Author: MIL-OSI Publisher

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. 
Posted on

Storm News – Multi-day Severe Weather Event Continues – MetService

Source: MetService

Covering period of Monday 16th – Tuesday 17th of February

  • Heavy Rain Warnings and Strong Wind Warnings continue for the central and southern North Island and eastern South Island 
  • Heavy Swell Warnings in force for the southeastern coasts of the North Island.

A deluge of rain and relentless winds continue to impact a vast area across the central and eastern North Island and northeastern South Island today (Monday), with large waves affecting the southern and eastern coasts of the North Island. Eyes gradually turn towards the South Island through the day as the moisture-rich low tracks southwards. Heavy Rain is expected to continue through into Tuesday for the eastern South Island.  

What happened overnight Sunday (15th of Feb) into Monday (16th of Feb)?

The tables below show some rainfall accumulations and gust speeds from last night.

– Gisborne, Taupō, Waiouru, Wellington, Whanganui and Kaikōura have already exceeded the amount of rainfall they would typically expect to receive in February.  
– Baring Head Wave Buoy in Wellington Harbour recorded a Significant Wave Height of 7.54 metres at 11:06 pm (Sun). Note, Significant Wave Height is the average height of the highest one-third of waves.
– Mt Kaukau and Wellington Airport measured their strongest winds since June 2013 when they reached 202 km/h and 143 km/h respectively.
– The Kelburn weather station recorded its strongest winds from a southerly direction since June 2013 when a southerly wind of 141 km/h was measured.

What is expected over the next 24 hours?

Heavy Rain and Strong Winds are expected to ease in the central North Island through this (Monday) afternoon and the lower North Island and northeastern South Island this evening. The focus of Heavy Rain moves southwards and is forecast to continue to affect the Canterbury Plains and Banks Peninsula, as well as Dunedin into Tuesday and Warnings and Watches are place.  

MetService meteorologist Alanna Burrows says, ‘Please stay alert and keep up to date with the latest warnings in your area at metservice.com/warnings as well as advice from the Civil Defence and other local agencies.’

For media enquiries or to arrange an interview with one of our meteorologists please call 04 4700 848 or email metcomms@metservice.com

Understanding MetService Severe Weather Warning System

Severe Thunderstorm Warnings (Localised Red Warning) – take cover now:

This warning is a red warning for a localised area.
When extremely severe weather is occurring or will do within the hour.
Severe thunderstorms have the ability to have significant impacts for an area indicated in the warning.
In the event of a Severe Thunderstorm Red Warning: Act now!

Red Warnings are about taking immediate action:

When extremely severe weather is imminent or is occurring
Issued when an event is expected to be among the worst that we get – it will have significant impact and it is possible that a lot of people will be affected
In the event of a Red Warning: Act now!

Orange Warnings are about taking action:

When severe weather is imminent or is occurring
Typically issued 1 – 3 days in advance of potential severe weather
In the event of an Orange Warning: Take action.

Thunderstorm Watch means thunderstorms are possible, be alert and consider action

Show the area that thunderstorms are most likely to occur during the validity period.
Although thunderstorms are often localised, the whole area is on watch as it is difficult to know exactly where the severe thunderstorm will occur within the mapped area.
During a thunderstorm Watch: Stay alert and take action if necessary.

Watches are about being alert:

When severe weather is possible, but not sufficiently imminent or certain for a warning to be issued
Typically issued 1 – 3 days in advance of potential severe weather.
During a Watch: Stay alert

Outlooks are about looking ahead:

To provide advanced information on possible future Watches and/or Warnings
Issued routinely once or twice a day
Recommendation: Plan.
Posted on

Storm News – ASB activates support for customers affected by severe weather

Source: ASB


With severe weather affecting regions across North Island, ASB is offering support options for customers who are impacted by the weather and worried about finances.

 

Targeted support for personal, farming and business customers affected by the extreme weather will be offered on a case-by-case basis, with options including:

  • Deferring loan repayments for up to three months or interest only for three months.
  • Immediate consideration of requests for emergency credit card limit increases.
  • Tailored solutions for eligible ASB business and rural customers including access to working capital of up to $100,000.

 

ASB Executive General Manager for Personal Banking Adam Boyd says ASB wants to hear from any affected customers needing financial assistance or extra support.

 

“We recognise this will be a challenging time for some communities. Any personal, business or farming customers who are worried about their finances following the severe weather are encouraged to get in touch. Our teams have practical options available and are here to help.”

 

ASB’s branches in Masterton and North City are closed today. Lambton Quay is open with reduced staff. All other ASB branches remain open, and customers are advised to check ASB’s branch locator tool for their nearest branch and opening hours.

 

To discuss support options, personal customers should call ASB's contact centre on 0800 803 804. Alternatively, customers can email hardship@asb.co.nz.  Affected ASB business and rural customers should speak to their relationship manager or call 0800 272 287.

 

Further detail on ASB’s extreme weather support is available here: https://www.asb.co.nz/page/extreme-weather-support.html

More information and full terms, fees and charges can be found on ASB's website.

Posted on

Storm News – Firefighters respond to over 800 calls for assistance

Source: Fire and Emergency New Zealand

Firefighters are continuing to respond to calls for assistance from people affected by the storm moving across the country.
Between 6pm last night and 8am today, Fire and Emergency New Zealand received 852 emergency 111 calls in the North Island. Most of them (804) related to storm damage, including fallen trees and powerlines, lifting roofs and property damage.
Assistant National Commander Ken Cooper said more than half of the calls came from people in the Wellington Region as the storm moved south, but every part of the North Island except Northland reported storm damage or flooding. A summary of the calls is included below.
“We had a very busy night, and our firefighters are continuing to respond to calls. We appreciate the work they are doing to support their communities and we urge people to follow the advice from civil defence to prepare and keep themselves safe, wherever they may be.”
When life or safety is at threatened, people should call 111 immediately. Staying off the roads, avoiding floodwater and watching for flying debris are simple actions people should take to keep themselves safe.
If people are without power and relying on alternative means of cooking, heating and lighting, they should be mindful of fire safety:
– Switch off all appliances including stoves and heaters that were in use when the power went off.
– Torches are preferable to candles. If candles are your only alternative, put them upright in a secure holder, like a jar, well away from curtains or anything flammable
– Do not use outdoor heaters or cooking equipment indoors
Note to editors – 111 calls relating to the weather received between 6pm Sunday and 8am Monday:
Urgent Response (threat to life or serious damage) – total 97
Auckland/Waitemata/ Counties-Manukau – 2
Waikato – 5
Bay of Plenty – 2
Tairawhiti / Hawkes Bay – 3
Taranaki / Manawatu-Whanganui – 10
Wellington – 75
Less Series property damage – total 300
Auckland/Waitemata/ Counties-Manukau – 8
Waikato – 13
Bay of Plenty – 7
Tairawhiti / Hawkes Bay – 9
Taranaki / Manawatu-Whanganui – 49
Wellington – 214
Minor Impacts – total 407
Auckland/Waitemata/ Counties-Manukau – 6
Waikato – 16
Bay of Plenty – 17
Tairawhiti / Hawkes Bay – 12
Taranaki / Manawatu-Whanganui – 90
Wellington – 266.