AM Edition: Top 10 Politics Articles on LiveNews.co.nz for May 13, 2026 – Full Text

Source: New Zealand Government

Ka nui te mihi kia koutou, and good afternoon, everyone. 

Today has been officially billed as a pre-Budget speech and I’ll touch on the Budget, and our priorities this year, a little later on. 

But, in a more volatile world, and off the back of a recent trip to Singapore, I’d like to take the opportunity to speak to you today on a bigger, broader topic, both in my capacity as Prime Minister and as National Party leader. 

I’d like to speak to you today about where New Zealand stands in a more volatile world – a world that’s changing quickly and becoming less predictable, and how we need to adapt and secure our country’s future. 

The Indo-Pacific is the most economically dynamic region on earth. It will generate two-thirds of global economic growth in the coming years. By 2030, two-thirds of the world’s middle class will live here.

But there’s another side to this. Something important has changed in how global power works, and we need to be honest about what we see.

Put simply, our world is facing three big changes.

First, we are moving from a world ordered by rules to one ordered by power. Countries are shifting from working together under international law to more transactional relationships without shared rules. In this setting, stronger nations do as they please, and smaller countries have to adjust.

Second, international relations are moving from an economic focus to one dominated by security concerns. Competition now means cyber-attacks, disinformation, supply chain coercion, and grey-zone operations are primary tools of statecraft.

Third, we are moving away from a world that valued efficiency, like lean supply chains and borderless capital, to one that now puts national resilience first.

The examples are obvious to us all.

The United States, which supported the global order for 80 years, is now focusing more exclusively on its own view of its own interests. America First. 

Russia has made its brutal intentions clear in Europe, reminding the continent that territorial conquest is not a relic of history. 

And China is assertively expanding its influence across the Indo-Pacific and beyond. 

A world where hard national interests are being pursued by hard national power. An unsentimental world.

A world where many of the rules that have helped keep us safe and prosperous are contested and sometimes ignored.     

And a world where centres of power are ever more distributed, and where countries in the Global South, including Africa, Latin America, Southeast Asia and our own Pacific neighbourhood, are also no longer willing to remain passive in a system they did not help design. Their desire for a greater say in global affairs is justified.

This is the world New Zealand must now navigate – not with fear, but with clear eyes and a willingness to make different choices than in the past.

We are living through an inflection point in history and for now a new multipolar international system appears to be emerging, although the outcome is not yet fully determined. 

As a small nation without the means to assert ourselves diplomatically or economically, New Zealand has benefited hugely from the system of rules that has been built up through the multilateral system.

We helped build it and we have a long record of continuing to invest in its development. Our values, trade and security all depend on that foundation. And alongside our friends and partners, we must keep working to protect it and remake it. 

When you turn on the news at night and see alliances straining, trade wars flaring and the rules being rewritten by the powerful, it is only natural to feel as though the ground is shifting beneath you.

It can seem as though the world you or your parents knew is becoming unfamiliar, harder to interpret, and beyond your control.

I hear these concerns and I feel them too. And I want to be honest with you about this, instead of giving empty reassurances.

But let me also stress this: we have faced similar challenges before, and we have overcome them.

Consider for a moment the New Zealanders who came before us.

The generation that lived through the First World War witnessed a world they believed to be civilised fall into chaos. Empires collapsed, ten million people died, and the old certainties about order, progress and the nature of Europe were shattered on the Western Front.

Young men from this country, including my great-grandfather, left small towns and farms to cross oceans and fight in a conflict that must have felt beyond their comprehension or control.

They returned home and rebuilt. Yet, less than 20 years later, they faced another global conflict in the Second World War. They confronted fascism, a disciplined and well-resourced movement that conquered much of Europe and appeared, in 1940, to be winning. 

The outcome was not inevitable. It was not guaranteed. People were frightened, and they were right to be frightened.

They are called the “Greatest Generation” for good reason. Many of them were children of the Depression. They had already experienced hunger, loss and hardship. Then, as the world began to recover, they were called upon to do the hardest thing imaginable.

They answered the call and went to Europe and the Pacific. 

Those at home rationed, sacrificed and waited, often not knowing whether the letters would stop coming.

What made them great wasn’t that they had no fear. 

It was that they understood that freedom to live well, raise children in peace, speak your mind and choose your leaders doesn’t last on its own. Someone has to stand up for it, and their generation did.

But they didn’t just win a war. They built the peace that followed. 

They built the hospitals and the schools here at home. And they created the international institutions designed to make sure it could never happen again. 

The very rules-based order we are now working to preserve? They built it.

They were not only warriors, but architects of a world that was, for all its imperfections, more just, more prosperous and more peaceful than anything that had come before.

Then came the Cold War. 

Forty years of living with the constant threat of nuclear annihilation. Yet science advanced, democracy spread and human rights improved. In 1989, the Wall came down, not because of war, but because of powerful ideas and the courage of ordinary people who refused to keep living a lie.

We are the inheritors of what they built. The question is whether we prove worthy of that inheritance.

History teaches us that the world has always had its inflection points. 

Those moments are always the most unsettling. 

They are when dictators seek to dominate, when fear replaces reason, and when the urge to turn inward is strongest.

But they are also the moments that reveal character. The moments that determine what kind of world comes next.

And so I remain relentlessly optimistic.  

Despite the pressures of our age, we live in a time of extraordinary human capability. 

In just one generation, over a billion people have been lifted out of extreme poverty. 

Child mortality rates that would have seemed impossible to our grandparents are now normal in much of the world. 

More people are educated and more women are involved in public life. 

The tools available to address our greatest challenges, such as clean energy, medical science, digital connectivity and agricultural technology, are more powerful than ever before.

The Indo-Pacific is not just a region of risk, but also one full of opportunity. Innovation and enterprise can be found from Auckland to Ahmedabad and Tokyo to Timaru. 

Small countries have often done well during times of change when they are coherent, trusted and stand for their values and interests. New Zealand has its own version of that story. At our best, we have always positioned ourselves on the right side of history. That’s who we are.

So yes, the world is unsettled. The order we depended on is under real pressure. And there are forces in global politics that none of us can fully control.

But here’s what we can control: how prepared we are, how resilient we are and how well we stick together.

We can’t control the storm, but we can secure our future within it. 

And that is exactly what I want to talk to you about today.

In a more volatile world, we must focus on controlling what we can control, and that starts at home.

For too long, we’ve assumed our location protects us, that an ocean and a quiet reputation are enough. They aren’t. Geography gives us time, but it doesn’t give us immunity.

We have assumed our international relationships would carry us. They matter enormously, but we must invest in them. They are not unconditional; they are sustained by contribution. Partners support those who show they’re willing to help themselves.

We have assumed large investments in renewable energy would insulate ourselves from energy shocks offshore. 

We have assumed our economy would always bounce back. But, as I’ve said before, New Zealand needs to get its finances in order for long-term growth. An economy that can’t support itself in a crisis is a major risk both strategically and financially.

And maybe most importantly, we’ve assumed our social cohesion is a given. That New Zealanders will always stick together when times are tough. 

But history shows that’s not always true. Social trust isn’t inherited. It’s built and needs to be looked after.

Those issues aren’t just academic. They really matter for Kiwis.  

Secure and affordable energy matters just as much for manufacturers here in Auckland, as it does for mums and dads battling to keep up with the cost of living. 

Secure access to global markets matters just as much at the milking shed, as it does for cutting edge companies like Halter and Rocket Lab, competing for capital and talent on the world stage. 

And financial security matters just as much for Kiwis meeting the cost of a mortgage, as it does for governments worldwide grappling with the cost of borrowing. 

The bottom line is we can’t have prosperity – more jobs, more exports, and higher wages – without security. 

And in 2026, risks to our energy security, financial security, international security, and our social cohesion, each threaten our future as a wealthy, inclusive and diverse trading nation in the South Pacific.

Each issue demands a coherent response, anchored in an overall objective of strengthening our collective national security for a more volatile and uncertain world.

Today I’d like to provide some guidance on my party’s direction of travel on some components of that national security, before speaking briefly about our priorities in this year’s Budget.   

First, international security and our presence offshore. 

As I spoke about earlier, flagrant violations of national sovereignty, such as Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, and heightened great power competition in the Indo-Pacific have each contributed to a more volatile and uncertain world. 

As a small, trading nation, we are disproportionately exposed. We have a strong voice, but in an era increasingly dictated by hard power, our choices are limited. 

Enhanced investment in our own defence capability is critical, allowing us to support both our own national security, and the resilience of our wider region, the Indo-Pacific. 

And in an era where trade and security are increasingly interrelated, investment in our defence capability also represents an investment in our economic security and our prosperity. 

If re-elected, National is committed to continuing to implement the Defence Capability Plan, double defence expenditure as a share of the economy, and prioritise interoperability of our defence forces with our only ally, Australia.

But for a small country like New Zealand, our security depends as much on the system of rules, relationships and institutions that have developed over decades, as it does the size of our defence force. 

That’s why in this term of Government, diversification of both trade and defence relationships, particularly in the Indo-Pacific, has been an urgent priority. Upgrades to our relationships with India and Singapore, closer cooperation with NATO’s IP4, and ASEAN, and our role in the Pacific Island Forum are each critical steps against a volatile international backdrop. 

And we will continue to develop that latticework of interlocking relationships – bilateral, regional, and global – that together provide depth and resilience. 

In a more volatile world, some of our traditional friends and partners seem to be doing the same – forging new partnerships shaped by many of the values we hold dear, and their own support for the rules-based international order. 

The multilateral values and institutions that have underpinned our prosperity may be under strain, but they haven’t perished. We must evolve and remake them.  

New Zealand, with others, must continue that mission in the months and years to come. 

For example, we will continue the work we started last year to strengthen the dialogue between the EU and CPTPP, and to reinforce the rules of international trade. 

And as Lawrence Wong and I discussed last week, where high standards can be met and New Zealand’s interests are served, we will explore expanded access to the recently signed arrangements between New Zealand and Singapore on trade in essential supplies. 

Second, I want to talk about energy independence. 

New Zealand’s energy vulnerability is no longer a theoretical risk; it is a live crisis on full display in the Strait of Hormuz every single day. 

Every week I speak to farmers, growers, manufacturers, truck drivers and tradies whose lives and businesses have been affected by events half a world away. 

And that’s not just the rough and tumble impact of globalisation. 

On too many occasions, private capital, eager to bolster domestic energy production, has been pushed to the sidelines by overzealous planners and politicians in recent years. 

Several high-profile projects are now getting underway, thanks to our reforms like Fast Track, which I expect will continue to grow in popularity by leaps and bounds. 

The reality is that when faced with energy shock after energy shock, it’s very hard to justify backing the skink over the solar farm. 

Other regulatory handbrakes, like the ban on exploration for offshore oil and gas, have been more permanently chilling. 

As a Government we will continue to pursue strategic energy reserves and options, like LNG, the strategic coal reserve at Huntly, and our recent procurement of 90 million litres of diesel to be stored at Marsden Point. 

Yes, each of those options are costly, but less costly than the alternative of regular but ultimately unpredictable shortages. 

And more action is required. 

Energy independence must be treated as an immediate national security interest, instead of a contributing factor to a long-term climate strategy. 

We will never compete on the global technological frontier without abundant, affordable energy. 

And the manufacturers I’ve spoken to here in Auckland are right that the Government does have a role in acting deliberately and forcefully to achieve exactly that.

Third, social cohesion. 

Ultimately, our greatest strategic asset is the trust that New Zealanders have in each other and in our institutions. Disinformation exploits division. And adversaries will always probe our social fault lines looking for leverage.

But recent years have brought new pressures.   

During Covid, Ministers, given extraordinary powers by the Parliament, too often prioritised their own political interests over the interest of the public in honest and open government. 

The media, determined to flatter New Zealand’s relative performance, also failed, accelerating a long decline in public confidence. 

Since then, failed immigration policies in Europe and North America have also stoked a politics of division online. Despite prudent policies and the natural advantages of geography, immigration now seems to be an emerging political issue in New Zealand, too. 

Holding our society together under those pressures will be challenging. 

As MP for Botany, I represent a part of New Zealand which is more diverse than most. Thousands of Chinese, Korean, Malaysian, and Indian Kiwis call Botany home. 

Kiwis who work hard, volunteer, serve their community, and make a contribution. 

The kids who play cricket with your sons and daughters. School teachers. Business owners. Doctors and nurses. 

Kiwis who deserve better than being unfairly and unreasonably vilified. 

But that only works when we have a smart, targeted, and fair immigration system, that serves New Zealand’s interests. 

It’s worth acknowledging that at least some of the political fracturing evident in Europe in recent years is the result of politicians refusing to implement the preference of their voters on immigration. 

Earlier this year, Erica Stanford spoke on many of the recent changes we’ve made to strengthen our immigration system, designed to prioritise skilled, not unskilled, migrants – through higher English language requirements, more enforcement and tougher penalties. 

The temporary work visas granted under the India FTA are anchored in that approach, with visas available for specific occupations, where we have workforce shortages.   

It’s an issue we’ll watch closely, and you should expect to see careful policy on immigration from National as we get closer to the election. 

And my message to the business community is that when it comes to immigration, when faced with a choice between social stability and your bottom line, I will choose the former every single time.

Finally, our financial security. 

The truth is that small countries which borrow money from offshore can only live on credit for so long. Eventually, the bill must be paid. 

And with ratings agencies and bond markets increasingly suspicious of western governments’ political courage to address long-term fiscal pressures, that bill is only likely to become more expensive. 

Too many countries, including New Zealand, spent the post-Covid years dining out on fiscal headroom accumulated by previous generations of political leadership. 

In recent years, our Government has run tight Budgets in an effort to chart a path back to surplus. Crises offshore have made that path harder. 

We must stay the course. Our status as a high-income nation is not a historical certainty. Fiscal credibility is a precondition of our prosperity. 

In this year’s Budget we will prioritise maintaining that credibility. 

Budget 2026 is about securing New Zealand’s future. Fiscal repair balanced with careful capital investment features heavily in that story.  

The good news is that with the Budget now officially signed off, I can confirm a few details today. 

First, the Government’s fiscal strategy underpinning that approach – and our commitment to achieving it – remains unchanged.  

The Government remains committed to putting debt on a downward path towards 40 per cent of GDP, and to returning the books to surplus by 2028/29. 

Achieving that will be a tall order and will require careful choices in the years to come. 

But responding to the current fuel crisis – a crisis of national resilience and economic security – through more spending would risk leaving New Zealand even more exposed.

So, in that spirit, I can confirm that the Minister of Finance will once again keep new spending in the Budget below the operating allowance previously set in the Budget Policy Statement. 

This year I’m pleased to say that the net operating package in the Budget will be $2.1 billion, or around $300 million smaller than the $2.4 billion allowance set in December, despite the recent crisis. 

That’s achievable because, while we continue to invest in essential services, like health and education, for the third year running we have been able to achieve significant savings across Government. 

At the same time, while we continue to prioritise a return to surplus, the recent crisis has acted as a timely reminder that significant levels of capital investment will be required in the coming years. 

To build modern and resilient infrastructure able to withstand an increasingly volatile world. 

To develop a defence force, which is fighting-fit, capable of keeping Kiwis safe and safeguarding our region from malign interference. 

And to invest in the schools and hospitals New Zealanders rely on to receive modern, responsive public services. 

So this year’s capital package will be larger than originally planned, at a net $5.7 billion. 

That doesn’t reflect a permanently higher rate of borrowing – we’ll need to get the balance right in the years ahead, as we rebuild our fiscal buffers. 

Promoting financial security isn’t just about the Government’s financial position. 

The truth is that as a country we don’t save nearly enough, and rely too much on money borrowed from overseas to support our lifestyles. 

That must change. 

Government’s role must shift from simply meeting the rapidly growing cost of New Zealand Superannuation, to which we remain committed, to a stewardship role for New Zealanders’ financial security, supporting greater levels of private savings and investment. 

In last year’s Budget we agreed to lift KiwiSaver contributions from 3 per cent to 4 per cent. If National is re-elected, we intend to lift contributions further to 6 per cent each for employers and employees. 

Some commentators have recently recommended a further set of changes to support the long-term health of the scheme, several of which have also been recommended in the past by the Retirement Commissioner. 

National is considering those changes and we’ll have more to say on our KiwiSaver policy soon. 

In closing, there is a quote attributed to Pericles that has stayed with me: “Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you.”

The same is true of the world order. We can choose not to pay attention to it. But it will not return the favour.

We have what the world wants. We are a reliable partner. We have values worth defending and a future worth building.

But none of that is guaranteed. It must be chosen, and it must be worked for.

The world is at an inflection point. The question is not whether New Zealand is affected – it is. The question is whether New Zealand is ready.

Today, I am asking you to help make us ready. Not through fear – but through the deep, quiet confidence of a nation that knows who it is, what it stands for and what it is capable of achieving.

Thank you.

MIL OSI

Source: Radio New Zealand

The government is pushing on with conservation reforms it says cut red tape and enable fees for foreign tourists visiting New Zealand’s premium natural areas.

The opposition warns it opens up 60 percent of the conservation estate to sale, and changes how current treaty settlements are interpreted.

The Conservation Amendment Bill passed its first reading supported by the coalition parties, and opposed by the opposition – 68 votes to 54.

Conservation Minister Tama Potaka – who called it the most significant reform to conservation law in 40 years – said it was about modernising the management of conservation land and supporting economic growth.

The bill enables international visitors to be charged a levy for access to some areas of conservation land, with the minister saying those details would be worked out at a later date.

“Yes, we are going to charge foreigners to go on some tracks around the country,” Potaka told Parliament.

“Conservation and economic development do not sit in opposition to one another all the time. Done properly they can support one another – that’s what we believe in.”

The bill also makes changes to how concessions – permissions for tourism and other operations on conservation land – are managed; enables “amenity areas” where buildings like toilets or potentially eateries could be established; simplifies planning in line with the Resource Management Act (RMA) reforms; and amends or clarifies how Treaty Settlement and Takutai Moana rights are upheld.

Labour’s conservation spokesperson Priyanca Radhakrishnan warned it would also open up 60 percent of conservation land to being sold, including areas home to species considered ‘at risk’ rather than endangered – like the Lewis Pass beech forests.

She said it went far further than modernisation.

“It’s a sneaky, egregious bill that goes so much further, it is the most significant rollback of conservation protections in a generation and it puts commercialisation over conservation. And that minister should be ashamed.”

The Greens co-leader Marama Davidson was similarly outraged, saying the coalition had chosen to put profit over the environment – particularly given the $135 million in cuts to the Department of Conservation during this term.

She said it would also put more power in the hands of ministers, while reducing independent and public oversight.

The ACT Party’s Cameron Luxton argued the changes would prioritise people.

“For too long, New Zealand has had a conservation system that often treats people as the problem. It has treated a new track, a new hut, a new wharf, a better facility … or a business who’s looking to provide an experience, as something suspicious before it’s even been considered.”

NZ First’s Andy Foster welcomed the faster processing of concessions and the new Treaty clause, saying rather than removing the existing clause “which would have been quite good in our view, I think, is to interpret what this means”.

“As I read it, it says ‘you are going to engage’.”

Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi warned however it would have a chilling effect on those yet to reach a Treaty settlement, describing the bill as another part of the coalition’s “ram raid” on conservation.

“This demonstrates a blanket lack of good faith, and only adds to the iwi Māori suspicion of the Crown’s ability to act with honour,” he said.

“Amending settlement legislation cannot be taken lightly – how can this government believe it can amend any legislation regarding Te Tiriti o Waitangi when it continues to fail to uphold it?”

Potaka, however, was adamant the government remained committed to honouring settlements and good-faith negotiations.

“We want to be clear, the wording of section 4 is not being changed,” he said.

“This bill provides greater certainty about what it means, and of course members of the opposition know there is no veto – that’s what the Supreme Court said and that’s what this government says.”

The bill’s first reading came the same day the coalition announced it would override the Supreme Court, which had agreed a lawsuit challenging companies’ climate records under tort law could go ahead.

In a move the activist taking the case – iwi leader Mike Smith – called “an affront to democracy”, the government now planned to ban such cases.

After the bill’s passage, the next piece of legislation up for debate was the second reading of legislation that would abolish the Ministry for the Environment, so the government could merge the department into the new MCERT (Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport) mega-ministry.

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

Winston Peters has taken a fresh crack at Christopher Luxon over immigration, asking how the prime minister can talk about the need for a “careful” approach while also signing up to the India free trade agreement (FTA).

It’s the latest example of internal coalition friction as New Zealand First continues to rail against the FTA’s “ludicrous immigration implications”.

In a speech to Auckland business leaders on Wednesday afternoon, Luxon signalled a tightening of immigration policy, warning that the wrong settings would only stoke the “politics of division” seen abroad.

“You should expect to see careful policy on immigration from National as we get closer to the election,” Luxon said. “When faced with a choice between social stability and your bottom line, I will choose the former every single time.”

Asked about Luxon’s remarks on his way into Parliament, Peters responded with disbelief.

“How do you reconcile that with the Indian free trade agreement? Go and reconcile that quote with the Indian free trade agreement,” Peters said.

“The prime minister needs to reconcile that to you now … I’m asking you to go and ask him, ‘How can you say that … and yet write the free trade agreement in the way they have?’”

Luxon directly referenced the India FTA in his speech, arguing the temporary work visas it granted were evidence of a robust approach targeted at workforce shortages.

Speaking to reporters after his speech, Luxon said the debate over the trade deal had become “perverted” into a “fear of mass migration”.

“That is just factually incorrect,” he said.

“These are Kiwis who have left everything they know, chosen to come to this country, they work incredibly hard, they send their kids to school, they don’t go on welfare. And they are fantastic Kiwis.”

Luxon said New Zealand did not have the same problems as other countries because of its “very smart, targeted, fair immigration system”.

“It’s not like [Nigel] Farage and railing against it in the UK, or Pauline Hanson in Australia, or other countries that we’re dealing with. We have legal migration, but … it requires a dynamic approach where you are constantly making sure those settings are optimised and are linked to our economic strategy and our infrastructure.”

Back at Parliament, Immigration Minister Erica Stanford told media immigration should not be a major election issue because the government had done “such a good job” getting the settings right.

“In an election year, there’ll be people who say things that might whip up some sentiment, that’s unfortunate,” she said.

“But in my world … I’ve made sure that our immigration system is fit for purpose and working for New Zealanders.”

Labour leader Chris Hipkins said all three coalition parties were lining up some “very ugly anti-migrant rhetoric” for the election campaign.

“From Shane Jones talking about a butter chicken tsunami, to David Seymour talking about the character of New Zealand being changed forever, it’s clear this government want to blame migrants for the economic position the country is in.”

Responding, ACT leader David Seymour said Labour was partially to blame for the wider frustration growing in the wider community.

“They had hundreds of thousands of people through the border before Covid. They shut the border, and then they gave nearly a quarter of a million people residence with no questions asked,” he said.

“It’s creating a lot of problems, and the Labour Party have that firmly at their door.”

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

Proposed changes to climate legislation are an attack on the rule of law, the Environmental Defence Society says.

The government announced on Tuesday it would amend climate law to prevent companies from being sued over damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

But Environmental Defence Society chief executive Gary Taylor told RNZ that the fact it was about climate law was incidental.

“It’s actually an attack on the rule of law,” he said.

In 2024, iwi leader and activist Mike Smith was granted permission by the Supreme Court to sue Fonterra and other major dairy and fossil fuel companies.

He argued the companies, which collectively contributed about a third of New Zealand’s emissions, had a legal duty to him and others in communities that are being damaged by the effects of greenhouse gas emissions.

The hearing, which was sent back to the High Court, was due to start in April next year.

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said the change would apply to current and future cases.

Taylor said there were two things wrong with the proposal.

“The first is that the government is proposing to limit New Zealanders’ rights to sue in civil proceedings, and the second is that it’s doing it when there’s an active case, Mr Smith’s case, before the courts that the Supreme Court has ruled should be heard.”

Taylor said Goldsmith should be ashamed of himself “for bringing a bill of this kind to Parliament”.

“I think his colleague, the Attorney General, should be investigating it for lack of consistency with the Bill of Rights Act.

“It’s pretty outrageous, and it raises issues that go far beyond climate change into the so-called comity between the different arms of government – the executive, the Parliament, and the courts – and here we’ve got a prime example of executive overreach, where they’re wanting to intervene in a judicial process and take someone’s legitimate rights away from them.”

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

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has promised “careful” immigration policy and signalled more capital spending than expected in an annual pre-Budget speech,

Speaking about the need for social cohesion, Luxon highlighted his own electorate of Botany as “more diverse than most”, saying many of Chinese, Korean, Malaysian and Indian New Zealanders were being “unfairly and unreasonably vilified”.

He said during the Covid-19 pandemic, ministers had “too often prioritised their own political interests over the interest of the public”, and the media “determined to flatter New Zealand’s relative performance, also failed”.

“Since then, failed immigration policies in Europe and North America have also stoked a politics of division online. Despite prudent policies and the natural advantages of geography, immigration now seems to be an emerging political issue in New Zealand, too,” he said, in what could be seen as a swipe at New Zealand First’s criticisms of the India free trade deal.

He pointed to the government’s moves to tighten immigration law and said National would be watching closely.

“And you should expect to see careful policy on immigration from National as we get closer to the election … when it comes to immigration, when faced with a choice between social stability and your bottom line, I will choose the former every single time.”

Pointing to the United States “now focusing more exclusively on its own view of its own interests – America first”, and Russia having made “its brutal intentions clear in Europe” and China “expanding its influence”, Luxon painted a now-familiar picture of an erosion of the international rule of law.

“When you turn on the news at night and see alliances straining, trade wars flaring and the rules being rewritten by the powerful, it is only natural to feel as though the ground is shifting beneath you,” he said, before offering an optimistic observation.

“We have faced similar challenges before, and we have overcome them.”

He hearkened back to world wars, giving a message of hope in an increasingly volatile world.

“The outcome was not inevitable. It was not guaranteed. People were frightened, and they were right to be frightened,” he said. “They didn’t just win a war. They built the peace that followed.”

Also addressing a need for cooperation with like-minded partners on defence and trade, he also drew attention to the need for energy independence.

“On too many occasions, private capital, eager to bolster domestic energy production, has been pushed to the sidelines by overzealous planners and politicians in recent years,” he said.

“The reality is that when faced with energy shock after energy shock, it’s very hard to justify backing the skink over the solar farm.”

He pointed to the government’s responses to the fuel crisis, while noting “more action is required”.

That could be delivered through changes to Budget allowances – with less operational spending at $2.1b, down from $2.4b; but more capital spending at $5.7b.

“The recent crisis has acted as a timely reminder that significant levels of capital investment will be required in the coming years,” Luxon said.

“That doesn’t reflect a permanently higher rate of borrowing – we’ll need to get the balance right in the years ahead, as we rebuild our fiscal buffers … The truth is that as a country we don’t save nearly enough, and rely too much on money borrowed from overseas to support our lifestyles. That must change.”

Finance Minister Nicola Willis will deliver her third Budget on 28 May in what are constrained fiscal times.

The conflict in Iran and the global fuel crisis it has triggered required a certain level of re-forecasting and reprioritising of the Budget in recent months.

There were no pre-Budget announcements expected in Christopher Luxon’s speech to a Business NZ audience on Wednesday, though some are due to trickle out from other ministers in the coming days.

The only policy announced to date is the scrapping of the third year of fees-free tertiary study.

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

Judith Collins has made her final speech to Parliament as an MP this afternoon, ahead of her exit from politics.

Her departure brings to an end a 24-year career as an MP, which has seen her hold 18 Ministerial portfolios – some of them twice – as well as leading National in opposition for the 2020 election.

She subsequently remained an MP for National under Christopher Luxon, and became a key minister in the current government.

Collins is set to take up a role as president of the Law Commission.

Her resignation will not trigger a by-election in her electorate of Papakura because of its proximity to the election.

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: New Zealand Government

After 15 years of negotiations three Hauraki iwi Claims Settlement Bills – Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, Ngāti Tara Tokanui, and Ngāti Hei have passed final reading in Parliament today, Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith says.

“All three Hauraki iwi entered formal negotiations with the Crown in 2011 and have worked persistently and in good faith over many years to reach this point.

“The passage of this settlement legislation reflects the commitment, resilience, and determination of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, Ngāti Tara Tokanui, and Ngāti Hei, and I acknowledge the significant efforts of their negotiating teams over more than a decade.

“I also want to acknowledge the people of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, Ngāti Tara Tokanui, Ngāti Hei, and others from the wider Pare Hauraki Collective who travelled to Parliament today to witness this auspicious occasion, and those who watched the passing of these Bills online from Hauraki. Their presence underscores the deep intergenerational significance of this moment.

“Through these settlements, the Crown has formally acknowledged the cumulative impacts of its historical breaches of te Tiriti o Waitangi / the Treaty of Waitangi. These breaches contributed to loss of whenua, environmental harm and constrained the ability of these iwi to provide for their present and future generations.

“While no settlement can fully compensate for the Crown’s injustices towards Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, Ngāti Tara Tokanui and Ngāti Hei, I sincerely hope this redress will support these Hauraki iwi to strengthen their economic, cultural and environmental aspirations, and provides a platform for enduring relationships between the Crown and iwi for generations to come.”

The settlements provide a foundation for renewed relationships, and include agreed historical accounts, Crown acknowledgements of its historical breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and a formal Crown apology to each iwi. 

Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu will receive total financial and commercial redress of $5.5 million; the right to purchase two commercial redress properties; and the vesting of 17 individual and two joint cultural redress properties. 

Ngāti Tara Tokanui will receive total financial and commercial redress of $6 million; the right to purchase for two years after the settlement date, the Paeroa College school site (land only) subject to its lease-back to the Crown; and the vesting of seven individual and two joint cultural redress properties. 

Ngāti Hei will receive total financial and commercial redress of $8.5 million; the ability to purchase three commercial properties; and the vesting of 15 individual and two joint cultural redress properties. 

All three iwi have protocols with the Ministry for Culture and Heritage and the Ministry for Primary Industries as well as a relationship agreement with the Department of Conservation.

Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu is located around Te Aroha and their area of interest includes Te Aroha, the Kaimai range to Katikati and Te Puna, the Hauraki Plains, and Coromandel Peninsula.

Ngāti Tara Tokanui is located around Paeroa in the Hauraki region.

Ngāti Hei is located on the eastern seaboard of the Coromandel Peninsula from Onemana to Whangapoua. Their area of interest is centred around Tairua and Ahuahu and includes offshore islands extending north to Cuvier Island.

The Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Deed of Settlement is available at: Te Tari Whakatau – Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. Its Claims Settlement Bill is at Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill | New Zealand Legislation.

The Ngāti Tara Tokanui Deed of Settlement is available at: Te Tari Whakatau – Ngāti Tara Tokanui. Its Claims Settlement Bill is at Ngāti Tara Tokanui Claims Settlement Bill | New Zealand Legislation.

The Ngāti Hei Deed of Settlement is available at: Te Tari Whakatau – Ngāti Hei. Its Claims Settlement Bill is at Ngāti Hei Claims Settlement Bill | New Zealand Legislation.

MIL OSI

Source: Radio New Zealand

Kiwibank has been instructed by the government to once again look at its options for long-term growth, including revisiting the possibility of partial privatisation.

The taxpayer-owned bank had previously looked at raising $500 million in capital from local investors, but ditched that plan last year.

The new request is included in a letter of intent to Kiwibank’s parent company Kiwi Group Capital (KGC) from State-Owned Enterprises Minister Simeon Brown.

“We expect KGC to undertake work on alternative growth scenarios, along with the capital required for these.” Brown said.

He went on to note in the letter that KGC should now engage with Treasury about how much capital might be required for different growth scenarios.

In accompanying Cabinet paper, Brown and Finance Minister Nicola Willis signalled that while the government wanted Kiwibank to grow into a market disrupter that can boost competition, the government’s coffers were constrained and it was unlikely to be in a position to provide extra capital.

“The Crown could continue to be the sole provider, or be one of the contributors, of additional capital,” the paper said. “However, this would see Crown funding directed to Kiwibank and away from other priorities. Given the significant constraints we are facing, the Crown is not in a position to support this course of action.”

The paper also noted that if Kiwibank was to grow and increase competitive pressure, it would need to know in advance that it had access to capital markets.

Last year KGC said that the easing of the Reserve Bank’s capital settings, combined with Kiwibank’s recent $400m Tier 2 capital raise via bonds, meant it could grow without the need for additional equity.

The government had approved the possible partial public listing for Kiwibank to acquire new capital, but had stressed it could only proceed with an electoral mandate.

National promised no asset sales this term.

The Commerce Commission’s banking study in 2024 said Kiwibank should be given a financial boost to become a maverick challenger to the big four.

Kiwibank’s response

In a statement to RNZ, Kiwibank’s parent company KGC stressed it had sufficient capital to fund its lending growth in the medium-term and noted that the Crown had asked it to work with Treasury on new options for raising capital in future that could boost Kiwibank’s ongoing competitive potential.

“This process will consider a range of factors including investor feedback, market conditions and growth scenarios, as well as the potential amount, sources and timing of any future capital requirements” the statement said.

It went on to stress that it was early-stage work, and no decisions had been made on timeframes.

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

New Zealand consular staff in the US are talking to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials about the case of the New Zealander who has been held in ICE custody for over a month.

Foreign Minister Winston Peters’ office said the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s (MFAT) consular team have been in contact with ICE officials to clarify what Everlee Wihongi has been charged with.

This is the first time the government has confirmed any direct contact with US officials since Wihongi’s detention on 10 April.

Wihongi is a New Zealand citizen, but has lived in the US for decades and holds a green card. She was detained upon re-entering the US following a three-week visit to New Zealand.

The update comes after RNZ’s questions to Peters’ office after Everlee Wihongi’s lawyer pointed out the minister was incorrect to say that she was being detained for not declaring a previous conviction, and the fact Wihongi and her family were still in the dark about what she had been charged with.

Wihongi’s lawyer Marc Christopher told RNZ she had been detained due to a decade-old conviction for a felony offence of marijuana possession, but he said it remained unclear what deportable offence she had now been charged with, despite that she appeared before a judge on 28 April.

Christopher said Peters was wrong to say Wihongi was detained due to hiding her previous conviction.

When RNZ put the comments to Peters’ office, a spokesperson said in a statement: “We have no further comment as a legal process is in play.

“MFAT’s consular team is in contact with Everlee Wihongi’s legal team, along with ICE officials seeking clarification on the exact nature of the charges.

“I am copying in MFAT who will be best placed to provide you with any further updates”.

MFAT has been approached for comment on what they found out from any communication with ICE officials and Wihongi’s legal team.

Wihongi’s family has repeatedly called for MFAT and the minister to do more to help.

MFAT and Peters had previously said the government could not interfere in immigration decisions of another country.

Asked for his thoughts on Wihongi’s recent transfer from California to Arizona – which her relative said was a gruelling journey where she was denied food and not allowed to shower – a spokesperson from Peters’ office said in a statement: “I am forwarding these queries to MFAT as they very much pertain on the consular efforts by their team in the States”.

The statement also said there had been no ministerial contact with US authorities.

“In the first instance consular support is the appropriate course of action,” the statement said.

Christopher told Midday Report he had spoken to New Zealand consular staff and they had been concerned with Wihongi’s healthcare and her treatment. However, he said he was not sure what they had been able to do for Wihongi.

Ministers not communicating with US officials

Meanwhile, official responses to written Parliamentary questions lodged by Green MP Teanau Tuiono revealed multiple ministers and their offices had neither sought nor received communications with US authorities about Wihongi’s case.

Immigration Minister Erica Stanford’s office said it had seen no advice, reports, briefings, emails or documents relating to Wihongi’s detention. Her office also confirmed there had been “none” in terms of correspondence with the US embassy or US officials.

The same response came from Māori Development and Te Arawhiti Minister Tama Potaka’s offices, which said neither the minister nor staff had seen documents on the case or communicated with US officials.

Peters’ claim a ‘falsehood’ – aunt

The disclosures come as Wihongi’s family said her situation has become increasingly alarming after she was abruptly transferred from an ICE detention facility in Adelanto, California.

In a letter sent directly to Peters, Wihongi’s aunt Jenny Hewett-Sauauga accused the minister of publicly misrepresenting the circumstances surrounding her niece’s detention.

“I was highly disappointed to hear you say that Everlee had not declared her previous records, and that is why she was detained,” Hewett-Sauauga wrote.

“As the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I would have expected you to have looked into this matter with due diligence before putting this falsehood out into a public forum.”

Christopher: ICE ‘flushed with money’ and going after minor cases

Christopher told Midday Report that while in the past ICE enforcement was limited by its budget, they’re now “flushed with money” and pursuing people with minor previous convictions.

He said as of July 2025, ICE has increased its detention facility budget by over 400 percent.

Christopher said in the past ICE focused on people who had committed more serious crimes, and it was rare that they would detain someone for months over a possession of marijuana conviction, but that had now changed under the Trump administration.

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