AM Edition: Top 10 Politics Articles on LiveNews.co.nz for April 18, 2026 – Full Text

Source: Radio New Zealand

Explainer – Who decides who’s a broadcaster, and who regulates the media in New Zealand? It might all be about to change.

The Broadcasting Standards Authority is likely to be disbanded or completely revamped under proposed media reforms by the government.

It’s recently become part of a debate over what exactly constitutes broadcasting these days – and whether online content should be regulated in the same way television and print news has traditionally been.

“The entire media regulatory system has been on borrowed time for more than a decade,” said Gavin Ellis, a media commentator and former editor-in-chief of the New Zealand Herald.

“Successive governments have failed to deal with the rising issues of technologically-determined regulatory bodies that the Internet Age has put past their use-by dates.”

Broadcasting Minister Paul Goldsmith indicated this week that he is “leaning” towards the option of scrapping the authority entirely. What will that mean for media regulation?

What is the Broadcasting Standards Authority anyway?

The Broadcasting Standards Authority, or BSA, was created by the Broadcasting Act 1989 as an independent Crown entity to make and uphold standards for radio, free-to-air and pay television.

It acts in response to formal complaints made about media content. That means they look after things like offensive content, possible discrimination, accuracy, privacy and fairness.

If it upholds a complaint, it can order the broadcaster to make a statement about the decision and impose fines of up to $5000.

It can even – very rarely “and only for the most serious complaints” – ban a broadcaster for up to 24 hours. (That happened to the now-defunct ALT TV which was banned for five hours in 2007 for broadcasting racist and obscene text messages on screen.)

OK, but what is the New Zealand Media Council? Is that the same thing?

The Media Council is separate from the BSA. It’s a non-governmental group which media outlets voluntarily subscribe to, and it has no legal powers.

Founded as the Press Council in 1972, it was originally meant to focus on newspapers but has since broadened to include online content for broadcasters including TVNZ, RNZ, NZME and others. Complaints are filed against groups that are members of the council and have agreed to abide by its principles.

It does not impose fines, but it does require members to publish its rulings on their content.

There is crossover between the two groups’ jurisdictions – for example, RNZ’s content falls under both, with complaints about radio content being covered by the BSA while online content falls under the Media Council.

Separate from all this, there’s also the Advertising Standards Authority, which deals only with complaints about advertising, not editorial content.

What’s the current stoush about?

It all relates to comments Sean Plunket made last year on his online site The Platform, reportedly describing Māori tikanga as “mumbo jumbo”.

A complaint about that was made to the BSA – which has declared that The Platform comes under its jurisdiction as a broadcaster to act on complaints.

The BSA has not yet made a ruling on the specific “mumbo jumbo” complaint, but wrote in a decision that “It found programme transmissions via the internet fall within the definition’s reference to transmission by ‘telecommunication’, applying a plain English and purposive interpretation of the term”.

Plunket, a veteran journalist for MagicTalk, Newstalk ZB, RNZ and others who launched his independent website in 2021, has said in response that he’s not a broadcaster, he’s a webcaster.

However, the BSA has said that Plunket is “an online broadcaster of a nature we consider clearly falls within BSA jurisdiction”.

Plunket has fought back, telling listeners “It is a hill I’m prepared to die on”.

The authority’s chief executive Stacey Wood told RNZ it decided in 2019 that it also regulated certain online content, although the Plunket incident was the first complaint that met those requirements.

“Our view is that online broadcasters that resemble traditional TV or radio stations clearly fall within the scope of the Act,” Wood told The Post last year.

On his website, Ellis has written that the BSA’s call was an “attempt to ram a round peg into a mouldy square hole”.

“In order to claim jurisdiction over Sean Plunket’s online entity The Platform, the BSA was forced to squeeze every last morsel of possible meaning out of its empowering legislation.”

The question of whether or not the BSA’s interpretation of its powers goes too far has sparked plenty of debate.

“The BSA is just doing its job,” Wellington media lawyer Steven Price has written on his website. “This isn’t a power-grab. It’s limited to livestreams to general audiences, and it’s what the BSA is required to do under the Broadcasting Act.”

At the same time, barrister Samira Taghavi wrote for Law News that the BSA was exceeding its mandate and that “a regulator cannot expand its jurisdiction because new technologies look similar to old ones.”

So it’s all about what “broadcasting” means in 2026?

Basically. The nature of media has changed an awful lot since 1989, when the current Broadcasting Act was implemented.

Even in its own decision on Plunket and the Platform, the BSA noted that “we have been calling with increasing urgency for Parliament to update the Act for over 20 years”.

In 1989, the internet barely existed, and nobody would have foreseen millions of influencers and podcasters taking their voices across the world.

The question is which of those voices might be considered journalists, or broadcasters that would fall under regulatory authorities.

“Until the Act is updated, it needs to be interpreted in a way that has some modern relevance – and, on receipt of a relevant complaint, we are charged with applying the law as it is,” the BSA wrote.

The current landscape is what Ellis has called “a clutter of separate regulatory bodies, each independent of the others, some with statutory mandates while others are voluntary.”

Is the BSA going to be abolished?

It’s looking increasingly likely.

Broadcasting Minister Goldsmith signalled it will “probably” happen in comments at a public meeting this week and confirmed that to Newstalk ZB although he cautioned no final decisions had been made.

“It’s become arbitrary as to who’s covered and who’s not covered, and so I think probably the tidiest solution is to revert to a Media Council-style arrangement.”

It’s all become a bit of a political hot potato, with some politicians demanding the BSA vanish.

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters accused the BSA’s decision on The Platform of “bordering on fascist”. In an interview with Plunket, Peters said, “Frankly, they should go. They should be abolished. They’re out of time. They’ve got no use anymore.”

The ACT party has launched a member’s bill to abolish the BSA entirely, with MP Laura McClure calling it “a legacy institution that has outlived its usefulness.”

“It’s a creature of 1989 – before the internet existed – we live in a different world today and it’s clearly overstepping its mandate,” ACT leader David Seymour told reporters recently.

However, Ellis said the issue shouldn’t become part of partisan politics.

“David Seymour and Winston Peters are making political hay from the BSA determination on The Platform. Paul Goldsmith’s responding equally politically.”

“We don’t have – and don’t seek – the power to censor media,” the BSA notes on its website in a section about the recent debate, where it also says that “Freedom of expression is central to our work and the starting point for every BSA decision”.

“We intervene only when potential harm meets the high threshold to outweigh this right. Over the past three years, in which there were many hours of broadcasts across New Zealand, we’ve upheld complaints just 20 times in 311 decisions.”

What would replace the BSA?

It’s not quite clear yet.

Last year, the government put forward a discussion document on media reform for public debate which could be used as a starting point for possible future legislation. But the government has yet to announce any final decisions on the proposal.

In that report, a draft proposal that “The role of the regulator (currently performed by the BSA) would be revised, with more of a focus on ensuring positive system-level outcomes and less of a role in resolving audience complaints about media content”.

The report said, “Further work will be required to determine an exact definition of ‘Professional Media’, particularly as media forms and services continue to emerge and converge”.

“Our intention is to capture organisations that commission, produce, or directly pay for media content and distribute it as their primary business – including New Zealand broadcasters and streaming platforms, global streaming platforms, online text-based media, newspapers, and magazines.”

However the draft proposal indicates it would not include online platforms that primarily host user-generated content or access to others, specifically mentioning Facebook, TikTok and Google’s search engines.

“There is a compelling need for the politics to be taken out of a serious discussion on the future of media regulation – and that discussion must include the content carried on transnational platforms,” Ellis said.

So what’s likely to happen?

Media regulation reform has reached a tipping point and it’s clear things are about to change.

The BSA has said on its website it welcomes the government’s proposals for “regulation covering all ‘professional media’ regardless of platform”.

“We welcomed these and look forward to seeing them progressed. In the meantime, we will continue to apply the Act in its existing form, consistent with the purpose it was created for.”

Ellis has written that the ideal solution is to form a nonpartisan Royal Commission to look at media regulation, with both National and Labour agreeing to be bound by its recommendations.

“A Royal Commission is not a ‘nice-to-have’: It is vital that it be commissioned,” he said.

“The political gamesmanship we are now witnessing points strongly to the need for an independent body – before which the public has the right to be heard – to determine the basis and structure for future media oversight.”

And then there’s the whole question of whether sites like Facebook, TikTok, YouTube et cetera are actually “publishers” – a question which has dogged courts, lawyers, media analysts and tech companies for years now.

Trust in the media is a key talking point these days, with the latest report by AUT’s Centre for Journalism, Media and Democracy indicating that it’s ticked up slightly in Aotearoa after years of decline.

Ellis said that politicians should keep trust firmly in mind as they tackle the issue of media regulation.

“Is it too much to ask of our bickering politicians that they rise above themselves and collectively place the matter in the hands of a Royal Commission?”

Ellis said politicians ultimately need to rebuild media regulation from the ground up.

“The obvious and critical need is for a complete rethink of the regulatory environment – which must also encompass transnational platform content by deeming them publishers – and the establishment of a new system founded on public trust, the prevention of harm, and the balancing of free expression atop those two pillars.”

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

Educators are calling on the government to halt its education changes, as the Waitangi Tribunal wraps up a three-day urgent inquiry into the matter.

The inquiry, which was brought by Ngāti Hine, Te Kapotai and the country’s largest education union NZEI Te Riu Roa, has [heard evidence over three days] on the removal of school boards’ legal obligation to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and a planned reset of the national curriculum.

Claimants say the changes risk long-term harm for Māori learners, and were made without meaningful engagement with Māori or the education sector.

They want an immediate pause to the reforms, until the tribunal completes its inquiry and delivers its recommendations.

NZEI Te Riu Roa president Ripeka Lessels said taking the case to the tribunal was about ensuring Te Tiriti remained central to the education system.

“Establishing a mandatory legal requirement ensures that all school boards provide a consistent, equitable educational environment that honours the rights of ākonga Māori and their whānau,” she said.

Lessels said evidence heard during the week re-inforced concerns about the process behind the changes.

“Crown witnesses have admitted there was no engagement with Māori regarding the removal of school boards’ Te Tiriti obligations or the curriculum reset,” she said. “This occurred despite warnings from the Ministry of Education and the government’s own advisory group.”

On Friday, the tribunal heard from Justice Secretary Andrew Kibblewhite, who was summoned to answer questions on the government’s plans to introduce its new Treaty References Review legislation.

NZEI Te Riu Roa and other parties had requested the Crown to clarify its plans, which they said had “only become clear in evidence submitted by the crown the evening before the hearing began”.

As part of the coalition agreement between National and New Zealand First, the government – led by Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith – is undertaking a review of references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi across 23 laws, including the Education and Training Act.

Evidence submitted to the tribunal showed cabinet had issued drafting instructions for legislation that would require decision-makers to “take into account” Te Tiriti, rather than “give effect” to it.

A Ministry of Justice Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) on the review said the approach had “no apparent benefits” and “risks significant damage to the Māori-Crown relationship”.

“This negative impact is likely to be exacerbated by the lack of consultation with treaty partners.” it said.

Despite that, the government had continued with its approach, Lessels said.

“It is clear the government breached its Te Tiriti obligations,” she said. “Their own witnesses acknowledge that removing these legal requirements could undermine Māori educational outcomes.”

She said the shortened consultation timeframes for Māori-medium curriculum (Te Marautanga o Aotearoa), compared to the English-medium curriculum (Te Mātaiaho), also highlighted broader concerns about how mātauranga Māori was treated in the reform process.

The tribunal hearing concluded on Friday, with another scheduled for 28 April for closing submissions.

Claimants have asked the tribunal to recommend restoring the legal obligation for school boards to give effect to Te Tiriti, halting the rollout of both curriculums and undertaking an independent review.

They are also seeking public acknowledgment from the government that the removal of treaty obligations breached its duties.

Throughout the week, witnesses raised concerns around the content and development of the draft curriculum, including claims it sidelined Māori history, language and knowledge.

Ngā Kura-ā-Iwi representative Watson Ohia told the tribunal the changes had broken agreements between iwi and the Ministry of Education.

“Honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the education system does not require perfection,” he said. “It requires good faith.

“It requires the crown to act as the partner it promised to be, to come to the table before decisions are made, not after.”

Education ministry officials told the tribunal that, while the legal obligation had been removed, schools were still required to monitor Māori student achievement and, for the first time, the new curriculum included a mandatory minimum level of teaching of te reo Māori.

They acknowledged consultation timeframes had been shorter, and said the government wanted to move quickly and had not intended to co-design the curriculum with the sector.

The government maintains treaty obligations sit with the crown, rather than school boards.

The tribunal’s findings and recommendations will be released in due course.

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

Analysis: “I have the numbers” was the quote of the day from an embattled leader and Prime Minister, and one that may still come back to haunt him.

Christopher Luxon was clearly schooled up ahead of his media conference in Pōkeno on Friday to bat away any questions about his leadership with the simple response of “I have the full support of my caucus”.

That’s a reasonable retort when a choir of senior ministers have come out fully backing their leader one by one, but boldly stating he has the numbers sounds like a line out of the loosey-goosey Luxon scriptbook, not that of his strategic communications advisor.

Saying he has the full support of his caucus implies he’s not bothered by the rumblings and his team is behind him, but saying he has the numbers immediately suggests some of his caucus don’t support him as leader, but he believes he has enough in his camp to win any challenge or vote.

It’s looking increasingly unlikely that a formal challenge or vote of no confidence would transpire at Tuesday’s caucus meeting, but there’s no doubt the party’s misfortunes in recent polls and what Luxon plans to do to turn that around will be high on the agenda.

Luxon can also expect to be issued a ‘please explain’ by the caucus as to why he publicly denied his senior whip Stuart Smith had tried to contact him during the last sitting block to discuss his leadership.

RNZ has been told by a well-placed Beehive source that Smith did try to speak to Luxon about caucus concerns regarding his flagging support, yet on Friday his office and Luxon both denied it.

That same source said it was very unclear at this point as to how next week would play out.

And if a TVNZ poll expected in the next fortnight drops on Sunday or Monday night and has National hovering on, or just under, 30 percent, then the nervousness in the caucus will only escalate.

Clearly that anxiety exists given senior minister Paul Goldsmith directly acknowledged it on Friday morning. When asked for his advice to nervous National backbenchers, he offered: “hold your nerve, knuckle down”.

The problem for Luxon is that he’s keen to be Prime Minister and get on with governing, or as he’d say running the business.

But the campaign has already kicked off in many ways, and regular polling is being scrutinised, no more so than by his own backbench and ministers who might be out of a job if National’s stocks don’t improve.

The fastest way for Luxon to deal with these ongoing needling questions about his leadership is lift the party in the polls, but there’s only one story in town – the fuel and cost of living crisis – and that’s not going the way of National.

That’s partly because the electorate feel grumpy, especially as summer comes to an end and winter looms, but it also relies on having a leader who can communicate what is going on and reassure people – these things aren’t Luxon’s strong suit.

Making matters worse is the person most widely tipped to replace Luxon if the caucus decides to make a move – Chris Bishop – was prolific in the media this past week, looking and sounding very across his brief.

After being turfed out of his favourite jobs by Luxon in a last minute reshuffle just before Easter, it was Bishop who stepped in to Nicola Willis’ regular Morning Report panel on Wednesday.

He also appeared on TVNZ’s Breakfast, and on the 6pm news that night, then he appeared on Newstalk ZB on Friday morning and has the Sunday lead interview slot on Q+A this weekend.

For somebody the Prime Minister is trying to give less profile to, he was very busy being seen.

The other big piece of the puzzle for any potential leadership challenge is what coalition partners New Zealand First and Act would make of it.

History suggests changing leaders doesn’t bode well at this point in government, and while Winston Peters and David Seymour are benefiting from Luxon’s poor polling, they’d have a fair bit to say if another MP stepped up to the challenge having not fully consulted them.

Peters told RNZ on Friday morning he doesn’t “start at shadows” while Seymour said what National does is “up to them, but Act is here to keep the government together”.

Luxon to his credit has been quite the unifier of not only the National Party but this coalition government, and anyone attempting to step into his shoes might find both those jobs are more difficult than they realised.

One other problem that Luxon needs to sort sooner rather than later is the unease being felt by staff in the Beehive.

His last-minute reshuffle before Easter had huge ramifications for a number of offices with staff being “evented” – effectively losing their job and having to reapply for any new ones that arise – just six months out from an election campaign.

The job market in Wellington is precarious enough as it is and some staffers are feeling like they’ve been unnecessarily thrown into job insecurity for the sake of a point-scoring reshuffle.

Unhappy staff are just as big a threat to Luxon’s leadership as a disgruntled caucus is.

If Luxon wants to secure his leadership in the coming weeks it will require him to turn the polling around in a meaningful way (no easy feat for a Prime Minister with woeful favourability ratings), calm the caucus and convince them he’s their best bet to win in November, and remind staffers in his ministerial offices they are valued and respected.

All of that, however, requires Luxon to accept there’s a problem in the first place – a self awareness many staffers and MPs have long declared isn’t in his DNA.

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 new $29 million marine maintenance facility has opened at Port Nelson, with hopes that larger international vessels can now be serviced at the top of the South Island.

The Calwell Marine Maintenance facility officially opened at the port on Friday, featuring a new 550-tonne boat hoist and hardstand maintenance area, along with haulout and launch facilities for vessels between 50-2400 tonnes.

Government stumped up $9.8 million for the project, alongside funding from Port Nelson, Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council.

Regional Development Minister Shane Jones said this key piece of infrastructure strengthened Nelson’s position as a hub for marine servicing, and critical vessel refit and repair.

“This investment by the government backs the Nelson-Tasman region’s thriving marine industries,” he said. “The region has lost a number of businesses in recent years, but this infrastructure will help keep jobs, skills and economic value in the region.”

Port Nelson is the largest fishing port in Australasia and hosts some of New Zealand’s largest fisheries companies.

Port Nelson chief executive Matt McDonald said the facility would build resilience in the regional marine engineering sector, and create opportunities for growth across both commercial and recreational marine industries.

It was expected to add about $3.8m to Nelson-Tasman’s GDP each year.

In January, Jones announced [https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/585366/nelson-marina-upgrade-secures-13m-from-government a $12.89m loan from the Regional Infrastructure Fund to upgrade the neighbouring Nelson Marina].

That upgrade includes a 110-tonne vessel hoist and will see the capacity for marine maintenance expanded from 14 to 54 bays.

Larger vessels will be serviced at the Calwell facility at Port Nelson, while Nelson Marina will focus on smaller commercial and recreational craft.

A purpose-built marine service centre, with office, retail and workshop spaces, will also be built as part of the Nelson Marina upgrade, with work due to begin in May.

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

MIL OSI

MIL OSI

Source: Radio New Zealand

Labour says places like volunteer-run Kairos food rescue should be prioritised in the government’s fuel plan.

The government unveiled updates to its four-phase fuel plan last month, but has yet to explain how any rationing measures would be prioritised.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins said the government needed to explain how its plan would work as soon as possible.

“There will be, you know, things that they need to iron out; there will be mistakes in it; there will be anomalies. So the sooner they can let people know what’s going on, what their priorities are, the better.”

Labour had far less time to prepare for Covid-19, he said.

“Of course, right at the start, everybody thought that they were critical and needed to still be able to go to work. The government at the end of the day does have to make some decisions, and the sooner they start giving people clarity about that the better.

“They’ve had several months already, and … even in the worst case scenario, it’s another month before we’re potentially pressing go on some of that [fuel rationing], so they should be giving people that certainty now.”

He was speaking at Kairos food rescue in Christchurch – a volunteer-run organisation that keeps four tonnes of food waste out of landfill each day.

“One of the things we’re able to talk about is they want to be deemed an essential service. Should we end up in a fuel rationing situation, I fully support that – these organisations have to be able to keep functioning.”

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

Businesses in a South Auckland suburb say they are sick of 18-wheeler commercial trucks blocking their access paths, doing roadside repairs and leaving oil on the streets.

They often park on berms, blind corners and block driveways.

Janine Allen from local business Mfi Engineering said she has had a gutsful.

“They’re all the way along and they’re truck and trailers. They’re obviously cartage companies and they’re not having to pay for any fees for parking.

“We’ve taken so many photos of them doing work on their trucks, they’ll have vans there and they’re doing welding on the side of the road, they’re up on the footpath.”

Allen said during the day the roadsides are like open-air mechanic workshops.

When it rains, she said engine oil and coolant left on the road is flushed down into the gutters.

“We have a very high environmental threshold in our yard and yet, these guys are able to do that out on the road and put it down through into the waterways.

“We have to pay thousands of dollars, we get inspected, we have to do all this to keep on the right side of the law and these guys are out there on the roadside just dumping it.”

Down the road, Ron Salter from Salters Cartage Limited said the trucks parking on the roadside is a safety risk for his business.

“Because of our big units, our 60-tonne units, we can’t physically get out without jack-knifing the truck, because they park on both sides of the road and just block us in.”

Ron Salter said it’s been going on for at least five years and so far, his drivers have already had a few close calls.

“Because we cart petrol, diesel and oil, that’s what we’re frightened of someone hitting the side of our trucks, taking our valves out and causing a massive spill.

“We can’t control it; it will go straight into the Manukau Harbour and could end up by the airport.”

No enforcement of rules

Auckland Council brought in the Vehicle Use and Parking Bylaw in July last year to help manage the parking of vehicles if they’re causing obstruction, safety risks and damage to the environment.

But Gary Holmes from the Wiri Business Association said there’s no enforcement of rules by Auckland Transport.

Instead, the businesses association’s been self-funding patrols, and they’ve recorded 7000 heavy truck incidents.

Holmes said some trucks have been causing problems for seven to eight months, but they’re able to do it because of what he sees as shortcomings with the bylaw.

“The frustrating part is that they are technically parked legally.”

The business association outlined its concerns to Parliament’s regulation review committee last month.

“[We] argued the fact that there’s a gap in the legislation because it’s causing issues.”

Another issue is when the trucks park overnight, they often don’t have legally required red-rear-lights causing a crash hazard.

The fine is $255, but Holmes said tickets have only been issued because his patrols are reporting offending trucks to AT.

“Often there could be 15 to 20 trucks each night.”

Calls for amendments to bylaw

The Wiri Business Association’s submission to Parliament’s regulation review committee asks Auckland Transport and Auckland Council to pass mandatory restrictions.

They want amendments to the bylaw and to the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 so there’s stronger legislation that enforces parking and environmental rules in all industrial zones.

Auckland Transport told Checkpoint there has been an increase in the number of heavy trucks parked in Manurewa, Otara, Takanini, Manukau, Wiri, Papatoetoe and Papakura.

Since the bylaw came in last July, AT has issued 1572 fines for trucks parked without a rear facing light, including 281 fines in Wiri, where the business association is patrolling,

AT’s parking services manager John Strawbridge said it’s not an offence to park in an unrestricted road if a vehicle has a valid Certificate of Fitness and registration.

Fines are issued in cases where they’re illegally parked.

He said when AT acts on a complaint they find that in 90 percent of cases the truck has moved or is legally parked when officers arrive.

Strawbridge said that trucks aren’t allowed to do roadside repairs or work that damages the road, or creates an obstacle, nuisance, disruption or safety risk.

Meanwhile, the Minister of Transport has consulted on a set of proposals including one to clarify signage requirements in the rules for councils to enforce berm parking.

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

This story discusses suicide.

An unemployed scientist says she’s seen colleagues left homeless and suicidal because of job cuts.

A group of science organisations, the Save Science Coalition, said that government cuts since the 2023 election has led to the loss of about 700 roles and the withdrawal of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Andrea Bubendorfer lost her job as part of the ongoing disestablishment of Callaghan Innovation.

She told Nine to Noon it was hard watching highly skilled scientists lose their jobs and lower their standards.

“People take massive pay cuts, some as low as a third of what they were working on previously,” she said.

“I’ve seen people work, but it could be as little as two hours a week. I have seen people absolutely financially destitute – I know of someone who was down to their last dollar. I’ve seen people homeless, I’ve seen people suicidal.”

Bubendorfer said that scientists struggling to get work in New Zealand were finding jobs overseas.

“The hard part for me is seeing there are people who have these skills and who are wanting to work willing, able, [and] capable and are rejected over and over again, lowering their standards and still getting rejected.”

She said she knew a person who was down to their last dollar.

“They were able to leave the country only because they got an inheritance of a parent dying. When they used that money to relocate overseas they were able to get a job very quickly.

“This was a person, before he left, had not even been able to get a job stacking the shelves at Woolworths night fill. This is how hard people are trying.”

The Minister has been approached for comment.

The Save Science Coalition wants to see science funding increased to 2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), with at least 0.6 percent of that being for public science.

In its new report, Underfunding our Future, the group argues that New Zealand has in recent times spent around 1.4 percent on science and research while the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) benchmark was 3 percent.

Bubendorfer said New Zealand had a productivity problem and the money created from science was good for the entire country.

“If we look at how prosperous countries have succeeded, it is always through science and technology,” she said.

The Save Science Coalition is also calling for legislation to recognise the public good of scientific research as well as commercial returns.

“All of these things that we lose hurt us in some way… We might not be prepared in a disaster, or we might lose biodiversity,” Bubendorfer said.

“There’s manifold different ways that science contributes, but all of them are really important to society.”

Where to get help:

• Need to Talk? Free call or text 1737 any time to speak to a trained counsellor, for any reason
• Lifeline: 0800 543 354 or text HELP to 4357
• Suicide Crisis Helpline: 0508 828 865 / 0508 TAUTOKO. This is a service for people who may be thinking about suicide, or those who are concerned about family or friends
• Depression Helpline: 0800 111 757 or text 4202
• Samaritans: 0800 726 666
• Youthline: 0800 376 633 or text 234 or email talk@youthline.co.nz
• What’s Up: 0800 WHATSUP / 0800 9428 787. This is free counselling for 5 to 19-year-olds
• Asian Family Services: 0800 862 342 or text 832. Languages spoken: Mandarin, Cantonese, Korean, Vietnamese, Thai, Japanese, Hindi, and English.
• Rural Support Trust Helpline: 0800 787 254
• Healthline: 0800 611 116
• Rainbow Youth: (09) 376 4155
• OUTLine: 0800 688 5463
• Aoake te Rā bereaved by suicide service: or call 0800 000 053

If it is an emergency and you feel like you or someone else is at risk, call 111.

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: New Zealand Government

Health Minister Simeon Brown has today announced a new Chair and members for the Board of Health New Zealand, reinforcing its focus on delivering for patients.

Mark Darrow has been appointed Chair for a three-year term, commencing 1 May 2026.

“Mr Darrow is an experienced board chair and director with a strong track record across both the private and public sectors, including health. He brings expertise in finance, audit, risk, and assurance, which will be critical to driving performance and accountability,” Mr Brown says.

Michael Schubert and Dr Bryan Betty have also been appointed to the Board.

“Mr Schubert is a professional director experienced in supporting organisations with financial stewardship, audit and risk, and organisational change. He has governance experience in complex, highly regulated environments, including in health. 

“Dr Betty is a specialist general practitioner who is well-respected as a sector leader and who has considerable governance experience. He will bring additional clinical and health system expertise to the Board, particularly in relation to primary care, which is a key priority for the Government.”

Mr Brown says the Government is focused on building a health system that puts patients at its centre, and tangible improvements are being delivered.

“Since its re-establishment on 1 July, the Board has made strong progress in reducing waiting lists, improving health outcomes, and strengthening financial discipline. This underlines the importance of strong governance, particularly in audit, risk and accountability. 

“As we look ahead, the Board will play a key role in supporting the transition to a nationally planned, locally and regionally delivered health system. From 1 July, this will shift decision-making closer to patients, communities and frontline services, helping ensure care is more responsive to local needs.

“I want to acknowledge the contribution of outgoing Chair Professor Lester Levy, who will finish his term as Chair of the Board at the end of this month. Through his leadership, first as Commissioner and then as Chair, Health New Zealand strengthened its financial performance and made meaningful progress against the Government’s health targets. 

“Professor Levy’s deep health system and digital expertise will continue to be valuable to Health New Zealand, and he has generously agreed to offer his support during the transition.

“I would also like to acknowledge Roger Jarrold, who will finish his term on the Board at the end of July. He has made a significant contribution during his time as Deputy Commissioner and Board member, and his extensive financial expertise has helped instil greater discipline, sharpen performance, and strengthen accountability across Health New Zealand during a critical period of reform.

“I expect the Board to maintain its focus on strong governance and accountability, ensuring Health New Zealand operates efficiently, transparently, and with patients at the centre.

“Our Government is committed to rebuilding a healthcare system that works for New Zealanders, and these appointments put us in a strong position to continue delivering on that.” 

MIL OSI