Category: Politics

Source: Radio New Zealand

Despite dropping in the polls and failing to resonate with voters on a range of issues, Sir Bill English is confident Christopher Luxon is the right person to lead National to victory at next year’s election.

Speaking to 30 with Guyon Espiner, the former Finance Minister said the government has done a “remarkably good job”, adding that Prime Minister Luxon, Winston Peters and David Seymour all deserve credit for what they have achieved.

“They’ve got an equilibrium, and I’m making those comments not just as a former politician, but sitting outside it, involved in running businesses, involved with a wide range of New Zealanders.

“It doesn’t work to change Prime Ministers,” he said. “It’s stable and it’s working.”

While suggesting New Zealand was going through a “rough patch”, Sir Bill said it wasn’t about the government showing “bold leadership”, but rather the government needed to sort out “those barriers that are getting in the way of productive investment and, more importantly, productive employment”.

“This government, it’s a bit less sort of clean cut and well presented, but it is stable. The government’s got a coherence, and it’s getting through a whole lot of serious issues. I think they’ve done a remarkably good job, and probably an unexpectedly good job, of managing themselves.”

On the economy, Sir Bill – who served as Finance Minister under Prime Minister Sir John Key from 2008 to 2016 – said in 12-18 months New Zealand’s will be growing faster than Australia’s.

The current economy feels like it is “struggling to get up out of the mud” because the usual cycle of house prices picking up, which makes people feel good and spend more money, isn’t happening.

“New Zealand’s dealing with some structural shifts in its economy, which means its recovery is slower.

“But in a sense, it will be a higher quality recovery, because it won’t be dependent on some big shift in house prices, and it won’t be as dependent on a surge in immigration.”

Sir Bill said “this amazing, almost bipartisan view that we need to change the rules for housing so that it’s more affordable” is cause for optimism.

When pushed on the increase in inequality, including rising homelessness, Sir Bill pointed to the impacts of previous policy.

“Our poor-quality housing policy in the past has driven a lot of inequality. It’s driven a lot of a burden on low-income people trying to afford housing.

“I don’t think the housing issues were to do with neoliberalism. They were actually to do with over-planning our city’s.

“Poor planning causes poverty, it causes higher costs than would otherwise be the case.”

Sir Bill was also critical of the “state monopoly” which he said has done a “poor job for a long time” when it comes to social housing, and called for more housing to help tackle issues around homelessness.

While economists and politicians have been debating whether a Capital Gains Tax is worthwhile, Sir Bill said “there’s a lot of complexity, not much revenue,” and “the possibility of revenue is significantly less now than it would have been, say, 10 years ago, and certainly 20 years ago.”

On Te Pāti Māori, whom he worked with for three terms, Sir Bill described it as “an often-challenging experience” but “a satisfying one”, before saying the party as it was originally conceived was conservative.

“I don’t mean in the sort of National Party’s right-wing sense, but conservative in that they were trying to rebuild social connection, self-reliance.”

Sir Bill praised the increasing use of te reo Māori in everyday language, and how “in the business world dealing with iwi is now completely normal”, but said “particularly in the public service, performative biculturalism had got completely out of control.”

“I think what you’ve seen recently has been a kind of general political correction.

“What I find interesting is that there’s a debate going on in the political world about whether one party’s anti-Māori or whatever. In the real world the custom and the practice of the people just moves on.”

He added: “there’s nothing wrong with a bit of pushing and shoving when you think the Constitution’s at stake”.

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 opposition parties agree more needs to be done to make local government work better for everybody, they say the government’s proposals to scrap regional councils could remove a layer of community voice and expertise.

Under the proposals revealed on Tuesday, district and city mayors would take on the regional councils’ roles, forming Combined Territories Boards.

Those boards would then be tasked with coming up with plans to reorganise how their councils are structured long-term.

How those plans look is up to the boards, but they would be assessed against criteria like whether they are realistic, are financially responsible, provide fair and effective representation for communities of interest, and whether they support national priorities, strategies, and goals, are financially responsible.

They would have to be given the final sign-off by the Minister of Local Government.

The government has also stressed it would be “highly unlikely” the status quo is maintained, with Resource Management Act Reform Minister Chris Bishop saying it would be a “fair summation” that they ended up being unitary authorities.

“The status quo can’t remain locked in formaldehyde forever,” Bishop said.

Deon Swiggs is chair of Environment Canterbury, as well as chair of Local Government New Zealand’s regional sector.

He also recognised that the current model was “unsustainable,” but said it was important that accountability, localism, and local voice was transferred to whatever happened in the future.

“We all want to see our economy thrive. We all want to see things get done. And reorganising local government may not achieve those outcomes. It might achieve efficiencies in some areas, but it might not achieve the outcomes that the government wants to see.”

Wiggs was also a Christchurch City Councillor from 2016 to 2019, and said while there were tensions between district and regional councils, it was constructive.

“It’s never been ‘oh, the regional council’s stopping us from doing this’ or ‘the district council’s stopping us from doing that.’ It’s about outcomes,” he said.

“The regional council has a different focus, and the city council has a different focus. They want to drive down costs, and the regional council wants to drive environmental outcomes. Those constructive tensions shouldn’t be looked at as a failure of the system. They should be looked at as actually getting the best outcomes that have longevity in our system.”

Central Otago mayor Tamah Alley said it was a “dramatic shift,” and while mayors put their hands up to represent their communities, “sometimes that asks more of us than we thought at the beginning”.

“It will be a challenge for local government, already under the pump with so much reform on our plates to pick up the additional workload. If that’s the direction that comes from this consultation,” she said.

Alley, who is a Local Government New Zealand national council mayor, said local government had been talking about how to do things in a more efficient and economic way for a while, and the proposals had “pushed the conversation”.

Selwyn mayor Lydia Gliddon said while she could see the intention to streamline decision making, it raised big questions.

She said any new model must not be a restructure for the sake of it.

“These are not small responsibilities. If those functions are reorganised or absorbed, we need absolute clarity that oversight won’t be weakened.”

Nelson is one of the councils that currently operates under a unitary authority model, along with Tasman, Marlborough, Auckland, Chatham Islands, and Gisborne.

Mayor Nick Smith said the proposed changes would make councils “simpler, less costly and will help deliver better services”.

He said the unitary model had meant the Nelson, Tasman, and Marlborough councils had worked “much better,” and it was a “no brainer” to merge Nelson and Tasman.

The Northland Mayoral Forum, which comprises the region’s three district mayors and regional council chair, agreed it was time to review the way local government was structured.

Far North mayor Moko Tepania said all four forum members were unanimous that whatever the outcome of reform, “we want to make sure it’s in the best interests of Northland as a whole. We do not need a ‘one size fits all’ solution imposed by Wellington”.

Whangārei mayor Ken Couper said the priority was “ensuring that any changes deliver real benefits for our communities and our region,” while Kaipara mayor Jonathan Larsen said he looked forward to working with the other Northland councils to get the best possible outcome for ratepayers.

With just under three months of consultation before a final draft, the legislation is not expected to be introduced to Parliament until the middle of next year.

Bishop said what the government had put forward was its preferred model, but it was open to “sensible changes” all the way through the process.

The government would seek to pass it in 2027, lining up with the phasing in of the resource management reforms.

It means, with an election in 2026, a change in government could mean the legislation is dropped.

But Labour’s local government spokesperson Tangi Utikere said Labour would need to look at the implications of the proposal first.

“We are open to looking at how we can make local government work better for everyone, and I think even people within the sector would accept that as well, how we simplify things. That’s where the focus needs to be on right now.”

The Minister of Local Government Simon Watts said the proposals were “absolutely” consistent with National’s advocacy for localism.

But Utikere disagreed.

“The government talks a lot about the need to empower local communities, but they’re looking to strip away what is a key layer of that.”

Utikere said with such long-lasting implications he was disappointed a bipartisan approach was not taken.

“What we want here is a real look at what works for communities, that local voice is part of that conversation, and also that those key sort of areas of environmental protection, public transport, waste, minimisation and management are taken care of.”

Bishop said consultation was open to everybody, and as Labour was part of the “ecosystem” it would get a chance to have its say.

The Green Party’s local government spokesperson, and former Wellington mayor, Celia Wade-Brown believed mayors had a different skill set to regional councils when it came to public transport, environmental protection, harbour management, and monitoring rivers.

“There is a complete disregard for the expertise for both officers and staff and elected members in these proposals. I think most of us think that there needs to be consideration of reform, but this has jumped to the end game of getting rid of regional councils,” she said.

Wade-Brown acknowledged there was a need for new funding models, and a conversation about planned reorganisation, but starting with getting rid of regional councils was not an inviting way to start.

“This is Christopher Luxon talking about localism and doing the opposite.”

The Combined Territories Boards’ plans would still need to uphold Treaty of Waitangi settlement commitment, but there was no requirement for iwi representation.

Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said there were “great relationship agreements” between iwi and regional councils, and she did not want that to change.

“It’ll be really important that it doesn’t sideline the Treaty, and sideline the progress that Māori iwi and communities have achieved within these spaces,” she said.

She also agreed there needed to be a more efficient and effective way to manage the layers of bureaucracy, but said abolishing regional councils was a “direct assault” on Treaty settlements.

“We have to make sure that they’re not removing Māori and iwi from decision making, that they’re not removing environmental protection. And when you centralise power to Cabinet ministers, there’s a political imperative that takes over everything else.”

“It’ll be really important that it doesn’t sideline the Treaty, and sideline the progress that Māori iwi and communities have achieved within these spaces.”

Meanwhile ACT’s local government spokesperson Cameron Luxton called it a “good day for local democracy,” and it would remove overlap.

“For too long we have had territorial councils, regional councils, mayors, local MPs, area ministers and Cabinet all overlapping. People are left wondering who is responsible for what. Voters look at their papers for regional council and see a list of names they do not recognise and shrug their shoulders,” he said.

“Ratepayers don’t know who their regional chair is, but they do know who their mayor is. Under these reforms, they’ll know who to hold to account. By removing a layer of governance, we are making it clearer where responsibility sits.”

The Taxpayers’ Union wanted to see rates relief alongside the announcement.

Spokesperson Tory Relf said the government’s proposals were a “real chance” to cut back bureaucracy and reduce the costs to ratepayers, but would only work if the changes were genuine.

“That can’t mean shifting the same responsibilities and the same staff into district councils and pretending that’s reform. And it certainly can’t mean creating new roles or bodies in a manner that isn’t democratically accountable. Ratepayers need less bureaucracy, not a reshuffle from one layer to another,” she said.

Watts is still expected to bring a policy proposal around rates capping to Cabinet before the end of the year.

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

Senior National MP and minister Chris Bishop has categorically denied plotting a leadership challenge, insisting that Christopher Luxon remains the best person to be prime minister.

Speculation surrounding the prospect of a coup has intensified in the past week given dissatisfaction within the National caucus after a series of worrying polls.

Addressing reporters at Parliament on Tuesday, Bishop said he was “definitely not” planning to roll Luxon as leader and dismissed the commentary as people “interviewing their typewriters”.

Asked if he could give a firm commitment that Luxon would remain prime minister through to the election, Bishop responded simply: “yes”.

Bishop was asked several times whether Luxon was the best person for the top job, to which he said Luxon was “fantastic” and “outstanding”.

He eventually responded directly: “Correct… absolutely, he’s doing a wonderful job as prime minister.”

“We’re in difficult economic times, as I think everybody knows, and this is the first time we’ve had a three-way coalition Cabinet in New Zealand history,” Bishop said.

“That produces its own challenges and trials and tribulations. But he’s doing an excellent job leading a government that is… firmly focused on long term structural reform to drive higher living standards.”

Bishop said he spoke to Luxon “almost every day” including about the rumours.

Earlier on Tuesday, another MP touted as a future leader Erica Stanford shrugged off a question over whether anyone had approached her about potentially taking over.

“All I’m concentrated on… is doing my job,” she said. “I don’t talk to people about leadership.”

Standing alongside Stanford, Luxon said she was doing an “outstanding job” and the National Party had a “great team doing an amazing job”.

Asked whether he would step down if National sunk below a certain level in the polls, Luxon said that was “not a concern”.

He said he did not hold any concerns for those National MPs who would lose their jobs on current polling: “No.”

Speaking on NewstalkZB on Monday, Luxon said he did not believe the rumours and described Bishop as a “great minister” and “good friend”.

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

Wellington City Council could save tens of millions of dollars through cost-cutting, such as reducing staff, according to a new report.

In August, the then-new council chief executive Matt Prosser commissioned independent analysis from Deloitte of the council’s processes, as well as finding opportunities to improve performance and rates affordability.

That report was revealed on Tuesday afternoon, and highlighted issues such as the council’s aging technology, double-handling and ambiguity around the council’s roles and how it differed from central government.

It said through “right shaping” the council workforce and optimising spending through better governance, contract compliance and strategic sourcing, the council could save up to $79 million over three years.

Prosser said some of Deloitte’s recommendations were at odds with the wishes of the community and decisions previously made by the council.

“It’s important we don’t get ahead of the democratic decision processes at the heart of local government.

“We will critically assess everything in the report against the needs and aspirations of our communities.”

He said in the short-term the council would be focused on finding cost savings and making operational improvements.

“Throughout this process our staff will be kept informed, and we will seek their views on the initiatives raised in the report. As is council’s practice, we will also be engaging with the unions.”

The council had removed 58 roles over the past few months, he said.

“We’ve also kicked off a programme to improve our delivery across a number of areas including contract management, procurement and asset management.”

The report said the council had 330 more staff than it should, based on the number of full time employees per 1000 households.

It found that would result in a 18.5 percent reduction in employees and on an average it would save $33.9 million.

‘A flimsy PowerPoint presentation’ – PSA

PSA national secretary Duane Leo said the report was “fundamentally flawed”.

“This is a flimsy PowerPoint presentation that lacks any depth, rigour or even a basic understanding of what the Council’s role is.

“Hidden in the fine print, the report notes that its assumptions need to be validated and shouldn’t be relied upon for decision-making.”

Leo said it was based on crude benchmarking that ignored Wellington City Council provided services many other councils don’t such as social housing, city housing and addressing homelessness.

He said it also did not include that an extra 22,000 people come into the city every day for work.

“You cannot remove one in five positions without serious impacts. Building consent times will blow out. Libraries will have reduced hours. Parks will be less well maintained. Council has already removed 58 roles this year and staff are stretched thin.”

The Deloitte report made note that the council should make more use of AI for tasks such as triaging general enquiry’s from the public, creating reporting on project management and automate workflows.

Leo said the union was concerned about the proposed use of AI.

“Deloitte is assuming AI can deliver productivity gains of up to 50 percent but they haven’t done the work to show replacing experienced staff with ChatGPT would actually deliver those results.”

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 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