AM Edition: Top 10 Politics Articles on LiveNews.co.nz for May 21, 2026 – Full Text

Source: Radio New Zealand

A public servant affected by the sweeping cuts of two years ago is “terrified” their job will soon be on the line again.

The government plans to slash public service jobs by about 14 percent over the next three years in a shake-up it says will deliver $2.4 billion of savings.

Finance Minister Nicola Willis said about 8700 jobs would be gone by mid-2029 – returning the public sector to the equivalent of about 1 percent of the population, which it had been historically.

Asher Wilson-Goldman – who was formerly a Green Party candidate – was made redundant from a public sector job in 2024, and it took him about three months to find work.

“I’m just really feeling for everyone who’s going to now have months, probably, of waiting to see if their heads are on the chopping block, and it’s a really awful feeling,” he said.

“Obviously being made redundant sucks, but it’s that wait, not knowing what’s happening … waiting to see if your role’s proposed to be cut, waiting to see if your friends and colleagues are, survivors’ guilt if you do manage to escape the list this time, but also worrying that there’s going to be another one coming up soon, it’s just awful,” he said.

Morale was already low and news of more cuts would “tank it”, Wilson-Goldman said.

“Public servants across the country have been under huge pressure to deliver more with less and less and less, and the hits just keep coming in.”

He was about to finish up a contract in a government department, so was on the hunt for work again.

Last time around the job market was rough, given so many people were looking at the same time, he said.

“I’m a qualified person with lots of really great experience, but there were lots of other qualified people with lots of really great experience also looking.

“When you get rid of so many people at once, it just becomes impossible, and for a lot of people, they just go, ‘well, if there’s no future here, why would I stay?’”

Another public servant, who RNZ has agreed not to name, had their role disestablished in 2024.

After frantically applying for other work during the three-month notice period, they were “privileged” to be placed into another role as part of the restructure.

But “it was a pretty terrible experience”, they said, citing poor communication and a lack of transparency from management.

That had seen them looking for other work ever since.

“That’s pretty difficult … you’re going up against just numbers and numbers and numbers of people, so in order to really stand out, it’s kind of a stab in the dark … recruiters are overbooked, they’ve got next to nothing.”

The staffer was “terrified” of further restructures.

“The last transition was really, really difficult … it’s pretty scary to be honest.”

They urged public sector bosses who would inevitably have to make cuts to have “humanity” during the process.

Job numbers to be reported ‘publicly and transparently’ – minister

Finance Minister Nicola Willis said the overhaul would “reduce the number of government departments, increase the use of AI and other digital tools, and deliver significant savings”.

She explained ministers would be tracking progress on job numbers each quarter, and the Public Service Commission would publish them “publicly and transparently”.

This practice had already been happening.

The most recent workforce data published by the Public Service Commission showed there were 63,657 full-time equivalent staff as at 31 December 2025, an increase of 0.8 percent from the September 2025 update.

Willis said it would be up to government agencies to put forward proposals.

“Some of these reductions will, of course, take place through natural attrition. Ultimately, what the restructuring plans are is yet to be set out, because we don’t have the merger proposals on the table yet.”

The changes the government is proposing will only affect the core public service.

Thirteen government departments are exempt from the baseline savings exercise: the New Zealand Defence Force, Police, Oranga Tamariki, Corrections, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Education (excluding tertiary functions), the Government Communications Security Bureau, the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service, the Education Review Office, Crown Law Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Serious Fraud Office.

Parliamentary agencies, like the Parliamentary Service and Ombudsman are also excluded.

Some ministries expected to find savings were already facing cuts, as they get absorbed into the new Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions, and Transport.

The ministry, nicknamed MCERT, would become operational on 1 July, and would take on the functions of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry for the Environment, and the local government functions of the Department of Internal Affairs.

Legislation to disestablish the Ministry for the Environment is set to have its third and final reading in Parliament on Wednesday.

The legislation is necessary to form MCERT, because unlike the other ministries being absorbed into the new ministry, MfE was specifically established by statute. The others can be disestablished through an Order in Council.

EMA unsurprised by cuts

The Employers and Manufacturers Association said everyone is “in the same boat” when it comes to public sector job cuts.

Head of advocacy Alan McDonald told RNZ it was not a surprising decision.

“Everybody is in the same boat at the moment, they’re all looking at their operations and how they can trim costs and re-shape their businesses… for when things recover. I don’t think the public service is any different really,” he said.

McDonald said many of those jobs would likely be in Wellington.

“I’d say it’ll have a bit of an impact on Wellington and any of the other centres where there’s significant cuts. It’s always a last resort, no one likes doing it – but the fact is the tanks are pretty empty so if they can repurpose some of that cash into something else that’s great,” he said.

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

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

Original source: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/05/20/public-servant-terrified-job-on-the-line-again-after-government-announces-more-cuts/

Source: Radio New Zealand

Explainer – Everybody knows what a stalker is. But until this month, stalking wasn’t officially a crime.

The Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill creates a new offence for stalking and will take effect on Tuesday 26 May, after a years-long battle by anti-stalking advocates pushing for change.

“This is certainly a step in the right direction,” said the government’s Chief Victims Advisor Ruth Money.

Here’s what you need to know.

What will this bill do?

For the first time, stalking is now codified as an actual criminal offence under the law. It will become punishable by up to five years in prison.

“The law will protect people against this pattern of behaviour, which has never been done before,” Money said.

Wait a minute, was stalking legal until now?

Not exactly.

Some stalking behaviours were already illegal and could be covered under legislation like the Harmful Digital Communication Act and the Harassment Act 1997, but stalking itself was not specifically defined under the Crimes Act.

The new law lays out what exactly counts as stalking and makes a series of amendments to the Act and other legislation to include it.

“This legislation, which creates a new offence of stalking and harassment, is long overdue,” Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said at the bill’s passing in November. It’s just taking effect now to allow for training and implementation.

“We haven’t traditionally looked after victims and survivors of stalking at all well,” Money said.

“For us to have a stalking law that now acknowledges a pattern of events which many, many victim-survivors were suffering at the hands of, is certainly a transformation within that space, for sure.”

There had been a push to make stalking illegal for years, but the key tipping point for the law changes was the murder of 21-year-old law student Farzana Yaqubi in 2022.

She had made several reports to police about her stalker, Kanwarpal Singh, before her death. The Independent Police Conduct Authority later found multiple failings in how police responded to Yaqubi’s concerns.

“Stalking can culminate in the worst crime, being homicide,” Money said.

In 2024, a petition signed by more than 20,000 people was presented to Parliament demanding a bill to make stalking illegal.

So what counts as stalking?

Stalking is usually seen as repeated harassment and threats. In a policy briefing in 2022, a collection of groups calling for the law noted that “it is a form of abuse”.

“Women are disproportionately affected by stalking, particularly young women, disabled women, rainbow women and likely wāhine Māori, while migrants and ethnic minorities may experience unique forms of stalking.

“The most dangerous, and persistent stalking is conducted by ex-partners of women, with child contact being a particular risk factor.”

The Crimes Act amendments define stalking as anyone who engages in a pattern of behaviour against another person “knowing that it is likely to cause fear or distress” on at least two separate occasions within a period of two years.

The specified acts will include:

• Watching, following, loitering near or obstructing a person
• Recording or tracking
• Contacting or communicating with the person
• Damaging, devaluing, moving, entering or interfering with taonga or property (including pets) that the person has an interest in
• Damaging or undermining a person’s reputation, opportunities or relationships
• Publishing statements or other material relating to a person or pretending to be from that person – which other material from the Justice Committee also defines as “doxing”, or “collating and publishing private and identifying information about an individual, including posting information on their behalf”
• Acting in any way that would cause fear or distress to a reasonable person

It also takes into account acts done to any third party who is known to a stalking target that are done “wholly or partly” because of that person’s relationship to the target.

The law also lays out that these acts could be done in person but also through means including digital applications, drones, spyware, tracking applications or the use of artificial intelligence.

The law also makes changes to other legislation:

• Anyone convicted of stalking in the previous 10 years will be disqualified from having a firearms license.
• The Family Violence Act will now include stalking under its definition of psychological violence
• Restraining orders can be made under the Harassment Act and Harmful Digital Communications Act if someone is convicted of stalking
• Stalking-related aggravating factors can be considered in extending sentences for those convicted of other crimes

What penalties will there be?

If you’re found guilty of stalking you could face a prison term of up to five years.

Constitutional lawyer Graeme Edgeler noted that the law may not stop all stalkers, but it does give anti-stalking measures more teeth.

“Stalking behaviours are already highly deviant behaviours. Those engaging in it probably aren’t rationally weighing up the possible consequences in advance.

“I doubt many stalkers will be discouraged from stalking because of the new law, so if the law is to have effect it will have to be through the police and courts taking stalking more seriously.”

How exactly is it going to be enforced?

Police are “well prepared” for the law, acting director for prevention Inspector Natasha Allan told RNZ.

A constable can now “notify a person in writing that their behaviour is causing, or is likely to cause, fear or distress to the victim and that engaging in that behaviour may constitute an offence”, she said.

“The notice system in the act builds on the existing Harassment Act letters that police previously developed.

“A person can only be charged with the stalking offence once two specified acts have been committed within a two-year period, as set out in the legislation,” she added. “However, a formal notice can be issued after a single specified act.

“This notice is not simply a warning, it creates a legal presumption that the person is aware their behaviour is causing fear or distress. If a further specified act occurs, this provides a strong foundation for police to take prosecution action.”

Police will also be required to inform victims before giving a warning to people who may be stalking them.

“As part of that process police will talk to the victim to discuss their safety and ensure a plan is in place for both when the notice is served and afterwards,” Allan said.

“Our focus is first and foremost on the victim’s safety and wellbeing. We want victims to feel supported and reassured, with a clear plan in place and confidence that they can contact police at any time if they feel unsafe.”

Stalking behaviours don’t necessarily have to involve criminal charges under the new law, Money said, and can involve a variety of court orders depending on the situation.

Money said the select committee process for the draft bill and testimony by victims was helpful in focusing the law and making some changes, such as reducing the threshold for the number of stalking incidents from three to two.

“I was humbled by the bravery and the resilience of the victims who didn’t have to but chose to speak up and share their story with politicians that they don’t know in a scary room.”

Leonie Morris of the Auckland Women’s Centre is the project lead for Aotearoa Free From Stalking.

“This law has significant potential to make stalking victim-survivors and all our communities safer,” she said. “However, its effectiveness will ultimately depend on how it is implemented and resourced by the state.”

What’s being done to get ready for the law?

“Police have made a really concerted effort in a short amount of time to operationalise this new law,” Money said.

“More than 80 percent of staff have already completed online training, demonstrating strong workforce readiness,” Allan said. “Police are committed to ensuring all staff complete this training and work is actively underway to achieve full completion across the organisation.”

Allan said it has been a cross-agency approach with the Ministry of Justice, the Centre for Family Violence and Sexual Violence Prevention and the Ministry for Women.

Some of the clauses in the law could be seen as open to interpretation, such as what constitutes behaviour “knowing that it is likely to cause fear or distress”.

“Where a notice has been given, it creates a presumption in court that the person knows their behaviour is likely to cause fear or distress,” Allan said. “The onus is on the defendant to rebut this presumption on the balance of probabilities.”

Some stalkers may have mental health issues, as well, Money said.

“(The law) will go some way for deterrence for some people but it certainly is not going to help the medically obsessed mental health challenges, for example, but no law will, that’s a health response that’s required.”

Is there a chance that free speech ideas could come into conflict with the law?

Edgeler said “the law already prohibits death threats, and threatening other physical harm,” and the definitions in the stalking law are “a justified restriction”.

“Of course, anytime you give police the power to arrest someone, and the state the power to prosecute some, there’s a risk that someone will apply the law incorrectly or overzealously, but that’s a reason for police and the courts to be careful, not to not have a law dealing with stalking.”

Does the law go far enough?

“The law isn’t quite everything we hoped for – but it is better than the bill that was first introduced,” Morris said.

She said there will be much to be seen in how the law works in practice, and it’s troubling that other services that help victims are facing cuts.

“We need adequate and fit-for-purpose safety and support services for stalking victims – including those being targeted outside of a family violence context.

“We see zero evidence these stalking-response services have been created – while funding has been taken away from general support and services such as women’s centres and women’s self-defence, as well as ACC sexual violence prevention. Overall, the picture is bleak.”

Aotearoa Free From Stalking and others have called for the government to provide specialised stalking advisors who can help victims through the process.

“Addressing this gap must be a priority,” Morris said.

Police said they aren’t introducing such advisors themselves, but “significant work has been undertaken to strengthen how staff support victims,” including engaging with specialists.

“This has helped ensure our approach is victim-focused, culturally responsive, and reflects diverse lived experiences across rainbow, ethnic, and other communities,” Allan said.

Police have also worked with multiple groups and agencies in a coordinated approach to develop public information on the new law, Allan said.

What else needs to be done?

Stalking is being talked about more than ever, with projects such as the new local documentary series Stalked or Louis Theroux’s dive into the misogyny of the “manosphere.”

That doesn’t mean it’s happening less, Morris said.

“It’s unclear what is happening exactly – is stalking more talked about because more of it is happening?”

“Orchestrated campaigns of disinformation and online and offline attacks on leaders who are wāhine Māori or other women and/or queer leaders have massively increased over the last few years, as outlined recently in the Mana Wahine hearings at the Waitangi Tribunal.

“Ideally, the state will work to prevent people committing stalking offences in the first place – for example, public awareness campaigns to increase respect for women, as power and control over women is a key driver of stalking behaviour.”

Stalking via social media also remains tricky to deal with, Money said. Platforms like Facebook, TikTok and Instagram aren’t being held accountable for stalking behaviour that occurs via their technology.

“I think the companies need a lot more regulation and proactive management, not reactive management. There is a lot of things going on in that wild world of technology that needs a lot more regulation.”

Money said that curtailing stalking behaviours is ultimately the work of everyone.

“Ideally, we wouldn’t need the law, right? Ideally there would be prevention in our communities. People would be held to account for their behaviour by their friends – if you notice that your mate’s getting a bit creepy and keeps suggesting to go to a certain bar to follow someone, for example – you know, there are things that we can all do to help people.

Money said she encourages workplaces, universities, schools “to challenge themselves. What are you going to do to keep people safe?”

“Don’t expect someone to ask for help. Be the help, offer help, ask if everyone’s all right, but also call out obsessive behaviour for what it is and try to stop that harmful behaviour.”

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

Original source: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/05/20/explainer-how-new-zealands-new-anti-stalking-laws-will-work/

Source: Radio New Zealand

Supporters of a bill seeking to legally define the terms “woman” and “man” say it is a matter of clarity, but opposition parties have described it as divisive and a “time warp”.

The bill, in the name of New Zealand First MP Jenny Marcroft, passed its first reading in Parliament on Wednesday and will now go through the select committee process.

The Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill would define “woman” in law as “an adult human biological female”, and “man” as “an adult human biological male”.

Marcroft said what it meant to be a woman was “under attack,” and the bill would deliver clarity and consistency.

She referenced a landmark ruling by the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court last year, which found the term “woman” refers to “biological sex”.

“New Zealanders should have confidence that their institutions, and the very language of their laws, reflect reality,” Marcroft said.

“Progressive politics” had prioritised ideology over biology, she said – and the change would prevent ideological interpretations from creeping into the law.

“Women have had a gutsful of the gaslighting. It is misogyny in a modern form to cancel women when we speak up, it is misogyny in a modern form to deny our biological reality.”

The legislation would not take away anyone’s rights, she said. Instead, it would ensure sex-based rights for women and girls.

Minister for Women expresses reservations

National MP Nicola Grigg – who is also the Minister for Women – spent most of her five minute speaking slot pointing out the drawbacks of the bill, before explaining that her party would support it anyway.

Grigg said there were “real and substantive” concerns with the bill’s approach – including that many pieces of legislation have moved away from using gender.

She did not think it would deliver clarity its proponents suggested.

“I’m not convinced that this bill would advance the rights and opportunities or the wellbeing of women and girls in any way, shape or form in New Zealand.”

However some people felt strongly about it, she said – so National would vote for it “to ensure that New Zealanders have the opportunity to have their say” during the select committee process.

ACT’s Karen Chhour said the debate was not about science, but about being able to speak plainly.

She said biological differences matter – like in sport, where males have physical advantages, and in healthcare, where it affected diagnoses – but New Zealanders were under the “pressure to pretend” they did not matter.

“At its heart, this debate is not about hate, it is about whether ordinary people are still allowed to trust their own eyes, speak honestly, defend sex-based rights without being shamed into silence.”

Bill ‘unworkable’ and a ‘time warp’ – opposition

Opposition parties said the government should be focusing on what New Zealanders really care about, like the cost of living.

Labour’s Camila Belich said the bill would create hurt in the trans community – but it was also “unworkable”.

She referenced a report from the Attorney-General Chris Bishop, which said the bill would “give rise to discrimination on the basis of age” – because it includes the word “adult”.

“There would be a wide range of presumably unintended consequences,” it said.

Belich said that meant women under the age of 20 may not be able to access abortions, for example – because the relevant act allowing abortions references “women”, and the law says if the age of maturity is not specified, it means someone under 20.

“That shows how problematic this type of bill is. If you remove the word adult from this, which is the only way to fix this bill, then you would have to define women as meaning children.”

Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said if the government really cared about women, it would not have made moves like removing pay equity rights, or cutting funding for some sexual violence prevention services.

“I don’t think … this would have been a government that granted women the right to vote.

“This debate is a timewarp back more than 100 years when men in power sought to define and suppress women to our physical parts alone,” she said.

Te Pāti Māori MP Oriini Kaipara said the bill would achieve nothing in legal practical terms, and it was harmful for trans people.

She urged the House to carefully consider the founding principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

“That is to protect our taonga, our … most important taonga is people, tangata.”

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

Original source: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/05/21/bill-seeking-to-legally-define-the-terms-man-and-woman-passes-first-reading/

Source: New Zealand Government

Good afternoon 

We’d like to start by acknowledging distinguished guests here today – parliamentary colleagues, members of the Diplomatic Corps, Honorary advisors to the Asia New Zealand Foundation, and the outgoing, and newly appointed board of trustees for the Asia New Zealand Foundation. 

It’s our pleasure to be in your company.  

Let’s also acknowledge the leadership of two individuals in the audience today.  

First, Dame Fran Wilde, who recently completed her term as Chair of the Asia New Zealand Foundation. As Chair of the foundation, you have worked tirelessly to enhance New Zealanders’ understanding of Asia. Thank you for your dedicated service and leadership. 

We’d also like to acknowledge the leadership of His Excellency Mr. Alfredo Perez Bravo, Ambassador of Mexico and Dean of the Diplomatic Corp. Ambassador, you will be returning home soon, we wish you all the very best, and thank you for your wise counsel. 

Our first major speech, at the beginning of this term, was made to the Diplomatic Corps. We described members of the Corps as critical enablers for their countries and for New Zealand. 

Ambassadors and High Commissioners, you have fulfilled this role superbly well and we have tried hard to be accessible and to keep the commitments we made in that speech; to be a principled and engaged country, one determined to act with both energy and urgency. 

We have listened carefully to you, and learned from all of our discussions, which we think is the essence of diplomatic engagement, so thank you all. 

Foreign Policy Response to Order-shattering Geopolitics  

Our speech today will address the Government’s foreign policy response to the severe geopolitical challenges New Zealand has faced since coming into office. Traversing the foreign policy reset and its execution this past two-and-a-half years, we will focus our discussion on how we have vigorously sought to advance our national interests in the toughest environment any can remember.  

Given your symposium’s focus, we will also chronicle our achievements for one crucial dimension of the reset, the serious uplift in our relations with Asia and why this matters for New Zealand’s future prosperity and security.  

We have travelled widely across North Asia, South East Asia and South Asia, struck by the economic dynamism of the region and its people. We have experienced everywhere we’ve visited the desire by Asian countries to do more with New Zealand, their positive view of us shaped by our long history of constructive engagement with them. 

Now, the theme for your symposium, ‘Asia in Transition: The Middle Power Moment’, is a thought-provoking one. 

We won’t wade into academic debates on who is, and who isn’t, a middle power, or whether it’s their moment or not. Rather, what we would say is that big or small, all countries who lack the coercive power and agency of the world’s great powers are seeking to adapt to the order-shattering nature of contemporary geopolitics. 

Order-shattering it is. Not since World War II have we seen such global disruption, a world of heightened strategic competition, and one where multilateralism is being challenged by great power ambition, where rules and norms are daily shattered, and where trade protectionism is rising. 

How well we adapt will define how effectively we maintain our agency and national voice through a prolonged period of global disruption. 

While some leaders reach for the most vivid rhetorical framing of the current challenge, amplifying the power of their diagnosis, they fail when it comes to offering anything approaching the same acuteness or clarity about their solutions. 

At best, there is recognition that in troubled times such as we face, middle power and small states need to see more of each other, talk more, and do more together to defend and promote their respective interests. In other words they describe the orthodox means and ends of diplomacy.  

And if multilateralism’s vulnerabilities are most obviously located in the United Nations, particularly the Security Council – with abuse of the veto and its structural dysfunction – the UN cannot be left as an elephant in the room in either diagnosis or solution.  

So, we are left with a first order dilemma for any state grappling with responding to today’s challenges. Do member states of the UN support an overhaul of the premier institution that has promoted peaceful relations since 1945, including veto reform? Or do they wish to recreate that institution from scratch?  

We would suggest there is far less clarity around that answer. Creating new branches of interlocking groupings of like-minded countries, or new more expansive regional groupings has merit. It is a necessary response to present conditions and an ineffectual UN. But only by addressing the future of the UN will our collective response be sufficient to restore the rules-based order to better health. 

For New Zealand, we think that only by root and branch reform of the UN – by refocusing it on its core charter – can it be made fit for purpose. An effective, reformed UN will reduce its vulnerability to the ambivalence, criticism or outright repudiation it faces today.  

Whether the UN80 reform effort is sufficient for the magnitude of the challenge, we are yet to see, but we are playing our part while continuing our strong call for reform in our National Statements at the UN.   

So, New Zealand is sure about both its diagnosis and response. Our diagnosis is embedded in our government’s foreign reset, made early this term. It noted three big shifts in the international order: from rules to power, from economics to security, and from efficiency to resilience. 

Global conditions have deteriorated sharply since the reset, and those shifts have only accelerated in scope. Their disruptive effects have created unwelcome and complex crises, one after another, but the direction of travel has only confirmed our diagnosis. 

New Zealand cannot afford to be behind history’s curve. We learned this as a country during the Covid pandemic. It should not be controversial to say that we were ahead of the curve, until we weren’t, and the costs will be with us, in both human and economic terms, for a long time because of our failure to anticipate the changing direction of the pandemic’s curve and adapt to it. 

Now, it’s not easy to either anticipate or predict in today’s uncertain global environment, so New Zealand has necessarily adopted a prudent approach to our foreign policy settings. Those settings were also informed by the lethargic approach our predecessors took to foreign policy, so we began very much behind the curve, playing catch-up. 

We started from the position of accepting the world as it is, not as we would wish to be. We are realists and have said so in all our speeches. We mean it.  

So, how to characterize our response? 

We resolved to lead a highly active diplomacy, with more energy and urgency, as the times and circumstances demanded. Staff tell me that in the two-and-a-half years since becoming Minister, we have spent fully seven-and-a-half months offshore. We’ve visited 89 countries, 54 different countries, and over the course of the term so far, we’ve had 560 foreign policy engagements. 

There are a couple of serious points to make about this effort. First, it cannot and must not be a one-off. We believe that for New Zealand to have its voice heard by others, and its interests considered, future foreign ministers will need to replicate our level of activity.  

In the Pacific we call it talanoa – meeting face to face – and its value is crucial for advancing or defending our interests, and not just in the Pacific. We have invested a lot in our international relationships because they are crucial for growing our prosperity and defending our security. Our foreign policy, in this sense, is a means to achieve those twin ends.  

The other point is this. The effectiveness of our diplomatic efforts is closely related to the level of resources committed to supporting them. While we are acutely aware that it is the taxpayer to whom we are responsible for every spending choice made, we also think, during this tumultuous time, the public has never been more supportive of our efforts to bolster the country’s economic growth and boost its security.  

Foreign policy helps achieve both, so we undertook an exercise which compared our diplomatic footprint to countries with like-GDP or a like-population. The Nordic countries, and countries like Ireland and Croatia have invested more in diplomacy and are more economically successful than New Zealand as a result.  

They are also more secure because they can afford to sustain strong spending to grow their defence capabilities. Enduringly robust defence spending not only strengthens a country’s foreign policy effectiveness, as we learned between 2017-20, but it gives heft to that country’s voice on the international stage. Singapore is a prime example of a small state whose voice is widely respected and whose voice is given strength by its robust defence spending.  

Our voice is not strong. We fight our budget corner hard, but until future New Zealand governments – whoever leads them – see defence and foreign policies not as a cost, but as a driver for making New Zealanders richer and more secure, a highly active diplomacy will be needed to compensate for the lack of resources. It’s an absolute necessity while we play budget catch-up.  

In our case that has meant taking 235 flights since taking office. Not to chalk up visits to foreign capitals, as one churlish senior reporter wrote, but to listen, ask good questions, learn from our counterparts, search for ways to build closer relations with them, express New Zealand values and perspectives, and work hard to advance our interests.  

More seriously, knowing one’s constraints and strengths and weaknesses also brings a certain forensic quality to choices about where to optimally focus our diplomatic efforts and resources. The Foreign Policy Reset spelt those priorities out.  

We have made excellent progress across all six foreign policy priorities. There have also been a couple of relationship ripples we successfully overcame, and as always, multiple international crises that demanded our urgent attention and response.  

It’s fair to say New Zealand and its people have suffered more disruption and uncertainty originating from forces and events outside our shores this term than either they or we would wish. It has not been an easy term. 

So, it’s a difficult world for a small state like New Zealand to navigate. But, despite these challenges, we think it is also fitting and proper to celebrate successes when they occur. For our foreign policy team, one success that stands out for us is the rapid progress New Zealand has made in forging closer relations across Asia, most especially our priority focus on uplifting our relationships in South-East Asia and India. 

Asia Matters to New Zealand’s Prosperity & Security  

In some respects, we are living in the Asian century: what happens in the great Asian landmass matters hugely for the trajectory of world affairs. Asia is home to most of the world’s people and half of its economic output. There is absolutely no doubt that Asia is integral to New Zealand’s prosperity and security.     

The Government’s foreign policy this term has put a huge emphasis on Asia. As Foreign Minister this term, We have made bilateral visits to 16 Asian countries: nine of the 11 ASEAN member countries; China, Japan, Mongolia and South Korea in North Asia; and India, Nepal and Sri Lanka in South Asia. In the cases of Mongolia and Nepal, we were the first New Zealand Foreign Minister to visit there.  

More generally, this New Zealand Government has conducted over 80 Ministerial or Prime Ministerial visits to Asia in this Parliamentary term alone. We have also hosted numerous Asian leaders and Foreign Ministers here in New Zealand. Just this coming week, Sri Lanka’s Foreign Minister is here in Wellington, opening its new High Commission here.  

Overall, this is an unprecedented but necessary level of political commitment by the New Zealand Government in our Asian relationships. These myriad conversations, with all sub-regions of Asia, is a demonstration of where we think New Zealand’s future lies.   

Our uplift in Asia is about both harnessing economic opportunity and safeguarding our national security. Indeed, greater security engagement with the region is essential because New Zealand’s security is fundamentally intertwined with stability and peace in Asia. Our priority security interests include: 

Maritime Security and Freedom of Navigation, including in the South China Sea;
Peace and stability in the Korean Peninsula and Taiwan Strait; 
Transnational Organised Crime, including People Smuggling and Drug Trafficking;
Counter terrorism and counter radicalisation, and;
Disaster resilience and humanitarian aid 

We have signed over 20 significant agreements with Asia this term, including upgrading relationships with ASEAN, Singapore, Viet Nam and the Republic of Korea to Comprehensive Strategic Partnerships. Let me offer some brief examples of the progress we have made.  

With China, we have a mature relationship and one where we have worked hard through intensive political-level engagement in both Beijing and Wellington to improve our mutual understanding to increase joint economic opportunity while always seeking to grow mutual trust. 

With Japan, we are longstanding partners working across a wide range of issues critical to our interests in the region and globally.  

With South Korea, New Zealand has signed a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. This elevation of our relationship reflects sustained engagement over several years and a commitment to work together to keep broadening and deepening the scope of our partnership.  

With India, New Zealand has sought to deliver closer and broader-based relations.  

With ASEAN, we signed last year a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, which is an example of our standing on the shoulders of those far-sighted politicians and diplomats who saw its potential, starting New Zealand’s investment in ASEAN 50 years ago.  

With Singapore, a great friend of New Zealand, we elevated our relationship to a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, deepening our already excellent bilateral relationship across a broad range of sectors, including supply chains and connectivity.   

With Viet Nam, we have also concluded a Comprehensive Partnership. 

As we said at the start, it is a more contested, fragmented and volatile world, one where strong relationships matter and require more attention with more vigour. This Government’s Foreign Policy Reset has delivered greater focus on and attention to our key strategic partnerships in Asia.  That will remain the case – to deliver tangible benefits for both NZ and our partners. NZ’s prosperity and security are intertwined with Asia’s; we cannot afford to do anything less than engage with urgency, purpose, commitment and tenacity. 

Last Thoughts 

The last 80 years of relative peace and prosperity has given way to a significant global disruption, characterized by the three shifts recognized by Cabinet in early 2024.  

In New Zealand’s National Statement to the United Nations later that year, we said ‘There must never be another San Francisco Conference picking up the pieces after another decent into global annihilation and human suffering’.  

Back then Prime Minister Peter Fraser knew the proposed UN Charter was imperfect and fought vigorously against the veto. We carry that position forward, because New Zealand strongly supports efforts to reform the veto. It is the one institutional reform that would make the most difference to the effectiveness of the UN.   

We also said in our National Statement at the United Nations in 2024 that ‘Those who share our values, and even those who do not, gain from understanding each other’s point of view, even when we cannot agree. From understanding comes opportunity and from diplomacy comes compromise, the building blocks of better relations between nations. We need more diplomacy, more engagement, more compromise.’  

To an acute degree, this premise is under assault. But that assault is being met with an urgent response as new diplomatic connections are being forged and existing ones strengthened.  

Why? Because one unintended consequence of the shift from rules to power is that middle and small states feel more inter-connected than ever before. That has been palpable wherever we’ve travelled, the realization that events in one region impact people and governments in another.  

An example. When invited to the Nordic Council meeting last year one of the Nordic Foreign Ministers told us how appreciative they were of our strong support for Ukraine.  

We were told that when they next had to publicly defend their country’s commitment to supporting Ukraine to their own weary citizens they would cite the case of New Zealand, the furthest country from the Russia’s illegal war, but a strong supporter of Ukraine because of the vital principles being defended there.  

It is the many moments like that when bonds between countries are forged and strengthened. The mutual recognition of shared values brings mutual respect, enhancing each country’s reputation in the eyes of the other. It is also what we call, simply, diplomacy.  

But in the current media environment, with 24/7 demands from activists and critics for us to express the government’s outrage on the ravages of every passing moment, the signal of our foreign policy efforts often get lost in the noise. 

What is that signal? When coming into office, we immediately recognized that in foreign policy terms we were behind the curve. We quickly took stock of the global situation, its direction of travel, and our domestic constraints.  

We then analysed the shifts occurring, assessed our strengths and weaknesses against what could be achieved, then fashioned a strategy to advance or defend our foreign policy interests across six priority areas. 

As realists, New Zealand’s foreign policy is driven by prudence. As realists, we have also conducted a highly active foreign policy. The times demanded it. If our national voice has not always been to everyone’s liking, or been loud enough for them, then perhaps it is because we are still trying to rebuild its strength, and in our judgement there is much more to do.   

The success of our Asia uplift is positive reinforcement that our strategy is working. It is only a start, but in Asia we have helped build on a foundation forged by earlier generations of New Zealand politicians, public servants, academics, and educators. It is truly a collective success. 

Let us end by saying to you that our foreign policy has been “hiding in plain sight”, for there is a saying in the Library of Congress, ‘Words are a kind of action, and actions are a kind of words’.  

New Zealand’s foreign policy values and principles are in our speeches, our words. They are also in our actions, our highly active diplomacy.  

We continue to believe that through our diplomatic engagement with other countries we are building foundations for when the order-shattering disruption subsides. Then, when we have global leadership of a different character, discussions on how to repair and reinvigorate the rules-based order will bear fruit.  

Thank you

Original source: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/05/20/asia-in-transition-the-middle-power-moment/

Source: Radio New Zealand

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has again been exempt from funding cuts in this year’s Budget, with the Finance Minister confirming it wouldn’t be made to find savings until after the election.

On Tuesday Nicola Willis made a pre-Budget announcement that public service jobs would be slashed by about 14 percent over the next three years in a shake-up that is expected to deliver $2.4 billion in savings.

The cost-saving exercise amounts to 8700 jobs being cut by mid-2029, alongside a greater use of AI and the merger of an unknown number of ministries and government departments as part of a trimming down of the public service.

It also includes baseline funding reductions for some ministries of two percent for the coming year, and five percent for the two years after.

In Parliament on Wednesday in response to questions from Labour’s finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds, Willis revealed MFAT isn’t required to cut its spending by two percent this year, but would be included in the future cost savings.

“The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade was excluded from the two percent baseline reduction, but has not been excluded from the out years,” she told the House.

On Tuesday Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters told reporters he wasn’t worried about job losses, because he had a record of standing up for them and “everything’s going to stay the same”.

Responding to that comment in the House on Wednesday, Willis said she disagreed.

“I agree with Winston Peters on the important things, but on that particular statement, not really, because I think we are in a changing world and I think the ministry of foreign affairs needs to adapt with that world,” she said.

Peters had denied on Tuesday that this year’s Budget – which he would presumably vote for next week – would set out the savings across four years.

“The Budget doesn’t stretch four years, if you believe that with an election coming, you know nothing about democracy,” he said.

“That’s knucklehead stuff, mate.”

Willis has now confirmed – 24 hours later – that the election could be a roadblock in Peters’ ministry ever having to commit to the future reductions in spending, depending on the make-up of the government after 7 November.

Willis was asked on her way to Question Time on Wednesday whether she was confident any cuts to MFAT wouldn’t hurt the New Zealand economy or diplomatic relations, to which she responded that her and Peters differed on the answer to that.

“He would always have the diplomats have more money for their budgets, for their business class flights, and all of that stuff.

“My view is actually what the foreign affairs service can do, in the same way any other agency can do, is make sure that its back office is efficient, that it is not duplicating services across government, and yes, we need great diplomats on the front line, but they, just like every New Zealander, are accountable, and that means spending taxpayer money well, in some cases.”

She went on to say that “in some cases” both MFAT staff, and her, should be flying cattle class – not business.

The two ministers have had “extensive debates” about MFAT’s ongoing funding during Budget talks, Willis said.

On Tuesday she said it was “always the case” that Peters would prefer more money went into the diplomacy network, to offshore embassies, and to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Trade.

“And I always seek to communicate to him what I hear from everyday voters.

“Which is, ‘can you please make sure I can get my hip operation faster, that my kids are getting educated better at school, and yes, invest in foreign affairs, but not at the expense of the things Kiwis really care about’.”

Asked if it was a “tough” conversation with Peters, Willis said “yes”.

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

Original source: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/05/20/winston-peters-wins-again-no-cuts-for-mfat-in-new-budget/

Source: New Zealand Government

Good morning to you all. It’s my pleasure to attend your cornerstone event of the year, and to do so in my capacity as the newly minted Minister for the Environment.  I’d like to begin by acknowledging WasteMINZ Chair Parul, and the board, CEO Nic and team, and all the delegates here today.

Since taking on the Environment portfolio a little over a month ago, I have been focused on what we need to do to ensure New Zealand’s environmental management is practical, effective, and grounded in real-world outcomes. 

I am not a career politician. I am an old-school pragmatist with deep rural roots and I bring a strong interest in how policy translates into real on the ground action and results, particularly in sectors like yours that are critical to both environmental protection and economic performance.

It’s really important to acknowledge the work your sector does across the board, and particularly WasteMINZ’ role bringing a real-world perspective when it comes to policy development. 

I know this sector has engaged constructively with government over some time, and I look forward to getting to know you and continuing that relationship.

I recently had a great trip to Hawkes Bay – my first ministerial visit – to Tyrewise and the Henderson Road Transfer Station.

I look forward to visiting more businesses and seeing the progressive work so many of you are doing in the coming weeks and months. These visits, and the constructive, informed feedback from your sector, are vital to understanding both the opportunities and challenges this sector faces.

We are a government determined to drive policy and regulatory shifts that enable productivity in New Zealand – but within the caveat of meeting essential environmental limits. 

I am determined that we can grow our economy – as well as jobs and opportunities for New Zealanders – while protecting, preserving and even, enhancing our environment.

Of interest to your sector though, the Government’s focus continues to be on improving New Zealand’s recycling systems through targeted interventions and investment, with a strong emphasis on effective use of resources and delivering better environmental outcomes, that focus on the most problematic waste streams.

We’re modernising outdated waste laws so they work for today’s challenges, and giving New Zealanders efficient, cost-effective ways to reduce waste. Modern waste legislation supports a more productive economy, where materials are used rather than lost.

We are creating a flexible system that can adapt to new technologies and industry innovation.

To do this we need to keep working with the sector and communities throughout the country, to ensure we make the right investments in stronger infrastructure, collectively reduce emissions, and find practical ways to increase resource recovery and efficiency.

Today I’ll cover how achieving these priorities involves, first, getting the legislation and regulations right, and how sector input, and sector-led solutions, will play a major part in improving waste management in New Zealand.

Some of the legislative groundwork already underway includes modernising the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 and Litter Act 1979. The aim is to create more flexible options for waste management and reduction. 

Thank you to those of you who made submissions during public consultation last year.

A key proposal is to establish a framework for extended producer responsibility. 

We’re updating the existing product stewardship model to ensure continuity in managing impacts across a product’s lifecycle.

These changes will provide the tools and powers for Extended Producer Responsibility schemes which could be applied across a range of products and materials in future. 

Aside from the tangible difference they make to reducing waste, product stewardship schemes drive system and behaviour change. 

They get everyone across the supply chain thinking about taking responsibility for reducing a product’s environmental impact through its life cycle.

When you go out on a road trip anywhere in New Zealand it’s not uncommon to see used tyres discarded in paddocks or piled up high and left to the elements. I’ve long been concerned about this issue and am pleased to now be involved in the work for solutions to that and other waste management issues. 

As I mentioned earlier, I recently visited Tyrewise to see New Zealand’s first regulated product stewardship scheme. 

Astoundingly, they’ve collected over 6.7 million end-of-life tyres since becoming fully operational in September 2024.

Work is also progressing on other product stewardship schemes, like the Rural Recycling scheme for agrichemicals and their containers, and farm plastics. 

I understand Agrecovery will be presenting later today. I want to acknowledge the leadership and collaboration already driving product stewardship elsewhere.

From the long‑standing, industry‑led work of the Trust for the Destruction of Synthetic Refrigerants, to emerging proposals for large batteries, e‑waste, and plastic packaging, these initiatives show what’s possible when sectors step up together.

While ongoing co‑design is needed to keep pace with rapid change and complex products, these existing initiatives set a high benchmark for those still to come. 

The new Extended Producer Responsibility legislation is designed to build on the success of existing schemes, and enable future schemes.

We want to progress a container return scheme, but we need the legislation to be in place first so this will be a focus of mine. 

The other key legislative amendments focus on changing waste disposal levy allocations and spending options for territorial authorities, strengthening compliance, monitoring, and enforcement and having better measures for controlling littering and mismanaged waste.

We’ll have clearer roles for regulators and public authorities and we want to ensure that any interventions are proportionate to environmental harm. 

Changing the waste levy settings will mean funding is available where it will have the most impact. 

In last year’s Budget, the Government broadened how the waste levy can be used, and ensured that it would increase gradually from July. The changes mean the levy actually works for today’s challenges, funding practical actions that protect our environment – things like restoring freshwater systems, cleaning up contaminated land, and protecting valued ecosystems have already benefitted. 

Around $145 million of levy funding went towards waste minimisation across local and central government in 2024–25. This is significant in anyone’s book.

Since last year’s conference $2.3 million in emergency waste funding has also helped five councils respond to floods, storms, and damaged infrastructure.

More broadly, the waste levy continues to do some heavy lifting, funding around 50 active projects nationwide, supporting councils, conservation, emissions reduction, and the clean‑up of contaminated sites and vulnerable landfills.

The Contaminated Sites and Vulnerable Landfills Fund was launched in 2024 to replace the Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund, and is delivering real results. 

It gives councils year‑round access to support for investigating and remediating high‑risk sites. Since its launch, $21 million has been allocated for seven projects, ranging from vulnerable landfills to old mine sites. 

It’s staggering that between them, the Tāhunanui Beach and the soon to be complete Peel Forest projects have yielded almost 40,000 cubic metres of contaminated material. 

I look forward to announcing the completion of another successful remediation project in a scenic area in coming weeks.

Waste minimisation is and must remain a key Government priority, and there are promising trends in this area. 

The latest available data shows the net tonnage of waste to Class 1 landfills is the lowest reported since WMA reporting requirements began in 2009 and has dropped by a quarter from a peak in 2017.

There are also positive trends for waste sector greenhouse gas emissions, which decreased by 0.5 percent between 2023 and 2024.

This was driven by improved gas capture and changes in waste composition including reduced garden, food and paper waste​. 

Beyond the Waste Minimisation Fund – which has contributed $68 million to 43 new projects since 2024/25 – the Government will continue to support better organic waste management and landfill gas capture, which help the waste sector meet its ERP2 targets.

I’d also like to acknowledge the work WasteMINZ and the sector is doing to reduce food waste, including through the Love Food Hate Waste and Eat Me First campaigns. 

A waste issue that was on my radar long before I became the Minister for the Environment, is construction and demolition waste.

My Selwyn electorate has some of the highest housing growth nationally, with about 10,000 new houses likely in the next three to five years – and with that comes truckloads of construction and demolition waste. I wonder how much of this, and the associated plastic packaging could be diverted from landfill.

As you’ll know, C&D waste is the largest waste stream in New Zealand, and I’m sure more can be done to reduce waste in this area.

By your own numbers about 4.5 million tonnes of soil goes to landfills and cleanfills every year. This is a complex problem that impacts landfill overuse, emissions, and high project costs. 

The lack of national rules or clear guidance on soil reuse and suitable waste infrastructure compounds the problem. 

Your 2024 white paper and your recently released soil reuse report, highlight the opportunity New Zealand has to implement a comprehensive soil management framework to optimise soil reuse and minimise soils going to landfill. 

The Ministry is planning further work on the following three priority actions you identified in your report: regulatory adjustments, a soil market assessment, and soil management framework guidelines.

Your industry expertise will continue to be central to the success of the future programme and for that I thank you.

Kerbside recycling shows what’s possible when we take a coordinated approach.

Since standardisation began, public confidence that recycling is actually recycled has improved, but challenges remain. Contamination rates are still too high in some areas, costs are rising, and battery fires are a growing risk across the system.

On this last point, WasteMINZ’ recently released Small Battery Environmental Scan makes many salient recommendations, including on cross-sector governance, mandatory product stewardship schemes, stronger regulations and better data transparency and education.

Recent advisory work by the Recycling Leadership Forum highlight how important connecting industry, councils, and the recycling sector is.

I look forward to the Forum’s contributions on how government and industry can work together to address multiple challenges, and build a safer, more resilient recycling system. 

In 2024, the Government removed the 2025 deadline for the final phase of plastic packaging bans to give industry more time to transition to alternatives and ensure future regulations are workable. The change reflects feedback from stakeholders, including WasteMINZ.

A Cabinet decision is expected in the coming months, and if approved, new regulations would likely take effect in 2030, aligning with similar moves anticipated in Europe.

New Zealand is participating in negotiations on a global plastics treaty to establish an international framework to address plastic pollution in our oceans, and covering the full lifecycle of plastics.

As you’ll be aware, work continues on the Government’s wide-ranging planning system reforms. These reforms are designed to unlock growth, while still protecting our natural environment.

The change centres on replacing the RMA with a Planning Bill that will set out the rules for how land is used and developed, and a Natural Environment Bill focussed on managing the use of our natural resources and protecting the environment.

The new system will require fewer consents, clearer national rules and clear environmental limits to give everyone confidence about what can happen, where, and why.

The result will be greater consistency and certainty for businesses, iwi, communities, and local government.

The new system will be supported by modern digital tools – including a national e‑plan and e‑consenting – making information more accessible and processes more consistent and efficient.

We acknowledge that transformation on this scale is a big job. I know many WasteMINZ members working in territorial authorities are thinking carefully about how these reforms, alongside wider local government changes, will affect them and the sector more broadly.

While the Bills are still before select committee, I want to reassure you that planning for the transition is well underway. We’re already thinking about ways to support those responsible for delivering the new system.

This is about getting the transition right and making sure the system we build delivers for the future.

In December last year, the Government announced MfE, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, Ministry of Transport and the local government functions of the DIA would be unified in one agency from July 1. 

The new Ministry, MCERT will bring a joined-up approach to environment, housing, infrastructure, transport, and regional development.

Combining regulation, services and investment functions will also provide a one-stop-shop for councils and other sectors. 

I note WasteMINZ’s appreciation for MfE’s functions and expertise, and acknowledge yours and others’ concerns that environmental considerations might be diluted in this process. 

I want to assure you that environmental considerations will continue to be prioritised. The changes are structural and technical only and Ministers will still carry out responsibilities set out in various environmental legislation. 

The functions carried out under the Environment Act since 1986 when MfE was created will still exist – they are simply being transferred to the Secretary for the Environment, who will lead MCERT. 

As Minister, I am committed to ensuring the environmental voice remains strong and clearly represented within this new structure.

In closing, I want to thank you for your contributions, your commitment to innovation and your leadership. 

Together, we are building a more resilient and sustainable New Zealand for our people, our economy, and our environment. 

I wish you all the very best for the rest of the conference.

Original source: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/05/20/keynote-speech-to-wasteminz-alga-conference/

MIL OSI

Source: New Zealand Government

For the first time, the full scale and structure of New Zealand’s regulatory landscape has been mapped, exposing decades of overlap and complexity, Regulation Minister David Seymour says. 

“In New Zealand there are over 260 regulators. This includes 95 in central government, 79 in local government, and 57 statutory bodies, committees, or tribunals,” Mr Seymour says. 

“Yesterday we announced a concerted effort to make Government simpler, smaller, and more efficient. Today, we’re revealing new details for why it’s necessary. We have a twisted spaghetti of regulators who don’t just cost money to fund, but suck up people’s time and force others to give up completely.

“This analysis shows hundreds of regulatory organisations operating under hundreds of Acts, with multiple agencies often responsible for the same issue. This drives high costs, long delays and confusion, while weakening accountability.

“For years, New Zealanders have known regulation makes getting things done too slow, too complex and too costly. Now they can see why.

“The problem starts at Parliament. When the Government regulates poorly it affects government departments, councils, statutory bodies and eventually Kiwis foot the bill. It collectively shapes almost every activity in daily life.

“The result? Whether you want to build a home, start a business, or own a dog, you’re navigating a system that has gathered layer upon layer of bad regulation, for over 25 years. No one knew the scale of the problem, let alone set about fixing it. 

“The Ministry for Regulation will use this work to support a sustained programme to identify overlap, duplication and unnecessary complexity. The Ministry will maintain and progressively update the mapping ensuring it remains current, usable, and valuable over time.

“This will help agencies review regulations they are responsible for, as required by the Regulatory Standards Act 2025.  

“This will drive change in the size of Government and our mission to give taxpayers a fairer deal. Every dollar not wasted on bureaucracy is a dollar that can stay with the people who earned it or be spent on the frontline services New Zealanders actually rely on.”

Original source: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/05/20/first-ever-picture-of-new-zealands-regulatory-landscape-revealed/

Source: Green Party

The Green Party is opposing the Government’s Disability Support Services Bill, saying disabled people and whānau have once again been shut out of decisions that directly affect their lives.

“The Government introduced this Bill without consultation with disabled communities, despite acknowledging that the proposals were sensitive and directly affected disabled people and carers,” says Green Party Disability spokesperson Kahu Carter. 

“Nothing about us without us. Disabled people and whānau deserve to be part of decisions that affect our rights, wellbeing, and daily lives.” 

The Bill responds to a 2025 Supreme Court ruling, which found that some family carers were in an employment relationship with the Government while providing full-time care to disabled family members.   

“The Government’s response to the Supreme Court ruling should have been to work alongside disabled people and carers on long-term, fair solutions. Instead, they rushed through legislation that limits employment protections and legal avenues for family carers.” 

“Family carers already do an enormous amount of unpaid and often exhausting work supporting their loved ones. They deserve dignity, recognition, and proper support.” 

The Greens are also concerned that the proposed legislation contains no references to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and Enabling Good Lives principles. 

“The Supreme Court itself recognised the importance of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in its decision,” says Kahu Carter.   

“We know disabled Māori already experience inequities, and there are real concerns these changes could disproportionately impact whānau Māori carers.” 

“Disabled people and whānau deserve a government that works with them in good faith and protects the right to live with dignity in our communities.” 

“The Greens will continue standing alongside disabled communities and carers as this Bill progresses through Parliament,” says Carter. 

Original source: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/05/20/greens-oppose-rushed-disability-support-law-changes/

Source: Radio New Zealand

The government is cutting some vehicle regulations, which it says will make it easier for the country to cope with global fuel shocks.

While some permanent changes will be made now, other temporary moves are on the cards – like easing trucks’ weight restrictions.

Regulation Minister David Seymour said last month the government asked people to report any regulatory barriers that might be hindering the country’s response to the fuel crisis via the Red Tape Tipline.

The regulation and transport ministries worked together to test and progress the best ideas, he said.

“We have determined which Phase of the Government’s National Fuel Response Plan (the Plan) they should be activated in. Now, we are making changes to provide regulatory relief for Kiwis.”

Two permanent changes can be made now, Seymour said.

That included allowing Class 1 licence holders to drive heavier zero-emissions vehicles, and Class 2 licence holders to drive heavier electric buses.

That would remove obstacles for businesses using zero-emissions vehicles, which are heavier than their diesel equivalents, Seymour said.

“Fuel savings are expected to grow over time as New Zealand’s vehicle fleet incorporates more zero-emissions vehicles in response to the change.”

It would also remove permit requirements for ’50MAX’ trucks – which are higher capacity – and for relocating empty rental trucks, in a bid to slash paperwork and compliance costs, and improve freight efficiency.

Further changes would be made if the country moves up phases in the fuel plan.

They were “tougher trade-offs”, Seymour said.

In phase two, the government will temporarily relax access restrictions for oversize vehicles, allowing them to use some motorways and toll roads they currently cannot.

In phase four, it will temporarily increase weight limits for some heavy vehicles.

“This will mean heavy vehicles can carry more per weight per trip, so fewer trips are required, and fuel efficiency is increased,” Seymour said.

Transporting New Zealand has been calling for the government to ease weight restrictions.

Transport Minister Chris Bishop acknowledged if that happened, there was “no doubt” roads would suffer.

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

Original source: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/05/20/government-cuts-some-vehicle-regulations-with-more-possible/