The Green Party is condemning the Government’s decision to weaken te Tiriti o Waitangi references across 19 acts of Parliament, calling it the Stealth Treaty Principles Bill.

“New Zealanders didn’t want the Treaty Principles Bill, and they sure don’t want it by stealth,” says Green Party Co-leader Marama Davidson.

“Stripping te Tiriti out of seven acts entirely and dragging the Crown’s obligations in another ten down to the weakest possible standard, is a deliberate diminishment of the founding document of this country.

“Treaty references in legislation are how the Crown’s word gets translated into the decisions that shape whānau lives. The changes set the lowest standard the Crown can give itself. Weakening them weakens the protections people rely on every day.

“The Waitangi Tribunal has warned this Government, repeatedly, about its approach to te Tiriti. Those warnings are being ignored, along with the evidence, the history, and the weight of the agreement that founded this country.

“New Zealanders have already had their say on the Treaty Principles Bill. They submitted in record numbers, they marched in numbers this country has not seen in a generation. The Government should abandon this new Treaty Principles Bill,” says Davidson.

MIL OSI

Luxon’s decision to provide Police with the power to issue move-on orders to homeless people as young as 14 will have disastrous consequences for our country and our most vulnerable, says the Green Party. 

“Christopher Luxon has chosen to make more people homeless, and now he’s criminalising them for being homeless,” says Green Party Co-leader and Auckland Central MP, Chlöe Swarbrick.

“It costs $200,000 a year to chuck someone in prison, for worse and worse outcomes. The Government refuses to spend a fraction of that on actually supporting people who need it, which not only would improve and save lives, but also save money in the long run as people are able to get back on their feet.”

“Police have been clear they’re not social service workers. Social services are crying out for the resources to actually solve the problem. The Government responded with cuts, and now criminalisation.”

“If you want to solve homelessness, house people. Instead, Luxon’s pushed more people into homelessness and is now criminalising people for not having a home, and nowhere else to go.”

“I’ve invited Luxon for two years to the streets of Auckland Central to meet the people, including the children, who his decisions have made homeless. He’s refused to engage. Today, he’s decided to lock up those as young as 14 for the ‘crime’ of not being able to get support.”

“This is not leadership. It’s punching down on the most vulnerable people you could imagine, after ripping away their support,” says Swarbrick

MIL OSI

The Green Party is urging Prime Minister Christopher Luxon to abandon amendments to the Education and Training Act following the Waitangi Tribunal’s scathing report on the proposed changes.

“The Waitangi Tribunal has been clear: Luxon’s Government has breached its Tiriti obligations. It can no longer mask the racism in its education reforms,” says Green Party Co-leader, Marama Davidson. 

“Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a promise to take the best possible care of each other. Its place in the education of our tamariki, our taonga, our tomorrow, is not up for debate.

“Our Tribunal mātanga, our experts, have found that the failure of Luxon’s Government to engage meaningfully with Māori represents an affront to the mana of Māori.

“They have also found that these reforms have a similar purpose to the Treaty Principles Bill. If this doesn’t tell Luxon’s Government what it needs to know to immediately halt its changes, we don’t know what else can.

“The Green Party is committed to reinstating te Tiriti o Waitangi in section 127 of the Education and Training Act, re-centring Te Mātaiaho to its original intent and direction, and halting any changes to the curriculum until there has been meaningful consultation with the sector and engagement with Māori.

“In short: The Green Party is committed to upholding its obligations to te Tiriti and to our tamariki.

“The Tribunal ruled that Luxon’s Government’s Tiriti-inconsistency is calculated. We can’t let our tamariki pay the price for political games,” says Marama.

MIL OSI

The Waitangi Tribunal has heard of the violence directed at Māori women in public positions including online abuse, stalking and threats of physical violence.

The tribunal has been hearing from wāhine in leadership roles this week as part of the long-running Mana Wahine inquiry – which is examining the alleged denial of the inherent mana of Māori women and the systemic discrimination, deprivation, and inequities experienced as a result.

Among those giving evidence on Thursday was Green Party MP Tamatha Paul, who spoke of how she has been a public figure her entire adult life and had become desensitised to the violent comments she receives and was only reminded that it was not normal when her family was exposed to it.

“My partner picks me up and drops me off to everything because he doesn’t trust that someone won’t be waiting for me outside of my workplace because of everything that’s happened to me and it’s a tremendous sacrifice that he makes.”

Paul said when she was in local government the violence she experienced happened mostly online; since moving into Parliament, that violence had become real.

“The nature of the violence that I experience is not casual, it’s not someone being mean to me because they don’t like what I say and they don’t like my views. These are people who have fallen victim to extremist ideologies about women and about Māori.”

Paul said people with a fixation on her have attended public events with the intention of speaking with her.

“I’ve had messages from a person who showed up to one of my public events and told me that he was waiting by the bathrooms for me, [for] that whole event for me to go to the bathroom.

“And what happens in these situations – and they’re not just one, they are many – is that these people are referred on by Parliamentary Services to the Fixated Threat Assessment Centre, and one solution I’d like to put to the Tribunal for consideration is that this centre needs to be better resourced.”

Paul told the tribunal she wanted to put an emphasis on the experience of rangatahi.

“We live in a completely different world and I think in order for the recommendations of the tribunal to be enduring they need to consider the world that future mana wahine will live in.”

A long-runninginquiry

The Mana Wahine Kaupapa Inquiry is one of the Waitangi Tribunal’s kaupapa or thematic inquiries which deal with nationally significant issues affecting Māori as a whole.

It stems from a claim originally lodged in 1993 by 16 prominent Māori women leaders, including Dame Whina Cooper and Dame Mira Szaszy.

The central question in the inquiry is the alleged denial of the inherent mana of wāhine Māori and the systemic discrimination, deprivation, and inequities experienced as a result. Four pou frame the inquiry: rangatiratanga, whenua, whakapapa/whānau, and whai rawa.

In 2018 the chairperson of the tribunal formally initiated the Mana Wahine Kaupapa Inquiry and appointed Judge Sarah Reeves as the presiding officer, with Dr Robyn Anderson, Dr Ruakere Hond, Kim Ngarimu and Professor Linda Tuhiwai Smith appointed later as panel members.

The tribunal conducted a range of initial hearings beginning in 2021, to provide a tūāpapa (foundation) for the wider inquiry.

Hearings continue at the Tribunal on Friday.

‘If you’renot visible your experiences tend to get averaged out’

The tribunal also heard from University of Waikato professor of demography Tahu Kukutai on Thursday, who spoke about gaps in high-quality statistics about wāhine Māori.

Data was a tool of power and was absolutely indispensable in the modern world, she said

“Data makes visible groups and statistics, if you’re not visible your experiences tend to get averaged out or hidden in broader population data, so we become all women, or we become all Māori rather than wāhine Māori.”

Kukutai said there was an urgent need for Māori data sovereignty and advocated for the implementation of the Māori Data Governance Model which would see Māori data, including data about wāhine, in Māori hands.

“Data is power and I think that’s never been more true than now. And that would fundamentally mean rewiring those power relationships and vesting authority in Māori, and I think agencies will find that hard, but one of the useful things about the model is it provides a clear pathway.”

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

By; Chris McGavin*, Dr Andrew Lensen* and Dr Cassandra Mudgway*

Opinion: Nearly a year has passed since the Government released their so-called AI Strategy.

Nine months since we, along with other New Zealand AI Experts, penned an open letter to the Government calling for AI regulation and the establishment of some sort of responsible AI entity.

In that time, both a lot, and nothing has changed.

The world is still being bludgeoned by a maelstrom polycrisis. Youth unemployment, serious concerns about large scale job displacement, a global economy on a knife’s edge, and schools being mistakenly bombed are all top of mind.

These issues are increasingly linked to artificial intelligence (AI) and, whether we like it or not, it is here to stay.

For us to prosper in this ‘AI age’ we will have to, at some point, disregard the hype-cycle and engage with AI’s many unpleasantries.

In the last year alone we’ve seen instances of teenagers being encouraged to commit suicide, umpteen examples of chatbot related delusion and psychosis, chatbots assisting researchers to plan mass killings, and an almost incomprehensible increase in the amount of Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) and non-consensual sexualised images.

In fact, there is so much AI harm, that there are several resources devoted to attempting to track it.

These are human rights issues, engaging rights to privacy, freedom from discrimination and sexual exploitation, equality and dignity, and without confronting them we risk sleep-walking into a crisis of our own making.

Despite the thundering of the outside world, New Zealand’s response to these issues is largely non-existent.

The Government’s leadership on AI is lacklustre, and ignores anything that doesn’t include the words ‘productivity’ or ‘efficiency’.

The latest missed opportunity was the decision to not send an observer to this year’s Responsible AI in the Military Domain Summit.

We’ve had a presence there previously, and doing so again would have helped to maintain our reputation as a strong moral leader internationally.

It is not just the Coalition who seem flummoxed.

The majority of political parties do not appear to have any appetite for leadership when it comes to AI. In fact, of all the political parties we contacted, only The Green Party signed the letter and signaled their willingness to take part in cross-party work on responsible AI and AI regulation.

Yet, many of the parties are using AI.

Adorning their campaigns with a variety of AI generated slop to varying degrees of controversy.

Or, in their individual capacities for research which seems an odd task for a tool that hallucinates a significant amount of the time, and reduces your inclination to critically evaluate

its outputs.

The lack of engagement on AI harm is surprising.

Especially given it is an election year. The public is very clearly anxious about AI, and there is good data to back this up.

For instance, only 44 percent of New Zealanders believe the benefits of AI outweigh the risks. Only 34 percent are willing to trust AI. 52 percent are very concerned about AIs impact on society, and a whopping 81 percent of New Zealanders believe AI regulation is required.

As a nation, we are already failing to address the near-term impacts of AI.

Worse still, we have yet to even consider how we might tackle its long term impacts, such as worker displacement (both entry level and later-career) and other AI safety risks.

It goes without saying that in the absence of any political will or impetus none of this will change.

The unfortunate truth is large technology companies do not care about New Zealand. They will not, of their own volition, do anything to ensure that New Zealanders remain safe from AI harms.

It is not their prerogative; their sole goal is wealth extraction. They will bend over backwards to distance themselves from any potential wrongdoings, as they have always done.

In place of accountability, they will promise us the world: for example, a $102 billion dollar boon for our economy if we use their tools. This promise, of course, ignores the fact that their AI tools have failed to live up to the hype.

The vast majority of organisations are not seeing any return on investment from AI. Our public sector reports much the same: they are not getting a return from AI, and most of their proofs of concepts are not working.

We cannot expect technology companies to provide safer AI which uphold human rights.

We have seen other countries like Australia succeed in pushing back. We can and should expect our leaders to do the same.

This election year, we sincerely hope they do. It is vital that you, the voters, consider their policies on AI when casting your ballot. They will listen if you demand it.

*Chris McGavinis director at LensenMcGavin AI

*Dr Andrew Lensen, Victoria University of Wellington, LensenMcGavinAI

*Dr Cassandra Mudgway, University of Canterbury

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

The Prime Minister’s pre-Budget speech today confirms a Government that has chosen to scapegoat migrants and shield corporate profit while New Zealanders struggle to pay the bills, says the Green Party.

“Christopher Luxon has made his choice. Blame migrants for the problems of the world in order to protect corporate profits driving the cost-of-living crisis,” says Green Party Co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick.  

“Luxon talked about the patterns playing out around the world right now, highlighting far-right anti-immigration fear mongering. He very intentionally side-stepped the reality of the billionaires reaping record profit at the expense of people and planet, and financially backing those very parties blaming migrants.” 

“After trying to tie us ever-closer to the Trump administration, he’s now doing a Trump impression. This playbook always ends the same way. Working people get the blame, big business gets the spoils.”

“Cutting operational spending while talking up private capital tells you exactly whose side this Government is on. It is not the side of the whānau choosing between heating and eating tonight.”

“New Zealanders deserve a Government that takes on the corporate price-gougers and invests in the people and the public services that hold this country together.”

“Luxon has confirmed today that his final Budget won’t serve regular people. But I guess he’s never understood that to be his job.” 

“New Zealanders deserve so much better,” says Swarbrick. 

MIL OSI

National’s partners ACT and New Zealand First have taken a tumble in support in the latest Taxpayers’ Union-Curia poll, but the coalition bloc is still holding its lead.

Under the results, released on Tuesday, the government bloc would receive 62 seats, down three since April, compared to the opposition bloc on 58, up three.

Labour remained the most popular party on 31.9 percent, but took a sizeable knock since the last survey, dropping 1.5 points.

National edged up 0.2 points to hit 30 percent. New Zealand First was down 1.9 points to 11.7 percent.

The Green Party was in fourth spot on 9.7 percent, also down 1.9 points, while ACT took the biggest hit, down 2.5 points to 6.5 percent.

Te Pāti Māori came in at 4.1 percent, up 1.5 points.

On those numbers, National would bring 39 MPs into Parliament. They would be joined by 15 MPs from New Zealand First and eight from ACT, to make a 62-strong coalition.

Labour would pick up 41 MPs but would not have a pathway to power, even with the 12 Green MPs and five from Te Pāti Māori.

On the preferred prime minister measure, National’s Christopher Luxon retook the lead, climbing 1 point to 21.5 percent. Labour’s Chris Hipkins dropped 2.7 points to 19 percent.

New Zealand First’s Winston Peters is in third spot, on 11.6 percent, down 0.5 points.

The poll was conducted by Curia Market Research Ltd for the NZ Taxpayers’ Union. It is a random poll of 1,000 adult New Zealanders and is weighted to the overall adult population. It was conducted by phone (landlines and mobile) and online between Sunday 03 May and Thursday 07 May 2026. It has a maximum margin of error of +/- 3.1%. The number of decided voters on the vote questions was 914. There were 49 (4.9 percent) undecided voters and 37 (3.7 percent) who refused the vote question.

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

The Government’s surprise announcement this morning to amend the Climate Change Response Act is yet another example of Luxon loosening the leash for corporate profits at the expense of our people and our planet, the Green Party says.

“Luxon’s Government is using its dying breaths to unravel New Zealanders’ right to hold big polluters accountable,” says the Green Party Co-leader and Climate Change spokesperson, Chlöe Swarbrick. 

 “While New Zealanders are demanding affordable power bills and decent jobs, Luxon’s Government has decided to prioritise protecting big polluters’ profits in the limited parliamentary time before the election.” 

 “That tells us everything we need to know about who they work for. It’s the corporations ripping us off and destroying the ecosystems necessary for life as we know it.” 

 “Luxon’s Government shows it can act with urgency when their mates’ profits are at risk, while New Zealanders’ cost-of-living concerns stay on the backburner.” 

 “They’ve spent two and a half years taking a wrecking ball to climate laws and, at the eleventh hour, they’re now ripping away New Zealanders’ and the courts’ ability to do what this Government lacks the spine to do.” 

 “Our country deserves so much better than this shady cookery,” Swarbrick says. 

MIL OSI

The government still intends to pass legislation to liberalise gene technology laws, but cross-party disagreement is slowing the controversial reform.

The Gene Technology Bill sought to end an effective 30-year ban on the use of genetic technologies outside the laboratory, currently regulated by the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO).

Transgenics and new breeding techniques like gene editing were currently legal in Aotearoa, but heavily regulated and kept within confined laboratory conditions.

The Bill, first proposed in late 2024, featured in the National party’s coalition agreements with both ACT and New Zealand First.

Last year, 15,000 people made public submissions on the bill, with most opposing it.

Following that, the Health Select Committee released its report in October, recommending that the bill proceeded, and it now rested with Cabinet ministers negotiating possible amendments.

It was originally intended that the legislation would be passed by the end of 2025.

But a date for its second reading was still unconfirmed, as the Bill stalled in the lead-up to the general election in November.

Such delays could be down to a lack of majority support to take the Bill to second reading, or the Parliamentary Counsel Office that drafted legislation might need extra time to develop complex changes being put forward.

Meanwhile, the new Leader of the House – National’s Louise Upston – said the government intended to progress all legislation on the Order Paper.

ACT supportive, but wants Māori committee scrapped

A spokesperson for the ACT Party said it saw real opportunity in liberalising gene technology.

“Modernising these laws would give our agricultural sector and scientists the tools they need to stay globally competitive,” they said.

But the party did not support the establishment of a Māori Technical Advisory Committee, as the bill proposed, around which discussions were ongoing.

“Our issue with the Bill as it stands is that it risks tying up that scientific and economic potential in co-governed bureaucracy.

“The Bill has not yet advanced to its second reading and it remains with Cabinet, where decisions on its progress or timeline will be made.”

Improvements to human, environmental protections needed – New Zealand First

As part of its coalition agreement with National, New Zealand First agreed to liberalise genetic engineering laws, while ensuring strong protections for human health and the environment.

The party said previously it would withhold support for the bill, unless major changes towards improving these protections were made.

Its office told RNZ the stance had not changed and it was still undertaking party consultation on it.

In November, party leader Winston Peters addressed hundreds of people on Parliament steps who gathered to oppose the Bill.

“What we’ve said is this Bill’s going nowhere unless we’re satisfied and we’re confident that it doesn’t represent any danger,” he told the crowd last year.

“Let me tell you, if the Bill can’t be fixed up, it won’t be going ahead.”

Bill proposes ‘rushed’ approach to risky outdoor uses – Labour

RNZ understands National had been in talks with Labour to try to come to some agreement.

Labour’s Reuben Davidson said while there was broad agreement that gene technology regulations were outdated, reform must carefully balance innovation with protection.

“This reform was an opportunity to modernise our framework in a way that strengthened New Zealand’s science system, honoured Māori perspectives, safeguarded our primary industries, and protected our international reputation.

“The Bill, in its current form, does not achieve that balance.”

Davidson said the Bill proposed a rushed approach, bundling together widely supported applications of gene science, like in medical research or industrial fermentation, with far riskier outdoor uses.

“If the government was functional, the Bill would have been passed already, but the coalition can’t agree on outcomes,” he said.

“Once again National have allowed internal bickering to get in the way of what they promised.”

The Green Party did not support what Steve Abel labelled as ‘radical de-regulation’ that risked the country’s GMO-free status marketed globally.

National says negotiations ongoing

Since the Bill was first introduced by then-Minister for Science Innovation and Technology, Judith Collins, the National-held portfolio had changed hands among ministers.

Minister Shane Reti took over the role, but with both he and Collins announcing their retirement from politics throughout 2026, incumbent minister Penny Simmonds now held the portfolio alongside Tertiary Education (and Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment).

When asked a parliamentary question by the Greens last month, if amendments or changes were intended for the Bill, Simmonds said it was still under active consideration.

Simmonds told RNZ in a statement that negotiations were ongoing.

“Negotiations and subsequent policy changes as a result of the public select committee process, are ongoing,” she said.

“We’ll have more to say soon.”

GMO environmental release concerns organic farmers

Biotechnological benefits from reformed gene technology laws could include for plant and seed production, emissions mitigations and improved productivity, as touted by Collins.

But the reform would also bid farewell to New Zealand’s GMO-free status

Allowing field releases of GMOs into the environment caused concern among organic producers, a sector worth $1.2 billion – half of which are exports.

Hawkes Bay farmer Scott Lawson of Lawson’s True Earth Organics told a webinar held by industry group Organics Aotearoa New Zealand last month that New Zealanders were largely unaware of how vulnerable to sector was to the reform.

“People are aware of the organic industry, but they’re not aware of just how big we are, how important we are… and how vulnerable we are to the impact of something like this Gene Tech Bill. Because once released there is no containment, no co-existence.”

As it stood, an independent regulator would be set up within the Environmental Protection Authority to assess applications for using these technologies in the environment.

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

The Green Party is calling on the Government to use every tool they have as shareholding Ministers of the major gentailers to bring power bills down before winter, after new data shows tens of thousands more households can’t afford to keep warm.

“No New Zealander should be left in the cold and dark this winter while the Government’s own power companies are banking record profits,” says Green Party Co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick. 

In a letter to both Ministers, Swarbrick sets out the steps the Government can take immediately to keep whānau warm and connected this winter. 

“The time for tough talk is over.  Luxon’s Government have every tool they need to bring bills down. With winter weeks away, we’re asking they use those tools now.” 

MBIE’s most recent energy hardship data shows 65,000 more households could not afford to keep their home adequately warm in the past year. 44,000 more could not pay their gas, electricity or water bills on time. 23,000 more were living with damp and mould as a major problem. 

Compared to 2021, 100,000 more households now cannot afford to keep their home adequately warm, and 156,000 are putting up with feeling cold a lot to cut costs. 

“Brown and Willis aren’t innocent bystanders to this hardship. They can use their powers as majority owners of the gentailers, or they’re choosing to keep power bills and profits high,” says Swarbrick. 

The OECD last week recommended the Government put in place an ownership strategy that prioritises secure, sustainable, and affordable electricity over dividends, and warned that gentailer payout ratios are too high. 

“This Government has the power, they have the data, and they have an OECD recommendation handed to them this week. The Greens are calling on them to act before winter sets in,” says Swarbrick. 

Green Party energy spokesperson Scott Willis says the policy tools to bring bills down are already in place, and there is no excuse for delay heading into winter. 

“The Ministers can write to the boards of Meridian, Genesis, and Mercury this week and require them to scale up their energy hardship programmes. As the controlling shareholder, there’s nothing stopping the Government from doing exactly that.” 

“They can call on the gentailers not to raise retail prices higher than inflation. Households cannot keep absorbing rises like the 12 per cent we’ve just seen while the gentailers post hundreds of millions in profit.” 

“No household should be disconnected from the network solely because they can’t afford their power bill. The Government can put that protection in place tomorrow,” says Willis. 

Swarbrick says, “We’ve given the Government a plan to immediately reduce the cost-of-living and New Zealanders’ power bills.  They either choose to use their power and act, or keep profits high by continuing to allow the fleecing of New Zealanders.” 

MIL OSI

Green Party Co-leader Marama Davidson says the Government is callously trading away New Zealanders’ education opportunities to pay for tax cuts for the super-rich.

“Unemployment has soared since Luxon came to power, and the situation is even worse for our young people,” Davidson says. 

“While Luxon, Peters and Seymour have no hesitation in undermining New Zealanders’ dreams of contributing to society, the Green Party will fight to properly fund the aspirations of our youth and students.  

“Over 14% of New Zealand’s young people are not in work or education but instead of helping people stay in study, the Government is snatching away the funding that supports and incentivises tertiary education.  

“At a time when tens of thousands of our young people are fleeing offshore for better opportunities, we need to be investing more in them not less,” Davidson says.   

“’Fees free’ recognised the benefit to Aotearoa of tertiary education and snatching this away is a clear sign of the lack of value this Government places on learning. 

“Putting aside Peters’ obvious intent to destroy his own Government, this is yet another example of National, Act and NZ First making ordinary New Zealanders pay to subsidise the super-rich.” 

MIL OSI

The Environment Select Committee has recommended disestablishing the Ministry for the Environment, despite overwhelming public opposition.

In its report, the committee said the creation of a new Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport mega ministry under a bill currently before Parliament would not significantly change the functions of the current ministry.

The committee received 588 written submissions. All but five submissions were overtly opposed to the bill.

It has recommended by majority that the bill be passed, despite strong opposition from Labour and Green Party members.

The Green Party members slammed the bill as ”yet another action by the most anti-environment government that Aotearoa New Zealand has ever had.”

The Labour Party members said they were ”appalled by the constant attacks on the environment by this government.”

Greens environment spokesperson Lan Pham said the government’s plan to get rid of the Ministry is ”an absolute travesty for New Zealand.”

”The Ministry for the Environment was established because years ago New Zealanders decided that a voice for the environment at the heart of government was actually essential. It was established at the same time as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, reflecting how important New Zealanders believed environmental oversight should be,” she said.

”Now, this government is pushing to bury that Ministry inside a mega-ministry focused on development and economic growth, despite no party campaigning on this and overwhelming opposition from experts, iwi and communities.”

Pham also raised concerns about transparency.

”We had no assurance as a Select Committee, for example, that expenditure that comes from government that goes towards the Ministry for the Environment will actually be transparent and clear.”

The bill is expected to return to Parliament for its second reading on Tuesday.

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

The Green Party has criticised the government’s decision to scrap the fees-free tertiary education scheme.

Finance Minister Nicola Willis has confirmed the scheme will be ditched in the upcoming Budget, following comments made by NZ First Leader Winston Peters on Newstalk ZB.

“Ongoing coalition negotiations have led to good budget policy decisions that further the immediate and long-term interests of New Zealanders,” she said.

Willis also confirmed students completing their tertiary studies this year would remain eligible for fees-free, but many of those students completing three-year-courses or longer had already had their first year free.

At the end of 2024, the government modified the system, offering students their last year free, rather than the first, as it was when Labour first introduced the policy.

Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson told RNZ the government should be investing more in the future of young people, not less.

“This is absolutely outrageous – another kick in the guts for our generations of young people particularly and anyone who wants to dream about giving back to their community.”

The Greens would fight to re-instate fees-free support, she said.

“The Greens know that it is a fantastic, wise, smart investment to invest in tertiary education for students and our communities.”

The government should be incentivising tertiary study, given more than 14 percent of young people were not in work or education, she said.

Students disappointed, not surprised

Victoria University Student Association president Aidan Donoghue said he was disappointed the scheme was getting the axe, but not surprised.

“We’ve continually seen attacks on students from this government and this is just another example.”

Fees free encouraged some students to enter or continue study, because debt was a deterring factor, he said.

“To pay an extra $12,000 in fees is not a good pill to swallow.”

Scrapping the scheme would have a particularly tough impact on those from lower-income backgrounds, Donoghue said.

“Students have been calling for more money week-to-week and… we’re not sure that this will be replaced with anything else that will address the concerns of students with the cost of living.”

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

The Green Party has criticised the government’s decision to scrap the fees-free tertiary education scheme.

Finance Minister Nicola Willis has confirmed the scheme will be ditched in the upcoming Budget, following comments made by NZ First Leader Winston Peters on Newstalk ZB.

“Ongoing coalition negotiations have led to good budget policy decisions that further the immediate and long-term interests of New Zealanders,” she said.

Willis also confirmed students completing their tertiary studies this year would remain eligible for fees-free, but many of those students completing three-year-courses or longer had already had their first year free.

At the end of 2024, the government modified the system, offering students their last year free, rather than the first, as it was when Labour first introduced the policy.

Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson told RNZ the government should be investing more in the future of young people, not less.

“This is absolutely outrageous – another kick in the guts for our generations of young people particularly and anyone who wants to dream about giving back to their community.”

The Greens would fight to re-instate fees-free support, she said.

“The Greens know that it is a fantastic, wise, smart investment to invest in tertiary education for students and our communities.”

The government should be incentivising tertiary study, given more than 14 percent of young people were not in work or education, she said.

Students disappointed, not surprised

Victoria University Student Association president Aidan Donoghue said he was disappointed the scheme was getting the axe, but not surprised.

“We’ve continually seen attacks on students from this government and this is just another example.”

Fees free encouraged some students to enter or continue study, because debt was a deterring factor, he said.

“To pay an extra $12,000 in fees is not a good pill to swallow.”

Scrapping the scheme would have a particularly tough impact on those from lower-income backgrounds, Donoghue said.

“Students have been calling for more money week-to-week and… we’re not sure that this will be replaced with anything else that will address the concerns of students with the cost of living.”

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

A law professor and a media expert say David Seymour has gone too far in public attacks against RNZ and TVNZ.

They’ve warned jabs at the media will continue as the election draws closer, and could erode public trust.

The deputy Prime Minister and ACT party leader spoke to The Platform last week, taking swings at both state broadcasters’ management.

He criticised the appointment of RNZ’s Morning Report host John Campbell and suggested RNZ’s chief executive Paul Thompson could lose his job, adding “it’s really critical that we are ensuring that we get better people on the board, and those people will change the management.”

He also accused TVNZ of being “politically motivated”.

Seymour is a shareholding minister in both RNZ and TVNZ, and the law says ministers cannot give direction to the state broadcasters.

Seymour told RNZ he had not done that.

“Decisions around staffing, presenter line-ups, and editorial matters are for boards and management. Anyone who thinks RNZ is taking editorial instructions from me clearly does not listen to RNZ.”

He said editorial independence did not, however, mean “freedom from accountability”, adding ministers are entitled to comment “when publicly owned media organisations are losing audience, relevance, or public confidence”.

Media commentator and former New Zealand Herald editor Gavin Ellis said Seymour crossed the line, and while it may not have been explicit direction, it was against the spirit of the law.

“He is effectively telling Radio New Zealand who they should employ in an editorial role, and that is simply not for him to do,” Ellis said.

“He should back off.”

Seymour’s comments came in the wake of a tumultuous couple of weeks for the relationship between the coalition government and the media.

Ellis warned there would be more to follow.

“The closer the call at the election, the more likely it is that we will see attempts to exert a chilling effect on media … to get them to stay clear of the contentious stuff, because … they’re under pressure,” he said.

He was confident the media would not bow to any pressure, but said it would not help with public trust.

AUT’s annual media trust survey last month found 37 percent of respondents trust “most of the news, most of the time” – up from 32 percent last year.

It found RNZ was the country’s most trusted news brand, followed by the Otago Daily Times and TVNZ.

“It’s a very, very delicate situation, and it won’t take very much to push that that trust level back down again, which is another reason why politicians should refrain from doing so,” said Ellis.

“It is in nobody’s interest to have low trust in media.”

Otago University law professor Andrew Geddis said Seymour appeared to indicate he wanted to stack RNZ’s board to his advantage, which was legally questionable and undermined his claims he wants to rebuild public trust in RNZ.

“It’s very hard to see how the public can trust a public broadcaster when you have a politician saying, ‘I’m putting my people in charge of it, to get the people and the presenters telling you the news that I want them to tell’,” he said.

Geddis also suspected the coalition would continue its criticism of the media.

“There’s a rule in politics, that when politicians start attacking the media, they know they’re losing,” he said.

“They know that they’re going down in the polls, and they’re trying to find someone to blame.”

‘Entirely inappropriate’

Labour’s media spokesperson Reuben Davidson said Seymour’s comments “were entirely inappropriate and but not surprising, coming from a government that’s become very anti media.”

He added it was particularly concerning given the government planned to scrap the Broadcasting Standards Authority and not replace it with an independent regulator.

Green Party co-leader Chloe Swarbrick said Seymour’s comments set a “deeply dangerous precedent” with a member of Cabinet challenging editorial independence.

“We just simply can’t have ministers threatening our publicly funded news agencies because they don’t like what is being said about them or what’s being reported on,” she said.

“This is a really problematic pattern of behaviour that’s been exhibited by members of this government for not only the past few weeks, but the past few months and the past few years.”

In response to Seymour’s comments, RNZ’s board chair Jim Mather defended its editorial independence and warned against political interference.

TVNZ said it did not have a view.

Media minister Paul Goldsmith said ministers cannot get involved in operational matters.

He said the government’s role is to appoint the board and set expectations about financial sustainability, growing audience numbers and improving trust levels.

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

The Green Party says the Government is bringing in the bulldozers to rip up New Zealand’s precious landscapes by making it easier to privatise public conservation land.

“This Government has made it clear that when forced to choose between the interests of industry or the interests of the law, the public, and the environment, it will always choose the bulldozer,” says Green Party Co-leader and spokesperson for conservation Marama Davidson. 

“Conservation land will be able to be sold off to mining companies and developers to make a quick buck under the changes announced today.” 

“Over half of New Zealand conservation land will be eligible for land exchange and disposal under the new settings. This is a betrayal for future generations who will no longer have access to these significant environments.”   

“This is a Government that talks up our love of the outdoors while quietly handing the keys to anyone with a chequebook and a chainsaw.” 

“Under, the changes to the Conservation Act we will see less protection, less oversight, less land safe for the species and ecosystems that depend on it.” 

“This is all happening while our native species are already threatened or at risk of extinction.” 

“Our native taonga should be treasured. They connect us to our whenua and whakapapa, and form a critical component of our national identity.” 

“When nature is only valued for its economic benefit, the outcome is inevitable: destruction.”

MIL OSI

The ACT Party has overtaken Labour as the party that recorded the second largest amount in donations, with the Electoral Commission releasing the 2025 donation and loans returns.

National was once again far out in front when it came to total donations.

Since 2023, parties have had to report the names of donors and contributors who gave more than $5000, down from $15,000 in previous years.

This has changed to $6000 since 1 January 2026, but that will not be seen until next year’s publication of returns.

The figures, which make up the 2025 calendar year and must be filed by 30 April 2026, show the parties received these amounts:

• National: $6,275,234.46
• ACT: $2,445,225.79
• Labour: $2,403,241.93
• Green Party: $1,848,678.65
• NZ First: $1,360,272.56
• Opportunity Party: $179,401.24
• Te Pāti Māori: $141,986.50
• Animal Justice Party: $12,707.95
• Women’s Rights Party: $9650.50
• Conservative Party NZ: $9519.73
• NewZeal (no longer registered): $8,796.00
• Vision New Zealand: $6718.43
• Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party: $336.00
• NZ Outdoors and Freedom: $270.00

The largest recorded donation was to National, with $210,000 coming from the late Nelson philanthropist Robert Wares.

ACT’s largest donation in 2025 was $200,000 from tech entrepreneur Brian Cartmell, who also donated $201,993,91 to National, and $204,999 to New Zealand First.

RNZ has earlier reported Cartmell donated $100,000 to the Opportunity Party, though this was received this year and so is not disclosed on the 2025 donations return.

Labour’s largest donations came from the Mills Family Trust, which donated $125,000.

Trustee Phillip Mills, founder of gym chain Les Mills, made personal donations to Labour and the Greens as well.

The largest donation to the Greens in 2025 was $132,000, from entrepreneur Robert Morgan.

Te Pāti Māori president John Tamihere was his party’s largest donor, donating $60,000.

Broadcasting allocations released

The Commission has also released its decision on broadcasting funding allocations for election year.

Those allocations go towards election advertising on radio, television, and online.

The allocation is decided based on votes at the previous election, the number of MPs a party has, the relationships that exist between parties, indications of public support such as opinion poll results and party membership, and the need to provide a fair opportunity for each party to convey its policies to the public.

It means National has the largest allocation this year, with $1,079,519.

Labour follows on $913,435, the Greens have $394,438, ACT has $332,158, New Zealand First has $290,639, and Te Pāti Māori has $228,359.

For parties outside Parliament, the Opportunity Party leads with $114,179, with New Zealand Loyal behind it on $83,040 despite currently being an unregistered party.

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

The Green Party says today’s National Climate Change Risk Assessment from the Climate Change Commission confirms Luxon’s failure to act on climate is driving up the cost of living for New Zealanders.

“Luxon likes to talk about preparing New Zealand for a rainy day. The Commission is clear that he is refusing to invest in an umbrella,” says Green Party Co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick.  

“This independent, expert assessment shows that Luxon’s climate adaptation ‘plans’ are mere window dressing.” 

“The numbers are sobering: 97 per cent of government spending on natural hazards goes on responding to disasters, and only 3 per cent on building resilience.” 

“Luxon’s Government has actively chosen to stay in react-and-recover mode, deciding at Cabinet in October last year to delay any meaningful investment in resilience, planning or cost-sharing until after the election.” 

“The Commission is telling us that the choice is whether New Zealanders keep paying to clean up the same damage over and over again, or we put that money into building resilience now.” 

“Luxon’s Government has chosen the first option. They have cut flood protection spending almost in half while climate disasters become more frequent and severe.” 

“The Commission says the need for guidance on how communities will pay for climate adaptation is ‘urgent’. Yet, Climate Change Minister Simon Watts has confirmed cost-sharing decisions will not be made until the next term of Government.” 

“New Zealanders are already facing more disruption from storms, rain, landslides, drought and sea-level rise. Every dollar we fail to invest in resilience now is a dollar communities pay back many times over when the next event hits.” 

“New Zealanders deserve an honest Government that does the real work to fix the climate and cost-of-living crises,” says Swarbrick. 

MIL OSI

Explainer – You’re reading this in English right now – but should English be an official language? Parliament is soon set to decide.

A long-running debate on the status of the most commonly spoken language in New Zealand is nearing its climax in Parliament, as the English Language Act works its way through the House.

During a fiery debate in Parliament back in February at the first reading, New Zealand First leader Winston Peters made his case for the bill while many opposition MPs firmly denounced it.

Peters called it a “common sense idea” and has said it fills an anomaly where Māori and English Sign Language are already both codified as official languages in New Zealand, but English is not specifically.

Others disagree. “Language is being used as a political football here,” said Dr Sharon Harvey, an associate professor specialising in applied linguistics at Auckland University of Technology.

The bill is currently before select committee with a report due to be presented on 3 September. The next step is a second reading of the bill and it’s likely it would come to a final vote before November’s election.

But what would the bill actually do? Here’s what you need to know.

What does the bill say?

Bills are often pretty darned long, but this one can actually be summed up right here – it’s only five lines.

It calls for Parliament to enact the English Language Act 2025, and says, “The purpose of this Act is to provide legislative recognition of the status of English as an official language of New Zealand” and that the Act would bind the Crown.

That’s it.

What would the bill actually do?

“The bill is so short because it doesn’t actually have any legal effect that needs spelt out in detail,” University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said. “It will have literally no practical consequences at all.

“That isn’t an exaggeration – it will change absolutely no aspect of Aotearoa New Zealand’s current legal rules, practices or procedures. It’s the linguistic equivalent of passing an Act of Parliament that says: ‘The official colour of the New Zealand Rugby Team’s home jersey is black.’”

The bill doesn’t lay out any instructions, punishments or restrictions on other languages. It would add English as an official language alongside Te Reo Māori – which was designated in the Māori Language Act in 1987 – and English Sign Language, designated in the New Zealand Sign Language Act of 2006.

“While the bill is pretty slim in terms of its content it does serve symbolically at least to cast in legislation the pre-eminence of the already dominant and majoritarian language of NZ: English,” Harvey said.

Legislatively, it would not affect Māori and ESL, Geddis said, as they have “separately guaranteed (but limited) rights to use those languages”.

“Legislative language recognition was hard won for both Māori and the deaf community and so the English Language Bill also minimises the historical and contemporaneous importance of those difficult and long language struggles,” Harvey said.

As written, the bill wouldn’t even affect, for instance, signs that include Chinese language at some popular tourist spots, Geddis said.

“That legislative recognition does not add anything to English’s existing legal role and usage. You can use English for any official, public business now. If this bill passes, you will continue to be able to do so. Nothing will have changed.”

Watch: Winston Peters introduces the English Language Act.

[embedded content]

If nothing will change, why was this bill introduced?

Making English an official language was part of the coalition agreement between National, NZ First and ACT back in 2023.

Former NZ First MP Clayton Mitchell put forth a similar member’s bill in 2018 but it was never drawn from the ballot.

New Zealand First has pushed for such recognition for some time.

Did you know that English is not an official language? Well, we’re changing that by delivering on a key campaign promise – we are making English an official language of New Zealand. We will continue to fight for common sense ideas and work in the interests of all New Zealanders. pic.twitter.com/ki3dDh8tDI

— New Zealand First (@nzfirst) December 14, 2023

In introducing the current bill, Peters said that it’s correcting an “anomaly” that English is not included with the other two official languages.

“It has never been formally recognised in statute as an official language. This bill seeks to correct that anomaly, providing consistency in legal framework and clarifying the status of all three official languages in legislation.

“The bill does not diminish the status of other official languages, te reo Māori and New Zealand Sign Language, but rather complements them, acknowledging the linguistic reality of our nation.”

Peters said the bill is “affirming the value of English as a shared means of communication used by the mass majority of the population – I’ll say it again quietly: used by the mass majority of the population.”

Although his name is actually on the bill as the MP in charge, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith previously told RNZ that it wasn’t a top priority for National and did not speak at the first reading.

“It wouldn’t be the top priority for us, absolutely not. But it’s something in the coalition and it’s getting done.”

Peters has said that the rise in te reo Māori has “has created situations that encourage misunderstanding and confusion for all, and all for the purpose to push a narrative”.

“We have some very real situations now where communications and names of important services are using te reo as primary names and language, and the room for confusion and miscommunication is huge.”

He cited the possibility of confusion where places have had primary names in Māori.

“First responders, on their vehicles and in communications, being unable to get to places because they don’t know where they’re going; transport services with important road signs – they have all announced that.”

Harvey disagreed, saying the dynamic of Māori and English is what makes New Zealand special.

“Te reo Māori only exists in ANZ and so if it does not survive and flourish here it will not survive.”

“Most of us would recognise that Te Whatu Ora means health especially if it’s heading a letter with health information or is signage on a public hospital,” she said.

“There is no ‘danger’ to English now or in the future. Apart from anything else it is the pre-eminent global language.

“It would be so much better for NZ if we could all gain high proficiency in te reo Māori (as well as English) and if schools could be proactive in supporting students’ home languages, as well as teaching a variety of languages.”

Is English language use becoming a “culture war” issue?

Well, people on both sides of the debate of the current bill have accused the other of “virtue signalling.”

In Parliament, Peters said that “This bill won’t solve the push of this virtue signalling narrative completely, but it is the first step towards ensuring logic and common sense prevails when the vast majority of New Zealanders communicate in English and understand English in a country that should use English as its primary and official language.”

“The (bill) is virtue signalling to a small, monolingual in English, sector of the voting public by NZ First,” Harvey said. “It’s a waste of public money and time and should never have been agreed to as part of the National-NZ First coalition agreement.”

Debate at the first reading was equally heated.

“The English language is not under threat,” said Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick. “We are literally speaking it and debating in it right now. This is a bill which is an answer to a problem that does not exist.”

“The government wants to stoke a fight between te iwi Māori and Pākehā, and they want that fight to be the focus of this election,” she claimed.

At the debate, National MP Rima Nakhle called for calmer temperatures.

“We’re only making English official. It’s not the end of the world.”

Geddis said “the bill seems to be motivated by an odd form of linguistic jealousy – something akin to ‘it’s not fair that those languages get called official in a statute, but English doesn’t!’”

New Zealand First’s 2023 coalition agreement with National also stipulated that public service departments have their primary name in English and be required to communicate “primarily in English” except for entities specifically related to Māori. It has been seen in changes to how agencies such as the New Zealand Transport Agency or Health New Zealand are referred to.

Peters has also been vocal about the use of “Aotearoa” to refer to New Zealand by other MPs.

Other countries like Australia and the United Kingdom do not have any official laws on the books declaring English an official language, although it has de facto official status in government, courts and education.

In America, Donald Trump signed an executive order last year “designating English as an official language of the United States.” But as the decision was not passed by Congress and is an executive order, it doesn’t have the power to change existing federal laws and statutes. Around 30 US states also have proclaimed English the official language.

Will the English Language Act pass?

It’s unclear. It is part of the coalition agreement so National and ACT may be obliged to support it.

“Being that we are an English-speaking country, it is bizarre that we have to do this, but this is how far this extremism has taken our country,” Peters said in 2023 before the last election as he pledged to pass the bill that may finally be law soon.

“The bill very well may be rushed into law during the inevitable end-of-term use of urgency in the House,” Geddis said.

“Given current frosty relations between National and NZ First, there could well be some coalition partner reluctance to give NZ First time in Parliament to proceed with what really is nothing more than a form of legislative virtue signalling to its support base,” he said.

“Although National have publicly said they’re not concerned whether the bill passes or not, I think there is every chance it will pass which will be a great shame for NZ,” Harvey said.

“It’s a waste of the government’s time and considerably sets back New Zealand’s progress in righting the wrongs of our violent, colonial past.”

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

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

Fisheries Minister Shane Jones overrode official advice a $50,000 fine for leaking footage from fishing boat cameras – five times the penalty under the Privacy Act – would be “unreasonable”.

The Ministry of Justice also warned the Minister that trying to protect the footage from reaching the public – including by imposing the fine, barring Official Information requests from accessing the footage, and limiting judicial reviews to 20 days – could breach the Bill of Rights, although the formal vetting of the legislation is yet to be done.

The changes limiting judicial review were not included in the public consultation, but will be consulted on now the bill has gone to select committee, with submissions closing on Wednesday.

Documents released under the Official Information Act show Jones requested such fines – to be levelled against people who received the footage from the Ministry for Primary Industries and shared it – be set at a maximum $50,000.

Jones was unapologetic, saying the high fine was aimed at protecting the industry.

“It’s a figure that I chose to show how dangerous it is for people to manipulate, misuse information that I fear will be exploited to taint and undermine the fishing industry,” Jones told RNZ.

“It’s about ensuring that only the state enforces rules and regulations, not green vigilantes or DIY prosecutors believing that recreational fishing is suffering because of commercial fishing. I’ve had enough of that nonsense.”

He pushed back on the concerns about human rights.

“This is a fishing industry – a legitimate part of our economy – it is now under a type of state surveillance: widespread video camera footage taken of men and women going about their daily lives on a fishing boat.

“I do not accept that that information should be made freely available to anyone other than the state or in rare circumstances, researchers or educators, so I think that it’s a violation of people’s human rights as employees in an industry that state surveillance information should be given indiscriminately to people who will weaponise it.”

The documents show Ministry of Justice officials warned the $50,000 fine would be “unreasonable, and that a maximum fine between $5000 and $10,000 would be more appropriate”, as this would align with the $10,000 fine for failures to comply with the Privacy Act.

The Office of the Ombudsman also “strongly reiterated to MPI that it does not support exempting on-board camera footage from the Official Information Act, noting that “an OIA exemption may curtail fundamental human and constitutional rights to access information without sufficient justification”.

‘Out of whack’

Green Party fisheries spokesperson Teanau Tuiono said Jones’ overall intention was to limit people’s ability to hold the government to account.

“He’s just protecting fishing companies and their exploitation-laden profits – that seems to be more important than protecting the ocean for our future generations.

“He seems to be more worried about finding people who might leak footage of people breaking the law, rather than the actual law-breaking itself.”

Tuiono said he wanted to find out what justifications there could be for having such a high fine, acknowledging protection of privacy was important, but saying with one commercial fisher fined just $3000 for illegal trawling that the balance was wrong.

“It looks completely out of whack to me,” he said. “You can protect people’s privacy because that is an important thing, but going so far to the other side?”

It should be noted companies can be fined significantly more for breaching fishing rules, with for example Westfleet Fishing fined nearly $70,000 in 2023 for failing to weigh and report coral caught when bottom trawling.

However, that requires a lengthy court process – and Jones last year introduced much smaller on-the-spot fines for breaches by recreational and commercial fishers alike.

Still, Tuiono expected Jones would have to back down through the committee process – something Jones indicated he would be open to.

“Yes,” Jones said, “the Labour member in the select committee felt that it was an egregious figure and said that unless there was some common ground, Labour would not be voting for the bill, National at this stage are determining whether or not the bill can be improved.

“I accept that that figure is an area that select committee members want to readdress.”

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

The Green Party says today’s local government reorganisation announcement is fundamentally undemocratic, shows a lack of understanding of how local government operates, and ignores the findings of the Government’s own expert bodies.

“Today’s announcement is fundamentally undemocratic and a cynical move in election year. None of the coalition parties campaigned on this,” says Green Party spokesperson for Local Government, Mike Davidson.

“It shows a disregard for community input, and ignores the findings of both the independent Infrastructure Commission and the Future for Local Government Working Group.”

Councils are in the middle of working on their Annual Plans, which must be signed off by the end of June. They are simultaneously working through sweeping reforms to the Resource Management Act, emergency management, rates caps, and the local government sector itself.

“Councils are trying to balance maintaining and building infrastructure with keeping rates affordable. This timeline leaves little time for the thoughtful and thorough cross-council mahi needed by elected members and staff, and no time to engage communities in what their future might be.”

“It’s death by a thousand cuts. The Government originally gave councils years to consider these changes, and is now giving top-down direction that ignores community voice. This is all from a Government who claimed, over and over, to be about localism.”

“These decisions are complex and need options to be explored, with input from a wide range of stakeholders. Councils have different water governance structures, major assets like ports and airports, and different community needs.”

“Transitional boards and political appointments hand-picked by the Ministers will undermine democratic decision-making at a local level. That’s something the National Party campaigned on at the last election, and something they have failed to deliver on.”

“The National Party continue to blame others rather than tackle the biggest issues councils and our communities actually face: aging infrastructure, affordability driven by a lack of alternative funding tools, rising inequality, and the increasing impact of climate-driven weather events.”

“The Greens oppose this top-down approach. We urge the Government to work with councils and communities to come up with enduring solutions that will best serve our communities now and into the future,” says Davidson.

MIL OSI

The Green Party says a new poll has found strong farmer support for fairer import standards for animal products, consistent with the intent of a Member’s Bill from Green MP Steve Abel. 

The Curia poll released today by Animal Policy International found 79 per cent of farmers agree that imported animal products should be required to meet New Zealand’s animal welfare standards, while only 10 per cent disagree. 

“It’s great to see the strong farmer support for closing the welfare gap and ensuring that imported animal products meet New Zealand’s welfare standards,” says Green Party spokesperson for agriculture and animal welfare Steve Abel. 

“My Bill closes the welfare gap on imported animal products which would make life both better for animals and fairer for farmers.” 

“It’s unjust and unfair that a higher welfare pork product has to compete on New Zealand’s supermarket shelves with a lower welfare imported product.” 

“The public and farmers alike want to see a level playing field in upholding New Zealand’s strong belief in high animal welfare standards. We want to be sure that animals live a good life on our farms and in our homes.”

“I will continue to invite MPs from across the Parliament to support my Bill so it can be brought before the House for the good of farmers and animals,” says Abel.

MIL OSI

The Labour Party has announced its final candidate for the Māori seats in this year’s election, as the contest in various electorates heats up.

Te Pūoho Katene, a Fulbright scholar from Stanford’s Graduate School of Business, says it’s a privilege to be selected to contest Te Tai Hauāuru.

He told RNZ he could see where politics focused on the negative, and he wanted to see “hope returned to the table”.

It comes as Associate Professor of Politics Lara Greaves told RNZ there will be a lot of “tight and interesting and very unpredictable races” in the Māori seats.

The Victoria University of Wellington professor said the Māori seats contest would be “incredibly important” for the overall result, after last election saw an overhang created in Parliament.

“Before all of this Pāti Māori drama last year, I was expecting to see the potential for a greater overhang being created.

“Now it’s kind of hard to tell exactly what’s going to happen, but I still think that the Māori electorates are incredibly important.”

Greaves said it was a possibility to see Te Pāti Māori gone entirely, or Te Pāti Māori secure many electorate seats – both scenarios would change “the math” of the makeup of Parliament.

She said they would be unpredictable because the range of contests in the mix, with Labour, Greens, Te Pāti Māori and potential independent candidates running.

“It’s really on a race by race, electorate by electorate basis,” said Greaves, acknowledging the possibility of votes being split with the Greens.

Greaves said Te Pāti Māori had gone down in the polls and expected some kind of effect on the different electorate races, but couldn’t say how exactly that would play out, including whether some MPs would be punished more than others.

She cited Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke as an example, who came out of that “drama situation” looking “fairly put together.”

“Whereas others, perhaps their reputation has been a bit damaged by it.”

Regardless, Greaves said the Māori electorates would likely have a “pretty big influence” on the election.

“They are a feature of the electoral system that could be used strategically.”

Labour’s candidates

Kātene, of Ngāti Toa and Ngāti Whaatua descent, joined a line-up of candidates running for Labour that included sitting MPs and new faces.

Cushla Tangaere-Manuel, who was the only Labour MP to secure a Māori seat last election, would run for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti again.

Willow-Jean Prime would run against the Greens Hūhana Lyndon and Mariameno Kapa-Kingi in Te Tai Tokerau.

Kingi Kiriona, the deputy chairperson of Te Māngai Pāho, would run in Hauraki-Waikato for Labour.

Former Auckland councillor Kerrin Leoni would run in Tāmaki Makaurau, where Te Pāti Māori’s Oriini Kaipara is the current MP.

Former chair of Te Rūnanga o Koukourarata Mananui Ramsden would run in Te Tai Tonga, where Tākuta Ferris holds the seat as an independent.

Whakatāne District Councillor Toni Boynton, an advocate for Māori wards, would run in Waiariki again where co-leader of Te Pāti Māori Rawiri Waititi has held the seat since 2020. While losing the candidate vote, Boynton won the party vote for Labour in 2023.

Kātene told RNZ studying abroad, including with a scholarship in Japan, had shown him how Māori culture “translates across borders.”

His study at Stanford looked at “kumara economics” and the idea that “money is like a kumara” and its “true value lies in its ability to feed people.”

“That’s what I’ve been doing in my day job and in my governance roles, making sure that we can position this Māori economy to drive transformative change for our people and our communities.”

He was humble in his acknowledgment of Debbie Ngarewa-Packer who holds Te Tai Hauāuru currently for Te Pāti Māori.

“She has been fighting a strong fight for a long time, even before her time in Parliament, for her people.

“That’s an important element to bring into these kind of conversations,” said Kātene, who acknowledged he brought a certain set of skills and experiences.

“They’re different from whaea Debbie’s and from the other candidates.”

Labour’s strategy

Labour’s campaign chairperson Willie Jackson told RNZ the candidates selected were of a high caliber in terms of Māori who had done well in terms of Te Ao Māori.

“We’ve got real skills in terms of te reo Māori, in terms of business, in terms of Mana Wāhine, and well known in terms of their own electorates,” said Jackson.

“I think we’re going to go close to winning just about every every seat.”

Jackson said the party’s strategy was “simple”, and the party had a “clear economic policy strategy.”

“In terms of the needs of our people, those needs are in the housing, health and jobs area.

He spoke of getting rid of “rubbish legislation” the current government was implementing, including “watering down the Treaty”.

When asked what was in it for Māori specifically, he referenced the previous Labour government’s “one billion dollar of investment.”

Distinguishing Labour from Te Pāti Māori he said Labour was the leading party in the country.

“We’re the ones who roll the money out.

“Why would you waste a party vote there?

“Don’t be wasting your time with the Māori Party.”

He rejected the notion of making deals between parties.

Green Party candidates

The Greens had three candidates selected so far: Hūhana Lyndon who had run in Te Tai Tokerau previously, Heather Te Au-Skipworth running in Ikaroa-Rāwhiti and Tania Waikato in Waiariki.

Co-leader Marama Davidson said the party was putting its “full backing” behind Lyndon who had a “massive chance” in the northern seat.

“She has got a real reputation and record for being on the ground with whānau, but also taking your voice into the house, into the hallways of power.”

Te Au-Skipworth had previously been a Te Pāti Māori candidate, while Waikato represented Te Pāti Maori in the Privileges Committee.

Asked why they had moved to the Green Party, Davidson told RNZ it “wasn’t about any other political party.”

“This is about the Green Party having held the space for Te Ao Māori politics for decades now.

“You can’t have environmental protection and climate protection and social justice without upholding Te Tiriti.

“So it’s actually about us. We’ve always been holding this line as a movement, as a party, and we’re grateful that more and more people are starting to see that and know that about the Green Party.

Like Jackson, Davidson said there would be no deals between parties or arrangements made to secure seats.

“No one owns any electorates. No one owns any seats. That is really up to the people to decide” she said.

Te Pāti Māori MPs and the seats themselves

Te Pāti Māori has yet to confirm its candidates for this year, that will come in a few weeks.

Tākuta Ferris’ plans were yet to be announced as well, but a social media post on Tuesday from the Te Tai Tonga electorate stated its executive had “formally resigned” their positions effectively immediately.

“We will no longer compromise our integrity or values by enabling bad leadership,” the post read. Ferris has been approached for comment.

And it’s still unclear whether Mariameno Kapa Kingi will run as a candidate for Te Pāti Māori, or an independent.

The National Party has said it would run candidates in the Māori seats, but none had been selected yet.

Meanwhile, New Zealand First planned to campaign this year on a referendum regarding the existence of the seats themselves.

The ACT party has long held the position it would abolish the seats.

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

Queenstown, New Zealand (4 May 2026) – Tickets are nearly sold out for the third Electrify Queenstown (17-19 May), with a major political debate and a packed three-day programme set to spark fresh thinking on New Zealand’s energy future.

The award-winning event will bring together government decision-makers and party leaders, international innovators, renewable energy experts, local businesses and residents to explore how electrification can cut costs, lift productivity and build a more resilient energy system.

A centrepiece of this year’s programme will be The Future of New Zealand’s Energy System: A Leaders’ Debate on Monday 18 May at the Queenstown Events Centre, moderated by journalist Paddy Gower.

Confirmed speakers include Hon David Seymour, Deputy Prime Minister, Rt Hon Chris Hipkins, Leader of the Labour Party, Hon Simeon Brown, Minister for Energy, Green Party Co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick, Hon Shane Jones, Associate Minister for Energy, and The Opportunities Party Leader Qiulae Wong.

The debate comes at a timely moment, with conflict in Iran disrupting global oil supply and adding pressure to fuel prices, household budgets and business costs. Electrify Queenstown will put energy affordability, security and sovereignty at the centre of the conversation, asking what it will take for New Zealand to move faster, smarter and more confidently toward an electric future.

All four hundred tickets for the debate day have now sold out, but a limited number remain for days one and three.

Backed by Aurora Energy as principal sponsor, Electrify Queenstown’s three day programme will cover practical steps for homes and businesses, green finance and funding pathways, electric transport, local energy projects, and the latest renewable technologies.

Speakers include New Zealand Sustainability Leader of the Year Mike Casey, CEO of Rewiring Aotearoa, who will speak on the competitive advantages of electrification, and leading international energy innovator Dr Saul Griffith, who will share insights on the global direction of electrification.

On Sunday 17 May, the event also features hands-on experiences, including tours of high-performance homes, off-grid hospitality at Kinloch, electric boats and bikes, and the free community How-To Hub, where attendees can get practical advice across solar and batteries, EVs, heating and hot water, and finance.

Electrify Queenstown 2026 is designed for people who want to understand not just why electrification matters, but how to make it happen.

More information and full programme: www.electrifyqueenstown.co.nz

Event details

What: Electrify Queenstown

When: Sunday 17 May – Tuesday 19 May

Where: Queenstown Events Centre and locations across the district

Feature session: The Future of New Zealand’s Energy System: A Leaders’ Debate, Monday 18 May, 2pm-4.30pm

MIL OSI

David Seymour says ACT’s immigration policy is a long-held approach aimed at tackling real challenges, and those claiming he’s competing with New Zealand First should be more constructive.

Prominent critics of his immigration policy include opposition parties, an immigration lawyer, a sociologist – and his coalition partner.

But Seymour doesn’t agree with them.

“Some people like to belittle our political debate as a soap opera. I view it as politicians listening and responding to people’s concerns to produce better policy for our country,” he told RNZ.

“When you have 20,000 overstayers at large in the country, when you have literally 100 times more fast food workers than biomedical engineers coming in under the skilled visa, and when you have a serious problem with infrastructure keeping up with population growth, I think it behooves political parties to respond to that.”

Asked for evidence of the fast food claim, ACT pointed to 2480 fast food workers being approved since 2022, compared to 30 biomedical engineers.

‘Straight-up dog whistle’ or ‘doesn’t even touch the sides?’ – the criticisms

NZ First leader Winston Peters on Monday posted on social media the policy was a “good effort”, but “unfortunately it doesn’t even touch the sides”.

“We would encourage ACT to watch this space for when NZ First will be announcing what a real and comprehensive immigration policy actually looks like.”

That came a day after Seymour unveiled the policy, which promises more deportations, renewed focus on overstayer enforcement, a $6-a-day infrastructure fee for temporary work visas, and a five-year ban on welfare payments for residence-class visa holders.

Immigration Minister Erica Stanford said it was a very complex sector, “which is why knee jerk policy at the election that’s not carefully considered and well thought through can be quite damaging”.

She said the $6-a-day fee ignored the moves already afoot to “carefully, proportionately and reasonably collect additional levies from migrants for some of the costs that they directly impose in like the health or education sector”, and the fee would put off the best and brightest from coming to New Zealand.

“They’ll just go somewhere else, but those employers who desperately need migrants like in our rural sector for example, they will be the ones who end up paying that fee.”

She said it amounted to an $11,000 upfront payment at the application stage, plus another $11,000 for their partner.

“No other country levies a migrant like that at such a high rate anywhere in the world, we would be a massive outlier. And so the question is, who’s going to come? And the answer is nobody. And the second thing is, who will pay? And the answer is the employer.”

She said people were uncomfortable with Labour’s post-Covid approach to “throw the floodgates open”, but Seymour “doesn’t understand immigration”.

“He said ‘oh, we have to renew the categories every year’ – there is no category for fast food workers, no categories like that exist … we have a demand driven system. I

“If you are in an area and you need a fast food worker, you have to check that there are no New Zealanders available to do the job … the fact is that there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of outlets across New Zealand who prepare fast food, and they need workers.”

Labour’s immigration spokesperson Phil Twyford said it showed a “bidding war” between ACT and NZ First on immigration, and it was “pure election year politics”.

“The parties of the right are feasting on each other’s votes right now, and they’re in a struggle for survival, and I think that immigration policy is too important to New Zealand’s future to allow it to be politicised by these small parties who are chasing a few votes,” Twyford said.

“NZ First is consciously copying the political tactics of the Reform Party in the UK. But I don’t think actually that there’s large numbers of people in New Zealand who are extremely anxious about immigration … it should have no place in our politics and our society.”

Asked what he thought of the policy overall, Green Party immigration spokesperson Ricardo Menendez March’s first words were that ACT was “competing with NZ First to see who can blame our migrant neighbours”.

“This is a Trump-inspired approach that reeks of wanting to set up an ICE-like unit in our own country, to effectively lead to deportation of undocumented migrants that are not the source of unaffordable housing or a lack of adequate infrastructure,” he said.

He said it was “a straight-up dog whistle”.

“David Seymour first came for the Treaty, then beneficiaries and low-wage workers, and now he’s after our migrant communities. It’s all he knows how to do – play the politics of division.”

Sociology professor Paul Spoonley told Morning Report on Monday it was surprising to see ACT propose more bureaucracy and a new tax, but Seymour was clearly “not prepared to concede the strict controls on immigration space to New Zealand First”.

He also questioned what values migrants would be asked to sign up to, and who would decide that.

“I mean, is there the Treaty of Waitangi in there? I suspect not … how do immigrants demonstrate agreement with those values? And of course, what happens if you breach those values? So, it’s all a bit vague for me.”

Immigration lawyer Alistair McClymont also told RNZ the policy did not add anything to the current system, and it seemed ACT “has seen the success that New Zealand First has had with xenophobic dog-whistle politics”.

Twyford would not go so far as to say ACT’s policy was dog-whistling, but it was “all about trying to look tough – and they are definitely trying – it’s a defensive move politically against New Zealand First”.

“It’s politics. It’s not about what is the best policy for the future of New Zealand.”

‘There are real challenges’ – Seymour

Seymour rejected those criticisms.

He said he had worked with McClymont, who lived in his electorate of Epsom, and he would have hoped he would enter the debate in a “more constructive spirit”.

“I think it’s a shame that someone like Alistair … tends to reduce things to almost a sort of soap opera version of politics. He needs to recognise that there are real challenges with immigration policy. It’s not delivering what it says on the tin.”

He pushed back at Peters’ tweet, saying the NZ First leader was ignoring the position was a long-held ACT view.

“These policies are things that I’m on the record talking about as far back as 10 years ago,” Seymour said.

He also said Peters was wrong to oppose the Free Trade Agreement with India on the basis of immigration – because the projected increase in migrants would only amount to about 6 percent of visas currently issued to Indian nationals.

“To oppose the Indian Free Trade Agreement and all its benefits on the basis of immigration concern, that’s not just barking up the wrong tree, it’s barking in the wrong forest,” Seymour said.

“If we’re worried about immigration we should address immigration policy, not chop our nose off to spite our face.”

In terms of democratic values, Seymour highlighted fraud and overstayers as things that should be targeted.

“Illegal overstayers, you’ve got people whose first act in New Zealand is to break the law – and as someone who’s helped many migrants over the years – have seen the stigma that migrants can face – it doesn’t help and it’s not fair when there’s a whole lot of other people who just aren’t following any of the rules.”

Those concerns would be tackled with the additional deportations and the new overstayer taskforce in Immigration, he said.

He also rejected suggestions from Spoonley that the changes to the Accredited Employer Work Visa scheme could unnecessarily increase bureaucracy.

“We tend to get types of skills that we don’t necessarily need so much of, and they just linger on for a long time while new skill shortages are not always recognised in a timely fashion, so an annual upgrade or review of what sorts of skills can have new visas issued is what we have proposed.”

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