Bitter butter battle tops bulletins, Saudi sports cash
A bitter battle over the price of butter led news bulletins this week, prompting a 'please explain' from the finance minister to Fonterra. But did the media miss the main point? Also: pundits say Sky TV taking over Three strengthens its on-screen sport play, but the cash Saudi Arabia's suddenly splashing could end up changing the picture.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
28 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Should Eftpos and cash-users get a discount?
The government plans to ban surcharges on card payments in-store, saving shoppers from being stung with surprise fees when paying with contactless technology. Photo: RNZ / Leonard Powell Don't expect a discount if you're paying with Eftpos or cash when the new contactless surcharge ban takes effect - but businesses are being put on notice that they shouldn't need to raise prices by more than 1 percent. It was announced on Monday that legislation would be introduced to Parliament to ban surcharges for in-store credit card transactions by the end of the year . Café and roastery owner Richard Corney said it would prompt him to put up prices because he could not absorb the cost himself. He said he paid $12,000 in merchant fees in 2023. Retail NZ chief executive Carolyn Young said the cost to businesses could be significant and all customers would end up bearing it, rather than simply those using contactless cards. "If businesses have to increase their prices to take into account those that pay by contactless and you pay by cash or Eftpos, you're still swiped." She said it was unlikely that retail businesses would offer discounts to those using other payment methods. Recommended retail prices were set at a level that took into account all the business's costs, she said. Small businesses had limited power to negotiate on the card fees they were charged, she said, and they had to be able to accept the payment methods to be able to do business. Corney said he would not offer discounts to those using cash or Eftpos. "Given the government is removing a cost recovery mechanism for merchant fees in general, there's still a net cost to businesses like ours, despite the regulated interchange fees." Infometrics chief forecaster Gareth Kiernan said cash transactions were not free for businesses, either. "I imagine in today's world where very few people pay in cash, the implicit cost associated with the hassle of needing to have appropriate change, finding time to taking money to the bank is reasonably high as a proportion of each transaction. For a small business, that cost is probably not properly accounted for, and might even be zero in accounting terms because the owner is effectively doing it in their own time. "The subsidisation by Eftpos transactions is probably more clear-cut, because there is a reasonably obvious gap in the charges for credit/PayWave transactions vs debit/Eftpos, with little or no difference in the associated work for the business receiving payment. I'd expect to see some more retailers reverting to not accepting credit cards, assessing that the possible inconvenience for their customers is outweighed by the cost savings for their business." But how much can prices reasonably rise? Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Scott Simpson said the change would take effect after interchange fees were capped, so they should not be as high as they have been. Consumer NZ spokesperson Jessica Walker said the fee reduction that was expected from late November should reduce the cost to business significantly. "Our stance is that those costs are going to be lower so even if businesses decide to increase prices because of the surcharge ban, that increase should be about 1 percent." She said that was preferable to some of the complaints Consumer received, which reported surcharges up to 25 percent. "The current situation is a mess, it's not working." She said a change in 2022 when the Retail Payment Systems Act took effect was meant to save money but those savings had not been experienced by shoppers. "The decision to ban surcharges should mean there is more money in shoppers' back pockets. Without a ban, there's no guarantee the savings will be passed on." But Young said it was likely that the surcharge ban would prompt more people to move to contactless payments, which would increase the costs overall, even if each charge was smaller. "It would have been great for the minister to let the Commerce Commission go through a proper consultation process." She said a range of surcharges were being charged at present but it would have been useful to allow the interchange caps to take effect and see what the effect was. "The Commerce Commission was going to run a consultation around surcharges," he said. Young said she had expected that could lead to new limits. Walker said open banking should also help to reduce the cost of payments.
RNZ News
28 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Voting reforms, prisoner bans and enrolment changes - What you need to know about the Electoral Amendment Bill
A proposed bill would make several changes to how elections are run before the 2026 election. Photo: RNZ / File Explainer - The Electoral Amendment Bill faces its first reading today in Parliament. But what does it actually say? The government has announced sweeping plans to change electoral processes before the 2026 election. In announcing the bill last week , Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said the government was "overhauling outdated and unsustainable electoral laws". However there's been pushback at the proposed changes, especially the elimination of Election Day enrolment. The bill is set to face its first reading in Parliament on Tuesday afternoon. Here's a breakdown of what the bill proposes and the reaction to it. The Electoral Amendment Bill claims it "makes a range of systems improvements to support the timeliness, efficiency, integrity, and resilience of the electoral system". It makes a suite of changes including ending same-day voter enrolment, banning prisoner voting, changes to treating on Election Day and expanding anonymous political donation limits. Here's the main points. Same-day enrolment will be a thing of the past if the bill passes. "Allowing late enrolments, however well intentioned, has placed too much strain on the system," Goldsmith said. "The final vote count used to take two weeks, last election it took three. "If we leave things as they are, it could well take even longer in future elections. The 20-day timeframe for a final result will likely already be challenging to achieve at the next election without changes." Voters had been able to show up during the advance voting period and enrol at the same time, as well as on Election Day, with their vote being counted as a special vote. The government wants to close enrolment before advance voting begins, with people needing to enrol or update their details by midnight on the Sunday before advance voting starts on the Monday morning (in other words, 13 days before election day). The legislation sets a requirement of 12 days advance voting at each election. The changes could mean special vote processing could get underway sooner. Speaking to Morning Report this week, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said "we want enrolment to happen before early voting starts". "The experience last time was by virtue of having on the day enrolment we ended up in a situation where it took us three weeks to count the vote, which was the longest it had ever taken us as well. "We want everyone to participate, you've got plenty of time to do so. "They can participate in the voting, they just need to do it and get themselves organised earlier, that's all." University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said the change might affect future election results and how they lean politically. "As a whole, since 1999 special votes have favoured the parties of the left - resulting in their picking up one or two more seats in the House at the expense of parties on the right. Restricting same day enrolment and voting can thus be predicted to reduce the number of votes cast by groups that support left-of-centre parties." However, he said that impact could be offset by voters enrolling earlier. "However, the groups most affected here - younger voters, those who are transient, and minority populations - are the hardest to reach through education campaigns and the like. That means we can predict that there will still be a substantial number of people not properly enrolled when voting commences, who will as a result lose the right to have their vote counted." The changes won't actually stop people from casting a ballot on election day, he said. Special votes must still be processed. "It's just that they won't be included in the final vote count once it is determined that the person has not enrolled to vote by the required time," Geddis said. "As such, the effectiveness of this change in reducing the burden on electoral officials is open to question." The bill would also introduce automatic enrolment updates so the Electoral Commission can update people's enrolment details using data from other government agencies, and remove postal requirements for enrolment. Special votes on Election Day take longer to process. Photo: RNZ / Nick Monro Special votes are anyone who isn't on the electoral roll or unpublished roll, lives overseas or vote away from a polling place because they can't get to one. The number of special votes have been growing which has resulted in seats swinging in the final count compared to election night. In 2023, nearly 21 percent, or 603,257 of all votes cast, were special votes . Only 78,030 of those were from overseas voters. Processing them takes more time than regular votes. Goldsmith said late enrolments placed too much strain on the system. "If we leave things as they are, it could well take even longer in future elections. The 20-day timeframe for a final result will likely already be challenging to achieve at the next election without changes." The bill disqualifies all prisoners convicted and sentenced from enrolling and voting while in prison. It doesn't apply to persons who have committed a crime but are detained in a hospital or secure facility. In 2020, the Labour government amended the law so that only people serving a term of three or more years were disqualified. The National-led coalition government had earlier signalled the change back . "Everyone understands that if you violate the rights of others, you surrender certain rights of your own," ACT justice spokesperson Todd Stephenson said. "Reinstating the ban on prisoner voters makes the consequences for crime clearer." Attorney-General Judith Collins. Photo: RNZ / REECE BAKER Some have said the new bill will disenfranchise voters, while others are applauding it. "This is a significant, but necessary change," Goldsmith said. "The Electoral Commission will have plenty of time to run an education campaign to ensure people understand the new requirements." In a Regulatory Impact Statement prepared earlier this year , the Ministry of Justice did not support closing enrolment earlier. "Its impact on reducing special votes is uncertain, while its impact on democratic participation could be significant," officials said. And the government's Attorney-General, Judith Collins, has also said the legislation could breach the Bill of Rights. In a report , Collins concluded that the bill appeared inconsistent with the right to vote, to freedom of expression and the rights of prisoners in certain circumstances regarding changing penalties. She pointed to section 12 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 , which states that every New Zealand Citizen who is of or over the age of 18 has the right to vote. "The accepted starting-point is the fundamental importance of the right to vote within a liberal democracy," the report states. "A compelling justification is required to limit that right." Geddis said that Collins' report was not surprising. "We know that banning all prisoners from voting is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights as the Supreme Court has declared this to be so. And in relation to removing same-day enrolment and voting for the entire voting period, the fact that there are other ways to address the problem of a slow vote count without taking away people's right to vote means it is not a justified limit. As such, the Attorney-General's conclusions are to be expected." Green Party spokesperson for Democracy and Electoral Reform Celia Wade Brown said: "These changes represent a dark day for our democracy. "Requiring enrolments before voting starts will see even more people miss out from expressing their democratic right. In the last General Election, over 200,000 people enrolled to vote or updated their details in the last 12 days. These changes would see all of these people miss out on having their say." ACT's Stephenson disagreed, calling late enrollees "lazy". "Democracy works best when voters are informed, engaged, and take the process seriously. It's outrageous that someone completely disengaged and lazy can rock up to the voting booth, get registered there and then, and then vote to tax other people's money away." ACT leader David Seymour. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii ACT leader David Seymour also weighed in for the change, saying "frankly, I'm a bit sick of dropkicks that can't get themselves organised to follow the law." Those comments were later called "unhelpful" by Justice Minister Goldsmith. "I disagree with that language ... It's not language I would use," Luxon told Morning Report . Geddis said it was worrying to see an "apparent dismissiveness" by the government of concerns. "They are being warned that their proposed legislation will remove a fundamental right from thousands of New Zealanders without good enough reason. "Their response then seems to be that this is a trifling matter which can be overlooked because it is easier and more administratively convenient to simply stop allowing same day enrolment and voting. "Or, even worse, that the people whose rights are being limited are just 'dropkicks' who do not deserve any respect." The government has also announced that it will slightly increase the threshold for anonymous political donations. "The donation threshold for reporting the names of party donors is also being adjusted from $5000 to $6000, to account for inflation," Goldsmith said. The Greens' Wade Brown criticised that. "While the government has taken away votes from people in prison and made it harder to vote in general, it has made it easier for wealthy people to donate to political parties from the shadows by raising the disclosure threshold to $6000," she said. Treating is the practice of influencing a voter by providing them with free food, drink, or entertainment. It's already an offence, but the bill aims to make it clearer what exactly isn't allowed . The bill creates a new offence that prohibits the provision of free food, drink or entertainment within 100 metres of a voting place while voting is taking place. It will be punishable by a fine of up to $10,000. "There has been some confusion in the past around what is and isn't treating," Goldsmith said. "This will make the rules crystal clear." Election advertising or campaigning is not permitted within 10 metres of a voting place during advanced voting, and not at all on election day itself. In a Regulatory Impact Statement, Ministry of Justice officials said controlled areas around voting places would make it more straightforward to identify and prosecute offending and was more readily enforceable than the status quo. "The offence will not require that a person intends to corruptly influence an elector. Instead it will only require that they knowingly provided food, drink and entertainment within the controlled area," they said. But it was not their preferred option. "A key drawback of this option is that it is a blunt tool which does not exclusively capture harmful or corrupt behaviour. It draws a superficial line around voting places which may be arbitrary if the influencing behaviour occurs just outside the controlled area." Complaints about possible breaching of treating by providing food at a polling booth at Manurewa Marae were investigated after the 2023 election. It found those did not meet the test for treating. The bill will now go before Parliament in a first reading. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith The first reading today will determine the path forward for the bill. If it passes a first reading, it's referred on to a Select Committee for further development, then will be further considered by Parliament. Geddis said these reforms were left to a simple majority of votes in Parliament like any other piece of legislation. "Because the government has a majority in Parliament, if it wants to do this, it can. It's just a question of whether it's the right thing to do," he told RNZ's Checkpoint . Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Jewellery entrepreneur Sir Michael Hill dies
Sir Michael Hill. Photo: supplied Sir Michael Hill has died. The founder of the well-known chain of jewellery stores was 86. Sir Michael died on Tuesday morning, according to a statement from the business he founded to the New Zealand and Australian stock exchanges. Born in Whangarei, Sir Michael worked as a young man for his uncle, Arthur Fisher, at the family jewellery store. In 1979 he opened his own store nearby, and over the next 45 years the chain expanded to nearly 300 (281 in April 2023) stores in Australia and Canada as well as New Zealand. The company, now based in Brisbane, is currently chaired by Rob Fyfe. In 2001 Sir Michael's lifelong love of violin music led him to found the biennial Michael Hill International Violin Competition for 'emerging young violinists'. He was knighted in 2011. More to come...
