Recent News

How one local council helped 1,200 low‑income residents finance solar and home energy upgrades

Could this work in New Zealand? Feedback please. Paris Hadfield, Research Fellow, Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Monash University Most of Australia’s existing homes are old, uncomfortable and expensive to run. Too many are energy inefficient, and rising electricity and gas prices are making things worse. Mainstream programs are supporting home energy upgrades. But the transition isn’t happening quickly enough and risks leaving behind the households that could benefit most. Innovative finance models could help. Local initiatives can make solar and electrification more accessible. Darebin City Council’s Solar Saver program Running from 2014-2025, Darebin City Council’s Solar Saver program helped almost 1,200 low-income and vulnerable homeowners in the area get A$4.8 million worth of home energy upgrades. Council paid the upfront cost of installing solar and, in later iterations of the program, reverse cycle air conditioners and hot water heat pumps. Factoring in state government rebates, these costs were added to the homeowner’s property taxes as a “special rates charge”. The homeowner could then repay this money over ten years – interest-free. Suppliers were selected through council tender to make the process easier for homeowners, while ensuring quality products and services including component and performance warranties. This provided certainty for residents, one of whom said: the council’s not going to get involved with some shonky person who’s going to come in and tell you: “Terribly sorry, we’ve got to double the price because you’ve got a nail in the wrong place on your roof” or something. The scheme reduced financial risks and burdens for low-income homeowners. By using council rates to repay the money, the loan is attached to the property itself rather than the homeowner. This means any remaining debt is recouped if and when the house is sold, avoiding a situation where someone is paying a debt for solar […]

The cost of Deindustrialisation: How New Zealand’s manufacturing decline threatens our economic future

NZ Manufacturer magazine wants more business owners and decisionmakers to speak up and positively make suggestions on issues affecting the future of manufacturing. Dont be silent when your ideas can make a difference. Speak up for your country. Doug Green, Publisher By Sean Doherty, Manufacturing Commentator | NZ Industry Trends Manufacturing is not just another sector in New Zealand; it is one of the core systems that keeps regional communities alive and anchors our standard of living. When factories close in Whakatāne, or the outer suburbs of Christchurch, we do not seamlessly “move up the value chain.” We lose well‑paid careers, technical capability, and the dense network of firms and supply chains that make an economy resilient. The signs of deindustrialisation are already all around us Long‑standing manufacturing plants shutting, production shifting offshore, and investment decisions quietly goes against New Zealand. The immediate impact is job loss, but the deeper damage is structural. Manufacturing has long provided thousands of solid, mid‑skill, mid‑wage jobs for people who are prepared to learn a trade, run complex processes, and take responsibility for quality and output. As these roles disappear, the labour market splits into a small group of high‑income professionals and a growing pool of low‑paid service jobs in areas like tourism and hospitality. That mix locks in stagnant wages, weakens social mobility, and drives up fiscal pressure as more households rely on government support to close the income gap. For regions, the consequences are even more personal. A single plant in a provincial town can support hundreds of families directly and many more through suppliers—maintenance firms, transport operators, engineering workshops, automation integrators, local business services. When production ceases, these networks unravel. Young people see fewer reasons to stay, schools lose roll numbers, and community struggle. Once this cycle takes hold, it is […]

Why our car dependence is now a strategic liability

Timothy Welch, Senior Lecturer in Urban Planning, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau The war in Iran and the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz have sent oil prices past US$100 a barrel – and Kiwis flocking to fill up. Petrol just hit NZ$3 a litre and some stations have reported running dry. In response to about 20% of the world’s oil supply being shut off in just a few days, the International Energy Agency announced its largest-ever coordinated reserve release of 400 million barrels. But analysts warn oil could reach US$150 a barrel if the strait stays closed. For a country that imports every drop of its petrol, diesel and jet fuel, this is not only a problem, it’s a hard reminder New Zealand has failed to mitigate such strategic vulnerability. Since Marsden Point stopped refining oil in 2022, New Zealand has imported all its refined fuel, mostly from South Korea and Singapore. Those refineries rely on crude oil shipped through the waters now blocked by Iranian drones. The latest official fuel stocks update suggests roughly 52 days of total cover, with less than 33 days of petrol in the country. This buffer was only designed to smooth over short disruptions, not substitute for a prolonged supply crisis. Motorists are already starting to hoard supplies, with petrol stations in Auckland already selling out of fuel cans. Some drivers may well be regretting not having bought an electric vehicle earlier. Failure to electrify New Zealand generates more than 85% of its electricity from renewable sources – rising to a record 96.4% in the last quarter of 2025. It has one of the cleanest and most oil-independent electricity systems in the world. Yet transport, which consumes nearly 40% of all energy in the country, remains almost entirely chained to imported oil. Electricity provides just 0.5% of domestic transport energy. It didn’t have to be […]

Tech companies are blaming massive layoffs on AI

Uri Gal, Professor in Business Information Systems, University of Sydney In the past few months, a wave of tech corporations have announced significant staff cuts and attributed them to efficiency gains driven by artificial intelligence (AI). Companies such as Atlassian, Block and Amazon have announced they would lay off thousands of employees due to increased reliance on AI. The narrative these companies offer is consistent: AI is making human labour replaceable, and responsible management demands adjustment. The evidence, however, tells a more nuanced story. The automation story is partly true Genuine disruption is visible in specific corners of the labour market, though the scale of that disruption is commonly overstated. Research from Anthropic published earlier this month shows that although many work tasks are susceptible to automation, the vast majority are still performed primarily by humans rather than AI tools. Moreover, some occupations are more exposed to displacement than others: computer programmers sit at the top of the list, followed by customer service representatives and data entry workers. Yet even within the most exposed occupations, AI use is still limited. The aggregate economic data reflects this reality. A 2025 Goldman Sachs report estimated that if AI were used across the economy for all the things it could currently do, roughly 2.5% of US employment would be at risk of job loss. That’s not a trivial number. However, the report notes that workers in AI-exposed occupations are currently no more likely to lose their jobs, face reduced hours, or earn lower wages than anyone else. The report does note early signs of strain in specific industries. Goldman Sachs identifies sectors where employment growth has slowed that align with AI-related efficiency gains. Examples include marketing consulting, graphic design, office administration and call centres. In the tech sector, US workers in their 20s in AI-exposed occupations saw unemployment rise by almost 3% […]

In God we trust: All others bring data

David Altena is Head of Growth & Partnerships at SmartSpace.ai & Co-Founder & Host of The Better SMB Podcast. david@altena.solutions Rob Bull is Director of the New Zealand Lean Academy. rob@nzla.nz Edwards Deming’s line has been quoted so often it risks becoming wallpaper. But for New Zealand manufacturers facing reducing margins, skills shortages and relentless competition, it’s not a slogan; it must be a standard. You know the feeling. Every day’s busy, the team hustle, the shop floor hums, yet profitability wobbles, lead times slip and projects that looked promising last quarter are still stuck in first gear. The gap isn’t effort. It’s information. Not a shortage of activity, but a shortage of clarity. Do you know what “good”, let alone “great”, looks like? Information-led businesses win Let’s be blunt: gut feel gets you started, but data helps you sustain quality, hit targets and scale. Information led businesses don’t drown in dashboards – they know which information actually matters, they measure, share with the team and act on it. Manufacturers need a clear view of flow, quality, throughput, commercial health and capability. Most businesses already measure far more than they need – but far less of what matters. These aren’t “nice-to-haves.” They’re the instrumentation panel telling you if your workshop is flying straight or drifting off course. Without this, you risk over-investing in the wrong places, repeating the same mistakes and confusing activity for progress. Insights, not just indicators But watch out, simply measuring more is not learning more. Too many leaders implement software, install sensors and create dashboards using yesterday’s processes and call it transformation. What’s missing are the insights – turning the raw numbers into a real narrative. Trends vs. snapshots: Is OEE improving, or did we just have a “good week”? Causes vs. symptoms: […]

Uncertainty and opportunity for Kiwi exporters

By EMA Head of Membership and Export, Simon Devoy With the global trading environment shifting rapidly, uncertainty is the new normal for Kiwi exporters. The latest developments around tariffs from the Trump Administration show just how quickly the rules can change, and how vulnerable small, open trading economies like New Zealand can be when the rules-based global system begins to fray. In late February, the United States Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that President Trump had exceeded his authority by imposing broad “emergency” global tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court reaffirmed that under the US Constitution, only Congress has the authority to set tariffs. At first glance, that might have seemed like good news for exporters around the world. The ruling removed the legal basis for the 15% “reciprocal tariff” that had been applied to most imports, including New Zealand goods. But within hours, the Trump Administration moved quickly to reinstate tariffs under a different legal mechanism: Section 122 of the US Trade Act of 1974. This allows the President to impose temporary tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days. Initially announced at 10%, the tariff was soon raised to 15% and took effect on 24 February. In practical terms, that means many New Zealand exports to the United States continue to face a 15% tariff, essentially restoring the same rate exporters had already been dealing with. Some agricultural products are expected to remain exempt under earlier announcements. But exporters still need to confirm classifications carefully at the HS-code level. Meanwhile, other tariffs remain untouched by the Supreme Court decision, including Section 232 tariffs on products such as steel, aluminium and copper, as well as potential investigations into sectors like pharmaceuticals. Given the highest court in the US just ruled the gathering of these […]

Busy Isn’t Productive: The Hidden Cost of Broken Flow

A practical reset for factories stuck in firefighting, batching and workarounds. By Neil Robinson, a Senior Business Consultant with Argon & Co (Auckland) specialising in productivity improvement, Lean systems and capability building. A Six Sigma Black Belt and experienced facilitator, he helps manufacturing teams make flow visible, stabilise performance and embed practical continuous improvement routines from frontline to leadership. Busy isn’t productive. Most manufacturing leaders have seen it up close: people are flat out, machines are running, forklifts are moving — and yet output, delivery and margin are unacceptable. The hidden cost isn’t laziness or lack of commitment. It’s broken flow. If you’ve ever launched a “transformation initiative” that looked perfect in the boardroom but lost momentum on the shop floor, you’re in good company. Programmes rarely stall because people don’t care. They stall because the one thing everyone needs to understand — how work actually flows — was never made visible in a way that sticks. Flow is the backbone of every World Class operation. When product moves smoothly from one step to the next, everything improves: quality, productivity, lead time, DIFOT, cost and morale. But when flow is interrupted, busyness increases, work piles up, frustration grows and improvement stalls — even with good people trying hard. Why flow matters — and why it’s hard to teach Every operation wants work to move smoothly from start to finish. When flow is strong, performance becomes predictable. When flow breaks down, the system pays — in delays, rework, expediting, excess WIP, stressed teams and missed delivery. The enemies of flow often look “normal” in day-to-day work: batching, long changeovers, unclear priorities, waiting for information or materials, bottlenecks, and the classic workaround — “just put it anywhere for now.” These interruptions are easy to tolerate individually, but together they quietly drain […]

Find a Business Partner – DIY or Not ?

Mike Warmington, Director, Platform1 New Zealanders often like to try their hand at projects especially when it comes to DIY jobs around the house. We pride ourselves on having a can-do attitude. This can transcend itself into business when owners are looking at exit planning strategies. It may sound easy to elevate a key staff member or an external person into your business as part of a succession plan – but is it really? As business owners, we understand we need to pay an Accountant for their advice and the compliance work they do in regard to tax and our financial statements. We also pay a Lawyer for legal advice. It is seen as mandatory to engage external parties for this type of advice so why not do the same when making other decisions regarding often your most valuable asset? How often do we pay for other advice and structuring from experts about succession planning? To find a business partner to buy you out over time can be a very effective option and improve your wealth and lifestyle. There are many things to consider as part of a business owner transition plan. If you are looking to find a business partner as part of a strategy to exit your business over time here are some of the points you should consider: Finding the best person usually comes from a competitive process. Are you getting a choice? How do you ascertain the risk profile of the person? Are they entrepreneurial and will they stick to the plan? Weeding out “ tyre-kickers” early is required and it is a skill that needs to be learnt from practice. If a colleague is recommending the business partner to you do they have experience in talent identification? Does the person have the money to […]

Power Politics: How high electricity prices are squeezing NZ Manufacturers in an Election Year

By Sean Doherty,Manufacturing Commentator | NZ Industry Trends New Zealand’s electricity market is producing two parallel realities. For the country’s four major generator-retailers, business has never been better. For manufacturers, the same market is steadily destroying the economics of making things in this country. If the balance is not corrected soon, the closures already under way will accelerate – and some of the damage will be permanent. Generators cash in while industry burns out In the six months to December 2025, New Zealand’s four major gentailers – are forecast to deliver a combined operating profit of approximately $1.86 billion, an increase of around 45% on the same period a year earlier. These are not one-off results. In 2023, the same four companies posted combined operating profits of $2.7 billion – roughly $7.4 million in profit every single day. The Electricity Authority’s own energy margin dashboard shows big generators regularly earning weekly gross margins in excess of $70 million, peaking at around $119 million in some high-price weeks. Consumer NZ chief executive Jon Duffy has put the problem plainly: “We hear the same lines every year. Big profits are needed to fund investment. But the investment is always coming, never here in sufficient quantity“. The numbers back him up. Analysis by the NZCTU and 350 Aotearoa found that over the past decade, the four gentailers paid $10.8 billion in dividends to the government and shareholders while investing only $4.5 billion into plant, property and equipment. Transpower data showed that as of late 2025, only around 986 MW of new generation had been committed and financed – far short of the 1,500 GWh of new capacity needed every year until 2031. The system, in other words, is structured to reward generators most when supply is tight and prices are high – […]

Prevention is the strategy for performance in infrastructure delivery

From March issue, NZ Manufacturer magazine Stephanie Pretorius, Managing Principal, Argon & Co Infrastructure projects operate under relentless pressure: tightening margins, rising complexity, public scrutiny, and near-zero tolerance for delay. Yet many delivery environments still default to recovery — catch-up programmes, overtime, task-force escalation — only after performance has already deteriorated. In manufacturing, results improve when the production system is stabilised. Once flow is predictable, investment in capability, automation, and quality at source delivers compounding return. Stability creates ROI. Construction rarely affords itself that discipline. Each project is framed as unique, variability is normalised, and management attention focuses on reacting to disruption rather than designing it out. But the underlying principle does not change. Stability precedes return. In infrastructure delivery, prevention — of defects, rework, design ambiguity, coordination failure, and flow breakdown — is the equivalent of investing in a stable production line. It is a deliberate decision to engineer reliability into planning, commercial strategy, stakeholder alignment, and daily management before work intensifies. The most reliable infrastructure projects take a different path. They do not wait for delay to surface. They design systems that prevent instability from taking hold. Prevention is not a support activity. It is the strategy. Why recovery fails as a performance model Most delays are not caused by a single failure or a lack of effort. They are the predictable outcome of how work is planned, coordinated, and managed across the system. Common causes include: Unreliable handoffs between teams and contractors Late decisions and unresolved constraints Recurring problems across projects not addressed as delivery risk Overloaded schedules with no capacity for variation Poor visibility of emerging performance risks Escalation that happens too late—or not at all By the time these issues show up on a critical path report, the cost has already been incurred. Recovery […]

1 2 3 4 ›»

News Ticker

Recent News