Category: Politics

Source: Radio New Zealand

Farmers will be exposed to the uncertainty of the three-year political cycle by the government’s decision to walk away from the bipartisan consensus on climate change, the Greens say.

The government is pushing through all three stages of a bill to weaken the 2050 methane emissions target under urgency in Parliament on Friday.

If passed, a required 24 to 47 percent reduction in methane from 2017 levels will be halved, to a 14 to 24 percent reduction.

In setting the lower target, the government rejected Climate Change Commission advice, arguing it would lower GDP in 2050 by 2.2 percent from what it otherwise would have been.

Instead, it followed the advice of a methane science review it commissioned, which found the lower target was consistent with a controversial principle of ‘no additional warming’.

Methane – which is a short-lived gas but has a huge warming effect while it exists in the atmosphere – makes up roughly half of New Zealand’s emissions. Most of it comes from farms, especially the burps and breaths of ruminant animals like cows and sheep.

Climate Change Minister Simon Watts said the government was supporting farmers and economic growth.

“Farmers have been clear that they need a methane target that is realistic,” he told Parliament.

“This bill reflects our belief that a thriving climate and thriving economy go hand in hand.”

The government was supporting work on farms to reduce emissions, including investing in agricultrual methane-inhibiting technology via public-private partnership AgriZero.

New Zealand’s international targets – including halving net greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 – were not changing, he said.

Green Party MP Francisco Hernandez said the legislation was “a betrayal of the farming community [National] purport to represent”.

Farmers had been previously shielded by the bipartisanship forged when Parliament passed the Zero Carbon Act – which set New Zealand’s original targets – with near-unanimous support in 2019, Hernandez said.

That would end when the amended target was passed either today or tomorrow.

“Every three years, the agricultural community will now have to face the rollercoaster experience of the chopping and changing of targets.”

He criticised the government’s decision to push through the change under urgency, with no public consultation or select committee scrutiny.

“They will not be able to complain when we use the same process.”

Labour Party climate change spokesperson Deborah Russell said the government had chosen “a very curious day” to be pushing through the bill under urgency.

“It is 10 years to the day since John Key’s National government signed up to the Paris Agreement, and here we are today, in this house, downgrading our methane target, valorising dubious science, and walking away from our commitments to reducing climate change.”

Setting a lower target might be cheaper in the short-term, Russell said.

“But the costs will be borne by our children and our children’s children.”

Previous MPs, including from National, had worked hard together to get a bipartisan consensus on the original targets, she said.

“There was genuine consensus… and that party has walked away from 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

The government’s plan for Parliament’s final full week of the year moves 12 different proposed laws through 32 stages of parliamentary approval.

Included in the plan is fixing an error made by tired government MPs during the previous long week of urgency, when they voted for an opposition amendment and, even when prompted, failed to notice the error. This week’s urgency revealed another, bigger error caused presumably by too much haste and not enough care.

Judging by submissions and responses in Parliament’s rules committee, governments’ use of urgency may be losing favour. Vanushi Walters noted in debate on House on Thursday that the House has spent 30.4 percent of this Parliament sitting under urgency, compared to 15.7 percent of the previous Parliament. The previous Parliament used a fair bit of urgency. This Parliament has almost doubled that. Fast Track Legislation is not just the name of a bill.

Speed can be useful, and can be necessary, but it increases the likelihood of errors. On Thursday the House saw significant evidence of this when they debated the wide-ranging Crimes Amendment Bill, from the Minister of Justice, Paul Goldsmith.

His opening speech in the debate can’t have been fun. First he alerted MPs to his intention to give extra instructions to the Select Committee who would look at the bill (more on that below). Then he began listing the things included in the bill but ran out of steam when he reached items he apparently expected, but that were not there.

“This bill is a wide-ranging one. It amends the Crimes Act to ensure criminals face longer penalties for coward punches, attacking first responders, retail crime, human trafficking, and – uhm – further retail crime.”

His problem-some of the broad range of measures promoted as highlights of the bill had been omitted. They had also been listed in his answers during Question Time. Presumably, at some point someone asked where those much-praised law-changes could be found – and the government discovered they were missing.

This was not a misplaced comma or an omitted clause. It was an entire chunk of the legislation, a level of failure that is both extraordinary and embarrassing for the government.

The minister was forced to ask the Select Committee to consider adding the missing items to a bill that was only made public on Tuesday.

A ‘hotchpotch’ of a bill hides an error

Other than unseemly haste, another reason for the screw-up may be the bill’s jumble of disconnected provisions. All were crime-related, but for a muddle of different categories of crime.

This government has been very busy on crime and punishment. Bills considered so far this Parliament included 22 related to crime, or punishment for crime. A couple of those were Members bills – one of these was rolled into this new Crimes Amendment Bill. Most of those crime-related bills have been more focused. Not this one.

Labour’s Ginny Andersen began her response to the bill saying “in all my years working on justice policy as a public servant, as an adviser, [never] have I ever seen such a hotchpotch of different measures all jammed into one bill.” She imagined Paul Goldsmith being told by the Prime Minister that he was behind on his “deliverables” and as a response “sweeping his desk of all the work he was meant to do over the course of the year and putting it into one bill.”

The bill changes the rules around citizen’s arrest, and around property defences (both static and mobile property). It changes offences and penalties around human trafficking, migrant smuggling, and slavery. It creates new offences for assaults on first responders or corrections officers. There are also new offences for punching someone in the head or neck if they don’t see it coming. There is even an offence that the bill describes as theft undertaken in an “offensive, threatening, insulting, or disorderly manner.”

Once the missing measures are added in, it will be possible to give summary fines to shoplifters. Although, as Lawrence Xu-Nan pointed out, those missing provisions don’t relate to the Crimes Act that this bill amends, but instead to the Summary Offences Act.

The jumble of provisions meant there was also a jumble of debate. Opposition MPs could all find things they loved about the bill, and things they were appalled at. The most popular changes related to human trafficking and slavery offences. The least popular were for citizen’s arrest, and the subsequent holding of arrestees.

According to Labour’s spokesperson on the subject, Ginny Andersen, it is not only the opposition who find these measures problematic.

“Officials, both from the Ministry of Justice and from Police, have warned the government that this is a dangerous piece of legislation. They say, in advice, that it would escalate low-level theft into more violent situations and potentially endanger the lives of those people who were the business owners. It even suggests, in some of the police advice that we received, that there will be a situation-if a business owner had detained and restrained an alleged offender, and if they were there for a period of time, that business owner might even be able to be charged with kidnapping if they were held in certain ways.”

On the government side most MPs gave very short speeches indeed, mostly about being hard on crime or focusing on victims. Rima Nakhle, for example, defended the use of urgency on a bill, parts of which won’t come into effect until six months after it passes into law.

“What saddens me to my core”, said Nakhle, “is that we’re having philosophical conversations across the House about the use of urgency. There is urgency for victims, and that’s the reason why this bill is what it is, and that’s the reason why we’re talking about it in urgency: because, to us, the rights of victims and protecting them is absolutely urgent. I commend this bill to the House.”

That was her entire speech, the shortest of a short bunch. The entire first reading debate on the bill took well under an hour.

Once the first reading debate was complete, the responsible minister, Goldsmith returned to seek permission for the Select Committee to consider his amendments to the bill. Amendments to correct the missing provisions, which required a further debate. Oddly, given that the purpose of a first reading is to consider whether the content of a bill is worth considering, MPs were not allowed to debate the content that would be added, only whether the committee should consider adding it.

Opposition MPs were not kind about the missing content.

“Look, this is a disgrace.” said Kieran McAnulty. “They should not have had to rush things through urgency. If they weren’t so focused on getting things through so quickly, I reckon they wouldn’t have made this mistake.”

*RNZ’s The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament’s Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ.

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

MPs may well be cranky after debates under urgency continued until about 1.40am this morning – resuming again at 9am.

The House continues a packed agenda as the government tries to clear through legislation before the end of the year.

When Parliament is under urgency, sittings usually conclude at midnight.

But when amendments are being voted on in the Committee of the Whole House stage of a bill, the session cannot stop until the amendments have been dealt with.

The opposition putting forward more than 200 amendments on the Electoral Amendment Act – which makes several changes to election rules – was therefore what kept MPs going into the early hours.

Labour’s Greg O’Connor was in the Speaker’s chair and patiently kept things running.

“No doubt to the great disappointment of the house, the time has come for me to leave the chair. The house will resume at 9am tomorrow,” he said.

The remaining pieces of legislation on Friday also includes pushing a climate targets bill through all stages – a process that will take significant time – as well as changes to overseas investment national interest tests, and a re-committal of the committee stage of a bill adding two extra judges.

If not all dealt with, sittings will continue on Saturday – potentially until midnight – or whenever voting on amendments concludes.

Urgent sittings this week have seen the government extend RMA consents, backtrack on controversial changes to the fast-track regime, and pass changes to the rules for pig farming.

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

Parliament has rejected a petition fighting to change ACC workplace legislation to include injured volunteer firefighters.

The petition to Parliament was launched by Katherine Lamont from the Queenstown Volunteer Fire Brigade after a colleague developed PTSD and was unable to get help.

Lamont collected 36,549 signatures to fight for 12,000 volunteer firefighters who were excluded from certain ACC benefits because they were classified as non-employees.

The petition was calling for volunteer firefighters to get the same ACC coverage and benefits as their paid colleagues.

Currently volunteers were excluded from mental or gradual process injuries which could come from exposure to toxins or cancers.

Parliament’s Education and Workforce Committee said it agreed volunteer firefighters offered vital services to New Zealand, but it did not want to change the legislation.

“While we are sympathetic to the petitioner’s arguments, we are concerned about the precedent that extending ACC cover to volunteer firefighters might set. We do not consider it practical for all types of volunteers to be provided with ACC workplace coverage.

“We would like to take the opportunity to express our heartfelt gratitude to all those who volunteer for this important and challenging work.”

Lamont said this is not the answer they wanted, but she was not giving up.

“While the committee ultimately declined to recommend legislative change, their own report acknowledges what volunteers and communities already know: volunteer firefighters are essential, they face the same dangers as paid firefighters, and they deserve better support.”

In a submission to the committee Lamont laid out just how important volunteers were.

“Volunteers make up 86 percent of the front-line workforce of Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ). These people are often first responders in emergencies.

“In New Zealand in 2023, volunteer firefighters responded to callouts

for 70 percent of motor vehicle accidents, 71 percent of medical emergencies, 81 percent of vegetation fires.”

She said volunteers were on call all hours of the day and never expected anything in return.

Peter Ottley served as chief firefighter in Kingston for 13 years, but had been unable work after developing severe PTSD following a horrific bus accident a year ago. His family was under a huge amount of financial stress.

“I stepped up to help my community, and when I became mentally injured, I expected at least the same level of support a full-time firefighter would receive.

“Instead, we’re left unsure about what our future looks like. No volunteer should ever be placed in that position.”

The committee’s report highlighted the estimated cost of providing equitable cover for FENZ volunteers at $244,533 per year, or roughly $20 per volunteer firefighter annually.

“Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and ACC consider this to be a fairly minor cost increase. However, they said there are fairness concerns around where this funding could come from.”

Labour and the Greens were open to extending ACC coverage.

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

It was an “historic” day for New Zealand’s education system says the head of IHC, as the government settles a Human Rights Review Tribunal claim from 2012 alleging education policies disadvantaged disabled students in schools.

Chief executive of the service provider for people with intellectual disabilities, Andrew Crisp, said the government had agreed to work together, rather than “battle it in the courts”.

“We were prepared to battle it in the courts, but we know this is a better way for us, and we can really achieve something quite big.”

IHC said the agreement would enable the New Zealand education system to work better for disabled students.

Crisp said disabled students had not had an equitable opportunity to enjoy a meaningful education in New Zealand, and this settlement was part of fixing that.

“Families, teachers and principals have told IHC over several decades that government policies led to exclusion for disabled students in local schools.

“This is a strong starting point for long-term improvements to how the government supports disabled students learning at their local school.

Crisp signed the agreement at Parliament on Thursday afternoon alongside Minister for Education Erica Stanford and secretary for education Ellen MacGregor Reid.

The agreement committed to a ‘Framework for Action’ responding to the support needs of disabled and neurodiverse students, as well as establishing a stakeholder group to support its implementation.

The framework included:

• Better data reporting and collection
• Improved access to specialist support services
• Better coordination among education agencies to improve the system for disabled students
• Taking steps to ensure the curriculum reflects and includes all learners
• Taking steps to enable more accessible infrastructure
• An investigation of alternative funding structures
• An investigation into the impacts of government policies and funding decisions on attitudes of ableism (a focus on what disabled students could not do, rather than what they could).

IHC said the Framework for Action required the ministry to “investigate several areas of education” and consider how they could be improved to support all learners, including those with disabilities. Those areas included data collection and reporting, access to specialist support services, infrastructure and curriculum.

Crisp said discussions with the ministry had been “detailed and collaborative” and IHC was satisfied the changes could remove barriers and lead to longterm positive oucomes for disabled students.

Stanford called it a “hugely significant” day, and said it was the start of a “true partnership” between IHC and the Ministery of Education to “make sure that we are securing the futures of our disabled children and the education system”.

“For too long, they have not been receiving the education they deserve. And we’ve now put together a framework that we’ll work together on to make sure that we change that.”

She said it was up to the government to make sure the system was funded properly.

“There is obviously a huge deficit that we need to make up for, but we’re committed to doing that.

“In Budget 25, we delivered the most significant investment in learning support in a generation – $750 million – directly tackling the long-standing inequities IHC has raised.”

Crisp said it would mean children could go to school and feel part of the school environment, and “are not treated any differently”.

He said that would “take some time”.

“Over time those students’ support and learning needs will be better understood and they will have what they need to thrive at school and beyond, just like their non-disabled peers.

“But the reality is, we want a society where that can be the case.

“System change will take years, but we will make sure that there is demonstrable progress.”

Shane McInroe, who has learning difficulties such as dyslexia and dyspraxia, said “writing and reading is not my forte, but we get there eventually”. He worked in advocacy and was also in attendance, speaking of his own experience at school.

“Maybe they just didn’t have adequate support and they didn’t have understanding of how to work with someone with a learning disability.”

He spoke of the significance of the day “to the community and the whole of the schooling system”.

He said students with disabilities could “actually be a student in a school” and not be concerned about their support.

“It will make a huge difference.”

He wanted to see real training for support staff and teachers.

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

While many people ease into Christmas, head to drinks, write cards and mentally check out, in its penultimate sitting week of 2025 Parliament is doing the opposite.

This is one of MPs’ busiest weeks of the year.

Ten new bills across different portfolios were introduced, a matching number for Santa’s reindeer (including Rudolf). Probably the most high-profile of them were three comprising the surprise arrival of the government’s major shake-up of the Resource Management Act (RMA).

News of the legislation’s arrival at Parliament took place during an lock-in event reminiscent of Budget Day, in which the government gave opposition MPs, officials and the media a couple of hours to familiarise themselves, before releasing a full outline of its RMA reform plan at 1pm.

The RMA is to be replaced by two new laws – one focused on development planning and one on the natural environment.

Those two bills were introduced this week, but the government opted not to progress them under urgency this week to give “members a good chance to digest them”, Minister for RMA Reform Chris Bishop said.

Those two bills are moving through the default legislative process, so they won’t pass until a few months into next year. They aren’t scheduled to take effect until 2029.

To bridge the three-year gap and provide some certainty in the interim, the government began urgency with a third, RMA related bill – the Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Bill.

“At the moment, consent holders face an unnecessary burden,” Bishop told the House on Tuesday.

“Many of them are required to renew resource consents under the current system, even though the new system will be in place; that will streamline processes. It’s our view that that is inefficient and unnecessary. So these are temporary yet urgent changes that will avoid uncertainty, stress, and cost.”

The third bill extends resource consents that are due to expire before the new RMA regime is passed (end of 2027), and it reinstates and extends recently expired consents in cases where a replacement application has already been lodged.

The RMA was originally passed in 1991 by the fourth National government and was, at the time, internationally novel. More than 30 years later, there’s general agreement that reform is needed. Where political parties’ ideas deviate is how those changes should look.

Because the opposition hadn’t had much time to delve into the details of the extension bill, their grievances on the bill included the use of urgency.

“Minister Bishop and Simon Court have been very, maybe ‘collaborative’ would be too strong of a word, but they’ve involved us at some points along the way in the resource management development. I want to give them credit for that.” said Lan Pham, Green Party spokesperson for RMA.

“What was really disappointing with this was not having any heads-up about it at all. That would have been a really basic thing to do, right? If this is so important and urgent to the transition, just let us at least know about it, right? Then we can actually understand it.

“The fact that we’ve just got this bill, literally an hour or two before it goes through all stages in urgency, is absolutely unacceptable.”

Governing party MPs seldom speak for long in the current Parliament, but under urgency they get very terse. This bill was set down for all stages under urgency, and coalition backbench contributions were barely elevator-pitches. Opposition MPs filled their allotted speaking times.

After a long evening in the Committee of the Whole stage, with Opposition MPs happy to slow proceedings, the Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Bill eventually passed all stages about an hour into Wednesday morning. It’s likely to be signed into law next week.

To listen to the audio version of this story, click the link near the top of the page.

RNZ’s The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament’s Office of the Clerk.

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 Conservation Minister has re-classified swathes of stewardship land on the West Coast of the South Island.

Tama Potaka is making some of the changes through an ‘order in council’ process that legitimately circumvents Cabinet sign off.

New Zealand First’s deputy leader Shane Jones conceded Potaka holds the power to do so, though he disagrees with the decision.

“We are a pro-extractive, pro-mining, pro-development, pro-jobs party,” Jones told RNZ.

Stewardship land is public conservation land that has not yet had its natural and historic values assessed.

Potaka outlined how 80 percent of the West Coast’s land would be treated.

Key changes include:

• Six proposals referred to the New Zealand Conservation Authority (NZCA) to consider the suitability of adding 4298 hectares of land to existing national parks.
• 63 proposals for disposal investigations, covering up to 3352 hectares of land.
• 151 proposals for protection under the Reserves Act covering 192,973 hectares of land, including historic and scenic reserves.
• 157 proposals for protection under the Conservation Act, including increased clarity through classification as conservation parks, and additional protections for ecological areas.

Potaka said the changes were the most significant reclassification since DOC’s inception in 1987.

“The vast majority of areas will finally have the accurate classification as they deserve, reflecting their conservation and cultural values.

“Existing rights on stewardship land – such as concessions for tourism activities, mining, and grazing licences, for example – can continue.

“Reclassifying this land will deliver more certainty on land use options for our tourism, farming, mining and hunting sectors. New concessions will be easier to obtain.”

Potaka said the new classifications would provide certainty and clarity for those operating on these areas.

“I am particularly excited about the creation of the 181,000ha Tarahanga e Toru Historic Reserve, which recognises the significance of the area for Poutini Ngāi Tahu, alongside protecting the extensive natural and recreational values.

“The reserve does not result in a change in ownership, decision making, or joint management and public access remains the same.”

New Zealand First wants ‘unfettered development’ – Shane Jones

Jones said New Zealand First had a long standing remit that a lot of stewardship land should be taken off the Department for Conservation and “opened up for unfettered development.”

“It was only shoved in DOC in 1987 because people were too lazy back there to find a better home for it.

“Obviously we’re pro-mining, pro-extraction and this decision never went through Cabinet so it’s fair to say that it’s not aligned with the party stance on stewardship land.”

However, Jones acknowledged Potaka was entitled to make the changes.

“Technically speaking, I’m advised that Tama has the total authority under the DOC Act. As you know, I don’t like DOC, and I’ve been invited to take these more fundamental concerns to the next election.

“I accept you can’t get your way every time, but know this from me, we are a pro-extractive, pro-mining, pro-development, pro-jobs party.”

On some of the land going to iwi control, Jones said Parliament was not the place to speak to his concerns in this area.

“I understand Ngāi Tahu would like to expand their footprint and that’s rational and I don’t want to get into a war of words with Ngāi Tahu. I like to leave that kōrero to the marae, but I do feel that DOC is taking far too long to issue concessions and entitlements and rights and we need to grow the economy.”

ACT leader David Seymour said the government had to work within the reality of the Ngāi Tahu settlement that did provide for some claim on the divestment of public land.

“We’ve supported a wider deal that allows a lot more activity. I think that’s a good thing. If it also comes with transfer to iwi, we’ve had a history of treaty settlements for a long time.

“Sometimes some public land goes to Māori, probably not the way I would do it if I could start New Zealand 180 years ago but it’s where we are.”

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 and her 1990s predecessor Ruth Richardson are now debating when and where to hold their promised debate.

Willis is refusing to favour a specific media outlet, while Richardson gave her opponent an ultimatum to agree to the showdown on NewstalkZB by 5pm.

The Finance Minister this week challenged Richardson – the chair of the Taxpayers’ Union group – to “come out of the shadows” and debate on the country’s finances after the TPU launched a campaign criticising the government’s finances.

Richardson first laughed off the request, but later agreed.

Labour said the debate was a “sideshow”, and the Public Service Association union said it was a “false flag” operation aimed at making Willis appear more moderate.

But after Willis said she was happy to debate “anytime, anywhere”, the debate going ahead may depend on whether the pair can agree on a time and a place.

“My proposal is that we hold it here at Parliament next week,” Willis told reporters on Thursday when heading into Question Time, “and that we do do it after the half-year update as Richardson has suggested”.

She said that was so that all media could attend.

“I’m an equal-opportunity person, I think it’s fair that all of your journalists get a go at recording the debate so that as many New Zealanders as possible can listen to it.”

Minutes later, Richardson put out a media release giving Willis an ultimatum to agree by 5pm to debate her on Newstalk ZB/Herald Now.

“Enough with the dilly-dallying. You laid down the gauntlet with ‘any time , any place’, and we have come back with the offer. Take it or leave it.

“We know you’re trying to negotiate with a taxpayer-funded, left-wing website – when the offer on the table is the largest broadcast audience in New Zealand … you have until 5pm or we’re out.”

The dispute over a venue came after the TPU sent fudge out to newsrooms across the country, insinuating Willis was “fudging” the numbers.

Willis denied that outright.

“Not at all, the numbers are all set out very clearly and we will update them again next week. We do full revelation of the numbers,” she said.

“The simple fact is that spending as a proportion of GDP has been lower under our government than it was under the last because of the significant fiscal savings that we’ve made, $43 billion of savings so far.”

Asked about the fudge, she said that if the TPU spent as much time on savings ideas as they did on fudge design, they could make a useful contribution to public debate.

“We reduced spending as a proportion of the economy. We also, I’d point out to the Taxpayers’ Union, reduced taxes – not only for all working New Zealanders but for businesses making investments in growth.”

She noted parties on the left were proposing more tax, with Labour advocating for a capital gains tax and the Greens and Te Pāti Māori calling for a wealth tax.

Asked about the PSA’s claim about the debate being a stunt, Willis replied: “Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right. I’m stuck in the middle and that’s where New Zealand is too.”

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

Spending on water services will be nearly $9 billion higher under the Local Water Done Well model than councils previously estimated.

Councils had to submit water service plans to show how they would organise water services in a financially sustainable way as part of the reforms.

In a statement, Local Government Minister Simon Watts said all plans had now been signed off, with 44 councils handing over to a separate company and 23 keeping services in house.

“These numbers mean that 76 percent of New Zealand’s population will have water services delivered through a CCO model. This collaboration between councils offers significant assistance in addressing affordability challenges.”

He said the total cost estimate from the plans was nearly $9b higher than under the councils’ earlier long-term plans, which were not required to ensure capital investment was sufficient to achieve compliance.

“The $47.9 billion total estimated investment across all plans shows councils recognise that after decades of under-investment, water projects can’t wait any longer,” he said.

“We need to fix the pipes, and we must address an unacceptable level of non-compliance, but we must also future proof for a growing population. It’s important to strike the right balance.”

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

Hemp industry laws are set to be loosened as Regulation Minister David Seymour announces sweeping changes.

Seymour says the current licensing rules are heavy-handed and outdated, and will be replaced with new rules.

Industrial hemp growers will no longer require a licence if the plants contain less than one-percent THC.

But Seymour says growers will need to notify police and the Ministry for Primary Industries before planting, so they’re aware it’s not illegal cannabis.

He says industrial hemp has very low levels of THC and doesn’t need to be heavily regulated like cannabis.

Under the new settings:

• Industrial hemp will no longer require a licence to grow or handle.
• A clear THC threshold of less than 1% will distinguish hemp from high-THC cannabis.
• Hemp biomass, including flowers and leaves, may be supplied to licensed medicinal cannabis producers under strict conditions.
• Growers must notify Police before planting to avoid accidental enforcement and assist in controlling illicit cannabis activities.
• Growers must also notify MPI at the same time as Police.
• Hemp use remains restricted to fibre, seed, and oil, with additional permissions for medicinal cannabis supply as noted above.
• Existing food safety and medicinal cannabis requirements will continue to apply

Speaking to media at the Hemp NZ Food Factory in Ashburton following the announcement on Thursday morning, Seymour said the industry had been treated like a criminal for too long.

“The industry has been held back by outdated, heavy-handed rules that treat growing low-risk crops like high-risk drugs. That ends now.”

Cabinet agreed to a package of changes to scrap the current licensing regime for industrial hemp and replace it with a more practical, proportionate regulatory approach.

Seymour said red tape for the sake of it had cost growers money and limited innovation.

He said the changes were expected to generate a benefit of $7.5m over 10 years, and about $41m in over 20.

“The changes will reduce costs and give certainty to growers and investors.”

Industrial hemp contained low levels of THC and was grown for food, oil, fibre and health products, Seymour said, and despite its low risk had been heavily regulated.

He said it was another example of why New Zealand needed the Regulatory Standards Act.

“If the Act was in place at the time these regulations were made, you would be able to see the low risks the crazy regulations were in place to ‘mitigate’.

“So far though, the disproportionately high costs of regulating the use and exchange of industrial hemp have been hidden.”

Under the new settings industrial hemp would no longer need a licence to grow or handle, a THC threshold of less than 1 percent would distinguish it from high-THC cannabis and hemp biomass including leaves and flowers could be supplied to licensed medicinal cannabis producers.

Growers would need to notify police and MPI before planting to avoid accidental enforcement and hemp use remained restricted to fibre, seed and oil.

The Ministry of Health would draft new regulatory settings.

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