AM Edition: Top 10 Politics Articles on LiveNews.co.nz for March 25, 2026 – Full Text

Source: Radio New Zealand

Thirteen education organisations representing thousands of teachers and principals have united to oppose the government’s school curriculum overhaul.

In a letter published on Wednesday organisations including teacher union the Educational Institute, the Principals’ Federation and several subject associations, said the proposed changes were not fit for purpose.

They said the curriculum framework and six draft curriculum documents were not fit for purpose, did not meet the Education Ministry’s own standards, “and represent a profound, unworkable narrowing of curriculum scope”.

“The pace of curriculum change is unreasonable, has layered multiple demands on schools and kura, and has created huge workloads on the sector,” they said.

“This will have significant negative impacts, including impacting on the recruitment and retention of teachers.”

Principals’ Federation president Jason Miles told RNZ primary schools had already introduced new maths and English curriculums, which made huge changes to the way schools taught the subjects, and work on the remaining six learning areas should stop.

“There is a lot wrong with the draft curriculum that has been presented for consultation. It’s devoid of anything to do with Te Tiriti. It is full of knowledge, rich objectives, over 1000 objectives from year zero to eight, they’re not coherent,” he said.

“It’s surface level teaching, it’s tick-charts, it’s knowledge-rich objectives which will be easily assessed. But what we are concerned about is the deeper, capabilities and competencies that are missing from these curriculum.”

Miles said the groups’ decision to make a joint statement was hugely significant.

“We’ve all slammed the direction, the pace, and the lack of genuine consultation, and the government’s rushed wholesale curriculum reform,” he said.

“We’re fundamentally saying that these curriculums cannot go ahead.”

Miles said he hoped the ministry and Education Minister Erica Stanford would listen, however he said the minister was choosing to talk with other people in the education sector.

NZEI Te Riu Roa president Ripeka Lessels told RNZ the minister and ministry had not listened to the organisations so far, but she hoped that would change.

Asked if there was middle ground between the groups’ philosophy of education and the approach favoured by the minister, Lessels said there was still room for talk.

“We clearly do believe that the [government’s] ideologies are in opposition to what we believe is good practice for education and for the classroom,” she said.

“We do believe that some of the things that we believe are driving this ideology are definitely not good for our country and not good for our children and we do believe that if we don’t stand up and have a conversation, then these ideologies may become something that the country has no choice but to take on board.”

Other signatories to the open letter included the Māori principals’ association Te Akatea, the Teacher Education Forum and associations representing teachers of subjects including social studies, physical education, and drama.

It’s not the first time different education organisations had united to oppose the government’s school sector changes.

Multiple principals associations last year published open letters urging the government to slow down its curriculum overhaul and 10 organisations including Catholic school principals and kindergartens spoke out against changes to teacher registration and disciplinary body the Teaching Council.

Principals and teachers spoken to by RNZ this year have warned that while some of the government’s English and maths changes were positive, it was trying to make too much change too fast.

Thirteen organisations signed the letter and the NZEI said others were considering it.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

MIL OSI

Source: Radio New Zealand

A law professor says if New Zealand was asked to support ensuring safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz, a combat deployment is unlikely.

But Professor Alexander Gillespie said a joint statement between 19 countries condemning Iranian attacks on commercial ships in the Gulf was “effectively just scoping”.

“Nothing’s been nailed down, and it would be premature to nail it down until you know what’s happening with the wider war.”

If a request was made to New Zealand, Gillespie told RNZ it could be helping with intelligence, or picking up patrolling obligations for others so they could deploy to the region.

Another option was actual deployment, which he thought was unlikely.

On Tuesday, the Foreign Minister said people should not be alarmed that “we’re going to be engaged in some military exercise” after the government signed the joint statement.

Labour had raised concerns about the “broad nature” of the statement, criticising the government for not detailing what that commitment might look like, with leader Chris Hipkins saying New Zealanders had a right to know.

But Winston Peters said there had been “scaremongering” from critics who said the government was “rushing to contribute military forces to this conflict”.

“What absolute crap, what absolute nonsense – New Zealand is not a party to this conflict, and we have absolutely no intention of joining it,” he said at Parliament on Tuesday.

It also came as the head of NATO included New Zealand as one of 22 countries “coming together” to secure the Strait of Hormuz.

On Tuesday the government said it had not made any commitment towards military action in the Middle East, but Hipkins said he was very concerned about “what the government had signed us up to”.

He was referring to the joint statement the government signed with 19 other countries, including the United Kingdom and Germany, condemning Iranian attacks on commercial ships in the Gulf.

They called on Iran to immediately cease threats, laying mines, drone and missile attacks and other attempts to block commercial vessels from travelling through the Strait of Hormuz.

“Freedom of navigation is a fundamental principle of international law, including under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,” the statement read.

The statement also expressed its signatories would be ready “to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the Strait”.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon clarified any such future support would need to be considered by Cabinet.

Luxon also outlined nothing had changed in terms of the government position on the initial attacks that started the war, after being asked about condemning Iran’s strikes, while “acknowledging” the strikes by the United States.

“What we’re talking about now is a second order consequence, which is Iranians holding hostage a whole bunch of ships that should be freely traveling to bring fuel and fuel and critical supplies to places like New Zealand.”

Gillespie said it was a “notable inconsistency”.

He said New Zealand should treat “all violations of the UN Charter the same”.

“In as much as we condemn Russia for their illegal war against Ukraine, we should act consistently with the US and Israel.”

On the ‘right side’ – law professor

Gillespie said New Zealand was on the “right side” in supporting an international principle – the freedom of navigation – but “we have to be very cautious and have our eyes wide open as we walk forward”.

He said the statement had the backing of the UN Security Council with regards to the protection of international waterways in freedom of navigation.

He said New Zealand was in good company with the other signatories, and pointed out it was not an initiative from the United States, Israel or Iran.

The protection of international waterways was a longstanding principle, “No country can effectively strangle international commerce by trying to control a waterway,” he said.

“You just can’t do that.”

In terms of the wording “appropriate efforts” in the statement, Gillespie said that could be anything, “it could be civilian, but it’s likely to be military”.

In regards to what New Zealand could offer if support was requested he pointed to the operations in the Red Sea, where the contribution had been “modest”.

The personnel had helped with intelligence, and part of the operations of a much larger system, he said.

A second option was offering “our military to relieve other militaries to be deployed to the region”.

“So we might pick up the patrolling requirements and select some American vessels in a safe area to allow the American vessels to then be deployed to the strait.”

The third option was deploying the Air Force or Navy to the war zone, which he thought was “very unlikely”.

“We’re more likely to be doing the other two, if asked.”

Ultimately he said New Zealand needed to be “very careful what we commit ourselves to, because you can start off in these exercises with a fairly good objective, but then you can find yourself in a very sticky situation that can take years to unravel”.

‘New Zealanders have a right to know’ – Hipkins

On Tuesday, Hipkins said the government had “basically” signed the country up to say “we’re ready and willing to participate in securing the strait”.

“I don’t think we should be making a broad commitment like that at this point. Any support that New Zealand provides should be after a United Nations mandate, and at this point that doesn’t exist,” Hipkins said.

“The government has signed us up to an open ended commitment to re-open the strait, without detailing what that commitment might look like.

“New Zealanders have a right to know what the government is signing us up to.”

Since the statement was released, speaking to Fox News, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said countries including Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand, UAE, Bahrain and the NATO alliance were working to “implement [US President Donald Trump’s] vision of making sure that the Strait of Hormuz is free, is opening up as soon as that is possible”.

Asked for clarification about this comment, Peters said Rutte did not speak for New Zealand and he had probably been misinformed.

“We haven’t been asked, and should we be asked – we would consider it. That’s all I’ve said,” Peters emphasised.

On the joint statement, he said it was “specifically narrow”.

In Parliament during an urgent debate on the conflict in the Middle East, Peters said the government was committed to working with partners to try and address one of the consequences of this conflict, that was higher fuel prices for New Zealanders.

“But that is not the same as saying we are definitely going to contribute.

“If we receive a request, or if an international coalition was established in the future to safeguard commercial shipping, any possible contribution would be a matter for – guess who – the Cabinet first of all, to determine based on careful consideration of New Zealand’s interests.”

Currently, the government would not comment on what potential resources would be considered or committed if New Zealand was requested to help, due to it being a hypothetical issue.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

The minister responsible for fuel security says he has received proposals from import terminals to open up more diesel capacity, but any recommission of tanks would be a while off.

Associate Energy Minister Shane Jones said almost half of Marsden Point’s available storage was being used, and there had been a proposal to refurbish unused and empty tanks to boost diesel storage.

The tanks had been empty since the closure of the refinery in 2022, with Marsden Point now operating solely as an import and storage terminal for refined oil.

Jones said he had spoken to Rob Buchanan, the chief executive of Channel Infrastructure, which owned and operated Marsden Point.

“He said that there could be two tanks that could be repurposed, and he has sent through a proposal to us. However, because of the degradation since the closure of the refinery, it will take time,” Jones said.

“They have put forward a proposal to work, as I understand, with the Crown, to refurbish some storage tanks. Then the officials are working through, ‘do they think it’s a sensible thing to do and what it’s likely to cost the Crown and Channel if we were to work together?’”

He expected to receive that advice from officials “sooner, rather than later”.

Jones had also spoken to the chief executive of the Port of Taranaki, who had told him there could be up to three days of storage there.

“But two thirds of the potential storage is owned by Methanex, so I’m in no hurry to chase Methanex out of New Zealand,” Jones said, adding Taranaki would also need some new infrastructure.

“I think Marsden Point are confident, if they can get some regulatory relief. Taranaki said they have to build a new bund, because the regulations have changed. So look, I think that if we’re going to do this, we need to strip away the regulations without creating a public nuisance, and also arrive at a point where we can, if not share the costs, work out how soon it can be done.”

Combined, Jones estimated it would add “several days” to diesel storage capacity, with costs going towards the refurbishment and then purchasing the diesel.

Those costs, Jones expected, would be shared between the Crown and Channel.

A spokesperson for Channel Infrastructure said Channel was aware of Jones’ comments, but it did not comment on discussions with any of its customers.

“Channel has identified some very preliminary options for significantly increasing diesel storage capacity at Marsden Point,” the spokesperson said.

The spokesperson said Channel had almost 300 million litres of fuel storage in service at Marsden Point, and an additional 350 million litres of tanks that “could be converted” to provide additional fuel storage if required.

“The government’s Fuel Security Study concluded that the best way to improve New Zealand’s resilience was to increase the in-country storage of fuels that are critical to keeping our economy moving, and Channel stands ready to put all efforts into safely assisting with additional fuel resiliency measures, should we be asked to provide them.”

Fuel importers were required by law to hold 28 days’ worth of petrol, 24 days of jet fuel, and 21 days of diesel.

From 2028, the minimum requirement for diesel would increase to 28 days, if the fuel importer had more than 10 percent of the market share.

In 2024, the government stopped work on procuring 70 million litres of reserve diesel stock, saying it carried significant capital cost and Cabinet would need a robust understanding of options and their impacts before making decisions.

The fuel would have been funded through the Petroleum or Engine Fuels Monitoring Levy.

Instead, the government decided to explore other options to increase the diesel reserves from 21 days to 28 by 2028, and commissioned the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment to study New Zealand’s fuel security requirements.

Under questioning from Labour’s energy spokesperson Megan Woods in the House on Tuesday, Jones said there was “no budget, no proposal that I could credibly take forward to my colleagues” on the reserve diesel stock.

New Zealand First has continued to blame Labour for the closure of the refinery in 2022, and has been attempting to tie the “degradation” of the storage capacity to the closure.

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters went as far as to suggest the refinery was “deliberately shut down, with the government’s connivance”.

In 2021, Labour had the option of providing a loan or subsidy to keep the refinery open, but then-minister Woods said there was not a strong case.

“There does not appear to be a clear case for maintaining refinery operations for fuel resilience reasons, except to address an exceptional ‘no fuel imports’ scenario,” she wrote in a 2021 Cabinet paper.

“This is an unlikely scenario, but not entirely implausible, therefore I believe the option of maintaining refinery capacity warrants an active decision by government.”

In the House, Jones accused Woods of making an “active decision” to close the refinery.

“If you close down 700 million litres of storage, 70 million is a mere drop,” he said.

Labour has repeatedly said the closure was a business decision made by its private owners, not a government decision.

“At most, you’d be talking about five days of unprocessed crude oil, in addition to whatever we have in terms of processed fuel onshore. Five days in the grand scheme of what we’re dealing with at the moment isn’t very much,” said Labour leader Chris Hipkins.

“There are certainly other things the government could have done over the last two years to increase our resilience. Marsden Point would be right at the bottom of that list.”

During Question Time, Peters asked the prime minister if all the “anxiety” around supplementary reserves would be relevant if “they hadn’t shut down Marsden Point?”

“It was a critical piece of national infrastructure and that was a decision of a previous government,” Christopher Luxon responded.

Luxon was then made to withdraw the comment, after Hipkins raised a point of order to argue the previous government had made no such decision.

On Tuesday, Woods told RNZ she was supportive of proposals for more storage space.

“Absolutely, and I would hope the government’s looking at that right now,” she said.

But she accused the government of being “short sighted” for scrapping the 70 million litre strategic reserve plans, which were to be a “worst case scenario” to ensure critical services like fire engines, ambulances, and food distribution could keep running.

That would have been in place this year, Woods said, whereas the government’s increased requirement for 28 days of diesel holdings would not come into place until 2028.

“One of the reasons the government scrapped that strategic reserve and got rid of the request for proposals that was out there, they said it was cost. It’s several million dollars to build that facility, in terms of being able to hold it, but there was up to $100 million of built-up levy sitting in the Petrol Levy fund, essentially that had built up over Covid that we were proposing to use for that,” she said.

“Instead, the government has gone for an option where the fuel companies themselves will hold this additional diesel, which will cost motorists more for diesel at the pump, and it will be two years’ delay.”

ACT leader David Seymour has previously disagreed with Jones on the economics of keeping the Marsden Point refinery open.

But he saw the merits on using more of its storage capacity.

“The reality is it would probably be a levy on the fuels themselves. But if that was to be proposed, I think we would look at it very carefully on the costs and benefits. I think the world just changed, and we can see that having some more independence is probably not a bad bit of room to have.”

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

MIL OSI

Source: Radio New Zealand

The coalition has ditched a contentious aspect of fisheries legislation after a backlash from recreational fishers.

The Prime Minister stepped in and spoke with Minister in charge Shane Jones, and said he agreed to take out the sections of the Fisheries Amendment Bill that removes the minimum size limits.

Winston Peters also took to social media, saying New Zealand First agreed to remove the contentious clause, after feedback about the proposed catch size limit changes for commercial companies, and how that would affect a large number of ordinary Kiwis.

The legislation is currently before Parliament and Peters said the party is now looking to review the issue of catch size limit during the select committee process.

“We believe in democracy, and the most important part of democracy is listening to the people. We are doing that,” said Peters.

Luxon said on social media he shared Kiwis’ concerns on the impacts to juvenile fish stocks.

“I know Kiwis still have some concerns, which is why we want the fishing community to submit to the Select Committee process on this Bill,” wrote Luxon.

The change comes following comments by Jones – also deputy leader of New Zealand First – saying on Monday critics of his Fisheries Amendment Bill were “a range of noisy voices”.

Peters said on Wednesday he spoke with Jones on the matter and “we decided to review this part of the legislation and use the select committee to remove this clause”.

The bill has been welcomed by the commercial sector but condemned by recreational fishing groups.

The current recreational size limit for snapper is between 25cm and 30cm depending on location, while the commercial size limit is 25cm.

Minimum size limits are imposed to ensure fish can reach sexual maturity before being caught.

Jones argued on Monday that allowing the commercial sector to land and sell undersize fish would prevent wastage.

Currently commercial fishers must dump undersize fish dead or alive, and it doesn’t count against their quota.

“The new provision is that if you catch them, you pay for them,” Jones said.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

MIL OSI

Source: Radio New Zealand

Families of those killed in the Pike River Mine disaster fear the government’s proposed health and safety law changes will remove worker protections and risk another tragedy.

Sonya Rockhouse, who lost her 21-year-old son Ben, and Anna Osborne, who lost her husband Milt, told the Education and Workforce Select Committee on Wednesday they wanted health and safety laws strengthened.

A methane-fuelled explosion ripped through the Pike River coal mine in the rugged Paparoa Range on the South Island’s West Coast on 19 November 2010, killing 29 workers.

The Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill was introduced to Parliament last month and the government said it was intended to reduce death and injury rates while also cutting compliance costs by focusing on the most serious critical risks and reducing confusion.

But critics said the changes could weaken worker protections and result in more workplace injuries.

Osborne said her husband’s death was preventable, it was not bad luck or an act of God.

“He was killed by a company that put its profit ahead of his life and the lives of 28 others, and that was allowed to happen by years of people, sitting in the same seats you are now, weakening the health and safety laws and regulations again and again,” she told the committee.

“This should never have happened and the travesty of justice that followed is a blight on New Zealand’s soul.”

‘This bill takes that away’

Workplace health and safety laws were strengthened in 2014 after the mining disaster, which had kept workplace deaths and injury rates at bay despite the population of the country growing larger, she said.

“People could be confident in speaking up and employers began to feel they needed to listen,” she said, of the 2014 changes.

But that was still not enough and Osborne and Rockhouse wanted to a corporate manslaughter charge introduced in New Zealand law.

“Milt always looked out for his people – he was a volunteer fireman, a local councillor – I have always thought that among all the bad that came from Pike he would have taken some heart in the fact his death helped keep others safe even just by a little bit,” Osborne said.

“This bill takes that away. It takes it away from every person at work in New Zealand and it takes it from the memory and the legacy of Milt and all the men he is lying with in that shithole of a mine.”

The pair made the submission on behalf of Stand With Pike outlining their concerns with the proposals in the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill.

Rockhouse said Ben was a intelligent, articulate, gentle boy who believed people were good.

“I don’t know what he would have made of how hard we’ve had to fight for truth that should have been ours by right. We should never have had to fight, protest and campaign for justice, accountability or truth,” she said.

“I don’t even know what to think of this right now, of the fact that we are having to come here again to tell people yet again about the consequences of taking people’s rights to health and safety from them.”

Osborne and Rockhouse met with Workplace Safety Minister Brooke van Velden at Parliament last November on the 15th anniversary of the disaster.

The minister, who admitted she had not read the Royal Commission’s report on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy, and did not support the introduction of a corporate manslaughter charge, instead preferred to focus on “upfront guidance” for businesses.

Rockhouse said everyone had the right to go to work in the morning and come home safely.

“It feels like the authors of this Bill have failed to learn from history, they have wilfully ignored it and it makes me sick and angry”, Rockhouse said.

“To wind back health and safety despite the price our men and us – their families – have paid, despite the fact that all of New Zealand has seen that cost? Shameful does not even begin to describe it.”

‘Absolute conflict of interest’

Green Party MP Ricardo Menéndez March asked the pair about their concerns with the law change.

Rockhouse said both her sons – Dan was one of just two survivors from the disaster – told her if they tried to raise issues around health and safety, no matter how big or small, they were told to “just shut the F up and get on with your job, basically that was the mentality”.

Several miners told her they had been worried about an explosion at the mine and the chief executive had said, “if you don’t like it there’s the door, leave, you’re not in Australia now”, she said.

“It’s very hard in that context to think the CEO would have identified the appropriate critical risks under the financial pressure they were under.”

Osborne said methane levels in the mine peaked over 19 times in the two weeks before the explosion.

“Those 19 times the men should have been out of the mine and, until that mine re-ventilated, they should not have been allowed to work but [Peter] Whittle and the managers there wanted production to happen,” she said.

“It was almost like they were playing a game of Russian roulette – production over safety.”

Stand With Pike advisor Rob Egan said the Bill assumed the workplace health and safety regulator could police and provide guidance and consultation to employers.

“That’s exactly what happened at Pike River … it is an absolute conflict of interest,” he said.

Earlier this year police said they were nearing the final stages of the criminal investigation into the disaster.

Detective superintendent Darryl Sweeney said the investigation was legally complex and police had been working with the Wellington crown solicitor for more than 18 months.

Further investigation was still needed and an update was likely to be several months away, he said.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

Erica Stanford is being accused of using government resources to distribute party political videos, but her office says it was simply “human error”.

On Tuesday morning, the Education Minister emailed school principals about the government’s new SMART assessment tool from her ministerial account.

“From today, SMART is available for schools and kura to prepare for the first assessment window,” the email read.

“I’m sharing this email for you to pass on to your teachers, along with the short video below which shows how SMART will support teaching and learning in practice.”

The email included an explanation of the tool, as well as a link to a video she said “focuses on what SMART will mean in the classroom, and how it can support teaching and learning.”

The video, which has since been removed, was uploaded to the NZ National Party YouTube page.

RNZ has seen comments by education staff in response to the email and video, expressing disappointment and criticising the use of a party platform to distribute information about a Ministry initiative.

Another response from a principal directly to the Minister indicated they would not be sharing the video due to it being hosted by the @NZNats page and requested that in future materials be shared through the appropriate channels.

Labour’s education spokesperson Ginny Andersen told RNZ it was “completely inappropriate” for a Minister to use Ministry of Education contact lists and government resources to distribute National Party videos.

“Erica Stanford should know better than this by now.”

A spokesperson for Stanford said the video was posted in “human error” and had been taken down.

Her office planned to send a new email on Wednesday with the correct link.

In response to Labour’s criticism, the spokesperson said: “This was a ministerial video for teachers that was simply uploaded to the wrong channel and has been rectified.”

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

MIL OSI