Category: Politics

Source: Radio New Zealand

Judith Collins was the only person considered for the role of Law Commission president – with no recruitment process, no selection panel and no rival candidates.

The appointment amounted to a simple “Cabinet confirmation”.

The revelation came on Friday in response to written questions to the government from the Green Party.

While the Law Commission Act 1985 requires only ministerial sign-off for the presidency, Cabinet guidelines state such appointments should follow “good practice” processes set out by the Public Service Commission.

Speaking to RNZ, Green co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said Collins’ effective anointment was “deeply concerning” and risked further damaging already “plummeting trust” in the coalition government.

“These independent processes are set up to protect against cronyism and corruption,” she said.

“How on earth can we possibly say that somebody was appointed because they were the best person for the job, when there was a decision to not even consider anybody else for that job?”

The responsible minister Paul Goldsmith told RNZ he was certain he had followed due process and rejected any suggestion of cronyism.

“Sometimes there’s been an external panel [for appointing this position]. Sometimes there hasn’t,” he said, adding there was a “long tradition” of former politicians serving on the Commission.

“We’re absolutely confident in the abilities of Judith Collins to do the job well. She’s obviously got hugely extensive… experience in justice roles across many many years.”

A spokesperson told RNZ Collins recused herself from the Cabinet decision.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon announced in January that Collins would step down from politics to take up the “prestigious” role at the Law Commission from mid-year.

University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said past practice around such appointments appeared “pretty flexible”, but this example looked “nakedly political”.

“The worry is that if you’ve got very loose flexible processes… then it’s open to misuse to an even greater extent in the future.”

Geddis said Collins may well do a good job in her new position but would face a challenge convincing the public she could uphold its independence.

“I don’t think it’s conspiracy thinking to say that the government has chosen to reward one of its long-standing loyal servants with this role.”

Collins’ predecessor Mark Hickford was appointed to the Commission in October but given an unusually short six-month term as president, “pending the confirmation of a new president in the new year”.

Collins was unavailable for comment, having departed for Germany on Wednesday to attend the Munich Security Conference.

Last month she told media she intended to play “a straight bat” in the role: “This is too important. The Law Commission is not there to play political games.”

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 review into the Reserve Bank’s monetary policy decisions during the Covid-19 pandemic was originally intended to be completed by March.

The Finance Minister says the delay was due to how long it took to appoint the right people to lead the review.

On Wednesday, Nicola Willis confirmed she had commissioned an independent review into the Reserve Bank’s response to the pandemic, including cuts to the Official Cash Rate, and the Large Scale Asset Purchase programme.

The opposition has criticised the government for the timing of the review, given it is set to be published in September, just weeks before the election.

The review will be led by monetary policy experts Athanasios Orphanides and David Archer.

Orphanides was a former governor of the Central Bank of Cyprus, and member of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank.

Archer was a former Reserve Bank assistant governor and former head of the Central Banking Studies Unit at the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland.

On Thursday, the Treasury released a series of documents related to the review’s establishment, which show Willis first informed the Reserve Bank in July 2025 she was considering a review, and took the matter to Cabinet for sign-off in August 2025.

At the time, Willis expected the review would be completed by March 2026.

The documents also show parts of the review’s terms of reference were changed to factor in the benefits of its decisions, after a suggestion from the Reserve Bank.

Why the delay?

Willis told RNZ the hold-up was due to the appointment of the international reviewer.

She said following the Cabinet mandate, it was her job to find the appropriate reviewers, with Treasury making recommendations.

“First, people we approached weren’t available in the appropriate timeframe. We then had a challenge where one reviewer we proposed was available in the timeframe, but another wasn’t. And so we were both trying to balance getting a balance of someone with domestic perspective and international perspective, the appropriate international credentials, and being available for their time period,” she said.

“So there was a bit of a back and forth on finding appropriate reviewers. And at all times, I was very mindful of Treasury advice on the credentials that they needed to fulfil.”

Willis said it was “frustrating,” but ultimately felt the most important thing for the credibility of the review was the quality of the reviewers.

“I’m satisfied that we’ve landed on very credible reviewers. No one’s questioning their authority, their credibility. Clearly, these are people who are independent. There’s not a political bone about them.”

The Cabinet minute shows Willis had the authorisation to approve the selection of the experts and make changes to the terms of reference, in consultation with the associate finance ministers.

What do the documents say?

In a letter dated 10 July 2025 and sent to then-Reserve Bank chair Neil Quigley and Governor Christian Hawkesby, Willis said the Monetary Policy Committee took “unprecedented” actions in response to the “significant economic challenges” caused by the pandemic.

She acknowledged the Bank’s review and assessment of its monetary policy performance between 2020 and 2022, which commissioned independent experts to provide peer review but was not independent of the Bank.

“As such, I am considering an external review to provide the Government with an independent perspective on the MPC’s performance during 2020 to 2022. This will ensure there is appropriate transparency over the MPC’s performance during a period of significant economic challenges, and will help identify lessons for future episodes of instability,” she wrote.

In response, Hawkesby said the Bank had made “significant progress” in implementing the recommendations of the 2022 review, but would fully cooperate with the external review if Willis chose to proceed with it.

Hawkesby had suggested the draft terms of reference be amended, particularly a section on whether the “stimulus” provided by the Large Scale Asset Purchase and Funding for Lending programmes “justified the risks to the public balance sheet and other costs”.

“We note that this frames the benefits and costs associated with these tools in narrow terms and should be widened to capture the impact LSAPs played in stabilising markets, and their broader fiscal benefits through lowering Crown borrowing costs and increasing tax revenue,” he wrote.

This feedback was taken onboard, with the final terms of reference changed to reviewing whether the “benefits” provided by the programmes “justified the risks and costs”.

Hawkesby also raised another section which referred to the review making “recommendations to improve the monetary policy response to future shocks, including commentary around potential changes to the frameworks, having regard to the benefits of hindsight”.

He said the Monetary Policy Committee’s remit was an important part of the policy framework, and while it could be reviewed at any time there were benefits to stability in the objectives of monetary policy.

“We suggest that any recommendations related to the objectives of monetary policy would be best addressed as part of the 5-yearly formal review of the MPC Remit, which is due by mid-2028.”

This was not changed.

On 9 February she told the new chair Rodger Findlay and new Governor Anna Breman that the government had finalised the establishment of the review, with the final terms of reference showing the new expected completion date of August.

“Independent monetary policy is a central pillar of New Zealand’s macroeconomic frameworks. The review strengthens this by supporting accountability and public confidence in the operational independence of monetary policy and informing its ongoing effectiveness,” Willis wrote.

She told Findlay and Breman she had adopted the Bank’s suggestion to broaden the review’s assessment of the costs and benefits of alternative monetary policy.

Willis told RNZ she thought it was important to engage with the Bank about how to get the best lessons out of the review.

“I think the final terms of reference allow for a full and penetrating review. So the questions will be asked, the information will be furnished, and those reviewers will be able to reach conclusions.”

She said it was up to former governor Adrian Orr and former chair Neil Quigley to decided if they wanted to front up to the inquiry, but said “if they’re wise, they will.”

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

New Zealand First will campaign on a referendum on the Māori seats this year, with the party saying the time had come for a decision on their future.

Te Pāti Māori said it was “race baiting” and “rage baiting” and Labour said it was a “cheap and cynical” attempt to gain votes.

New Zealand First made the announcement on Thursday, saying it believed it had an “opportunity now” to ensure the policy was implemented after the election.

It’s a policy the party also took to the 2017 election.

On Thursday, NZ First leader Winston Peters referenced the Royal Commission into the electoral system in 1986, which stated the MMP system would create a more representative Parliament and the original justification for the Māori seats would no longer exist.

He also said there’d been a dramatic increase in the number of Māori in Parliament.

“We’re massively over represented. Now please take the advantage that you’ve got, be pleased about that and move on.”

He called Te Pāti Māori’s behaviour over the past two years the “last straw.”

“They hold the majority of the Māori seats and do not turn up to parliament, disregard the rules and processes, and show utter disdain for the system that gives them the very seats they hold – they represent no one.

“They have proven the seats they hold are no longer relevant nor serve their original purpose.”

He referenced outgoing Labour MP Peeni Henare’s losses in the Tāmaki Makaurau seat recently, saying he was “robbed blind” and there was “nothing to defend” in regards to the seats.

Peters said a referendum was necessary because that was how MMP was introduced in the first place.

“I’m saying to people in this country, if you want a dramatic, unified electoral system, vote for it,” he said.

Peters rejected it could be a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi “because it wasn’t in there in the first place.”

He said everything he had done for Māori was on the basis of need not race.

Asked how quickly a referendum would take place after this year’s election, Peters indicated he wouldn’t want the Māori seats during the 2029 election.

Politicians react

Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi said it was “race baiting” and “rage baiting” to suit New Zealand First voters.

“The types that Winston Peters represents is a dying cohort of people in Aotearoa.

“I would hope that New Zealand is mature enough to see the value in the Māori seats sitting here in Parliament.”

He said the timing of the announcement showed Peters was “threatened” by the fact it would be the Māori electorates that decide the next Prime Minister.

“He likes to sit in that position as the king maker, but unfortunately, every poll is saying that he is no longer in that position.

“This country should be celebrating the maturity of te iwi Māori in this democracy.”

On representation in Parliament, Waititi said the Māori seats allowed for a “unique Māori voice in Parliament.”

“Quite often we’ve had Māori in those Māori seats without being tied to party lines.

“What this allows us is a unique opportunity for Māori to have an independent voice in Parliament.”

Waititi suggested there should be a referendum on list seats, because it wasn’t clear who they represented, “they don’t have a mandate from constituents.”

“The Māori seats are clear. They have a clear mandate.”

Labour’s Kieran McAnulty said Peters was quite happy with Māori seats when he stood for one in 1975, and when New Zealand First won them all in the 90s.

“But now he wants to pretend to New Zealanders that they don’t like them and want to get rid of them. I don’t think Kiwis will buy it.”

Labour’s position was that Māori should decide whether to keep the seats or not, and “that position will remain firm.”

“It’s a cheap and cynical attempt to try and get some cheap votes,” McAnulty said.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said a referendum on Māori seats wasn’t something the National party had discussed.

“What we’re really focused on is fixing the basics and building the future at the moment.”

He acknowledged the seats had been a feature of the political system for some time.

National deputy leader Nicola Willis said National planned to run candidates in the Māori seats this election, but no one had been selected yet.

In terms of a referendum, she said the policy would need to be taken to caucus for discussion.

ACT’s deputy leader Brooke van Velden said ACT wouldn’t take it to referendum, it would get rid of the seats through Parliament.

“It’s been an ACT party position – and a longstanding position – that we should abolish the Māori seats, because it goes against what the ACT party philosophy is, which is that there should be all people equal before the law and that it’s wrong to have separate seats based on people’s ethnicity.”

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

Finance Minister Nicola Willis is challenging Labour to commit to keeping her Investment Boost policy if elected.

The centrepiece of last year’s Budget, the boost, allows businesses to deduct 20 percent of a new asset’s value from taxable income on top of normal depreciation.

When launched in May, it was expected to boost New Zealand’s GDP by 1 percent, wages by 1.5 percent and capital stock by 1.6 percent over the next 20 years.

Willis talked up the policy’s effects so far in a speech to the New Zealand Economic Forum in Hamilton on Thursday.

She said about 40 percent of firms investing in the next five years said the policy had increased their investment spending over the past 12 months, with 29 percent of those reporting a “moderate” increase and another 11 percent a “significant” increase.

Looking ahead, 49 percent planning to invest in the next five years were saying Investment Boost was positively influencing their plans, with 14 percent expecting a large investment.

“These are not theoretical ideas. These are real businesses making real decisions earlier, larger, more productively because their incentives have changed.

“That matters because capital deepening is how productivity rises and productivity growth is the only way we will grow wages sustainably over time.”

She said the policy would only work if businesses believed it would endure.

“Firms do not invest in long-lived capital, plant, machinery and buildings if they think the tax rules may change at the change of an election.”

She called for Labour’s leader Chris Hipkins and his Finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds to commit to not reversing the policy.

“Will they commit to retaining Investment Boost as a permanent fixture of our tax settings to unlock growth, or will it be sacrificed to fund higher spending? This government’s position is clear.

“I would put to you that those who say they are on the side of growth and productivity but would sacrifice this effective policy are speaking out of both sides of their mouth.”

Edmonds, who is set to speak to the forum on Thursday afternoon, has previously said the Investment Boost policy is overall good for business, but stopped short of committing to retain 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

A proposed liquefied natural gas terminal will bypass even the fast-track process in order to be built in time for winter next year, documents show.

The government plans to rush through as many of the required approvals as possible ahead of the election, “to give the preferred supplier greater policy certainty that New Zealand is committed to developing the facility”, a Cabinet paper said.

A critic of the proposal says pushing the entire process through so quickly is unwarranted and the public and local communities should be properly consulted.

Energy Minister Simon Watts said this week that the government would proceed with plans to commission a liquefied natural gas (LNG) import facility in Taranaki, with whole-of-life costs spread across all electricity users through a levy.

Watts said it would result in overall savings to households, because it would help to lower electricity premiums during dry years when hydro lakes ran low.

The Cabinet paper, released after the announcement, noted that “timing is very tight” to get the facility up and running in time for winter 2027.

“An LNG terminal will require regulatory consents and approvals if it is to be operational ahead of winter 2027, and the existing Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 processes are unlikely to be sufficient,” Watts wrote.

“I propose developing an Enabling Liquefied Natural Gas Bill to provide the necessary consents, approvals, levy power and any modifications to existing legislation to enable the preferred LNG facility to be built and operational ahead of winter 2027.”

That would protect against the risk of late project delivery, the paper said.

The paper also warned that a future government might not proceed with LNG, and recommended signing contracts by the middle of this year to lock the concept in.

Expediting consents through special legislation would also help, it said.

“Our objective is to provide as many of these approvals as possible before the election.”

There were still risks even with a rapid consent process.

“LNG import facilities are highly technical in nature,” the paper said.

“Further, New Zealand does not have an ideal location (large deep-water port close to the main gas pipeline) to locate an LNG import facility, meaning that the technical challenges of importing LNG here are more significant than in some other countries.”

The government should carry out further technical analysis before proceeding with a preferred proposal, and “be prepared not to proceed with an accelerated proposal should further analysis suggest that the proposal(s) is/are unworkable”.

That could include considering options that might not be up and running until late 2027 or early 2028.

However, any construction and delivery delays could mean “substantial industry exits”, the paper warned.

During the 2024 energy crisis, several industrial users paused operations while others closed completely.

2027 not ‘a magical winter’

Environmental Defense Society chair Gary Taylor said the LNG proposal and the timeframe “sounds like another rushed project, redolent of the [Interislander] ferry fiasco”.

“Good policy, particularly when it involves significant capital investment, should not be rushed like this,” he said.

“I don’t see why the winter of 2027 is a magical winter. If time is constrained, then let’s go for winter 2028 and do it properly.”

Claims of more industry exits if a dry year occured in the meantime were just that, he said.

“Those with vested interests do tend to wave shrouds to support their cause.”

Instead, additional time could be used for a more considered analysis of the proposal and its alternatives, along with more meaningful engagement during the political process.

“It would enable much better consideration than you’re going to get through a rushed select committee process if this proposed bill is put through the House under urgency,” Taylor said.

Multiple reports, including one commissioned by the government, have warned that imported LNG should only be considered as a last resort.

An annex to the Cabinet paper, comparing LNG to alternatives such as diesel peakers, concluded LNG could be brought online faster than any other option – though it gave a timeframe as late as 2029 to get a facility operational.

No substantive consideration was given to grid-scale battery storage systems, or rooftop solar.

Large-scale battery technology had not progessed enough to cover “long-duration cover needs”, while rooftop solar would not provide enough additional energy during winter, when supply was most likely to be a problem, the annex said.

Cabinet proposal mirrors independent report details

Much of the detail in the Cabinet paper mirrored the findings of an independent report commissioned from Boston Consulting Group (BCG) last year by the four gentailers – Contact, Genesis, Mercury and Meridian.

That report recommended LNG only as a fuel of last resort and recommended a $2 per megawatt hour (MWh) levy across all gas and electricity users to make it economically feasible.

The Cabinet paper referenced the BCG report several times, including its estimate of a $10/MWh saving on electricity prices.

A spokesperson for Watts’ office said the $10/MWh was “estimated by MBIE based on Concept Consulting modelling and MBIE’s analysis”, but said it was also consistent with the BCG estimate.

That $10 figure – together with the final proposed levy of between $2 and $4 – appeared to be the basis of the government’s claim that households would save an average $50 on their annual power bills.

A net $8/MWh saving – if it were passed on in its entirety – would translate to between $56 for an average household using 7MWh of electricity a year.

Watts’ spokesperson did not confirm whether that calculation was the same one the government had arrived at.

The Cabinet paper underscored the importance of not creating an ongoing dependency on LNG, which it said would risk an overall increase in power bills.

“Put simply, LNG should function as an insurance product: available when required but used only infrequently. Perhaps counterintuitively, LNG provides the greatest benefit when it is available as back-up and rarely used.”

BCG partner and report author Richard Hobbs said having LNG as a stand-by option in that way broadly made sense, but BCG had made many other recommendations.

“In and of itself, it’s not a silver bullet. There are a lot of other things that need to be done.”

The government needed to keep up the pace of renewables development, and address domestic gas supply and demand.

That included focusing on extracting what remained in existing gas fields – not exploring for new fields that could take a decade or more to come online.

The major gap was “really around the demand side, where there is not a programme to support users to transition from gas to electricity or biomass”, Hobbs said.

His report had recommended a $200 million fund to assist that transition.

The government scrapped the Labour-led government’s Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry (GIDI) fund, which served a similar purpose.

The Cabinet paper noted the need to “continue efforts to strengthen domestic gas supply and ensure alternatives like biomass and electrification continue in parallel, to create optionality, not dependency [on LNG]”.

It noted the BCG recommendation to set up a transition fund but did not endorse or suggest such a policy.

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 is tweaking its legislation removing the right for contractors to challenge their employment status to make clear that it will not be applied retrospectively.

The Employment Relations Amendment Bill was being considered at Committee Stage on Wednesday night, where members could raise issues about various parts of the proposed legislation.

Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety Brooke van Velden said it was a “minor technical amendment” to make “absolutely clear” the law was not retrospective and “doesn’t override any court decisions”.

It came just a few months after the Supreme Court threw out Uber’s appeal against treating drivers as employees in November 2025.

But van Velden said the change had nothing to do with the Supreme Court decisions.

She said her officials had made a “minor oversight” over the transitional arrangements between the current law and the new law, and wanted “to make it very clear what the law will be going forward”.

The change would ultimately make a distinction as to which law – the old and the new – would apply when, allowing for split decisions in future cases.

The Minister said if someone took up a claim in the future to be considered an employee in previous work, she did not want a situation where they “may be found an employee under the old law into the future”.

“So we’re saying yes, they would be found an employee under the old law up until the point where the new law applies, where they would be a contractor,” based on whether they met the proposed gateway test.

They would not suddenly become a contractor after the law passed, she said, “that is not actually clear until someone has actually had that challenge through a court based system”.

Any decisions made about employment status before the new law starts would not be affected by the new transitional rules, and any cases filed before the new law starts would use the existing test to consider whether someone was an employee or a contractor.

For cases that were filed after the new law came into force, the existing test would be applied to the time before the law was pased, and the new gateway test could be used for the time after the law was passed.

This could result in a split decision, where a worker may be found an employee before the law changed, and a “specified contractor” after the law changed.

Labour opposed the proposed amendment because it locked in people who were potentially employees to a contractor status based on an arbitrary date, the party said.

Labour MP Camilla Belich spoke during Committee Stage and called for a significant debate on the amendment, given it had not been through select committee.

She said the last-minute amendment “further erodes worker’s rights by locking out potential claims by employees, who will be barred from taking claims against their employer once this Bill takes effect”.

“This effectively prevents contractors from fighting to be formally recognised as an employee after the Act has passed. This is hugely unfair to the many workers who may have a legitimate claim and silences their voices.”

The Greens believed the government continued taking sides with massive corporations like Uber, despite the amendment, which the party did not support.

“Uber drivers across the country should be able to benefit from the struggles of the drivers who won in court, and this amendment as we understand it will only extend the fruits of this victory to a small group of people,” said Green MP Ricardo Menendez March.

The upcoming law change came hot on the heels of the Supreme Court throwing out Uber’s appeal against treating drivers as employees.

It followed a case by four Uber drivers who took the ride-sharing company to the Employment Court in 2022 over their employment status.

They argued that drivers should be considered employees rather than contractors and be entitled to benefits such as leave entitlements, holiday pay and a minimum wage.

The Employment Court ruled in favour of the drivers, which Uber appealed unsuccessfully at the Court of Appeal in 2024.

Uber then appealed that decision at the Supreme Court, where five justices unanimously voted in November 2025 to throw out the appeal yet again.

Deputy secretary for Workers First Union, who represented the drivers, Anita Rosentreter, called the legislation the “Uber law” and the “Uber amendment” and the more the Minister denied that, the more clear it became the whole Bill was about “protecting the right of foreign companies to exploit New Zealand workers and deny them the rights the Supreme Court confirmed they’re entitled”.

She said the amendment confirmed that Uber drivers and other gig workers who filed with the Courts could still access wage arrears and backpay from the time they were misclassifed as contractors prior to the potential law change but that it locked them out of future employment rights if the Bill passed.

“This whole Bill is an unprecedented attack on workers’ rights and should not pass in any form.

“It’s an international anomaly, an embarrassment for New Zealand, and it must be reversed by the next government.”

ACT campaigned on amending the Employment Relations Act, so those who signed up to be independent contractors could not then challenge that status in court.

The coalition agreement between National and ACT stated they would, “maintain the status quo that contractors who have explicitly signed up for a contracting arrangement can’t challenge their employment status in the Employment Court”.

Van Velden has said she was creating certainty for businesses and workers with the law change.

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 minister has denounced Israel for expanding control over settlements controlled by Palestinians in the West Bank.

The measures passed by the Israeli security cabinet also pave the way for more settlements in the occupied territory.

Posting on social media, Winston Peters says Israel’s decision was a ‘major setback for any chance at a two-state solution’.

He says the International Court of Justice was clear Israel’s continued presence in the West Bank is unlawful, and it should reverse course immediately.

His criticism joins that of the United States, Britain, the European Union and a number of Arab nations.

Israel’s decision to expand its control over the West Bank is a major setback for any chance at a two-state solution. The International Court of Justice was clear in its conclusion that Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful. These actions…

— Winston Peters (@NewZealandMFA) February 11, 2026

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

Political parties are largely sympathetic to a petition for easier access to New Zealand for Pacific nationals – but it’s unclear if it will see progress before the election.

Some are also raising concerns about overstayers.

NZ First leader Winston Peters at midday on Wednesday received the petition with 48,367 signatures calling for Fiji, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu to get the same travel rights as more than 60 other countries.

Delivered by former MP Arthur Anae – National’s first Pacific MP – the petition now goes to the Petitions Select Committee.

An Electronic Travel Authority (NZeTA) grants travel to New Zealand without a visa for up to three months at a time, and enables multiple entries for up to two years. The petition says this is a cheaper, more straightforward way to enter Aotearoa.

Peters said New Zealand First supported the petition and would “do our best” to get it over the line with coalition partners before the election.

Having just received the petition, he had not yet discussed it with National and ACT at Cabinet, he said – but had already lobbied Immigration Minister Erica Stanford on it.

“We let her know that we’re not happy and want to work with her on it, but we also sympathise with her inheriting a very difficult department,” he said.

“I hope common sense for it and fairness prevails … we support the parts that can be produced. I mean, we’ve got problems here because you’ve got distance, time and all those things, but all the Pacific people want is a fair go, equivalent to what other nations are getting, and they’re not getting it.”

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said the government would accept the petition, and it would be further thought through after going through the select committee.

Stanford said the matter was on her agenda to consider once the petitions committee had looked into it.

“We’ve had a huge work programme with a number of things we’ve had to tackle, like migrant exploitation and numbers of people in the country coming into the country was, like, 135,000 net.”

She said there were already some measures in place for fast access to visas for Pacific countries.

“Currently our visitor visa processing time is eight days for the Pacific, and if they have an emergency, then there is an escalation process, and we do those far more quickly.

“There’s anecdotal stories, but overall we do an exceptionally good job for our Pacific neighbours.”

But Anae had previously told RNZ’s Checkpoint people from the Pacific had to pay a fee and fill in an application no matter what, and it amounted to discrimination.

“It is the New Zealand Immigration Office and the minister responsible who doesn’t give a damn about us,” he said.

ACT leader David Seymour said it would be up to Stanford but he “some sympathy” for the idea – but was also concerned about the potential for overstayers.

“I’ve had people in the Pacific community approach me and say ‘look, why are we different, why can’t we come’ – on the other hand, you need to be sure that people who get these privileges are going to return.

“If a country has much lower incomes than New Zealand, there’s a big incentive for people to come and not go home. That’s why we check them with visas.”

Asked why those concerns didn’t apply to US citizens – estimated as the third-largest population of overstayers in New Zealand – he said it may need looking at.

“On the other hand, you might ask yourself what’s the rate? They’re the fourth most populous country on Earth, so I wouldn’t be surprised if there was high absolute number – but they’re actually, as I understand it, one of the greatest sources of tourists in New Zealand.”

Peters said those concerns were shared by the Pacific countries who “do not want depopulation if we’re careless”, but could be solved by applying “the Pacific cousins approach”.

“It’s a new psychological approach – we’re going to ensure that before they leave the countries of the origin in the Pacific their elders will be telling them ‘you foul up, you ruin it for the rest of us’.”

He was confident he could secure support from his partners, and if not “the public surge in poll support – or lack of support – might just change their mind for them to think in a much more reasonable way”.

“It’ll take a while, but we’ll not let up until we’ve been successful.”

Labour leader Chris Hipkins said his party was still working on its immigration policy but was “very sympathetic” to the petition. If Peters was unable to get support he said Labour would back a member’s bill “at least to first reading”.

“This is certainly something we need to look at as a country,” he said, but also noted “we want to work through the detail of making sure that we could actually deliver on that commitment”.

He said concerns about overstayers were “a hangover from the Dawn Raids period – and I think it’s well and truly time New Zealand moved on from that”.

Green co-leader Marama Davidson cast doubt on Peters’ commitment to the matter.

“We, I think, are the only political party who are actually going to support more access across our nations and Pacific cousins. I’d like to see all the other parties step up,” she said, and New Zealand First “need to be held to account to actually support it”.

Co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said it was an “interesting” commitment from Peters ahead of the election.

“When it comes to actually walking the talk, yeah, where’s Winston?”

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 is launching an independent review of the Reserve Bank’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic, due to be published just months out from the election.

The review – to be released in September – will focus on the central bank’s actions, including cutting the official cash rate to 0.25 percent and engaging in money printing.

It would also look at the coordination of monetary and fiscal policy – that is, how the bank’s response interacted with the government’s.

Finance Minister Nicola Willis said the review’s purpose was to identify any key lessons, in light of the associated spike in inflation and house prices.

“The Reserve Bank of New Zealand took unprecedented action in response to the Covid-19 pandemic,” she said.

“These actions helped to preserve jobs and keep businesses afloat, but the indirect impacts included decades-high inflation, and losses of about $10.3 billion on the LSAP [Large Scale Asset Purchase] programme and a significant spike in asset values with house prices increasing 30 per cent in one year.”

In October, Reserve Bank chief economist Paul Conway told a Sydney investment conference the LSAP scheme, commonly referred to as money printing, had effectively paid for itself and helped the economy to function at a time of stress.

“By boosting economic activity during the pandemic, LSAPs increased government tax revenues,” Conway said.

“This higher revenue almost entirely covered the direct losses from LSAPs, leaving consolidated crown debt virtually unchanged over the medium term.”

Other commentators have strongly criticised the LSAP programme, the cost and the related programme of $19b of cheap loans to banks.

Monetary policy experts Athanasios Orphanides and David Archer have been appointed to carry out the independent review.

Orphanides was a former governor of the Central Bank of Cyprus and member of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank.

Archer was a former Reserve Bank assistant governor and former head of the Central Banking Studies Unit at the Bank for International Settlements.

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

New Zealand’s reputation for low levels of corruption has taken a hit for the fourth year in a row.

In global organisation Transparency International’s latest Corruption Perception Index – a survey of surveys measuring how corrupt a country is thought to be – New Zealand’s score has fallen two points.

New Zealand still ranked highly in fourth place alongside Norway, and behind Denmark, Finland and Singapore.

“We used to be first in the world and we’ve just seen a continual drop down the ladder – about 10 percent in four years,” Transparency International New Zealand chairperson Anne Tolley said.

“It sort of feels like the wheels are coming off a bit and that’s really dangerous for our democracy.”

Voter fraud allegations and a lack of transparency around political lobbying and funding are some of the top concerns, with prosecutions for bribery, deception and misuse of public funds adding to potential reputational damage.

“A strong democracy has people feeling very confident about those democratic systems and wanting to take part,” Tolley said.

Corruption perception versus reality

Transparency International’s concerns were mirrored in the pilot report released Tuesday from the Anti-Corruption Taskforce, lead by the Serious Fraud Office.

The report looked at how big the issue of fraud and corruption was within public agencies and how well-equipped they were to find and prevent it.

“Cases of internal fraud and corruption are almost certainly being under-reported, due to a number of factors, and the true scale of the issue remains unclear,” the report said.

It highlighted the need for a national anti-corruption strategy, according to Tolley, and it was crucial for New Zealand’s reputation as a small trading nation reliant on global relationships.

“The world’s become more conscious of dirty money – that money is that’s derived from the drug trade and prostitution and modern slavery,” she said.

“We’re all more aware of being sure that we are we are investing and trading with a country that has good systems in place to stop that.”

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