NZ Herald Live: Mark Mitchell speaks to media about tsunami threat from mega quake
Act minister David Seymour and Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick join Ryan Bridge on Herald NOW to discuss oil and gas exploration, the nurses' strike and electoral law changes.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
ACT Launches Largest Local Government Campaign In New Zealand
ACT Local has today unveiled its full slate of candidates for the 2025 local body elections: 46 practical, community-minded New Zealanders standing across 25 councils. With 37 ward and constituency level candidates, it's the largest local government campaign mounted by a political party in New Zealand, including Labour and the Greens who have stood council candidates for many years. ACT Local is standing a further 9 candidates for Auckland Local Board positions. 'These are New Zealanders who've had enough of being ignored by their councils,' says ACT Leader David Seymour. 'They're stepping up to deliver real change and lower rates. 'ACT's candidates come from all walks of life; we have business owners, tradies, healthcare workers, farmers, and many professionals. What unites them is a belief in sensible spending, equal rights, and a back-to-basics approach. They're ready to bring real-world experience and common sense to the council table. 'Many have built successful careers, but more importantly, they're local residents and ratepayers – people who've built homes, raised families, and dealt firsthand with council bureaucracy. They know what it's like to stretch a budget and deal with the challenges people face locally. 'Now they're stepping forward to bring practical solutions and a laser focus on core services like roads, water, and rubbish. 'In central government, ACT is cutting waste, defending equal rights, and taking pressure off households. Our councillors will do the same: vote against wasteful spending, stand up for democratic principles, and focus on essential services without driving up rates. 'Kiwis voted for real change in 2023, but our councils missed the memo. 'While ratepayers face eye-watering rate hikes, councils are blowing money on vanity projects, pushing ideological agendas like co-governance, and wasting time grandstanding about global politics – all while ignoring the basics. 'Every local election, voters get the little booklet with their ballot paper and tick whoever they think will do the best job. But too often, you don't know what you are going to get. Candidates promise one thing and then do another. With ACT Local candidates, you'll know exactly where they stand. 'So if there's an ACT Local candidate in your area and you want real change from your council, I hope you will give them your support.' Candidate profiles can be found here. A full list of our candidates is below: Northland Far North District Council Davina Smolders – Bay of Islands–Whangaroa Ward Whangārei District Council Matthew Yovich – Bream Bay Ward Kaipara District Council Nima Maleiki – Kaiwaka–Mangawhai Ward Roger Billington – Otamatea Ward Auckland Council & Local Boards Albany Ward and Hibiscus and Bays Local Board (Hibiscus Coast Subdivision) Samuel Mills North Shore Ward and Devonport-Takapuna Local Board Helena Roza Franklin Ward and Franklin Local Board (Wairoa Subdivision) Dene Green Howick Ward and Howick Local Board (Botany Subdivision) Ali Dahche Manukau Ward and Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board (Ōtara Subdivision) Henrietta Devoe Hibiscus and Bays Local Board (Hibiscus Coast Subdivision) Yang Qu Kaipātiki Local Board Martin Lundqvist Henderson-Massey Local Board Ben Cox Ōrākei Local Board Martin Mahler Amanda Lockyer Robert Meredith Howick Local Board (Pakuranga Subdivision) Pat Arroyo Howick Local Board (Howick Subdivision) William Goldberg Papakura Local Board Prasad Gawande Central & Lower North Island Waikato District Council Peter Mayall – Tamahere–Woodlands Ward Hauraki District Council Michelle Magnus – Paeroa Ward Andrew Pickford – Plains Ward Waipa District Council Stuart Hylton – Cambridge Ward Hamilton City Council Nidhita Gosai – West Ward Preet Dhaliwal – East Ward New Plymouth District Council Damon Fox – Kaitake–Ngāmotu Ward Napier City Council Iain Bradley – Ahuriri Ward Manawatū District Council Jerry Pickford – Feilding Ward Aaron McLeod – Feilding Ward Palmerston North City Council Glen Williams – General Ward Porirua City Council Phill Houlihan – Pāuatahanui Ward Greater Wellington Regional Council Nigel Elder – Lower Hutt Constituency Alice Claire Hurdle – Wellington Constituency Wellington City Council Ray Bowden – Onslow–Western Ward Mark Flynn – Northern Ward Luke Kuggeleijn – Eastern Ward South Island Candidates Tasman District Council David Ross – Motueka Ward Daniel Shirley – Richmond Ward Marlborough District Council Malcolm Taylor – Marlborough Sounds Ward John Hyndman – Blenheim Ward Hurunui District Council Tom Spooner – South Ward Waimakariri District Council Nathan Atkins – Kaiapoi–Woodend Ward Selwyn District Council Chris Till – Rolleston Ward Timaru District Council John Bolt – Timaru Ward Environment Canterbury Regional Council Toni Severin – South Canterbury Constituency Otago Regional Council Robbie Byars – Molyneux Constituency Dunedin City Council Anthony Kenny – Council At-large Ward
RNZ News
9 hours ago
- RNZ News
Mediawatch: The politics of PayWave
Photo: 123RF "Can someone get the Beehive a press secretary who can understand a news cycle?" asked the host of Herald Now show Ryan Bridge, opening his show last Tuesday with a bit of a broadside at the government's political management. "Yesterday we had a 10-minute sermon - that's the opposition's words - from Nicola Willis and Christopher Luxon about the cost of living crisis," he said, referring to Monday's post-Cabinet press conference . That was timed for the first anniversary of their tax cuts - so why was that timing so bad? Bridge flourished The Herald 's own front page that day with a scoop about big boosts to the fees that Crown bodies can pay board members. "It's probably the worst headline you could have at a time like this," he spluttered. "Now I'm not saying they don't deserve it, but the timing... come on!" In bad economic times, stuff that looks bad can end up looking a lot worse no matter what day it goes public. The lead story on Herald Now that day also looked like it was timed with optics in mind - banning surcharges on in-store contactless transactions. "Those pesky surcharges on card payments are gone-skis," Bridge declared, echoing the government's own announcement. "Most customers will be very happy to see an end to the horrible little curled up handwritten coffee stain stickers on the EFTPOS machine," Consumer Affairs Minister Scott Simpson told Ryan Bridge. But Bridge was not distracted by the aesthetics of EFTPOS terminals. He wanted to know who would really reap the benefit of the estimated $150 million saved from the surcharges salami-sliced out at stores as things stand. "That will be absorbed into the retail system," the minister said. "Right. Higher prices, in other words?" Bridge asked. "It's not much over the entire New Zealand commercial marketplace," the minister countered. But if so, it would not really cut the cost of living very much at all - and was not really a strong lead story at a time with so much else going on. "We can only pray that Luxon and Willis understand that shifting $90 million from banks to consumers is irrelevant in the context of a $430 billion economy, including the $7.2 billion the banks made in profits last year," columnist Matthew Hooton said in The Herald on Friday. Consumer NZ was not stoked that credit card surcharges applied to online payments were not covered by the ban. "This is disappointing because your flight or accommodation booking or any other online purchases could still attract a surcharge," Consumer NZ said. "Those transactions are generally much more expensive to process because... they have to protect against online scams, online fraud," Nicola Willis told RNZ's First Up . "We've kept them out of the regime for now because part-passing on the charge to the consumer makes more sense there," she added. But banks also deal with that and their charges are regulated - and it is far from transparent now how those costs are covered for online credit card transactions. While the Prime Minister had said on Monday: "You will no longer be penalised for your choice of payment method," media scrutiny this week revealed that users of EFTPOS and cash payers might end up penalised by a ban. "Any transaction where someone pays by swiping or inserting, is free for a retailer. But as people move to contactless... a higher percentage of their transactions will incur a fee," Retail NZ's Carolyn Young told RNZ 's Morning Report . The Commerce Commission recently moved to cap the interchange fees banks charge each other. That was also meant to reduce the cost to retailers. More people now using PayWave could wipe out the other potential benefits. "I think it's really just performative. If we're paywaving everywhere and then the costs are shared across everyone," Dan Brunskill of told RNZ 's Nine to Noon on Tuesday when asked about the PayWave surcharge ban. The same day BusinessDesk pointed out that just 10 days earlier the Commerce Commission had claimed its interchange fee cap would save businesses $90 million a year in payment costs. The Commission [ also said it was already exploring what regulation may be needed to address excessive surcharging, which it estimated at about $45 million to $60 million a year. But Business Desk's headline Government beats Commerce Commission to card surcharge ban showed that in this case, the government might have got its PR timing right to take the credit for reduced credit card payment costs now. The media scrutiny also illuminated another duopolistic aspect of our economy: Visa and MasterCard dominating this payment trade. Alternatives do exist, BusinessDesk tech reporter Peter Griffin pointed out on Wednesday . But he said after the surcharge ban, PayWavers here will be less likely to seek out cheaper solutions if they cannot see they are cheaper. "We should now focus on reducing the underlying costs of payment processing, not simply regulating away the only mechanism for acknowledging those costs. In the world of payments, as in so much else, what's visible on the bill is only the start of the story." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
NZ Herald
13 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Facing prospect of election defeat, Government tries to change the rules
There's no good reason to remove election-day enrolment, which has been in place since 2020. And there's certainly no reason to remove the ability to enrol during the advance voting period. You've been able to enrol up to the day before election day since 1993. The idea that election-day enrolment was delaying the official results is also nonsense. Whether people update their enrolment details two weeks before the election or on election day, that form still has to be processed and their information updated. It's the same amount of workers' time, either way. The Government can just hire more people to do it after election day, rather than before, and the job will get done on time. Don't give me the 'well, they should sort out their enrolment details earlier' line. I thought National and Act were against bureaucracy? And now they're saying you should lose your right to vote unless you know about the bureaucracy of voter enrolment and tick the state's forms well ahead of time? We should be making it as easy as possible for people to exercise their right to vote. Aotearoa New Zealand has a good record in that regard. We were world leaders in votes for Māori, votes for women, removing the property-ownership test. We don't have people queuing for hours like in the United States. But now the Government wants to use bureaucracy to trip people up and stop them voting. Even Judith Collins has said it is wrong: 'The proposal for a 13-day registration deadline appears to constitute an unjustified limit on s12 of the NZBORA [the right to vote]. The accepted starting point is the fundamental importance of the right to vote within a liberal democracy. A compelling justification is required to limit that right.' The Deputy Prime Minister says you're a 'dropkick' if you don't get your registration sorted well before the election. But why shouldn't a person be able to come along on election day or in the early voting period, cast their vote, and, if their enrolment details need updating, do it at the same time? Why force us to use an inefficient, two-step process? Since when has the supposedly libertarian Act Party loved bureaucracy? Truth is, we know why the Government is doing this. It's a Government that's failing to deliver and fading in the polls. In most recent polls, Labour has been ahead of National. Forty-eight per cent of voters say it's time for a new Government. Only 38% want to give this Government a second chance. So they're trying to screw the scrum in their favour. David Seymour let it slip with his 'dropkicks' comment. Act MP Todd Stephenson put it even more bluntly: '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.' Trying to make sure only the 'right' people are voting is dangerous, anti-democratic thinking. We all know this change is about setting up barriers for people who are young, Māori, disengaged or alienated from the structures of power and wealth in this country – because those people are unlikely to vote for a Government that works in the interests of the wealthy and powerful. The Government knows full well that these New Zealanders, who have the same right to vote as anyone else, are less likely to be familiar with the rules around registration. The Government also knows there will be many people, Kiwis not as politically engaged as you and me, dear reader, but no less worthy of the vote, who will turn up to a polling place on election day or during the advance voting period thinking that they can update their registration at the same time as they vote – because that's how it has been and they haven't heard about the change – and be turned away under this new law. Democracy is meant to be a contest of ideas. And it is fundamental to democracy that the voters choose the Government, not the other way around. If the Government wants to be re-elected, it should give people a reason to vote for it, not try to exclude voters it doesn't like.
