Category: Politics

Source: Radio New Zealand

Explainer – New Zealand has announced would-be citizens will have to pass a test about starting next year. What might that look like and how do other countries do similar tests?

The test on various topics around New Zealand life and government would be required for many applying for citizenship from next year.

“Becoming a New Zealand citizen is a significant milestone in a person’s life and a great honour,” Minister of Internal Affairs Brooke van Velden said in announcing the change.

“This change reinforces the value of New Zealand citizenship, and what it means to obtain it.”

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon told Morning Report on Thursday that New Zealand was following similar tests in other nations.

“I just don’t think there’s any harm,” Luxon said of introducing the tests.

The exact date the test will launch hasn’t been set, but the announcement said late 2027.

While it will be new to New Zealand, tests like this aren’t uncommon – they’re already in use in Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States among others.

Here’s what we know so far about citizenship tests and what we can learn from other countries.

Who has to take the test?

If you’re applying for citizenship by grant from late 2027, you’ll have to take it in addition to any other application requirements.

There are three ways to become a citizen – by birth, by descent (being born overseas but having at least one parent who was a NZ citizen when you were born), or by grant – which means you’re a foreign national who has usually been a permanent resident of NZ for at least five years.

Most people who apply by grant will have to take the new test, but there are some exceptions – you don’t have to sit the test if you:

• are under 16 years old
• are aged 65 or over
• have been granted a waiver for the English language requirement for citizenship
• are not of full capacity
• have a severe medical condition that would prevent completing the test
• have unique personal circumstances that would prevent completing the test
• are a New Zealand citizen by descent applying for citizenship by grant
• are applying from overseas but meet the presence requirement – for example, if they live in Niue, the Cook Islands or Tokelau, or are working overseas for the NZ government.

“Exemptions from the test are intended to ensure the approach is proportionate, fair, and in line with approaches taken in comparable countries,” van Velden said.

Van Velden also told RNZ’s Checkpoint there would be no exemptions based on income levels.

How’s test taking going to work?

The test will consist of 20 multiple-choice questions and applicants must get 15 answers, or 75 percent, correct to pass.

The test will be only offered in person, at locations throughout New Zealand.

The aim is not to just have testing spots in main centres, the announcement said. Service accessibility to all will be a key consideration, van Velden said.

“I did consider an online test, however, with rapid development of AI and ability for individuals to have help at home, I considered this a less robust test than an in-person test,” van Velden said.

What’s it going to cost?

There will be a fee to take the test in addition to existing citizenship application fees, but a specific amount hasn’t been chosen yet.

“The cost itself hasn’t been borne out yet,” van Velden told Checkpoint.

The Department of Internal Affairs plans to look for a potential third-party provider to provide the test and the cost would be determined then, she said.

“I do believe it is important that there is a cost to the test because we do want people to study for it, and when there’s a user-pays component … people do take that seriously and if there wasn’t a cost, it is possible that people might sit multiple times without looking at the guidance that DIA provide.”

Currently, applying for citizenship by grant costs $560 for adults and $280 for children aged 15 and under.

If you fail the test, you can take it again but the government says applicants “will likely” have to pay a new fee each time they sit the test.

If you fail to pass the test three times, you have to wait 30 days. You’ll only get six tries in total to pass the test, however, and then you’ll be “provided options” including withdrawing your citizenship application and getting a partial refund of application fees.

What kind of questions will they be asking?

In the announcement, van Velden said the topics will include the Bill of Rights Act, human rights, voting rights and democratic principles, New Zealand’s system of government, some criminal offences and questions about travelling overseas on a New Zealand passport.

Notably, there was no mention of Te Tiriti o Waitangi or Māori tikanga in the announcement.

However, there will be a Treaty of Waitangi question in the test, van Velden confirmed to RNZ.

She said the questions themselves have yet to be decided.

“I won’t go into any particular question itself because we won’t be releasing those, but the questions are revolving around freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of association, the fact that men and women have equal rights, that we have protection from discrimination, that we have free elections … all the things that have made our country good.”

The Department of Internal Affairs is handling the details of how the test will be implemented. There will be guides and other resources ahead of the test introduction to allow people to prepare and pass.

“On balance, it’s very, very similar to what the UK and Australia have been doing for years,” Luxon told RNZ.

“It’s probably not a bad thing to remind people that things like freedom of expression, freedom of speech and women having equal rights, all those kind of things, to have them positively affirmed is probably a good thing.”

Will the test remain even if the government changes before 2027?

Of course, there’s also an election this year, so will that have an impact?

When asked by RNZ if he supported the exam, Labour leader Chris Hipkins said he was open to strengthening citizenship rules, but expressed concern about no mention of the Treaty of Waitangi in the original announcement.

“Do we want those who are gaining New Zealand citizenship to basically be signing up to adhering to New Zealand’s rules and so on? Yes, of course, that’s inherent in the citizenship process, but excluding a big part of our own history from that seems to undermine what they’re trying to do.”

As noted, van Velden has since indicated there will be one question on the Treaty.

How do tests work in other countries?

As mentioned, Australia, the US and UK all have some form of test most applicants for citizenship must take.

“New Zealand has looked at approaches used in comparable countries such as Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada when developing the test,” van Velden said.

“This includes elements like the number of questions, passing rates, exemption categories, and delivery approach.”

Sample questions available online in training sites and apps show these tests have a wide spectrum of possible questions would-be citizens might be asked – and perhaps a guidepost for how New Zealand’s test might work.

Australia requires a test and has a 20-question multiple choice exam that asks questions about Australian values and history. A practice test is also available online where questions such as “Who can deliver a Welcome to Country?” and what Anzac Day commemorates can be found.

In the United Kingdom, most applicants must take the “Life in the UK” test with 24 multiple-choice questions about British traditions and customs and show English language proficiency. Practice tests on an unofficial test preparation website ask questions such as who William Shakespeare was and whether pool and darts are traditional pub games, plus somewhat harder questions such as “Who was reigning in England when Wales became formally united with England by the Act for the Government of Wales?” (If you answered Henry VII, you’re correct!)

Over in the United States, a two-part test covering English language skills and civics is required for many applicants. The civics test is conducted as an oral test of 20 questions from a possible 128. Sample questions for that one cover how the three branches of American government work, who wrote the Declaration of Independence and why America entered the Vietnam war.

There’s also a few freebies such as “What is the name of the President of the United States now,” in case the applicant hasn’t been paying attention to, well, anything, the last 10 years or so.

Sometimes questions on a test can be controversial. For instance, The Washington Post reported many took issue with a question that asked “When did all women get the vote?” The test’s answer was in 1920 – after the US Constitution was amended to allow women to vote – but many pointed out that Black and Native American women voters actually faced barriers to voting for decades after 1920 and the wording of the question to say “all women” was misleading.

It goes to show that the questions – and how they’re phrased, especially around touchy issues – could be a tricky road to navigate in putting together New Zealand’s future citizenship test.

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 law professor and a media expert say David Seymour has gone too far in public attacks against RNZ and TVNZ.

They’ve warned jabs at the media will continue as the election draws closer, and could erode public trust.

The deputy Prime Minister and ACT party leader spoke to The Platform last week, taking swings at both state broadcasters’ management.

He criticised the appointment of RNZ’s Morning Report host John Campbell and suggested RNZ’s chief executive Paul Thompson could lose his job, adding “it’s really critical that we are ensuring that we get better people on the board, and those people will change the management.”

He also accused TVNZ of being “politically motivated”.

Seymour is a shareholding minister in both RNZ and TVNZ, and the law says ministers cannot give direction to the state broadcasters.

Seymour told RNZ he had not done that.

“Decisions around staffing, presenter line-ups, and editorial matters are for boards and management. Anyone who thinks RNZ is taking editorial instructions from me clearly does not listen to RNZ.”

He said editorial independence did not, however, mean “freedom from accountability”, adding ministers are entitled to comment “when publicly owned media organisations are losing audience, relevance, or public confidence”.

Media commentator and former New Zealand Herald editor Gavin Ellis said Seymour crossed the line, and while it may not have been explicit direction, it was against the spirit of the law.

“He is effectively telling Radio New Zealand who they should employ in an editorial role, and that is simply not for him to do,” Ellis said.

“He should back off.”

Seymour’s comments came in the wake of a tumultuous couple of weeks for the relationship between the coalition government and the media.

Ellis warned there would be more to follow.

“The closer the call at the election, the more likely it is that we will see attempts to exert a chilling effect on media … to get them to stay clear of the contentious stuff, because … they’re under pressure,” he said.

He was confident the media would not bow to any pressure, but said it would not help with public trust.

AUT’s annual media trust survey last month found 37 percent of respondents trust “most of the news, most of the time” – up from 32 percent last year.

It found RNZ was the country’s most trusted news brand, followed by the Otago Daily Times and TVNZ.

“It’s a very, very delicate situation, and it won’t take very much to push that that trust level back down again, which is another reason why politicians should refrain from doing so,” said Ellis.

“It is in nobody’s interest to have low trust in media.”

Otago University law professor Andrew Geddis said Seymour appeared to indicate he wanted to stack RNZ’s board to his advantage, which was legally questionable and undermined his claims he wants to rebuild public trust in RNZ.

“It’s very hard to see how the public can trust a public broadcaster when you have a politician saying, ‘I’m putting my people in charge of it, to get the people and the presenters telling you the news that I want them to tell’,” he said.

Geddis also suspected the coalition would continue its criticism of the media.

“There’s a rule in politics, that when politicians start attacking the media, they know they’re losing,” he said.

“They know that they’re going down in the polls, and they’re trying to find someone to blame.”

‘Entirely inappropriate’

Labour’s media spokesperson Reuben Davidson said Seymour’s comments “were entirely inappropriate and but not surprising, coming from a government that’s become very anti media.”

He added it was particularly concerning given the government planned to scrap the Broadcasting Standards Authority and not replace it with an independent regulator.

Green Party co-leader Chloe Swarbrick said Seymour’s comments set a “deeply dangerous precedent” with a member of Cabinet challenging editorial independence.

“We just simply can’t have ministers threatening our publicly funded news agencies because they don’t like what is being said about them or what’s being reported on,” she said.

“This is a really problematic pattern of behaviour that’s been exhibited by members of this government for not only the past few weeks, but the past few months and the past few years.”

In response to Seymour’s comments, RNZ’s board chair Jim Mather defended its editorial independence and warned against political interference.

TVNZ said it did not have a view.

Media minister Paul Goldsmith said ministers cannot get involved in operational matters.

He said the government’s role is to appoint the board and set expectations about financial sustainability, growing audience numbers and improving trust levels.

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 Regulation Minister is taking aim at what he says is excessive red tape around rooftop solar that makes it too hard for home-owners and businesses to set up panels.

David Seymour is ordering a review of the installation process, saying he wants to make New Zealand the easiest place in the world to switch to solar.

He said just three to four percent of New Zealand households used solar, despite average power savings of about $1000 a year.

“Solar installation in New Zealand is a red tape nightmare. Just getting it approved can take months,” he said.

“There are up to eight layers of sign-off before small-scale solar systems can be switched on. This requires up to five separate site visits, from four separate entities. For example, during installation the installer often cannot turn off or reconnect the fuse, update the meter, or carry out the required independent electrical inspection. These tasks must be done by other entities, requiring additional site visits.”

In parts of Australia, approval of similar low-risk solar could be granted within 24 hours, Seymour said.

“In Victoria Australia there is one layer of sign-off for small-scale solar installation. The whole solar installation process is managed and carried out by the chosen installer. Standard installations are inspected by a licensed electricity inspector without a site visit. Photos clearly show compliance. A site visit is only carried out in person if something unusual or non compliant is identified in the photos.”

Seymour said more than 30 percent of Australian households used solar power.

He made the announcement at Electric Cherries near Cromwell on Thursday, which is believed to be the world’s first fully-electric farm, powered largely by solar.

Owner Mike Casey, who is also the chief executive of Rewiring Aotearoa, said regulations needed to keep pace with technology and he was pleased to see the government looking at ways to help.

“In Australia, virtual inspections allow the installs to be approved remotely and much more rapidly and other countries have centralised systems that don’t require a physical visit and use an auditing process to ensure standards are being met,” he said.

Researchers have said New Zealanders investing in solar will almost certainly save more money than they spend.

Casey said Rewiring Aotearoa wanted to see national standards across lines companies for solar and legalisation for plug-in solar set-ups which were becoming popular overseas.

“We need more solar in New Zealand, it is very safe when installers are well-trained and given our very low uptake rates at this stage, it is unlikely to affect the network. Approval should be instant here.”

Bureaucracy not the biggest barrier – solar expert

Alan Brent, professor and chairperson in Sustainable Energy Systems at Victoria University of Wellington, said upfront cost was the biggest barrier for most households considering solar – not the installation time.

“It’s not a technical issue in terms of how long it takes. I mean, I have a solar and a battery system in my house, and they came and installed it within a day. We have all the regulations in place … all the technology is there,” he said.

“It is quite a significant investment up front. And it’s quite complicated for people to think about what the long-term savings will be.”

Brent said the best thing officials could do to boost solar uptake was a public information campaign highlighting what residents would spend and what they would save.

The government could also help residents with the upfront costs, he said.

“Something similar to what we have with industry, like the GiDI (Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry) fund – that might be an option … a long-term loan that’s underwritten by the government,” he said.

German and Australian residents also received “quite reasonable” tariffs for returning electricity to the grid, he said.

“That’s provided the incentive for people to put up solar systems,” he said.

However Seymour said cutting red tape would help with upfront cost.

“The more people involved the more expensive it is. So if you’ve got to pay someone to come and do your disconnection and then another person to do the installation, then the first person comes back to do the reconnection, that all adds cost. But I think it’s also about hesitancy and being able to just do it. If you knew that you could get this done in a weekend, you’d be a lot more likely to do it than if you’d heard that your neighbours ended up taking a couple of months to do something that could have been much simpler,” he said.

“If I can honestly say that we have the simplest, most straightforward system in the world, then how much people take advantage of that is up to them.”

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

David Seymour has intensified his attacks on the country’s state broadcasters, suggesting changes are coming for RNZ’s leadership as the government reshapes its board.

In response, RNZ staunchly defended its editorial independence and warned against political interference, noting such commentary risked undermining public trust and confidence in the organisation.

The ACT leader, who is a shareholding minister for both RNZ and TVNZ, used an interview on The Platform last week to lash out at both organisations and their management teams.

Seymour attacked RNZ’s recent appointment of John Campbell to its flagship Morning Report programme, saying that should have been “out of the question” given “the kinds of things” Campbell had previously written.

While working for TVNZ in 2023, Campbell published several columns critical of the coalition government, describing the leaders as “empty of ideas”.

Speaking to The Platform, Seymour blamed RNZ management for the decision to hire Campbell and appeared to single out chief executive Paul Thompson, without naming him.

“Look, that guy’s got an awful lot to answer for, and I suspect that he won’t be answering the call at RNZ for much longer.”

Seymour went on to say that the government was replacing RNZ’s board with the aim of changing the organisation’s management and direction.

“There’s a few more appointments to come,” he said. “It’s really critical that we are ensuring that we get better people on the board, and those people will change the management.”

Seymour also accused TVNZ of being “politically motivated” and suggested political editor Maiki Sherman could not remain in her role following an incident last year in which she allegedly directed a homophobic slur at another journalist.

“I’m sure that the board and management will be seeing that, you know, it’s pretty difficult to have someone credibly fronting the news every night when everyone knows how she behaves. I think that’s going to be tough for them.”

A spokesperson for TVNZ said questions about the appropriateness of the remarks were for the government: “We don’t hold a view on the comments.”

Legislation governing RNZ and TVNZ prohibits ministers from directing the broadcasters regarding “a particular programme or a particular allegation or a particular complaint” or “the gathering or presentation of news”.

RNZ responds

In a statement, RNZ’s outgoing board chair Jim Mather said RNZ’s editorial independence was “fundamental and non negotiable”.

“Editorial decisions, including appointments to senior editorial roles, are the sole responsibility of RNZ management and are made in accordance with journalistic merit, statutory obligations, and the well established public media convention of audience need.

“Political views, ministerial commentary, or external pressure play no role in those decisions.”

Mather said ministers did not direct RNZ’s board or management, nor did the board direct editorial content.

“Any suggestion that board appointments are intended to influence management outcomes or editorial direction is inconsistent with the arm’s length framework that underpins public trust in RNZ.”

He stressed the “clear and necessary separation” required between ministers, RNZ’s board, management and newsroom.

“Commentary that publicly links Board changes, management tenure or editorial appointments to political perspectives risks undermining confidence in RNZ’s independence and the integrity of its journalism.”

Mather said RNZ’s focus and purpose was to provide “fair, accurate and independent” news and current affairs, “not to accommodate political preference”.

Seymour not resiling from remarks

Approached for comment, Seymour rejected any suggestion his comments had stepped outside the bounds of the law.

“I have not given RNZ or TVNZ any direction that would breach either Act. Decisions around staffing, presenter line-ups, and editorial matters are for boards and management. Anyone who thinks RNZ is taking editorial instructions from me clearly does not listen to RNZ.”

Seymour said editorial independence did not, however, mean “freedom from accountability”.

“The government appoints boards, sets broad, non-editorial expectations, and ministers are entitled to comment when publicly owned media organisations are losing audience, relevance, or public confidence,” he said.

“RNZ should not be surprised to hear these concerns. Since 2020, RNZ National’s live radio audience has fallen by more than 25 percent. RNZ should be looking to the New Zealanders who have stopped listening for direction, not me.”

In a separate statement, Media and Communications Minister Paul Goldsmith said Seymour could explain his own comments.

“The government’s role is to appoint the board and to set clear expectations,” he said.

“For RNZ, this can be summarised as expecting them to operate in a financially sustainable way, and measuring their performance by their ability to grow audience numbers, and improve levels of trust – which have been low since post Covid.”

The latest AUT Trust in News survey found RNZ was the country’s most trusted news brand, followed by the Otago Daily Times and TVNZ.

The survey also found 46 percent of respondents were extremely or very concerned about politicians publicly discrediting news, while 43 percent said their trust in media would decline if owners or boards interfered in editorial decisions.

Seymour has repeatedly criticised media coverage during this term and refuses to appear on Morning Report, claiming the programme has a “toxic culture”.

He faced similar scrutiny in 2024 after accusing a TVNZ reporter of showing a “delightful lack of self-awareness and immaturity”.

At the time, then-media minister Melissa Lee said she would “have a conversation” with Seymour about the remarks.

Seymour’s actions contrasted with his criticism of former Cabinet minister Kiri Allan in 2023 after she raised concerns about RNZ’s treatment of Māori staff.

Speaking then, Seymour said ministers needed to be “absolutely critically cautious about even the perception of interfering with media”.

“Nobody loses their democracy all at once,” he said. “It’s always a thousand little chips and we don’t want to see them.”

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

David Seymour has intensified his attacks on the country’s state broadcasters, suggesting changes are coming for RNZ’s leadership as the government reshapes its board.

In response, RNZ staunchly defended its editorial independence and warned against political interference, noting such commentary risked undermining public trust and confidence in the organisation.

The ACT leader, who is a shareholding minister for both RNZ and TVNZ, used an interview on The Platform last week to lash out at both organisations and their management teams.

Seymour attacked RNZ’s recent appointment of John Campbell to its flagship Morning Report programme, saying that should have been “out of the question” given “the kinds of things” Campbell had previously written.

While working for TVNZ in 2023, Campbell published several columns critical of the coalition government, describing the leaders as “empty of ideas”.

Speaking to The Platform, Seymour blamed RNZ management for the decision to hire Campbell and appeared to single out chief executive Paul Thompson, without naming him.

“Look, that guy’s got an awful lot to answer for, and I suspect that he won’t be answering the call at RNZ for much longer.”

Seymour went on to say that the government was replacing RNZ’s board with the aim of changing the organisation’s management and direction.

“There’s a few more appointments to come,” he said. “It’s really critical that we are ensuring that we get better people on the board, and those people will change the management.”

Seymour also accused TVNZ of being “politically motivated” and suggested political editor Maiki Sherman could not remain in her role following an incident last year in which she allegedly directed a homophobic slur at another journalist.

“I’m sure that the board and management will be seeing that, you know, it’s pretty difficult to have someone credibly fronting the news every night when everyone knows how she behaves. I think that’s going to be tough for them.”

A spokesperson for TVNZ said questions about the appropriateness of the remarks were for the government: “We don’t hold a view on the comments.”

Legislation governing RNZ and TVNZ prohibits ministers from directing the broadcasters regarding “a particular programme or a particular allegation or a particular complaint” or “the gathering or presentation of news”.

RNZ responds

In a statement, RNZ’s outgoing board chair Jim Mather said RNZ’s editorial independence was “fundamental and non negotiable”.

“Editorial decisions, including appointments to senior editorial roles, are the sole responsibility of RNZ management and are made in accordance with journalistic merit, statutory obligations, and the well established public media convention of audience need.

“Political views, ministerial commentary, or external pressure play no role in those decisions.”

Mather said ministers did not direct RNZ’s board or management, nor did the board direct editorial content.

“Any suggestion that board appointments are intended to influence management outcomes or editorial direction is inconsistent with the arm’s length framework that underpins public trust in RNZ.”

He stressed the “clear and necessary separation” required between ministers, RNZ’s board, management and newsroom.

“Commentary that publicly links Board changes, management tenure or editorial appointments to political perspectives risks undermining confidence in RNZ’s independence and the integrity of its journalism.”

Mather said RNZ’s focus and purpose was to provide “fair, accurate and independent” news and current affairs, “not to accommodate political preference”.

Seymour not resiling from remarks

Approached for comment, Seymour rejected any suggestion his comments had stepped outside the bounds of the law.

“I have not given RNZ or TVNZ any direction that would breach either Act. Decisions around staffing, presenter line-ups, and editorial matters are for boards and management. Anyone who thinks RNZ is taking editorial instructions from me clearly does not listen to RNZ.”

Seymour said editorial independence did not, however, mean “freedom from accountability”.

“The government appoints boards, sets broad, non-editorial expectations, and ministers are entitled to comment when publicly owned media organisations are losing audience, relevance, or public confidence,” he said.

“RNZ should not be surprised to hear these concerns. Since 2020, RNZ National’s live radio audience has fallen by more than 25 percent. RNZ should be looking to the New Zealanders who have stopped listening for direction, not me.”

The latest AUT Trust in News survey found RNZ was the country’s most trusted news brand, followed by the Otago Daily Times and TVNZ.

The survey also found 46 percent of respondents were extremely or very concerned about politicians publicly discrediting news, while 43 percent said their trust in media would decline if owners or boards interfered in editorial decisions.

Seymour has repeatedly criticised media coverage during this term and refuses to appear on Morning Report, claiming the programme has a “toxic culture”.

He faced similar scrutiny in 2024 after accusing a TVNZ reporter of showing a “delightful lack of self-awareness and immaturity”.

At the time, then-media minister Melissa Lee said she would “have a conversation” with Seymour about the remarks.

Seymour’s actions contrasted with his criticism of former Cabinet minister Kiri Allan in 2023 after she raised concerns about RNZ’s treatment of Māori staff.

Speaking then, Seymour said ministers needed to be “absolutely critically cautious about even the perception of interfering with media”.

“Nobody loses their democracy all at once,” he said. “It’s always a thousand little chips and we don’t want to see them.”

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

Infrastructure minister Chris Bishop has committed to a review of Auckland’s multibillion-dollar City Rail Link project, saying he’s unhappy with the price tag.

It comes after the New Zealand Herald reported the project’s former boss, Dr Sean Sweeney, said it could have been done at half the cost – about $2 billion cheaper if design changes were made earlier.

Sweeney left the chief executive role in 2024 after six years.

Work began on the $5.5b CRL in 2017. It was initially expected to cost between $2.8b and $3.4b.

It’s the country’s largest infrastructure project, expected to nearly double Auckland’s rail capacity when it opens later this year.

Bishop said he, “like everyone”, was unhappy with the project’s cost.

“I have a lot of respect for Mr Sweeney so I take what he says seriously,” he said.

“The focus at the moment is on completing the project and getting it open. However, I am determined to do a post-completion full review of the project, which is something not often done in New Zealand.”

The review would be carried out by the Infrastructure Commission and consider the project’s history, business cases and costs, Bishop said.

“It also needs to look at missed opportunities. I’ve been open about how CRL was only really ever envisaged as a transport project when it is so much more than that.”

CRL chief executive Patrick Brockie said he welcomed a review, and was already planning an independent “lessons learned review” given the project’s size and complexity.

“Independent reviews of any major infrastructure project are an important part of a process to identify opportunities to improve future projects in New Zealand,” he said.

CRL was focused on finishing the project in the coming months, which Aucklanders could rely on “for decades to come”, Brockie said.

“It’s also important to note that the overall cost of the CRL reflects a wide range of factors beyond architecture alone, including the complexity of building a major underground rail project in the city centre, market and supply-chain conditions, and the impacts of Covid-19 and associated disruptions over the life of the programme.”

In 2019 a design change increased the CRL’s capacity to allow nine-car trains rather than six, which added additional cost due to extended platforms, an extra station increase and providing for future platform screen doors, Brockie said.

“But future-proofing for nine-car trains will mean that the CRL will be able to continue to deliver capacity as the population continues grows over the decades.”

The infrastructure pipeline was a common challenge facing the industry and had been well canvassed across the political spectrum, he said.

Last year, Auckland mayor Wayne Brown said the city’s proposed 7.9 percent rates increase was largely due to the CRL.

City Rail Link has been approached for comment.

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 ACT Party has overtaken Labour as the party that recorded the second largest amount in donations, with the Electoral Commission releasing the 2025 donation and loans returns.

National was once again far out in front when it came to total donations.

Since 2023, parties have had to report the names of donors and contributors who gave more than $5000, down from $15,000 in previous years.

This has changed to $6000 since 1 January 2026, but that will not be seen until next year’s publication of returns.

The figures, which make up the 2025 calendar year and must be filed by 30 April 2026, show the parties received these amounts:

• National: $6,275,234.46
• ACT: $2,445,225.79
• Labour: $2,403,241.93
• Green Party: $1,848,678.65
• NZ First: $1,360,272.56
• Opportunity Party: $179,401.24
• Te Pāti Māori: $141,986.50
• Animal Justice Party: $12,707.95
• Women’s Rights Party: $9650.50
• Conservative Party NZ: $9519.73
• NewZeal (no longer registered): $8,796.00
• Vision New Zealand: $6718.43
• Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party: $336.00
• NZ Outdoors and Freedom: $270.00

The largest recorded donation was to National, with $210,000 coming from the late Nelson philanthropist Robert Wares.

ACT’s largest donation in 2025 was $200,000 from tech entrepreneur Brian Cartmell, who also donated $201,993,91 to National, and $204,999 to New Zealand First.

RNZ has earlier reported Cartmell donated $100,000 to the Opportunity Party, though this was received this year and so is not disclosed on the 2025 donations return.

Labour’s largest donations came from the Mills Family Trust, which donated $125,000.

Trustee Phillip Mills, founder of gym chain Les Mills, made personal donations to Labour and the Greens as well.

The largest donation to the Greens in 2025 was $132,000, from entrepreneur Robert Morgan.

Te Pāti Māori president John Tamihere was his party’s largest donor, donating $60,000.

Broadcasting allocations released

The Commission has also released its decision on broadcasting funding allocations for election year.

Those allocations go towards election advertising on radio, television, and online.

The allocation is decided based on votes at the previous election, the number of MPs a party has, the relationships that exist between parties, indications of public support such as opinion poll results and party membership, and the need to provide a fair opportunity for each party to convey its policies to the public.

It means National has the largest allocation this year, with $1,079,519.

Labour follows on $913,435, the Greens have $394,438, ACT has $332,158, New Zealand First has $290,639, and Te Pāti Māori has $228,359.

For parties outside Parliament, the Opportunity Party leads with $114,179, with New Zealand Loyal behind it on $83,040 despite currently being an unregistered party.

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

Urgent, decisive action is needed on how communities will pay for the costs of adapting to climate change, a major new report says.

Climate-driven severe weather events were already causing “long-lasting hurt, grief and fear”, and tens of thousands more people would likely be exposed to hazards by 2050, the Climate Change Commission said.

However, there were “extreme” shortfalls in policy to address some of the biggest risks, including vital decisions about how to fund and guide adaptation and relocation.

Commission chief executive Jo Hendy said that had left the country in “react and recover” mode where too much money was spent cleaning up after events, instead of on proactive measures to limit damage and build community resilience.

The commission’s National Climate Change Risk Assessment, released on Thursday, identified what it said were the 10 biggest risks to the country from climate change.

Threats to buildings, road and rail, and water infrastructure are all on the list, but it also includes social and community wellbeing, emergency management, funding and decision-making.

The country’s “degraded” water infrastructure would be at extreme risk by 2050, hundreds of thousands of buildings were already exposed to coastal or inland flooding hazards, and the current emergency management system “lacks the capacity or capability to deal with significant, complex, widespread events impacting multiple regions at once”.

The report repeatedly highlighted the lack of clarity about how climate adaptation would happen and who would pay for it.

That was especially true for communities that needed to move, in whole or part.

“The need for guidance and funding options for communities to work together on planned relocation is urgent,” the report said.

Successive governments had failed to find a way forward, it said.

The current government’s National Adaptation Framework, published late last year, did not even address displacement of people or communities.

“Neither is it clear about how action led by communities or local government can be funded.”

Legislation the government promised last year, that would require councils to develop adaptation plans for high-risk areas, had not yet made it to Parliament, the report noted.

Councils and communities that had proactively developed their own plans also had no way to progress.

“Some councils are building adaptation plans with communities that set out what would work in the local context, but these cannot be put into action without additional funding.”

Others had developed possible funding solutions, but needed central government assistance or a legal mandate to go ahead.

“Many councils lack the funding or borrowing capacity to directly implement the changes they have identified,” the report said. “This delays resilience building and increases future costs.”

There were “high human and financial costs when people are forced to move”, and uncertainty about a community’s future could erode people’s sense of safety and belonging.

The prospect of relocation might be a necessary solution in some places, but could “break relationships, divide communities and undermine trust in institutions”.

Well-planned and managed relocation could reduce those risks but that required “long lead times’, the commission said. “It is important to start as soon as possible.”

In pressing for urgent action, the commission was aware of cost-of-living pressures and constraints on government budgets, Hendy said.

“The point is that we’re actually already paying …every time we react.”

The choice was not between funding climate resilience or paying for other things the country needed, she said.

“The choice is whether we stay paying to clean up the same disruption over and over again, or we move to actually put that money into building resilience.”

Climate Change Minister Simon Watts has said that decisions about cost-sharing will not be made until the next term of government.

An expert working group commissioned by the previous government published a lengthy report in August 2023, that set out how planned relocation could take place, including suggested levels of compensation.

However, its report came too late to be picked up by the previous government.

In 2025, an independent reference group commissioned by the current government recommended handing over adaptation planning to local councils. It did not spell out cost-sharing arrangements, but said adaptation measures should largely be “beneficiary-pays”, and compensation limited to hardship support.

The extremes New Zealand will face

Since the first national climate change risk assessment was published by the Ministry for the Environment in 2020, the 2023 North Island severe weather events had become the most severe and destructive in recent history, the new assessment said.

“This was demonstrated again in the summer of 2026, when a string of extreme events occurred over four weeks, with loss of life and widespread distress and damage from Banks Peninsula to the Far North.”

Hendy said there was now “much more lived experience” of climate-related extreme weather.

“People are experiencing increasing disruption from storms and floods right now, and that’s really ramped up.”

The latest climate projections showed that weather extremes of all kinds would continue to increase in intensity and frequency throughout this century, the report said.

“This includes extreme rainfall (and the inland flooding and landslips that result), very hot days and high winds, drought and wildfires, and sea-level rise and coastal inundation (flooding).”

The number of people exposed to coastal flooding could rise from 32,000 to about 50,000 by 2050, and 94,000 by 2090 if little was done to limit global warming.

The rainiest days are projected to be five percent wetter by 2050, and up to 10 percent wetter by 2090. That would increase the risk of inland flooding and landslips, affecting thousands more people, buildings and pieces of infrastructure.

Already, 793,000 people were exposed to inland flooding. Up to 107,000 more people would be exposed by 2090, depending on how fast the climate warmed.

By 2090, 1.5 million people could experience an extra 10 very hot days (above 30°C) every year, with risks for human health.

Recent research has highlighted an increased risk of stroke, among other health conditions, as extreme heat from climate change increases.

Drier, hotter conditions in some regions would also mean large amounts of production land would be drier by 2050, and wildfires were increasing in both number and scale, the assessment said.

It also highlighted the risk of compounding climate hazards – such more intense rainfall and sea-level rise combining to increase the frequency and severity of coastal flooding.

Although the report focused on adapting to risks, it was crucial not to lose sight of the other part of the climate change response, Hendy said – limiting New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions.

“It really is in our best interests to support and contribute to global efforts to curb emissions, to stop the problem getting significantly worse.”

“There’s actually only so far we can adapt our way out of this,” she said.

“While we don’t directly control global emissions … we should be doing what we can to help make that happen.”

The 10 biggest risks

Overall, the assessment identified 37 different climate-related risks to New Zealand.

It chose 10 as the most significant because of the effect they were already having, or would soon have, on people, and because they were risks where addressing them soon could have a big influence.

The report also focused on the way risks affected each other and “cascade through”, Hendy said.

“For example, when a slip closes a road then services can’t get in to fix the powerlines and communication towers.”

Many of the risks had the potential to affect the wider economy, she said.

“When you look at roads, they are the networks that keep people connected and goods flowing.”

Water infrastructure

Climate change would put pressure on “every part of this system”, the Commission said.

Infrastructure was already degraded and under strain, meaning this would be the first risk to reach an “extreme severity level” – within 25 years.

“Drinking water pipelines are exposed to river and surface flooding, and drinking water supplies face increasing stress from drought, declining water quality, and higher temperatures. Rising seas, coastal flooding and more frequent and intense rainfall events threaten wastewater and stormwater networks.”

The ‘Local Water Done Well’ reforms underway “present an important opportunity to plan for and embed resilience to climate hazards”, the report said.

Buildings

Approximately 556,000 buildings are already exposed to inland flooding. The financial implications were “far-reaching”, the commission said.

On top of that, most buildings in New Zealand had not been designed with higher temperatures in mind. “Under future climate conditions, this could make them at times unliveable, posing acute health risks.”

Poorer households would find it hard to strengthen their homes, voluntarily relocate or afford higher insurance costs. “Insurance retreat appears to have already started for some properties at high risk.”

The National Adaptation Framework sent important signals, but many measures were at the early stages and were not translating into practical action.

Road and rail networks

A quarter of roads and a third of rail lines are exposed to surface, coastal and river flooding – putting them at risk of both short-term disruption and long-lasting damage, the commission said.

Extreme heat could soften asphalt, create potholes, and buckle bridges and railway lines.

“Climate change is expected to reduce the reliability and service levels of road and rail networks in a variety of ways, from more frequent closures, delays, and speed restrictions to higher maintenance and repair costs, and more frequent emergency works,” it said.

“The consequences are especially severe for rural and isolated areas, where alternative routes are limited and sometimes non-existent.”

Social and community wellbeing

This was one of the most significant risks “because of the high human and financial costs when people are forced to move, and when climate-related distress, grief, discontent and uncertainty go unchecked,” the commission said.

Uncertainty about housing and livelihoods could erode people’s sense of safety and belonging. The prospect of relocation might be a necessary solution, but it “can break relationships, divide communities and undermine trust in institutions”.

Planning and managing relocation well, and working together with the affected communities, could help reduce those effects. The need to set up national guidance and funding options for communities was “urgent”.

“It takes a long time to set up processes that fairly address all needs, and there are communities already trying to navigate these choices.”

Emergency management

Strong emergency management will save lives and livelihoods, the report said. However, the current system “lacks the capacity or capability to deal with significant, complex, widespread events impacting multiple regions at once”.

The government had introduced an Emergency Management Bill in December 2025 and an Emergency Management System Improvement Plan, it noted. “These ongoing reforms are promising, though it is too soon to tell how successful they will be.”

Local response networks such as coastal and riverside marae were themselves vulnerable to climate change. Some communities had strengthened their own responses, the report said – highlighting the example of Ngātiwai in Northland, which had equipped its marae with solar, petrol generators and satellite internet.

Ngā mea hirahira o te ao Māori – risks in the Māori world

For Māori, climate change was not just a physical or economic problem, the report said.

Many sites of cultural significance were now highly exposed to climate hazards, while extreme weather and more gradual environmental changes were affecting taonga species, habitats, and harvesting practices.

Climate change was also compounding structural inequalities – many at-risk locations had higher Māori populations, and the incidence of heat-affected health conditions like respiratory and cardiovascular disease was higher.

Ecosystems and biodiversity

“Increasing land and marine temperatures change the environmental conditions species live in, while extreme weather events and wildfire cause shocks to ecosystems,” the report said.

Under more severe scenarios, the combined effects of climate change and existing pressures could, within decades, “push some systems past a point where they can recover”.

“These changes could disrupt food production, increase damage from extreme weather and impact health and wellbeing.”

Forestry

Planting trees was “central” to New Zealand’s current plan to reach net zero emissions. However, extreme weather, drought, wildfire, and new pests and disease could all threaten this strategy, along with the economic benefits from forestry.

“Damage to these forests reduces not only their capacity to absorb carbon dioxide and the sector’s economic contribution, but also exposes waterways and downstream communities to devastating sediment and debris flows,” the report said.

There was no coordinated government and industry approach to directly address climate risks.

Central and local government funding

Climate change was putting growing pressure on central and local government finances, the report said.

Climate disasters such as Cyclone Gabrielle were costly and hard to budget for. They could also affect government revenue because of their wider economic effects. At a local level, many councils had constrained budgets or had reached their debt limits.

Since 2010, 97 percent of government expenditure on natural hazards had been on responding to and recovering from disasters, with just three percent spent on things that reduced risk and increased resilience.

The government’s National Adaptation Framework signalled that costs would be “shared across society and over time”, the commission said.

“While helpful for the government to signal this, the National Adaptation Framework does not include detail of when or how decisions will be made around how costs will be shared.”

Decision-making and delivery

“The demands of climate change are putting Aotearoa New Zealand’s ability to plan, decide and act together under increasing pressure,” the report warned.

Decision-makers needed to “drive forward” on adapting to climate change. “Delays leave the country facing spiralling costs – including for central and local government – without effective ways of planning and acting together. Decisive action is needed now.”

The consequences of failing to manage the overall climate response would land hardest on people who were already the most exposed, the commission said.

“This can be the people who live in areas that get hammered by the weather events that are becoming more frequent and more intense – especially the areas with smaller, rural councils with lower rates income. Or it can be population groups where the impacts are disproportionate, such as for iwi/Māori.”

‘Ones to watch’

As well as the 10 most significant risks, the commission also highlighted agriculture and horticulture as “ones to watch”.

“These risks were rated at minor severity at present, but they are expected to move to major by 2050,” the assessment said.

“This step change is anticipated because drought and extreme weather events are expected to affect both horticultural crop yields and feed supplies for livestock, the impacts from soil erosion and coastal inundation on the pastoral sector may become irreversible, increased temperature extremes and pest pressure could substantially affect yields, and the increased frequency of extreme events will shorten recovery periods in both sectors.”

The government now has two years to develop a national adaptation plan that responds to the risks raised by the report.

The commission will provide its progress review on the current adaptation plan, adopted in 2022, later this 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

Explainer – You’re reading this in English right now – but should English be an official language? Parliament is soon set to decide.

A long-running debate on the status of the most commonly spoken language in New Zealand is nearing its climax in Parliament, as the English Language Act works its way through the House.

During a fiery debate in Parliament back in February at the first reading, New Zealand First leader Winston Peters made his case for the bill while many opposition MPs firmly denounced it.

Peters called it a “common sense idea” and has said it fills an anomaly where Māori and English Sign Language are already both codified as official languages in New Zealand, but English is not specifically.

Others disagree. “Language is being used as a political football here,” said Dr Sharon Harvey, an associate professor specialising in applied linguistics at Auckland University of Technology.

The bill is currently before select committee with a report due to be presented on 3 September. The next step is a second reading of the bill and it’s likely it would come to a final vote before November’s election.

But what would the bill actually do? Here’s what you need to know.

What does the bill say?

Bills are often pretty darned long, but this one can actually be summed up right here – it’s only five lines.

It calls for Parliament to enact the English Language Act 2025, and says, “The purpose of this Act is to provide legislative recognition of the status of English as an official language of New Zealand” and that the Act would bind the Crown.

That’s it.

What would the bill actually do?

“The bill is so short because it doesn’t actually have any legal effect that needs spelt out in detail,” University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said. “It will have literally no practical consequences at all.

“That isn’t an exaggeration – it will change absolutely no aspect of Aotearoa New Zealand’s current legal rules, practices or procedures. It’s the linguistic equivalent of passing an Act of Parliament that says: ‘The official colour of the New Zealand Rugby Team’s home jersey is black.'”

The bill doesn’t lay out any instructions, punishments or restrictions on other languages. It would add English as an official language alongside Te Reo Māori – which was designated in the Māori Language Act in 1987 – and English Sign Language, designated in the New Zealand Sign Language Act of 2006.

“While the bill is pretty slim in terms of its content it does serve symbolically at least to cast in legislation the pre-eminence of the already dominant and majoritarian language of NZ: English,” Harvey said.

Legislatively, it would not affect Māori and ESL, Geddis said, as they have “separately guaranteed (but limited) rights to use those languages”.

“Legislative language recognition was hard won for both Māori and the deaf community and so the English Language Bill also minimises the historical and contemporaneous importance of those difficult and long language struggles,” Harvey said.

As written, the bill wouldn’t even affect, for instance, signs that include Chinese language at some popular tourist spots, Geddis said.

“That legislative recognition does not add anything to English’s existing legal role and usage. You can use English for any official, public business now. If this bill passes, you will continue to be able to do so. Nothing will have changed.”

Watch: Winston Peters introduces the English Language Act.

If nothing will change, why was this bill introduced?

Making English an official language was part of the coalition agreement between National, NZ First and ACT back in 2023.

Former NZ First MP Clayton Mitchell put forth a similar member’s bill in 2018 but it was never drawn from the ballot.

New Zealand First has pushed for such recognition for some time.

Did you know that English is not an official language? Well, we’re changing that by delivering on a key campaign promise – we are making English an official language of New Zealand. We will continue to fight for common sense ideas and work in the interests of all New Zealanders. pic.twitter.com/ki3dDh8tDI

— New Zealand First (@nzfirst) December 14, 2023

In introducing the current bill, Peters said that it’s correcting an “anomaly” that English is not included with the other two official languages.

“It has never been formally recognised in statute as an official language. This bill seeks to correct that anomaly, providing consistency in legal framework and clarifying the status of all three official languages in legislation.

“The bill does not diminish the status of other official languages, te reo Māori and New Zealand Sign Language, but rather complements them, acknowledging the linguistic reality of our nation.”

Peters said the bill is “affirming the value of English as a shared means of communication used by the mass majority of the population – I’ll say it again quietly: used by the mass majority of the population.”

Although his name is actually on the bill as the MP in charge, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith previously told RNZ that it wasn’t a top priority for National and did not speak at the first reading.

“It wouldn’t be the top priority for us, absolutely not. But it’s something in the coalition and it’s getting done.”

Peters has said that the rise in te reo Māori has “has created situations that encourage misunderstanding and confusion for all, and all for the purpose to push a narrative”.

“We have some very real situations now where communications and names of important services are using te reo as primary names and language, and the room for confusion and miscommunication is huge.”

He cited the possibility of confusion where places have had primary names in Māori.

“First responders, on their vehicles and in communications, being unable to get to places because they don’t know where they’re going; transport services with important road signs – they have all announced that.”

Harvey disagreed, saying the dynamic of Māori and English is what makes New Zealand special.

“Te reo Māori only exists in ANZ and so if it does not survive and flourish here it will not survive.”

“Most of us would recognise that Te Whatu Ora means health especially if it’s heading a letter with health information or is signage on a public hospital,” she said.

“There is no ‘danger’ to English now or in the future. Apart from anything else it is the pre-eminent global language.

“It would be so much better for NZ if we could all gain high proficiency in te reo Māori (as well as English) and if schools could be proactive in supporting students’ home languages, as well as teaching a variety of languages.”

Is English language use becoming a “culture war” issue?

Well, people on both sides of the debate of the current bill have accused the other of “virtue signalling.”

In Parliament, Peters said that “This bill won’t solve the push of this virtue signalling narrative completely, but it is the first step towards ensuring logic and common sense prevails when the vast majority of New Zealanders communicate in English and understand English in a country that should use English as its primary and official language.”

“The (bill) is virtue signalling to a small, monolingual in English, sector of the voting public by NZ First,” Harvey said. “It’s a waste of public money and time and should never have been agreed to as part of the National-NZ First coalition agreement.”

Debate at the first reading was equally heated.

“The English language is not under threat,” said Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick. “We are literally speaking it and debating in it right now. This is a bill which is an answer to a problem that does not exist.”

“The government wants to stoke a fight between te iwi Māori and Pākehā, and they want that fight to be the focus of this election,” she claimed.

At the debate, National MP Rima Nakhle called for calmer temperatures.

“We’re only making English official. It’s not the end of the world.”

Geddis said “the bill seems to be motivated by an odd form of linguistic jealousy – something akin to ‘it’s not fair that those languages get called official in a statute, but English doesn’t!'”

New Zealand First’s 2023 coalition agreement with National also stipulated that public service departments have their primary name in English and be required to communicate “primarily in English” except for entities specifically related to Māori. It has been seen in changes to how agencies such as the New Zealand Transport Agency or Health New Zealand are referred to.

Peters has also been vocal about the use of “Aotearoa” to refer to New Zealand by other MPs.

Other countries like Australia and the United Kingdom do not have any official laws on the books declaring English an official language, although it has de facto official status in government, courts and education.

In America, Donald Trump signed an executive order last year “designating English as an official language of the United States.” But as the decision was not passed by Congress and is an executive order, it doesn’t have the power to change existing federal laws and statutes. Around 30 US states also have proclaimed English the official language.

Will the English Language Act pass?

It’s unclear. It is part of the coalition agreement so National and ACT may be obliged to support it.

“Being that we are an English-speaking country, it is bizarre that we have to do this, but this is how far this extremism has taken our country,” Peters said in 2023 before the last election as he pledged to pass the bill that may finally be law soon.

“The bill very well may be rushed into law during the inevitable end-of-term use of urgency in the House,” Geddis said.

“Given current frosty relations between National and NZ First, there could well be some coalition partner reluctance to give NZ First time in Parliament to proceed with what really is nothing more than a form of legislative virtue signalling to its support base,” he said.

“Although National have publicly said they’re not concerned whether the bill passes or not, I think there is every chance it will pass which will be a great shame for NZ,” Harvey said.

“It’s a waste of the government’s time and considerably sets back New Zealand’s progress in righting the wrongs of our violent, colonial past.”

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

Fisheries Minister Shane Jones overrode official advice a $50,000 fine for leaking footage from fishing boat cameras – five times the penalty under the Privacy Act – would be “unreasonable”.

The Ministry of Justice also warned the Minister that trying to protect the footage from reaching the public – including by imposing the fine, barring Official Information requests from accessing the footage, and limiting judicial reviews to 20 days – could breach the Bill of Rights, although the formal vetting of the legislation is yet to be done.

The changes limiting judicial review were not included in the public consultation, but will be consulted on now the bill has gone to select committee, with submissions closing on Wednesday.

Documents released under the Official Information Act show Jones requested such fines – to be levelled against people who received the footage from the Ministry for Primary Industries and shared it – be set at a maximum $50,000.

Jones was unapologetic, saying the high fine was aimed at protecting the industry.

“It’s a figure that I chose to show how dangerous it is for people to manipulate, misuse information that I fear will be exploited to taint and undermine the fishing industry,” Jones told RNZ.

“It’s about ensuring that only the state enforces rules and regulations, not green vigilantes or DIY prosecutors believing that recreational fishing is suffering because of commercial fishing. I’ve had enough of that nonsense.”

He pushed back on the concerns about human rights.

“This is a fishing industry – a legitimate part of our economy – it is now under a type of state surveillance: widespread video camera footage taken of men and women going about their daily lives on a fishing boat.

“I do not accept that that information should be made freely available to anyone other than the state or in rare circumstances, researchers or educators, so I think that it’s a violation of people’s human rights as employees in an industry that state surveillance information should be given indiscriminately to people who will weaponise it.”

The documents show Ministry of Justice officials warned the $50,000 fine would be “unreasonable, and that a maximum fine between $5000 and $10,000 would be more appropriate”, as this would align with the $10,000 fine for failures to comply with the Privacy Act.

The Office of the Ombudsman also “strongly reiterated to MPI that it does not support exempting on-board camera footage from the Official Information Act, noting that “an OIA exemption may curtail fundamental human and constitutional rights to access information without sufficient justification”.

‘Out of whack’

Green Party fisheries spokesperson Teanau Tuiono said Jones’ overall intention was to limit people’s ability to hold the government to account.

“He’s just protecting fishing companies and their exploitation-laden profits – that seems to be more important than protecting the ocean for our future generations.

“He seems to be more worried about finding people who might leak footage of people breaking the law, rather than the actual law-breaking itself.”

Tuiono said he wanted to find out what justifications there could be for having such a high fine, acknowledging protection of privacy was important, but saying with one commercial fisher fined just $3000 for illegal trawling that the balance was wrong.

“It looks completely out of whack to me,” he said. “You can protect people’s privacy because that is an important thing, but going so far to the other side?”

It should be noted companies can be fined significantly more for breaching fishing rules, with for example Westfleet Fishing fined nearly $70,000 in 2023 for failing to weigh and report coral caught when bottom trawling.

However, that requires a lengthy court process – and Jones last year introduced much smaller on-the-spot fines for breaches by recreational and commercial fishers alike.

Still, Tuiono expected Jones would have to back down through the committee process – something Jones indicated he would be open to.

“Yes,” Jones said, “the Labour member in the select committee felt that it was an egregious figure and said that unless there was some common ground, Labour would not be voting for the bill, National at this stage are determining whether or not the bill can be improved.

“I accept that that figure is an area that select committee members want to readdress.”

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