Author: MIL-OSI Publisher

Posted on

IHC – New Zealanders with intellectual disability marginalised and forgotten

Source: IHC New Zealand

Once again, new research delivers a stark reality check on the health and wellbeing of New Zealanders with intellectual disability.
IHC’s latest report From Data to Dignity 2026: Health and Wellbeing Indicators for New Zealanders with Intellectual Disability  uses government data to show how inequities for New Zealanders with intellectual disability remain largely unchanged or in some cases, worse.
IHC Director of Advocacy Tania Thomas says the latest research paints a shocking picture of people with intellectual disabilities being forgotten in government policy.
“The numbers are distressing, but sadly not new,” Tania says. “We began this work in 2023 to show how government data could and should be used to track outcomes for people with intellectual disability. IHC continues to provide government with evidence that shows they need to do better.”
The report commissioned by IHC was produced with research organisation Kōtātā Insight. It builds on IHC’s groundbreaking 2023 report, which was the first to use the government’s Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI) to track outcomes for people with intellectual disability.
“This update is a reality check. The government’s Disability Strategy can be enhanced by including urgent action to address these persistent inequities,” Tania says.
Key issues emerging include:
  • Increasing injury rates, diabetes, and dementia
  • High emergency department use and injury-related hospitalisations particularly among women with intellectual disability
  • Evidence of barriers to ACC access, with lower claim rates despite higher injury prevalence
  • A concerning rise in young people leaving school without qualifications
  • Greater exposure to housing pressure with rising placement on social housing waiting lists, particularly for Māori and Pacific children with intellectual disability.
Alongside these trends, the data also highlights longstanding disparities that continue to persist. People with intellectual disability live on average 17 years less than the general population and are still significantly more likely to experience poor health, justice system involvement, and economic exclusion.
IHC is calling for urgent Government action, including:
  • Regular, public reporting on the health and wellbeing of people with intellectual disability
  • Targeted action to address inequities for Māori and Pacific people with intellectual disability
  • Improved health literacy, disability-aware health services, and better data collection to track outcomes.
  • The full report, interactive web application, and Easy Read version are available at: ihc.org.nz/advocacy.
The report can be found on IHC's website, along with a link to the Visual Insights app, which visualises the data by location, demographics and prevalence. (ref. https://www.ihc.org.nz/get-involved/advocacy/from-data-to-dignity-2026 )
Notes
Report findings include:
People with intellectual disability:
  • Live 17 years less on average than the general population, with Māori men most disadvantaged, and this has not improved
  • Are 3.3 times more likely to be imprisoned
  • Are 1.6 times more likely to have diabetes
  • Are 3 times more likely to have a mood disorder
  • Are almost 7 times more likely to rely on a benefit
  • Are increasingly hospitalised for avoidable events and conditions
  • Only 21% of adults with intellectual disability in paid employment, compared with 78% of the general population
  • Children with intellectual disability are 7 times more likely to be placed in state care
  • Parents with intellectual disability are 16 times more likely to have children removed
  • School engagement remains low and there are higher suspension rates – 2.8 times more likely than other students
  • Young people aged 18-24 remain far more likely to leave school without qualifications.
  • Higher rates of crime victimisation and justice system involvement. 
Posted on

Greenpeace – 78% of NZers want bottom trawling banned as Govt pushes to catch more coral in South Pacific

Source: Greenpeace

New polling shows overwhelming support from New Zealanders for a ban on bottom trawling in the South Pacific high seas, says Greenpeace.
The Horizon polling, commissioned at the end of 2025, reveals that 78% of New Zealanders (representative of 3 million adults) want the ban in the high seas area – where New Zealand is the last country operating a bottom trawl fleet.
Juan Parada, an Oceans Campaigner at Greenpeace Aotearoa, says the new polling gives an undeniable mandate for action.
“There is no social license for the industrial fishing companies that profit from bulldozing ancient coral forests and wiping out fragile ecosystems.” says Parada. “New Zealanders want politicians to stop dragging their feet and protect the oceans.”
“Other nations, including those who take part in regional fisheries bodies in the South Pacific, have been advocating for stronger rules against bottom trawlers, but we see New Zealand consistently drag the chain. This polling shows how out of step our government has become with other nations and public sentiment.”
The New Zealand government is heading to the 2026 commission meeting of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation, with an official position pushing to increase the amount of coral that can be caught before the area must be closed.
In response to questions on New Zealand’s SPRFMO position in Parliament last week, Prime Minister Luxon denied New Zealand was weakening the rules. Greenpeace and allies have written to Luxon asking that he withdraw New Zealand’s request for more coral destruction.
Other highlights of the Horizon poll included overwhelming support (79%) for a South Pacific ocean sanctuary – where all destructive activities are outlawed to allow for ecosystem recovery.
The Lord Howe Rise, South Tasman Sea region is being considered for one of the world’s first global ocean sanctuaries under the newly in force BBNJ agreement (Global Oceans Treaty.)
Last year the Australian government helped convene a science symposium looking at the environmental and cultural values of this area, helping to build the case for protection.
“What we’re seeing internationally, and here in New Zealand is that people want movement on ocean protection,” says Parada.
“Everyone wants a thriving ocean. The polling shows that whether you vote NZ First, National, Labour, Greens, Te Pāti Māori – people want the oceans better protected now. Internationally we’re seeing nation states step up and try to move things forward.”
Scientists recommend that at least 30% of the global oceans be put in fully protected sanctuaries to allow for recovery. Currently the amount of the global ocean in fully protected areas is less than 3%.
“The public understands the scale of the ocean crisis we face. They are ready for bold action to end bottom trawling and create the sanctuaries the ocean desperately needs. It’s time for the Government to listen to the people and act before it's too late.”
ENDS
Notes
Posted on

Insurance premiums soar, but big savings can still be made – Consumer NZ

Source: Consumer NZ

Consumer NZ says significant savings are on the table for some people as house insurance premiums rise sharply in a few cities and drop in others.

Consumer NZ’s latest house and contents premium survey found relief in insurance prices in Auckland, while prices in Wellington and Christchurch continue to rocket.

“Our research found the median premium for a large house in Auckland had dropped by around 11% compared with the previous year. Whereas, in Christchurch and Wellington, the median premium for a large house went up by about 10%,” said Rebecca Styles, Consumer’s research lead.

However, savings are available for those who can shop around.

“When we compared policies with the same excess and sum insured across the 6 centres, we found the median potential saving was about $550.”  

“More than 8 in ten people have had the same insurance provider for at least 3 years. When people decide to switch, it’s usually because of price, and with some of the savings available, we can see why.”

How the prices stack up

Wellington continues to be the most expensive city for house insurance. The median cost for house and contents insurance for a standard home was a whopping $3,824 in Consumer’s 2025 house and contents premium survey.

Dunedin has the cheapest home insurance options, with the median cost for house and contents insurance for a standard home coming in at $2,227.

The impact on consumers

According to Consumer’s latest insurance survey, around three-quarters of New Zealanders are at least somewhat concerned about the cost of house insurance. More recently, Consumer’s research has revealed that three in ten New Zealanders list the cost of insurance as a top financial concern.

Insurance retreat has been big news recently, and Consumer expects this will continue to impact more areas around the country because of the increasing number of floods, landslides and sea surges.  

“About 1% of over 3,000 survey respondents told us they couldn’t switch because no provider would offer them insurance. “

Insurance savings tips

Shop around – if you are offered a better price by another provider, you could use this offer to haggle with your current provider. Head to Consumer’s house and contents insurance webpage to compare prices and policy details.

If you’re struggling, opt for a higher excess so you can lower your premiums. Don't set the excess so high you couldn’t scrape the money together if you needed to make a claim.

Ask your insurer if your premiums would be cheaper if you installed an alarm or security cameras – the savings might subsidise the installation costs.

If you can afford to, pay your premiums annually – you should get a discount.

If no insurer will cover your home, you can contact the Natural Hazards Commission and ask about its natural hazards cover (known as NHCover). It might be able to provide you with natural hazard insurance directly. You can contact NHCover on NHCover@naturalhazards.govt.nz.

 

Notes

Consumer gathered quotes for house and contents insurance premiums from nine insurers for homes in the six main centres in Aotearoa. We collected the quotes in November 2025, for policies starting on 1 December 2025.

Consumer NZ requested quotes for:  

a couple with a standard-sized house insured for $560,000 (which we increased from $550,000 after using a sum insured calculator) and contents for $90,000

a family of four with a large house insured for $840,000 (which we increased from $800,000 after using a sum insured calculator) and contents for $140,000.

Posted on

Mining Council – Innovation must be allowed to build our future

Source: New Zealand Minerals Council

New planning and environmental law must leave room for innovation if we are to achieve change in New Zealand and build a country for the future, says New Zealand Minerals Council chief executive Josie Vidal.
“On the face of it, the Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill are an improvement on the existing system which is too risk averse when it comes to approving projects,” Vidal says. “The new system needs to shift that balance to better allow developers to undertake projects to grow the economy and to manage any resulting environmental risks with science, engineering, and technology which will continue to improve.
“Planning and environmental law go hand in hand, but there must be balance and previously the scales have tipped heavily on the environmental side and not enough on the side of overall benefits to people and the economy.
“At the moment, what has been presented is like a half-finished house. The frame is there, but what fills it in will make it either work or it will be an eyesore. The major flaw is that national policies, standards, environmental limits and other directing rules that will make or break this law won’t be drafted until after the bills are passed, so submitters cannot be fully informed on many aspects of the proposed regime.
“We believe it is essential to stop the vexatious litigation from parties with no skin in the game that befalls many good projects and these laws set out to do that, which we support.
“Overall, the new laws as proposed tend to benefit smaller, urban projects and for that reason we want to maintain the existing case-by-case consideration for mining where assessment is on the merits of the specific project. Mines can’t fit into a cookie-cutter one size fits all approval approach that might work for a granny flat or suchlike.
“We support the concept of combined plans by local government – fewer plans will be easier for companies to navigate, and fewer resources (council and private sector) will be used in their creation relative to the status quo. Streamlining bureaucracy gives certainty to investors.
“We believe proposed zones within regional spatial plans must not preclude mining from occurring within zones not specifically designated for mining.
“Our concern is that zones are too prescriptive for mining when you are dealing with minerals that lie where they are formed and there needs to be scope for future prospecting and discovery.
“We don’t support environmental limits because they do not provide sufficient flexibility. An environmental management approach which allows mitigation, offsetting, and compensation can achieve better outcomes for both the environment and the economy than what is proposed with the prescriptive approach of environmental limits.
“Overall, we hope to see more explicit consideration of mining and its unique requirements to ensure we don’t sterilise any resources unintentionally.”
New Zealand Minerals Council’s submission on the Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill is available here: https://mineralscouncil.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Submission-NEB-and-PB.pdf
Posted on

Legislation – Plan sets path for New Zealand’s infrastructure over the next 30 years

Source: New Zealand Infrastructure Commission

The New Zealand Infrastructure Commission has released a National Infrastructure Plan setting out a practical, affordable pathway to deliver the infrastructure New Zealanders need to thrive over the next 30 years.
“While the Plan looks at the long term, it’s clear that we need to take action now. Weather events and infrastructure failures make very clear the importance of investing to renew and build resilience into the networks that sustain our way of life,” says Commission Chief Executive Geoff Cooper.
“We can’t keep doing what we’ve always done.
“Each year we invest just over $20 billion on infrastructure, yet on a dollar-for-dollar basis we achieve less than many of our more efficient international peers.”
The Plan includes 16 recommendations to improve the foundations of the infrastructure system and 10 priorities for the next decade. The priorities include identifying cost-effective flood risk infrastructure, completing catch-up on renewals in the water sector and restoring affordability, lifting hospital investment for an ageing population, and implementing time-of-use charging and road-user charges to get the most out of our urban road networks.
“The Plan is ambitious, but centred on affordability,” Cooper says.
The Plan also provides decision-makers with a clear, system-wide picture of where pressures are emerging and where investment will deliver the greatest value.”
Planning for today and tomorrow
“The Plan responds to a period of immense change facing New Zealand. Demographic changes, the impacts of climate change, and technological innovations are all reshaping the demands on the hospitals, schools, water systems and transport networks that New Zealanders depend on every day,” Cooper says.
“Some of the infrastructure issues we’re facing have been decades in the making – and they’ll take time to fix.
“But New Zealand also faces acute pressures that require attention now. Addressing the top 10 priority areas identified in the Plan will result in visible infrastructure gains and support our longer-term recommendations for the next 30 years.
“The Plan does this by charting an affordable way to meet a diverse set of infrastructure demands over time and identifying how a large programme of significant investments such as roads, rapid transit, and hospitals can be prioritised and sequenced. In doing so, the Plan demonstrates a fundable and affordable programme of works that futureproofs existing services, while incrementally building on the network as the country grows and develops,” Cooper says.
Feedback on the draft National Infrastructure Plan that the Commission released in June 2025 showed strong agreement on the need for greater certainty, better coordination, and a stronger focus on delivery and affordability. The final Plan has been informed by what we heard.
From plan to action
“A plan by itself won’t change anything. The National Infrastructure Plan charts the course, but progress depends on how decision-makers, delivery agencies, industry, and communities use the Plan to do things differently,” Cooper says.
The National Infrastructure Plan is available at www.tewaihanga.govt.nz [note that the National Infrastructure Plan will be available online from 17 February at 12.00pm].
Notes:
  • The National Infrastructure Plan was delivered to the Minister for Infrastructure on 22 December 2025.
  • On 17 February 2026 at 12.00pm, the Minister for Infrastructure will table the Plan in the House of Representatives.
  • After receiving the Plan, the Government has 180 days to respond.
  • Over 2,700 responses were received from individuals and organisations on the draft National Infrastructure Plan, comprising a representative online survey of 1,001 New Zealanders, 1,557 general public responses to an online survey, and 122 written submissions.
  • Along with the National Infrastructure Plan, the Commission will publish the written submissions made on the Plan and supporting technical reports.
  • Parts of the Plan will be updated regularly, and the Commission will monitor progress against its recommendations to support transparency and accountability over time.
Posted on

National population estimates: At 31 December 2025 – Stats NZ information release

Posted on

Electronic card transactions: January 2026 – Stats NZ information release

Posted on

Sewage spill stinks of double standards – Federated Farmers dairy chair

Source: Federated Farmers
By Karl Dean, Federated Farmers dairy chair
This month Wellington’s Moa Point wastewater treatment plant failed catastrophically, sending an estimated 70 million litres of untreated sewage straight into the ocean each day.
Mayor Andrew Little called it an environmental disaster and Wellingtonians have been told it could be months before the south coast waters are swimmable again.
This is a major stuff-up, but one question keeps coming back to me: will those responsible be held to the same standards we demand of Kiwi farmers?
As farmers, we’re no strangers to regulation. Our businesses must comply with strict environmental rules, and we know there are consequences for non-compliance.
Breaches can carry hefty fines, legal action, reputational damage – and in some cases, a criminal conviction against a farmer’s name for life.
We take this seriously, as we should, because farmers have a responsibility to protect waterways and communities.
But is what we’re seeing in Wellington a glaring example of a double standard in environmental accountability?
If a dairy farmer had pumped raw effluent into a local waterway, even by accident, there’d be no debate.
Resource consent conditions would have been breached, immediate investigations would follow, and criminal charges would likely be laid.
So, will we see the same scrutiny of large, publicly managed infrastructure?
Will the manager of the wastewater treatment plant be held personally responsible?
Will Wellington’s mayor, councillors or chief executive be held accountable for long-term underinvestment in critical water infrastructure?
Will there be enforcement action against the council or contractors involved?
It’s fair to assume the answer will probably be a resounding no – or at least, not in a timely or visible way.
I commend Nick Leggett for resigning as chair of Wellington Water following the sewage crisis. He’s done the right thing, but real accountability shouldn’t stop with one resignation when the failure runs far deeper.
Andrew Little has called for an independent inquiry, which is promising, but I highly doubt we’ll see any individuals held to account.
Much was made of The Water Services Authority – Taumata Arowai being the three waters regulator, which includes wastewater.
The Three Waters Review raised system-wide concerns about whether the regulatory regime was fit for purpose.
Taumata Arowai was presented as a key part of the fix, yet they’ve been strangely silent throughout this debacle, effectively saying: ‘It’s not our job’.
They say it’s Greater Wellington Regional Council’s (GWRC) role to be the primary regulator when it comes to wastewater overflows or breaches of wastewater consents.
That means it’s GWRC’s job to take enforcement action, but the council is a one-sixth shareholder in Wellington Water, the company responsible for the discharge.
That seems like self-regulation to me and doesn’t inspire a great deal of confidence.
Let me be clear: this isn’t about farmers versus councils. It’s about fairness and consistency.
If we’re going to demand one sector follows strict rules under threat of penalties, those standards must apply to everyone.
Anything less erodes trust in our environmental system.
There are plenty of cases where individual farm employers or managers have been prosecuted for breaches of resource consent or environmental regulations, when the consent is in the name of a company. That same logic should apply here.
If a publicly managed facility can discharge untreated sewage – millions of litres a day, for an extended period – without consequence, what message does that send? That the rules are good for some, but not for all?
It also raises serious questions about advocacy and media coverage.
Activist groups usually quick to criticise farmers for environmental missteps because it suits their political narrative have been notably quiet.
Greenpeace, for example, haven’t said a thing about the millions of litres of untreated human waste flowing into the ocean each day in Wellington.
Yet they somehow found time to vandalise a salmon statue in Rakaia this week while ranting and raving about the evils of the dairy sector.
Why the silence? Because this disaster doesn’t align with their preferred villains.
New Zealanders care about clean water, and so do farmers.
We work hard every day to meet our obligations, often under challenging conditions, knowing the consequences of failure are real and enforceable.
But accountability must be universal; environmental laws and consent conditions can’t be selectively enforced.
If we want the public to trust that environmental protections are fair and effective, we must apply the same standards to all operators – farm or council, private or public.
The Wellington sewage spill is a clear reminder that environmental stewardship is everyone’s responsibility.
Farmers are already doing our part – but we also expect the same of every other sector.
Posted on

Universities – What New Zealand can learn from Japan on earthquake insurance – UoA

Source: University of Auckland – UoA

Rohan Havelock is investigating how New Zealand's earthquake insurance stacks up against Japan's

Shortly after Associate Professor Rohan Havelock arrived in Japan to study its earthquake insurance system, a 7.6-magnitude earthquake damaged nearly 4,000 homes and buildings in Aomori Prefecture.

For the University of Auckland insurance law specialist, it was a reminder of the value of an insurance system that works for homeowners.

New Zealand's earthquake insurance combines private insurance with government-provided statutory cover. Statutory insurance, says Havelock, pays first, up to a set limit for residential buildings and land, and private insurance typically covers additional building damage only.

After the Canterbury earthquakes, more than 460,000 claims were lodged with the former Earthquake Commission, far exceeding its capacity. Slow claims processing, significant litigation, and the insolvency of two insurers followed. Some claims remained unresolved after a decade.

New Zealand's subsequent reforms included the Natural Hazards Insurance Act 2023 and the Contracts of Insurance Act 2024, but the dual system continues and Havelock believes similar problems are likely to occur after the next big quake.

“There's a need for more carefully considered reform, especially relating to standard terms, handling of claims and dispute resolution.”

What can New Zealand learn from Japan?

Havelock says New Zealand could follow Japan's lead in three ways:
First, Japan's earthquake premiums are priced to match risk: they're based on a building's location, age, construction and earthquake strength. In New Zealand, Natural Hazards Insurance is funded through a flat levy: 16c for every $100 of insured building value.

“This means that owners of more risky homes are subsidised by owners of less risky homes, and also that there's no incentive to strengthen homes against earthquakes, or for owners to move away from earthquake-prone areas,” he says.

Second, Japan's earthquake insurance is based not on quantifying actual loss, which can be resource-intensive and time-consuming, but on classifying loss into four types: total loss, large half loss, small half loss, or partial loss.

Settlement is invariably by payment (instead of the insurer undertaking repairs or reinstatement), which Havelock says means assessment and claims settlement is rapid and there are fewer disputes over what is necessary.

Third, he says Japan's dispute resolution process is notably efficient and arguably more claimant friendly.

“Insurers routinely offer re-inspection or review of decisions, which resolves a large proportion of disputes.”

If disagreement continues, Havelock says the main pathway is through the 'Financial Alternative Dispute Resolution' system, involving an experienced mediator. This is non-adversarial and is free of filing or hearing fees, says Havelock. “Very few disputes proceed to litigation.”

Posted on

Northland News – Hapū-led biosecurity response framework sets new standard for community action

Source: Northland Regional Council

After tonnes of the invasive seaweed exotic caulerpa washed up on Bay of Islands beaches last year, one call on the ‘kumara vine’ was all it took for Te Taitokerau hapū to spring into action, with hundreds mobilising to help with the clean-up and prevent further spread.
That rapid response saw the birth of Te Tira Taiao o Te Taitokerau – a first-of-its-kind, hapū-led biosecurity response framework – marking a significant shift in how biosecurity risks are identified, communicated and responded to at a community level.
Te Ruarangi co-chair and Te Tira Taiao o Te Taitokerau lead Nyze Manuel says the framework draws on long-established hapū relationships, tikanga and local knowledge, first tested during Covid through the Te Taitokerau Border Control.
Manuel says Te Tira Taiao o Te Taitokerau is an extension of that mahi, bringing together hapū, Northland Regional Council (NRC) and the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) to respond quickly and effectively to emerging biosecurity threats.
“This network isn’t something new – it’s whakapapa, it’s whanaungatanga and it’s been stood up because of the condition of our taiao,” Manuel says.
“It’s a model based on hapū concern. We’ve been working in what people might call ‘underground’, but really we were just doing what our tūpuna have always done ki mai rānō (forever) – noticing changes in our taiao and discussing our concerns collectively.
“What’s different now is that this way of working is being formally recognised and supported by councils and other agencies.”
Education as the first line of defence
A key focus of the framework, Manuel says, is normalising conversations about biosecurity risks so people know what to look for, why it matters and what to do if they find something.
Te Tira Taiao o Te Taitokerau is also unique in its approach as it prioritises prevention, education and mobilisation, led by people who know their environment and communities best.
When the exotic caulerpa response pilot launched last year, Manuel says many people didn’t know what it was, what signs to look for, or how to report it.
In response, the group has rolled out locally tailored signage (funded by MPI), hapū-led engagement and clear reporting pathways across high-use areas in Northland, including boat ramps, marinas and coastal access points.
“That was the gap – people just didn’t know what it was,” Manuel says.
“Now our hapū are out there on the ground as kaitiaki, we’re normalising conversations around biosecurity, using caulerpa as our springboard.
“Each sign includes a local contact person, which then feeds into a centralised MPI database.
“People can’t report what they don’t understand, so education is our most powerful tool.”
Working alongside NRC and MPI
While leadership sits with hapū, the framework works in partnership with regional and central government agencies, including NRC and MPI, to ensure information flows quickly and appropriate action can be taken.
NRC Deputy Chair Jack Craw, who chairs the council’s Biosecurity and Biodiversity Working Party, says the framework significantly strengthens early detection by increasing the number of trusted ‘eyes on the water’, particularly in remote coastal areas.
“It reflects the reality that locals are often the first to notice change,” he says.
“People who’ve dived, fished or gathered kai in the same places their whole lives will notice something different straight away. That local knowledge has already been critical in identifying exotic caulerpa early in places like Aotea and the Bay of Islands.”
The framework also recognises that biosecurity threats are not just environmental or economic, but impact cultural practices, identity, wellbeing and intergenerational relationships with the whenua and moana.
For hapū and iwi, protecting coastal environments is about safeguarding whakapapa and ensuring future generations can continue practices such as gathering kai, fishing and caring for wāhi tapū.
Looking ahead
Manuel says while the framework offers lessons for other regions, it is not a one-size-fits-all model, with success dependent on long-term relationships, shared accountability and deep community connection.
Instead, it demonstrates what is possible when hapū leadership is resourced, respected and partnered with.
“People have tried to replicate the model and failed because they don’t have the relationships or trust of those leading the kaupapa,” Manuel says.
“This kaupapa holds the tikanga of old, whereby back in the day, each hapū or whānau held different portfolios- whether on the moana, whakapapa or elsewhere.
“We do the same today because there’s no ‘I’ in this mahi. We can’t do everything on our own and will always need each other.”
With biosecurity risks expected to increase, the framework provides a strong foundation for responses to both current and emerging threats.
By centring hapū leadership, collective action and preventative education, it positions communities as active protectors of their environments, working alongside councils and agencies.
The framework is supported through MPI funding, with NRC focused on enabling and resourcing community-led action.