Latest news with #OfficialInformationAct
NZ Herald
15 hours ago
- Business
- NZ Herald
Reserve Bank chairman Neil Quigley responds to allegations around Adrian Orr's resignation
When Newstalk ZB asked Quigley about the alleged 'Statement of Concerns' on Tuesday night, he said, 'I can't go into that'. When it asked Quigley about the swearing allegation, he responded, 'I can't comment on that. That's a matter of privacy that I don't think I should discuss.' On the day Orr resigned, Quigley refused to elaborate on what led to the surprise decision, hurriedly announced the day before the Reserve Bank hosted an international economics conference. Quigley said it was a 'personal decision' that Orr made. Then in June, the Reserve Bank issued a more detailed statement saying Orr resigned because he disagreed with the board over the amount of government funding the bank should pitch for. However, Reddell's source suggests there was an element of Orr being pushed to resign. When Newstalk ZB quizzed Quigley on Tuesday over his explanations for Orr's resignation, he made the point that Orr did not have to resign over the funding disagreement. 'There was nothing about that, that required Adrian to resign. He chose to make it a personal decision that he would resign at that point,' Quigley said. A Reserve Bank spokesman told the Herald the bank didn't plan to release any more information about Orr's resignation in addition to its June statement and accompanying documents released under the Official Information Act (OIA). 'The Reserve Bank believes that we have provided what information we can within our legal obligations, noting that the Ombudsman is investigating a complaint related to our handling of these information requests,' the spokesman said. Orr declined the Herald's request for comment. Willis prepped to answer questions about raised voices Reddell – who is often critical of the Reserve Bank – said, in his Croaking Cassandra blog post, he did not know the identity of his source and could not independently verify their claims. However, he believed the source's tone and the way their claims aligned with material in the public domain, gave them credibility. For example, it is known that Willis' press secretary warned her journalists might ask about Orr's conduct. A document released to the Herald under the OIA in April shows that on the morning of Orr's resignation, the press secretary jotted down several answers Willis could use in response to questions she might be asked be journalists. One question he suggested Willis might be asked was: 'Did you ever have disagreements with Adrian Orr?' The press secretary advised Willis to respond: 'I'm not going to discuss what happens in meetings that discuss confidential and sensitive matters.' He suggested a follow-up question could be: 'Did the Governor ever raise his voice with you?' Willis was advised to respond: 'As I've said, my relationship with Adrian Orr was professional. It's not appropriate for me to comment further on meetings that discussed sensitive and confidential matters.' When the Herald asked Willis on Tuesday whether Orr raised his voice with her during the meeting they had on February 24, she said, 'As I've said previously – not that I recall.' Put to her that she surely did remember what happened, Willis said Orr did not raise his voice with her. She distanced herself from the issue, saying it was an employment matter between Orr and the Reserve Bank board. The Herald has asked Treasury to comment on the allegation Orr lost his cool during the February 21 meeting. A copy of the meeting minutes has also been requested. Reserve Bank chairman Neil Quigley says he can't comment on allegations around what led to Adrian Orr's resignation. Photo / Mark Mitchell February 27 board meeting pivotal The Reserve Bank, in its official June explanation for Orr's resignation, said that by the time the board met on February 27, it was clear that it and Willis were willing to agree to a 'considerably lesser amount' of funding for the bank than Orr deemed necessary. 'This caused distress to Mr Orr and the impasse risked damaging necessary working relationships, and led to Mr Orr's personal decision that he had achieved all he could as Governor of the Reserve Bank and could not continue in that role with sufficiently less funding than he thought was viable for the organisation,' the Reserve Bank said. Secretary to the Treasury Iain Rennie texted Willis during the evening of February 27 to say he had spoken to Quigley. Details of the exchange were redacted, but Willis responded, 'Thanks for the update.' February 27 is also the day Reddell's source alleges Quigley sent Orr a 'Statement of Concerns'. The Reserve Bank said that following the board meeting, Orr and Quigley 'entered discussions, which led to Mr Orr's decision to resign. Both parties engaged senior counsel to negotiate an appropriate exit agreement.' Quigley involved in appointment of new Governor Orr hasn't spoken publicly about his resignation. His concerns over funding for the bank are detailed in an email, released under the OIA, which he sent board members on February 14. He noted the tension between submitting a funding proposal the Government wanted to hear, versus one that supported the bank's goals. 'The importance and clarity of operational independence for central banks is judged by global financial markets now and in the future. Not by any current Government,' Orr told the board. Since Orr's departure, the Reserve Bank has embarked on a major restructure that has involved several executives leaving and senior roles being cut. The board is in the process of finding someone it will recommend Willis appoints as Governor. In the meantime, Orr's former deputy, Christian Hawkesby, is acting Governor. When in Opposition, Willis was unhappy Quigley recommended Orr be reappointed Governor for a second term. However, last year, she reappointed Quigley chairman until June 2026. Jenée Tibshraeny is the Herald's Wellington business editor, based in the Parliamentary Press Gallery. She specialises in government and Reserve Bank policymaking, economics and banking.
RNZ News
2 days ago
- Business
- RNZ News
'Topping up $300 a week': How much money do property investors actually make?
Last year more than 50,000 property investors were making losses on their portfolios. (File photo) Photo: Unsplash/ Artful Homes A big chunk of property investors do not make money from their investments - and those who do are pulling in an average of less than $16,000 a year. RNZ revealed last year, more than 50,000 of the roughly 120,000 property investors in the country were making losses on their property portfolios. Now, new data released under the Official Information Act has shown even those with a profit were making a limited amount. In the 2024 tax year, the average rental income made across all entities reporting a profit was $15,680. Based on the average house price, that is a return of 1.7 percent. Individuals were making $13,240 and trusts $26,490. The year before, the average income was $15,590. A year earlier, it was $16,680 and in 2021, $14,800. Simplicity chief economist Shamubeel Eaqub said it highlighted people were not investing in property for cash yields but for other reasons. Simplicity chief economist Shamubeel Eaqub said capital gains was a motivator for investors. Photo: Supplied Those included being able to borrow from the bank to invest in property in a way that other investments were not able to, and the lack of tax on properties not captured by the bright line test. "The real motivation is capital gains - because the cash return means tenants aren't the main business, the house is. "Roughly, if your cash earning yield is 1.7 percent, and let's say the cost of equity is 10 percent - probably a bit higher in NZ, then investors are assuming house prices will increase by over 8 percent a year forever. "So we have this weird setup, that encourages people to make a pretty serious financial bet, through tax and banking regulation, and cultural norms." Including capital gains, investors would have made 6.6 percent a year on average over the past five years. In 2022, they would have had a 19 percent return, and in 2021, 15. percent, before recording total losses in the most recent two years. He calculated investors would have made an average $179,672 in the 2021/22 year, thanks to capital gains, and $111.464 the year before. But they would have lost almost $85,000 in the 2023 year and another $21,362 in the 2024. NZ Property Investors Federation spokesperson Matt Ball said he was not surprised by the data. "We have one rental property ourselves and I'm putting in $300 a week at the moment because I'm stuck on an interest rate of 6.65 percent. "But we've been doing that for the last year, 18 months. We'll make a loss just because that's how it is." He said property investment was not "winning Lotto". "It's hard work and to make money out of it you have to put in some effort. You can't just buy a place and sit down and watch the money roll in. "That's why if you can add a bedroom or upgrade it so you get a bit of rent of rent or whatever, do some work to it, that's the goal." He said 85 percent of property investors had another job. "I think if you could put the money into other investments you'd probably be getting a strong income… the leverage is the difference, I can't borrow $1 million to put into shares." Sarina Gibbon, general manager at Auckland Property Investors Association said some investors would be operating across multiple entities. "Since FY22, when interest deductibility started being phased out, the IRD hasn't been privy to the economic reality of investing, let alone reporting it accurately. It has been reporting legislated distortion. In FY24, landlords could only deduct 50 percent of interest costs. Cash-poor portfolios got pumped into the system and spat out as paper-rich operations. "So, no, the numbers are not surprisingly low; they are deceptively high. We are taxing revenue, not profit. This sort of tax distortion is nothing else but political theatre. Here's the irony, though: flawed as the policy was, it did rewire investor behaviour from accumulating to improving. "Sure, more deductible repairs and upgrades led to better-quality housing, but also higher rents. So the adversarial policy borne out of flawed design and bad leadership cornered investors into action to benefit their tenants and no one else." She said now investors could claim their home loan interest against their income again and interest rates had fallen, there was some breathing room. "In the long term, I expect investment to be more dynamic, yield-focused and taxable income from the investor cohort to grow." Property investment coach Steve Goodey said investors starting out would usually make losses but people who had been investing for a while would often have properties without mortgages. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
The Spinoff
2 days ago
- Health
- The Spinoff
It's time to shut the alcohol industry out of health policy in Aotearoa
Alcohol is our most harmful drug, yet industry groups have inside access during the development of alcohol harm reduction strategy, where they can put pressure on officials to water down policy advice. It has to stop, argues Steve Randerson. Most New Zealanders would be shocked to learn the alcohol industry is regularly invited to help shape our national health policies on alcohol. But that's exactly what's happening. Recent information uncovered by RNZ through the Official Information Act shows senior health officials in the Public Health Agency are 'expected' to work directly with alcohol industry representatives. Who set this expectation or what the expectations entail is unclear, but the information reveals the agency's diligent response. Regular interactions occurred between four separate industry associations representing spirits, wine, beer and hospitality and the Public Health Agency, part of the Ministry of Health. A group manager with responsibilities for alcohol harm reduction, Ross Bell, emerged as the main conduit for contact. The interactions included regular meetings, ongoing email contact and consultation on alcohol harm reduction plans. The alcohol industry had been involved in the development of an action plan for foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. All four industry groups were invited to give input to a new guiding framework for spending the $16 million alcohol levy, a public fund meant to reduce harm; in contrast, to our knowledge, there was no opportunity for most of Aotearoa's major public health organisations that work on alcohol to contribute to the framework. One industry representative questioned a government refresh of New Zealand's outdated guidance on lower-risk drinking levels, which some other countries now set considerably lower to reflect current evidence of the health risks of alcohol. The partially completed project was subsequently put on hold. While the pause was described as an internal ministry decision, current systems leave ministry staff exposed to potential industry pressure and there is a concerning lack of transparency around possible industry influence. For instance, alcohol industry feedback on the alcohol levy framework was redacted from the OIA documents supplied to RNZ. There's a reason this matters. Alcohol is our most harmful drug. It causes cancer and foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, and costs our country more than $9 billion a year in health and social harm. The damage is sustained by our lack of effective safeguards around the supply and promotion of alcohol, such as online marketing and the higher numbers of outlets in communities at greater risk of harm. Communities around the country have long fought to have more say on where and how alcohol is sold, while well-funded alcohol industry groups have doggedly opposed such changes in our courts, media and parliament. In this context the inside access alcohol industry representatives are enjoying during the development of alcohol harm reduction strategy is disheartening. Industry involvement in public health policy isn't just bad practice. It's a major conflict of interest. This is why Health Coalition Aotearoa . Almost half the alcohol sold in Aotearoa is consumed in heavy drinking sessions, while lighter alcohol consumption also increases the risk of cancer and other diseases. Any steps that broadly reduce these harms will impact alcohol industry profits, creating an inescapable incentive to undermine or block effective change. A senior health official put it bluntly: 'In my experience… these alcohol interests have zero interest in reducing harm (or sales of booze) and a huge purse to fund their lawyers.' Despite this, the government continues to expect the alcohol industry to have a seat at the table, where they can put pressure on officials to water down policy advice to ministers well before the public has a say. In contrast, New Zealand is required to protect our tobacco control public health policies from the commercial interests of the tobacco industry – since 2005 we have been party to the World Health Organization's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. This agreement recognises the 'irreconcilable conflict' between tobacco industry profits and public health. The same logic applies to alcohol – yet no such protections exist. The Ministry of Health and Customs have continued to interact with tobacco industry representatives for tobacco regulation purposes, but one improvement of Aotearoa signing the framework convention is they now both maintain a public register of these interactions, which should only occur where strictly necessary. Other parts of the government may not have been so scrupulous, however. NZ First politicians have been reported to be closely affiliated with industry executives, and several coalition government ministers have appeared to use similar arguments as tobacco industry representatives to defend their repeal of the tobacco endgame measures in the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act 1990, suggesting a common script. While the New Zealand government is yet to fully implement its responsibilities under the framework convention, it is a strong step in the right direction, and Labour health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall has proposed legislation to promote stronger compliance. We urgently need a similarly stringent approach for alcohol and await new rules for engagement with the alcohol lobby being considered by the Ministry of Health. The World Health Organization's Global Alcohol Action Plan 2022-2030 is clear: governments should protect public policy to reduce alcohol harms from commercial and other vested interests that undermine health. Most New Zealanders agree – a recent poll found 71% believe the alcohol industry should have no role in alcohol policy development. This strong public support should give politicians the courage to draw clear boundaries around industry involvement in policy intended to reduce alcohol harm.
Scoop
2 days ago
- Health
- Scoop
Booze Warnings On Hold
, for The Detail Outdated alcohol guidelines put New Zealand out of step with modern research, but our health authorities are in no hurry to update them. In Canada, proposed guidelines for low-risk drinking set the weekly limit at two drinks. Here in New Zealand, the recommendation is to cap alcohol at 10 drinks weekly for women, and 15 for men, with two alcohol-free days per week. Despite these guidelines being nearly 15 years old, and documents from Health NZ showing that they consider a review of the guidelines to be 'necessary', for now, the guidelines are staying as they are. "The complication is that the Ministry of Health has come in over the top of [Health NZ] and has said 'actually these are our guidelines ... we want to control this and we're putting a pause on that work'," says RNZ's Guyon Espiner. "It certainly does show that they're listening to the alcohol industry, who are pretty exercised about this - because as you can imagine, this could have a significant effect on sales if people did take this advice and did drink significantly less." In a series of articles over the past few months, Espiner has reported on issues of alcohol harm and how the alcohol lobby has impacted policy in New Zealand. Through documents he received through the Official Information Act (OIA), he found that Health NZ commissioned a review of the low-risk guidelines. But in October 2024, a lobbyist emailed Ross Bell, who is a manager in the Ministry of Health's Public Health Agency, asking why Health NZ's website said the guidelines were under review. In December, following a second email which again asked about the review and also complained about mention of the Canadian guidelines on Health NZ-run website ' Bell emailed Health NZ saying "All work on this project will now pause. You will update relevant Health NZ websites to remove references to the review and also to other jurisdictions' guidelines (including the Canadian one)." But in a statement to The Detail, the Ministry of Health says it "understands Health New Zealand has continued some work related to the review. The Ministry is working with Health New Zealand on potential next steps, including how Health New Zealand's progress on the review to date can be used to inform any future work in this area" and that "the Ministry is currently considering where the next phase (Phase 2) will fit as it prioritises its work programme for 2025/26." The Ministry's statement, which is attributed to Dr Andrew Old, Deputy Director-General, Public Health Agency, goes on to say that "as part of good policy process, the Ministry engages with a broad range of interested parties-including community organisations, public health experts, and the industry-to ensure any regulatory approaches are well-informed and transparent. Reference to the drinking guidelines review was removed from the website to avoid confusion about roles and responsibilities as the guidelines are now led by the Ministry of Health - rather than Health New Zealand which has responsibility for the site. This was an internal Ministry decision." In today's episode of The Detail, Espiner details other examples of contact between the alcohol lobby and health policy makers. "The material I've got shows that yes they've had a lot of meetings, a lot of email contact, in fact one looked like a regular meeting between alcohol lobbyists and Ministry of Health staff. They've also shared with the alcohol industry their plans on how they will combat Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder ... they shared that entire draft document with them and also shared with them plans about how they might spend the alcohol levy." Espiner says that while this contact is going on, tobacco lobbyists are completely 'locked out of the policy process". "We're signatory to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, [which is] a World Health initiative, and there's a clause in there that New Zealand is signed up to that says you won't allow the vested interests of the tobacco industry to shape policy. "What's interesting is that the alcohol industry has escaped most of that scrutiny." For Massey University associate professor Andy Towers, who has worked on the Health NZ review, it is a clear mistake for New Zealand to allow lobbyists a role. "It's very, very clear that you don't invite the wolf into the henhouse," he says. "Unfortunately the alcohol industry makes money based on alcohol use and resulting alcohol harms and in a space where we are trying to reduce the harmful use of alcohol and reduce those harms for society and for communities, there is not space for the alcohol industry there. They do not get to sit at the table, just as you wouldn't invite an arms manufacturer to the table to talk about cessation of violence." In this episode of The Detail, Towers explains how knowledge around the harm of alcohol has evolved in the past 20 years, and where New Zealand sits on alcohol use compared to other countries. Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here.
NZ Herald
3 days ago
- Politics
- NZ Herald
Run it straight concerns ignored by Government officials before death
A politician's concerns about the 'dangerous' social media trend 'run it straight' arriving in New Zealand fell on deaf ears after he was told by a minister's office the Government didn't want to be involved. Now, documents released to the Herald under the Official Information Act (OIA) have shown how
