web analytics

Deborah Russell: Preliminary thoughts on the Government’s new tax

Written By: - Date published: 9:15 am, May 18th, 2015 - 48 comments
Categories: capital gains, Economy, tax - Tags:

The National Party has announced a new tax on the sale of properties. It will apply to all residential rental properties bought after 1 October 2015. If you buy a residential rental property on or after 1 October, and then you sell it again within two years of purchase, you will be taxed on the difference between the sale price and the purchase price.

A caveat: the full details of the proposals are not available yet, so this analysis is based on the fact sheet issued by Inland Revenue’s Policy and Strategy Division, rather than on any more detailed discussion paper or draft legislation.

First up, is this actually a Capital Gains Tax? Yes, and no. As I’ve discussed before, New Zealand already sort of has, and sort of doesn’t have, a Capital Gains Tax. Our existing tax laws already provide for persons who buy something with the intention of resale, or persons who are in the business of buying and selling something, to be taxed on any gains they make.

This proposed new law doesn’t change those rules. All is does is say that if you sell a property within two years of purchasing it, then you will have to pay tax on the gain on sale, if any.

But some properties will be caught in the tax net when previously they would have escaped it. Previously, IRD had to prove that there was an intention of resale before any gains on sale were subject to taxation, and many investors / speculators would have been able to argue that they had bought the property as a capital asset. That would have meant that any gains on sale were not subject to tax. Now IRD simply has to apply the two year rule. So many more property sales will be subject to taxation. To my mind, that makes this a new tax, or at the least, a significantly expanded tax, and it taxes some capital transactions that previously weren’t taxed.

You can make a reasonable case for this not being a capital gains tax, and not being a new tax. Nevertheless, it’s a significant shift in the way that we tax, or don’t tax, property transactions.

What we don’t know yet is whether losses on sale will be deductable. It would be extraordinary if they were. Most CGT regimes around the world don’t allow the deduction of capital losses, or at best, only allow those losses to be offset against future capital gains. This detail should be clarified when draft tax legislation is released, and in subsequent discussion. Per the IRD fact sheet, a discussion paper will be released in July, and legislation will be introduced in August this year.

So what difference will it make? Very little in terms of tax revenue. I imagine that most property speculators will simply elect to hold onto their properties for at least 731 days, thereby avoiding paying tax on their capital gains. The real effect will be to slow down the property market in Auckland, and elsewhere. It will knock the top edge off the market, winding it back just a little bit. Together with the Reserve Bank’s new rules about the deposits that Auckland property buyers must have, the heat may be taken out of the property market. There will still be pressure due to inwards migration, but frantic speculation in property should calm down.

So why use a tax measure at all, if it’s not going to raise any revenue? And heaven knows that the government must be looking for every possible tax dollar it can find.

It’s a preventative measure, not a revenue raiser. Back when we had a gift duty in New Zealand, there was never very much gift duty raised. Instead, the threat of gift duty meant that people didn’t try to avoid income tax by gifting away assets that earned income. So they couldn’t engage in all sorts of elaborate tax schemes, or if they did choose to do so, there was a price to pay. Most people elected not to engage in the elaborate schemes, and so very little gift duty was ever collected. It was a very effective tax measure.

Likewise, this measure should be very effective in shutting short term speculation down. I suspect that once the two years is up, plenty of properties will end up on the market, but very few properties will be sold under the two year mark, and so very little tax revenue will be collected.

There will be some losers from this new, or expanded, tax. Most property speculators will be able to arrange their affairs so that they are not caught by the two year rule. If you have to move towns for work, and you turn your family home into a rental property, you won’t be caught; there will be an exemption for houses that have been the family home. If your marriage goes belly up, and you have to sell your joint investment property, there’s an exemption for you too. This is more-or-less consistent with other tax law; we try not to tax people on the vagaries of fate.

However, some people who own residential rental properties might get caught out. For example, imagine a small business owner who runs into cashflow difficulties, and so is forced to sell a residential rental property. Or think about someone who has bought a house that they intend to live in, but in the meantime has rented it out, and then loses her or his job and is forced into selling the property.

I suspect that the only people who will get caught by this law will be those who have run into some misfortune. Getting taxed on the sale of your investment property seems to be a harsh consequence, especially when we don’t tax other capital gains.

The big question is whether the two year rule will work. That’s going to depend a little on how investors and / or speculators have structured their finances. A clever investor / speculator will have structured their affairs so that they pay as little tax as possible. Perhaps they will be happy to wear some tax in order to get the cash from a short term gain.

What this tax is not, is a comprehensive capital gains tax. If an investor sits tight for at least two years, then whatever capital gains she or he makes will be completely tax free. The Minister of Revenue has argued that:

They will still be subject to tax under existing rules if they buy a property with the intention of selling the property for gain – even if they do so outside the two-year “bright line” period.

Right, sure, whatever, but at that stage, IRD will have to prove that there was an intention of resale. That has always been hard to demonstrate, and it will be even harder now that government has reified two years as the magical dividing line. Holding onto a property for longer than two years could well be taken to indicate a serious intent to invest for the long time. Those untaxed capital gains will remain, untaxed. And that on-going inequity in the tax system has yet to be addressed.

Repeated from Left Side Story.

48 comments on “Deborah Russell: Preliminary thoughts on the Government’s new tax ”

  1. r0b 1

    Thank you, that’s by far the best briefing I have read on the issue.

    • aerobubble 1.1

      A tax on capital gain is not what we understand to be a cgt. Erh.
      yes, for sure, its not comprehensive, since its more comprehensive than the mind reading of the previous rule.

      Its a u turn, that will lower the supply of homes more, force in investers to open bank accounts and wait two years only to be taxed anyway as they never stepped on the property or even into the country.

      Yeah you guessed it, for the hardered investor it’ll matte diddly squat.

  2. Charles 2

    As above, it’s a very good briefing on the situation, thanks.

    “However, some people who own residential rental properties might get caught out. For example, imagine a small business owner who runs into cashflow difficulties, and so is forced to sell a residential rental property. Or think about someone who has bought a house that they intend to live in, but in the meantime has rented it out, and then loses her or his job and is forced into selling the property.

    I suspect that the only people who will get caught by this law will be those who have run into some misfortune.”

    I dunno if “forced” and “misfortune” are the correct words for these arguments, though, since there are alternative options in both cases to avoid the tax and “misfortune”. But it may just be my outlook. I find it hard to sympathise with a perspective that is more/less, “…I shouldn’t be slowed down by anything on my rightful climb up the ladder…” because such a mindset creates the kind of “bubbles” that cause wider damage.

    • Liberal Realist 2.1

      ” dunno if “forced” and “misfortune” are the correct words for these arguments, though, since there are alternative options in both cases to avoid the tax and “misfortune”.”

      +1. When you invest in anything there is always a risk. Golden rule, don’t invest in anything you’re not prepared to lose. Investing in anything carries risk. Investing into an obviously overheated speculation driven property market poses significant risk but staggering returns (Auck, present). It can’t and won’t last forever.

      State intervention is always a risk in any market, especially a distorted one. Sure, this one is marginal at best but that’s not to say that there won’t be another down the track (Late 2017 perhaps?).

      Can’t miss out, price spiral upward forever type thinking or is it just greed?

  3. Sable 3

    I fail to see how this will make much difference personally. It might take a little of the heat out of the market but it will be minor at best.

  4. saveNZ 4

    My thoughts are:

    At least something is being done. They should bring it in immediately so that in the next 5 months the Auckland market will not go crazy with speculators buying before the new rules come in, in October.

    Secondly it should be longer, like 5 years before you can resell the property. Also how much is the tax?

    I don’t think it will make a huge difference but can slow it down a little.

    The main issue in Auckland is migration.

    The Australian system of making migrants build new should be bought in, for a short time to try to redirect the revenue and allow more locals to buy the existing stock.

    However the RMA would need to be strengthened as at present the Auckland council is consenting everything with no effects mitigated and essentially in 5 years some very serious problems will start to show up (like with leaky buildings and the amenity issues with AK CBD) and and it will directly related to the incompetent way the council and environment court are putting through their consents now.

    The district planning rules are regularly being violated and in extreme ways in Auckland. The only public scrutiny has been a few cases like the Ports of Auckland and the Kauri trees, but the same issue are widespread and any person can get anything through and the council officers have massive control the environment court rulings.

    We may have more houses, but what about the quality of the houses, the affordability of the houses, the impacts of poorly planned businesses, and the quality of life from those decisions.

    For example with the Ports of Auckland, we might have more cars and bananas on our reclaimed ports of Auckland wharves which apparently bring in more money to Ports of Auckland, but then no one wants to live and work and invest in Auckland because some resource consent officers can just start reclaiming the harbour in front of your development. No noise controls, no visual controls, actually nothing there to protect your amenity. Let alone the issue of getting the stealing the harbour for nothing.

    Or some shanty apartment block pops up next to some upmarket block.

    Everyone is gridlocked trying to drive in, because the housing development or commercial development never planed any public transport in the consent.

    I say this, because in the Crosby Textor discourse, the Nats have blamed the RMA for housing issue, but the reality is the opposite. The stupid RMA decisions now, are going to be a huge cost in the future in many different ways and in ways that can not be easily rectified.

    Once a building is there, it is there for 50 plus years and existing rights can be revoked. Once Ports of Auckland steal the harbour it is gone. The Kauri trees and bush will not be there anymore once cut down. The Bunnings, oil refinery or what have you will all have an effect and also set precedent for more to come.

    NZ will no longer be clean and green and socially and environmentally responsible.

    The other main housing problem is the high prices and monopolies in the building and infrastructure in NZ. In a country where we make many of the raw materials in building it is alarming how much higher the costs are here per square meter.

    I can’t see anything being done about all these problems in the new measures.

    • Tracey 4.1

      “At least something is being done.”

      Actually I think you are wrong cos I think we are supposed to think something is being done but nothing much is being done at all. And why would it when the PM doesn’t consider there is a problem. He sees the problem down the line not now.

  5. RedLogix 5

    Excellent briefing.

    And your conclusion is broadly correct. This is nothing new, it’s not technically a CGT although it will have the effect of one.

    And while it may take some of the steam out of the Auckland market – I’m doubt it will make housing any more affordable for working New Zealanders at all.

    And it will be a problematic tax to administer… all without addressing the fundamental lack of horizontal equity the current regime suffers from.

    In many ways we would be better off just having a uniform 15% CGT applied to all asset classes (including the family home) – eliminating all the loopholes and associated bullshit.

  6. Bearded Git 6

    Excellent Deborah, that all makes sense.

    The new tax rule does give Labour the option (as a policy) of toughening/refining the rule by making the sell-by period 3 or 4 years, while reminding the electorate that this is National’s tax rule that they are refining. Such a move would give it far more teeth.

    And the fact remains that Key/English have long held that changes to the tax system were not needed because there was no problem with the Auckland housing market, so this is a highly embarrassing u-turn by National.

    • dukeofurl 6.1

      real estate agents were the most notorius users of the buy quick and sell again quick.

      They would use their position with the owner to but it themselves at a cheaper price, they are not supposed to do this but its easily got around using a work colleagues name or mother name etc.
      They re-market the property very quickly as a gain of $15,000 to $25,000 is easily achieved.- Tax free.

      • RedLogix 6.1.1

        Absolutely rife. Caught an agent out doing this on a property I bought two years ago.

        Took the matter to his manager – who more or less admitted it happened all the time and there was little she could do about it.

        • Lanthanide 6.1.1.1

          I can’t see a 33% tax really stopping the practice. It’ll mean some marginal cases maybe aren’t worth the effort, but $10k in the pocket (instead of $15k) for not much risk / work is still attractive.

          If the agents are already brazenly doing it, then they may be already be abiding by the IRD’s “intentions” rule anyway, in which case this won’t change anything.

          • Craig H 6.1.1.1.1

            Bingo – for this tax to be effective, there has to be a profit. If there’s a profit, they will likely still do it, because money talks, and just accept less money in the pocket.

  7. Sirenia 7

    Will it stop people putting all their property assets into family trusts, and so having a low tax rate on their income? Or encourage it?

    • Herodotus 7.1

      Unless there is a exemption clause or I am unaware of something already in the law, transferring to a trust would count as a sale. As the property will have a change of ownership which should have to be transferred at the current market price and recorded at LINZ. But there could be a wee surge or work for lawyers as some try to beat the October deadline. BUT I maybe wrong

      • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 7.1.1

        There is bugger-all tax saving by putting property into a trust. First, you need your property to be income-producing. Then, you need a non-minor beneficiary whose marginal rate of income tax is less than the trustee rate of 33%.

  8. mpledger 8

    It’s easy enough to get around is the sale isn’t ultra desperate. If someone needs to sell a rental property they kick the tenants out (which doesn’t take long if the owner wants to live in it), (pretend to) move in, call it their family home (even if the rest of their family lives elsewhere – they just have to pretend they’ve separated) and then sell.

    Unfortunately, to make it more dodge-proof the family home should count.

    • Lanthanide 8.1

      Yeah, maybe that’s possible on paper.

      But in practice, the IRD already asks about your ‘intentions’ with the property. Whereas before it was (apparently) possible to lie to them and construct a convincing facade, I think it will be much more difficult now if they ask those same questions AND you’re doing all of these slightly odd things before the 2 year deadline is reached.

      Purely because of this new rule, they’ll be able to crack down harder on these sorts of rorts (but as Deborah Russell suggests, this may now mean that if you go 2+ years it’ll be easier to get away with things).

    • Tracey 8.2

      That doesn’t sound “easy enough”, it actually sounds like hard work…

      • mpledger 8.2.1

        I’ve heard of one instance where a landlord kicked out tenants because he said he wanted to live in a property, once they were gone he put the property on the market. When I’ve told this story to other people they have heard of it happening to others as well.

        You don’t have to do a whole lot more to get around this new CGT.

  9. Lanthanide 9

    Make it 5 years instead of 2 and it has some real teeth.

    • Tracey 9.1

      Was thinking that if they were serious they would have made it 5 years. They are not serious about anything other than looking like they are doing something. So decided on 2.

  10. Tom Gould 10

    Hard to say it, but John Key and Bill English deserve credit for swallowing their pride and bringing in their own capital gains tax on residential property. It might not be perfect, but new taxes seldom are. So take a bow, boys. No doubt, future governments will continue to refine their CGT as time goes on, as normally happens with taxes.

    • AmaKiwi 10.1

      When personal income tax was first introduced in the USA (approx. 1905) the top rate was less than 5%. At times the top rate has been as high as 80% or more.

      That’s called “refining” a tax.

      Thank you National for bringing in the tax that cost Labour/Greens so much support in the past 2 elections.

    • Wayne 10.2

      Tom,

      It is not really a capital gains tax as such. It is essentially a “black and white test” for determining whether a person has bought a property with the purpose of resale.

      Such transactions are already taxable as income taxed at the appropriate income tax rate, but the challenge has been to determine whether the property was purchased for that purpose. A two year rule removes the requirement to prove the purpose. Of course it is also an incentive to hold for more than 2 years.

      If the period had been longer, say 5 to 10 years then it probably could be classed a limited form of CGT. In that case a tax rate lower than the income tax rate would be justifiable, say 15% as in Australia.

      • vto 10.2.1

        Not only does it determine the intention for those sales of two years or less, it also by default (despite protest to the contrary) determines the intention of those sales of greater than two years…..

        now add up the gains and losses around this and you will see that this law is actually an advantage to the property people which will result in less tax overall as people bunch their intentions according to the two year law

  11. Phil 11

    https://www.qv.co.nz/n/news-details/phoenix-78?blogId=65

    The last chart shows some interesting results, but only has up to 2012 data. If the composition of the Auckland market is broadly the same today (and it’s certainly easier to make a case for more speculation, as opposed to less) then there is a big pool of potential targets that will be within scope of this tax. Certainly a lot more than just “those who have run into some misfortune”.

  12. AmaKiwi 12

    I have Left of center friends who voted for Helen but turned their back on Labour the second Goff proposed a capital gains tax back in 2011.

    Now National will have to wear the CGT and their broken promise.

    The next Left government will make some “minor adjustments” to National’s CGT tax. “Minor” like GST going from 10% to 15% and my rates doubling in 5 years.

    This was a strategic blunder by National. I couldn’t be happier!

  13. mickysavage 13

    We are truly approaching the end of days. Over at Kiwiblog DPF has praised Deborah’s post and I have let the Kiwiblog link through!

  14. Brillo 14

    If the Labour Party does not give this intelligent and capable woman a much higher list place, they need their bumps felt.

    She’s what we need in Parliament (and no, we are not related!).

    • cricklewood 14.1

      Agreed, It’s refreshing to read such a concise and easy to understand analysis.
      I can’t help but feel that if some of the more Senior Labour MP’s had Deborah’s communication skills the proposed CGT wouldn’t have been much better understood and received by the voting public.

      • Colonial Rawshark 14.1.1

        By all means, Labour certainly needs more policy specialists, technocrats, intellectuals and academics as MPs.

        • Saarbo 14.1.1.1

          Lol. I got up to

          First up, is this actually a Capital Gains Tax? Yes, and no.

          before ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzz zzz…Im an ex beancounter…now allergic to tax.
          Deborah would probably make a great advisor on Tax to Labour, not so sure a politician tho…IMHO.

          • Colonial Rawshark 14.1.1.1.1

            I mean, yeah. Have we really forgotten the difference between a policy analyst and a politician? Do we really think that technocrats and PhDs and academics and policy specialists are what Labour needs more of in caucus – because the performance problems within the Labour caucus over the last 3 elections is that there have simply not been enough technocrats, PhDs, academics and policy specialists in amongst them? I shake my head in wonder. Labour faces a massive cultural gulf between itself and the electorate. 8 months after the last election and I see no signs of that gulf being understood, let alone bridged.

  15. DH 15

    There’s a telling comment from Key which reveals National’s real intentions;

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/68621964/no-housing-crisis-in-auckland-john-key

    This bit at the end…

    “Instead he described the changes as an “intentions tax” which he hoped would contribute to a more “gradual price rise” of housing in the future”

    That couldn’t be any clearer, he fully intends for Auckland house prices to continue rising.

    • Colonial Rawshark 15.1

      Huh? Neither Labour nor National nor the Greens nor any other party have proposed that Auckland house prices should be locked down at current levels.

    • Lanthanide 15.2

      “That couldn’t be any clearer, he fully intends for Auckland house prices to continue rising.”

      Considering that inflation is targeted at 1-3%, if house prices did not rise at all, they would be decreasing in real value.

      • Colonial Rawshark 15.2.1

        Well, the reversion to mean will happen some time, whether it is two years from now or twenty years from now…and then yes, there will be a tonne of “value” (mistaken as that term is) that is lost.

  16. Stuart Munro 16

    This tax will make a great base from which to extend to a full CGT – at its simplest you only need to extend the two year period.

  17. Richard McGrath 17

    A good read, thank you Deborah. Nice to read something on this blog without obvious left-wing political spin.

    • red-blooded 17.1

      Does this site pretend to be anything other than left in its political values? There are sites that pretend to be neutral (think Kiwiblog), but The Standard has always been perfectly open about being a left wing blogsite and discussion space.

      A great summary; thanks Deborah. Having said that, I also really enjoyed hearing Guyon Espiner having JK on about this issues this morning, with our esteemed leader twisting and turning and not quite succeeding in arguing that:
      a) this tax on capital gains isn’t a CGT, and
      b) he still thinks there’s no real problem with the Auckland housing market.

      You did a much better job with the a) part of this discussion than he did, Deborah.

  18. Clemgeopin 18

    Deborah Russel has written so well about this tax which in my opinion is primarily a Clayton’s tax which will have very little desired effect. The CGT be easily avoided by the property speculating wealthy sharks, while inadvertently causing hardship and heart ache to many ordinary honest people everywhere, including people living in the provinces away from the Auckland housing mayhem.

    Incidentally, I enjoyed reading another article by her on her website regarding the despicable Pony-tail shenanigan indulged in by Key. Here is the link if you would like to read that too:
    http://deborahfrussell.net/2015/04/29/mr-collins-mr-key-and-refusing-to-hear-no/

    • vaughan little 18.1

      slowing down resales to two years is the moneyshot. it breaks the ground that labour/greens can build on down the track, so i’m hopeful for it.

      also, you only get taxed on the capital gain, so it’s not like the tax is gonna be materially hurting people who have to sell up for changes in personal circumstances.

    • mac1 18.2

      That article on refusing to hear “No!”, like the post above, was a well argued and readable article. Thanks.

Links to post

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Twenty highlights of 2020
    As we welcome in the new year, our focus is on continuing to keep New Zealanders safe and moving forward with our economic recovery. There’s a lot to get on with, but before we say a final goodbye to 2020, here’s a quick look back at some of the milestones ...
    2 weeks ago

  • Cook Islanders to resume travel to New Zealand
    The Prime Minister of New Zealand Jacinda Ardern and the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands Mark Brown have announced passengers from the Cook Islands can resume quarantine-free travel into New Zealand from 21 January, enabling access to essential services such as health. “Following confirmation of the Cook Islands’ COVID ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    21 hours ago
  • Supporting communities and landowners to grow employment opportunities
    Jobs for Nature funding is being made available to conservation groups and landowners to employ staff and contractors in a move aimed at boosting local biodiversity-focused projects, Conservation Minister Kiritapu Allan has announced. It is estimated some 400-plus jobs will be created with employment opportunities in ecology, restoration, trapping, ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Border exception for some returning international tertiary students
    The Government has approved an exception class for 1000 international tertiary students, degree level and above, who began their study in New Zealand but were caught offshore when border restrictions began. The exception will allow students to return to New Zealand in stages from April 2021. “Our top priority continues ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Tiwai deal gives time for managed transition
    Today’s deal between Meridian and Rio Tinto for the Tiwai smelter to remain open another four years provides time for a managed transition for Southland. “The deal provides welcome certainty to the Southland community by protecting jobs and incomes as the region plans for the future. The Government is committed ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • New member for APEC Business Advisory Council
    Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has appointed Anna Curzon to the APEC Business Advisory Council (ABAC). The leader of each APEC economy appoints three private sector representatives to ABAC. ABAC provides advice to leaders annually on business priorities. “ABAC helps ensure that APEC’s work programme is informed by business community perspectives ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Govt’s careful economic management recognised
    The Government’s prudent fiscal management and strong policy programme in the face of the COVID-19 global pandemic have been acknowledged by the credit rating agency Fitch. Fitch has today affirmed New Zealand’s local currency rating at AA+ with a stable outlook and foreign currency rating at AA with a positive ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Additional actions to keep COVID-19 out of NZ
    The Government is putting in place a suite of additional actions to protect New Zealand from COVID-19, including new emerging variants, COVID-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins said today. “Given the high rates of infection in many countries and evidence of the global spread of more transmissible variants, it’s clear that ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • 19 projects will clean up and protect waterways
    $36 million of Government funding alongside councils and others for 19 projects Investment will clean up and protect waterways and create local jobs Boots on the ground expected in Q2 of 2021 Funding part of the Jobs for Nature policy package A package of 19 projects will help clean up ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • New Zealand Government acknowledges 175th anniversary of Battle of Ruapekapeka
    The commemoration of the 175th anniversary of the Battle of Ruapekapeka represents an opportunity for all New Zealanders to reflect on the role these conflicts have had in creating our modern nation, says Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage Kiri Allan. “The Battle at Te Ruapekapeka Pā, which took ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Better care for babies with tongue-tie
    Babies born with tongue-tie will be assessed and treated consistently under new guidelines released by the Ministry of Health, Associate Minister of Health Dr Ayesha Verrall announced today. Around 5% to 10% of babies are born with a tongue-tie, or ankyloglossia, in New Zealand each year. At least half can ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Prisoner disorder event at Waikeria Prison over
    The prisoner disorder event at Waikeria Prison is over, with all remaining prisoners now safely and securely detained, Corrections Minister Kelvin Davis says. The majority of those involved in the event are members of the Mongols and Comancheros. Five of the men are deportees from Australia, with three subject to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Pre-departure COVID-19 test for travellers from the UK and the US from 15 January
    Travellers from the United Kingdom or the United States bound for New Zealand will be required to get a negative test result for COVID-19 before departing, and work is underway to extend the requirement to other long haul flights to New Zealand, COVID-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins confirmed today. “The new PCR test requirement, foreshadowed last ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • PM congratulates New Year Honour recipients
    Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has added her warm congratulations to the New Zealanders recognised for their contributions to their communities and the country in the New Year 2021 Honours List. “The past year has been one that few of us could have imagined. In spite of all the things that ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • David Parker congratulates New Year 2021 Honours recipients
    Attorney-General and Minister for the Environment David Parker has congratulated two retired judges who have had their contributions to the country and their communities recognised in the New Year 2021 Honours list. The Hon Tony Randerson QC has been appointed a Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit for ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • New Year’s Honours highlights outstanding Pacific leadership through challenging year
    Minister for Pacific Peoples Aupito William Sio says the New Year’s Honours List 2021 highlights again the outstanding contribution made by Pacific people across Aotearoa. “We are acknowledging the work of 13 Pacific leaders in the New Year’s Honours, representing a number of sectors including health, education, community, sports, the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Supporting seniors to embrace technology
    The Government’s investment in digital literacy training for seniors has led to more than 250 people participating so far, helping them stay connected. “COVID-19 has meant older New Zealanders are showing more interest in learning how to use technology like Zoom and Skype so they can to keep in touch ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Additional COVID-19 tests for returnees from higher risk countries
    New virus variants and ongoing high rates of diseases in some countries prompt additional border protections Extra (day zero or day one) test to be in place this week New ways of reducing risk before people embark on travel being investigated, including pre-departure testing for people leaving the United Kingdom ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago