Category: Politics

Source: Radio New Zealand

The government has sunk plans to station an open ocean tug in the Cook Strait long term saying the costs outweigh the benefits.

For years local government leaders on either side of the North and South Island had been calling for open ocean tugs after several near miss accidents.

One of these was in January 2023 when the Interislander ferry Kaitaki was sailing into Wellington Harbour with 854 passengers on board and lost power, which resulted in a mayday call.

In April the government contracted the MMA Vision, an open ocean tug, to be stationed in Wellington till June while it came up with a long term solution.

On Tuesday, the government announced that contract will end earlier in February and there would be no replacement for it.

Transport Minister Chris Bishop said cabinet had considered a detailed business case for open ocean tugs in March which would provide a tug which could stabilise a stricken boat and another which could tow that boat in.

Bishop said while Cook Strait clearly had risks, they were too small for the costs associated with the tugs.

He said those costs had escalated from the initial business case to the detailed business case from around $80 million over 10 years to over $259 million over 10 years.

The minister also noted most recorded boating incidents happened outside of Cook Strait.

“While most of these costs were intended to be paid with the establishment of EORC-specific levies, there would still be significant cost pressures on the Crown to procure an EORC solution, and these levies would be passed onto consumers through higher prices.

“Put bluntly, the cost to taxpayers is too high for something that’s unlikely to be needed – and unlikely to be useful even if it is.”

He said cancelling the MMA Vision contract early would save $9 million.

New Cook Strait ferries arriving in 2029 would have better safety features and reduces the need for open ocean tugs, 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

Source: Radio New Zealand

Oranga Tamariki says it learnt a lot from the coalition’s boot camp trial, but documents seen by RNZ show many of those lessons were identifed more than a decade ago and shared with the programme designers.

Emails show a ministry evaluation of “military-style activity camps” run in 2009 and 2010 was sent to Oranga Tamariki staff in March 2024 as they were preparing National’s promised boot camp pilot.

“Probably not telling you anything you don’t already know but it’s a good summary of previous work done in this space and highlights the lessons that we can learn from the earlier work,” the email read.

The document summarising the main findings presented it as a “focus on findings that could inform the design and establishment Military Style Academies and help mitigate or avoid potential pitfalls”.

Among the lessons to learn were: rushed implementation, a lack of clarity around roles, inadequate information, training and resource, better engagement with whānau and a need to involve iwi services.

Many of the same themes are present in the final independent evaluation of the government’s latest military-style academy pilot, released in early November.

For example, while it noted “meaningful and positive change” for the young people, it named various challenges: rushed implementation, challenging transitions, a lack of continuity around therapeutic support, a lack of capacity in the residential phase, the need to engage with mana whenua earlier and support for whānau began too late before the rangatahi returned home.

The opposition parties say it’s proof the government is simply recycling old failures, but Oranga Tamariki insists it did take on board lessons from the earlier programmes.

Opposition hits out

Labour’s children spokesperson, Willow-Jean Prime, said the emails proved the government had “sunk millions into an experiment that has repeated the same failures of the past”.

She said the pilot was a “disgrace and utter waste of time” which the government had rushed through for “political headlines”.

“We need real, proven wrap-around interventions that work, not failed experiments that take us back down a road of harm.”

The Green Party’s youth and corrections spokesperson, Tamatha Paul, said the pilot had been an “enormous waste of time and resource”.

“Doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results is insanity,” she said.

“The international and domestic evidence shows clearly that this approach does not lead to reduced re-offending. The far more effective and cheaper intervention is resourcing community-based kaupapa to support rangatahi in their neighbourhoods.”

Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said the government had obviously failed to learn any lessons from its “experments”.

“This information confirms what we already knew to be true: boot camps and punishment have never been the solution for our tamariki,” she said.

The government’s response

In a statement, Minister for Children Karen Chhour told RNZ she strongly believed the pilot had been a success. She said the review reflected that, while also acknowledging opportunities for improvement.

“The reality for our young serious offenders is that they are on a pathway to adult Corrections and a lifetime in-and-out of incarceration unless they are given a chance to turn their lives around and take that chance. This programme has been that chance.”

Chhour said social workers and mentor teams had put a “huge amount of work” into supporting the nine young people and their 29 sibilings, including helping them access housing, education and health assessments.

She said the pilot was reviewed while it was underway and its successes had helped the government achieve its target of reducing serious and persistent youth offending “a half decade early”.

Military-Style Academy programmes lead Janet Mays provided RNZ with a statement, insisting that the agency did consider the previous evaluation when designing the new pilot and took “several lessons” into account.

Mays said officials also took on board “the findings of a thorough literature review on a range of intervention programmes for young offenders”.

Asked why many of the same difficulties were identified in the latest programme, Mays acknowledged a short timeframe had “impacted some outcomes”.

She said the community transition phase could be strengthened and Oranga Tamariki had acknowledged mana whenua should have been involved in the design of the pilot earlier.

But Mays said the pilot was well-resourced, and kaimahi had “good role clarity in residence” and received “two weeks of intensive training” before the programme’s launch.

She said the therapeutic intervention offered in the residency phase was “extensive” and showed improvements.

“The MSA Pilot was a new initiative that aimed to help a small group of serious and persistent young offenders turn their lives around by providing them with increased structure, support and opportunities.

“We have learnt a lot from this pilot, which will strengthen and shape how we best support rangatahi in the future.”

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 for a judge accused of disrupting a New Zealand First event want clarity over the legal test which will apply at her judicial conduct hearing.

A judicial conduct panel is looking into the behaviour of Acting District Court Judge Ema Aitken.

She is accused of interrupting a New Zealand First function at the exclusive Northern Club in Auckland last year in November, allegedly shouting that leader Winston Peters was lying.

Judge Aitken has argued she did not shout, that she did not recognise Peters’ voice and did not know it was a political event.

A bid she made for a judicial review of the decision to hold the Judicial Conduct Panel was dismissed in April of this year at the High Court in Auckland.

‘What is the test’

Under the District Court Act, a Governor-General can, on the advice of the Attorney-General, remove a Judge from the office on the grounds of inability or misbehaviour.

The Judicial Conduct Panel will consider Judge Aitken’s behaviour at a hearing in February next year. It will determine facts, and write a report to the Attorney-General including about whether the removal of the Judge is justified.

The panel is comprised of former Court of Appeal Judge Brendan Brown KC (who is the chair), Justice Jillian Mallon, a sitting Court of Appeal Judge, and Sir Jerry Mateparae, the former Governor-General.

In a preliminary hearing on Monday, counsel for Judge Aitken, David Jones KC, told the panel it was essential to know what the specific legal test for misbehaviour was.

“We are asking you to state the test, in advance of the hearing.

“You have to have something to aim at, you have to have something to establish.

“And here we have the difference – for example – between misconduct and misbehaviour, and we have to know how aggregious that has to be, in order for the contemplation of removal to be considered.”

Jones KC said it was essential to understand the legal test before the hearing took place, because it could affect the arguments or context the evidence is presented in at the hearing.

“You have a situation where if you have a test, and you know that you have to satisfy that test, or special counsel has to satisfy that test, then evidence can be adduced – potentially from experts to say – ‘look this is certain behaviour but it doesn’t get to this point, or it does’, or whatever.”

He said it was even more important these issues were nailed down in what he described as a “political context”, referring to how the report from the Northern Club was leaked to the media.

Jones KC said the hearing would need to establish Judge Aitken knew of the political context when she spoke – not what she, as a judge, ought to have known.

He said the political dynamic was critical to the hearing that would take place.

“If, for example, the people in the room… were a group of law students, or were from a book club, or whatever, and somebody said something as the words were spoken, and heard by the Judge, and she said something, would we be here? My submission is we wouldn’t.”

Special counsel Jonathan Orpin-Dowell, who is one of two lawyers presenting the allegations of misconduct to the panel, said the question of what the Judge knew or should have known when she spoke needed to come out in the evidence in the hearing.

He said parliament didn’t intend to set out a specific test for judicial misbehaviour.

Orpin-Dowell said the District Court Act lays out the grounds for removal as inability or misbehaviour.

He referred to Ministry of Justice advice to the 2004 select committee considering the law setting up the judicial panel, which aimed to avoid any potential misbehaviour from being excluded.

He said thresholds of misbehaviour come down to specific facts and situations.

“The panel isn’t a permanent court, or even a permanent tribunal, it’s an ad-hoc panel set up to deal with a particular reference about particular conduct, from a particular Judge, and it follows from that, that whether removal will be justified in any case is necessarily a question of fact and degree.”

Both lawyers referred to a previous case involving Justice Bill Wilson, where it found misbehaviour was conduct that “fell so far short of accepted standards of judicial behaviour as to warrant the ultimate sanction of removal”.

This is the third Judicial Conduct Panel that has been established since the law establishing the body was passed in 2004.

Elements of discussion in Monday’s preliminary hearing have been suppressed.

The panel is expected to file a decision on Monday’s application by the end of this week.

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

More than 40 opposition politicians, community leaders, and organisations have launched an open letter calling to bin a proposed homelessness ban in Auckland CBD.

Among the signatories are the Citizens Advice Bureau, the Mental Health Foundation, and the Social Workers’ Association.

It comes after the government signalled it’s considering pushing forward a private members’ bill or introducing similar legislation that would give police the power to issue move-on orders, to remove unhoused people from Auckland’s city centre.

Sharon is not currently homeless, but she spends a lot of time on Queen Street asking for money for essential items. When RNZ spoke to her, she was knitting a cardigan for a homeless kuia on the street.

She was confused about where homeless people were supposed to go if the government forced them to leave the CBD.

“Where else are they gonna go? It’s bad enough they’ve got no roof over their head.”

It made her angry to see young people, in particular, sleeping rough, and she felt the government had not done enough about it.

“They’re harmless people. They just want somewhere to sleep, keep warm, get food, that’s all.”

Simon had previously slept rough and lived in boarding houses in Auckland, but has been housed for a few years now.

He said people sleeping rough in the CBD were there out of desperation.

“I would say that’s quite a strong move to ban homeless people from Auckland city. They don’t have many options. If they haven’t been housed, there aren’t many places they can go.

“I can definitely relate to the street people. I know a lot of them by name, and not everyone did get housed, or people that got housed in motels then had to leave, and the new government does not want another motel generation, as they put it. So it’s just getting more and more difficult for homeless people.”

He said many tourists coming in would be used to seeing homeless people in their own cities, and the issue wasn not unique to Auckland.

Auckland Central MP and Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick and Labour MPs Helen White and Phil Twyford joined community advocates at Myers Park near Karangahape Road on Monday morning to launch the open letter.

Labour MPs Arena Williams and Kieran McAnulty also signed it.

Government ministers were invited to receive the letter at the launch, but did not attend.

Speaking at the launch, the director of the Youth and Justice Coalition, Awatea Tuhura Mita, was critical of removing people from public spaces.

“If we want to end youth homelessness, we must end the conditions that create it, not the visibility of the people living through it.”

She warned that the impact of move-on orders on Māori youth would be devastating.

“The ban creates new pathways for police to intervene in their lives, more criminalisation, rangatahi Māori who cannot comply with police orders end up with warrants, warrants lead to arrests, arrests lead to records, and records lead to even less access to housing and jobs. This is not a ban on homelessness, this is a conveyor belt from the streets to a criminal record.”

Aaron Hendry’s youth development organisation, Kick Back, regularly responds to homelessness in the area.

“People and children come to the city centre when they’re experiencing homelessness, and they always have. We have an opportunity to connect with them quickly and get them the support they need, and that’s what we do.”

He said pushing those who needed support out of the city would mean they experienced homelessness for a longer time, as they would be further away from services.

He said there were plenty of solutions the government could introduce to eliminate rough sleeping.

“They could implement duty to assist legislation, which would clarify the state’s obligation to ensure that people who need support get it when they go into Work and Income.

“They could invest in crisis response services and immediate housing services so when a young person or a whānau needs somewhere to sleep, they get that immediately and get wrap-around support.

“They could invest in outreach services that build relationships with our communities and provide them with the support they need.

“And building public housing so all people can be housed.”

Chlöe Swarbrick said removing visible homelessness from the CBD would just move the crisis elsewhere.

“When people are presenting themselves in places like the city centre to these services, that should be a prompt for us to deal with that if we had a responsible government.

“Unfortunately, the government just wants to move that issue along and to sweep it under the rug.”

Swarbrick was handed the letter to present to the Prime Minister and government ministers at Parliament.

Speaking to media on Monday, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said move-on orders were still a possibility, despite pleas from community advocates.

“We obviously can’t just have move-on orders and move people around the city to different places, we actually have to solve the problem.

“We are going to solve the problem. We’re determined that we need the downtown Auckland CBD to be safer, less intimidating, and we will consider move-on orders.”

Minister for Auckland Simeon Brown pointed to the government funding an additional 300 social homes for housing provider Housing First for rough sleepers in September.

“We’re very focused on ensuring we get housing for those people.

“Our expectation is that those providers who have been contracted work incredibly fast and are focused on providing homes for those people.

He said Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith was receiving advice on a range of enforcement measures.

“Eight percent of our national GDP is generated out of Auckland CBD, it is of national importance that it’s a safe place for people to work, live, and visit.”

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’s statements are doing little to hose down opposition claims his KiwiSaver policy is likely linked to a rise in the retirement age.

Unveiled on Sunday, National’s first substantive policy for next year’s election campaign would see employers required to match workers’ KiwiSaver contributions up to 6 percent of their wages.

While opposition parties were somewhat supportive, they raised some caveats.

The links to retirement age could also point to a brewing rift in the coalition.

Coalition partners

New Zealand First’s Winston Peters seemed to want the policy to go further.

He did not respond to interview requests, but in a social media post said it was good to see National agreeing with a policy he announced in September which would lift contributions to 10 percent each for employers and employees, and make them compulsory.

“NZ First said back in September we need to increase contributions to more than match Australia, make it compulsory, and have corresponding tax cuts for both individuals and businesses,” Peters said.

“As the saying goes…imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.”

The other partner, ACT stopped short of backing the policy saying they wanted to see more details.

Leader David Seymour said saving was a worthy goal and the policy would help with that, but it may also mean people putting less money into other investments and savings – including mortgages.

“Will it displace other kinds of saving? For example, will it mean people invest less in their small business, pay down their mortgage slower, or do less investment in other things outside KiwiSaver? Because it’s possible that most of the effect will be an effect of displacing other savings.

“We haven’t seen the policy in any detail. But the question we would ask before making a decision on supporting it would be, you know, how much other saving will this displace.”

Seymour said ACT only agreed to increase KiwiSaver employer and employee contributions to 4 percent in the 2025 Budget because government contributions were also halved.

“It’s always been our policy to reduce the government contribution, because the government is currently borrowing every extra dollar and borrowing money to put in people’s KiwiSaver so they can invest in the global share market – it’s bad economics. So that was our policy, and the increase in private contributions was a trade off for that.”

Opposition

Labour’s leader Chris Hipkins said increased retirement savings would be a good thing for New Zealanders and KiwiSaver was a “great scheme” introduced by Labour, but he was concerned National “haven’t done their homework here”.

“They haven’t worked out a transition plan, they haven’t worked out how to support people on low incomes, and they are the government right now, so they could have worked through all of these details already,” he said.

“The fact that they’re not doing that suggests that this is just a panicked ‘well, we need to announce something, come up with something on the hoof’ rather than a considered policy.”

He said Labour would announce its own KiwiSaver policy next year.

“I’m certainly not opposed to the level of contribution that they’re talking about … it will also need to be accompanied by support for people on low incomes, those not in the workforce, and some protections as well to make sure that employers can’t treat increased KiwiSaver contributions as part of your pay.”

Green MP Ricardo Menendez March said such support for those on lower incomes was the priority for the party.

“If the government does not introduce additional measures to address existing inequities for low income people, this policy will not provide cost of living relief for low-income people who right now just simply don’t even see themselves having a decent enough retirement by the time they get to 65,” he said.

“We’re seeing far too many families doing hardship withdrawals and being unable to meet their daily cost of living, so the Greens are calling for a guaranteed minimum income.”

Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said the KiwiSaver policy would not work well for Māori.

“We are sadly often the ones that are receiving less income, we have work security issues … this policy, it assumes that everyone is in a position to be able to not only gradually give more, but that they’re coping with today’s situation, to be able to save – and that’s just not the reality.”

She said the policy was an indication that National would again be campaigning on raising the age of eligibility for superannuation.

“What it’s doing is signalling to us that there’s a whole policy shift and you can no longer rely on superannuation being there for you when you’re 65.

“For Māori, we spend more years working and fewer years able to access superannuation because of, obviously, the age difference of when Māori die compared to everyone else so there’s an equity gap.”

She said the government needed to think about how such a change would affect those going into aged care when it was removing support networks.

Retirement age could become key election battleground

National has previously campaigned on lifting the age from 65 to 67 – with gradual increases starting in 2044.

Christopher Luxon on Monday said the party would set out their approach closer to the election.

He committed to keeping the system universal, but indicated the stronger focus on KiwiSaver was likely to be used to balance out a higher retirement age.

“We’re not interested in the Australian model of deep asset testing and means testing, it’s important for New Zealanders to understand that it’s an entitlement that they will have. But equally we know going forward future generations of Kiwis are going to need to augment that retirement income with bigger, deeper KiwiSavers.”

All three opposition parties confirmed they would not increase the age of superannuation eligibility.

New Zealand First has also long vowed to stop any attempts to do so.

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

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon is speaking to media in Auckland.

It comes after he was forced to give reassurance the coalition government was “stable” following a public stoush between ACT Party leader David Seymour and New Zealand First leader Winston Peters.

Last week, Peters vowed to repeal the Regulatory Standards Bill if re-elected, prompting Seymour, the proponent of the bill, to warn Peters could be preparing to jump ship to Labour.

Luxon was asked about the stability of the government on Morning Report earlier today.

“This is a strong, stable coalition government. We are operating in an MMP environment in which individual parties have their own policies.”

In contrast, he said a possible Left bloc coalition was “a mess”, with a mix of Labour, Green, Te Pāti Māori and now two independents after the party expulsions.

“I think New Zealanders will think clearly about the options. They will look at our coalition and see a stable government, then look across to the other side and see a mess,” he said.

Watch the press conference live in the player above from about 3.30pm.

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

As New Zealand gets set to rollout roadside drug testing, an Australian expert says it’s a scattergun approach that doesn’t reliably pick up impairment.

Wellington will next month become the first location to see police use a saliva test on drivers, with the rest of the country set to follow by mid-2026.

The tests will screen four key drugs: THC, which is found in cannabis, methamphetamine, MDMA or ecstasy and cocaine.

Dr Michael White, an adjunct senior fellow at the School of Psychology at the University of Adelaide who’s researched road accidents involving cannabis, says the tests are nearly worthless when it comes to picking up if someone is impaired.

One of the main issues he pointed out was that the tests detected the drugs but did not reliably assess impairment.

He said the problem was not just with the length of the detection window but how many people are actually impaired after taking drugs like cannabis.

“There’s a lot of research that says regular cannabis users are not impaired even if immediately after taking it so that produces a sort of questions of justice.

It is a scattergun approach, many people who are regular users won’t be impaired even if they test positive”

The government said 30 percent of all road deaths now involve an impairing drug – and that greater screening will improve road safety.

“We know that they’re [drugs] a major factor in many road deaths and serious injuries,” Transport Minister Chris Bishop said earlier this year.

“We’re now making sure that police are equipped with roadside oral fluid screening as a road safety tool to enable the enforcement,” he said.

Director of road policing Superintendent Steve Greally announced earlier this month that Australian-based company Pathtech Pty Ltd would supply the Securetec DrugWipe 3S devices, as well as oral fluid collection kits to collect samples to be sent for laboratory analysis.

“Many countries, including New Zealand, have seen a rise in the number of drivers testing positive for drugs in recent years, and the direct correlation to the number of people being seriously injured or killed on our roads,” he said.

The DrugWipe detects the presence of drugs in saliva at or above a threshold that detects current or recent use.

Dr White pointed out there had been no robust evidence as to whether roadside testing has reduced drug impaired driving or accidents.

“Australia has been quite negligent on actually trying to evaluate roadside drug testing.

“They’ve got a very passive approach, they simply say RBT (random breath testing) for alcohol has been successful, RDT (roadside drug testing) for drugs looks a bit like random breath testing and therefore it ought to be successful. There’s never been any evaluation in Australia that clearly shows that roadside drug testing actually works.”

He said there were differences between how drugs and alcohol impairs drivers and testing should be based on the crash risk.

“I think policy should be based on crash risk, the crash risk from cannabis is relatively low its less than for a BAC of 0.5. So cannabis might increase your risk of crashing by up to 50 percent, alcohol at a BAC of 0.5 doubles your risk so it increases it by100 percent”

For methamphetamine, Dr White said it was more difficult as it might not actually impair a person but instead make someone more aggressive and increase their thrill seeking

The other key issue he had with the testing was with legal drugs such as benzodiazepines and opioids which he said can also result in fatal car accidents.

“Some Australian research has said that benzodiazepines account for twice as many road crash fatalities as Cannabis and opioids account for twice as many, now both of those are legal drugs.

So that’s one thing that neither Australia nor New Zealand really takes into account is the damage done by legal drugs.”

Pharmacist and senior lecturer in Biosciences at AUT Dr Catherine Crofts had also previously said she was worried about the lack of information on what the new testing could mean for people with prescriptions like dexamphetamine.

Dr Crofts said about 50 percent of people with ADHD in New Zealand are taking dexamphetamine or lisdexamfetamine, which is becoming increasingly popular.

“We know that some of the tests that are out there in the community do cause some cross reactivity, and I’ve just found that there are some that don’t,” she said.

“But we haven’t seen anything about what the police are going to do or how it is going to be managed when somebody who is cross reacts, who is legally on these medicines.”

Dr White said for subtle levels of impairment some have suggested using phone applications to assess people’s reaction times.

“I’m not convinced that those apps are particularly good but at least they’re trying to measure impairment which is a step in the right direction rather than measuring presence”

He also noted Australia and New Zealand did not efficiently take human rights into consideration when it came to people getting taken off the roads without showing any good cause.

“In most other countries the drug testing is associated with some sort of test of impairment, the police have to have some sort of good cause to take you off the road.

The Attorney-General’s report into the legislation, written in July 2024, found it was inconsistent with parts of the Bill of Rights Act, specifically the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, and the right not to be arbitrarily detained.

Minister of Defence Judith Collins had found the intrusion on privacy was not proportionate to the public interest objective.

“The intrusion on an individual’s privacy that arises from the taking of a bodily sample for the first oral fluid screening test appears disproportionate where there is no basis to suspect the individual driving is under the influence of an impairing drug,” she wrote.

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 government has announced the first organisations to receive funding from the Social Investment Agency.

Ministers in August announced the priority for the fund was to support children whose parents are in prison or have been in the care system, and children who have been stood down from school before turning 13.

The first round of $50 million in funding is going to seven programmes supporting children from newborns to 18-year-olds.

Social Investment Minister Nicola Willis said the successful organisations showed they could make the best overall impact for the target groups, and were able to measure that success.

They included:

• Te Hou Ora Whānau Services Limited: support for 120 children for individual and group sessions to reduce school drop-out rates and justice and care system involvement – Dunedin.
• Tākiri Mai te Ata Trust: support for counselling and trauma therapy for 200 young people in care, have parents in prison, or have been stood down from school – Lower Hutt and Upper Hutt.
• Te Puawaitanga ki Ōtautahi Charitable Trust: support for 200 children for health, safety and life skills – Christchurch and wider Canterbury.
• Ngāti Awa Social and Health Services Trust: support for 450 children, providing support for families dealing with historic trauma, and building specialist forensic nursing for child sexual abuse – Eastern Bay of Plenty.
• Barnardos New Zealand Incorporated: support for 100 for family mentoring, and parenting support to help children reach developmental milestones, such as early childhood education attendance – Māngere.
• Horowhenua New Zealand Trust: For more than 400 children for a behaviour change programme – Levin
• Kaikaranga Holding Ltd: support for 150 disabled and neurodiverse children who have been suspended or stood down from school. Services include tutoring, sensory tools and short-term behavioural guidance – Auckland.

They were selected by a panel of government and social sector leaders.

Budget 2025 allocated $190m for the Social Investment Fund, which is managed by the Social Investment Agency.

Chief executive Andrew Coster, the former Police Commissioner, is on leave amid an investigation into his conduct in handling allegations against former police deputy commissioner Jevon McSkimming.

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

All three-storey homes, and any alterations costing $100,000 or more, will be required to get a home warranty under indemnity changes under the Building Act.

Architects, engineers and other building design professionals will be required to have indemnity insurance, and fines for Licensed Building Practitioners will also be doubled.

In August, the coalition government announced it was changing the building consent system to ease the liability load on local councils and speed up consenting.

Under reforms through the Building Amendment Bill, expected to be introduced in early 2026, councils will no longer be the last man standing dealing with building defects. Instead, under “joint liability”, each party will be responsible for repairs for their share of the work.

There have been concerns raised that under the new regime owners could be left vulnerable to costs if parties – such as the builder – disappeared.

On Monday, Building and Construction minister Chris Penk revealed the new consent system would require professionals contributing to building design – such as architects and engineers – to hold professional indemnity insurance.

It will also be mandatory for all new residential buildings three storeys and under, and for renovations over $100,000, to have insurance that covers a one-year defect period and a 10-year structural warranty period.

Disciplinary penalties for Licensed Building Practitioners (LBPs) will increase from a maximum fine of $10,000 to $20,000, and the maximum suspension period will increase from 12 months to 24 months.

“Home warranty schemes are already widely available across New Zealand, and the sector has assured me it can scale to meet new demand, allowing consumers to shop around to find coverage best suited to their build,” Penk said.

“Requiring professional indemnity insurance for building designers ensures these professionals are financially able to stand by their work, giving building owners confidence. This requirement does not extend to other building trades.”

Penk said these measures provided strong protections for the reform, while boosting consent productivity.

Earlier, the Insurance Council of New Zealand said there could be challenges for insurers with the new approach, and it looked forward to further discussions with the government.

A property lawyer had told RNZ it was not clear who would underwrite the insurance – highlighting that insurers had been reluctant in the past to insure for weather tightness defects.

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’s policy to increase KiwiSaver contribution rates has been met with a big tick of approval by one provider, but with a call to make it compulsory.

National is proposing that, if re-elected, it would gradually increase contributions by employees and employers to 6 percent each, or 12 percent overall.

The government already announced it would lift the default rate from 3 percent to 4 by 2028, at this year’s Budget.

Denouncing “suger-rush” responses to tough economic conditions, National leader Christopher Luxon told party members in Upper Hutt the policy would support New Zealanders’ long-term financial security.

“If we’re serious about building the future, and I am, it’s time for us to increase our ambition for our individual retirement savings, and for our collective savings that can be invested in some of the most transformational projects in our infrastructure pipeline.”

Luxon said he expected KiwiSaver would play an even bigger role in supporting retirements, hinting National could once again campaign on raising the superannuation age.

Simplicity managing director Sam Stubbs said the policy could be a “turning point for economic growth” in New Zealand, as more saving led to more investment.

He said given National’s history of “chipping away” at the scheme, this was a positive step in the right direction.

“This is a really big endorsement of KiwiSaver by National, easily the biggest that they’ve ever made. It really does indicate to me that next year is going to be a KiwiSaver election, in the sense that you are getting parties differentiating themselves not by whether they do or don’t like KiwiSaver, but how much they want it to grow. And that’s a very positive thing for the country.”

New Zealand First has also promised to make KiwiSaver compulsory, with contributions from both employers and employees rising to 10 percent, but offset by tax cuts.

Stubbs said the onus was now on Labour.

“Not only are [National] now firmly endorsing KiwiSaver as a pathway to growth and prosperity, but they’re also serving it up to Labour and saying ‘OK, what are you going to do? This was your policy, are you going to grow it as fast as we do?'”

Labour leader Chris Hipkins welcomed National’s “conversion” to supporting KiwiSaver, given its historic opposition and recent cuts to the government contribution rate.

But Hipkins said there would need to be a credible transition plan to support people on low incomes to get KiwiSaver and maintain their contributions.

“At the moment, it’s tough going in New Zealand. People are just making ends meet. Increasing KiwiSaver contributions is a good thing, but without a plan to support people in the process of increasing KiwiSaver contributions, a lot of Kiwis are going to be hit really hard by it,” he said.

Financial writer Martin Hawes said National’s proposal was “reasonable” to bring New Zealand in line with Australia.

But he said people would struggle if they could not afford to take 6 percent out of their salaries.

“There’ll be definitely people who simply don’t join because they can’t. They can’t pay 6 percent now, they’d be better off joining and paying 2 percent or 3 percent or whatever they can afford, and having that matched, because it’s free money. It’s extra money from the from the employer.”

Unlike Australia, there are no plans to make KiwiSaver compulsory, with National saying New Zealand instead has universal superannuation.

Stubbs said making KiwiSaver compulsory should be the next step.

“Those people who aren’t saving into KiwiSaver are going to be much worse off later on in life. And so if we want to remove inequality in New Zealand, and we don’t like inequality in New Zealand, we have to make sure that everybody is saving for their retirement while they’re earning. And if you don’t have compulsion, that isn’t happening.”

The Retirement Commissioner Jane Wrightson welcomed any policy changes that strengthened New Zealanders’ ability to save for retirement, and the proposal could be a “positive step” towards improving long-term financial security.

“Higher contribution rates will help close the savings gap and ensure more people can enjoy a better standard of living in retirement,” she said.

However, she said it was essential the increases genuinely added to employees’ savings, rather than being offset through total remuneration arrangements.

National’s policy document states that “as has always been the case with KiwiSaver,” employer contributions may effectively for part of the wage negotiation process.

“The recent Review of Retirement Income Policies highlighted that total remuneration practices undermine the intent of KiwiSaver by reducing take-home pay and eroding the additional benefit of employer contributions. We strongly support banning this approach to ensure fairness and transparency,” Wrightson said.

Hawes agreed that the “loophole” should be closed off.

“There are some people who negotiate with their employer that the employer not pay the contribution that they’re expected to pay into KiwiSaver, but instead just put it as part of their total remuneration. So it goes to them in cash, and that means that they are effectively not saving for retirement.”

Hipkins seemed onboard with the call for a ban.

“If we’re going to make KiwiSaver better and bigger, we need to protect employees. And that means making it very clear that KiwiSaver contributions can’t be viewed as part of an employee’s overall pay packet.”

National’s finance spokesperson Nicola Willis said she was “nervous” that businesses would push back at the Budget announcement, but their support meant she believed they would be onboard with the further increases.

Retail NZ chief executive Carolyn Young said the challenge was “two-fold,” and there needed to be a balance between what was affordable for employers and employees.

“The big thing from a retail perspective is that whilst there’s a wide variety of roles that are available in retail, for many people that work in retail they’re not earning significant money,” she said.

“And businesses, right now, obviously are really struggling, so that additional cost is going to go onto the business, and could incur some price increases, depending on how that plays out over time.”

Willis was confident the phased changes, and the long notice, would provide “certainty and stability and clarity.”

Dennis Maga, from Workers First Union, says members were already struggling to contribute to KiwiSaver.

“We absolutely support any moves to increase workers’ retirement savings,” he said.

“I’m not sure that increasing an employer’s KiwiSaver contribution is great when the government can’t seem to get a handle the cost of living crisis right now.”

The union represents many lower-paid workers, and Maga said even if the increased contribution was phased in, it would be tough if basic needs like food, rent and fuel were still getting expensive.

Maga said the minimum wage needed to rise higher than inflation.

“There’s a big gap in terms of wages, comparing our wages or pay across the ditch,” Maga said.

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