The Panel with Chris Wikaira and Leonie Freeman Part 1
To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following:
See terms of use.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
41 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Couple take former Pāpāmoa Beach homeowner to court as she refuses to leave
By Hannah Bartlett, Open Justice reporter of Terina O'Connell says she had not consented to the mortgagee sale but ASB went ahead with it anyway. Photo: Hannah Bartlett / NZME A couple who bought a Pāpāmoa Beach house needed a High Court order to remove the previous owner, after she refused to leave the property. New owners Benjamin and Chelsea Brown bought the two-bedroom home at a mortgagee sale this year, with settlement taking place on 21 May. Previous owner Terina O'Connell said she had been trying to "negotiate a solution with ASB for two years" and had not consented to the sale of her home. As a result, she refused to move out and even went as far as reaching out to people on social media, asking them to come to her home and support her before settlement day. The new owners sought a trespass order on 22 May to remove O'Connell and her supporters, and when that didn't work, they took their case to the High Court. According to a recently released High Court decision, Justice Dani Gardiner held a telephone conference on 6 June, when O'Connell's position could be heard by all parties. The court was also referred to a Facebook post she made, where she invited supporters to join her at the house. There are two posts still on her Facebook page, in which she did a "call-out" for support, saying "all I know is that the supposed settlement is Tuesday, 20 May 2025 - tomorrow". She said the purchasers had "made a deal with the devil" and that "the bank does not own my property, I have no business with you and I am not bound by any contract you made". She posted that she "would appreciate some support at my home... tomorrow afternoon... tomorrow night and for the next couple of days". While not discussed in the High Court judgment, there was also a livestreamed Facebook interview that O'Connell did with Counterspin Media, in which she explained her views on the "alleged debt" owed to the bank. In it, she said she had paused her mortgage repayments, while the bank refused to provide her with documentation she had requested or answer questions she had. The judge summarised O'Connell's position as primarily taking issue with the mortgagee sale process conducted by ASB. O'Connell told the court she'd tried to "negotiate a solution" for two years and had not consented to the mortgagee sale, and said ASB went ahead with the sale anyway. She also said ASB's solicitor advised her of the settlement date, but said she was told the couple's lawyer would contact her about vacating. O'Connell said that never happened and, the day after settlement, the new owner arrived at the property, followed by security guards and police, and she had been "harassed". She rejected the couple's claim that her presence at the house, with others, had posed a risk of damage to the property, adding they were there to "support her through this stressful time", and that she would experience emotional and financial hardship, if forced to leave. Justice Gardiner's decision said the Browns were the registered owners, and any issues that O'Connell had before the mortgagee sale were "between her and ASB". "These issues do not affect the plaintiffs' legal ownership of the property," Justice Gardiner said. The judge said, while it may have been unfortunate if O'Connell had been unaware the couple intended to take possession of the property immediately on settlement, that was the usual case. She also accepted there was a risk of damage to the property by O'Connell or her supporters. The High Court judgment also noted that, while O'Connell remained at the property, the couple were in breach of their insurance policy, as they couldn't change the locks or get an electrical warrant of fitness. They were also unable to rent the property to service their mortgage, which placed them at risk of default. The judge made an order requiring O'Connell and any other occupants to vacate the property by Monday, 9 June. Cotality New Zealand data showed a "minor lift" to 81 mortgagee sales in the second quarter of this year, up on the previous quarter, when there were 52. This marked the highest number since the fourth quarter of 2023, when there were 101 mortgagee sales. However, Cotality head of research Nick Goodall said the number was "still very low in a longer-term context, especially compared to the Global Financial Crisis". "I think this illustrates a more stable financial lending environment over the last decade or so, as well as the willingness and ability of banks to work closely with borrowers who may be struggling, rather than resort to mortgagee sales, which doesn't really benefit either party." OneRoof has 58 properties currently listed as "mortgagee sales" in New Zealand, with the total number of properties listed sitting at just over 38,000. New Zealand Banking Association chief executive Roger Beaumont said banks were responsible lenders. They typically had dedicated teams to deal with those experiencing financial difficulty, and mortgagee sales were "rare and always a last resort". "There are several options that banks may offer... depending on their particular circumstances. That may, for example, include temporarily moving to interest-only repayments." Beaumont said, in the six months from July to December 2024, there were 1.4 million home loans across 1.1 million customers. "As an indication of potential financial issues, of the total number of home loans in that period, 17,445 loans switched from principal and interest repayments to interest-only repayments." - This story originally appeared in the Zealand Herald .
RNZ News
6 hours ago
- RNZ News
Decreasing voter turnout, less newspapers, more abuse put off council candidates
A graph shows the voter turnout trend in local body elections has steadily declined since 1989. Photo: Supplied / Department of Internal Affairs A lack of local body candidates could have a negative impact on an already decreasing voter turnout, warns one political commentator. Candidate nominations for October's local body elections closed on Friday, revealing some electorates will go uncontested , with only one candidate entered. A last-minute uptick meant all councils would hold an election for at least some of their seats, after fears just 48 hours out that many would not hold one at all or trigger a by-election, due to a lack of candidates. Dr Grant Duncan said factors like low pay and an increasing level of abuse aimed at elected officials - particularly women - might have discouraged potential candidates. "What is the payoff? Because you're potentially going to be subject to abuse and quite a lot of pressure." He said it could also be influenced by a lack of public interest in local affairs, driven by a decline in local media. "We don't get those little, local suburban newspapers in our letterboxes anymore perhaps and so I think people are just following local affairs less carefully. That has a flow-on affect on people's interest in being candidates or to turn out to vote." A lack of candidates also meant voters were generally less engaged. "We're in a vicious cycle of a lack of local news, a lack of voter participation... and also a decline in candidates willing to put their names forward, and if we don't have all of those things working together, we have an inexorable decline in local democracy," Duncan said. "Increasingly what will happen is that central government will just say, 'Well, we'll take control'." Hutt South MP Chris Bishop posted on Facebook about the lack of contested local body seats. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii According to The Spinoff, in 2022, 20 percent of the 583 elections were uncontested . National minister and local MP for Hutt South Chris Bishop, posted on Facebook following the close of nominations . "Five councillors have been elected unopposed already in the Lower Hutt local elections. Nobody is standing against them and the law doesn't provide for a 'no confidence' option, so they're automatically elected. "On top of this, all of the Eastbourne Community Board have been elected unopposed (five slots, five people). I have to say, I find this fairly remarkable and depressing." A shortage of candidates was not the case across the board. In Hamilton, former Labour MPs Sue Moroney and Jamie Strange will run among a field of 26 candidates in the Hamilton East ward alone, including former National MP Tim Macindoe, who was also standing for mayor. In total, 51 candidates are vying for a place on the council, including 12 for mayor. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
10 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.
