Hailing from a Missouri oil family, he is deep in an Australian basketball fight and eager to work with NZ amid China’s ‘destabilising behaviour in the Pacific’.

Sixteen months after Donald Trump announced his nomination in a post on TruthSocial, Jared Novelly has been confirmed by the US Senate as the ambassador to New Zealand. A Republican donor and billionaire with interests spanning property, oil products and sports, Novelly is expected to take up the Wellington posting, which also covers Samoa, the Cook Islands and Niue, within the next two months.

According to a Forbes estimate, the Novelly family net worth in 2024 was $1.4bn (NZ $1.7bn), largely stemming from interests in the Missouri-based Apex Oil. Novelly, who holds degrees from St Louis University and the University of Technology, Sydney, has been largely based in Australia since 2022. In 2020, he took ownership of the Illawarra Hawks basketball team through his US company Crest Sports and Entertainment. The Hawks, alongside the Auckland-based New Zealand Breakers, play in the National Basketball League.

Last year, Novelly reportedly launched a bid to oust Larry Kestelman as owner of the league. The struggle between the two billionaires remains heated, and, according to a report last month in the Guardian, Novelly is “leading a group of aggrieved team owners against the NBL and the man who purchased the competition a decade ago”.

Speaking at the Senate hearing in March, Novelly said he was committed to the programme of the president and the secretary of state, pledging to “work tirelessly to advance President Trump and Senator [Marco] Rubio’s foreign policies”. He said: “In advancing the president’s agenda, we have few better partners than New Zealand. The government of New Zealand consistently supports our goals in the region and beyond. If confirmed, I will do everything in my power to take our relationship to new heights.”

The China challenge

Novelly told senators that his priorities included “expanding our defence partnership with New Zealand”, noting the febrile contest in the Pacific region between China and the US. He said: “Few countries understand the darkening security environment in the Pacific better than New Zealand. Last February, China conducted live-fire exercises in the Tasman Sea. I was in the region at the time, and it was very concerning. The exercises led to flight diversions and represented an example of alarming, even destabilising behaviour in the Pacific.”

Novelly was among a group of nominations confirmed last week by a senate vote. New ambassadors typically undergo training with State Department officials in Washington before taking up their posts. He will formally become ambassador on presenting his credentials to the New Zealand governor general, Dame Cindy Kiro.

Winston Peters, who has not previously met Novelly, welcomed his confirmation by the Senate. The foreign minister told The Spinoff via a spokesperson: “New Zealand has a strong and enduring relationship with the United States, and the minister looks forward to welcoming the ambassador to our country.”

An eye on critical minerals in the Pacific 

Novelly commended before the Senate Samoa’s response to external pressures, saying: “In recent years, the government in Apia has adopted a prudent approach to managing relations with the west and China, taking on foreign debt with caution. If confirmed, I would encourage the government in Samoa to continue this approach and ensure it is never pressured into a deal that would compromise its sovereignty.”

Of the Cook Islands, Novelly pointed to critical-mineral seabed mining interests, saying he was eager to “promote the responsible development of seabed mineral resources”, adding the the exclusive economic zone of the Cook Islands “contains possibly the largest cobalt deposits in the world, a key component in batteries and high-strength alloys. A strong partnership with the Cook Islands means a strong supply chain of critical minerals, and this is good for all parties.”

He later said: “I’m so impressed by the cultures in the Pacific Islands. Having spent quite a bit of time in the Pacific Islands, [it’s clear] the oceans are sacred to Pacific Islanders. So the fact that the Cook Islands believes that they can exploit this in a responsible method, I think, is the proper lens to look at it with, as opposed to any lens that we might have.”

Speaking at the confirmation hearings in support of Novelly, Republican senator Eric Schmitt said the role had heightened importance “as communist China seeks to assert itself as the dominant power in the Indo-Pacific”. He said: “As a Five Eyes intelligence partner,  New Zealand shares a special relationship with the United States based on common values, mutual trust and a shared understanding of our adversarial threats. The position of US ambassador to New Zealand carries enormous responsibility to safeguard, strengthen and advance America’s relationship with this important partner while shaping cooperation in ways that reinforce our broader regional posture.”

A long nomination 

Novelly saw his nomination by the White House at first withdrawn and then resubmitted, having at first omitted both the Cook Islands and Niue, with whom formal diplomatic relations had been restored in 2023. He will become the inaugural US ambassador to both Niue and the Cook Islands.

In his social media post in January 2025, Trump wrote that his new ambassador, a “highly respected philanthropist”, would “fight hard to protect our Nation’s interests in the Indo-Pacific, and always put AMERICA FIRST”.

In his first term, Trump appointed to New Zealand Scott Brown, who arrived on the back of stories reporting a colourful background including posing as a centrefold for Cosmopolitan magazine. His time as ambassador to New Zealand included allegations of inappropriate comments in Samoa, which he dismissed as “rumour and innuendo”, several electric guitar solos, and a sparky interview with Kim Hill. Brown is currently running in New Hampshire for a US Senate seat.

After the interrogation was over, one councillor was compelled to give his beleaguered North Shore counterpart a pick-me-up.

Desley Simpson looked a bit queasy. Auckland’s deputy mayor had just been asked to second mayor Wayne Brown’s plan to raise the city’s rates by 7.9% and she wasn’t keen to look in love with the idea. She’d spent the lead-up to the council’s budget day on Tuesday fretting about the effect of rates rise on Aucklanders, telling colleagues this was the most concerned she’d been over a budget. Privately, she was allegedly a little less cautious with her wording. Brown arrived at his impromptu NZ Music Month gig the week prior complaining Simpson had told him she was worried about Ōrākei constituents having to pull their kids out of private school. He added that Simpson had been told that if she voted against the budget, she’d no longer be deputy mayor.

So here she was, kindly being invited by budget committee chair Greg Sayers to sign her name to Brown’s proposal, which conveniently also meant Sayers wouldn’t have to do so himself. Simpson leaned back in her chair and, following a brief bout of nervous laughter, said “yes”. 

She needn’t have worried. The next six hours were a parade of humiliations for the budget’s opponents. They were led by North Shore councillor John Gillon, who put forward an amendment he claimed would lower rates rises from 7.9% to 5.9%. He started off with a bang, delivering a speech bemoaning the effect of Brown’s budget on homeowners and renters, while arguing it doesn’t deliver for his area. Brown has sold his plan as a 0% rates rise “plus a train set”, arguing almost the entire 7.9% rise was down to the cost of running the soon-to-open City Rail Link. “While I acknowledge that the CRL will be well-utilised and will be of benefit to parts of Auckland, for many of my constituents on the North Shore, it is not relevant,” Gillon said. 

He went on to propose 11 potential cuts and savings to lower the proposed rates. But his speech was followed by a question-and-answer session that several of his more progressive colleagues used as an opportunity to subject his proposals to a thorough vivisection. By the time it was over, many of the suggestions were little more than gooey remains on the council table. 

The backbone of Gillon’s plan was a move to delay the council’s efforts to fully fund its depreciation. It would potentially save millions of dollars. But Gillon’s North Shore colleague Richard Hills noted the council’s Moody’s credit rating was already on watch, partly thanks to the government’s rates capping announcement. Couldn’t Gillon’s proposal trigger a downgrade? “That could put our credit rating at risk,” answered the council’s finance chief Ross Tucker. 

The general thrust was that in saving some money now, the council could end up costing ratepayers more for years to come. Gillon’s other proposals didn’t fare a lot better. He’d asked for advice on cancelling all regional and local grants for a year, potentially saving the council around $7 million. Whau councillor Sarah Paterson-Hamlin noted that those grants had gone to a host of worthy causes, including the Santa parade. Hills listed other events that relied on the council’s major events funding, including NZ Fashion Week, the Auckland Marathon, Pasifika, Auckland Writers Festival and the ASB Classic. “Do you understand that deferring the $7 million, that would mean that those events don’t happen?” he asked. “I assume that information will be included in the chief executive’s response to this amendment if it passes,” Gillon replied.

Waitākere’s Shane Henderson noted that Gillon had proposed setting up an independent taskforce to look into potential extra cost savings. He wondered whether that would double up on work already being done by the council’s value for money committee, which is led by the deputy mayor. Wouldn’t these new committee members also expect to be paid, potentially costing ratepayers? “I’m eagerly anticipating the chief executive’s advice on this,” Gillon said.

The Q&A continued for half-an-hour in that fashion, with the answer to nearly every question put to Gillon being deferred to a future report from council chief executive Phil Wilson. 

Albert-Eden-Puketāpapa councillor Julie Fairey was withering over the proposed amendment’s lack of detail, implying the council would be essentially failing in its legal duty to pass a budget. “This would be saying ‘we’re passing a budget today but we’re not passing all of the budget today’,” she said. 

The combined effect of the grilling was to make Gillon’s proposals look threadbare, poorly evidenced or redundant. Toward the end of the session, Manukau ward councillor Lotu Fuli asked how much money actually carrying out the cuts suggested would save the average ratepayer. The answer, as it turns out, was just over $80 a year or around $1.70 per week.

It was sufficiently brutal that in the debate that followed the Q&A, Manurewa-Papakura ward councillor Daniel Newman felt compelled to give his North Shore compatriot a pick-me-up. He accused his colleagues of carrying out an interrogation straight out of “Perry Mason”, which a Spinoff internet search has revealed was a 1957 American legal drama. “I thought as the interrogation continued, you did very well,” he told Gillon. “I think you got stronger and stronger.”

Not strong enough. By the time the debate rolled around, Simpson looked a lot less uncertain. She delivered a robust defence of the 7.9% rates increase, saying that while she wanted to see lower rates, she didn’t think what Gillon and his supporters were proposing was feasible. She derided deferring depreciation, while saying other ideas – like cutting travel and catering budgets and reducing staff numbers – were already under way.  “I like some of your suggestions, I really do,” she said. “In fact, I like them so much we’ve already started looking at them.”

After she spoke, the budget passed 14 votes to seven. It was a tough sell during a cost of living crisis. Backing Brown’s budget wasn’t easy for a lot of councillors, least of all right-leaning ones like Simpson and Sayers. But it sure got a lot easier after seeing the quality of the alternative.

The government was warned it would be premature to consider reform while a court case against emitters was under way.

This story was first published on RNZ

Justice officials advised the government not to intervene in a court case being taken against major emitters, offical documents show.

Despite that, the government announced it would amend climate laws to prevent companies from being sued over damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions, stopping a landmark case in its tracks.

Justice minister Paul Goldsmith told RNZ “officials provide us with a range of advice and potential outcomes, but it is for the elected Government to determine how it moves forward.”

When the government announced the change, Goldsmith said the government was clarifying climate change laws to provide businesses with certainty around their obligations.

“Ongoing litigation in the High Court, where an applicant has brought civil claims against six major businesses for their greenhouse gas emissions, is creating uncertainty in business confidence and investment that the government must address,” he said earlier this month.

Goldsmith said the law change would address the uncertainty in business confidence created by climate activist Mike Smith’s case against major corporate emitters.

Proactively released documents show ministers asked for advice on options to address the potential legal uncertainty created by climate litigation.

A briefing from June 2025 recommend the status quo, “allowing the common law to develop to better inform the quality of any future reform.”

“We recommend that no action be taken on the reform of the tort of public nuisance at this stage.

“In our view, it would be premature to consider policy reform while relevant court proceedings are still underway,” the briefing said.

“Once the decision is issued, the government will be in a better position to assess the facts and reasoning adopted by the courts, providing a more informed basis for any future consideration of reform.”

The briefing suggested if the government wants to proceed with reform, there were two legislative options: a statutory bar on claims relating to greenhouse gas emissions, or, a requirement that the attorney-general approve public nuisance claims.

A draft Cabinet paper from March 2026 acknowledged the introduction of a statutory bar could have the “longer-term, unintended effect of decreasing certainty in the law” – despite the government saying it was changing the law to address uncertainty caused by the Smith v Fonterra case.

By April this year, the status quo remained the Ministry of Justice’s preferred option, but the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) noted that wasn’t the option presented in the cabinet paper on the proposed legislation.

The preferred option was “immediate legislative change to impose a statutory bar on emissions-related tort claims.”

The RIS also concluded that the problem definition – the government’s concern about the impact of the ongoing litigation in Smith v Fonterra on business and investor confidence – is based on an assumption the case has a negative impact on that confidence.

“While acknowledging that some consultation has occurred with legal experts, the panel considers that a lack of any business perspective means that the underlying question of the impact on business confidence has not been adequately tested.”

“We have not identified any evidence that the ongoing court proceedings have had a measurable impact on business confidence.”

The RIS did however note a statutory bar would protect emitting businesses from tort liability, “providing greater legal certainty to GHC emitters.”

“This would reduce legal-risk planning costs and minimise expenses associated with defending litigation or compliance with potential court orders.”

The ministry also recommended the reforms be applied prospectively. The government instead applied them retrospectively, drawing criticism from the New Zealand Bar Association.

It comes following a parliamentary debate on the issue, called for by the Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick.

Following the release of the documents, Swarbrick told RNZ the government decision to cut off New Zealander’s right to hold major polluters accountable for their emissions gets “unhinged” with every new piece of information revealed.

“Despite Ministers arguing this was critical for business confidence, their official advice is clear that there was no clear business perspective available nor sought to come to such a conclusion.

“There were warnings this could lead to more litigation, not less, may not even cut costs, and was deeply dangerous in breaching the rule of law and applying retrospectively.”

This story was first published on rnz.co.nz

Nocturnalists are spirited members of Auckland’s nighttime scene, and in this series they take us on a tour of their favourite spots in the city after 5pm. Up next, longtime hospitality figure Poi Eruera.

Photos by Sophie Miya-Smith shot on location at The Civic and Tanuki’s Cave.

No one forgets Poi Eruera. As operations manager at Odettes Eatery and Hugo’s Bistro, the ebullient Poi can be found on any given day gliding around a busy restaurant, guiding diners through a menu and making them feel at ease. She’s worked in Auckland hospitality for decades and is a familiar face to diners and industry folk alike – in 2024 and 2025 she won Metro’s prestigious Best Restaurant Personality award. Her finely tuned skillset appears almost second nature, and in some ways it is. Poi grew up in Grey Lynn and went to Auckland Girls Grammar. “I was always in the city,” she says. Today, she still is. Working between Shortland Street and City Works Depot, and still living in Grey Lynn, Poi guides her clientele through her own establishments and beyond. People trust her judgement. And this week, she tells us where to go after dark.

OK, first things first. What’s the best thing on the menu at Hugo’s Bistro?

Hugo’s is pretty well known for steak frites, including the best Friday night deal in town – steak frites and a glass of red for $50. If I’m with my kid, there will always be steak frites on the table. She does a good job smashing a lot of it, but does have to share. Me and my partner Niccolò will try anything new that Hugo’s head chef Alex Llewellyn has on the menu… If I could only choose one dish to have for the rest of time it would be the market fish. But I’m cheating because that one always changes. Zingy tamarind glazes have featured lately, and lime leaf curry sauces. So good.

What about Odettes, any stand outs?

Our head chef Jonah Huang is really good at delicious vegan dishes. He’s also recently come up with an amazing buffet/mezze menu for events. He also does these fermented chillis that I love, and I can’t stop eating the short rib coconut curry.

You said you love going to a show at The Civic, why?

My primary school would often go on trips to matinees at The Civic. We’d see operas, ballets, all of that stuff. Now, I try to go to anything… the NZ International Film Festival, the ballet. The Civic feels like you should dress up, you know? I used to wear Mum’s coats from her Wellington days. We’d go with my sisters and my Mum and dress up and it’s fun. I’ve been to some great ballets there. But the most stand-out shows are the ones I missed, like Prince and Al Green.

If you’re going to The Civic what’s your itinerary for the evening?

It’s usually a quick snack first. Last time we went to Coco’s Cantina for a speedy pizza, and then Tanuki’s Cave after for a skewer, a sit down and a glass of cold Asahi… I like that you have to commit to going [to the Cave]. You can’t walk down there and then leave again, unless they’re full, because everyone can see you – in a non-scary way.

Who are some hospitality figures you appreciate?

Hugo from Ground Wine Bar is particularly great; very lovely, super keen and interested. But he won’t get carried away by the waffle. He’ll serve you first. Always Mo at Apero. I think he’s probably every hospo person’s favourite hospo person… he always has secret things that he’s ordered just for himself to try, and there’s always something that’s not written [on the menu] so you can feel a bit more special. He’s cheeky without being gossipy and he’s a consummate professional. My friend Emile, who co- owns part of Coco’s Cantina, is the funniest Australian and his food is awesome; you should always eat his specials. Sophie, who is the restaurant manager at Onslow, used to be the restaurant manager at Hugo’s. And another Sophie, who was the restaurant manager at Gilt, was my maternity cover here. [The Hugo’s team] will quite often go for dessert at Gilt after we finish up… The vibe is exactly what you want after work; you recognise people, you’re looked after. And they do a very yummy zabaglione with granita.

What about hospo people, where do you go for ‘afters’?

Everyone goes to Tanuki’s Cave or Ken’s Yakitori for afters. That’s the vibe. Because they’re open way later, you don’t have to commit to a full meal. We’ll pop down to Ken’s and be in and out in like, 45 minutes, after one beer, skewers and snacks… It’s good for a quick wind down, especially if we’ve had an event. Kemuri Hi-Fi, the listening bar in Commercial Bay, [hospo people] go there. The Night Car. And I’ve gone to Queens Rooftop. What I quite like about that is, again, you don’t know what you’re walking into. And I also really respect how they fully commit to having DJs that are really good… Depending what time you finish work, you can pop down to Gilt, or Ground or Caretaker too.

How can diners ensure they’re going to get a big-night-out experience? 

Tell [the restaurant] you just want to take it real slow – hopefully they’ll pick up on that, respect it and roll with it. Lots of booking systems also have questions like ‘is this a celebration?’ The more info you give there, the more you’ll get back. If the staff know it’s a birthday thing, they’re not going to rush you. But if it’s a five o’clock booking, it’s almost always a pre-show dinner.

Where’s the best place for people watching?

Probably somewhere old school, like Soul Bar, on a Friday night.

It’s such an institution.

Yes! And one of the things they do exceptionally well is look after people who are in a wheelchair, or anything like that. My partner’s aunt, who was in a wheelchair, would go often and they would never miss a beat; they would have the ramp ready, door open, an appropriate table. Anytime I went with her I was impressed with the foresight!

What other restaurants are good with accessibility?

At Odettes we try to be. We will take a booking at any time, no matter how busy if someone says they need a wheelchair table. We also have a wheelchair entrance into the main building.

How long have you worked here at Odettes? 

10 years.

It was here that I first met you. I was working at a fashion magazine and our office was next door, and you’ve always been so well dressed. Where do you like to shop in the city centre?

I love Commercial Bay for shopping; I think Juliette Hogan always has amazing stuff. I’ve got coats of hers from 15 years ago still in perfect condition. I also wear a lot of twenty-seven names… I have way more of an idea of what works on my body in those shops – what cuts will work and what fabrics I like. Something I’ve learned in the last couple of years is to try on absolutely everything in the shop at the start of the season. Everything. I’ve had a couple of really surprising finds. Like things I never would have tried on, I did and loved them.

That’s actually great advice. 

I’m also trying to send a message to my child, often in the change room, that we just give everything a go. And if it doesn’t feel right on our bodies, it’s just the clothes.

Speaking of parenting, where would you go for a family friendly dinner?

We’ve gone to Apero and Coco’s Cantina. We do a lot of K’ Road at night, because we can walk there from home. We also go to Uncle Man’s.

Yes, Uncle Man’s! They’ve opened another spot, on Lorne Street, now. What do you get there?

I’m really boring. I just get the roti canai. And then a noodle, but the noodle dish I get changes. I like to have one dish that I know is great, and then try something new… I do get takeaway from there; the roti canai travels really well. But I think with eating in versus takeaway, you get that little bit more experience, often for the same price… Sometimes ordering from those apps can be even more expensive than dining at the restaurant. But I can see the purpose, especially if you’re post-partum or can’t leave the house. Bowler is great. And Vie Coffee and Vietnamese Street Food.

Now, where would you go for a really special occasion?

I think Onslow gives a super special, luxe experience. And they also have super reasonable days where you can get a special set menu… Plus, it’s so fun to get dressed up and be greeted by someone in a suit jacket. My sister always bangs on about the lamb there, but I like the small dishes.

I feel like I’m getting the true maître d’ experience; you have so many amazing recommendations! Can I get one more? Where would you go for a staycation? 

I like any hotel with a pool. I do quite enjoy Cordis, because you can be close to K’ Road. They’ve got a pool. And you don’t even need to book a room; you can go to Chuan Spa, get a massage and use the pool, sauna and stuff on the rooftop.

Wow, great hack.

And you get four hours of free valet parking.

That is such a good idea.

I also like what they do at The Hotel Britomart. And I enjoy Britomart as a concept. Jeremy Hansen [director of communications and community] does amazing work… I love the art everywhere. I think that’s such a cool spot.

Any favourite spots down Britomart way?

I love Alma, their anchovy toast is next level. I love looking in Fabric. I do go to Amano sometimes, for dessert. Caretaker’s down there; I send people there all the time, especially if it’s 11 o’clock on a Friday night.

A lot of people say that nothing happens in Auckland at night. What would you say to that?

I think you just need to sign up for all the news. After I went to Splore, and then went to a couple of gigs, I realised ‘oh I need to be out more, this is really fun’. So I make sure I get [newsletters from] Under The Radar, Ticketmaster, Live Nation, whatever. And I do think it’s important to spend a bit of money on the experiences, but there’s also so much cool free shit on in Auckland.

What do you enjoy about the city after dark?

It just feels like a small town, but in a good way. I used to walk home from the club as a young adult and I still have absolutely no fear of walking around now either. I like what they’ve done in lower Queen Street. And I’m excited for the City Rail Link to open. 

What do you love about having spent your whole life in Auckland city?

What I used to not love about it, I now love about it. I’m one of five, so I was always someone’s sister and people knew a lot about you. But now I really like it. I like recognising people and the shared history that happens when you work in hospo or live in Auckland for ages. I had a woman in on Friday during lunch, and I looked at her for a while, and then realised she used to come in every Thursday night, 15 years ago, after yoga class with a girlfriend, at Mondial [when I worked there].

It makes you feel like you’re part of a neighbourhood, just knowing all these people.

Yeah. It’s a nice feeling.

The former Wellington mayor says he claims the accommodation subsidy because ‘the cost of owning a home in Wellington is not cheap’.

Andy Foster is a proud Wellington man. Before entering parliament on the NZ First party list in 2023, he served 10 terms on the Wellington City Council, including one as mayor of Wellington. 

NZ First’s website describes him as a “List MP based in Wellington”, while on Facebook he identifies as a “NZ First List MP based in the Wairarapa and Wellington”. He is a longtime resident of Karori; he owns a four-bedroom house in the suburb valued at about $1.1 million. Property records show it was last sold in February 2000 for $323,000. 

Despite owning a home in Wellington for 26 years, Foster is claiming a $36,400 per year taxpayer-funded accommodation subsidy intended for non-Wellington MPs. Foster’s parliamentary expense reports show he claimed $22,700 in 2025, starting with $3,100 in the April-to-June quarter, followed by the maximum possible amount of $9,800 in every quarter since. He confirmed to The Spinoff that he continues to claim the allowance.

MPs are eligible for the accommodation subsidy if they live “outside the Wellington commuting area”. In 2025, Foster purchased a second home in Wairarapa, where he intends to run as a candidate in the 2026 election. He now lists the Wairarapa property as his “family home”. Foster still owns his Karori home and stays there during parliament sitting blocks but told The Spinoff it was “no longer my primary place of residence”.

When asked if he thought it was reasonable to claim a $36,400 per year taxpayer subsidy on a property he already owned, Foster said “the actual and reasonable expense is much higher than that” and “I can tell you that the cost of owning a home in Wellington is not cheap”. 

As a backbench MP, Foster earns an annual salary of $181,200. In his previous role as mayor of Wellington, he was paid $180,500 per year. 

When asked if he owned the house outright or if his “actual and reasonable” expenses included mortgage payments, he refused to answer. “I’m not telling you that,” he said. “That’s my information”. He added that there was “no reason to declare it”. Foster has never listed any mortgages under the “debts owed by you” section of parliament’s pecuniary interests register. 

Another former Wellington mayor, Green MP Celia-Wade Brown, also claimed the non-Wellington member’s accommodation subsidy. Brown has been based in the Wairarapa since 2017 and although she owns a home in Wellington’s south coast, it is currently tenanted. “Since becoming an MP, I’ve rented an apartment in Wellington rather than make the 200km round trip to Carterton,” she said. 

The MP accommodation subsidy has been a source of controversy in the past, most notably in 2024 when prime minister Christopher Luxon was found to be claiming $52,000 against his mortgage-free apartment rather than living in Premier House. After initially claiming he was “entitled to the entitlements”, Luxon later vowed to pay back the money.

In 2009, Bill English paid back $32,000 and vowed to stop claiming a housing allowance after revelations that he’d claimed the accommodation subsidy on a home he owned in Karori.

In 2001, Labour minister Marian Hobbs and Alliance minister Phillida Bunkle were investigated by the auditor-general after claiming the subsidy despite both being enrolled in the Wellington electorate. Hobbs was the MP for Wellington Central. Both were ultimately cleared, with the report finding they had acted on advice from Parliamentary Services staff. 

Last week, Stuff revealed minister Louise Upston had claimed a $52,000 per year subsidy to live in her own Wellington apartment while lifting the threshold for beneficiaries to claim an accommodation supplement. 

Chris Hipkins said Labour “may well” campaign on making changes to the scheme. “Claiming an accommodation allowance when you’re not spending that money on accommodation is something that’s very, very hard to justify,” he told reporters at parliament on Tuesday. Luxon said any changes should be “at arm’s length” from politicians.

Foster’s Marsden Point-related shares

Andy Foster’s pecuniary interests register shows that he owns shares in Channel Infrastructure NZ Ltd. Formerly known as Refining NZ, Channel Infrastructure operates the Marsden Point fuel import terminal and previously ran the Marsden Point Refinery. It still owns the former refinery site. New Zealand First has pledged to reopen the oil refinery and establish a Special Economic Zone at Marsden Point. When asked if he thought it was ethical to own shares in a company that his party’s policies could directly influence, Foster seemed bewildered. “Ethical? I’m a backbencher. I don’t make the decisions.”

“I’ve owned the shares since last century. My father worked for the refining company and I believe in New Zealanders taking ownership stakes in New Zealand companies. It is, I can assure you, a very small holding,” he said. 

Foster is the only MP who declared a direct ownership  in Channel Infrastructure, though many other MPs likely own smaller stakes through managed investment funds. 

For a new series looking at dating in New Zealand, a 71-year-old semi-retired woman is looking for a healthy man with a sense of humour.

Want to be part of Dating Files? Fill out the questionnaire here.

Age: 71

Gender: Female

Sexuality: Hetero

Ethnicity: Pākehā

Religion: Atheist

Occupation: Semi-retired professional

My living location is: New Zealand

The apps I’m on: NZ Dating, Findsomeone

I’m looking for: Someone fit, healthy, kind, and intelligent.

Mostly I’m finding: So many are not healthy, eg. are fighting recurring cancer, or have severe heart disease/diabetes or a range of other disorders. It’s one thing if that happens to a long-term partner but quite another for a new relationship in your 60s and beyond. Most are unfit – no, walking is not enough.

My last serious relationship was: Ended five years ago. Though generous and kind in many ways – particularly to others – their behaviour to me after we married was unpredictable, critical, mildly abusive and generally disturbing. My empathy and value-system meant I kept trying for another nine years despite an increasingly shredded self-esteem and confidence as a person. I then fortified myself over two years in order to get out. Mutually agreed divorce brought huge relief for us both.

The worst date I ever had: I’m clear in choosing who I go out with so there’s been no “worst dates”, just a range of people that didn’t fit my needs or wants on actually meeting them.

The best date I ever had: We were genuinely interested in each other, there was sexual chemistry, and they had their life in order. The conversation flowed easily and I felt a sense of security with them. We went out for several months but they were a one-too-many (women) person, and that’s not for me.

The most regrettable thing I ever did on a date: Tell the person I wasn’t interested at the end of the coffee date. It was my first date and I was over focused on being honest/transparent so was too blunt and hurt his feelings. I learnt. Another one was going on a second date to someone’s bach. I didn’t clarify exactly where it was and it was in the wop wops and therefore very unsafe. I ensure safe practice at other times so it was a dumb thing to do. Fortunately he behaved well.

The best thing a date ever did for me: There’s a range rather than any one thing. There’s seeing their genuine pleasure in how I look or making a real effort in how they look, great (shared) humour – especially to break the ice. The kinds of questions I’ve been asked, being walked back to my car and showing other manners, people who proactively follow up on what I’ve shown interest in for a second date.

The biggest red flag I’ve seen on a date: There have been one or two I felt unease with – I always listen to that feeling. Not “red flags” but behaviours that often meant no second date. Eg. asking about property ownership and other “financial value” questions, racist, sexist, or ageist comments, people who don’t ask me any questions.

On a date I usually wear: What’s right for the day, place, and how I feel. Everything from leather and blue jeans to a feminine dress.

I have sex when: I’m attracted, know the person well enough and want to explore how we are in bed.

I wish dating was: I wish dating apps were less focused on age. How we are after 55/60 probably varies tremendously. I’m 71, look 65, and have great energy. I have liked younger as well as older men. While I’ve found men can be interested in older women, generally they are ageist. Guys – you are missing out on people that might “fit you” well! Lol.

This is what I think about who pays on dates: I like 50:50. Sometimes men prefer to pay and if they insist that’s also fine.

Three words that describe my dream date: Aware, responsive, engaged.

My dating advice is: Be yourself – always.

Want to be part of Dating in NZ? Fill out the questionnaire here.

Welcome to The Spinoff Books Confessional, in which we get to know the reading habits of Aotearoa writers, and guests. This week: Elizabeth Cox, author of Mr Ward’s Map, which won the Bookhub award for illustrated non-fiction at this year’s Ockhams.

The book I wish I’d written

Any and every book by Margaret Mahy – my goodness, what a genius she was. Not only her young children’s books – Bubble Trouble and The Lion in the Meadow are just two of my favourites – but also her young adult books, especially The Haunting.

The book everyone should read

Potiki by Patricia Grace. Grace is a national treasure, and led the way in so many ways. I love that she wrote Potiki in 1986 about a battle to save ancestral land, and Patricia herself was still fighting – and won – her own legal battle to save her tūrangawaewae 30 years later.  I would also put in Robin Hyde’s The Godwits Fly in there – she grew up in Wellington in the 1910s in the suburbs near where I live and talked about it so beautifully. She had such an incredible but tragic life, and was so talented.

The book I want to be buried with

Another children’s book – a little book called Elizabeth by Liesel Moak Skorpen, which my mother bought me when I was young and has my name it in, in her handwriting. I wonder how many hundreds of times I have read it? Very precious.

Fiction or non-fiction

I’m obviously a non-fiction writer, but mostly I read fiction for fun. I find that I can’t read fiction while I am in the midst of writing, though, as my brain is too full of all the stuff I’ve had to read for research. An exception was with Mr Ward’s Map – I got to read lots of Katherine Mansfield, as she was stalking around the city as a young woman just at the time Ward was drawing the map, and she later described the city of her memory in deliciously accurate detail. She was so accurate I could follow her around the city on the map.

It’s a crime against language to … 

Hands down it’s to write bad children’s books – books that patronise or try and “teach” kids something, or that don’t have a proper rhyming scheme, which will bug you the first time you read it and then for the hundredth time. Lots of American kid’s books have some sort of moral or teaching and they’re boring and icky.

The book that haunts me

Books where people get trapped by circumstance freak me out the most. Books like One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest or 1984, where the character thinks they can “work the system”, or get free of the system, but where the system is always, and was always, rigged against them. Absolutely terrifying, because it really could happen to anyone, if the “system” chooses to turn against you. Especially, of course, to women and children – how many women of colour, rebellious women, menopausal women or children with any “difference” were shut in places like that? New Zealand has yet to properly face up to the reality of what happened at places like Lake Alice.

The book that made me cry

The English Patient by Michael Ondaatje. At the moment where Kip hears about the nuclear bombs on Japan – “It rolls across cities like a burst map, the hurricane of heat … This tremor of Western wisdom”. He realises that the nation he has been loyally serving in the war would bomb any nation of people with brown skins and sets off to make his journey home, leaving behind the people he loved, but can’t love them any more. I have never watched the film version as I didn’t want their version overlaid in my memory over the top of my own memories of the book. 

Oh and also Dogger by Shirley Hughes! My kids got used to me trying and failing to read it to them at bedtime all the way to the end, where the big sister buys back Dogger back for her little brother. Tears (mine) every time!

The book that made me laugh

I have always loved The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy series. 

The book character I never believed

Is it terrible to say almost every woman character written by a man?

The plot change I would make

Oh that’s easy – Little Women. Sure, I’m still not over the trauma of Beth dying (sorry – spoilers) but equally, or perhaps even worse, Laurie ending up with Amy and not Jo. It did not compute in my teenage brain that Laurie and Jo could be with anyone else other than each other, and it still doesn’t. Probably it shows some emotional lack in me, but I can’t – and won’t –  understand Jo refusing him. So that’s what I would fix – Amy and Laurie – oh, and Beth surviving of course. 

The book I wish would be adapted for film or TV

I’m sure Catherine Chidgey’s The Book of Guilt will be made into a film soon! The claustrophobic life in the children’s home and the slow unfurling of the horror they are living in, would be perfect for a film. It’s easy to see it on the big screen.  

Encounter with an author

Well, I just met Catherine Chidgey briefly at the Auckland Writer’s Festival and told her what I was going to say for the question about the film above!

What I’m reading right now

I just finished reading a few books in preparation for the Auckland Writers Festival – and now I have just started Ingrid Horrocks’ All Her Lives and will follow that with Tracy Farr’s Wonderland – two more novels about Wellington women!

Mr Ward’s Map: Victorian Wellington Street by Street by Elizabeth Cox ($90, Massey University Press) is available to purchase at Unity Books.

In order for public trust to remain strong in democracy, the way we lobby needs to change, argues lobbyist Holly Bennett.

The lobbying industry is back in the headlines and, unsurprisingly, it’s less than complimentary once again. The latest news involves allegations of a co-ordinated campaign of secret lobbying with regard to climate change litigation. Accused of having secretive meetings and receiving previously undisclosed reports, the government denies having any record or recollection of these events or documents.

As a vocal proponent for increased transparency in lobbying, whenever news of this nature hits the headlines, I invariably get asked by the media to comment about what’s going on. This is not a tono I take lightly, but seemingly a space void of other voices.

It’s curious to me that others in my industry – many of whom are making millions of dollars from it – do not want to comment.

As a lobbyist myself, I’m proud of the work my firm does and what we achieve for our clients. Everyday, I see brilliant organisations struggling to navigate the complex machinery of government. Policies get stuck, ideas fail to launch, press releases don’t get picked up; not because they weren’t good, but because the pathway to influence was unclear.

Unfortunately, lobbying remains plagued with perception problems, and the latest saga does little to quell legitimate concerns.

So what is really going on?

In short, these latest events detail activities by representatives of Fonterra and Z Energy providing physical briefing material to kaimahi (one or many) in the prime minister’s office, that detailed the “rationale for proceeding with the introduction of legislation to prevent private litigation seeking to impose liability for climate change”, while referencing action brought by climate activist Mike Smith.

However, the rub is that the same physical briefing – which presumably should have come to light in an Official Information Act request made to the prime minister’s office – only came to light through the discovery process in the High Court, relating to Smith’s claim.

This shows the transparency systems we have been told are there to maintain integrity in our democratic system don’t always work.

It should come as no surprise that political staff across parliament get handed briefings, papers, post-it notes, and documentation of all sorts. They also receive unsolicited text messages and phone calls every day. This is part of being the right-hand to a politician. You will be lobbied.

But political staff should not be put in the position to carry another organisation’s risk; especially that of a private business facing litigation. I am perturbed there are lobbyists who think an “untraceable” hardcopy briefing is an acceptable way to advocate on behalf of an interest.

Handing over a physical briefing in this manner moves the political risk from the organisation to the political staff and ultimately the politician. If you don’t want to email the briefing, why are you presenting a hard copy?

Arguments that rise and fall on their substance (like they are supposed to in a courtroom) must have both reason and rationale.

Have I been lobbied with a hard copy briefing before? Of course. Do I do it myself? No. Do I teach those under my instruction to adopt that tactic? Absolutely not. Why? Because I believe in the power of what you know, not who you know.

A politician once said to me that my workstyle could be considered somewhat masochistic. That is, I tend to make things harder for myself in the pursuit of reason and logic rather than utilising the access and connections I amass through a career both inside and outside politics. I simply responded there is nothing I will ever lobby for that is worth someone’s reputation being put at risk; whether that be a politician’s, their staff member or my own.

My political disposition leads me to believe in competitive enterprise and rewards for achievement. If you’re good at something, you can sell it to the market. If you’re really good at it, the market will reward you for it.

This is why I stand steadfast in advocating for my industry as both a legitimate activity and career pathway. It’s why I’ve published freely available, voluntary principles for anyone undertaking lobbying activities. It’s why I asked the Tertiary Education Commission to consider adding lobbyist as a career to Tahatū, Career Navigator, and launched Tauawhi, the first lobbying internship programme for the next generation interested in a career in lobbying. 

Yet here we are in 2026, seeing lobbying activities once again undermining trust in our democratic institutions.

Lobbying is a vital democratic tool. It’s how new ideas, crucial community concerns, and industry realities contribute to policy-making that benefits society – it’s how my firm seeks to fulfil our value of using lobbying as a tool for social and economic good.

However, integrity must be at the core of any lobbying effort. Without it, we risk losing public trust in the system, which undermines democracy itself. Meanwhile, transparency ensures that our democratic processes are fair, true, and accountable. It keeps people informed, ensuring equitable access to decision-makers. It’s about making sure that when lobbyists simplify the complexity of policy and politics, they do so openly.

Where the government continues to remain silent on lobbying reform, the market could step in.

The days of little black book advocacy should be well and truly over.

Three reports on the Manage My Health cyber security breach were released today… so what happened exactly, asks Henry Oliver in today’s excerpt from The Bulletin.

To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday, sign up here.

Mismanage my health data

Late last year, Manage My Health (MMH), a locally owned and operated online portal used by healthcare providers to share information with patients, was hacked and held to ransom. The health records of nearly 100,000 patients were stolen by a hacker group called Kazu, who published samples of the stolen data online, threatening to release everything they had unless they were paid US$60,000 ($105,000).

Three reports released today – commissioned by Health NZ, Ministry of Health and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner – combine to paint a damning picture of a lack of security, a lack of independent checks, and an over-reliance on the company’s own assurances.

The findings

As reported by Karina Cooper in the NZ Herald, phase one of the commissioner’s inquiry focuses on cause and accountability, and found significant failures on both sides. Several of MMH’s technical security safeguards were inadequate at the time of the attack, including lacking systems to detect when unusually large amounts of data were being accessed, which could have interrupted the hackers and mitigated the breach. Questions were also raised about the overall security design and risk management practices.

For Health NZ, the Herald reports, the failures were more human than digital. The project team that engaged MMH did not include any privacy or security specialists, and it failed to conduct independent checks, instead relying on assurances from MMH, leaving decision makers insufficiently informed of the risks involved.

A wake-up call

For Stuff, Ripu Bhatia reports that the inquiry’s findings have implications well beyond MMH. Privacy Commissioner Michael Webster used the opportunity to call for structural reform, recommending the Ministry of Health establish a central verification process to ensure health portals meet security standards,rather than leaving individual GP practices to assess them. He also recommended amending the Privacy Act to hold third-party providers liable when they fail to meet security standards when in processing data on behalf of another agency – a change that would go some way to close the accountability gap exposed by the breach.

According to RNZ, the Deloitte report for Health NZ found that digital security across the health sector was “inconsistent and insufficient” with information made vulnerable by an over-reliance on third-party arrangements. A CyberCX report for the Ministry of Health found MMH was unprepared for an incident of this nature and scale and was likely not aligned with ‘Health Information Security requirements’ prior to the breach. The ministry has accepted all recommendations from its own independent review, with work underway on independent security checks for all suppliers, more stringent data handling standards and a wider review of digital health systems.

The response

Health NZ chief financial officer Bevan McKenzie accepted the commissioner’s findings, saying patients had been let down and that was unacceptable. Health NZ has since halted the flow of information from the Northland district to the portal and apologised to patients who discovered their health information had been stored there without their knowledge. Manage My Health, in a release quoted by multiple outlets, said the attack was a deliberate criminal act using compromised credentials, and that it was not aware of any stolen data being publicly released beyond the initial sample. It has since introduced mandatory multi-factor authentication, enhanced real-time monitoring, strengthened access controls, and expanded independent security testing.

A second phase of the commissioner’s inquiry is expected to begin soon, investigating the broader impacts of the breach — including data retention policies, notification compliance, and whether the breach caused a disproportionate impact on Northland Māori. Spoiler alert: it did.

From new rentals to redevelopments, some coalition MPs have been upping their ownership of residential properties.

MPs from National, New Zealand First and Act have purchased or built at least 25 new rentals, investment properties or second homes since changing tax and tenancy laws to favour landlords. 

The Spinoff identified the new property acquisitions by analysing changes to parliament’s register of pecuniary interests since the start of the parliamentary term in 2023. The register is a summary of MPs’ investments, debts and gifts they have received.

It comes after the government passed several changes to tax settings and tenancy laws in 2023 and 2024. These included reinstating tax deductibility on interest paid on rental properties, reducing the bright line property tax from 10 years to two, and restoring landlords’ ability to end tenancies without giving a reason. 

Act MP Parmjeet Parmar topped the list, with five new rental homes, bringing her total investment property portfolio total to eight homes. The expansion came from two construction projects: a single property in Half Moon Bay, Auckland, which she redeveloped into three homes, and a single property in Buckland’s Beach, also in Auckland, which was redeveloped into four homes. Both projects were completed this term.

An Act Party spokesperson, answering questions on Parmar’s behalf, said the government’s policy changes “were not a factor” in her investment decision. However, Parmar has publicly praised the government’s policies for making rental properties more advantageous investments. “By restoring mortgage interest deductibility and rebalancing tenancy laws, we’ve reduced the risk of providing a rental,” she said in a statement earlier this month. 

National MP Kate Nimon added three new rental properties in Napier and Hastings to her portfolio, bringing the total to five. Nimon told The Spinoff, “My husband works in rental real estate and I’m a shareholder of the business. He purchased three rental properties last year as part of this work.” Nimon did not directly respond to questions about whether the government’s reforms influenced their decision to purchase the properties. 

Other MPs who have added additional residential properties, excluding the family home, to the register since 2024 include Erica Stanford, Simon Watts, Tom Rutherford, Joseph Mooney, Shane Reti, David MacLeod and Grant McCallum. Mark Mitchell added a new holiday home in Bali, Indonesia, which would not be affected by any of the government’s policy changes. 

Seven MPs purchased new properties in Wellington: Carlos Cheung, Jamie Arbuckle, Hamish Campbell, Ryan Hamilton, Mark Patterson and Todd McClay. MPs based outside of Wellington can claim up to $36,400 per year towards the “actual and reasonable” costs of accommodation so they can attend parliament, while ministers can claim up to $52,000. The accommodation supplement is calculated based on “estimated market rentals for suitable properties in central Wellington”. However, many MPs instead choose to buy apartments in Wellington and use the taxpayer-funded benefit to pay the mortgage on a second property. 

The register shows speaker Gerry Brownlee had added four new properties since the last election. Brownlee told The Spinoff this was an error; he owned them all prior to the election and had previously filled out his form incorrectly. He owns six properties, three of which are rentals, and has interests in two others through his grandfather’s trust. The New Zealand Herald’s Chris Knox revealed in February that Brownlee had been incorrectly and incompletely declaring his property ownership to parliament for 20 years. 

While some coalition MPs added homes to their portfolios, others reported a reduced number of properties. Prime minister Christopher Luxon, who was previously the largest landlord in parliament, reduced his holdings throughout the term from seven homes to three. NZ First deputy leader Shane Jones reduced the number of properties he listed from five to three (including a family home), and Act MP Simon Court reduced his properties from four “family homes”.

No opposition MPs have added new rental or investment properties to the register this term, though Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer listed a new residential property under construction, and Labour’s Willie Jackson added a new property in Māngere Bridge, which brings his total of “family homes” to three. Green MPs Lawrence Xu-Nan and Celia Wade-Brown and Labour’s Tracey McLellan each listed a rental property but did not appear on the 2024 register because they entered parliament mid-term. 

If overseas experiences are anything to go by, the cutting of public sector jobs in favour of AI models will create more problems than it solves, argues Alexandra Sinclair.

The New Zealand government announced last week the removal of roughly 8,500 public sector jobs as part of a bid to save costs and replace many of these roles with AI and automation. Finance minister Nicola Willis has claimed the changes will save the government $2.4 billion over four years. AI is increasingly framed as the solution to the costs and complexities of government. However, this government is likely to find that the cutting of public sector jobs in favour of AI models will create more problems than it solves. 

New Zealand has so far avoided the high-profile automation scandals seen in counterparts such as Australia (Robodebt), the Netherlands (child benefits scandal) and the UK (Horizon Post Office scandal). In those countries the drive to automate for cost savings resulted in the hasty introduction of automated systems. These systems had enormous human costs and were a false economy for government due to the large amounts of compensation paid out as a result of automation failings. 

In the Netherlands, the government of the day resigned after the extent of the child benefits scandal was revealed. Then Australian prime minister Scott Morrison had projected the Robodebt scheme would save the government $1.7 billion. It has cost them $2.4 billion and counting in compensation payouts and has hugely affected public trust in government and in new technologies. When automation and AI goes wrong, it does so at speed and scale. 

It’s also important to contextualise this announcement in light of the fact that New Zealand has no AI specific regulation in place. Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia all have mandatory AI transparency measures for the public service and/or have invested in AI safety institutes. South Korea has recently passed legislation regulating AI. The European Union has an extensive regulatory framework that enables individuals to object and contest solely automated decisions, while also putting significant compliance obligations on AI developers wishing to enter the EU single market. The lack of AI-specific regulation in New Zealand means the public has no individual rights of challenge in the courts for AI-specific harms. 

There is no public mandate to cede huge amounts of power in designing government infrastructure and providing government services to overseas technology monopolies. New Zealand’s data sovereignty context is highly distinct. AI models licensed from overseas are not designed for an indigenous context. There are also significant data sovereignty concerns with training overseas general-purpose models with Māori data. 

We have seen the current government dump its own in-house digital systems crafted for an indigenous healthcare context in favour of private AI scribe providers in healthcare. Last week’s announcement suggests the ceding of further power in designing government infrastructure and providing frontline government services to big tech. New Zealand’s size means it’s going to be a taker of new technologies. It has little power to negotiate – it will have to accept the technology on the terms it’s given, subject to the whims of whatever updates Open AI or Anthropic roll out. We should be concerned about the delivery of government services left to the impulses of overseas technology companies that do not necessarily have the same values or concerns for what is in New Zealand’s best interests. 

Moreover, once these contracts are entered into and companies are providing the digital infrastructure, this lock-in dynamic makes it very expensive for government to exit if it’s not happy. The government has said that AI models will save money on frontline staff, but AI procurement is itself an expensive and ongoing exercise and if prices rise once our services are structured in reliance on them, we will be unable to say no. 

There are many studies casting doubt on the productivity gains of AI in the workplace. MIT found that 95% of companies have failed to find revenue generation from AI use. Other studies have shown that AI scribes offer minimal time-savings for doctors. Unsurprisingly, most studies touting productivity benefits are from the developers themselves. Willis has said the civil service has poor digital systems and data governance. This is a sign that government needs to be cautious when introducing AI.

AI is only as good as the quality of the datasets it is running on. Fast productivity gains are more difficult to achieve in government where dataflows are incredibly sensitive and where information is classified and subject to strict authorisation and permission regimes. If Large Language Models have access to classified datasets, when prompted they can produce outputs making that information available. Without careful data silos, security and data breaches can easily occur. There has already been a serious security breach in March of this year after the rolling out of Heidi AI into New Zealand’s hospitals. 

There are also concerns with the loss of institutional knowledge in the public sector by outsourcing to AI systems. If AI systems are learning from data and processes, then civil servants themselves are often failing to learn. Judgmental atrophy is the phenomenon whereby individuals lose their ability to make difficult fine-grained judgments and assessments because they outsource those judgments to automated systems. 

Efficiency is not the only value of government. The public do not want government making incorrect decisions about them efficiently. The government also owes different obligations from the private sector, as individuals cannot opt out from interacting with them. Values of open government, transparency, fairness and accountability can be impeded by the delivery of government services using opaque and fast-moving AI models hosted in other parts of the world. These are the conversations we need to be having before the government goes ahead with civil service cuts in favour of AI models.

The government’s latest reform risks dismantling the very conditions that make social housing more than just a roof, writes the Salvation Army’s Greg Foster.

I keep coming back to one question since last week’s government announcement on social housing: why now?

Not why reform. The social housing system is imperfect, and no one working inside it would claim otherwise. But why introduce these changes without consultation, at a moment when a genuine partnership between government and community housing providers was beginning to deliver?

I work for the Salvation Army’s social housing in New Zealand. Every day, I see the impact of policy decisions on real people. We own and manage 600 properties across the country and are currently building 400 more, not because we decided to expand on our own, but because the government asked us to step up. And we did, in good faith.

The people who live in those homes are not abstractions. Many of them have shown me through their homes with pride. Before coming to us, some had been living in overcrowded houses, emergency motels, cars or garages, places never meant for raising children. No one enters social housing because it is a good option. They come because every other option has run out.

Social housing exists because the private rental market has already excluded them. Their incomes are too low, their circumstances too complex, or their families too large. For many, a stable tenancy is not a stepping stone. It is the only thing standing between them and the street.

Against that backdrop, last week’s announcement landed heavily.

From April next year, minimum rent contributions will rise from 25% to 30% of income. For 84,000 households, that means an average increase of $31 a week. On paper, it sounds modest. In practice, for a family already counting every dollar, it means something else gives: food, power, transport, a bill left unpaid. For households living week to week, there is no such thing as a modest increase. 

The changes do not stop there. A redesigned needs assessment will prioritise those with the highest and most complex needs for social housing, but without the additional funding required to support those tenancies. Providers will be asked to take on more complex situations without the resources to do it well. That gap will not be absorbed by goodwill. It will show up in struggling tenancies, in crises, and ultimately in higher costs to the state.

There is also a structural reality that appears to have been overlooked. Our model is built on balanced communities, developments where people with a range of needs live alongside each other. That mix creates stability. It reduces pressure on tenants and staff, and it supports better long-term outcomes.

If policy settings shift towards concentrating higher-needs tenants in the same developments, that balance will erode. Complexes become harder to manage. Frontline demands intensify. Maintenance costs climb. These are not theoretical concerns. They are practical realities that carry financial consequences. Without adequate funding, the result will not be a stronger system, but a more fragile and expensive one.

Then there is the question of time limits.

The government’s own data shows that most households in social housing cannot readily move into the private rental market. When I hear discussions about limiting the duration of tenancies, I do not see a pathway out of dependency. I see a clock starting to tick for people who have nowhere else to go. 

When that time runs out, many will not step into secure housing. They will face instability once again, and, for some, a return to homelessness. We have seen versions of this approach before. It did not succeed then, and there is little reason to believe it will succeed now. 

These changes also cut to the heart of the partnerships that have made progress possible. Organisations like ours have invested and borrowed millions of dollars, and employed teams across the country, in response to government calls to expand. We entered into long-term commitments in good faith.

To see these changes introduced without consultation feels like a breach of that trust. Officials did meet with us afterwards, but the decisions had already been made. That is not what partnership looks like.

I want to be clear: I am not opposed to reform. The system does need to change. But meaningful reform requires honesty about trade-offs, genuine engagement with those of us working at the coal face, and funding that matches ambition.

What has been announced falls short on all three counts. It shifts cost and pressure onto those least able to absorb it. It asks vulnerable families to contribute more while offering them less certainty. It expects providers to manage greater complexity without the resources to do so sustainably.

And it risks dismantling the very conditions that make social housing more than just a roof – stability, community balance, and genuine partnership.

So, I return to the question I started with: why now? And I am left with a deeply troubling conclusion. The savings appear to come at the expense of people who can least afford to carry them.

We should not be balancing the books on the backs of New Zealand’s most vulnerable families, or the organisations that stepped up, in good faith, to support them. Not now, not ever.

The power lies with the people. Whether we harness it is up to us.

As a young Māori man, I was disillusioned with politics. I didn’t see why I should care about a system that kept Māori oppressed. Statistics only supported my view that the Westminster system did not benefit Māori. I believed – and still do believe – that our political system was never meant to serve Māori.

A large part of my disenfranchisement stemmed from the success of former prime minister John Key, who was the leader of the country for the entirety of my teenage years. For me, Key was the epitome of the type of person the system was designed to serve. He was affluent, always well dressed, and Pākehā. People like him benefited from participating in politics – not people like me. Key and his counterparts had a firm grip on the political control of Aotearoa, so why would I bother validating this system and the illusion of choice by voting in an election? It was counterintuitive to my belief system.

Nearly 170,000, or 30% of eligible voters of Māori descent did not vote at the last election (compared to 21% for non-Māori). The number of Māori who did not is 5% of the total voting population and translates to around six or seven seats in parliament. Based on recent election results, this is enough to act as a kingmaker block, easily flipping the balance of power from one governing coalition to another. But these 170,000 people didn’t vote, their voices and influence instead going unheard, and I understand why.

Many Māori feel like I once did. They’re disillusioned, disenfranchised, disengaged with the system. A lot of us don’t see ourselves reflected in politicians and don’t believe the system serves us in any way. It’s not meant to. Most of us have better things to worry about than civic engagement, analysing policies and party lists. Left wing or right wing, political parties belong to the same bird. The world is run by men who use laws for tools, and we feel as though we don’t have a say on who controls those laws.

Now, we have another (arguably not as good) version of Key in power. An affluent male of European descent controlling what many Māori have coined the three-headed taniwha, or coalition government. In amongst the plethora of anti-Māori policies and stances taken by the taniwha, is a move to disallow voters to enrol to vote any later than two weeks before the election.

“I’m a bit sick of dropkicks who can’t get their lives organised to follow the law,” said Act Party leader David Seymour last July when the changes were announced.

Many of those “dropkicks” (i.e. the 100,000 people who enrolled within the voting period in 2023) Seymour refers to are young and Māori. Data from the Electoral Commission shows that special votes – where people enrol or update their details within the voting period – are more likely to come from areas with larger proportions of Māori, Asian and Pasifika communities. We also know younger voters and voters on the Māori roll have higher odds of casting a special vote. Approximately 8,000 eligible voters of Mãori descent aged 18 or 19 enrolled for the first time, or updated their details, during the voting period in 2023.

The changes to the Electoral Act were billed by justice minister Paul Goldsmith as attempting to minimise the amount of time spent counting votes. But detractors say the changes are a blatant attempt to minimise the number of votes the opposition gets. Goldsmith even admitted the changes probably wouldn’t significantly speed up the process. “At this stage, we’re still planning for 20 days,” he said to the media at the time. That’s the same amount of time as the 2023 election.

Historically, special votes benefit parties on the left. By banning the ability for people to enrol to vote any later than 13 days before the election, combined with the abolition of prisoner voting rights, the government could be accused of methodically attempting to maximise its chances of reelection in November. With the government discriminately disempowering Māori voters, why would we want to engage at all?

During my time at university, I began learning more about our nation’s history – the systematic process of colonisation and enforcement of a foreign system of law and politics. There seems to be a hesitancy to view ourselves as a colony of Britain. But this denies our nation’s history. There are many unsavoury aspects of colonisation that stir up feelings of shame and guilt, but we are not responsible for the actions of our forefathers.

What we are responsible for is acknowledging the implications of their actions, the privileges and entitlements that come from those actions, and actively seeking to remedy the harm they caused. This is true for both Māori and non-Māori. 

As Māori, we must actively work to undo the harm caused by the colonisation of our nation. If we do not consciously strive for the betterment of our people, for the advancement of a system of laws and politics better suited for our needs and beliefs, then we allow our subconscious to become accepting of our present reality, therefore allowing ongoing oppression.

Voting – participating in the system – is a way we can work towards the liberation of our people. By choosing not to vote, by not engaging in the system, we allow others to decide who governs this country. We allow others to decide how our tax dollars are spent, the laws and policies we abide by, and the parameters of our existence in our land.

I understand why many don’t care. I still struggle some days to face the realities of the fabric of our society. But I want change. While choosing where to cast my vote often feels like choosing the lesser evil, I recognise that unless I engage with the system, I am allowing my subconscious to accept my present reality. I ain’t accepting it.

Labour’s justice spokesperson was once interviewed by a teddy bear posing as one of our best-known broadcasters.

Having passed three member’s bills over three years, you could say Labour MP Camilla Belich has luck on her side. But that would be overlooking all her hard mahi in some pretty hefty portfolios (currently justice and public services). Belich could soon hit a member’s bill home run, with her Modern Slavery Bill on its way to the select committee (submissions close in two days), but she’s not one to count her chickens before they hatch.

Maybe parliament is where the former union lawyer was always meant to be. Her Labour Party politics are genetic; her great-grandfather went leafleting for Michael Joseph Savage, her grandfather was Labour mayor of Wellington Sir Jim Belich, and her parents were trade unionists. Belich herself has also always been the political type. She served on Wellington’s youth council as a teenager, and, while at law school, she was co-president of the NZ University Students Association, alongside her now husband. She entered parliament in 2020 as a list MP.

Her most recent feat has been getting the Modern Slavery Bill past its first reading by joining forces with National MP Greg Fleming. The two invoked for the first time standing order 288, which allows a member’s bill to bypass the ballot system and head straight to its first reading if it has the support of at least two-thirds of non-executive MPs. After working on the bill for two years and going through some 20-odd versions, is this the work that Belich is proudest of this term?

“I don’t take the passing of a bill for granted until it actually passes,” she says. “The thing that I think about is, how do you implement long-term change that survives government? Us doing it cross-party is hopefully a way of ensuring that it doesn’t get repealed. That is something I’m always thinking about, because a lot of bills that Labour passed that I felt were really meaningful, like fair pay agreements, were repealed. I’m always thinking, how do we take the public with us? And other political parties, to make sure change is enduring.

“You can never really sit back on your laurels,” she says.

Sitting opposite Belich, you can’t help but feel a little bit mogged, intellectually and otherwise. Her hobbies include weight-lifting (though she doesn’t want to give the impression she’s some Olympic-level athlete – “anyone who comes into the parliament gym will see that I’m not”); and “BookTok” (she “dabbles in romantasy”). She’s a fan of a good power suit, so it’s no surprise that one of her passions is fashion. We both agree it’s weird that women should feel shamed for giving a shit about pretty things; after all, fashion is “an amazing female-dominated industry that does a lot for economic growth, and people marginalise the work they do because it’s clothes and shoes”.

Belich even has an autograph from one of her fashion icons, Audrey Hepburn. “When I was a kid, my grandmother was at a function with her, and she signed the menu: “To Camilla, love Audrey”. Belich smiles. “I’ve got that framed at my house.”

THE SPINOFF PUB Q+A

How much should a pint cost?

Well, I’ve read some of your previous interviews, and had a bit of a Google, and I think the consensus is around $10. Which everyone still thinks is quite a lot. But I’m drinking the non-alcoholic [beer], and that is actually a similar price, which is really interesting – apparently that’s because it’s quite difficult to take the alcohol out and still keep that taste. I don’t want to judge them for charging because I have no idea how that process works.

Do you have a karaoke go-to?

I try to stay away from karaoke. Even my children tell me to stop when I try singing them songs. My girls have got me into Taylor Swift and Sabrina Carpenter … I like some of those tracks on The Life of a Showgirl album, I like the collab. I really love Nadia Reid, I feel like I’m literally one of her biggest fans because I listen to all of her music and have a Nadia Reid hat.

Favourite place to get a drink in Aotearoa?

Do you know Swashbucklers [in Auckland]? It’s really unpretentious, there’s so many people from big companies like Air New Zealand and Fonterra that come down, but then there’s also just the regulars. And my kids love it too, because they do amazing seafood.

Which three MPs would be on your pub quiz team?

If there was anything about wool [in the quiz], then I would definitely pick [NZ First’s] Mark Patterson. I’ve been really impressed with my colleague Vanushi Walters and her knowledge about foreign affairs. She’s super smart, and we actually went to primary school together. We went to each other’s birthday parties, then she moved to Auckland, and we connected again when we were teenagers doing youth councils.

I know that a few people have picked him, but I stood against [Green MP] Lawrence Xu-Nan in Epsom. He’s an Egyptologist, so for the Egypt round it’d have to be Lawrence. My round would be 90s pop culture or something like that. Something that was in a weekly magazine 20 years ago.

Which MP from across the aisle would you most like to share a drink with?

I think I probably owe Chris Penk a beer. He’s given me a ride a few times to parliament. So long as it’s him and not his Twitter persona.

Is there an alcohol-related law you would like to change?

We’ve had a lot of alcohol-related laws come through parliament recently. I’m probably a little bit more on the conservative side in terms of liberalisation, just because I feel it’s quite easily available at the moment. I feel like people, especially younger people, are drinking less and I think that’s a really good thing overall, for our health in New Zealand.

What’s a policy area we’ve been nursing without finishing the glass?

I do think an area that we could come together on is looking at our [sexual] consent laws and whether they’re up to date. It’s been advocated to us a lot from lots of different younger women particularly, so I think that’s something that we should look at.

What qualities make a good drinking partner?

I think as long as her name is Rachel Brooking, you’ll have a good night.

Have you ever had a Schnapps election moment where you regretted your political instinct?

I was going to an event organised by Parents Against Climate Change, and I was like, oh wow, they’ve got John Campbell there! I was like, that is really impressive! I’ll go down and be interviewed by John. So I went and realised it was actually entered in my diary wrong – instead of it being John Campbell, it was John Camp-Bear. It was a literal soft toy with John Campbell’s glasses on it, and it was posing questions. So that was a bit of a surprise. I actually told John about it and he thought it was really funny.

Up next on One MP, One Pint: Green MP Ricardo Menéndez March. Read more OMPOP interviews here.

Auckland Art Gallery’s Forever Tomorrow: Chinese Art Now 永远的明天：中国艺术进行时 invites you into the lived experience of modern China.

Running until August, Auckland Art Gallery Toi o Tāmaki is currently home to an extensive exhibition of Chinese contemporary art, including the likes of Ai Weiwei as well as artists exhibiting in New Zealand for the first time. The show is described as the largest major survey of Chinese contemporary art in Aotearoa.

Knowing this, I was hopeful that as a Chinese New Zealander, I would feel a profound connection to some of the 67 works in the show. And indeed, as I spent more time with the works, I did. But if I’m honest, at first I didn’t get the first section – but neither was I prepared for a lesson in Chinese art history, because that’s what it ended up being for me, when curator H. Wilco walked me through the exhibition on a quiet Thursday afternoon.

We began in 1978: a time you could say contemporary Chinese art began sowing its seeds. Against the backdrop of China’s economic reform and opening-up in 1978, not only were young people in particular influenced by ideas from abroad, but so too were the artistic practices in China. Important institutions reopened after the Cultural Revolution, including the Central Academy of Fine Art and what’s now known as the China Academy of Art.

As Wilco explained, “It was a period in which hundreds of artist groups and movements emerged across the country, exploding with activity and experimenting with the major artistic languages of 20th century Western art history.” Eventually, these people and practices converged at the 1989 China Avant-Garde exhibition: the very first national exhibition of contemporary art.

Although performance art was banned from the 1989 exhibition, it ended up featuring – and in no small way. Wilco brought me over to a small box television in the corner of the room, where we watched the watershed moment when artist Xiao Lu unexpectedly fired two gunshots at her work, Dialogue, prompting panic among attendees. Acts of defiance like Xiao Lu’s not only characterised the exhibition but mirrored the political zeitgeist, defined by student demonstrations and the Tiananmen Square protests of the same year.

I began to see how each item in this section served as an entry point into these defining cultural moments. With that cognitive gear shift, items that followed made more sense to me, too. Wilco said that for those who don’t know anything about Chinese contemporary art, understanding its history is key to understanding everything that follows. “I thought of this early section of the exhibition as being a bit like a preface to a novel, so it’s a bit didactic in that sense.”

While the first section is a sort of art exhibition about art, “everything else that follows is more socially orientated – the exhibition shifts into a different register altogether”. The exhibition explores four decades of Chinese art, seen through the lens of globalisation, urban migration and rapid technological change. These might be the concepts that surface when China is thought of as a monolithic society. However, within that, the works reveal more about the internal worlds of those who have lived, or are living, through those changes.

The intent is not to depict China as exceptional, but to show that these experiences are shared by countries the world over. “One of the challenges in curating Chinese contemporary art is the tendency to frame practices in one of two ways,” said Wilco. “They are often positioned either as exoticised expressions of cultural difference or as acts of political resistance. I wanted to avoid both of those reductive frameworks and instead foreground the complexity, diversity, and breadth of material practice.”

The next section speaks to mass urban migration and the changing landscapes and connection to homelands. It’s a hard watch, but Li Binyuan’s Freedom Farming is an incredibly personal expression of contrition emerging from his emigration from a small farming village to study art in Beijing. In the video of his performance, he repeatedly throws himself into a shallow area of mud in a rice paddy of his ancestral village, which he’d inherited from his late father. As penance for not meeting his filial duties by working the land, he performs this brutal act for hours in front of an audience of his mother and the villagers. I couldn’t help but wonder if his audience understood what he was attempting to communicate.

The middle section, Tender Revolutions, is where I softened and connected the strongest to the works. This section invites you into private lives and expressions of intimacy and sexuality. Wilco said that in the previous sections there were audience expectations that needed to be met. “Of course, you have to include Ai Weiwei, for example. You can’t avoid that…but Tender Revolutions – that just gets upended.”

There’s a visually arresting piece of work, Gate, by Xiyadie that made an impression on me on opening night, but I became captivated later, having learned that it was also made in secret. The work uses Chinese papercutting methods to explore homoerotic desire and queer expression. Like many of the pieces in this section, Gate feels courageous and uses a voice familiar to many people stuck between cultural expectations. It’s an arresting exploration of sexuality and intimacy, subverting the clichéd depictions of my people’s sexuality through fetishisation and Orientalism.

For Wilco, the exhibition resists portraying China’s contemporary condition through familiar binaries such as tradition and modernity, control and freedom, East and West. Instead, it sits in a liminal space between past and present. The name of the show, Forever Tomorrow, is inspired by the shared mentality of making sacrifices today for a better life sometime in the future. But, as Wilco asks, “When does tomorrow arrive?”

I appreciate the way this show reaches beyond the geopolitical and sociopolitical characterisations of China and makes space for lived realities, rather than merely representing ‘Chinese art’. There are parts of Forever Tomorrow that can feel challenging, but if you are prepared for the conceptual nature of many of the works – and handle a few “-isms” and “-ations” along the way – you’ll be rewarded with an experience that celebrates the breadth and depth of personal expression that makes Chinese art now.

Tara Ward is just a mum, standing in front of a TV show, asking it to stop grinding.

The Nek Minnit man is on top of a big, pink skateboard ramp, plonked somewhere in a suburban Auckland carpark. “Wassup,” he greets the group of mums and their children gathered below, who cheer at this unexpected celebrity appearance. Nek minnit, he leaps onto his skateboard, glides down the short ramp and flies into a giant foam pit. It’s Levi Hawken, broadcaster Tegan Yorwarth tells us, and he’s skated into the first episode of Ready Gamer Mum to judge which mother has created the most stylish giant skateboard. 

TVNZ’s new competition series Ready Gamer Mum is an original format developed by South Pacific Pictures from an idea by Tom Hutchison, which sees 10 expert gamers and their “not so tech-savvy” mothers play video games to win $50,000. The catch? The mums are the only ones allowed to touch the controller. “We take ten gamers’ mums out of the home and into the hot seat,” the show’s trailer promises. Hosted by Yorwarth, episode one challenges the teams to play Tony Hawk Skater Pro, which is why these mothers are standing in that car park, ready to prove their skating prowess in the real world. 

Moments earlier, the 10 teams had entered the Ready Gamer Mum arena for the first time. The show began with an upbeat Lego Masters NZ-type vibe, with lots of energy and enthusiasm from the players and plenty of good-natured ribbing between the generations. These mums have come on the show to spend time with their adult children, with 73-year-old Sandra the oldest mother to compete, having first picked up a game controller just two weeks earlier. 

Ready Gamer Mum wants to flip the family dynamic by showing how kids can teach their parent new tricks. Nine of the 10 expert gamers are men, and while we don’t learn much about their mothers in the first two episodes, the show’s official bios hint at accomplished lives lived far beyond the gaming chair. Sandra is a retired interpreter originally from Burma. Rebekah, 56, raised six children, while dairy farmer Rachel homeschooled her son Romy and his four siblings. Lisa, 52, spends zero time gaming. “I’m the mum who unplugged the internet. I thought it would be better for them to be outside,” she says.  

The mums get a few hours to practice the new game, in the hope they’ll become “mildly competent”, as Yorwarth puts it. While these maternal legends should probably be relaxing in the nearest five-star hotel ordering room service and counting all the sleepless nights their kids have given them over the years, they’ll do anything to avoid disappointing their offspring by getting a low score and being eliminated. That includes throwing themselves down a pink skate ramp in front of old mate Nek Minnit. “One last hug before she slides to what I can only imagine is her untimely demise,” pipes up Tony Lyall, who along with fellow comedian Brynley Stent, provides some hilarious whip-smart commentary of the side quest challenges.  

Ready Gamer Mum has all the hallmarks of wholesome family entertainment, apart from one important thing. There’s an underlying joke here about older mothers that the show won’t admit to making. This show isn’t called Ready Gamer Dad, or Ready Gamer Boomer, or Ready Gamer Someone Who’s Never Gamed Before. It’s Ready Gamer Mum, and its success relies on tired stereotypes about how uncool and incompetent mothers are. They can’t work technology, they look funny sliding down a ramp, look how much they love crafts. Into the foam pit you go, ladies! 

Mostly, it’s hard to know what Ready Gamer Mum is saying. It’s no surprise that women who have dedicated the past few decades of their lives to raising families, building careers and performing endless unpaid domestic work aren’t immediately good at gaming, given they’ve had neither the time or freedom to sit in a chair for hours, grinding and ollie-ing or whatever the fork it is you do on Tony Hawk Skater Pro. Taking these mums “out of the home” to play video games is a bold claim in 2026, and the fact that in episode one, the show chooses to dress them in costumes that will give them “main character energy” shows how wonky this concept is. These wonderful mothers already have main character energy. Ready Gamer Mum just doesn’t want to see it. 

It’s rare to have so many women of an older generation on one TV show, so kudos to Ready Gamer Mum for that – it’s just a shame they’ve diminished these interesting, intelligent women to what they can’t do, then made them compete against each other. Perhaps as the season unfolds, these women will take on their children and show them how it’s really done, or perhaps Ready Gamer Mum will find some mature women who are already expert gamers and celebrate their skills too. Or maybe, instead of telling their mothers what to do, the sons could try out some new things that mums are really good at, like enduring the gender pay gap, navigating the health challenges of perimenopause, or being shamed for having the audacity to age naturally. 

Either way, this uncool old mother is ready to come out of the home and tip her backwards skater cap at Ready Gamer Mum in thanks. Aren’t I lucky to live in a world where men know how to make machine go beep?

Ready Gamer Mum screens on Thursdays on TVNZ2 at 7.30pm and streams on TVNZ+.

New data shows the average balance across age brackets and genders.

This story was originally published on RNZ

KiwiSaver balances have lifted but many people on low incomes will need NZ Super to fill the gaps, and help them get by in retirement, the Retirement Commission says.

It has released new data showing the average balance across age brackets and genders.

Average balances range from $3512 for those under 17 to $194,276 for those aged 86-plus. although the latter is skewed by a smaller number of investors in that age bracket.

The average balance across all members is now $41,286, up 11.3 percent from 2024. Men’s average is $47,452 and women’s $38,212.

Average balances increase with age, and men have higher averages at every level except among the oldest KiwiSaver members.

While a third of KiwiSaver members have less than $10,000 in their accounts, the number with larger balances is growing.

There are almost 450,000 members with more than $80,000, about 15 percent of all members.

Overall, 70 percent of members are contributing to KiwiSaver, and about 90 percent of those who are employed and earning more than $50,000 a year.

Michelle Reyers, policy lead at Te Ara Ahunga Ora, the Retirement Commission, said the data showed the scheme was delivering strong results for many people, but also showed where more support was needed.

“People on lower incomes, those working part-time or those moving in and out of paid work are much less likely to contribute and their KiwiSaver balances at age 65 reflect those reduced contributions.”

She said that would be the case with any scheme linked to workplaces and incomes.

“We’re generally going to see those inequities being reflected in retirement savings, which speaks a lot to the importance of NZ Super within our retirement income system, because that doesn’t penalise people for lower incomes or time out of paid work … it draws attention to the retirement income system as a whole rather than just KiwiSaver.”

She said the scheme had another 20 years to run before it reached full maturity, and the trend in balances was going in the right direction.

“We’ve seen a doubling in the percentage of people who now have balances over $80,000. We’ve seen the number of balances under $10,000 shrinking. Those are positive signs of a scheme that is maturing as we head for the 20th year of it next year.”

Reyers said, with the planned increase in default contribution rates to 4 percent plus 4 percent, it put people on a path to having adequate retirement income.

“When we keep in account that NZ Super is part of that retirement income picture, as well, we’re on the right track and these are positive signs, that we’re seeing in the data.”

She said the gender gap in balances highlighted workplace inequities.

“Women are actually slightly more likely to contribute to KiwiSaver. In other work that we’ve done, they contribute the same percentage of their salary into KiwiSaver as well … they’re doing everything right, but the gender pay gap, time out of paid work, all of those things are reflected in these gender retirement savings gaps.”

Reyers said the commission would like to see work put into how the system could help lessen the impact of contribution interruptions, such as during paid parental leave.

“If you on paid parental leave and you continue your contributions, the government steps into the shoes of the employer and will contribute. But if you don’t contribute anything, then nothing goes in at all. We would prefer that everyone who’s on paid parental leave gets those KiwiSaver contributions.”

She said the government incentives in the scheme could also better target low-income earners. “That’s where a difference can be made. Those are people who are less likely to contribute and whose eventual retirement balance really depends much more on the government contribution than for a higher income earner.”

The data showed a 24 percent average gap between men and women across all ages, and a 36 percent gap among those aged 56 to 65.

About 206,000 people in KiwiSaver are aged over 65 and seemed to be using KiwiSaver as an investment vehicle in retirement, up from 190,000 last year.

This story was first published on rnz.co.nz

As part of our series exploring how New Zealanders live and our relationship with money, an advertising creative shares their financial comings and going.

Want to be part of The Cost of Being? Fill out the questionnaire here.

Gender: Female.

Age: 26.

Ethnicity: NZ European and a sprinkling of Māori.

Role: Creative in advertising.

Salary/income/assets: $80,000.

My living location is: Suburban.

Rent/mortgage per week: $255 a week including bills. Living with my boyfriend and four other flatmates (rough).

Student loan or other debt payments per week: Have recently paid of my student loan.

Typical weekly food costs

Groceries: Approximately $60 a week for myself. Boyfriend and I buy seperate groceries because he eats like there’s no tomorrow.

Eating out: Rarely go out for dinner to save money. But if we do I’d say $45.

Takeaways: I am a sucker for a midweek Uber Eats. $20.

Workday lunches: I try to bring my lunch most days but you know how sometimes you make something and then immediately can’t stand the thought of eating it again? That happens on occasion, so I’d say $15.

Cafe coffees/snacks: $0. I don’t drink coffee.

Other food costs: $200. Tried to start up a veggie garden once. Spent more money trying to keep it alive than I got vegetables in return. Clearly not my forte.

Savings: I’m in a position where I don’t have many regular expenses, so I’m usually able to save around $2,000 a month. Occasionally I’ll dip into that when my other account runs low. I currently have about $8,000 saved, after recently buying a new car. I’m not saving for anything specific at the moment. Buying a home isn’t on the cards ANY time soon, so I see it more as a flexible fund — something I can use for a holiday, or keep set aside for unexpected expenses.

I worry about money: Sometimes.

Three words to describe my financial situation: Comfortable, sometimes anxious, cruising.

My biggest edible indulgence would be: A good $14 kumara sourdough from Daily Bread once a month. They’re so good but I can’t justify buying them unless it’s payday.

In a typical week my alcohol expenditure would be: I don’t drink much, unless I’m going out to a friends house or to a gig. But when I do I’d say $29 for a box.

In a typical week my transport expenditure would be: The petrol crisis is definitely hitting me (and everyone else) at the moment – it costs over $200 to fill up my car every one-and-a-half to two weeks. On top of that, I’m paying around $40 a week for parking in the city. It’s one of those situations where public transport isn’t really a viable option either, as it would mean catching three buses each way to get to and from work. So unfortunately, there’s not much room for me to cut costs or save more in that area.

I estimate in the past year the ballpark amount I spent on my personal clothing (including sleepwear and underwear) was: I have a very committed relationship with retail therapy. I love shopping and don’t see that changing anytime soon. I’d say I spent over $3,000 on clothes last year without too much trouble. I did go to Japan last year and managed to do some very successful shopping there, which kept me satisfied for a little while…

My most expensive clothing in the past year was: If shoes count, I bought a pair of Salomons in Shibuya for about $300NZD. But I ADORE them and I’ve definitely gotten my money’s worth.

My last pair of shoes cost: I bought a pair of New Balance 1000s from someone on Depop for about $50. They retail around $280 so I was pretty pleased with that one.

My grooming/beauty expenditure in a year is about: I don’t use a lot of makeup – mainly just mascara and a bit of highlighter. I do, however, love Japanese and Korean skincare, and probably spend around $200-300 a year on that for the luminous glow. I also get a keratin treatment once or twice a year to tame the beast that is my hair, along with a few haircuts, so I’d estimate I spend about $600 annually at the hairdresser.

My exercise expenditure in a year is about: I always say there’s nothing more important than spending money on your health, so I’m pretty happy to invest in that where I can. I go to the gym regularly, which is only $7 a week for my City Fitness membership, a bit of a steal. I also do two Pilates classes each week at $20 each, and play indoor social netball every so often at around $8 a week when I’m in a team. All up, I’d estimate I spend somewhere between $1,500-$2,000 a year to stay active and feel good.

My last Friday night cost: $29. Went over to my parents’ house for a wood-fire pizza dinner and a few drinks (which I bought).

Most regrettable purchase in the last 12 months was: A pair of silver Nike Total shoes. I loved the look of them but they are just SO silver. I have probably worn them twice and don’t know if I ever will again.

Most indulgent purchase (that I don’t regret) in the last 12 months was: My trip to Japan was definitely my most memorable expense. It was my first proper long-haul trip out of New Zealand, I’d only been to Australia and Fiji before, and it ended up being the best trip I’ve ever had.

One area where I’m a bit of a tightwad is: Supermarket purchases are where I’m quite conscious of spending. I almost always go for the home brand options – realistically, they taste the same, it’s just the label that changes the price. If I can save a bit of money by choosing supermarket brands over well-known names, I’ll do it every time.

I grew up in a house where money was: Money was somewhat tight growing up, but we never went without, there was always food on the table, everything we needed for school, and the occasional treat and sometimes a holiday away. I was taught from a young age to value money and be grateful for it. I’ve always carried that mindset with me and feel really thankful for what I had growing up and especially grateful to my parents for giving me such a great childhood.

The last time my Eftpos card was declined was: Probably 2019 during Uni. Probably while out in town for drinks.

In five years, in financial terms, I see myself: I would love to go up the ranks in my job, hopefully have a kid OR a dog with my partner and be on the road to buying my first home.

I would love to have more money for: Travelling. This is where I really really try to save for. I haven’t been to a lot of places and I would love to be able to travel the world.

Describe your financial low: Having three bank accounts open and all of them having $0. Having to borrow money from my parents for rent and living off Marmite and toast for breakfast lunch and dinner. Again, I am extremely grateful to have parents that can help me out in tougher situations.

From gas loans to wilding pine, a run of early budget announcements have set the stage for Thursday’s big reveal, writes Catherine McGregor in today’s excerpt from The Bulletin.

To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday, sign up here.

Last orders before Thursday

After a fortnight of press releases and media stand-ups, one of the final pre-budget announcements arrived on Monday: a Crown-backed loan scheme to help gas-reliant industries transition away from fossil fuels. The government will guarantee 80% of eligible loans, with $48 million set aside to cover potential losses. Finance minister Nicola Willis was at pains to distance the scheme from the previous government’s Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry fund – the decarbonisation initiative she once called “corporate welfare” and wound down in 2023 – arguing this is commercial banks making lending decisions, not ministers handing out grants.

It was the latest in a busy run of pre-budget spending announcements. Already confirmed: $131 million for primary education, $212 million to extend the healthy school lunches programme through 2027, $15.5 million for paediatric palliative care, $35 million in extra funding for St John ambulance, $1.5 billion for defence and maritime security and $79 million to tackle wilding pine.

Cuts and consolidations

As one hand of the government gives, the other hand takes away. The centrepiece spending cut of the pre-budget period is, of course, the plan to reduce the core public service headcount to 55,000 full-time equivalent staff by 2029 – down from 1.2% of the population to roughly 1% – generating $2.4 billion in savings over four years. The fees-free university scheme is another casualty, set to end after 2026, and a social housing overhaul will see income-related rent contributions rise from 25% to 30%, among other tightened rules.

Part of the savings drive involves consolidating agencies. Willis has pointed to the new Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport – MCERT – as a template for what is to come. Cabinet minister Chris Bishop has cautioned against expecting overnight results. “This is about setting the public service up for the future. It’s not about immediate savings in the next six months or even the next year,” he told RNZ’s Jo Moir.

Carveouts and contradictions

The public service reform involves cutting 2% from the operating budgets of most agencies and departments in the coming year. Not included: MFAT. The Winston Peters-led ministry secured a carveout from the initial cut, though it will be included in the government-wide 5% cuts in subsequent years. In The Spinoff this morning Hayden Donnell uses the exemption as a jumping-off point for a wider observation about the coalition’s uneven approach to fiscal discipline.

Despite being part of a government ostensibly intent on belt-tightening, Peters has made little secret of his scepticism that the 5% job cuts will materialise. “The Budget doesn’t stretch four years – if you believe that with an election coming, you know nothing about democracy. That’s knucklehead stuff, mate”, he said.

Meanwhile Act leader David Seymour was enthusiastic about the 8,700 public sector job cuts – “fewer departments, fewer bureaucrats, and the public service sucking up less taxpayer money is just what the doctor ordered” – but seems rather more eager to splash the cash when it comes to his Ministry of Regulation or new charter school agency. As Donnell puts it: “when it comes to our politicians, it almost always seems to be nuance for me and tough economic necessity for thee”.

Constrained choices

Those tensions illustrate Nicola Willis’s problem as Budget 2026 approaches. Writing in The Post (paywalled), Luke Malpass argues she’s in an awkward position: the deficit hawks on her right feel she’s being too generous with the cash, while voters are reluctant to credit her for keeping spending in check.

Even without those political pressures, the government’s options are constrained by the lack of fiscal wiggle room. Spending over the next five years will continue to be concentrated in superannuation, health, welfare and debt servicing, Malpass says – “all areas driven either by demographic pressure or existing obligations”.

If one thing is certain, it’s that voters should expect very little new spending announced on Thursday. “Budgets are always about choices. This one will underline how constrained those choices have become.”

David Seymour and Winston Peters are all for fiscal discipline and hard choices, just not when it comes to their own ministries.

David Seymour was fizzing as the government announced 8,700 public sector job cuts earlier this month. “Fewer departments, fewer bureaucrats, and the public service sucking up less taxpayer money is just what the doctor ordered,” said Act’s leader, in his party’s first press release on the move. 

That hardline stance softened a few days later, in an RNZ interview on a new report from Seymour’s Ministry of Regulation, which shows we have 267 regulatory bodies. When Midday Report’s Guyon Espiner pointed out that Act had contributed to that number by setting up a new charter school agency, Seymour was suddenly less bullish. “What you’re saying here is a false premise that everything named in this report is somehow bad or shouldn’t be there,” he replied.

Seymour went on to defend the “specialist” work being done by that agency’s staff, along with the return on investment from his own Ministry of Regulation, which has boasted some of the highest salaries in the public sector over the last two-and-a-half years. “It’s very clear that the value to taxpayers in removing red tape… far exceeds the cost that has gone into it,” he said.

Act’s leader isn’t alone in having a more generous perspective on the departments he’s connected to. New Zealand First leader Winston Peters successfully negotiated a carveout from the cuts in this year’s budget for the foreign service. Though it’s still subject to reductions in future years, Peters scoffed at the suggestion those projected job losses will actually materialise. “The budget doesn’t stretch four years, if you believe that [the cuts will take place] with an election coming, you know nothing about democracy,” he said. “That’s knucklehead stuff, mate.”

Our diplomatic corps will be breathing a sigh of relief. Not so other workers, who face losing their roles after New Zealand First joins Act and National in approving the budget on Thursday. 

Louise Upston will be among those casting their vote in favour of the budget in parliament. The social development minister is also getting in on the cost-cutting drive with a bill slashing government accommodation support for low-income households. Currently they can claim a supplement if they spend at least 30% of their income on housing costs. Upston is seeking to up that to 40%.

Upston has defended the move, saying the eligibility rules for the supplement haven’t been updated in 33 years. At the same time, she’s taking advantage of another decades-old accommodation support scheme, claiming $1,000 a week to live in Wellington as an out-of-town MP despite parliament’s pecuniary records showing she jointly owns an apartment in the city.

The records don’t show any mortgage debt for Upston, so it’s unlikely she’s paying more than 40% of her $320,000 salary towards housing. Despite that, the government hasn’t shown similar interest in updating the eligibility rules for its own accommodation support scheme.

Perhaps the government would say the savings from adjusting its own rules would be small in the scheme of things. Peters might claim the foreign service needs stable funding to keep us “safe and prosperous” in an increasingly unstable geopolitical climate. Seymour would argue his own ministries’ staff are difficult to replace and generally make a cash-positive contribution.

But all those arguments could be applied elsewhere too. Inland Revenue would probably view the value-for-money argument with some interest, given it collects $100 in tax for every 46 cents invested in its operations. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and the education ministry may think they have a role in keeping us prosperous. The corrections and justice departments could say they’re keeping us safe as much as the foreign affairs ministry.

Low-income families, meanwhile, might ask why they’re being asked to sacrifice for relatively paltry savings, while the high-paid elected representatives making those cuts retain the most generous government benefits on offer. They could wonder why, when it comes to our politicians, it almost always seems to be nuance for me and tough economic necessity for thee.

Perhaps they’re just too far from those politicians’ inner circles. It’s always easier to wield the bludgeon rather than the scalpel when it only affects someone you don’t know. 

The issue is wider than budget cuts. Back in 2023, New Zealand First deputy leader Shane Jones appeared on RNZ’s Mata, where Mihingarangi Forbes asked him about NZ First’s efforts to ban trans women from female bathrooms. “I’m surprised that women themselves have allowed this virus and this narrative of trans rights to essentially trump womanhood,” he said.

But when Forbes brought up Jones’s old colleague Georgina Beyer, asking him whether he’d force her to go to the bathroom with “you and Winston”, the bluster dissipated. “I have no recollection of Georgina ever raising those kinds of issues,” he said. Perhaps he was worried that enacting his policies on a real, rather than theoretical, person would seem cruel. If the same empathy could be applied across the board, it might improve our politicians’ decision-making.