NZ Engine

Source: New Zealand Government

Good morning and thanks to the Wellington Chamber of Commerce for hosting us.

I have spent most of my life in either the Hutt or Wellington and I love this city and I love our region.

Some people like to paint this city as only a public service town. The reality, as you all know, is that Wellington is much more than that.

From innovative startups, world-leading creative industries, and high-tech manufacturing, Wellington has a huge role to play in New Zealand’s economic future.

Wellington is so much more than the public service and we need to stop defining ourselves by the fact central government is based here.

We also need to gently – or not so gently – push back at other people around the country who are only too willing to do the same thing.

Like the rest of the country, Wellington faces difficult economic times. 

The Government came to office with New Zealand in the midst of a prolonged cost of living crisis, with high inflation, high interest rates, and after years of profligate debt-fuelled government spending.

Like all big parties, the morning after the night before hasn’t been pretty. The hangover kicked in hard, and we are now grappling with cleaning up the mess. 

The good news is that we are making progress thanks to fiscal prudence from the government and orthodox economic policy that knows that salvation lies not in ever increasing debt, spending and taxation, but the opposite.

The economic recovery is under way. 

Inflation is down and is forecast to stay within the 1 to 3 per cent target band.

Interest rates are down, and forecast to fall further. 

The Budget forecasts GDP to rise to healthy rates of around 3 per cent in each of the next two years.

Wages are forecast to grow faster than the inflation rate, making wage earners better off, on average, in real terms.

The Budget also forecasts that 240,000 more people will be in work over the forecast period to mid-2029.

Many New Zealanders may not be feeling better off now, but over time they will – provided we stay the course.

The recovery remains fragile. Global uncertainty has caused Treasury to peg back its forecasts, especially in the near term.

The recovery isn’t in danger, but it is likely to be slower than previously forecast.

As a government, we’re talking straight with New Zealanders about the way ahead. 

About getting public debt under control and nurturing the economic recovery now under way.

About carefully managing the public purse. Making sure we’re using taxpayer dollars to pay for the must-haves, rather than the nice to haves.

About making sure we don’t put the economic recovery at risk – because a growing economy is the route to higher living standards for everyone.

It hasn’t been easy, but I’m proud of our work so far in government.

This Government is taking on big challenges.

We’re going for growth now and securing our economic recovery.

But we’re also laying the foundations for sustained growth in the medium and long-term.

We need to be honest with ourselves. 

New Zealand has been slipping for years.

Our challenge as a country isn’t just about the last few years, or even the last decade.

We have low productivity growth, low capital intensity in our firms, low levels of competition in many sectors, challenges in attracting and retaining skills and talent, low uptake of innovation, and a growing tail of New Zealanders leaving school without basic skills.

Stagnation and mediocrity are not our destiny.

Not if we make the right choices and not if we have courage.

Going for economic growth means saying “yes” to things when we’ve said “no” in the past.

It means taking on some tough political debates that we’ve previously shied away from.

It means bold decisions which may look difficult at the time but which in hindsight will be regarded incontrovertibly as the right thing to do.

Managed decline is only inevitable if we let it be.

HOUSING AND GROWTH

Today I want to talk to you about housing as a driver of growth.

One of the things I’ve been trying to emphasise since I became a Minister is that housing has a critical role to play in addressing our economic woes.

Fixing our housing crisis will help grow the economy by directing investment away from property. It will help the cost of living by making renting or home ownership more affordable. It will help the government books by reducing the amount of money we spend on housing subsidies.

Most importantly, letting our cities grow will help drive productivity growth, probably our greatest economic challenge.

It is an irrefutable fact that cities are unparalleled engines of productivity, and the economic evidence shows bigger is better. 

New Zealand can raise our chronically low productivity rates simply by allowing our towns and cities to grow up and out. We need bigger cities and, to facilitate that, we need more houses. 

Ultimately, growing cities means growing opportunities – opportunities for jobs, for higher wages, and for a better future.

Today I want to update you on the raft of reforms we have underway to tackle our housing crisis, and tell you about some additional steps we are taking. 

OUR GOING FOR HOUSING GROWTH REFORMS

Last year, I announced the Government’s Going for Housing Growth policy. 

This is about getting the fundamentals of the housing market sorted.

Going for Housing Growth consists of three pillars of work:

Pillar 1 is about freeing up land for development and removing unnecessary planning barriers. Pillar 2 is focused on improving infrastructure funding and financing to support urban growth, and Pillar 3 provides incentives for communities and councils to support growth.

Pillar 1 is very important. 

Report after report and inquiry after inquiry has found that our planning system, particularly restrictions on the supply of urban land, are at the heart of our housing affordability challenge.

We are not a small country by land mass, but our planning system has made it difficult for our cities to grow. As a result, we have excessively high land prices driven by market expectations of an ongoing shortage of developable urban land to meet demand.

We have been working on the finer details of Pillar 1 since it was announced last year. This pillar includes our work on Housing Growth Targets requiring councils to “live-zone” for 30-years of housing demand, making it easier for cities to expand by abolishing rural-urban boundaries, strengthening the intensification rules, putting in new requirements on councils to enable more mixed-used development, and abolishing minimum floor areas and balcony requirements.

But freeing up land is not enough on its own. We also need to ensure the timely provision of infrastructure. This is what Pillar 2 is all about, and includes replacing development contributions with a development levy system, increasing the flexibility of targeted rates, and strengthening the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act. 

These changes all lead to our ultimate ambition: growth paying for growth. They help create a flexible funding and financing system to match our soon-to-be flexible planning system.

Today, however, I want to focus on Pillar 1, and the work we are doing to increase development capacity and let our cities and regions grow.

A COMPLICATED STARTING POINT

When we came into government, we inherited a complicated legal landscape.

The last government introduced a thing called National Policy Statement on Urban Development – or NPS-UD – in mid-2020. This is the legal mechanism that required councils to allow greater density around rapid transit stops, in CBDs and in metro centres.

The NPS-UD is a good tool and Phil Twyford in particular deserves great credit for getting it through. I supported its introduction at the time and I continue to support it. And we’ve committed to strengthen it.

Then in 2021 Parliament legislated for the Medium Density Residential Standards, known as the MDRS. These are the rules that require councils to allow the development of three homes up to three storeys on each site, without the need for resource consent.

National campaigned on making the MDRS optional for councils, rather than mandatory. We also campaigned on requiring councils to live-zone enough housing capacity for thirty years of growth at any one time through housing growth targets that would be set by government. The intent was to give councils more choice about where growth occurred, not to stop it.

When we came to Government, Councils across the country were in the middle of implementing expensive, long-running plan changes to adopt both the NPS-UD and the MDRS.

Almost all councils have now completed these plan changes, including here in Wellington. I signed off on the new Wellington District Plan last year, which significantly raises development capacity. There are already developers taking advantage of the new liberalised rules.

I tip my hat to the progressive majority on the Wellington Council who wrestled with the economically perverse and wrong-headed conclusions of the Independent Hearings Panel and zoned for more housing.

The Wellington City Council rightly gets a bad rap for many different reasons. But on housing they got it right.

The three councils who have not yet completed their plan changes are Auckland, Christchurch and Waimakariri.

As I say, our original policy was to let councils opt-out of the MDRS laws (but not the NPS-UD). But the practical reality is that would require councils to go through yet another round of plan changes – and all of this with more fundamental changes coming to the RMA in 2026 anyway. 

In 2026 Parliament will legislate for completely new planning laws, due to take effect in 2027 to align with councils’ new Long Term Plans.

It seemed ridiculous to make councils go through another round of plan changes in advance of a completely new system coming in 2027.

We have therefore taken the pragmatic decision to remove the ability for councils to opt out of the MDRS and to work on bespoke legislative solutions for the two major cities – Auckland and Christchurch – who hadn’t yet finished their plan changes.

SOLUTION FOR OUR BIGGEST CITIES 

Auckland’s intensification plan change, PC78, has been underway since 2022. 

Progress has been slow for many reasons, including the Auckland floods. The intensification plan change process does not allow Auckland to “downzone” certain areas due to natural hazard risk – only to “upzone” them – and the Council asked the government to fix this problem. 

So we have agreed to allow Auckland to withdraw PC78. The legal mechanism for this is a RMA Amendment Bill currently before Parliament and recently reported back from the Environment Committee.

We’ve taken two key steps to ensure development capacity is still improved in Auckland. 

First, we directed Auckland Council to immediately bring forward decisions on the well-progressed parts of PC78 that related specially to the city centre. The Council met this requirement, finalising this part of their plan change on 22 May. 

The Auckland CBD plan could go a lot further in my view. It is a real missed opportunity and in due course the council is going to have to have another look at it, particularly around the viewshafts which eviscerate hundreds of millions of dollars of economic value.

Second, the law will require Auckland Council to progress a brand-new plan change urgently, notifying by 10 October this year.

This new plan change lets Auckland Council address natural hazard risks and allows for more development capacity for housing and businesses. 

Crucially, it directs that this plan change must enable the same or more capacity as PC78 did. We’re also requiring greater density around three key stations that will benefit from City Rail Link – Mount Eden, Kingsland, and Morningside.

This ensures that housing capacity increases in Auckland, and that we make the most of a once-in-a-generation infrastructure investment. 

Thankfully, Christchurch’s solution is far simpler (although all of this is relative): they are able to withdraw their plan change, provided they allow for 30 years of housing growth at the same time. 

ENDING THE CULTURE OF NO

With Auckland and Christchurch in the process of being sorted, and other councils – including Wellington – having completed their housing plan changes, the rules are now largely locked in until our new planning system takes over. 

This is largely a good thing. Either the MDRS, or the capacity it unlocks, is in place across the country. That represents hundreds of thousands of additional potential homes for the coming years.

The NPS-UD has now also been implemented nationwide, ensuring that growth will be clustered around public transit hubs and key urban centres. This means shaping our cities to reflect the way that Kiwis actually live.

These are big, world-leading, reforms. They’re not perfect, but they are progress – and we shouldn’t take that lightly.

I’m proud that these reforms are basically supported in a bipartisan way across Parliament. 

National started the Auckland process with the Auckland Unitary Plan in 2016, following Auckland local government reform in 2010. The Unitary Plan has been closely studied internationally and the evidence is clear that rents are lower in Auckland because of the AUP.

World-leading reform is exactly what we need to fix a world-leading housing crisis. We need to get as close to perfect as possible.

That brings me to local government.

It is an inarguable, and sometimes uncomfortable, fact that local government has been one of the largest barriers to housing growth in New Zealand.

It took nearly five years for councils to implement the NPS-UD and MDRS. To say they dragged their feet is an understatement.

In this time, Christchurch City Council just outright defied its legal obligations, voting to ignore the MDRS altogether. The last Government used RMA intervention powers just to make them do it. 

The Council then spent years and a large amount of money arguing for special exemptions, ignoring clear directives from central government.

Auckland Council wasn’t much better. Yes, the Auckland floods caused delays, and yes, the cancellation of Light Rail had an impact on their plan. But they used every excuse in the book to stall progress.

I am convinced that if we had not come to an agreement on PC78, Auckland would still be dragging its heels — and many of these future homes would still be stuck on paper.

Wellington isn’t perfect, either. It took the most high-profile district-plan lobbying campaign in New Zealand history, and some very committed councillors like Rebecca Matthews, to get a plan in place that actually supports and enables growth.

Sadly, some council planning departments are basically a law unto themselves. I’ve lost count of the number of people who have told me awful stories about battles with council planners who try and micro-manage every little element of a housing development.

Where the planter boxes on the driveway will be located. The architectural design of the new garage. Which way the living room is designed. Whether front doors should face the street in order to create “neighbourliness” or whether they should face away from the street in order to create “seclusion and privacy.” 

We have had decades of local councils trying to make housing someone else’s problem, and we have a planning system that lets them get away with it.

So, what do we do? We fix the system. 

A streamlined planning system that requires housing growth – not just permits it – is the answer. Standardised zoning, housing growth targets, and less red tape solve this problem. 

What they don’t solve, however, is the time it takes to reform our planning system. Councils won’t start work on their new plans under our new system until 2027. 

And while we can’t legislate to fast-forward time, we can’t afford to wait either.

That’s why today, I’m announcing that we will be adding a new tool to our growth toolkit.

Cabinet has agreed to insert a new regulation making power into the RMA, allowing us to modify or remove provisions in local council plans if they negatively impact economic growth, development capacity, or employment.

Prior to exercising this power, the Minister must carry out an investigation into the provision in question, consider its consistency with existing national direction under the RMA, and engage with the local authority.

We believe this strikes the appropriate balance between the local and national interest.  

This new regulation making power is only an interim measure, and is intended to only be in place until our new planning system comes into effect. We intend to add this as an amendment to the RMA Amendment Bill currently before Parliament, expected to pass into law in the next few weeks.

We know that this is a significant step. But the RMA’s devolution of ultimate power to local authorities just has not worked. 

New Zealanders elected us with a mandate to deliver economic growth and rebuild our economy, and that’s exactly what this new power will help do.

We aren’t willing to let a single line in a district plan hold back millions or billions in economic potential. If local councillors don’t have the courage to make the tough decisions, we will do it for them.

Let me be absolutely clear: the days of letting councils decide that growth shouldn’t happen at all are over.

EMBEDDING A CULTURE OF YES

That brings me back to Pillar One of our Going for Housing Growth plan, and our new planning system – designed to embed a culture of ‘yes’ in our country.

Originally, we had intended to have these Pillar One reforms in place by now. As our plans for more fundamental, wider-reaching change to the RMA took shape, we started to realise that implementing Pillar One now would be, frankly, too difficult and too confusing. 

So instead, we will be implementing Pillar One of Going for Housing Growth into the new planning system, where it will form the heart of our reforms to enable more housing.

These will be crucial for creating a more flexible and responsive housing market. We will be establishing ambitious housing growth targets for councils, removing hard urban boundaries to provide more opportunities for development, and strengthening intensification provisions to make it easier to build new houses in the right places. 

These reforms are bold and ambitious steps in solving our housing crisis. If done right, they will transform the New Zealand economy, and bring housing within reach of the next generation, like it was for ours. 

However, the key here is doing this right. The devil is in the detail, and as I regularly say, the Government does not have a monopoly on good ideas. 

Today I am announcing the release of our Going for Housing Growth discussion document, and the opening of consultation into these changes.

This is the first time New Zealanders will be able to have their say on the Government’s new planning system and will help put flesh onto the bones of our plans to unlock more housing across the country. 

I want to run through a few of the key proposals in this document, and the kind of questions we are keen to have answered.

First, our housing growth targets will require councils to enable enough feasible and realistic development capacity to meet 30 years of demand.

We propose that each relevant council will have its own target for its urban environment, therefore excluding rural areas. We are also asking whether councils be allowed to transfer a portion of the target between themselves by mutual agreement. 

Unlike now, councils would be required to determine their target by using the same set of 30-year high-growth projections from Statistics NZ. Councils could choose to use a higher projection, but not lower. 

We are also proposing a contingency margin of 20% on top of those projections. We would rather an oversupply of houses than an undersupply, and this margin protects against that. 

This would see councils following a strictly controlled set of steps to calculate their own growth target, however, it would still leave the calculation up to them. We are especially keen to hear feedback on whether this is the right approach, or whether central government should determine each council’s growth target instead.

Standardised zoning in the new planning system is one key mechanism we will use to strengthen and embed these Housing Growth Targets. 

Standardised zoning essentially turns plan making into a ‘paint-by-numbers’ exercise for councils. We will have a range of pre-designed zones for councils to use – like CBD zones, medium density zones, or single house zones. We set the technical requirements of each zone, but councils chose where to apply them. 

This approach poses huge opportunities for Housing Growth Targets, making them more impactful, easier to implement, and more transparent.

Right now, councils spend many months and thousands of dollars modelling capacity in their plans. With standardised zones, there are opportunities to assign clear capacity assumptions for each zone. With standardised technical rules, we can standardise capacity modelling as well. We may set these capacity assumptions centrally, for example, by saying the standardised medium density zone allows for 65 homes per hectare. 

This approach saves costs, makes plan changes faster and simpler, ensuring that the additional housing capacity they bring is in place as quickly as possible.

Housing growth targets will ultimately mean that a lot more land is zoned for housing and businesses. The trick is going to be ensuring infrastructure and services are brought on to these areas over-time, and in a way that is truly responsive to demand. 

We are considering agile land-release mechanisms to bring development areas online quickly, without requiring a full plan change. To achieve this, plans could be required to specify triggers for release such as infrastructure availability, developing and agreeing a detailed development plan, or land price indicators.

Now a lot goes into this. What should these triggers be? Does the land get automatically released if they are met? How could the land price indicators be calculated in real-time? 

We’re also considering whether we might need to provide strengthened requirements for councils to be responsive to unanticipated or out-of-sequence development proposals, with less discretion for councils about what constitutes ‘significant’ development capacity.

Cabinet has agreed to remove councils’ ability to impose rural-urban boundary lines in their planning documents. We’re proposing that the new resource management system is clear that councils are not able to include a policy, objective or rule that sets an urban limit or a rural-urban boundary line in their planning documents for the purposes of urban containment.

Creating efficient land markets requires creating responsive land markets. These proposals are all highly technical, but if done properly, will deliver development-ready land for housing exactly when the economics is right. 

That’s what Pillar 1 is all about – letting the economics drive development, rather than council planners. 

This discussion document contains a range of other questions and proposals, including how we strengthen our existing intensification requirements along public transport corridors, how we measure walkable catchments, what we do with ‘special character’, and how we enable greater mixed-use in our cities through standardised zoning. Consultation opens today and will run until 17 August.

CONCLUSION

This discussion document is a critical step in shaping a planning system that finally puts housing supply, economic growth, and common sense at its core. 

It asks big questions, because the stakes are big: Can we build a system that responds to need, not NIMBYs? One that treats enabling land use as an economic necessity, not a nice to have?

We are not interested in tinkering. We are building a planning system where housing growth is not just allowed – it’s expected. Where councils are accountable for delivering capacity, not blocking it. 

I encourage every council, planner, business, and Kiwi who cares about housing affordability and economic prosperity to engage in this consultation. 

We are open to ideas—but we are not open to delay. 

The time for excuses is over. The culture of “yes” starts now. Thank you. I will now take your questions. 

Source: New Zealand Government

New Zealanders have an opportunity to help shape the new planning system replacing the Resource Management Act (RMA) through public consultation on removing unnecessary barriers to housing growth, says Housing and RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop.
“New Zealand’s house prices are among the most expensive in the developed world – a direct result of our current planning system making it too hard for our cities to grow up and out.
“Fixing our housing crisis involves fixing the fundamentals of our housing market – freeing up land for development and removing unnecessary planning barriers, improving infrastructure funding and financing to support urban growth, and providing incentives for communities and councils to support growth.
“Next year we’ll replace the RMA with a new planning system that makes it easier to plan and deliver the housing and infrastructure New Zealand needs.
“The new planning system is an enormous opportunity to create a planning system that enables and encourages housing growth.
“Last year I announced the Government had committed to six major legislative changes to help free up land for housing and let our cities grow:

The establishment of Housing Growth Targets for Tier 1 and 2 councils
New rules making it easier for cities to expand outwards at the urban fringe
A strengthening of the intensification provisions in the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD)
New rules requiring councils to enable a greater mixed-use zoning across our cities.
The abolition of minimum floor area and balcony requirements
New provisions making the Medium Density Residential Standards optional for councils.

“The discussion document I’m releasing today provides further detail on how these changes will operate in practice, and how they’ll integrate into the government’s resource management reforms. Feedback through the consultation process will be used to shape the development of the new planning system.
“The NPS-UD was a good starting point for strengthening housing growth in cities, but the government is committed to going further to help create competitive urban land markets and abundant development opportunities. The discussion document proposes a range of changes to strengthen the existing rules.
“As I indicated last week, the government is no longer proposing to make the MDRS optional for councils. This is because most councils (with three exceptions) have already changed their plans to include the MDRS, and so it would be inefficient and a waste of time and money to make them potentially change their plans in 2025 and 2026 when the new resource management system will go live in 2027.
“Bespoke legislative solutions have been designed for Auckland and Christchurch, reflected in the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill recently reported back to Parliament. In Auckland’s case, it allows the Council to withdraw their existing plan change (PC78) and replace it with a new one, which provides the same level of capacity (or greater) in PC78, as well as strengthened density provisions around City Rail Link stations.
“The discussion document canvasses a range of important issues, including future development strategies and spatial planning, housing growth targets, responsive planning and rural-urban boundaries, intensification, enabling a mix of uses across urban environments and minimum floor area and balcony requirements.
“I encourage New Zealanders to share their views on these important issues by making a submission.”
Public consultation on the Going for Housing Growth discussion document opens today at www.hud.govt.nz/haveyoursay and will run until 17 August 2025. This is early non-statutory consultation and public feedback on will be used to shape the development of the new resource management system.

Editor’s note: 

A fact sheet on the Going for Housing Growth discussion document is attached.
The Going for Housing Growth consultation is separate from the concurrent consultation on three packages of proposed changes to national direction. The national direction changes would come into effect under the existing RMA before transitioning into the new planning system while the Going for Housing Growth consultation is focused on shaping the new planning system.  

Source: New Zealand Police

Police is seeking information on the whereabouts of 17-year-old Mya.

The teenager has been reported missing to Police from the North Shore area.

She was last seen in the Takapuna area at around 1.45am on 17 June.

Police have been working with Mya’s family and conducting enquiries across areas she is known to frequent.

Those areas include Hauraki, Manly and Red Beach.

There are ongoing concerns for Mya’s wellbeing and our priority is to locate her to ensure she comes back to family.

Anyone who sees Mya or has information on her whereabouts should contact Police on 111.

People can also update Police online or call 105 using the reference number 250617/6276.

ENDS

Jarred Williamson/NZ Police

Source: New Zealand Police

Police are now in a position to release the name of the woman who died following a crash involving two Ute’s on State Highway 2, Maharahara on 13 June.

She was 69-year-old, Philipa Beech.

Police extends our condolences to her family and friends during this difficult time.

Enquiries into the circumstances of the crash are ongoing.

ENDS

Issued by Police Media Centre

Source: New Zealand Police

Motorists are advised to take alternative routes due to a blockage on the Geraldine-Fairlie Highway on the Skipton Bridge following a crash this evening.

Police were alerted to the single vehicle crash around 9.35pm.

One person has received moderate injuries in relation to the crash.

The road will remain closed for some time.

ENDS.

Issued by Police Media Centre

Source: New Zealand Transport Agency

A minor increase in journey times and some queuing at peak times can be expected for people travelling on SH22 as an inherent result of the new traffic lights, which are necessary to allow for safer and more efficient movements into and out of Great South Road.

NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (NZTA) Regional Manager Transport Services, Stephen Collett says the signalisation of the intersection has been a necessary traffic mitigation ahead of future construction work on the SH1 Papakura to Drury project, when the Drury northbound off-ramp will be closed for an extended period. The temporary signalisation in its current lane layout will remain until the future four-laning of SH22 between Jesmond Road and Drury Interchange as part of the SH22 Drury upgrade project, which also requires traffic lights at the SH22 intersections with Great South Road and Jesmond Road.

The expected commissioning (turning on) of the traffic lights in April had been paused to allow the system to gather real time traffic flow data, which revealed that current traffic flows on SH22 were higher than those used to design the signalisation of the intersection. A review of the design was then undertaken to confirm it was optimal for its temporary arrangement, which recommended two additional improvements to further mitigate potential peak hour queuing on SH22 following closure of the ramp, specifically in the southbound direction. Those recommended additions were to add a left turn slip lane from SH22 into Great South Road and to extend the length of the two-lane southbound exit of SH22 from the intersection, where the two lanes merge back into one.

These two recommendations will be implemented by NZTA and further works will begin in July when the designs have been finalised. In the meantime, NZTA will commission the traffic lights to improve the overall safety of the intersection beyond that provided by the temporary traffic management measures currently in place. Activating the lights will also reduce the cost of temporary traffic management required to implement the additional improvements.

“Great South Road is already a busy route that experiences safety and congestion issues at the intersection with SH22. With our construction activities ramping up on SH1, even before the closure of the northbound off-ramp more people may choose to use Great South Road for their travel, increasing existing pressures on the intersection,” Mr Collett says. 

“When the lights are activated and as people become accustomed to the new signals, the Auckland Transport Operations Centre will monitor the intersection to ensure no safety issues arise. We thank everyone for their patience while we have taken the time to ensure the operation of these temporary traffic lights will be optimal for the period they will be in service.”

People are also reminded that the intersection of Victoria Street with SH22 (beside Drury Interchange) is currently closed to realign the street directly opposite Mercer Street.  Following that realignment, the intersection will also be signalised as a required traffic mitigation ahead of the future demolition and rebuild of the Bremner Road bridge across SH1. These traffic lights are expected to be installed and operational near the end of this year.

Source: New Zealand Police

Motorists are advised of traffic disruption following a two-vehicle crash on Prebensen Drive, near Ford Road and Severn Street, at around 4.50pm.

No serious injuries have been reported.

The road remains partly blocked while emergency services and contractors clear the scene.

Motorists are advised to take an alternate route and expect delays.

ENDS

Issued by Police Media

Source: New Zealand Government

[Keynote speech to the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs (NZIIA) national conference, Takina Convention Centre, Wellington]

Good afternoon.

National Chair of the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs, Dr James Kember, Executive Director Dr Hamish McDougall, members of the Diplomatic Corps, distinguished guests. 

It is a pleasure to speak here today at the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs’ Annual Conference.

The NZIIA contributes to, and facilitates, discussion and debate about New Zealand’s foreign policy, and we thank you for hosting us. 

In May last year, it was the NZIIA that hosted us in Parliament for a speech that addressed the challenges we face in a more fractious world and outlined how the Coalition Government was bringing more energy, more urgency and a sharper focus to our foreign policy.

Just over a year later, we thought we’d reflect on the Government’s Foreign Policy Reset, where progress has been made, and the foreign policy themes we have accentuated in the year since we last spoke to you.

This is also the time for a clear-eyed appraisal of New Zealand’s strategic circumstances, and the sharply deteriorating international outlook, as evidenced by the protracted illegal war in Ukraine and in the catastrophic escalation of the conflict in the Middle East. 

Twenty-five years ago, New Zealand enjoyed a world that was becoming more open, more democratic, and more free. Trade liberalisation was gathering pace. Effective multilateralism helped underpin a liberal- oriented international rules-based system.

Turning to the world of today – and looking out to tomorrow – the changes are stark. Uncertainty is now pervasive across the globe. We face an international operating environment under serious strain, one that poses complex challenges while exposing structural weaknesses in that operating environment.

While geography remains a constant, distance is no buffer. There is no opting out from the geopolitical realities we face. So, this is a timely reminder of what is at stake, and why our foreign policy matters for all New Zealanders. 

Foreign policy can often be perceived as far removed from New Zealanders’ daily lives. But recognising how our foreign and trade policy underpins New Zealanders’ security and prosperity is crucial to the open and mature national conversation we must continue to have in our vibrant democracy.

While operating for the most part quietly and in the background, our foreign and trade policy helps deliver outcomes that matter for all of us.

From the export dollars our farmers and manufacturers earn in key markets and helping to remove barriers for our exporters.

• To new international market opportunities being opened for our innovative services firms.
• To the international rules that provide us with our Exclusive Economic Zone and its resources, preserve Antarctica as a zone of peace and science, and which govern behaviours in outer space and cyber space.
• To the international security partnerships that enable us to tackle common threats, such as the flow of illegal drugs into our country, or terrorist threats.
• To the standards that underpin everyday fundamentals we all rely on, whether international air and sea shipping, our telecommunication devices, or biosecurity measures.
• And to the opportunities for young New Zealanders to travel and work overseas and return with new skills and experiences.

So while foreign and trade policy may seem abstract, how we act in the world matters for New Zealanders every day.

This fundamental link between how we advance our interests abroad, and our security and prosperity at home, is why the Coalition Government prioritises foreign policy as a crucial instrument to achieve both. That, after all, is how we maintain support from the taxpayers who underwrite our efforts.

This demands being present, engaged, and explaining ourselves. There remains no substitute for in-person diplomacy, relationship building, and educating the public about the choices we face. 

Now, our critics complain that we are leading a radical repositioning of our foreign policy. But only in one very narrow and important respect are they right. We have radically increased the tempo of our diplomacy, in recognition of our predecessors’ torpor, but also because of the sheer magnitude of the challenges we face. 

Since being sworn into office in November 2023, we have visited 46 countries, several more than once, met with well over 100 Presidents, Prime Ministers, Deputy Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers, and had over 400 political engagements. 

Through this engagement we are better informed about the world around us, as are counterparts about New Zealand’s foreign policy perspectives and the values that underpin them.

And we continue the important duty of communicating New Zealand’s foreign policy priorities to the public and explaining the nature of our changing strategic circumstances and the choices that flow from them.

We push ourselves to work harder, and explain ourselves better, because New Zealand has understood these past 80 years, that as a small state geographically isolated from the great landmasses of Asia, Europe and the Americas, only through the conduct of a highly active foreign policy can we advance our national interests, defend our region, and make it more prosperous.

Foreign Policy Reset: Progress

Distinguished guests, in our speech to you last year we outlined the six priorities that form the Government’s foreign policy reset. Today’s speech is an opportunity to recap the ambition that Cabinet set out and highlight key areas of effort and progress.

First, we are significantly increasing our focus and resources applied to South and Southeast Asia. 

With 34 outward Prime Ministerial and Ministerial visits to the region since February 2024 – advancing new business and investment opportunities, while expanding defence and security cooperation, and upgrading a range of key relationships – we are investing in the wider region, commensurate with its strategic and economic significance.

In 2025, we have upgraded our Viet Nam relationship to a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, and we are working hard to similarly achieve upgrades in our ASEAN and Singapore relationships.

It was a pleasure to again visit India last month, and to contribute to this important and growing relationship, including welcoming the negotiations underway towards a comprehensive free trade agreement.

Complementing this investment in South and Southeast Asia, the Government also remains focused on the depth and breadth of our important relationships across North Asia. Our bilateral relationship with China is New Zealand’s largest trade relationship. It’s proven mutually beneficial and significant for both countries.  The relationship is supported by regular people exchange, including political dialogue, business, education and tourism links. And we are pleased that with the Prime Minister visiting China this week we will have completed reciprocal visits between our respective counterparts over the past two years.

Our long-standing political connections enable frank and comprehensive discussions on areas of disagreement, including those that stem from our different histories and different systems. Indeed, it is a sign of healthy relationships that we can and do express disagreement on important issues. 

Japan and Korea are two likeminded democracies in the Indo-Pacific, who view the region and the world in the same way we do and are increasingly central to achieving our interests.

Second, we are renewing and reinvigorating meaningful engagement with traditional and likeminded partners. 

Our circumstances underscore the importance of an even deeper strategic partnership with Australia as well as other partners with which we share a deep history and enduring interests.

Consultations with Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong in Adelaide last month highlighted that New Zealand has no closer or more important partner that Australia, our one formal ally, with whom we share interests across the full expanse of regional and international issues.

We have grown the important partnership with the United Kingdom, including advancing trade opportunities and reiterating our shared commitment to tackling international security challenges. 

Similarly, enhanced engagement with the European Union and its member states is a significant focus for New Zealand.

The change in the US Administration in January has inevitably generated changes in the priorities and direction of US foreign policy. But the significance of the US’ continued role in the security and stability in the Indo-Pacific and as an essential economic partner remains, and this continues to be the focus of our engagement, including during discussions with Secretary Rubio in Washington and Admiral Paparo, Commander of US INDOPACOM in Honolulu.

Third, we are sustaining a deeper focus on the Pacific, working in collaboration with Pacific Leaders to protect and advance our interconnected security, economic, social and environmental interests.

In a more complex global environment, coming together as a region is even more important.  Which is why Pacific regionalism sits at the core of our Pacific approach, with the Pacific Islands Forum at its centre. 

We will always be members of the same Pacific family. A series of cross-party Parliamentary delegations into the region, alongside our exhaustive travel around Micronesia, Melanesia, and Polynesia, have demonstrated that New Zealand’s commitment to the region spans the political spectrum and is foundational to who we are as a country.

Our Pacific-focused International Development Cooperation programme – reshaped to achieve more impact by doing fewer, bigger, projects better – is helping to build climate and economic resilience, strengthen governance and security, and to lift heath, education and connectivity.

Fourth, we are targeting our multilateral engagement on priority global and transboundary issues, working to defend and preserve core principles of international law that underpin our security and prosperity.

Respect for the UN Charter principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the prohibition on the use of force is essential to avoid a return to a world where the exercise of hard power reigns supreme.

Where these principles are flagrantly violated, such as in Russia’s continued illegal invasion of Ukraine, we must stand against such aggression and lend our efforts to achieving a just and sustainable peace.

New Zealand’s response to the Israel-Hamas conflict is also grounded in upholding international law, including international humanitarian law.

While the multilateral system has served us all well for many decades, it most certainly is not without flaws. We recognise that defending, strengthening, and modernising the rules-based system also means supporting reform of multilateral institutions. 

We actively support efforts to make these institutions more responsive, efficient and effective to ensure they are focused on making a difference for our citizens, and we feel an urgency around necessary reform.   

Fifth, we are supporting new groupings that advance and defend our interests and capabilities. 

The relationship between the Indo-Pacific Four (IP4) countries – Australia, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand – is an example of this new support. 

Deeper political-level engagement between NATO and the IP4, begun by predecessor governments, has allowed us to raise the profile of shared strategic challenges in the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific, and to drive enhanced cooperation on priority areas including cyber, artificial intelligence, and defence capability.

This effort will be given further momentum next week, when the Prime Minister travels to The Hague for engagements with fellow IP4 partners and NATO countries, during the NATO Summit.

And sixth, we are working hard to advance the Government’s goal of seriously lifting New Zealand’s export value over the next decade. 

This means harnessing every potential gain from our trade and economic agenda; promoting New Zealand as a place to do business; and creating opportunities for our world-class exporters. 

This Government has conducted eleven successful trade missions, as we work towards the target of 20 missions involving New Zealand businesses during this Parliamentary term.

New trade agreements concluded with the United Arab Emirates and the Gulf Cooperation Council will open doors and provide greater certainty as well as create more chances for our exporters to grow and diversify their businesses. 

As will our efforts to leverage and expand existing trade agreements – such as through the United Kingdom’s accession last year to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).

Mid-term reflections

In recent speeches we have outlined that the priorities identified in the foreign policy reset are underpinned by three key concepts:

• The realism that informs the Government’s foreign policy.
• Our view of the crucial role that diplomacy needs to play in our troubled world.
• And our unshakeable belief that small states matter and that all states are equal.

In fashioning foreign policy responses, the realist tendency is to err on the side of prudence. That is, we are careful in what we say, and when and how we say it. 

We leave it to the small cabal of ill-informed critics of our foreign policy approach to shout impotently at clouds. They are good at that. Take AUKUS. In our speech to the NZIIA last year we were candid about what AUKUS Pillar 2 was, why the Ardern/Hipkins Governments launched work on it, and we laid out the necessary pre-conditions for participation. 

A year on, there is nothing new to report, which you might think says something about the current dynamic, but still critics insist dark clouds have formed around our independent foreign policy. Their arguments were ill-informed and rubbish then. They’re ill-informed and rubbish now.

We said we would update New Zealanders on Pillar 2 when there was something new to say. And we will.       

In conditions of great uncertainty and disorder, such as we are currently experiencing, prudence is a both a logical and necessary guiding principle for a small state like New Zealand.

We see our responsibility to the New Zealand people, in conducting foreign policy, as making cool-headed calculations of the country’s own strengths and weaknesses as we fashion our responses to events large or small that impact upon New Zealand’s interests.

For a small state like New Zealand, the role of diplomacy is a crucial instrument of our foreign policy. In our complex geostrategic environment never has effective diplomacy been more needed. 

Summing up our wide foreign policy discussions in our National Statement to the United Nations last year, we said it has never been more apparent just how much diplomacy and the tools of statecraft matter in our troubled world. 

Since war and instability is everyone’s calamity, diplomacy is the business of us all. We have observed that at this moment in time the ability to talk with, rather than at, each other has never been more needed. 

Those who share our values, and even those who do not, gain from understanding each other’s position, even when we cannot agree. From understanding comes opportunity and from diplomacy comes compromise, the building block of better relations between nations. We said we need more diplomacy, more engagement, more compromise. 

As Churchill also said in his later years, “meeting jaw-to-jaw is better than war.”

The inherent tensions and imbalances in the global order – between the desire for a rules-based order that protects small states against aggression, and the unjustified exercise of power by certain Great Powers – have only grown over the last past eight decades. 

Yet small states matter now as much as they did then. New Zealand holds the foundational belief that all states are equal and that our voices matter as much as more powerful states. Adopting a prudential approach to our diplomacy also means not reacting to everything that happens around us. 

In closing, it’s fitting to return to the broad theme of the event – New Zealand’s foreign policy in a contested world.

The outlook is challenging, to say the least, and we – government and public alike – must grapple with the reality of the fraught strategic circumstances that New Zealand faces.

We have many friends in the world, but no-one owes New Zealand a living. It is incumbent upon us to chart our course, assert our priorities, cultivate our partnerships, and pursue our interests with the vigour we have injected into our diplomatic efforts these past 18 months.

Amidst serious challenges and risk, there are also opportunities. Realising these means that we must continue to bring energy, urgency and a sharper focus to our foreign policy. 

Through the Foreign Policy Reset, we are focused on doing exactly that and ensuring that we continue to deliver security and prosperity for all New Zealanders.

Thank you

Source: New Zealand Police

Police have charged a teenager after alleged interference in the murder investigation of 15-year-old Kaea Karauria.

The girl was taken into custody on 16 June, after Police investigating Kaea’s death learned that a witness had been approached and allegedly threatened.

Detective Inspector Dave de Lange said the alleged incident occurred on 12 May, a day after the fight in which Kaea was killed. Police learned of the approach on 6 June, while conducting follow-up enquiries.

The teen has been charged with wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice, and will reappear in the Hastings Youth Court next month.

Detective Inspector de Lange said any form of witness tampering was treated seriously.

“When a witness is threatened, or attempts are made to sabotage an investigation, Police will act without hesitation. This should be a warning to anyone who contemplates interfering with justice.”

Detective Inspector de Lange encouraged anyone with information about the incident to contact Police.

“Kaea deserves justice, as does his family, so if you can help please talk to us,” he says.

Footage of the incident can be uploaded here

Information can also be reported online, or by calling 105 and referencing the file number 250511/1317.

Information can also be provided anonymously to Crime Stoppers on 0800 555 111.

ENDS

Issued by Police Media Centre

Source: Privacy Commissioner

Rule 11 of the Health Information Privacy Code (HIPC) allows you to disclose health information if it is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious threat to the life or health of any person, or public health or safety (the serious threat exception). In each case, there are requirements that must be met for the serious threat exception to apply. If another piece of legislation requires or allows you to share the health information in question you should rely on that legislation rather than Rule 11.

Step 1: Have you received authorisation to share this information?

Authorisation means that the person whose health information it is has agreed that you can share the information. Authorisation can also be given by the individual’s representative if the individual is dead or unable to exercise their rights under the HIPC (e.g. due to a cognitive impairment which impacts decision making or very young age).

You should give the person as much information as possible about what information you will share, who you will share it with, and why.

If you receive authorisation, then you can share the information under Rule 11(1)(b), which permits disclosure when it is authorised by the individual or their representative.

If you don’t have authorisation, go to step 2.

Step 2: Is it reasonably practical to seek authorisation?

For the serious threat to life and health exception to apply, you need to have reasonable grounds to believe that it is not desirable or not practicable to get authorisation from the individual concerned. For example, if you have reasonable grounds to believe that seeking authorisation could increase the threat.

If it is reasonable for you to seek authorisation, you need to do so. If you ask for authorisation, but the individual does not authorise you to disclose the information, you need to consider why it was not given and whether it is appropriate to continue through the steps.

If it is not reasonably practical to seek authorisation, go to step 3.

Step 3: Is there a serious threat to the life or health of a person?

The serious threat exception applies to serious threats to:

• The life or health of the person whose information it is.
• The life or health of any other person.
• Public health or public safety.

When considering whether there is a serious threat, you need to use your clinical judgement to assess the likelihood of the threat occurring, the seriousness of the threat and the harm that could eventuate, and the imminence of the threat.

If the threat does not meet the “serious threat” threshold, you cannot rely on this exception.

If there is a serious threat, continue to step 4.

Step 4: Is the disclosure to someone who can help lessen or prevent the threat?

You can only disclose health information under the serious threat exception if you are sharing the information with someone who can help lessen or prevent the threat.
You can share only as much information as is needed to prevent or lessen the threat. You should record your decision making about who to share with and how much information to share.

The case note: Police were right to disclose mental health information is an example of how the serious threat exception could work in practice.

Download the content on this page in one document (opens to PDF, 350KB).