Category: Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

New Zealand consumers are being warned laptops, smart phones and even fridges are going to cost more as the price of key components jump by 400 percent.

Since the AI boom, manufacturers had pivoted away from making hardware like RAM and hard drives for general consumers – instead focusing on creating the more lucrative equipment for AI and data centers.

It was creating a shortage of key elements for phones, computers, even cars and dishwashers, prompting supply chain problems – driving up prices.

And according to experts, there was no signs of those prices slowing down for years.

In other words, if you need a new laptop or smartphone, do it now before the hikes continue.

Compulsion Tech’s managing director Ben Maxwell said the situation took a rapid turn late last year.

“The prices have just been crazy … I’ve never seen anything like it.

“Initially we sort of saw memory prices jump about 100 percent just within a few weeks and that was early Q4 last year. It almost continued with weekly price increases or sometimes even every few days.”

It became hard for Maxwell to get his hands on stock.

“There was no consideration of it even smoothing out or going down, it just kept creeping up for both RAM and solid-state drives.”

RAM was the flashy, fast memory that a computer processor accessed, while solid-state drives were the storage or hardrive for your technology. Both were two of the most important parts of computers.

“A 32 gig RAM kit used to sort of cost around $150. It’s now $750 for that same kit.

“It’s about 400 percent more expensive than it was in Q4 of last year.”

Maxwell said it was a similar increase for solid-state-drives.

“So just in those two parts alone and your standard computer, that’s 1000 bucks in extra price rise.”

But the increased price tag did not necessarily mean you were getting the best of the best either.

“You might have been able to buy a laptop last year for say $2000 … probably could have had two terabytes of storage, and 32 gigabytes of RAM.

“Now that same sort of model of laptop might cost two and a half grand or more, but it will actually also come with half the storage.”

Maxwell said it was a huge case of “shrinkflation”.

He said his business bulk bought components last year to try and slow the increases for its customers.

Why is it happening?

Chief executive and futurist at Gorilla Technology Paul Spain had been keeping an eye on this for a while.

“What we’re seeing is a situation where there’s constraints on the amount of components available for the general public, and businesses, because there’s just been so much demand for technology to go into the new AI data centers.”

But it was not as simple as a supply and demand problem.

“What’s actually used in the AI data centres is different from what we tend to use in our smartphones and our computers.

“They’ve allocated their production resource to be more focused on what’s needed in those AI data centres than what is needed in our everyday consumer and business devices.”

Spain said one of the biggest producers of tech for consumers, Micron, had withdrawn from the consumer market altogether to focus on production for AI data centres.

Which meant what RAM and SSDs were available for consumers came at a premium – giving the term ‘RAMageddon’ huge traction.

Spain said it was not a short term problem.

“We’re told it could be a number of years before this issue is resolved if the demand on AI data centres keeps up, because it takes quite some time to build or increase capacity at these manufacturing facilities.”

The shortages were moving into other components like gaming and graphics cards.

What should consumers do?

Consumer New Zealand’s product test journalist Nick Gelling said it was time to buy.

“It’s kind of we’re at the stage now where if you think that you will need to buy some tech in the next year or so you should really consider replacing it now, before the prices rise further.

“We just don’t know where this is going to go.”

He said consumers were already facing a likelihood they would be forced to pay more money for products that were worse than older models.

Maxwell agreed.

“It’s going to be a pretty hard sell if a customer’s been saving up to buy a computer that, say, was three grand in November, and then they’re finally coming around to buy it in January and February, and now that same machine is four or four and a half grand … significantly more expensive with less specs.”

He said consumers were holding off purchasing because of the huge pricing leaps.

“It’s actually having a much wider effect than just the core computer market … you’re not buying a computer anymore, so less keyboards and mice and monitors and accessories to go with are being sold.”

Paul Spain said it would also impact businesses trying to manage the equipment they needed and families who were trying to get the right devices for school and study.

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 man who threatened four drivers with a machete in Australia in a series of attempted carjackings will be deported back to New Zealand.

John Suafai Semau held a 64-year-old man in a headlock while trying to flee an accident scene in Queensland in 2022 and steal his car, and rammed that vehicle into another car who blocked his getaway.

A truck driver carrying a shovel stopped him stealing another car, which had a man, his mother and their dog inside.

His last attempted carjacking was on a woman who had just loaded her shopping when he approached with the machete.

The father of eight was jailed for four years for armed robbery, unlawful entry of motor vehicles assaulting a police officer and supplying drugs.

The Australian administrative review tribunal heard that the 38-year-old had lived in Australia about half of his life.

“The applicant drove a car into a parked car and then drove off. A 64-year-old man followed the applicant as he was driving and later approached the applicant about driving into the parked car.

“The applicant put [him] in a headlock and wrestled with him, pushing and shoving him to the ground several times. In the course of that struggle, the applicant returned to the car and retrieved a machete and held it towards the 64-year-old man.”

Witnesses watched him wave the machete in the air and strike the top of the driver’s side door frame. He got in the car, while the older man tried to stop him.

The tribunal heard the offending had been ‘highly traumatic’ to the general public.

“I raised with the applicant that death of a person was a possible consequence of further offences and he did not disagree,” said appeal decision-maker Dominique Murphy.

“It is of note that a significant proportion of the Applicant’s serious criminal offending involved him driving a car, committing offences while driving or in the course of driving.

“The use of a machete would be a terrifying experience for any person.”

Semau said he suffered a workplace accident in 2018 which resulted in him not returning to work, and the year afterwards his baby son died aged only five weeks old.

He said he collapsed internally and made reckless harmful decisions, including taking methamphetamine.

His rehabilitation and weekly counselling meant that he could be safely managed in the community under supervision because he now understood the warning signs he previously ignored.

Murphy said his removal would not be in the best interest of his children. The youngest is three and has a congenital heart condition and her five-year-old brother has level 3 autism.

“The five eldest children would be aware of the applicant’s criminal offending and his incarceration, which will have had a negative impact on those children. These children have written multiple letters and cards about their close relationship with their father and their love for him.”

But she ruled that was outweighed by the seriousness of his offending.

“The applicant, as a non-citizen who committed the serious crimes described in these reasons, should generally expect to forfeit the privilege of staying in Australia.”

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 Department of Conservation (DOC) ecological report reveals that native plants are making a comeback in the blackened fire-charred areas of Tongariro National Park, but warns that invasive weeds and animal pests pose a risk to a full recovery.

One species – the Volcanic Plateau speargrass – normally hidden amongst dense, tussock, flax and mānuka scrub – has surprised scientists with its abundance.

In November, fire swept through about three thousand hectares of New Zealand’s oldest national park which is recognised as a UNESCO World Heritage site for its cultural and natural significance.

Set alight accidentally through a car tyre rim creating sparks on State Highway 47, which ignited dry roadside vegetation, some held fears for native flora and fauna in the fire zone.

DOC technical advisor and botanist, Paul Cashmore, said the park had a history of fires dating back thousands of years and would recover naturally over time.

“Essentially we’re really pleased with the level of regeneration of native species that’s occurring to date given it’s only a few months since the fire actually occurred.

“Key species such as red tussock, which is a major component of the ecosystem there, was regenerating within six months of the November fire across a really wide area.”

The fire ground also held surprises.

“Some other particular species such as our Volcanic Plateau Speargrass, which is one of our threatened native North Island endemic species that occurs in the area, appeared to have survived the fire.

“So, it appears there’s a more significant population there than we previously thought and that’s likely to increase now that there’s more open habitat available post fire.”

Cashmore, who said animal and birdlife would repatriate the fire-zone as plant species got re-established, said weeds such as broom and gorse and browsing animals such as deer, hare and possum were threats that would need monitoring.

“One of our memorable experiences in the field was walking into a completely intact stand of Hall’s tōtara, with a chorus of native birds including toutouwai/robin.

“Remnant patches of vegetation like this act as refuges where flora and fauna have survived, which can assist with natural recolonising of the burnt area.”

Ngāti Hikairo ki Tongariro rununga member Te Ngaehe Wanikau said the report was a stark reminder of the damage the fire inflicted.

“From a cultural perspective Tongariro in our eyes is our tipuna, he’s our koroua and a part of him has been impacted, so our priority first and foremost is as hau kāinga is to restore his korowai and then to work hand in hand with DOC so they can address some of the ecological impact.”

Ngāti Hikairo would play a cultural role in the recovery, identifying areas of significance to iwi members and helping to maintain the rahui.

“The rahui itself what it does is it provides firstly the required works to be done in a safe manner without public interference. It gives awareness to everybody and it keeps everybody culturally, physically and spiritually safe.”

Crucially, tracks including the Tongariro Crossing would be accessible during the 10-year rahui.

Cashmore said despite the optimistic outlook DOC and its partners still had plenty of work ahead of them.

“We’ll continue working closely with Ngāti Hikairo ki Tongariro to monitor and act, particularly where it comes to weeds and deer.”

Visitors could help by staying on the tracks.

“Walking on the burnt area can introduce new threats like weeds and can directly affect the recovery of slow growing alpine plants.

“So, if you’re keen on naturing in this World Heritage listed landscape, we ask you to respect the 10-year rāhui by keeping off the firegrounds and sticking to the marked tracks.”

Ruapehu mayor Weston Kirton said the ecological report confirmed whispers he had been hearing.

“We had a hint things were shaping up to be quite positive, but to have this confirmed by those specialists in this area is great.

“What I do understand too is that we’ve got funding from central government to the tune of over $3 million to accommodate any costs associated with weed control or planting and it could well be we have pest control as well.”

He said it was a shot in the arm for the region.

“It’s a destination, of course, well known to people. The Tongariro Crossing, for example, is part and parcel of Tongariro National Park, but also that we’ve got the tussock and we’ve got other species in that particular area and walks that go amongst all those areas.

“So, I think it’s great we are seeing some recovery sooner rather than later. We thought it was devastation and daunting the actual magnitude of the fire.”

The full police and FENZ report into the fire was yet to be released.

Police have confirmed there was no evidence of the fire being deliberately lit or criminal intent being involved.

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

Should teachers give children lollies and chocolates for good behaviour?

Some do even though Health Ministry guidelines say schools should not serve sweets or chocolate at all.

A teacher RNZ agreed not to name said rewarding children with sweets was surprisingly widespread – she saw it in about 20 schools she worked in recently across Auckland and Northland.

Northland parent Kali Kahn told RNZ teachers at her son’s first school routinely rewarded children with sweet treats.

“Lollies were given out in classrooms and in the playground for good behaviour like picking up rubbish in the playground or incentives to help clean up, as rewards for good work in the classroom,” she said.

Kahn said her son’s current primary school gave chocolate and lollies as special prizes.

She said neither approach was a good idea – especially in the far north.

“I absolutely don’t think that’s okay that teachers are giving out lollies as incentives or as rewards in the classroom or outside of the classroom in the playground. Within the school grounds the school should not be providing high-sugar foods to kids,” she said.

“There’s really poor dental health amongst our children. There’s high rates of teeth extractions, there’s high rates of cavities … We have rising rates of obesity and metabolic disease in children, it’s getting younger and younger our obesity levels and diabetes levels.”

Dental Association-Colgate oral health promotion manager Anishma Ram told RNZ lollies seemed to have become a common reward at schools.

She said the association obviously opposed the practice, but it also recognised that teachers seemed to lack other options for cheap, small rewards.

“Somewhere along the line it has become so readily available that we don’t have any other option,” she said.

Northland principal Pat Newman said his school rewarded classes with iceblocks a few times a year but some teachers also gave lollies.

He did not see a problem.

“The dental health that we’ve got in Northland is not caused by the few lollies or treats that they get at school. It’s probably caused by either the heaps of lollies they get from home or the malnutrition that they’re not getting the good food that they need. Or juice. Juice is one of your big ones up here,” he said.

“My attitude is they’d have to eat a hell of a lot of what we give out at school to actually damage their teeth. If they get one iceblock every couple of weeks it’s not going to do a hell of a lot of harm. If it means that they’re at school, well they’re better off at school and learning than not.”

Newman said teachers gave rewards for good behaviour.

“Going out and seeing them doing something nice, helping someone or going out and picking up some rubbish without us telling them. What we’re doing is we’re using it more for around citizenship and also for good work, but a lot of ours is around citizenship because that’s crucial,” he said.

In Rotorua, Kaitao Intermediate principal Phil Palfrey said he opposed the use of sweets as a reward or treat.

“It gives out the wrong message. We all try and cut down the lollies our kids eat and here we are at school saying ‘oh well, we’ll give out lollies’,” he said.

He said instead of sweets, the school’s teachers constantly gave praise for hard work and good behaviour.

They also had a system of awarding cards that could be cashed in for a pizza for the class – an item that would appear to sit in the health ministry’s no-no list, but one that Phil Palfrey reckoned was okay.

“I eat a pizza once every three months and I eat pretty healthily. These kids would only get probably at the most two or three pizzas in the whole year so I don’t think that’s too bad,” 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

For most of 2025, the government talked tough on supermarkets, presenting itself as a consumer champion willing to use the toughest tools available to bring down food prices.

If competition failed to improve, ministers said they were even prepared to consider the “nuclear option”- forcibly breaking up the companies that dominate New Zealand’s grocery sector.

“All options are on the table,” Economic Growth Minister Nicola Willis announced in March. She promised to “pull out all the stops” for shoppers paying some of the highest food prices in the developed world.

But a year later, the promise of “meaningful change” at the checkout is unfulfilled.

Food prices continue to climb. Stats NZ said food prices increased 4.5 percent in the year to February 2026, with meat, fish and poultry rising the most at 7.5 percent.

Structurally, the supermarket sector looks almost identical to how it did before the threatened political crackdown began.No forced divestment has occurred. No new national supermarket chain has entered the market. The duopoly of Woolworths and the Foodstuffs co-operatives still control about 82 percent of grocery sales, with both suppliers and consumers suffering as a result.

“Consumers in smaller towns and rural areas typically have minimal to no choice… with some stores in small towns functioning as a localised monopoly,” Grocery Commissioner Pierre van Heerden wrote in a 2025 report.

“My concern is that the power imbalance between the major supermarkets and small suppliers creates a reluctance among suppliers to push back.”

The question now is whether the government’s aggressive rhetoric about structural separation was ever a serious threat, or simply a political bluff.

The problem

The problem in the grocery market is well known: it is one of New Zealand’s most concentrated sectors, and competition has long been judged inadequate.

The Commerce Commission’s landmark 2022 market study found the dominant chains were earning about $1 million a day in excess profits.

It concluded competition was not working effectively, and that the supermarket giants benefited from enormous scale advantages, including nationwide distribution networks and buying power with suppliers, that smaller retailers struggle to match.

But rather than forcing structural change – such as separating the companies’ wholesale and retail arms, or forcing the sale of part of the business – successive governments have opted for a more cautious approach.

Labour responded to the Commerce Commission’s findings with the Grocery Industry Competition Act, which created a new regulatory regime for the sector.

The law established New Zealand’s first Grocery Commissioner, introduced a wholesale access regime, and imposed a Grocery Supply Code governing how supermarkets deal with suppliers.

The aim was to increase competition without dismantling the duopoly itself.

After the election in 2023, National also came under sustained pressure to act on rising food prices. In her March 2025 speech, Willis warned of “potentially massive changes” to supermarket logistics and warehousing networks, while emphasising the government would only consider structural intervention once it had done its research.

“We have to get the detail right… New Zealanders need confidence that we’ve thought this through thoroughly,” she said.

To the public, it appeared the government was ready for a fight.

But documents released under the Official Information Act suggest the prospect of a supermarket break-up was never the central focus of officials’ work.

Just asking questions

While ministries did examine structural reform options, the bulk of the policy effort focused instead on smaller regulatory fixes and market-led solutions.

By the time Willis gave her speech, officials were already preparing advice on structural reform options. For example, reports titled “Outline of de-merger options FINAL” and

“Information regarding structural reform of the grocery sector” and an aide-memoire about the separation of Telecom were drafted in early 2025.

While most of the information is redacted, what’s left shows officials were careful to frame structural separation as conditional and preliminary.

Briefing notes prepared for meetings with supermarkets and potential entrants emphasised that the Government was not consulting on a decision to break up the sector.

“The government is not consulting on policy options at this initial stage… This is a genuine request for information,” one briefing said.

At the same time, a much larger programme of work focused on regulatory changes aimed at lowering barriers to entry and tightening enforcement. This included making supermarkets eligible for fast-track approvals, improving building consent certainty, exploring changes to the Overseas Investment Act, strengthening Fair Trading Act penalties and clarifying predatory pricing rules under the Commerce Act.

Officials warned internally that these measures might deliver only limited gains. One memo noted there could be criticism that addressing regulatory barriers would “only have a marginal effect on improving competition”.

Structural separation, meanwhile, was more likely to be effective – but was also inherently risky.

In one briefing, officials wrote: “I am aware that structural separation comes with risks – however, I have heard from a number of parties this is the only option which ensures greater competition.”

With open arms

By August, talk of structural separation had largely been put on the backburner.

Instead, Willis pivoted to a strategy of facilitation, introducing planning reforms and the so-called “Express Lane” approach to speed up consents for new supermarkets, and attempting to attract a new international competitor.

By streamlining the Overseas Investment Act and Resource Management Act, the government hoped to lure a “third major player” like Costco or well-funded domestic ventures to take on the duopoly’s 82% national market share.

Effectively, that move shifted the financial risk of competition away from the state and onto private investors. Willis admitted the limitations of the approach, noting: “I can’t force a third entrant in… All I can do is open my arms as wide as possible.”

As part of the plan to attract a third competitor, the government launched a Request for Information (RFI) process to figure out what was stopping new competitors from entering.

Ministers and officials engaged directly with a range of potential challengers, including Costco, Sir Stephen Tindall, Farro Fresh, Night ‘N Day and iwi organisations considering a supermarket venture.

But the response from the industry’s biggest global players has been muted.

Documents released to the Herald earlier this year show Tesco declined to participate in the process after “internal personnel changes.”

Two of the world’s most aggressive discount chains – Aldi and Lidl – also declined to take part, with Aldi confirming it currently has no plans to expand into New Zealand.

Without a large international entrant, the government’s strategy of creating competition through a new market entrance faces a much steeper climb.

Local alternatives have emerged. Christchurch grocery co-operative Kai Co has drawn significant consumer interest, positioning itself as a community-owned alternative to the major chains.

But regional initiatives remain a long way from challenging the incumbents’ national scale.

Limited signs of change

By late 2025, some observers were describing developments in the sector as “Groundhog Day.”

The 2025 Review of the Grocery Supply Code, published in June, had said the original rules failed to rebalance power because suppliers were still reluctant to push back on retailer behaviour for fear of damaging relationships or losing shelf space.

In response, the Commission announced tougher new rules in October 2025, including a standalone ban on retaliation and the prohibition of “investment buying”- the practice where supermarkets profit from supplier-funded discounts without passing them to shoppers.

But even the Commerce Commission has acknowledged those kinds of changes address specific behaviours rather than the underlying structure of the market.

The government has prioritised what some call “low-hanging fruit”- prosecuting supermarkets for misleading pricing and inaccurate specials.

While this led to criminal charges and record fines – including a $3.25 million penalty for Foodstuffs North Island – consumer advocates like Jon Duffy warn that these fines may be a “feather rather than a stick” for billion-dollar entities.

Willis is currently considering raising maximum fines to tens of millions of dollars to match Australian standards, though this has faced significant pushback from the industry.

Will they or won’t they

As inflation concerns return with war in the Middle East, the political shield of “all options on the table” may be wearing thin.

If the new Supply Code and the arrival of players like Kai Co fail to shift the balance of power in the market, the current and future governments will eventually face a stark choice: accept the duopoly as a permanent feature of New Zealand’s grocery sector, or pursue the threatened structural break-up.

Willis repeatedly signalled that stronger intervention remained possible if her reforms failed to embed change. As of last year, a cost-benefit analysis was underway, she said. But similar work commissioned under the previous government found the economics of a break-up were far from straightforward.

A 2023 MBIE analysis suggested forced divestment could deliver competition benefits but also carried the risk of a $3.8 billion net cost over 20 years, largely due to the loss of economies of scale.

Officials warned that if those efficiencies were destroyed, grocery prices could actually rise – a scenario described internally as a “very high regret” outcome.

A forced break-up would also be highly disruptive to a $25 billion industry, raising complex legal and commercial questions that could take years to resolve.

Willis has previously cautioned that restructuring the supermarkets would be a “significant intervention”.

“A decision to restructure the supermarkets is not a decision that would be taken lightly. It would be a significant intervention that would carry costs and risks that would need to be rigorously weighted against the potential benefits to shoppers,” she said in announcing the “express lane” changes last August.

Supermarket executives argued that the Grocery Supply Code and wholesale access rules needed time to “bed in” before further radical changes were made.

But industry observers have noted that while the expertise for a break-up likely exists within the Commerce Commission, the government has already effectively “run out of time” to implement such a complex legal and commercial overhaul before the next election cycle.

What’s more likely is that plans for the “nuclear option” remained locked away, again.

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

Out of work New Zealanders who say they have worked hard and paid taxes all their life are forced to rely on their partners as their welfare system.

RNZ has been reporting on the “invisible unemployed”: people who have too much to qualify for a benefit, but not enough to make ends meet.

At the end of last year unemployment rose to its highest level in more than a decade, with more people chasing work than jobs created.

But not all of those people qualify for government support.

To be eligible for the Jobseeker benefit, your household could not earn more than a certain threshold: $1039 before tax for a couple without children, and $1088 before tax for a couple with children.

It meant if your partner earned more than $54,028 annually – or $56,576 if you had children – you could not get the Jobseeker benefit.

The median weekly income from wages and salaries is $1380, StatsNZ data showed – or $71,760 annually.

Ricky, whose partner earned more than the $1211 weekly threshold for him to receive the Supported Living Payment – a benefit for people with a health condition or disability – said the situation was “just sad”.

“The government essentially wipes their hands and say, your partner is your welfare system,” he said.

Ricky and his partner had always kept their money separate, he said.

“When I stopped working … we’ve both had to learn, and adjust that his money is now our money.

“But it’s still very awkward … I never ask for money for my personal expenses.”

On Friday the Minister for Social Development Louise Upston said the thresholds were a long-standing feature of the welfare system.

“Raising the threshold is not something I am looking at right now, my focus is on getting people off the jobseeker benefit and into work.”

RNZ asked further questions of Upston on Monday including what advice she had for people who could not get work, nor a benefit.

Her office said the minister had nothing further to add.

‘The numbers just don’t add up’

Covering the rent or mortgage payments was the biggest worry for people who contacted RNZ to share their stories.

There was an accommodation supplement available, but you did not qualify for that if you had more than $16,200 in the bank, for a couple.

StatsNZ data showed in the year ended June 2025, average weekly rent payments were $505.50 ($26,286 annually).

Average weekly mortgage payments were $690.90 ($17,272 annually).

For someone who was not working, and paying the average weekly rent with a partner who earned $1100 a week – above the Jobseeker benefit threshold – that left $594.50 a week, before tax, to cover both people’s costs.

An Auckland man, who RNZ agreed not to name, said once his savings were depleted in the next few weeks, he and his wife would struggle to pay the rent despite her earning well above the threshold.

He was made redundant “out of the blue” in October last year after 30 years in his industry but could not get the benefit because of his wife’s income.

“I wasn’t surprised, but I did just laugh because that $1040 [threshold], after tax … doesn’t even cover our rent,” he said.

“So how would we have been living … the numbers just don’t add up.”

The man said he did not know what the government expected him to do when his savings ran out.

“I just always assumed that if the worst came to the worst, and I’d expended all of my own … efforts, that there would be some way of getting help in New Zealand.”

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 woman who is trying to claim $12,000 from Inland Revenue’s unclaimed money list says she has been frustrated by continuous hurdles.

IR has a database of amounts of at least $100 that have been left untouched in banks, finance companies, investment funds or with someone such as a solicitor or accountant.

When reasonable efforts have been made for five years to try to locate the owner, it can be transferred. In some circumstances, it can be transferred to IR earlier, such as when an organisation is running a routine remediation process.

In the middle of last year, there was more than $600 million waiting to be claimed.

But Jess, who did not want to be identified, said that had proved hard to do in her case.

“In September 2025, I applied for $12,000 of unclaimed money which is listed in my dad’s name, who passed away July 2025.

“This is a huge sum of money. The money is listed as being from ANZ, and IRD are refusing to pay unless I can provide the bank account number that the funds were in, despite telling me that the account was opened prior to 1975, which means it was a childhood account of my dad.

“We cannot find this account number, and ANZ are also saying they cannot help.

“There must be other ways to prove that the funds belong to my dad … It is listed on the unclaimed funds register in his full name, and IRD have told me that the account was opened in Palmerston North, which is where my dad is from, so we are confident it definitely belonged to him.”

She said she had contacted ANZ as well as the Banking Ombudsman but had no luck getting the information that Inland Revenue wanted.

Inland Revenue said it could not comment on her case specifically.

“Banks and other institutions who pass on unclaimed money to Inland Revenue have to tell us what information they have about the owner and the money.

“From time to time this information is limited and that poses challenges for both IR and claimants alike when establishing ownership.

“However, the onus remains on the claimant to satisfy IR they are entitled to the money. Only then can Inland Revenue pay the money to them (s 11(1) of the Unclaimed Money Act 1971).

“Sometimes the information the bank or other institution has provided is limited but based on circumstances, and the balance of probabilities, it is enough for IR to be satisfied the claimant is the owner of the money. In other cases, it is not enough to satisfy Inland Revenue that they are the owners.”

Consumer NZ said a lawyer could potentially be able to help Jess.

Sign up for Money with Susan Edmunds, a weekly newsletter covering all the things that affect how we make, spend and invest money

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

Former Social Investment Agency chief executive Andrew Coster is refusing to comment on the resignation of the deputy chief executive who quit while being investigated over allegations of bullying and harassment.

Social Investment Agency (SIA) deputy chief executive Kylie Reiri left the job last month. Her departure comes after Coster quit in December following a scathing Independent Police Conduct Authority report.

In an Official Information Act (OIA) response released to RNZ, the SIA confirmed there had been two employment investigations over the last 12 months.

“I am also able to confirm that there has been one investigation in response to four formal reports of bullying and harassment. In the interest of privacy, we cannot provide a breakdown as to what each allegation was concerning.”

Do you know more? Email sam.sherwood@rnz.co.nz

RNZ understands the investigation, which is ongoing, relates to Reiri.

“As a responsible employer, SIA takes these matters seriously and all complaints are investigated and followed through to the end. We have robust policies and procedures to manage disclosure of any allegations including protected disclosures (speak safe) and bullying and harassment policies, which provide informal and formal options for staff to raise concerns of serious wrongdoing and bullying and harassment.”

RNZ approached a spokesperson for Coster to see if he had any comment on the allegations faced by Reiri.

In response, they replied: “No, it wouldn’t be appropriate for Andy to comment on SIA employee-related matters. Best any queries are directed to the SIA”.

Within days of Coster’s resignation, RNZ was contacted with allegations that Reiri was under investigation in relation to complaints of bullying and harassment.

RNZ contacted Reiri at the time who said she was on leave due to health-related reasons. She did not respond to requests for comment over the weekend.

Approached for comment in December, the SIA said it did not comment on individual employment matters. Asked why that was and for the status of Reiri’s employment, the SIA treated the follow up questions as a request under the OIA.

Then, in January, the SIA released an OIA which said it did not generally comment on individual employment matters “as the disclosure of information relating to individual employees would involve the unwarranted disclosure of personal information”.

The following month Reiri resigned.

In an email on 12 February, released to RNZ, SIA’s acting chief executive and secretary for social investment Alistair Mason said Reiri had resigned.

“We acknowledge the contribution Kylie has made during her time here. We thank her for her service to the organisation and wish her well for the future,” he said.

“I know you may have questions, however, out of respect for Kylie’s privacy I am not able to discuss this matter.”

A SIA spokesperson said in a statement to RNZ over the weekend they could confirm Reiri had resigned from her role.

About a month before the IPCA’s report was released, Coster sent an email to all staff following a meeting that day.

In the email, seen by RNZ, Coster said it was important for him that the SIA was an organisation “where each one of us feels we can bring our best to our work, in an environment that is positive and enabling”.

“Acknowledging the wider context from the Public Service census (in which we fared well and in connection with which we have an action plan), some comments in a recent Te Rama survey have given me cause for concern. I want to be able to address any issues, to ensure this is a place where everyone feels respected and valued. To do this, I need to understand your experiences and perspectives.

“To that end, I want to make myself available to meet with anyone who would like to talk. If you have something to share, please reach out to me directly. Anything you share will be treated with respect and care. I value your thoughts and insights, and I will only use what you share in a way that aligns with what you are comfortable with. I understand that speaking up isn’t easy but I invite you to feel that I will listen and take action where that is required.”

In December, RNZ asked SIA Minister Nicola Willis’ office for comment on Reiri. They said questions were best put to the SIA.

“Staffing within agencies is an operational matter for which Ministers don’t have responsibility.”

On Monday, a spokesperson for Willis said the minister did not have any comment to make.

“Employment matters within government agencies are for agency chief executives and, if warranted, the Public Service Commission to manage.”

Reiri’s profile on the SIA website, which has since been taken down, said she brought a “unique blend of public and private sector experience to the Social Investment Agency”.

“Her career has been dedicated to improving outcomes for New Zealanders through data-driven decision making and social investment approaches.”

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