AM Edition: Top 10 Politics Articles on LiveNews.co.nz for May 3, 2026 – Full Text

Source: Radio New Zealand

Solomon Islands could have a new prime minister next week.

The court of appeal has ordered the current prime minister Jeremiah Manele to call Parliament by the 7th of May to face a motion-of-no-confidence in his leadership.

The court dismissed Mr Manele’s appeal against Chief Justice Sir Albert Palmer’s earlier ruling to that effect.

Appeal court Judges Sir Gibbs Salika, Howard Lawry, Gina Nott delivered their ruling this afternoon in the High Court precinct in Honiara amid a heightened police presence.

The ruling is the latest in a series of court cases following Manele’s refusal to call parliament after mass defections from his coalition government in March.

Speaking to local media outside the court the lawyer representing the opposition group Gabriel Suri welcomed the ruling.

“The court of appeal ruled that the prime minister must take all necessary steps before the 7th of May to call parliament,” Suri said.

The attorney general John Muria Jr expressed disappointment in the ruling, but told Solomon Business Magazine the court had spoken.

“I still yet have to go through the whole judgement and then advise the prime minister on what (are) the appropriate steps to take,” John Muria Jr said.

Potential end to political impasse in sight

The ruling brings the country one step closer to a potential resolution of a drawn out political impasse which began in March after a mass resignation of government ministers and MPs.

Now in a new coalition of parties withing the opposition the group claims to have the support of 27MPs in the 50 seat parliament.

However its attempts to convert that numerical superiority into a transition to power have been thwarted so far with prime minister Jeremiah Manele refusing to call parliament and face a leadership vote on the floor.

In ruling on a judicial review brought earlier this month by the new coalition against Manele’s refusal to call a sitting, the Chief Justice Sir Albert Palmer stated that the Prime Minister was under a “constitutional duty” to ensure a motion of no confidence was brought before Parliament at the earliest opportunity and that not doing so is “unlawful”.

Sir Albert also said if the prime minister failed to call parliament the Governor-General can call Parliament, and the Speaker is ordered to ensure the motion of no confidence is prioritised.

Who could become the next PM?

The new coalition whose leaders have referred to themselves as the government in waiting have yet to publicly nominate someone from their ranks as the next prime minister.

This decision could make or break the alliance on internal loyalties alone.

So far only the former foreign minister Peter Shanel Agovaka has publicly stated his desire for the top job telling RNZ Pacific in March that it had been offered to him in exchange for his resignation from government.

However, the leader of the largest party within the new coalition is Frederick Koloqeto and it was his 12-member party’s departure from government that meant Jeremiah Manele lost his majority in parliament.

There are also at least two former prime ministers within the new coalition namely Gordon Darcy Lilo and Rick Hounipwela and of course the Leader of the Opposition Matthew Wale.

The choice of prime ministerial candidates has been the bane of political parties seeking to form government in the Solomon Islands because no MP is legally tied to a political party and can jump ship at a moment’s notice.

It is also worth mentioning that the new coalition group which had maintained the support of 28 MPs for several weeks saw a crack in its solidarity on Sunday when the MP for South New Georgia Rendova and Tetepare, David Gina, joined government and was sworn in as the minister for rural development.

Anything can happen

Even if the new coalition puts forward a prime ministerial candidate and parliament is finally called there are still several potential outcomes for the current political impasse.

The motion-of-no-confidence is conducted by secret ballot and the nomination of prime ministerial candidates can be made on the floor so with a 27-23 split it would take just a few absetentions and judas votes to sway the outcome either way.

And of course between now and Tuesday, Manele might still regain his majority if he can woo enough MPs unhappy with the prime ministerial candidate that emerges or how potential future ministerial portfolios are being divvied up within the new coalition.

For now the only certainty is that Manele has been ordered to call parliament on Tuesday, and the country’s leadership is on the line.

Meanwhile, police have called for public calm while the democratic process runs its course.

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

Analysis – National MPs say the coalition is stable, even as they criticise Foreign Minister Winston Peters for releasing emails without notifying the prime minister.

It is the latest in a series of fractures between the coalition parties that have been slowly expanding into cracks.

The question is whether those widening divisions can be sustained right up until the election, even as the parties jostle for dominance in a worsening global economic environment and against an opposition making gains in the polls.

Finance Minister and National deputy Nicola Willis had confidence in the coalition’s stability – but it came with a caveat: “As long as people uphold the principles of the coalition agreement.”

National’s campaign chair Simeon Brown said the coalition was in a good space, “but ultimately our message is that Mr Peters should not be putting politics ahead of the national interest. That’s very clear”.

Former National campaign chair Chris Bishop said the coalition was “a very stable thing, everyone said it would fall apart within a year and here we are six months out from the election and we’re getting things done for New Zealand”.

Mark Mitchell chuckled, saying the coalition was “fine”. Tama Potaka called it “solid”.

But with the cracks spreading, that solidity has been called into question with increasing frequency.

Here’s a look back at the last two weeks where it became clear the election had well and truly begun.

Communications breakdown: Emails and the national interest

Luxon’s office on Thursday said he had told Peters he expected better political judgement from him during a meeting in Peters’ Beehive office the night before.

In an extraordinary slapdown, Luxon said Peters “acknowledged he had made a mistake” by releasing emails showing foreign affairs staff pushing back against the idea of expressing “explicit public support” for the US attack on Iran.

Peters’ office believed doing so would be “imprudent” and “counter to New Zealand’s national interests”, but Luxon’s office said this mischaracterised the views of the prime minister, who was seeking to test New Zealand’s stance against those of Australia and Canada.

By releasing the emails without consulting the prime minister’s office, Peters had “clearly put politics ahead of the national interest”, Luxon’s office said.

Peters admits he should have consulted the PM about the release, but has pushed back on suggestions the emails should not have been released – arguing transparency is, you guessed it, in the national interest.

“In the end, I made the mistake,” Peters said in the afternoon. “We carry the can in our office, we don’t blame others, but funnily enough a couple of my staff are going to be in a training session this afternoon on the matter.”

Willis said releasing the emails without consulting was inconsistent with the no surprises principle and a breach of good faith, calling Peters “very, very confused”, and raising the prospect of that happening again in coalition negotiations.

“The problem with Winston Peters is you never know what you’re going to get.”

Despite his own confidence in the coalition’s stability, Brown said Peters “considers himself a statesman – well the reality is he should operate in a way that respects the office of the prime minister”.

Confidence in caucus and in coalition

It all follows another stain on the coalition agreement, with Peters claiming Luxon’s decision to call a vote of confidence in himself was a breach of that same ‘no surprises’ principle.

National MPs met for more than two hours last Tuesday after poor polling and increasing instances of National MPs leaking anonymously to the media.

Asked on Morning Report if Luxon should have warned him, Peters said it “would have been wise to – yes, of course”.

He said it was an “unprecedented” move from a sitting prime minister, and there would be “consequences”. It didn’t take long for his coalition partners from National to hit back.

Within the hour, Willis launched a broadside, saying Peters was “mischief-making” and he had a “track record of picking Labour over National, and that’s the risk you run with him”.

Luxon also lashed out, using his weekly interview on Newstalk ZB’s The Country to call his foreign minister out for installing Jacinda Ardern as prime minister.

He said had not needed to inform Peters of his confidence vote, because it was not important enough.

That afternoon, ministers on their way to Question Time declared the coalition as strong as ever – with Peters claiming it was as stable as a “three-legged stool”.

Free trade disagreement

Luxon’s criticisms of Peters on The Country also came with a sting in the tail, saying he was trying to “scaremonger” with “anti-immigrant” rhetoric – a reference to Peters’ stance on the free trade agreement with India.

The foreign minister in October had announced New Zealand First’s opposition to the deal just minutes before Luxon and Trade Minister Todd McClay were set to announce it had been finalised.

He has continued to rail against the deal’s investment and immigration provisions, with his deputy Shane Jones in April going further – warning he and his party were “never going to agree with a butter chicken tsunami coming to New Zealand”.

Questioned directly about whether that was racist, Luxon refused to say – only going so far as calling it “unhelpful” and that was certainly true for McClay, who was questioned about it by Indian media when he went to New Delhi to sign the deal this week.

With Peters’ criticisms of the confidence vote still fresh, Willis – in her weekly head-to-head with Labour on Morning Report – denounced the comment and said that was who Labour was “choosing to get into bed” with.

Never mind Labour having gone further than Luxon by calling it racist, and National being currently in coalition with NZ First, Willis has continued with this line – using her general debate speech on Wednesday to talk up the deal, and talk down New Zealand First.

“New Zealand First are on the wrong side of history on this one,” she said. “What we really need to call out in this House – and I want to acknowledge Marama Davidson for doing the same – is the race-based scaremongering that New Zealand First have indulged in.”

She went on to quote Jones, warning in a long preamble that it “will offend this House, it offended me … it has offended New Zealanders of Indian descent up and down this country”.

“Shame on you, Shane Jones. I enjoy working with you around the Cabinet table, but that kind of race-based rhetoric has no place in New Zealand politics,” she said.

Crossing the floor when the Cabinet room won’t do

Wednesday night also brought policy disputes into sharp relief, with a series of opposition party member’s bills that managed to find support from some in the government benches – but not others.

First among them was the Modern Slavery Bill, a joint effort between Labour’s Camilla Belich and National’s Greg Fleming, who said the ACT Party had stopped it going through Cabinet and becoming a government bill.

The topic was identified by Luxon in 2022 as something he would “march in the streets” for.

Another bill – from Labour’s Arena Williams – aimed to make transferring money overseas cheaper by requiring banks to be transparent about fees, got both ACT and NZ First on board.

National was the only party to oppose it, saying there was no need for it because other reforms were making progress on opening up the financial system.

And Green MP Kahurangi Carter’s bill aiming to prevent overdoses by giving amnesty for low-level drug offences to those who call in a suspected overdose or adverse drug reaction passed with ACT’s support – but not National or NZ First.

There was another member’s bill that was on the list for Wednesday but the House did not have time to get to which would ban social media for under-16s, in line with Australia’s approach.

It’s not something the coalition is progressing, with ACT opposing the idea and its MP Parmjeet Parmar complaining a select committee inquiry on it was “predetermined”.

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

Former Prime Minister Helen Clark does not think Winston Peters released emails revealing a clash over New Zealand’s Iran war stance to embarrass the prime minister.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon met with the foreign minister on Wednesday night following a political spat between the two leaders which broke out over the release of emails that show Luxon wanting to move the government’s position to showing “explicit public support” for the United States within days of the US-Israel war in Iran starting.

Clark told RNZ Nights the documents were subject to an Official Information Act (OIA) request.

“Winston Peters has made comments to the extent that he thought that the PM’s office was also in on the release.”

She said he had also taken responsibility that he should have checked this.

But Clark said typically anyone who was a subject of material in an OIA request would be told.

“So sometimes it can be stuff up rather than conspiracy,” she said.

But she questioned where the prime minister’s department was in it all.

“It’s a bit hard to believe that no one in DPMC [Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet] knew that this request had been made,” Clark said. “Why weren’t they following up?”

“I think … people have been caught napping here,” she said.

Luxon’s office said it was surprised to see Peters’ office release the internal discussions to the media, as it was not consulted.

“These emails mischaracterise the PM’s position. As you’d expect, it is the PM’s job to always challenge the advice he receives and, in this case, he sought to test New Zealand’s position against that of Canada and Australia,” a spokesperson for Luxon said.

“The public statements made by the Government reflect the PM’s position. If they didn’t, they would not have been made.

“The decision to release these discussions to the media clearly put politics ahead of the national interest.

“The PM would expect Mr Peters to show better judgement after more than 40 years in politics.”

Clark, who has previously worked with Peters while he was a foreign minster, believed his approach of being prudent and not weighing in on the US side was the right judgement.

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

Documents filed with the Waitangi Tribunal have revealed the proposed changes which would set government obligations to the Treaty to no higher standard than to simply “take into account” across nine Acts.

Senior Lecturer in Law at Te Herenga Waka Victoria University Luke Fitzmaurice-Brown (Te Aupōuri) told RNZ the impact of the draft Bill could be as big as the Treaty Principles Bill.

“The effect of what’s being done in limiting all these Treaty clauses to ‘take into account’ could have just as damaging effect on the legal weight of Te Tiriti as the Treaty Principles Bill would have. It’s more technical and so it’s kind of harder, I think, to see through some of the smoke screen of that.”

Practically “take into account”, as opposed to stronger wording such as “give effect to”, would mean Treaty obligations would only be one of a number of considerations for decision makers, he said.

“The other option, which Paul Goldsmith seems to be ignoring, is to say, actually, in all contexts, it should have a higher weight. It should have a higher consideration, like ‘give effect to Te Tiriti.’ So the effect would be to limit, to put a ceiling on the weight that Te Tiriti can be given in any given context, and put a very low ceiling on that.”

The draft Bill stems from the coalition agreement between National and New Zealand First which agreed to conduct a comprehensive review of all legislation that includes ‘The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi’, and replace all such references with specific words relating to the relevance and application of the Treaty, or repeal the references.

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said over the last 20 years, Parliament had passed a range of laws with all manner of references, sometimes being very vague about what they meant.

Reviewing these would ensure Treaty references were specific and consistent with one another, in the interests of increasing certainty and supporting compliance, he said.

“Some Acts are being reviewed through other processes, and all existing full and final Treaty settlements are being excluded.

“The Advisory Group has completed its review and provided the Government with a variety of recommendations.

“As a first step, the Government has agreed to amend two references to be more specific, and repeal a number of references elsewhere.

“The Government has also agreed a reference to both the Treaty of Waitangi and te Tiriti o Waitangi is preferable and should be used in all relevant provisions going forward.

“We are now consulting with Iwi leaders before introducing legislation. It will also go through a full select committee process where all New Zealanders can have their say, including Māori.”

The Acts in question

A letter dated 2 April, signed by ministers Paul Goldsmith and Shane Jones, to the National Iwi Chairs Forum Pou Tikanga co-chairs Professor Margaret Mutu and Aperahama Edwards set out Cabinet’s decisions on which Acts would be affected by the draft Bill.

Five Acts would have provisions referring to Treaty principles repealed:

• Education and Training Act 2020
• Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act 2000
• Land Transport Management Act 2003
• Organic Products and Production Act 2023
• Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act 1990

Two Acts would have provisions consolidated and redundant aspects repealed:

• Crown Pastoral Land Act 1998
• Plant Variety Rights Act 2022

Two Acts would be amended to make Treaty Provisions “more specific”:

• Data and Statistics Act 2022
• Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

The letter was one of a number of documents released to the Waitangi Tribunal as part of an urgent inquiry into government changes in education, including the proposed removal of Treaty clauses in the Education and Training Act.

The difference between Treaty principles and clauses

Fitzmaurice-Brown said there was a long history of New Zealand courts saying that Te Tiriti was not in and of itself legally binding on government, going as far back as the famous Wi Parata v The Bishop of Wellington decision in 1887 where Chief Justice James Prendergast declared the Treaty to be a “simple nullity”.

That attitude changed slightly in 1941 in a case brought by Ngāti Tūwharetoa Ariki Hoani Te Heuheu Tūkino VI to the Privy Council in London which found the Treaty had some legal effect but only if it was written into legislation, he said.

“It overruled the old law, which completely diminished Te Tiriti, but it still placed this limitation on needing to put references to Te Tiriti in other legislation to give it any teeth and that kind of still stands. And so we still have this rule that for Te Tiriti to have any legal teeth, it needs to be referenced in other legislation first, rather than what we could do and just say Te Tiriti itself is directly enforceable.”

Fitzmaurice-Brown said Treaty clauses were all those provisions in law that tolf decision makers exercising any sort of statutory authority how to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Those provisions and the different ways they were worded were how much weight the Treaty was given in any given situation, but the Treaty principles, which the Treaty Principles Bill would have changed, had been developed in laws and in the courts over many years and included rangatiratanga, partnership and active protection among others, he said.

“All of those things are the substantive content of what the Treaty relationship entails and these Treaty clauses are slightly different. They take those substantive things and they say, here’s how much weight you have to give those in any given decision. So, do you have to just kind of have it as one of many considerations, or do you have to really prioritise those, or do those have to be the bottom line?”

Fitzmaurice-Brown said there was a bigger question underlying the debate over this draft Bill, that was the place of Te Tiriti in New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements.

“I’m not sure we need to keep upholding this idea that Te Tiriti itself is not directly enforceable anymore. I think we’ve taken this compromise approach for the last 50 years, really, where actually it’s far more obvious to many people now that Te Tiriti or Waitangi itself is our founding document, should have that constitutional weight, and should be able to be directly enforced by our courts, as constitutional documents are in any other country.”

The draft legislation is not expected to be introduced to the House before early August 2026.

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

A former high-ranking National Cabinet minister has doubts the coalition will last until the election, urging his former party to “extricate themselves from this grisly coalition and declare war on New Zealand First”.

And Chris Finlayson has doubts the coalition, made up of National, NZ First and ACT, will make it to the election campaign intact.

Tensions between NZ First and National have risen this week, after NZ First leader Winston Peters’ office released internal emails regarding New Zealand’s stance on the US strikes against Iran. They showed Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s preference was to support the US action. New Zealand ultimately did not express support, after Peters intervened.

Peters on Thursday said it was a mistake to release the emails without first speaking to Luxon’s office. National accused Peters of putting “ahead of the national interest”, and National deputy leader Nicola Willis called Peters “very, very confused”.

Former National Cabinet minister and Attorney-General Chris Finlayson told Morning Report while he had no reason to doubt Peters that it was a “mistake”, it was a “peculiar set of events”.

“These are the sorts of exchanges that you would not expect to be released under the OIA because there’s a carve-out for this kind of sensitive material.

“And also as to the process, well, it was appalling where you’ve got multiple ministers involved in the creation of emails and documents, you would expect their officers to be consulted. So he says it’s a mistake. And there we have it.”

He said he had “no time” for NZ First, calling the party “an excrescence”.

“Every time any political party, any major political party deals with them, you get that sort of nonsense.”

He said he agreed with former Labour Party Prime Minister Helen Clark that [National and NZ First were “eating one another for votes”].

“I have long maintained that when you’re dealing with New Zealand First, things can go sour very quickly. They are, I think sometimes you refer to people as frenemies, but I wouldn’t even go that far. I think they’re the enemy. And I think the best thing the National Party can do is try and extricate themselves from this grisly coalition and declare war on New Zealand First…

“I wonder whether this thing will go full term. It just seems to me every time New Zealand First is in government, you get these kinds of sideshows. Are they acting in the public good, in the national interest? Well, I don’t think they ever have.

“I think that people are sick of it… Are people interested in this sort of low-level stupidity? They’re more interested in the cost of living, in airfares and questions like that.”

Finlayson declined to comment on what the pros and cons a snap election would hold for National.

“Well, you see, I’m what you call a FIP, a formerly important person, totally washed up on those sorts of major strategic questions, you need really to talk to those who are actively involved in the arena at the present time.”

‘Caught napping’

Former Prime Minister Helen Clark, who had Peters as her foreign minister for a few years, believed his approach of being prudent and not weighing in on the US side was the right judgement.

But Clark said typically anyone who was a subject of material in an Official Information Act request – as Luxon was in this case – would be told.

“So sometimes it can be stuff up rather than conspiracy,” [ https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/593898/winston-peters-didn-t-release-iran-war-stance-emails-to-embarrass-pm-helen-clark she told] RNZ’s Nights.

But she questioned where the prime minister’s department was in it all.

“It’s a bit hard to believe that no one in [Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet] knew that this request had been made,” Clark said. “Why weren’t they following up?”

“I think … people have been caught napping here.”

Willis had confidence in the coalition’s stability – but it came with a caveat: “As long as people uphold the principles of the coalition agreement.”

National’s campaign chair Simeon Brown [ https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/593899/national-insists-coalition-is-stable-even-as-cracks-begin-to-show said the coalition was in a good space], “but ultimately our message is that Mr Peters should not be putting politics ahead of the national interest. That’s very clear.”

Former National campaign chair Chris Bishop said the coalition was “a very stable thing, everyone said it would fall apart within a year and here we are six months out from the election and we’re getting things done for New Zealand”.

Former Foreign Minister Phil Goff told Midday Report on Thursday he believed Winston Peters was undermining National, calling the emails’ release [ https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/top/593847/winston-peters-release-of-iran-war-emails-no-mistake-former-foreign-minister-phil-goff “no mistake”].

“The fact Luxon [won’t fire Peters] shows his weakness in relation to his coalition partner,” Goff 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

The Oz/NZ great divide when it comes to treating blood cancer

This week, actor Sam Neill announced he was cancer free, after groundbreaking treatment for lymphoma blood cancer in Australia.

Now he’s fighting for the lifesaving CAR T-cell therapy to be available for blood cancer patients across Australia, fronting a media campaign there calling for public funding of the treatment.

“Treatments like this – CAR-T therapies and others coming through in a rapidly changing medical world – I hope to be available to everyone who needs them in Australia and NZ [and worldwide],” he said.

CAR T-cell therapy genetically modifies the patient’s immune cells to target and kill the cancer cells.

When chemotherapy he was undergoing in New Zealand stopped working to treat his blood cancer, Neill was accepted into an Australian clinical trial for the T-cell therapy. It was his last option and it worked.

“It’s science at its best,” said Neill, who is patron of Snowdome medical foundation, which has been pushing for the therapy to be accessible to everyone.

The same battle for access to the best blood cancer treatment is going on in New Zealand, but there are stark differences between the two countries in what’s offered to patients and their survival rates.

In Australia, CAR T-cell therapy is already available in the public health system for certain blood cancers at certain hospitals, and the government is set to announce a rollout of the specific therapy used in Neill’s treatment in the next two months.

Here, there is no funded CAR-T therapy. Blood Cancer NZ head of advocacy Rosie Shaw says New Zealanders have to go offshore for the treatment that costs more than NZ$700,000 per patient.

Shaw says a privately funded CAR-T clinical trial is underway in New Zealand and, if it is successful, it could lead to funded treatment, but nothing is promised and the New Zealand health system is grappling with introducing expensive, but revolutionary new blood cancer therapies and medicines.

She says Neill’s news brings a lot of optimism to an issue that is little understood.

Last week, the Blood Cancer NZ charity presented its State of Blood Cancer report at parliament, which detailed the burden of blood cancer for the first time.

There are 100 different types of the disease, including leukaemia, lymphoma and myeloma. It is estimated 27,000 Kiwis live with blood cancer, one in 18 will develop it in their lifetimes.

It is the third-leading cause of cancer death, but in most cases, it cannot be prevented or screened for, and it cannot be removed by surgery.

It can be cured or treated with medicines and, in some cases, a stem cell (bone marrow) transplant.

Like Neill, Auckland man Andrew Mackintosh initially had chemotherapy for his aggressive form of lymphoma and it also stopped working.

Unlike Neill, who had access to revolutionary therapy, Mackintosh’s only lifesaving, cancer-curing option was a stem cell transplant, but he was told he would have to wait in the queue, because there was not enough hospital space or medical staff to treat him immediately.

Eight months later, he got the transplant. In Australia. He says he would have waited 1-2 months, but he was too sick to travel.

By then, he was so ill, he was not sure he would survive. He’s grateful the transplant cured him, but he is angry that the delay cost him, his family and taxpayers.

“The gaps that I had in the system, they cost me more. They cost me in terms of the outcomes that I’ve got, they’ve cost me in terms of not being able to get back to the workforce.

“They’ve also cost the health system, because that entire eight months that I was waiting, I was on very expensive drugs, I was seeing the haematologist every week, I was getting blood tests done, I needed monitoring, I needed tests. It’s not saving the health system money by not providing these services.

“They gave me the treatment that I waited for eventually and then I needed more help out the back side of it, so I’m angry that there’s no point – not even a cost-saving benefit – to not providing these outcomes. It’s just hurting everyone, including the taxpayer.”

Macintosh decided to speak about his experience at Blood Cancer NZ’s presentation to parliament last week, because he says other patients who have fallen through the gaps are “too sick, too busy fighting their disease or the system to speak up”.

“Others are no longer here.”

Just last month, he watched his father die, after he was diagnosed with leukeamia.

“It was brutal watching what could have happened to me, happen to him,” he told the group, but he worried about the next generation of his family.

“I am here today to speak as a patient, as someone who has lost his father to blood cancer and as the parent of a potential future patient.

“I need to know that, if a blood cancer or blood disorder diagnosis is in my son’s future, that this preventable harm will be prevented and that his standard of care will not be riddled with gaps that he has no choice but to accept.

“As a parent, I want him to live. I want him to have the best possible outcome.”

In response to the Blood Cancer report, the government said it would set up a taskforce.

Mackintosh says it is the first step in stopping the so-called medical migration of New Zealanders seeking faster, better, but more expensive treatment overseas and stopping the persistently high death rate.

“Especially on the medicines front, we need the funding opened up to Pharmac to fund the blood cancer medicines appropriately. I’ve heard haematologists say we’re 20 years behind in New Zealand on that stuff.

“We also need to close some of the gaps in terms of treatment differences across the country, so removing what gets called the ‘post-code lottery’ for cancer patients, and the other big one from my perspective is the infrastructure including the number of people in the workforce.”

Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here.

You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter.

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

Cervical cancer survivor Jen Jewell says she is one of the lucky ones – at least, if you can call anyone diagnosed with cancer “lucky”.

Speaking to a packed room at Parliament on Thursday morning, at the launch of the Cancer Society’s election manifesto, she told her story of finding abnormal cells in a smear test, aged 35.

Among the society’s requests, a fully-funded cervical screening programme at a cost of $21 million a year, and delivery on the 90 percent HPV immunisation target by 2030.

Each year, about 175 New Zealanders are diagnosed with cervical cancer and 55 die from it.

For Jewell, as for so many others, her diagnosis came as a shock.

“My world dropped out from under me,” she said. “But I was still so lucky. The cancer had been caught early. As soon as they knew what was going on, they told me, ‘It’s not a question of if we cure you, it’s a question of how’.”

In her case, the answer was radiotherapy, followed up with a small amount of chemotherapy.

Her treatment in New Zealand took six months – during which time some of the women she had met through a UK-based support group had not even had a follow-up appointment after finding abnormal cells.

And she now had a two-year-old son, born via a surrogate.

She said if she herself had been born just a few years later, she would have received the HPV vaccine at school, between classes without a second thought.

“When I think about the specialist care, the tests and treatments, the fertility preservation, the bureaucracy of surrogacy, all of which I’m endlessly grateful for, it’s staggering to consider that a simple vaccine could have saved all of that cost and work and time and pain.”

The Cancer Society, in its manifesto, has asked for a switch to a single-dose HPV immunisation schedule as soon as legislation allowed, and for increased funding for HPV immunisation awareness campaigns.

The vaccine also protected from five other cancer types – vaginal and vulval cancers, anal cancer, throat cancer, and penile cancer.

Right now, HPV vaccination rates were sitting at 59 percent.

Nicola Coom, the Cancer Society’s chief executive, said New Zealand had to dream bigger – by comparison, Australia was on track to eliminate cervical cancer by 2035.

“We have the tools, we have the knowledge, but what is required now is the commitment to act with urgency and at scale,” she said.

“If saving lives isn’t compelling enough now, how about the financial benefits? New Zealand spends around $35 million every year treating cervical cancer. For a similar cost, we could eliminate it.”

On Thursday, representatives from the various political parties spoke to their commitments.

Health minister Simeon Brown said an elimination plan was a priority.

“Through the Cancer Control Agency and other health agencies, we’re currently developing a national strategy to guide the system towards eliminating cervical cancer in New Zealand,” he said.

“This is one of the few cancers we have a real opportunity to eliminate, and we’re committed to making progress against this.”

MPs from ACT, the Greens and New Zealand First all threw their support behind early detection and better treatment.

Te Pāti Māori MP Debbie Ngarewa-Packer was not in attendance, and gave her apologies – she said she had been called home, and with two parents in cancer treatment herself, she “wholeheartedly supports this kaupapa”.

Labour’s health spokesperson and former health minister Ayesha Verrall said if Labour got into government, it would introduce free cervical screening “for all who need it”.

She said her party was committed to eliminiation, and its policy of three free GP visits per person would help with early detection.

“I was incredibly proud as Minister of Health to modernise the screening programme based on Bev Lawton’s research to allow HPV self-screening alongside vaccination – Jen, one of the initiatives that will mean cervical cancers like yours will be a thing of the past.”

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: Green Party

The Green Party is calling on the Prime Minister to rule out signing New Zealand up to a US-led military coalition in the Strait of Hormuz. 

“Luxon needs to find some spine and tell Washington that we are not for hire. New Zealanders do not want their Government signing up to a foreign war,” says Green Party Co-leader Marama Davidson. 

“The Prime Minister has already had to be walked back once on this conflict by his own Foreign Affairs Minister. He cannot be trusted to hold the line a second time without sustained public pressure.” 

“Peters has said that any New Zealand involvement would be conditional on a sustainable ceasefire, but if a ceasefire holds then the case for sending warships is moot. The Government cannot have it both ways.”

“Peace is built through diplomacy, ceasefires and the United Nations, not through another US-led ‘coalition of the willing’.”

“Any decision on military deployment must be debated and voted on in Parliament rather than stitched up around the Cabinet table.”  

“New Zealanders deserve a say before our defence force is committed to anyone’s war.” 

“Aotearoa is at its best when we stand for something rather than chasing the loudest voice in the room. Luxon should rule this out today and recommit to a foreign policy grounded in peace and international law,” says Davidson. 

MIL OSI

Source: Radio New Zealand

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has declined to offer any evidence to back his side of a conflict with his foreign minister’s office, saying he has “nothing more to add”.

In an interview with RNZ on Friday, Luxon stood firm: “I’ve just told you my side of the story. It’s in the statement.”

Luxon’s statement – issued on Thursday – claimed a bombshell document release from Winston Peters’ office had “mischaracterised” Luxon’s position on the war in Iran.

The published emails – from early March – showed Peters’ team pushing back against the Prime Minister’s “preference for more explicit public support” of the US-led airstrikes.

But in his first media interview on the topic, Luxon denied that had been his “preference” at the time.

He told RNZ he had simply been testing New Zealand’s position – which was to “acknowledge” the strikes – against that of Australia and Canada, which had used the word “support”.

“I challenge the advice I receive,” Luxon said. “I’m pro-New Zealand, not pro-US.”

Luxon said, ultimately, all public government statements reflected his view and would not be issued otherwise: “It’s as simple as that.”

“I’m the prime minister of New Zealand,” he said. “It’s quite right that I test our position versus others… And what we came out with, I fully support. That’s exactly what I believe… otherwise it wouldn’t have been said.”

When releasing the documents to media, a spokesperson for Peters added that Luxon’s suggested course of action had been “imprudent” and “counter to New Zealand’s national interests”.

Peters has not retracted that remark, nor responded to the claims of mischaracterisation, though he has admitted it was a “mistake” not to consult Luxon before releasing the emails.

RNZ lodged a request with Luxon’s office for any documentation which might prove that Peters’ office got the PM’s position wrong.

Asked directly whether he’d release such evidence, Luxon said he had already laid out his version of events.

“I’ve really got nothing more to add.”

Luxon’s Thursday statement also included his strongest criticism yet of Peters, questioning both his judgement and motives.

“The decision to release these discussions to the media clearly put politics ahead of the national interest,” the statement said.

Asked whether Peters therefore remained fit for his role as foreign minister, Luxon repeatedly refused to engage.

“I’m just not getting into it,” Luxon told RNZ. “I’ve said everything I want to say about 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

Source: Radio New Zealand

A peace activist is urging the New Zealand government to reject a US proposal to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

The shipping route has been largely blocked by Iran since February, causing the price of oil to soar.

Peace Action Wellington spokesperson Valerie Morse feared New Zealand’s involvement would be an endorsement of the conflict.

“We are of the view that the responsibility for the situation sits squarely with the United States and Israel,” she said.

“Their illegal and unprovoked war was the catalyst for the situation, and an end to the war is what will resolve the situation.”

A spokesperson for Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters said New Zealand had received “initial and preliminary information”.

“We are in the process of asking questions and seeking more information about this preliminary proposal.

“Accordingly, we are not close to a point where the New Zealand government would be making any decisions about it.”

Morse urged the government to condemn the Iran war, to give New Zealand confidence that it would not get involved.

“We have not heard an unequivocal statement from the New Zealand government making it clear that this is an illegal war.

“Until we hear that, I don’t have any confidence, and I don’t think many people have any confidence, that New Zealand is not going to sign up for some further US military engagement.”

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