Coalition slams Covid ministers no-show
All three coalition parties are criticising Labour's former ministers for refusing to appear at a public Covid-19 hearing, saying they're trying to avoid scrutiny.
The second phase of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Covid-19 pandemic was secured in coalition agreements between all three governing parties.
The chair, Grant Illingworth KC, yesterday confirmed that a week-long public hearing with decision-makers would not go ahead because former ministers had refused to participate.
They include former prime minister Dame Jacinda Ardern, current Labour leader Chris Hipkins, who was at times the health and Covid-19 response minister, former finance minister Grant Robertson and former health minister and current MP Ayesha Verrall,
Those former ministers argue they have provided ample evidence privately to the commission, which - despite having the power to - declined to summons them, saying on balance it was "undesirable given that the former ministers continue to co-operate with the evidence-gathering of the inquiry".
"We are confident that the former ministers declining to attend the hearing does not hamper us in our ability to obtain the information we need to be able to properly complete our task. Public hearings are only one mechanism of obtaining evidence, and their use is restricted under our terms of reference," Illingworth said.
The reasoning the ministers gave to the inquiry - according to a document the inquiry released - included that former ministers were conventionally interviewed privately for Royal Commissions of Inquiry, that they had cooperated so far and repeating the evidence publicly would be "performative rather than informative", and it risked the recordings being "tampered with, manipulated or otherwise misused".
The document noted other witnesses and their families had faced abuse after appearing in public hearings, including in the Royal Commission held in July.
Hipkins told RNZ's Morning Report programme today he has been interviewed in private, answered every question fully and even given the commission more information than what he had originally been asked.
He accused those involved with the Royal Commission of not knowing what they wanted because they had said public hearings wouldn't be held for five reasons, including avoiding participants being subject to abuse.
"They indicated at the end of that interview [his private appearance] ... that they didn't have any further questions and any public hearing would simply be a repeat of any questions they'd already asked me."
Hipkins acknowledged that the pandemic was "a really difficult time", however, he said he answered questions from media and the public on a daily basis.
Asked what he had to lose by fronting up, Hipkins responded that all the former ministers had followed the same protocol for the Covid commission as had occurred in the past, citing the examples of former Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee at the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission of inquiry and other ministers involved in the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch mosque attacks.
Ardern stood by her decision not to participate, with a spokesperson saying she had recently provided a three-hour interview and remained available to answer any further questions the commission had.
Hipkins earlier spoke to reporters at Parliament to defend his decision, and Dr Verrall provided a written statement. Robertson, who is now vice chancellor at the University of Otago, did not respond to RNZ's requests for comment.
At Parliament, senior National MP Chris Bishop used the general debate yesterday to call attention to their refusal, saying it was "perhaps unsurprising".
"They are ashamed of their record, and they know that held up to the light the decisions they made in 2020 and 2021 and 2022 have led us into the problems we are enduring today.
"It was really clear from the second half of 2020 and into 2021 that further stimulus of the New Zealand economy was not only not required, it was counterproductive."
He said Treasury pointed to 36% of spending for the Covid response happening after June 2021.
"At that point, GDP had already returned to its pre-pandemic levels and inflation was already outside the band and approaching 7.3 percent ... from financial year 2015 to 2019, core Crown debt was actually flat - it actually went down a bit. But from 2019 to 2023, net core Crown debt increased by 169 percent to $155 billion.
"That is the debt disaster this government inherited. That is the inflation disaster this government inherited. That is the cause of the recession this government inherited."
ACT leader David Seymour mimed running away from reporters before saying "kidding - that's the other guys".
He said a lot of people would see the former ministers refusing to appear publicly as "running from accountability, and that's what erodes that trust".
"I would have thought if you cared about this country and responding to its next pandemic, which will happen, then you'd want to front up and tell your story," he said.
"It's good that they've co-operated in privacy, we're told, but I think the New Zealand people deserve them to show up ... I think there was an opportunity here to come and explain their perspective. Maybe we have it wrong, but they're not doing it."
Seymour particularly focused on Hipkins.
"The contrast between his behaviour during the pandemic - when they do anything to get in front of the cameras, when we had to endure a 20 minute lecture before they gave us the daily numbers - compared with this behaviour we've learned about today, I think that contrast speaks for itself."
Asked about concerns of abuse, Seymour said the former ministers had a public duty to front up.
"Are we going to let a small group of anti-social people stop our great nation from having a democratic discourse? I think the simple facts are we don't decide that 'because there's a few crazies out there we're no longer going to have a Parliament'."
pic.twitter.com/qukRx7LtkA — Winston Peters (@winstonpeters) August 13, 2025
NZ First leader Winston Peters shared his views on X, saying the former ministers "colluded and decided to decline to give evidence".
"The 'Podium of Truth' has become the 'Podium of Evasion'. These former ministers do not want to sit in a public hearing and answer the hard questions that every New Zealander deserves to know. If ever there was a definition for "a different kind of 'abuse of' power" this is it."
He said they were undermining the second inquiry to avoid public scrutiny.
"Those former Labour Ministers have shown they care nothing about public confidence, and worse, are treating the entire public with distain (sic) and contempt ... and had a disastrous effect on the economy and future of our country - yet they refuse to be held to account."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
4 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Spine and Punishment: A review of Swarbrick v Brownlee
Analysis by Phil Smith of RNZ Parliament's Speaker, Gerry Brownlee, had a rough week. He made a series of novel, escalating rulings, with later rulings to justify the earlier ones, all after, arguably, digging himself into a procedural hole. Any discussion of it should probably start at the beginning. First though, it is plainly not easy being Parliament's Speaker. Speakers are often a lightning rod for opprobrium and discontent - and that is when they're doing well. The role walks a tightrope, caught between two sides, trying to avoid one's own natural bias; attempting to maintain order in a chaotic House that has more attention-seeking rascals than haunt a teacher's worst nightmares. The inciting debate On Tuesday, the Speaker allowed an urgent debate on the issue of New Zealand recognising Palestinian statehood. The situation in Gaza is desperate and horrific, so understandably the debate was impassioned. It probably didn't help that National Party MPs declined to contribute any speeches to the debate. Very strong language was frequent. Labour's Peeni Henare asked "how many more people will die because of the government dragging its heels?" and accused the government of "walking blissfully into the sunset of ignorance". ACT's Simon Court accused MPs of bandying around "Hamas propaganda", described Chlöe Swarbrick's description of the situation in Gaza as "hallucinating outrage", and intimated that the UN agency UNRWA was "enabling terrorism". Labour's Vanushi Walters accused the government of waiting "until the very last possible moment to make the morally correct decision". Te Pāti Māori's Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said "this is ethnic cleansing. This is genocide and apartheid, and I have never been more ashamed to be in the House than I am today." What irked the Speaker, though, was some rhetoric from Green Co-Leader Chlöe Swarbrick who said, "I will reiterate my call for the government to pick up our Unlawful Occupation of Palestine Sanctions Bill and to sanction Israel for its war crimes. If we find six of 68 government MPs with a spine, we can stand on the right side of history". Gerry Brownlee interjected, saying: "that is completely unacceptable to make that statement. Withdraw it and apologise". Swarbrick declined to do so, and the Speaker ruled "then leave the House for the rest of the week". Hansard, which describes Parliament with Georgian nicety, records that "Chlöe Swarbrick withdrew from the Chamber." 'Spineless' There were a few different elements to that ruling, and its immediate aftermath. Let's take them in order. A wag might point out that, on paper, the ruling from the Speaker was that hoping to find six governing-party MPs with a spine was "unacceptable". Of course it was the implication rather than the literal phrase that he found problematic. The Speaker later remembered the offending phrase as that governing MPs were "spineless", which is easier to say - so let's go with that. There are many examples of MPs using similar language in Parliament to describe an MP's opponents: "get a spine", "have the guts", "spineless", "gutless", etcetera. They have been made on both sides of the House, including a few times this Parliament. Sometimes MPs are told off, sometimes no one notices. One previous Speaker, when an MP complained about the use of "spineless", ruled that the term was not disallowed at all. Upon request, the Parliamentary Library collated 17 pages of recent examples, and it wasn't exhaustive. Other claims are much more assured of getting an MP in trouble. Particularly implying dishonesty, lying, or corruption. I found no reference to insults relating to bravery in the collected Speakers' Rulings that, akin to common law, guides interpretation of Parliament's rules. Swarbrick was definitely taking a swipe, but she was also calling on governing-party MPs to break ranks and vote for a Green bill. It's an old and ineffectual political tactic - insulting your opponent into joining you. On the other hand, doing what Swarbrick suggested would take an unusually strong spine. Disobeying your own party to vote with the opposition is very rare. Tariana Turia and Marilyn Waring had spines of steel. Ejection, overreach and justification Gerry Brownlee's typical approach is to gently reprove MPs, telling them not to repeat poor behaviour - sometimes repeatedly, and with repeated final warnings. Occasionally an MP is asked to "withdraw and apologise" which is genteel parliamentary language for taking back a remark. Refusing to withdraw a remark is considered highly disorderly, whatever was said. When that happens MPs are usually asked to leave the House. But the Speaker overreacted. Speakers are only empowered to eject an MP for a single day. Gerry Brownlee jumping straight into a week's absence brought to mind the speech that former Speaker Adrian Rurawhe gave in June, when arguing against the Privileges Committee's majority recommendation to impose unprecedented punishments on three Te Pāti Māori MPs. "The Privileges Committee of the future will have a new precedent, without a doubt-a new range of penalties against members who err in the future. You can guarantee that. You can also guarantee that governments of the day, in the future, will feel very free to use those penalties to punish their opponents." A little while after Swarbrick had departed the Green's musterer Ricardo Menéndez March pointed out the punishment itself was against the rules. The Speaker returned to the Chamber, not to retract, but to justify his mistake with a brand new rule (emphasis added). "The comment that I made was that it could be for the rest of the week. That was because, while it is true the member can only be removed from the House for the sitting day, the requirement for an apology does not lapse. And so if the member comes back in tomorrow and, at the start of proceedings after the prayer, takes a Point of Order and withdraws and apologises for the offensive remark, then that will be fine. If she doesn't, then she'll be leaving the House again. "I'm not going to sit in this Chair and tolerate a member standing on her feet or his feet or their feet and saying that other members in the House are spineless. That is completely unacceptable. I made it very clear at the start of the special debate that I expected it to be conducted in a manner that was respectful of the various views that are held across the House. So I've come back in here to make it absolutely clear that there is still an expectation that there will be a withdrawal and apology; and until there is one, then the status quo will continue." Arguably, that explanation dug the procedural hole deeper. Brownlee was now demanding an apology before Swarbrick would be allowed to return. That could turn a day-long suspension into a permanent one if the MP in question decided it was an issue on which they wouldn't back down. Searching back more than 22 years and at least 585 MPs ejected from the chamber, Parliament's Library couldn't find any example of a Speaker demanding an apology before an MP could return. There's a reason for that - Brownlee's demand directly contradicts a current Speaker's Ruling (ruling 21/1, from Speaker Hunt in 2001), which concludes "where a member refused to apologise and was ordered to leave the Chamber by the Speaker, the matter is at an end at that point". Brownlee's insisting on an apology before an MP can return is both new and, in this case, retrospective and retroactive. Parliament, as an institution generally frowns on retrospective law. Gerry Brownlee has, in the past, described laws that may have effect prior to their passing as "dopey" and "the worst kind of legislation we could possibly have". Ejection redux: Naming On Wednesday, the House began with the Speaker inviting Swarbrick again to "withdraw and apologise for an offensive comment made in the House yesterday". She declined again. Therefore, he again required her to leave the chamber. At this point Chris Hipkins tried to raise a Point of Order, but the Speaker declined to hear it. A very brief standoff ensued when Swarbrick stayed put, which only escalated things further. The Speaker asked "Is the member refusing to leave the House?" No response was recorded in the video or Hansard. Brownlee continued, "I therefore name Chlöe Swarbrick". Naming is more serious than just being kicked out. It includes a loss of both a day's wages and the ability to vote or participate in committees or the House. Only the House can name a member, so a vote was required. The vote was contested and a party vote showed the governing parties in favour and opposition parties against. Swarbrick departed to a call of "Free Palestine" and some applause. Brownlee is a former classroom teacher, and - nodding back to the metaphor we began with - it's not a great sign when a teacher ejects a student from class and the departing student is applauded on their way. Once Swarbrick had departed Chris Hipkins rose again with a Point of Order. Parliament's rules (The Standing Orders) include a specific wording for the vote to name a member. Brownlee had evidently been flustered and bumbled it. "So I wonder," asked Hipkins, "whether you could indicate to us what the motion that the House just voted on actually was, because if it was the one that you spoke, it doesn't have the effect that you think it does". This brings to mind Inigo Montoya in the Princess Bride telling Vizzini "I do not think it means what you think it means". Inconceivable! Brownlee had a second crack at it, and there was another vote, with the same result. Reflections on the Speaker Chris Hipkins rose again with a second Point of Order, which began a broader discussion about the correctness and appropriateness of the Speaker's ruling. This itself was unusual. When an issue has been raised in the House it is not unusual for there to be a few contesting Points of Order before the Speaker makes a ruling. But after a Speaker makes a ruling such challenges are only allowed formally, by a later motion with notice (Speakers' Ruling 25/1). By contrast, on Wednesday there was an extended debate on the appropriateness and the correctness of the Speaker's fractions and rulings. That debate only drew out more contestable rulings. The core of Hipkins' Point of Order was whether the Speaker, in demanding an apology the following day, was acting in contravention of the rules. "I've been in the House quite a long time and there have been plenty of instances where members have been ejected from the Chamber for the rest of the day for doing exactly what Chlöe Swarbrick did. There is not a single instance where a member has been asked to withdraw and apologise the following sitting day, and then named for not doing that. "There has only been one instance that I can recall where a member was subsequently asked to withdraw a comment, and that was the Rt Hon John Key when he said that members of the Opposition supported rapists and murderers. At the time, he received a standing ovation from the National Party. That was a very controversial matter, and it was at least a week later that the Speaker asked him to withdraw and apologise in order to restore order in the House, which had been lost. "I think the naming of a member for something they had done the day before is not something that has ever happened in the House before. I wonder whether you can reflect on what precedent or Standing Order you're relying on in asking Chlöe Swarbrick to apologise for something [done] the day before, because I did check the Speakers' Rulings, and Jonathan Hunt back in 2001 specifically ruled that 'where a member refused to apologise and was ordered to leave the Chamber by the Speaker, the matter is at an end at that point' [Speakers Ruling 21/1]. So that has been the established practice of the House since 2001, and I wonder if you could indicate why that has changed." Speakers' Rulings referenced in this article are quoted in full at the bottom. Brownlee responded "because the Standing Orders Committee met in July of 2017 and brought down a new Speaker's ruling, Speaker's Ruling 23/1. I refer the member to that." A new Speaker's Ruling (23/1) was added in 2017, but it has two problems. Firstly, it plainly did not supersede the 21/1 ruling (that being sent out is the end of the matter), because 21/1 is still extant in the Speaker's Rulings. Kieran McAnulty also pointed out the contradiction. Brownlee disagreed. Furthermore, 23/1 doesn't seem at all relevant. It reflects the John Key situation that Hipkins referred to. It allows a Speaker to deal with a situation retrospectively but assumes it hasn't already been dealt with. And it has conditions. It is to be used only in serious cases, and only where not doing so would have a continued impact on the House's ability to conduct its business. In the John Key situation the Opposition were so offended at the Speaker's refusal to demand a retraction that they walked out en masse. The Speaker asked Key to apologise later to restore order. The Swarbrick situation had been dealt with at the time. Unlike Key, Swarbrick had been ejected from the Chamber. Hipkins and Menéndez March both argued against this unusual ruling. Menéndez March immediately and Hipkins later. Hipkins argued that "The [23/1] ruling ... specifically states that the threshold should be very, very high for that type of action. There was no disorder in the House once Chlöe Swarbrick had left yesterday, nor was there any today. The very high threshold that was envisaged by the Standing Orders Committee at the time certainly does not appear to have been met in this instance." Menéndez March, referring to the condition that acting retrospectively was only allowable if not doing so would affect the House's ability to function, asked: "Is it your view that this meets that threshold?" The Speaker's answer to Menéndez March took the debate somewhere new. Unprecedented? The Speaker did not attempt to argue the facts or the rules, he went with a claim that Swarbrick's behaviour was ... newly offensive. "If that's how the member wants to take it, but if you think about the comment that was made, 68 members of this House were accused of being spineless. There has never been a time when personal insults like that delivered inside a speech were accepted by this House, and I'm not about to start accepting it." Setting standards in the Debating Chamber is the Speaker's prerogative, but it was far from the first time that such a comment had been made. Remember the 17 pages of occasions referenced by the library? Gerry Brownlee has himself questioned the courage of his opponents en masse, but couched in slightly politer terms. First on his feet to respond was an unexpected ally for the Opposition - Winston Peters (who typically has no time for the Greens). "Mr Speaker, I've been in this House when a Prime Minister accused the Opposition of [needing to] '[get] some guts' - it was a serious accusation; nothing happened - and then, worse, I've heard the "c" word being accepted as language that can be used in this House. My personal view is that I don't agree with a thing that Chlöe Swarbrick said at all, but this is a robust House where people have a right to express their views as passionately as they may, within certain rules. But I do not think that eviction was warranted. That's my position." As it happens, the "c" word, as Peters referred to it, was used again later in this debate without remark. Winston Peters' confidence may come from the fact that he himself has called governments and government MPs spineless, in both a General Debate and in Question Time - without punishment. On the other hand, confusingly, his party had also just voted that Swarbrick be "named". As a result of that contradiction, Menéndez March inquired whether the vote to name Swarbrick could be taken again. The Speaker did not allow this. Brownlee did not respond to Peters' opinion, other than to introduce some context for the new interpretation of Parliament's rules. The Speaker's context, and a new decency? "There [are] considerable efforts being made at the moment," said Brownlee, "across the Parliamentary Service to deal with what might be described as cyberbullying, and, essentially, what it comes down to is a question of: 'what standard does the House want to set for itself?' I've decided that there are two things that can be looked at. One is that if there are interjections across the House and they are reactionary ... then that is not as egregious as someone taking their speaking time to include a gratuitous insult inside a speech. That is, in my opinion, from this point on-while I'm in the Chair-unacceptable. I take the point the member makes about the House being a robust place-it most certainly is. But if members are going to be disrespectful of one another in such a demonstrable way, then how on earth can we be upset about members of the public taking a similar approach to dealing with MPs?" Within the above quote is another new edict from the Speaker (emphasis added). The Speaker also noted on Wednesday that, in the wake of Tuesday's Palestine Debate and his ejection of Swarbrick, he had raised the issue in the cross-party Business Committee. "There's a point where things change, and I've reached the conclusion that we had so many threats and other stuff being directed at members of Parliament that if we don't change behaviour in here, nothing will change outside. So that is part of my rationale as well, and I made that very clear to the Business Committee yesterday." The Speaker participated in a recent forum with other MPs on the subject of cyberbullying. We reported on it at the time. Apparently, he took to heart the impact of hateful communication on some (particularly female) MPs. It is well-intentioned to posit that if MPs were polite about each other's policies and beliefs, then trolls and lunatics would no longer send them hate mail and death-threats. It seems a little hopeful, but modelling respectful behaviour is a nice start. However, opting to begin a campaign to make female MPs feel safe by coming down like a tonne of bricks on a female MP, (probably one of the female MPs most commonly attacked online), may have missed the mark. Regardless, the Speaker's role includes maintaining "order and decorum in the House", so setting standards (within the rules), is fair enough. But again, while the intent is good, it is a post-hoc ruling, and given after the punishment. If that ruling and warning had been made before he sanctioned Swarbrick it may have made a lot more sense to everyone. The debate with the Speaker on this matter continued for quite a while. We can't include it all. But two more moments are worthy of note. First, Kieran McAnulty wondered how a punishment could be escalated when the original punishment was itself outside the rules. Brownlee's response included more new rules. "...The fact that someone is asked to leave the House for a comment that has caused offence, and they do so for that day, does not mean that the offence has gone away. That can be a new thing written into the Speakers' rulings, if that's what it takes ... and there is a huge difference between the sort of commentary that you get by way of interjection-which should be rare and has become far too frequent-and a comment that is inside a speech delivered deliberately to the House." Those are both new ideas, and again, they are retroactive. One more moment worthy of noting was when Labour maverick Willie Jackson offered his own experience. "With respect, I think that this is outrageous. I ask you, with respect, to reconsider this, given that you have kicked me out twice for calling another member a liar, and then I've been out of the House for less than 30 minutes and you gave a direction that I could come back into the House. We need some clarity on this. This is incredibly unfair that I can call another member a liar, rightfully get kicked out of the House, and asked to come back into the House within half an hour, with no apology required. ... I did not apologise and I would never apologise." Possibly at the core of all of this is a confluence of factors. The war in Gaza is a highly emotive issue, and, as Brownlee termed it, a "tragedy of humanity". It's surely an issue where every MP, regardless of their current relative power, probably feels powerless to genuinely effect useful change. That combination of impotence and tragedy is quite a tinderbox to toss provocations into. There were plenty of provocations. In retrospect it seems odd that, of all the statements made in Tuesday's Palestine Debate, the Speaker did not react to Simon Court accusing MPs of repeating "Hamas propaganda"; or Peeni Hemare claiming that people were dying "as a result of" the government's reluctance to act. He did though ask Court to withdraw his claim that Swarbrick was "hallucinating outrage". Instead it was a challenge to not be spineless that sparked the whole affair. As the Speaker admitted, it was a very personal reaction: "That, I think, in the context of that debate, was completely unacceptable, and - I've got to be quite straight up with you - I personally found it deeply offensive." Spare a thought for Parliament's Clerk's who will have the job of untangling all those new rulings and deciding which to include in the official guide to Speaker's Rulings, and which rules they may supersede. Speakers' Rulings referenced above Speakers Rulings are a collection of important decisions made by various past Speakers that are used to guide the current interpretation of the Parliament rules (The Standing Orders). They are akin to the Common Law of previous judicial decisions that can influence future interpretation of legislation in the courts. 21/1 Where a member has been asked to apologise and has left the Chamber rather than comply, the Speaker always insists that the member return to the Chamber and apologise. Members cannot avoid complying with the Speaker's direction by just leaving the Chamber. (But where a member refused to apologise and was ordered to leave the Chamber by the Speaker, the matter is at an end at that point). 2001, Vol. 596, p.13100. Hunt. 23/1 We consider, however, that the Speaker is able to deal retrospectively in the House with matters of order if the Speaker considers it important and in the House's interests to do so. The Speaker's primary task is to preside over the effective conduct of proceedings. Where an incident may have a continued impact on the House's ability to deal with its business, the Speaker can address the matter. Retrospective intervention by the Speaker should be infrequent and used only in serious cases. In such situations, the Speaker could ask the offending member to withdraw and apologise, or could take stronger action if necessary. Members should raise such issues privately with the Speaker, outside the House. This ensures that the prohibition on retrospective points of order remains undisturbed, and members can discuss their concerns with the Speaker away from the charged atmosphere of the Chamber. There is still, of course, a strong presumption that points of order will be raised immediately. Report of the Standing Orders Committee, July 2017 (I.18A), p. 14. 25/1 (1) The Speaker's ruling may be challenged only by a direct motion with notice; (2) such notice cannot be accepted immediately after the ruling has been given. It must be given at the appropriate time. (1) 1891, Vol. 72, p. 7. Steward. 1903, Vol. 125, p. 523. Guinness. 1931, Vol. 228, p. 725. Statham. 2017, Vol. 726, p. 733. Mallard. (2) 1960, Vol. 322, pp. 161-62. Macfarlane.
RNZ News
5 hours ago
- RNZ News
Who's running for Auckland's mayoralty?
Eleven people are going up against incumbent Wayne Brown to be the mayor of Auckland. Photo: RNZ / Diego Opatowski Eleven people are going up against incumbent Wayne Brown to be the mayor of Auckland this local elections. While Auckland councillor Kerrin Leoni has emerged as Brown's main challenger, there are still a number of lower-profile candidates vying for the city's top job. This year's contenders include a former political party leader, someone who is running for mayor in Auckland and Christchurch, and a university student. RNZ asked lower-profile candidates, who could be contacted, for one sentence explaining why they want to be mayor and one sentence stating a policy of theirs they want Aucklanders to know about. Six responded. Eric Chuah. Photo: Supplied Dr Chuah, a former strategist for Peter Dunne and the United Future Party, stood as a candidate in the Auckland electorate of Maungakiekie in the 2023 general election. He told RNZ he is over 61. He now had his sights set on the Auckland mayoralty and was going after what he considered to be unnecessary spending, like the CBD's million-dollar Christmas tree . Why do you want to be mayor? "Ensure reduction of excessive spending, transparency and accountability in council tendering process and staff recruitment where proper systems of management, operational and decision making are implemented to ensure fulfilment of Auckland Council's Long-Term Plans and not reacting to situations with ad-hoc solutions and stop gap measures creating long term problems as Auckland Council debt has increased from $11 billion to $14 billion, a $3 billion debt increase in 3 years and rates have increase [sic] 40% in 3 years where a house priced at $1.4 million has a $4000 rate and $1000 water rates with a projected 48% increase in 2026, stated by an Auckland Councilor [sic] in last Governance meeting on July 31st 2025." Policy "Reviewing, auditing past expenditures in contract awards, tendering systems, allocation of ratepayers monies via adopting and implementing, transparency, accountability systems of staff recruitment, management systems of the various CCOs (Council Controlled Organizations) such as AT (Auckland), so as to reduce unnecessary operational costs while maintaining jobs, unnecessary expenditure such as $1 million Christmas tree (Dec.2024), $1 million toilet and $1.2 billion road cone spent from 2020-2025 of which $400-$500 million could be overspent." Ted Johnston. Photo: Supplied The lawyer and former leader of the New Conservative Party is having another crack at the mayoralty after getting hit with an egg during a mayoral candidate debate in 2022. This time around, the 64-year-old has honed in on the city's traffic woes. Why do you want to be mayor? "I am seeking the Mayoralty as, no other candidate has solutions for Auckland's growing problems, and I cannot implement these crucial reforms, otherwise." Policy "A vastly expanded, efficient and inexpensive public rail system is crucial to bolster Auckland's economy and development, as well as to lower congestion and costs for all Aucklanders." Rob McNeil. Photo: Supplied McNeil is running under the Animal Justice Party banner. On the party's website, it stated the animal advocate loved long walks on the Auckland CBD waterfront. Why do you want to be mayor? "I will ensure animals have a voice in Auckland's decision-making, recognising the intrinsic link between animal welfare, environmental health, and human well-being. Lasting progress begins with local councils committed to protecting the interconnected web of all life." Policy "Among other policies for Aucklanders, we're fighting for mandatory funded desexing of dogs and cats - to stop the preventable deaths of thousands of animals while reducing council costs and community." Ryan Pausina. Photo: Supplied Pausina was an Auckland mayoral candidate in 2022. He told RNZ he is 48-years-old and a product developer. Why do you want to be mayor? "For starters, I have defined for the first time in history who should be the mayor of Auckland, out of all of us, who should be the mayor is determined by expertise in the fields of science relative to city works, city management and city civics, of which, that one person is required to serve for that role." Policy "Static speed-bump phase-out is a fun one, every time a vehicle slows down and passes over a speed bump, then accelerates away, a tiny teaspoon of petrol is wasted and in Sweden, they have created a speed bump technology to govern speed without wasting fuel or energy and annoyance in the process." Jason Pieterse. Photo: Supplied Pieterse told RNZ he is a 24-year-old engineering student doing his honours at AUT, making him the youngest of the bunch. Why do you want to be mayor? "I am running for mayor because I want to drive forward changes that support and improve the lives of every resident that calls this city home." Policy "I would have to say my most interesting policy is a housing proposal that would make near all housing costs much more affordable and accessible." Peter Wakeman. Photo: Supplied The 64-year-old described himself as a former passenger jet pilot. He is also running for mayor of Christchurch this local elections. A candidate with his name has run for mayor of Christchurch in almost every election since 1998. Why do you want to be mayor? "Wakeman is standing for Mayor in Auckland and Christchurch to be more effective in achieving Government policy that puts more money in everyone's pockets." Policy "Get more money into circulation by getting central Government to replace GST with Financial transaction tax (FTT) to reduce all of our costs of living and creation of debt free money by RBNZ." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
6 hours ago
- RNZ News
Mediawatch: RNZ flags changes to claw back listeners
Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly It's not news that RNZ National has been losing listeners in recent years. It's been mostly downhill year-on-year since 2019 when over 616,000 people a week were tuning in. This year it has dropped to below 470,000. This week RNZ staff were told that efforts to shore that up have not worked so far - and now there's a new plan underway. "We now need to take a different approach," RNZ chief executive Paul Thompson said. RNZ is appointing a Chief Audio Officer to oversee it and targeting half a million RNZ National listeners by November next year - and another 20,000 one year later. RNZ's target audience will now be "broadly 50-69, male and female" and RNZ National staff will be given data to "better tailor the station to their preferences," Thompson said. "Growing the presence in Auckland" is also a key part of the new strategy. RNZ is moving its Auckland operation into TVNZ's central Auckland premises later this year and now plans to host more radio and production roles there. The new plan is in part influenced by a review carried out by former head of news Richard Sutherland, who left RNZ in July 2023. "I asked him to be frank and robust, and that is what has been delivered," Thompson said when RNZ released it this week after Official Information Act requests. Sutherland certainly has. He warned that if people stop listening it "feeds the idea RNZ is sliding into irrelevance." "Irrelevant stuff gets switched off," he added. He said Auckland must be treated as "the strategic centre of gravity" rather than Wellington. "While the capital remains politically important, the views and preferences of its residents are the tail wagging the RNZ national dog," he wrote. Sutherland's good news for RNZ that he said it has "strengths that provide a foundation for renewal". He cited credible news, trust, and recognition - and public service commercial-free content that's available on many platforms and shared with other media. But he said there was a lack of understanding of the audience within RNZ National as well as a lack of cohesion and urgency. After candid 'no notes' conversations with around 50 staff, he concluded there was "blameshifting" and "low ambition" among staff. He also cited a widespread belief that live listening was a "sunset activity" - and that needed to be stamped out from the top at RNZ. He concluded RNZ National was "trying to please everyone" but it should target people over 50, and primarily 50-69 year olds. "Nuance can wait," Sutherland said, recognising that approach sounded blunt. Sutherland also said - very bluntly - "some people should not be on air". He didn't say who, but he did say RNZ needs one front-rank daytime host from outside urgently - and also an "urgent audit" of its on-air staff. Sutherland's review says key RNZ National time slots should be refreshed "where existing presenters don't align with the target audience." RNZ has told staff there will be "a strong focus on lifting on-air standards" and it is expanding presentation training and running more 'air checks' of the existing output. While some of Sutherland's recommendations align with RNZ's new strategy, RNZ said it was "just one input". The yet-to-be appointed Chief Audio Officer will determine whether Sutherland's other urgings are actioned. But not for nothing did RNZ pay $30,000 for what Thompson - also RNZ's editor-in-chief - described as "an actionable high-level blueprint to turn the station around". RNZ's briefing to staff also said the plan is "not about reducing kaimahi numbers". But it also said "every part of RNZ National needs to work for the available audience - and will be reviewed to ensure that is the case". "This may mean that some programmes or shows are discontinued." Sutherland's review recommended Morning Report and key staff should relocate fully to Auckland, something RNZ said was already underway. On-air changes introduced to Morning Report this month include shorter news bulletins, more conversational treatments of sport, rural and business news, a weekly chief executive officer interview and sports discussion panel, and a head-to-head with opposing MPs every Wednesday. The programme now features fewer recorded and live news interviews, though that varies depending on when news breaks and develops. A sign of further things to come elsewhere on air under the new audio plan, perhaps. Sutherland urged RNZ's top brass to ignore the criticism and opposition his sweeping changes would inevitably spark. Mediawatch asked to speak to Sutherland about his blunt review of his former employer. He deferred to Thompson who also declined. Storm Day, Accenture Song's NZ Lead. Photo: supplied More than ever, broadcasters seeking to retain or boost audiences need to give them what they want. But what people expect is harder to gauge now that people can choose from public and commercial radio networks, commercial TV channels, social media platforms, and global video streaming giants like Netflix and Disney+. Consultancy business Accenture Song has just released its second annual Brand Experience Gap study putting numbers on the gap between what 80 different New Zealand businesses promise - and what the punters reckon they deliver. Out of six different sectors, media and entertainment companies recorded the biggest gap - 79 percent - in the survey of 1500 people. "The gap is the difference between what a brand promises and what customers actually experience. When the gap is small customers feel valued and are more loyal. And when that gap is wide, trust erodes and people just walk away," Accenture Song's New Zealand lead Storm Day told Mediawatch . The survey does not name specific media outlets or individual scores for them, but Day told Mediawatch it covered streaming services, pay TV, free-to-air broadcasters, online news publishers, and radio audio streaming providers. "The sample is representative of all the major players in New Zealand," she said. "The industry average across all sectors is sitting at 72 percent - so I'm afraid the media and the entertainment sector is our worst performing one. Seventy-nine percent say that media providers are not delivering on their promises, which is pretty scary." Most surveys of trust in news and media are based on peoples' perceptions. Respondents' disapproval of specific practices - such as oft-cited 'sensationalism' - seems to sour their opinion of the entire media. Likewise, those who get news mixed in with other content via social media are much less likely to trust the news overall. "I think that's always at play. Audiences don't always separate the ecosystem in the same way that the industry does," Day told Mediawatch . "If they have a bad experience, whether it's with a regulated newsroom or a global online platform, it really does colour how they view the whole sector. It means that regulated media can't rely on standards alone. "To protect their reputation, they have to keep proving value and trust through the experience they deliver every day. "That's why it's even more important that we actually deliver on trust and think about the customer, not just standards or regulations." Day said regularly refreshing content, offering high quality exclusive content, and ease of access across devices were things people cited for securing their loyalty. A higher number of people said they were getting high quality stuff from our media companies. But the survey also recorded an 81 percent gap in belief that media outlets report with fairness and impartiality. "The biggest gap was people feeling valued and recognised, which tells us that audiences feel quite anonymous and not engaged. Trust was also really fragile. There was an 84 percent gap around acting with honesty, integrity, and keeping promises. "For an industry built on credibility, that's a major risk. But it's also a place where decisive action can make a big difference. Things like clickbait and transparency are really key things to address." Could big changes at RNZ end up widening the 'brand experience' gap? "Purpose... is a great way to galvanise a business reset. Secondly, so is moving beyond just delivering content to actually genuinely recognising audiences. You can use technology in service of that... to genuinely personalise what we're putting out there and actively engage with people. "AI can be used to personalise content and discovery - and flag relevant content and programming. And for local broadcasters especially, making your contribution to New Zealand really visible. Telling people what you're doing and how you're doing it... needs to work hand in hand to build that trust and connection with people." Dr Merja Myllylahti and Dr Greg Treadwell from the AUT's Centre for Journalism, Media and Democracy. Photo: RNZ / Jeremy Ansell Does the Accenture Song survey show the media's reputation rises and falls together - and no one outlet could buck the trend on its own anyway? "I think this sector has had a really tough year. Economic climate as well has a massive influence on the gap. When people are kind of under stress, they really are much more selective about where they spend their money, where they spend their time." But this week, the authors of the most comprehensive survey of trust in New Zealand media said it shows news media can't simply blame 'bad times' and general cynicism for slumping results. "News isn't just another institution like the state, a corporation or a non-profit organisation," said Greg Treadwell and Merja Myllylahti from Auckland University of Technology's Centre for Journalism, Media And Democracy. "We found the trajectories of trust levels for other social institutions - governments, business, NGOs - showed clear links to each other as they rose and fell, more or less in sync, over time. "Trust in news however, has been in its own lane. A fall in trust in government and politics, in other words, is not a predictor of a fall in trust in news," they wrote in The Conversation . "Survey respondents tell us they perceive the news to be politically biased (both left and right), and because too much seems to be opinion masquerading as news. "It seems the trust problems democracies have with their news services need to be addressed on their own terms, not as part of an overall picture." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
