Prime Minister Christopher Luxon tight-lipped amid speculation of foreign buyers ban change
Luxon on Wednesday said there were 'ongoing conversations' and confirmed to the Herald that he was also working to make an announcement this year.
He would not detail what threshold he would like set, but has previously suggested about $5 million, which would be an increase from National's 2023 policy of allowing foreigners to buy houses worth $2m and more and taxing that sale at 15%.
'We've got ongoing conversations as we work together in our coalition in the way that we do, and when we're ready to talk about it, we will,' Luxon said.
'When we come out with an answer, you will hear about it and we'll be very clear about it all. But for right here, right now, we've got ongoing conversations.'
He said Peters' comments were a 'fair reflection of where things are at'.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon was tight-lipped on Wednesday about policy to allow foreign investors to purchase residential property here. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Peters on Wednesday afternoon said the 'Foreign Buyers Act is not changing'. The legislation amended in 2018 to classify residential houses as sensitive, and therefore not open to purchase from overseas people, is the Overseas Investment Act.
NZ First said the rules would change for investors bringing millions to New Zealand's economy.
'They're investors, they're not buyers. You're not going to get a house key just by walking into the country in the way that other parties believed,' Peters said.
'If you're investing millions of dollars, seriously, we look at you having the right to back it up with the buying of a house in New Zealand at a certain cost. That cost is not $2m.'
NZ First kiboshed National's foreign buyer's tax during the 2023 coalition negotiations and Peters repeated on Wednesday that it was 'fiscally never going to work'.
The National-NZ First coalition agreement makes reference to the ban when it says: 'Tax relief will be progressed as set out in National's Tax Plan, but will not include a repeal of the foreign buyer's residential property ban, with income tax reductions coming into force from July 1, 2024.'
NZ First leader Winston Peters says the rules will change for investors bringing millions to New Zealand's economy. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Seymour told the Herald that if NZ First changed its historical position, 'there wouldn't be any complaints from me'.
'I'd be there with bells on, because I think allowing our friends around the world to come to our country, bring their money, and live here is generally – and there are exceptions – but generally, a win-win for New Zealand.'
In an interview with the Herald this week, Peters denied his party was 'softening' its approach.
'The idea that for $2m you could come into this country and get a key and that's your investment was a nonsense,' Peters told the Herald.
'We said so before the election. We also debunked the costings for it, and were joined not long after that by economists who said that New Zealand First was right.
'We're saying if you're coming here with millions of dollars to invest in this country, then yes, you could buy a house, and we're setting the terms for that.'
Jamie Ensor is a political reporter in the NZ Herald press gallery team based at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub press gallery office. In 2025, he was a finalist for Political Journalist of the Year at the Voyager Media Awards.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
2 hours ago
- Newsroom
Who Benefits: The power of the farm lobby, part one
Who Benefits is a year-long project tracking and disclosing lobbying and influence, starting with the agriculture sector. The project is supported financially by a grant from The Integrity Institute. Newsroom has developed the subject areas, will be led by what we uncover and retains full editorial control. If you know where influence is being brought to bear, email us in confidence at: trublenzOIA@ Part two of Who Benefits, published on Friday, zeroes in on the freshwater policy under fire from the agricultural lobby: Te Mana o Te Wai. When Christopher Luxon wanted to declare an end to Labour's 'war on farming' he joined lobby group Federated Farmers on a three-stop tour. 'There is nothing more important to New Zealand than the rural sector,' the Prime Minister told the 800-strong crowd at Mystery Creek, in Waikato, last November, flanked on stage by huge 'Restoring Farmer Confidence' signs. A story in Farmers Weekly – written by Federated Farmers itself – carried comments from Te Aroha dairy farmer Carla De Wet. 'It's pretty impressive to find out the Government has already achieved nine of the 12 things Federated Farmers asked for before the election.' De Wet added: 'I think it's bloody awesome to have ticked off so many things in such a short period of time. That just goes to show how influential that farming voice really is.' (In a circular moment, the lobby group's 2023 election policy document was called 'Restoring Farmer Confidence'.) It was Federated Farmers president Wayne Langford who said the 'nine out of 12' line at Mystery Creek. Luxon thought it was so good, though, he repeated it the next day on The Country radio show. 'The other three are still in motion,' the Prime Minister said. Radio show host Jamie Mackay asked if the Federated Farmers-organised tour – to Waikato, Canterbury and Southland – was like preaching to the choir. (For some, it would have confirmed the old adage Federated Farmers is the National Party in gumboots.) Luxon, the National Party leader, said he wanted farmers to know the Government backed them and would work with them. 'That's how it should be. You should have government and industry as adult-to-adult partners working together on the challenges but also the huge opportunities we've got.' The question is, though, where do politicians draw the line? Political parties are elected on a mandate but discrete partnerships can benefit some groups over others. They can even override the broader public interest. Close relationships also raise questions over influence by vested interests, access to power, and, crucially, who benefits. 'Too complex, too expensive' One of Federated Farmers' 12 policy pre-election demands was 'fix our unworkable freshwater rules'. In May this year, the Government proposed an overhaul of freshwater management which has provoked fierce criticism from environmental groups, Māori and others. (Submissions on the proposals close on Sunday.) Agriculture Minister Todd McClay, of National, said the Government wanted to 'restore balance' in freshwater policy, while Act's Andrew Hoggard – the associate environment minister and a former president of Federated Farmers – said existing rules were too complex, too expensive and often ignored 'practical realities'. Absent from the press statement was Environment Minister Penny Simmonds. The economy was front and centre. Agriculture Minister Todd McClay, left, with the Prime Minister at Fieldays this year. Photo: Christopher Luxon/Facebook A discussion document covering the proposals opened with this line from Resource Management Act Reform Minister Chris Bishop: 'This Government is committed to enabling primary sector growth as a key driver of both the New Zealand export sector and prosperity in the wider economy.' The Government is in a hurry to increase economic activity. But there are concerns freshwater protections will be bulldozed to boost exports when many waterways already have poor quality, principally because of intensive farming. In many cases degraded rivers, streams and lakes are still deteriorating. Problems with groundwater can affect drinking water, as shown by problems experienced in Gore. (Strengthening drinking water protections in planning and law was done after the Havelock North campylobacteriosis outbreak that made thousands sick and led to four deaths.) If ministers opt for the more extreme options in the freshwater policy overhaul it may encourage more intensive farming, opponents say, and worsen pollution of waterways. Today's political leaders face the same conundrum their predecessors did over decades: If they don't act now, how much more costly will the clean-up be in 10, 20 or 30 years? Dairy giant Fonterra made an after-tax net profit of $1.17 billion in the 2024 financial year. Photo: David Williams The proposals weren't magicked out of thin air, of course. Ministries for the Environment and Primary Industries met selected groups between October last year and February to float ideas and gather feedback on changes to the national policy statement for freshwater management (NPS-FM) and associated environmental standards. Concern is now being raised about the structure and nature of that pre-consultation, and what emerged in the discussion document. Figures provided to public health researcher Marnie Prickett and Newsroom show agricultural groups were consulted in dedicated meetings more often, and for more hours, than local government, central government agencies, and environmental non-government organisations combined. 'I'm concerned at the amount of time that these agencies have spent with the agricultural sector, given that the agricultural sector is one of the biggest polluters of our freshwater resources,' says Prickett, a research fellow at the University of Otago, Wellington's department of public health – and a member of advocacy group Choose Clean Water. Consultation with the primary sector spanned 34.5 hours over 24 meetings, while 18 dedicated meetings were held with agencies, councils and environmental non-government organisations. Over the pre-consultation period there were also an estimated 12 regular inter-agency meetings – held fortnightly for 30 minutes – taking the total to 31 hours. (The most consulted sector in the target consultation was Iwi/Māori. More on that in part two.) There's also a skew in ministerial time. A diary search of key ministers for official meetings, video conferences, events, and functions (including in other portfolios) spanning this parliamentary term shows 98 meetings with Federated Farmers, Beef + Lamb, Dairy NZ, and eight with environmental groups EDS, Forest & Bird and Greenpeace. Obviously, that list excludes ministerial meetings with other groups such as the Meat Industry Association, Dairy Companies Association of NZ, Horticulture NZ, Irrigation NZ, and Fish & Game. Prickett says agricultural groups have a commercial interest in limiting regulation. 'I'm concerned that that means the Government is not operating in the public interest but rather prioritising polluting commercial interests.' The country can have productive agriculture, she says, but within environmental limits. Prickett is concerned that diluting freshwater protections would lead to dramatically more degradation, and make it harder to reverse existing problems. Removing these protections would, she says, be similar to decisions favouring the tobacco industry over the public interest. 'The issue is imbalance' Marie Doole, a researcher of environmental strategy and regulation, says lobbying is an important part of democracy, and regulated parties should be consulted on changes affecting them. 'Here, though, the issue is the imbalance,' she says. 'One of the red flags of excessive influence [is] targeted engagement focused mainly on vested interests.' About the time the targeted freshwater consultation started, Victoria University of Wellington's Policy Quarterly magazine published an article 'Navigating murky waters – characterising capture in environmental regulatory systems'. Doole was its lead author. She tells Newsroom skewed consultations favour parties with greater resources and deeper pockets as they're the most invested in moulding a favourable regulatory environment. Christopher Luxon on the 'Restoring Farmer Confidence Tour' with Federated Farmers in the Waikato. Photo: Christopher Luxon/Facebook 'Government's job is to moderate influence, and they do that by fair and balanced consultation and engagement. If they're not doing it, they're not doing the job.' Environmental Defence Society attended pre-consultation meetings with the environment ministry. Chief executive Gary Taylor defends officials, saying they did a good job 'subject to the directions that they've received from ministers'. He identifies various issues – such as who sets environmental limits, 'simplifying' wetlands and fish passage provisions, 'enabling' commercial vegetable growing – that, in his opinion, shouldn't have made the final cut. 'It's fair to say the Government does seem to be unduly influenced overall by the agricultural sector,' Taylor says. 'This Government is a farmers' government, and they are in there all the time. They're in there with Hoggard, they're in there with Bishop, and in spite of several requests, we're halfway through the term and we've yet to have a dedicated meeting with Bishop, who's driving all this. 'On the basis of my experience with successive governments over many years, that's an extraordinary failing, and a deeply troubling asymmetry of influence.' In response to a Newsroom request under the Official Information Act, Jane Chirnside, the Ministry for Primary Industries' director of resources and rural communities, says the agency led targeted engagement with the primary sector over proposed changes to the national policy statement. 'We met with individuals in their capacity as farmers and/or members of local catchment groups, to understand at a practical level the impact that the NPS-FM has at farm and catchment scale. 'We used existing MPI networks to identify participants and tried to get representatives across regions and farm types, who had an interest in freshwater management, or were involved in catchment groups.' Ministers intervened to add options Prickett, of University of Otago, says a straight line can be drawn between what agricultural groups have asked for and what's in the public discussion document. A November 14 letter to ministers McClay, Hoggard, and Simmonds, written by Federated Farmers vice president and freshwater spokesperson Colin Hurst, said national bottom lines for water quality were, in some areas, 'unachievable', because of, for example, climate change, naturally occurring processes, population growth, land use, and legacy effects. 'Our recommendation is that national direction focus on what outcomes regional councils should seek to achieve, but that targets and timeframes are set at the catchment level, by regional councils, based on the social, economic, environmental and cultural needs of the local community.' In March, after targeted consultation had finished, ministers Bishop, McClay, and Hoggard stepped in to ensure local decision-making would appear in the discussion document. The intervention was recorded in an interim Regulatory Impact Statement – in which officials assess the effects of policy changes. Associate Environment Minister and former president of Federated Farmers Andrew Hoggard says existing rules are too complex, too expensive and often ignore 'practical realities'. Photo: Supplied The additional option was councils should be given flexibility to deviate from national bottom lines when achieving them 'has a high social, cultural or economic cost'. An interim Regulatory Impact Statement (there were several) said giving councils this flexibility 'will address key concerns, including those raised in the Beef + Lamb NZ report about natural variation, and the need to vary by region'. (Prickett, the public health researcher, says talk of local decision-making is, to her, shorthand for decisions made or influenced by polluting commercial interests.) At the March 4 meeting, officials were also directed to add other options to the discussion document: removing Te Mana o Te Wai (a decision-making hierarchy putting the health of water and ecosystems first), or considering a name change; and scrapping the 190kg per hectare cap on synthetic nitrogen fertiliser. Hurst's letter from November told ministers there should be 'no hierarchy of obligations' – a direct assault on Te Mana o te Wai – and asked for a refreshed NPS to balance environmental values with cultural, social and economic purposes. The South Island's biggest irrigation company, Central Plains Water, writing on December 2, three days after its consultation meeting, said many of the problems arising from the national policy statement stemmed from 'how Te Mana o te Wai is framed'. The hierarchy needs 'replacing in its entirety'. The company supported locals deciding if water quality and quantity should be maintained or improved, with the caveat: 'It is based on clear direction set in a NPS'. Directions on nutrient management 'do not need further strengthening', the company said. However, officials noted there would also be an increased risk of 'debate and litigation'. Another passage of the regulatory impact statement quoted a Beef + Lamb report. 'There is also concern from the primary sector that it is not possible to meet water quality bottom lines within the timeframes anticipated to be set, and 'trying to meet them will decimate farming and rural communities'.' (Doole, the independent researcher, says an explosion in catchment groups and community volunteering over the past 10 years suggests people in rural and urban environments are far more aware of their environmental impact. She struggles to reconcile that awareness with ardent advocacy to deregulate with farmers, and a 'weird binary of farmers versus environmentalists' which just feels 'exhausting and boring'.) Freshwater ecologist Mike Joy gave expert opinion evidence in the Ngāi Tahu trial on the extent to which freshwater in the takiwā is degraded, and the causes. Photo: Supplied Freshwater ecologist Mike Joy, a senior research fellow at Victoria University of Wellington's school of geography, environment and earth sciences, shared his submission to the consultation with Newsroom. The submission said councils already had flexibility to deviate from bottom lines – something noted on the environment ministry's website. Joy added there was already an 'out-clause' for waterways affected by naturally occurring processes. There was, he wrote, no justification for not applying national bottom lines. Attempts to weaken freshwater regulation were being disguised, Joy said, by using words and phrases such as 'rebalancing', 'providing flexibility' and 'simplifying'. 'There is, however, no recognition of the fact that water quality has been declining for many decades, thus the regulations they are wanting to weaken are already not strong enough.' A 2020 state of the environment report said more than 90 percent of rivers in urban, pastoral, and exotic forest areas have water quality below recommended guidelines, 76 percent of native fish were threatened with, or at risk of, extinction, and 90 percent of wetlands had been drained. Prickett, the University of Otago researcher, says rebalancing Te Mana o Te Wai would continue the primacy of polluting commercial interests over freshwater policy, which has been happening for decades and has led to declines of water quality and quantity. This degradation, she says, suggests freshwater protections have never been good enough. This despite numerous surveys showing high public concern over freshwater – that they want to be able to swim and fish in rivers and lakes, and drink high-quality water from their taps. National direction policy flood The freshwater overhaul that landed in May was part of a torrent of consultation over national direction unleashed by the coalition Government. Changes are proposed to 12 existing instruments and four new ones, with a focus on freshwater, infrastructure and development, and the primary sector. Environmental lobby group Greenpeace Aotearoa accused the Government of stripping freshwater protections to bolster corporate profits, while Federated Farmers suggested the Government had to pause freshwater rules. What are farmer groups saying now, particularly about their influence on political parties, and accusations of undue influence over that of the public interest? Hurst, of Federated Farmers, says it's 'entirely appropriate' for the Government to engage regularly with farmers and the wider primary sector, 'particularly when you consider the potential impact and cost of these rules'. Farming rules should be practical, affordable and fair, he says. 'We also want to make sure any regulation will actually be effective and achieve better environmental outcomes. 'It's important we get these rules right, particularly when you consider the huge economic contribution of agriculture for the country.' DairyNZ's David Burger, the general manager of farm solutions and policy, says it engages constructively with the government of the day on matters affecting dairy farmers 'and appreciates that other groups do the same'. Kate Acland, the chair of Beef + Lamb NZ, says farming impacts on freshwater need to be managed but there were significant issues 'and massive implications' under the previous government's approach. 'It's critical that ministers and officials first understand the issues, but also critical that they spend time with the sector to ensure rules are practical and workable.' Acland notes anyone can make a submission on the consultation, which will go through parliamentary processes, including a select committee. Ministers respond Newsroom asks ministers McClay, Hoggard, Bishop, Simmonds, and Associate Agriculture Minister Nicola Grigg for comment. Bishop responds, but he's silent on ministerial meetings and the influence of agriculture. We'll quote his comments in full – the reason for which will soon be apparent. 'The current public consultation on freshwater national direction, which runs for eight weeks closing on 27 July, has been shaped by feedback received from a wide range of groups during the targeted engagement phase.' (Prickett points out this selected group didn't include non-polluting commercial interests like the tourism industry.) Bishop continues: 'During targeted engagement, some groups sought to discuss specific matters of interest or asked to continue discussions at additional meetings. 'Officials from the Ministry for the Environment accommodated these requests wherever possible, and the number and duration of meetings varied as a result. 'All submissions received during the public consultation period will be considered, along with feedback from the ongoing engagement, before progressing any freshwater national direction changes. 'Note that there will also be a second phase of public submissions later this year, when exposure drafts will be released for further consultation.' (Exposure drafts are the raw wording of legislation, released to identify potential problems before it's introduced to Parliament. This seems like a concession by the Government to environmental groups.) A day after Bishop's comments were sent, the Ministry for the Environment provided Newsroom with this statement, attributed to Nik Andic, the manager of freshwater natural environment policy: 'The current public consultation on freshwater national direction, which runs for 8 weeks and closes on 27 July, has been shaped by the feedback we received from a wide range of groups during targeted engagement. 'During targeted engagement, some groups sought to discuss specific matters of interest or asked to continue discussions at additional meetings. Officials from the Ministry for the Environment accommodated these requests wherever possible, and the number and duration of meetings varied as a result. 'We will consider all submissions received during the public consultation period, along with feedback from ongoing engagement, before providing advice to ministers on any freshwater national direction changes. 'Note that there will also be a second phase of public consultation on freshwater national direction changes later this year, when exposure drafts are released.' Farming groups' influence on Government policy might be a concern but at least the public can be assured the minister and ministry are singing from the same hymn sheet.
The Spinoff
2 hours ago
- The Spinoff
(Almost) everything our governments have inherited since 2005
It's a go-to line for governments of all stripes, a handy way to put the blame for any less-than-ideal state of affairs firmly on the previous administration. Here's a stocktake of (almost) everything every New Zealand government since 2005 has claimed to have inherited. The word 'inherited' gets thrown around a lot in parliament. There are inherited 'messes', 'dire' situations, years of 'neglect' and a whole lot of 'crises' across essentially every major portfolio – and very rarely is anything the government claims to have inherited a good thing. A search of government press releases since 2005 reveals National-led governments have more often pointed to 'inherited' situations than Labour-led ones, with former National MP and health minister Tony Ryall the biggest culprit. Health is easily the most complained about sector when it comes to issues bequeathed by governments' predecessors, followed by the economy, housing and education. While governments in their first term are more likely to highlight 'inherited' issues, governments in their second and even third term are not immune to the phenomenon. While it can be a pretty annoying phrase to hear if you'd just like someone to own up to something, it's not hard to see where they're coming from – the bigger the mess you've been left, the harder it is to clean up. I may be a decent reporter, for example, yet I have inherited an industry on fire. But enough of that. Here's almost everything the government has inherited in the last 20 years, according to Beehive press releases. Economy 'A country with its bank account run down and its credit card maxed out' – Nicola Willis (National), May 27, 2025 'A long period of economic decline' – Simeon Brown (National), March 26, 2025 A 'recession' – David Seymour (Act), February 14, 2025 and Christopher Luxon (National) May 15, 2024. Also Bill English (National), January 14, July 24, August 12 and October 18, 2009, April 27, 2012 and May 2 and 21, 2015; Simon Bridges (National), August 27, 2014; Gerry Brownlee (National), November 19, 2009 and July 19, 2014; and John Key (National), February 9, 2011. 'Structural deficit and a challenging set of circumstances' – Willis, May 9 and October 15, 2024 A 'dire fiscal situation' – Seymour, May 30, 2024 'High cost of living' – Louise Upston (National), March 28, 2024 'An unhappy mix of high inflation, high interest rates, a contracting economy, and rising unemployment' – Willis, February 15, 2024 A GDP that was looking bad but then the government changed it – Grant Robertson (Labour), March 8, 9, 12 and 17, 2020 'A stable economy but a country that had major challenges' – Jacinda Ardern (Labour), November 21, 2019 An economy 'based on excessive property speculation and high rates of immigration driving consumption-led growth' – David Parker (Labour), July 2, 2019 The 'laissez-faire neglect that nine years of a National government produced' – Winston Peters (NZ First), May 31, 2019 An 'inadequate status quo' from the 'English/Key governments' – Peters, May 8, 2018 An ACC scheme 'that had a $4.8bn hole' – Nikki Kaye (National), October 28, 2011 and April 2, May 12, September 22 and October 22, 2015 'An economy that was already in trouble' – Anne Tolley (National), September 30, 2009 A 'billion-dollar blowout' in ACC – Nick Smith (National), August 7, 2009 'Growing debt' – English, May 29, 2009 The 'regulatory wasteland that was the financial sector' in 1999 – Lianne Dalziel (Labour), September 25, 2008 The 'national embarrassment' of 'social breakdown, rising poverty, and growing inequality' – Michael Cullen (Labour), May 7, 2008 A 'legacy of poverty' – Steve Maharey (Labour), February 16, 2007 'An economy reaping the efficiency gains of the earlier structural adjustments' – Cullen, November 1, 2006 'An economic and social landscape that was very different to the one we have today' – David Benson-Pope (Labour), September 18, 2006 A 'regulatory regime that was failing to deliver on its promises of competitive prices and sensible investment decisions' – Cullen, August 17, 2006 Education 'A school property system bordering on a crisis' – Erica Stanford (National), February 26, 2024 and July 18, 2025 'A struggling system with a pipeline of underfunded school upgrades that were over scoped and couldn't be delivered' – Stanford, October 4, 2024 A 'significant teacher shortage' – Jan Tinetti (Labour), March 18 and 25, 2021, and Ardern, November 4, 2018 The long-term challenge of 'getting more young people to take up trades and work skills training' – Chris Hipkins (Labour), October 23, 2019 A 'decade of neglect' in funding classrooms – Ardern, July 5, 2019 'Low morale' among teachers – Hipkins, February 2, 2018 A 'world-class university system that is consistently high quality' – Paul Goldsmith (National), July 27, 2017 A 'school property portfolio with an average age of 40 years' with 'leaky buildings' and 'poor maintenance' – Kaye, July 16, 2016, and April 6 and May 26, 2017 An 'expensive and bloated system with serious deficiencies' – Steven Joyce (National), March 5, 2014 A sector that had 'seen lots of cuts and a bit of tinkering', yet 'no focus on how we move our system' – Hekia Parata (National), November 29 and December 9, 2013 Health 'A health system in a state of turmoil' – Simeon Brown (National), March 7, 2025 'A health system facing a significant number of challenges following major reform' – Shane Reti (National), March 7, 2024 'A neglected and underfunded mental health system' and 'seriously aging mental health facilities not fit for purpose' – Ayesha Verrall (Labour), May 25 and August 21, 2023 A 'mess' – Andrew Little (Labour), May 20 and October 26, 2022, and Tony Ryall (National), December 16, 2008 and June 30, 2011 Systems and services 'under serious pressure from years of neglect and underinvestment' – Peeni Henare (Labour), September 1, 2022, and Little, June 14, 2022 An 'underfunded and narrowly targeted' healthy homes initiative – Verrall, October 3, 2022 Poor record keeping – Little, August 24, 2022 A 'major catch-up job' – Little, May 20, 2021 'Underinvestment in core hospital facilities' – David Clark (Labour), January 29, 2020 'A health and disability system that had been woefully underfunded and neglected' – David Clark, October 29, 2019 The 'long-term challenge' of underpaid hospital staff – David Clark, October 6 and 8, 2019 'Earthquake-prone hospitals, asbestos, leaky roofs and buildings that have simply come to the end of their useful life' – Robertson, May 30, 2019 A 'catalogue of building issues at hospitals around the country' – David Clark, April 30, 2019 DHB deficits – David Clark, August 1, 2018, and Ryall, June 15 and 28, September 8 and November 18, 2009 and November 19, 2010 'Long-standing drinking water issues' and 'nine years of neglect' on drinking water standards – David Clark, July 5, 2018 A 'decade of deficits' and 'failing status quo' – Ryall, June 22 and October 25, 2013 and April 1, 2014 The 'workforce problem' and 'crisis' and 'shortages' – Ryall, February 27, March 31, October 16 and 19 and December 4, 2009, March 13, April 10 and June 12, 2010, June 11, 2011 and April 18, 2013, and Coleman, October 15, 2009 Lessening influence from clinicians on patient outcomes – Ryall, August 3 and 8, September 16 and 18 and October 24, 2009 and December 7, 2012 A system 'bloated with targets, priorities, objectives, indicators and measures', some of which were 'well-meaning but unrealistic' – Ryall, September 27, 2011 A 'system on track to financial crisis' – Coleman, May 21, 2011, and Ryall, October 20, 2010 'A lot of problems here in Dunedin' but specifically the hospital which had been 'neglected for many years' – Ryall, June 4, 2010 'Mounting public concern about poor care in rest homes' – Ryall, June 3, 2010 A public health system not equipped to deal with 'significant financial and clinical challenges' – Ryall, October 22 and 24 and November 5, 2009 'Disjointed and uncoordinated resources' – Ryall, August 7, 2009 A system 'overburdened' with too many targets – Ryall, May 8, 2009 Delays in waiting lists – Ryall, December 22, 2008, January 30 and February 26, 2009 'High costs' in primary care – David Cunliffe (Labour), September 12, 2008 'Gutted health system' – Pete Hodgson (Labour), July 2, 2007 A system that 'favoured Americanisation' – Hodgson, July 22, 2006 Housing 'A complicated legal landscape' – Chris Bishop, National, June 18, 2025 'A huge emergency housing problem which grew from a few families using it for short periods of time into a situation where three thousand families are living in motels for months at a time' – Bishop, March 6, 2024 'Crisis' – Megan Woods (Labour), September 30, 2020, May 13, June 14, August 5, September 28, October 19, 2021, April 28, May 19, July 19, August 12 and November 17, 2022, April 26 and 28, May 4 and 8, October 6, 2023, as well as David Parker, October 16, 2019, October 19, 2021, and Kris Faafoi (Labour), November 17, 2019, February 17 and August 5, 2020, and Ardern, February 12 and October 15, 2019 'The intergenerational taonga of public housing' – Woods, May 24, 2023 'Issues' – Woods, October 23, 2019 'Neglected infrastructure, including rundown hospitals, roads that had been announced but not paid for, overcrowded classrooms and a state housing shortage' – Robertson, May 20, 2021 and November 20 and December 11, 2019 'Poor-quality' state homes – Key, June 29, 2013 'Disintegrating social housing' – Phil Heatley (National), August 5, 2010 'Depleted' state housing stock – Maryan Street (Labour), July 23, 2008 A state housing 'mess' – Chris Carter (Labour), May 12, 2007 Immigration Under the header 'WHAT I INHERITED': 'An immigration system that was clearly under incredible pressure' – Stanford, August 16, 2024 Under the header 'Immigration under the previous government': the 'very poor state' of the sector – Coleman, May 7, 2011 A single immigration fraud officer despite National's nine years in power – Cunliffe, July 28, October 12 and 17, 2007 Infrastructure A 'dire state of government books' (in reference to the need to access private capital to fund infrastructure) – Simon Court (Act), August 29, 2024 A 'real mess' and 'big series of challenges' – Bishop, March 21 and June 14, 2024 A 'deficit' – Michael Wood (Labour), June 1, 2022, Robertson, May 19, 2022, Phil Twyford (Labour), September 17, 2020 and Cullen, August 13, 2008 'Years of underinvestment' – Robertson, October 9, 2019 A 'glaring deficit in infrastructure planning, management and funding' – Shane Jones (NZ First), August 1, 2019 Social development A 'tough labour market' – Louise Upston (National), January 23, 2025 'Welfare dependency' and the welfare system at large – Upston, February 22 and April 30, 2024 A 'homelessness crisis' – Marama Davidson (Greens), March 26, 2021, and Ardern, February 13, 2020 'A welfare state that showed no sign of diminishing despite having enjoyed a decade of favourable economic conditions and strong employment' – Paula Bennett (National), March 31, 2010 A 'deeply fractured' society where 'many had little hope of success' – Maharey, May 18, 2007 A 'bitter, divided, inward-looking country' – Cullen, May 6, 2007 Transport A 'significant backlog of road maintenance across the country' – Brown, June 6, July 19 and October 4, 2024 'A transport system in need of investment, without the appropriate funding tools to pay for it' – Brown, August 29, 2024 'Road maintenance crisis' – Parker, July 16, August 17, 2023 'Messes' from Transmission Gully – Wood, April 20, 2021 An Auckland Transport Alignment Project plan with a '$9.7bn funding gap' – Robertson, June 28, 2018 A 'widening gap between what needs to be spent, for instance, on public transport and roads, and what has been set aside by the previous government' – Ardern, November 8, 2017 The cost of upgrading KiwiRail – Ryall, June 28, 2012 A 'huge infrastructure deficit' – Helen Clark, May 16, 2009 A final word 'I try not to go on too much about the mess [former energy minister] Max Bradford created. It's my job to fix it up, not complain about what this government inherited' – Hodgson, June 21, 2002
NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Govt forces Sport NZ to ditch transgender guidelines as NZ First threatens funding cut
In 2023 coalition negotiations, National and NZ First agreed to ensure publicly funded sporting bodies supported fairness that wasn't compromised by gender-based rules. Sport NZ chief executive Raelene Castle released a statement this morning. Photo / Photosport Last year, former Sports Minister Chris Bishop asked Sport NZ to review the guidelines. It's understood Sport NZ completed the review recently and offered new draft guidelines for current Sports Minister Mark Mitchell to assess. In a letter to Sport NZ on Tuesday, Mitchell said the policy in the coalition agreement meant Sport NZ should 'no longer have guiding principles published and should leave that decision-making and judgment up to individual sports and community organisations'. 'The Government has a role in making sport accessible to all New Zealanders by creating opportunities, not in providing principles as to who should be included and how,' he said. In her statement, Castle said the guiding principles had been removed from Sport NZ's website and advised sporting organisations to 'make their own decisions on the participation of transgender people in community sport'. Castle declined to be interviewed. In April last year, Sport NZ reported to the Government it had no evidence of a code-specific policy position or set of rules that prohibited fair competition. However, anecdotal reports and specific cases had prompted public debate, such as weightlifter Laurel Hubbard and mountain biker Kate Weatherly, who had both competed against women. NZ First leader Winston Peters wants to see fairness prioritised in community sport. Photo / Mark Mitchell Speaking to the Herald, Peters referenced both examples as he explained his party opposed inclusion being prioritised over fairness in sport. 'We faced all sorts of woke nonsense about how we couldn't do this and it was unfair,' he said. 'The very point that we're pushing is fairness.' Peters then claimed he would seek to pull funding from codes that didn't comply. 'We're saying to the sports out there, 'Well, if you want to ignore it, don't expect public or taxpayer funding'.' He affirmed his intention to cut all public funding for any sporting codes that didn't align with the Government's position. Peters also claimed Mitchell agreed with his position. Peters' threat would likely turn heads at New Zealand Cricket, given it allowed trans women to compete in female competitions at a community level. New Zealand Rugby's head of community rugby participation, Mike Hester, said its policy was still being developed, but the organisation believed 'ideally allowing people to play in the gender with which they identify'. Netball NZ required transgender women to provide documentation proving gender reassignment and hormone therapy before allowing them to play. Umpires had the discretion to assess whether a player's actions aligned with safety expectations. Mark Mitchell is the Minister for Sport. Photo / Mark Mitchell While Peters might want to cut funding, the relevant legislation might stop him. The Sport and Recreation New Zealand Act 2002 said the minister – Mitchell – could not direct Sport NZ in relation to the allocation of funds. The Government retained the ability to change legislation and determine the level of funding Sport NZ received. In the event a sporting code didn't align with the Government's position, it's understood Mitchell could reiterate his expectations to Sport NZ. Adam Pearse is the deputy political editor and part of the NZ Herald's press gallery team based at Parliament in Wellington. He has worked for NZME since 2018, reporting for the Northern Advocate in Whangārei and the Herald in Auckland.
