force is legitimate,” she said.

“A strike is justified if there is an imminent threat of attack, which clearly there was not.”

She said the initial strikes by the US and Israel violated international law.

“The New Zealand government seems only interested in the Iranian retaliation and not looking at the reason for the retaliation, which was the attack by the United States and Israel,” she said.

“I think it’s consistent with a steady drift in New Zealand foreign policy to realign strongly with the United States, which at this particular time seems even more questionable as a strategy.”

“We’re not putting a stake in the ground in defence of the international rule of law.”

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

Labour remains ahead on most of the key issues in the latest Ipsos Issues Monitor, but National has improved its ratings on the economy and the cost of living.

The rating of the government’s overall performance has also rebounded from its record low in the previous survey.

The quarterly survey asks a thousand New Zealanders what they think are the three most important issues facing the country, and the political parties they believe are most capable of handling them.

Labour is seen as most capable on three of the top five issues, and equal with National on a fourth.

In total, Labour leads in 14 of the top 20 issues.

Respondents believed Labour had the best handle on inflation/the cost of living, healthcare, and housing.

National is still seen as most capable on law and order.

While Labour overtook National on the economy in the previous survey, the parties are now neck and neck.

In the rest of the top 20, Labour is also ahead on unemployment, poverty/inequality, drug/alcohol abuse, petrol prices/fuel, education, immigration, household debt/personal debt, race relations/racism, transport/public transport/infrastructure, taxation, and population/overpopulation.

National is seen as most capable on defence/foreign affairs/terrorism, the Greens are ahead on climate change and environmental pollution/water concerns, and Te Pāti Māori is seen as most capable of handling issues facing Māori.

The cost of living and inflation remains New Zealanders’ number one concern, with 59 percent of people identifying it as a key issue, down from 61 percent in the previous survey.

35 percent of people believe Labour is the best party at handling the issue, a slight dip of one percentage point.

National has risen to 28 percent, up from 24 percent.

Healthcare is still the second most important issue, but decreasing again on previous surveys, with Labour on 37 percent.

National is on 25 percent, closing the gap from 19 points in the previous survey to 12.

On the economy, both Labour and National are on 32 percent.

Petrol prices has entered the top 10 issues, while immigration has risen four places to joint 11th.

Despite the country being affected by devastating weather events over the summer, there was no increase on climate change as an issue.

Overall, the government’s performance was rated 4.2, up from a record low of 3.9 in the previous survey.

This brings the government back to the same rating as the February 2025 and August 2025 surveys, though still not as high as the 4.7 it rated in October 2024, and well off the survey’s record high of 7.6, which the Labour-led coalition reached in May 2020.

The study was conducted using online research panels between 11 and 18 February 2026, with 1,000 New Zealanders aged 18 and older asked what the top three issues were facing the country today. Quotas were set to ensure representativeness.

The total New Zealand results have a credibility interval of +/-3.5 percentage points.

See the full survey here.

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

The Foreign Affairs minister says New Zealand was not given any advance notice of the attack on Iran, and has again urged New Zealanders to leave if it is safe to do so.

The United States and Israel launched a major attack on Iran, with US President Donald Trump claiming the attack killed Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

At this stage, the United Nations were unable to confirm the Ayatollah’s death.

The New Zealand government said the US and Israel’s actions were “designed to prevent Iran from continuing to threaten international peace and security,” and condemnded Iran’s retaliatory attacks on Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Jordan.

It also called for a “resumption of negotiations and adherence to international law,” urging the Iranian leadership to seek a negotiated solution that “returns Iran to the community of nations.”

Speaking at the Defence Force base at Auckland’s Whenuapai on Sunday, Winston Peters said all sorts of people would want to “pontificate” on the attack, but the rule of law needed to be enforced.

“Iran has been a promoter of terrorism in countless theatres for decades now. That’s not an excuse for what you’ve seen. But it is an explanation,” he said.

It was “premature” to talk about what New Zealand would do if things escalated, Peters said.

“Let’s see what we’re dealing with. We’re doing our best to talk to our international partners and other collaborators around the world.”

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade had told New Zealanders in the region to shelter in place, and to follow the advice of local authorities and register on SafeTravel.

Peters said there were around 34 to 38 New Zealanders registered in Iran, but there would be “many more.”

The government has long told New Zealanders in Iran to leave, a message Peters reiterated if people were able to do so.

“It will be very difficult in the risky cities. But if you’re out in the countryside and can get away, give it a go. Otherwise, try and say safe, stay inside, and we’ll see how things develop. But it’s very, very difficult for us, this far away from personal circumstances to tell people what to do,” he said.

“Mind you, we’ve been telling them for weeks to get ready, just in case this happened. Maybe next time, listen to the government of New Zealand, who does care what their future might be.”

A repatriation flight was possible, “if it comes to that,” but it was too risky at the moment.

“We’ll do our best that we can, but we are a long, long way from this conflict. Way out in the south west Pacific. Let’s not get too rushed trying to be involved here.”

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

Foreign Minister Winston Peters spoke to media about the unfolding conflict in Iran.

Peters was at Auckland’s Whenuapai Airbase on Sunday morning.

It comes after a US-Israeli attack on Iran which US President Donald Trump had indicated was aimed at overturning Tehran’s government.

The attack had killed more than 200 people, according to Iranian state media.

Israel sources confirmed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in the strikes.

Iran launched retaliatory missile strikes against American military bases across the Middle East, as well as Israel.

Peters said it was premature to come to any conclusion on the attacks.

“Iran has been a promoter of terrorism in countless theatres for decades now. That’s not an excuse for what we’ve seen, but it is an explanation.”

Peters said New Zealand was not given notice in advance of the attacks.

He said there were between 34-38 New Zealanders registered in Iran, and if it came to it there would be repatriation flights

The New Zealand government released a joint statement on Iran from Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Peters earlier on Sunday morning.

It said New Zealand has “consistently condemned Iran’s nuclear programme its destabilising activities in the region and elsewhere, and its repression of its own people.”

The government also condemned Iran’s strikes on surrounding nations.

It said New Zealand Embassies in the region are closely monitoring the situation and will continue to provide support to New Zealanders

“We call for a resumption of negotiations and adherence to international law – and we urge the Iranian leadership to seek a negotiated solution that returns Iran to the community of nations.”

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade advises New Zealanders in the region to shelter in place. The government said New Zealanders should follow the advice of local authorities and register on SafeTravel.

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

Rule changes for putting a granny flat on your section cut very little red tape, but move questions of liability from councils to homeowners

No garage conversions, no house extensions, no old materials or relocated cottages, no DIY practitioners, no mezzanine floors and no accessible showers.

And no building consent needed.

The government’s new rules for building a granny flat, or ‘minor standalone dwelling’, on your own property cut through one layer of paperwork and will likely save plans from being clogged up at council level, but they’re still complex, full of restrictions and just as expensive as they always were.

The real change these rules bring, say experts, is that when things go wrong, they shift the burden of responsibility from the council to homeowners.

Karel Boakes is the president of the Building Officials Institute of New Zealand, an organisation with around 1200 members who deal with building surveying, controls and regulations in both the private sector and in councils.

From what she’s seen in the month or so since the law came in, there’s been no rush to build these standalone dwellings – she says licensed building practitioners appear to be wary of shouldering the burden of responsibility for any failures.

“They’re concerned,” she says.

“They’re concerned for the homeowners and potentially the risks that they might be taking on if they choose to follow this route.”

“Obviously they’re not against efficiencies where they can be made. That’s common sense and we’re all on board with that. But we’re also trying to weigh up the level of risk that people could be exposed to if buildings are built in a way that’s not compliant or in a way that [poses problems] financially with insurance or what have you.”

Boakes says officials want to make sure people go into these processes with their eyes wide open, understanding the risks.

“There’s definitely a shift of liability.”

Before the regulation changed there was a level of surety in council checks, but we saw from the leaky building crisis that meant that councils were often the “last man standing” – the only organisation still around answering questions of liability when builders and developers went bust. Now the responsibility for any issues down the line falls on the homeowner, and those licensed building practitioners who supervised the job.

The only council responsibility comes right at the start of an application for a standalone dwelling when it issues a PIM – a Project Information Memorandum – which details information about the land or the project that they need to take account of, such as unstable land or flood plains.

“The council won’t be taking any liability any more in terms of assessing, or checking, or inspecting,” says Boakes.

The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has put out comprehensive information about the processes involved.

It says the granny flats building consent exemption allows small standalone dwellings of up to 70 square metres to be built without a building consent, if it has a simple design and meets the building code; homeowners notify the council before they start building and when they’re finished; the work is carried out or supervised by licensed building professionals; and all the exemption conditions are met.

You can download the seven forms required from the site, read the three checklists, five step-by-step guides and five fact sheets, and there are links to 12 professional groups that might be involved.

So there’s no excuse for winging it.

Bill McKay, a senior lecturer at the School of Architecture and Planning, University of Auckland, tells The Detail that when the rules came out, he was taken aback by the level of requirements – “all the things that you do and have to worry about”.

“One of the questions I’m mostly commonly asked is, ‘can I build it myself?’

“Short answer – absolutely not,” he says.

He says not having to get a building consent will save time, with the council unable to put off its issuing of a PIM. But a building consent is one thing – “you’ll still need building advice from someone who can draw up plans for you and that sort of thing. We might still need a resource consent, and this is a pitfall for lots of people.

“You can’t build just anywhere you want in your back yard. We have certain rules about minimum permeable and impermeable area so that rainfall will soak away, which is all good. And we have distances that we have to keep from neighbours … all that sort of thing as well.

“I think a lot of people will just sort of leap into it without doing their homework first and doing it properly, and that could get them in trouble from various angles.”

Then there’s the sting at the end – while it varies throughout the country, most councils will charge a development fee, and in some places that could be around $25,000. Your rates will go up too, having added another bathroom and more square metres to your estate.

Meanwhile McKay has picked out an aspect of the regulations he calls ‘ironic’ – even if your little house is for granny, you can’t have a recessed shower, where you could wheel in or get in without tripping over if you were unstable on your feet.

“The reason for that is, they haven’t developed a class of LBP who can do that.”

That means the supervisory aspect of the project couldn’t be met – so accessible showers are on the no-go list.

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

Winston Peters says the “last thing we should do is go and panic” and make a classic mistake “based on blind ideology” in response to Air New Zealand’s financial loss.

The ACT party is questioning whether the government should retain its majority share in the company, as the Prime Minister signals the potential for a conversation about asset sales in this year’s election.

But the New Zealand First leader said “politicians should know what they’re talking about” before suggesting a sale.

On Thursday, David Seymour floated the idea after the company posted a bottom-line loss of $40 million in the six months to December.

“Get woke, go broke,” he said, “We hear about electric planes, glossy reports on climate change, paper cups in the Koru lounge. What they can’t seem to do is take off and land on time.”

The Prime Minister brushed off questions about it, saying there would be no asset sales this political term.

But New Zealand First has long opposed selling off state-owned assets.

Peters took to social media to acknowledge Air New Zealand needed to start being on-time and reducing regional costs, but said calls to sell shares when the airline market was in a downturn were “economic lunacy”.

He pointed out airlines were struggling worldwide, partly because there were not enough engines for the aircraft. He said no one had said anything about selling the airline when it had posted a profit.

“Sometimes there’s a downturn, but we can get on top of it.

“We should not go back to the foolishness of Labour and National selling off assets in the past.”

Peters said the added value of Air New Zealand being “owned by us” went to taxpayers and the New Zealand economy.

If it was owned internationally, that value would go to a foreign economy and New Zealand would be used as a place for “economic exploitation”.

“It’s clear as daylight.

“The former CEO warned us of this two years ago, so politicians should know what they’re talking about.”

He said it was a conversation for the upcoming election.

Labour’s finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds also rejected the idea of selling the airline.

She acknowledged performance mattered and the board must be accountable for that, “but a short term loss doesn’t actually justify selling a strategic asset and a really key part of New Zealand’s infrastructure”.

“The real taxpayer risk would be losing control of regional routes and international connectivity if ownership shifted offshore.”

She also challenged the Deputy Prime Minister to explain to regional communities how selling it would guarantee connections for their region.

The Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said asset sales were the very reason New Zealanders’ bills were so high, and that privatisation enriched shareholders at the expense of everyday people.

“That’s when profit comes first – passengers, workers, and regional accessibility comes last.”

She said the Greens had always believed assets built by New Zealanders should remain in public hands.

“The Co-Deputy Prime Minister is currently selling more of the poison as though it were the medicine.”

What do New Zealanders think?

RNZ spoke to people in Wellington on Thursday evening in the after-work rush hour.

“I think it’s important that we have an airline that works well for our country. We need to be able to get around.”

“As a consumer, it’s disappointing that they have such high air prices. I think there’s some fundamental issues around that. It’s a tough business, but privatising isn’t something that I personally or politically would ever want to see happen with an asset like that.”

“It’s our national airline, so probably it makes sense to keep it because we really can’t afford for it to go under, can we?”

“I do love flying Air New Zealand. It’s a great airline!”

“We’ve got to hold on to it. We’ve sold a lot, and it’s not really been of benefit. It’s a short term solution.”

“It depends on who’s gonna own it, right? I don’t really want someone who doesn’t give a shit about the environment, and will just keep charging high prices for flights.”

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