Parliament’s last order of the week was to debate something the minister in charge of the bill has admitted is not really a priority.

The government has introduced a bill to make English an official language, to ridicule from the opposition, and a fierce defence from Winston Peters.

The legislation would see English be recognised as an official language alongside Te Reo Māori and New Zealand Sign Language.

It would not affect the status or use of Te Reo Māori and New Zealand Sign Language as official languages.

Just two pages long, the legislation states that English has long been a de facto official language, but not set out in legislation.

The bill is in the name of the Justice Minister, Paul Goldsmith, who was reluctant to sing its praises.

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

Goldsmith did not speak at the first reading.

Instead, Winston Peters led the speeches on Thursday.

Peters said other jurisdictions such as Canada, Ireland, and Wales had English language legislation of their own, which indicated the “importance” of putting it into legislation.

“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,” he said.

The New Zealand First leader, who was made to wait nearly an hour and a half to deliver his speech, argued the proliferation of te reo Māori in health and transport services meant people were getting confused.

In other cases, they were being put in danger, claiming first responders did not know where they were going, and boaties were unable to interpret charts.

“With the increase in recent years of te reo to be used in place of English, even when less than five percent of the New Zealand population can read, write, or speak it, it has created situations that encourage misunderstand and confusion for all. And all for the purpose to push a narrative.”

Peters’ speech drifted into a lengthy historical anecdote, with an example of “out of touch bureaucrats” in the Soviet Union building, costing, and installing chandeliers based on weight “for production bonuses, rather than shape and design”, which was leading to ceilings being ripped out.

“And the then-President Khrushchev, upon finding this out, asked this question: For whom is this illuminating? As for whom, are the circumstances we now finding ourselves in with the use of te reo as a means of important communication now, illuminating what?”

Opposition MPs ridicule bill

Opposition MPs questioned the government’s priorities, expressing ridicule, exasperation and concern at the bill.

Beginning his contribution with, “Ngā mihi, great to be here in Aotearoa today,” Labour MP Duncan Webb said only the “wandering mind” of Peters could explain what Russian chandeliers had to do with the English language.

Webb said language was a “moving thing”, with New Zealand English containing words from across the Pacific.

“A silly piece of legislation, that Winston Peters, in his jurassic thinking, wants to put before his sub-sub-sub-section of voters, because they get a little bit anxious because the library in Christchurch is called Tūranga. A big building full of books, with big signs to it, but because it doesn’t say ‘library’ they don’t know it’s the library if they’re New Zealand First voters.”

Webb said when the Treaty of Waitangi was signed, all the laws of England applied, of which an English language law was not one.

“What’s the official language of the United Kingdom? Well, it doesn’t say, it is not set out there in legislation. There is no English Act or United Kingdom Act which sets out English as an official language, but I’m pretty sure they’re comfortable with the fact that it’s an official language of England and the United Kingdom.”

Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said the government “wants us distracted” while the country experienced severe weather events, and unemployment was as high as it had been in a decade.

“They want us divided, and they want regular people exhausted, fighting amongst themselves. Some out there say that this government is stupid. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, I think that they know exactly what they are doing,” she said.

“The English language is not under threat. 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, a problem which this government is trying to create in the minds of people across this country, in place of the very real problems of the climate crisis, record homelessness, inequality and infrastructural decay.”

Swarbrick said Te Reo Māori and New Zealand Sign Language had been “fought for”, while English was “literally beaten” into people.

“In plain English, for all members of this government, this bill is bullshit, and you know it.”

Te Pāti Māori MP Oriini Kaipara delivered her contribution entirely in te reo Māori.

“This bill is a waste of time, and a waste of breath,” she said.

Labour MP Dr Ayesha Verrall spoke of her mother’s upbringing in the Maldives, where she worked hard to learn English, arrived in New Zealand on a Colombo Plan scholarship, and went on to become an English teacher.

“That’s pretty special, kind of ironic, to think that someone who, for whom English wasn’t their first language, gave so much in terms of enjoyment of English and English literature to her students.”

She said she sat in her mother’s classes in the 1990s when politicians were “race baiting”, warning of an ‘Asian invasion’, and using English in a “very powerful and destructive” way.

“When we speak in the English language, we have impact beyond our words. As politicians, we create permission for people to do things outside this House. So that’s what happens when politicians indulge in racism. The English language can be used as a weapon, and that can lead to people having violent acts committed against them,” she said.

Verall then referred to the 1990s politician directly – Peters.

First reading on hold

Peters had promoted his contribution, set to begin at 4pm, on social media.

But an opposition filibuster on the previous bill on the order paper meant his speech did not begin until 5:25pm.

With Parliament needing to break for the week at 6pm, government MPs did their best to hurry the bill along, with ACT’s Simon Court, and National MPs Tom Rutherford and Carl Bates rising for very short contributions to commend the bill to the House.

“It’s simply practical, constructive common sense,” Court said.

National’s Rima Nakhle took issue with Swarbrick’s use of the word “bullshit”, and accused the opposition of theatrics.

“How about we just calm it down a little, and stop the theatrics, and talk about what this is. And it’s OK. We’re only making English official. It’s not the end of the world.”

The House adjourned with two speeches still to go.

With Parliament in recess next week, it meant MPs would have to wait until 3 March for the debate to pick up again.

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 condemning the Government’s decision to disestablish the Ministry for the Environment.

“This is failure by a Minister who has turned her back on the very portfolio she was entrusted to protect. Abolishing her own ministry is as monumental as it is shameful,” said Green Party environment spokesperson Lan Pham. 

“The Ministry for the Environment exists because in 1986 New Zealanders decided that protecting our natural world needed a dedicated voice at the heart of government. 

“Burying the Ministry for the Environment inside a super-ministry designed to drive growth and infrastructure sends a clear signal that the environment comes last for this Government. 

“This is a Minister who claimed the balance had swung ‘too far’ towards the environment, even as her own ministry’s reporting showed air pollution, freshwater pollution, ocean pollution, and biodiversity loss all getting worse. 

“At a time when climate change is flooding our communities week after week, costing billions of dollars, lives, and livelihoods, this Government’s response is to dismantle the ministry responsible for environmental protection. 

“Abolishing the Ministry to streamline consent processes for roads and mining tells you exactly what this Government values more. It is economic growth at any cost. 

“Adding an ‘E’ to a new super-ministry and expecting New Zealanders to believe the environment will be looked after is fooling no one. New Zealanders deserve so much better,” said Pham.

MIL OSI

The newly released National Infrastructure Plan stands in stark contrast to the Government’s actual spending priorities, the Green Party says. 

“We welcome today’s National Infrastructure Plan, which would take us in the opposite direction of the decisions of Luxon’s Government,” said Chlöe Swarbrick, Green Party Co-Leader and Finance spokesperson.  

“This Plan shows how we can and must invest in resilient critical infrastructure like hospitals and renewables. Yet Luxon’s Government continues to burn taxpayer money on inflaming the climate crisis and inducing congestion through the daft LNG terminal and roads at all costs. 

“Treasury confirmed on Friday that we should be borrowing more to invest in infrastructure that builds real value and expands our productive capacity, which is exactly the vision the Greens have shown can be a reality in our Fiscal Strategy. 

“As parts of our country are underwater in yet another climate emergency, the need for decisive action, leadership and investment has never been more clear. 

“The choice is obvious: invest now in resilience, reducing the cost of living and improving our quality of life – or pay exponentially more for failures and disasters later,” said Swarbrick. 

MIL OSI

“The passing of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill is a dark day for Aotearoa, and shows this government is on the side of big corporates and against the workers.” says Green Party Workplace Relations spokesperson Teanau Tuiono.

“Workers have a basic right to seek remedies for unjustifiable and unlawful dismissal. This law effectively destroys that right, leaving workers completely exposed to abuses of power by their employers.”

“This law also makes it easier to dismiss workers and gives bosses the ability to mischaracterise employees as contractors, meaning that they miss out on basic rights like sick leave and holiday pay.”

“Minister Van Velden has proudly ignored and refused to meet with workers’ representatives, while she’s getting her ideas for reforms from multinational corporations like Uber.”  

“New Zealand workers already have significantly less rights at work than Australian workers, and this government is busy eroding those that we have managed to keep. It’s no surprise that young people are flocking across the ditch, and this will only see that flow increase.” 

Over 3000 submissions on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill were opposed to it, while only 34 were in favour. Unions, employment lawyers, and academics lined up alongside regular workers to reject this attack on basic rights.

“Workers are the backbone of our economy. Instead of protecting and supporting them, this Government is in the pockets of multinational corporates, delivering on their every whim.”

“Enhancing the rights of workers to organise collectively is the best to get decent pay and working conditions, and the Greens are committed to strengthening this,” says Teanau.  

“We will go further than reversing these changes when we are in government. We will introduce default union membership for all new workers and look to increase the ability for workers to take industrial action to promote their basic rights.”  

MIL OSI

MIL OSI

Support for both major parties has dipped – while New Zealand First is up on double digits – in the latest 1News Verian poll.

The results – that polled 1003 eligible voters between 7 and 11 February – has National down 2 points to 34 percent and Labour down 3 points to 32 percent.

The Green Party is up 4 points on 11 percent, New Zealand First up 1 point on 10 percent, ACT up 1 point on 9 per cent and Te Pāti Māori up 1 point to 2 percent.

On these numbers, the right block would net 65 seats and the left block 59 seats, meaning the coalition parties would comfortably have the numbers to govern.

It’s New Zealand First’s highest rating in this particular poll since August 2017.

National leader Christopher Luxon and Labour leader Chris Hipkins were neck in neck in the new poll’s preferred Prime Minister ratings.

Luxon is down 3 points to 20 percent and Hipkins down 1 point to 20 percent.

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters is down 1 point to 10 percent, Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick steady on 5 percent, ACT leader David Seymour down 1 point to 4 percent and National’s deputy leader Nicola Willis steady on 1 percent.

The poll also asked voters to rate the coalition’s performance on a scale of one to ten – with the average score being five out of ten.

National supporters gave an average score of 6.7 and ACT supporters 6.4, while Green supporters gave a 3.1 rating and Labou supporters gave an average 3.6.

The new poll also shows voters have doubts about the economic turnaround, with economic optimism down 2 points to 40 percent and pessimism up 1 point to 31 percent.

Between November 29 and December 3 2025, 1007 eligible voters were polled by mobile phone (500) and online, using online panels (507). The maximum sampling error is approximately ±3.1%-points at the 95% confidence level. Party support percentages have been rounded up or down to whole numbers, except those less than 4.5%, which are reported to one decimal place. The data has been weighted to align with Stats NZ population counts for age, gender, region, ethnic identification and education level. The sample for mobile phones is selected by random dialling using probability sampling, and the online sample is collected using an online panel. Undecided voters, non-voters and those who refused to answer are excluded from the data on party support. The results are a snapshot in time of party support, and not a prediction.

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

Judith Collins was the only person considered for the role of Law Commission president – with no recruitment process, no selection panel and no rival candidates.

The appointment amounted to a simple “Cabinet confirmation”.

The revelation came on Friday in response to written questions to the government from the Green Party.

While the Law Commission Act 1985 requires only ministerial sign-off for the presidency, Cabinet guidelines state such appointments should follow “good practice” processes set out by the Public Service Commission.

Speaking to RNZ, Green co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said Collins’ effective anointment was “deeply concerning” and risked further damaging already “plummeting trust” in the coalition government.

“These independent processes are set up to protect against cronyism and corruption,” she said.

“How on earth can we possibly say that somebody was appointed because they were the best person for the job, when there was a decision to not even consider anybody else for that job?”

The responsible minister Paul Goldsmith told RNZ he was certain he had followed due process and rejected any suggestion of cronyism.

“Sometimes there’s been an external panel [for appointing this position]. Sometimes there hasn’t,” he said, adding there was a “long tradition” of former politicians serving on the Commission.

“We’re absolutely confident in the abilities of Judith Collins to do the job well. She’s obviously got hugely extensive… experience in justice roles across many many years.”

A spokesperson told RNZ Collins recused herself from the Cabinet decision.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon announced in January that Collins would step down from politics to take up the “prestigious” role at the Law Commission from mid-year.

University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said past practice around such appointments appeared “pretty flexible”, but this example looked “nakedly political”.

“The worry is that if you’ve got very loose flexible processes… then it’s open to misuse to an even greater extent in the future.”

Geddis said Collins may well do a good job in her new position but would face a challenge convincing the public she could uphold its independence.

“I don’t think it’s conspiracy thinking to say that the government has chosen to reward one of its long-standing loyal servants with this role.”

Collins’ predecessor Mark Hickford was appointed to the Commission in October but given an unusually short six-month term as president, “pending the confirmation of a new president in the new year”.

Collins was unavailable for comment, having departed for Germany on Wednesday to attend the Munich Security Conference.

Last month she told media she intended to play “a straight bat” in the role: “This is too important. The Law Commission is not there to play political games.”

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

Former Reserve Bank Governor Don Brash is supportive of the government’s decision to review the Bank’s decisions during the Covid-19 pandemic, but concerns from the opposition over the review’s timing so close to the election are a “fair question”, he says.

On Wednesday, finance minister Nicola Willis announced she was launching an independent review into monetary policy decisions during the pandemic, including cuts to the Official Cash Rate, and the Large Scale Asset Purchase programme.

Willis is touting the exercise as a fact-finding, lessons-learned mission.

“This is simply about New Zealand learning the lessons of history. The Reserve Bank, during the response to Covid-19, did a huge amount of money printing,” she said.

“The result, in part due to those decisions, in part due to Labour’s decisions to spend and borrow a huge amount of money, was very high inflation, house prices going up 30 percent in a year, and more than $10 billion of losses after the printing of that money. So it is appropriate for the government to look at, did we get it all right, what could we do better in the future?”

Brash, also a former National leader, said the effects of monetary policy were “substantial” during the pandemic, and given the costs to the taxpayer an ex-post review “almost certainly” made sense.

“The Reserve Bank did two main things: they cut the Official Cash Rate to a very low level, 0.25 [percent], and would probably have cut it below that level had they felt the banks were able to handle that,” he said.

“In the end, they didn’t cut it below 0.25, but instead, of course, they bought many billions of dollars of government bonds at low interest rates in an attempt to stimulate the economy, but at a cost to the taxpayer, which was very substantial. So I think it’s worth having a having a good look at that.”

The current governor Anna Breman said she welcomed the review, but pointedly referenced a mandatory review undertaken by the Bank of the 2017-22 time period, which found the “large scale asset purchase programme was successful in correcting financial market dysfunction and reducing long-term interest rates”.

The review also found that “in hindsight, earlier, or stronger monetary tightening could have curbed the subsequent hike in inflation,” Breman said.

Willis was not impressed by that previous review.

“The Reserve Bank went through a window-dressing exercise of doing their own review of what they’d done, and gave themselves essentially full marks at the time,” she said.

“In opposition, I was frank. I said they’ve marked their own homework, that’s not good enough. If I was the finance minister, I would commission an independent review, and today that’s what I’ve done.”

The opposition has questioned why, if Willis had wanted a review all along, she had waited until now to commission it – especially as it is set to be made public in September, just a few weeks before the election.

Labour leader – and former Covid-19 response minister – Chris Hipkins said it was “an exercise in cynical, political manipulation,” pointing to other occasions the government could have done a review, including when it expanded the terms of reference for the Covid-19 Royal Commission of Inquiry.

“The timing of it is very transparent. This is a very clear political exercise in the middle of an election campaign. It’s not designed to provide some impartial view of the Reserve Bank’s actions, bearing in mind that the Reserve Bank took all of these actions independently of the government of the day,” he said.

“I think the whole world has learned a lot of lessons around monetary policy in a global crisis like a global pandemic. New Zealand’s Reserve Bank, the actions they took weren’t out of line with the actions being taken by central banks around the world. And there have certainly been lessons, I think, the whole economic system have learned from that.”

Hipkins described the review as an “attack” on the Bank’s independence.

Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick has also questioned the timing, noting she had called for a Select Committee inquiry into the economic response in 2022.

“The timing of this is so sus. Nicola Willis has been talking about these concerns since I was on the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee with her back in 2020. And it also obviously was an election issue throughout 2023. So if the minister’s intent, if the government’s intent, is pure, they would have got this out of the way with the broader Covid inquiry.”

Swarbrick said she had held former Finance Minister Grant Robertson’s “feet to the fire” on the effects of monetary policy on inequality, and did not believe Willis had any intention of addressing inequality with the new review.

“The Greens have actually been concerned since the outset of Covid-19 with unconventional monetary policy’s deployment. Because, as reflected in advice from RBNZ and Treasury at the time, that to do the Large Scale Asset Purchases and associated unconventional monetary policy without intervening or mitigating fiscal policy, we would see massive house price inflation and growing inequality,” she said.

“Of course, that’s exactly what happened.”

Willis has denied the review is timed for the election, and said she had not received advice on its timing.

“I don’t need to have that raised with me. It turns out that it’s quite top of mind that there’s an election in November. I don’t need officials to give me advice on it,” she said.

“The more political question you should all be asking is why are there politicians who are afraid of an independent review of the decisions of the independent Reserve Bank? Riddle me that.”

Brash noted that when he was Governor, the incoming Labour government in 1999 commissioned a “complete review” of the Bank’s framework.

That review, published in 2001 by Swedish economist Lars Svensson, recommended the formal establishment of a Monetary Policy Committee, something then-Finance Minister Sir Michael Cullen rejected.

The Committee was later established in 2019, following a further review of the Reserve Bank Act in 2017.

Svensson found the Bank had tightened its policy too late in 1992/93, and eased it too late in 1997/98.

He also recommended the Bank change how it reported and discussed alternative measures of inflation expectations for the medium and long term, but generally found its communication of monetary policy decisions to be “exemplary”.

Brash described that review as a “fair cop,” and a reasonable thing for a government to do.

He said it was a “fair question” of why Willis had waited until an election year to commission a review of her own.

“You can debate whether the timing should have been a few months earlier or a few months later, but that there should be a review seems to me to make good sense.”

Brash said he could “see some logic” in having it now, rather than earlier, as Willis would have wanted to wait until a new Governor came in.

He said he was not familiar with one of the reviewers, Athanasios Orphanides, but was familiar with David Archer from when he was the Reserve Bank’s assistant governor.

Brash said he was “pleased” at Archer’s involvement, and he had a “high regard” for him.

“Not only at the Reserve Bank of course, but he was also at the Bank for International Settlements in Basel for a number of years. So he’s had very wide international experience.”

Willis said the two reviewers were “objectively credible” and had significant experience.

“They are not political figures in any way. And I actually went to great pains to work through with the Treasury who, in a domestic context, would be able to do the review, who wasn’t conflicted by previous statements, and who would be able to give this credibility and weight, so I stand by the decision.”

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

After a stop-start beginning to the year, MPs are back in Wellington for a two-week sitting block. Most of the first sitting week was taken up by debate on the Prime Minister’s Statement. There are still four and a half hours of that debate remaining, but it is no longer the main event. The House is turning its attention to government business.

That business is a hodgepodge of bills at different stages of their legislative journey. Here are the bills from the first week, and then for this week.

From the first week: Legislation on legislation, and two completed bills

The Legislation Amendment Bill completed its second reading. It is an omnibus bill (amending multiple laws), that seeks to improve the accessibility of legislation – both finding it and understanding it. The bill has near-unanimous support, though the Green Party are against it, citing provisions that would expand the powers of revision bills.

Two bills completed their legislative journeys last week and have received Royal Assent from the Governor-General, meaning they are now law. The first was the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Act 2026, legislation aimed at improving the registry system so offenders can more easily comply with it.

The second was the Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Act 2026, which contains cultural and financial redress and an apology from the Crown for historical grievances against the iwi, who are based around the Taumarunui area.

New contractor law

The first bill debated this week was the Employment Relations Amendment Bill, continuing on from the previous sitting week. The bill introduces a salary threshold for personal grievance claims for unjustified dismissal and scraps the ’30-day rule’, which currently requires new employees to be covered by a collective employment agreement for their first 30 days. All three opposition parties are strongly opposed. The government hopes to complete all remaining stages of the bill this week.

That bill is one of many at the second reading stage this week. Second readings give MPs the opportunity not only to consider any changes recommended by the examining select committee, but also to reflect on what the public had to say during the submissions process.

Other second readings this week

The Public Service Amendment Bill’s most notable, and politically divisive change relates to DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion). Among other things, it removes the expectation that the public service should “reflect the communities it serves”. Removing diversity provisions in favour of entirely merit-based appointments was a coalition agreement between National and New Zealand First. Opposition parties are against the bill, with Labour expressing disappointment at the lack of any attempt at bipartisan collaboration.

The 1966 Anzac Day Act lists specific conflicts that Anzac Day commemorates, with the list ending chronologically at the Vietnam War. The Anzac Day Amendment Bill would extend that recognition to all who have served New Zealand in conflicts, peacekeeping operations, and other deployments. The bill has unanimous support.

The Public Finance Amendment Bill amends the 1989 Public Finance Act which mandates fiscal transparency. If passed, it would require governments to publish a tax expenditure statement, increase the minimum forecasting period for economic and fiscal forecasts and, relevant to this year, bring forward the publication window for the pre-election economic and fiscal update, giving voters an earlier snapshot of the government’s books. It also removes the requirement for Treasury to produce a wellbeing report, a change Labour opposes.

The Patents Amendment Bill is more esoteric. It seeks to align the treatment of patent divisional applications so that applications made under the 1953 Patents Act receive the same examination process as those under the 2013 Act. Opposition parties were happy to support the bill through to select committee stage; whether that support continues at second reading will become clear this week.

The Online Casino Gambling Bill would regulate the online gambling industry by introducing a licensing regime for platforms wishing to operate in New Zealand. While opposition parties agree with the principle of regulation, they disagree with its execution, particularly the proposed number of 15 licences.

The government is refining key arrangements and functions of Health New Zealand through the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Amendment Bill, which also places greater emphasis on the entity’s infrastructure responsibilities. All three opposition parties are opposed, citing particular concerns about the role of Māori voices in the health sector.

Two brand new bills

The Armed Forces Discipline Legislation Amendment Bill should get a first debate this week. It makes a series of changes to the Defence Force’s internal justice system including establishing a minor disciplinary regime for low-level offences, along with new powers relating to searches on defence areas and drug testing of personnel. Bills of this nature are broadly uncontentious, though parties may seek technical amendments.

The other first reading this week is the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill, which seeks to realign workplace safety systems toward critical risks, focusing on the more dangerous end of risk, while reducing the bureaucratic and financial burden on businesses associated with complying with regulations.

RNZ’s The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament’s Office of the Clerk.

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 wants taxpayers to pay for a new liquefied natural gas import terminal, but is promising lower power prices will come as a result.

It is estimated the new terminal, expected to be ready next year at the earliest, will save New Zealanders around $265 million a year by reducing price spikes and lowering the risk premiums.

But a new levy will be charged to get it built.

The government is touting it as a solution to New Zealand’s energy woes.

“It will mean that Kiwis will not need to suffer through an endless series of winter bill shocks,” energy minister Simon Watts said on Monday.

‘Vital part of the overall puzzle’ – Energy Resources Aotearoa

The idea is that it will reduce the risk of shortages during a dry year.

Liquefied natural gas (LNG) can be imported at large volumes, stored, and then ‘regasified’ to be sent out for use.

John Carnegie, chief executive of industry body Energy Resources Aotearoa, said the terminal would be a useful insurance policy for when the weather did not play ball.

“LNG will be useful as a vital part of the overall puzzle of New Zealand’s energy system security,” he said.

“LNG can be expected to take the heat out of the electricity market when renewable fuels like wind, water, and the sun don’t turn up when they’re needed. It will place downward pressure on wholesale electricity prices and reduce the risk premium in the out years.”

Last year’s Frontier Report – commissioned to review the performance of the electricity market – warned it should only be used as a last resort.

The report said using it just to meet dry year risk made no economic sense, as the large fixed costs would be spread over a relatively small amount of output.

But Carnegie said LNG provided a “virtuous circle” to support the development of more renewables, and pointed the finger at the previous government’s ban on offshore oil and gas exploration as a reason why power prices were spiking in dry years.

“More wind and solar and batteries are great, but also the conundrum is their growth exacerbates the problem of being too weather dependent. So we need a reliable fuel to fill the gaps which domestic gas previously filled. And so New Zealand’s energy system, I believe, will be at its most effective when renewable generation and firming fuels like LNG and domestic gas work in harmony.”

A separate study by gas company Clarus, along with the four gentailers, found it was feasible but would likely be costly, and only needed occasionally.

Following the announcement, Clarus’ chief executive Paul Goodeve said it would increase New Zealand’s energy resilience and increase the range of markets it could draw from.

“At the moment, the coal that we import is relatively restricted where it comes from. The global market in LNG is vast and diverse, and appears to be continuing as we speak.”

Goodeve was confident it could be financially sustainable, and the government’s involvement in the procurement system made sense.

“It appears as though they’ve got work done by financial advisors who pointed out the benefits to the overall New Zealand energy system, but particularly the electricity system, of having LNG in the mix.”

Details on the shortlist of six were being kept under wraps, but all were in Taranaki.

Port of Taranaki chief executive Simon Craddock said it was a great opportunity for the region, and while the port was not an LNG developer, it was keen to support it.

“The current terminal developments, as I understand it, are all focused on the Taranaki region, and the reason for that is largely proximity to the Maui gas pipeline. But the developers are international companies who may or may not partner with local interests.”

Craddock said there was nothing the port had seen that could have major adverse effects on its current trade.

“The port has a number of advantages… the proximity to the pipeline, we’re the only deep water port on the West Coast. So this is the sort of thing we do day to day, where our main customer to-date has been Methanex. We also have other petrochemical customers on the port, so it really is within our core business suite.”

ACT’s energy spokesperson Simon Court said it was a “sad but necessary bookend” to the oil and gas exploration ban.

“Labour promoted the view that gas is something to be ashamed of. It’s not. Gas is a practical, reliable option when hydro lakes are low. Gas keeps factories running, heaters humming, and lights buzzing. And the environmental case for gas is strong too, because when we can’t burn gas, we burn coal,” he said.

‘It’s cooked’ – Green Party

On Monday, Watts said discussions were commercially sensitive but it would cost “north of a billion dollars” to build.

To pay for those infrastructure costs, the government will charge users an electricity levy of $2 to $4 per megawatt hour.

But Watts was keen to point to the net benefit, with advice showing the facility was expected to cut future prices by at least $10 per megawatt hour.

“So straight away, we’re in the money in regards to benefits versus costs, and our expectation of having that certainty of supply takes away the price spikes that we saw, for example, in 2024.”

That has not convinced the Green Party.

Co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said the government was guaranteeing added costs to New Zealanders, while relying on “hopes, wishes, and prayers” for future savings.

“I think it’s absolutely bonkers for power bills, for the planet, for our country’s energy resilience. The only people who want this are the fossil fuel industry and seemingly the National Party. Whatever claim, whatever remaining claim the Nats have to being economic managers is now, frankly, up in flames,” she said.

“Honestly, it’s cooked. Christopher Luxon has once again chosen to throw New Zealanders’ money at fossil fuels, which is bad for power bills, energy security and the planet. This is Christopher Luxon’s New Zealand. Profits are flowing offshore, while New Zealanders are paying handsomely for it.”

‘Gas tax’ – Labour

Labour, meanwhile, is calling it a “gas tax”.

Leader Chris Hipkins said households were already struggling with the cost of living, and he did not believe it would reduce power prices.

“I think, if anything, they’re trying to make the argument that this will decrease the rate of increase in power prices. There are other ways to do that. A billion dollars would buy you a hell of a lot of solar panels and batteries, which would save households a significant amount of money.”

Hipkins dismissed questions over whether Labour would terminate any agreements, or put the costs onto the energy companies and take away the levy on households, as “hypothetical.”

The prime minister’s assertion it was a levy, and not a tax, was criticised by the Taxpayers’ Union.

“You don’t make electricity bills cheaper by taxing them. Dancing on the head of a pin over what is a tax and what is a levy is a Labour Party talking point. Luxon should spare us the spin and abandon this folly,” said spokesperson James Ross.

Climate change advocacy group 350 Aotearoa was previously one of twenty signatories that sent an open letter to Luxon and Watts, urging against the new terminal when it was first signalled in October.

Following the confirmation, co-director Alva Feldmeier said while she agreed with the government that New Zealanders were feeling the squeeze with their power bills, the terminal was not the solution.

“Essentially, what they’re doing now is putting a new tax on every New Zealander’s power bill to subsidise an expensive sunset industry,” she said.

Feldmeier said LNG-generated electricity was double the price of new renewable electricity, and the risk of importing and being reliant on international fossil fuels was that New Zealand could also import international price shocks.

“This is a political choice this government is making. They’d rather kowtow to the fossil fuel and the gas lobbies and keep us hooked on gas for longer, than explore how we’re going to get off it, and how we’re going to make some tough decisions in the next few months and years.”

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

Green Party MP Teanau Tuiono has launched his Member’s Bill to recognise whales as legal persons with inherent rights, including the right to freedom of movement, a healthy environment, and the ability to thrive alongside humanity. 

“Our tohorā are sacred ancestors for many communities across Te Moana Nui a Kiwa, but they are under threat from commercial fishing, pollution, and climate change.” says Teanau Tuiono. 

“This Bill represents a transformation in how we protect our marine species and the wider moana, to create a law that would protect whales by legally recognising their mana.” 

The Bill describes te mana o te tohorā through five fundamental principles: Freedom of movement and migration, protection of natural behaviours, protection of social and cultural structures, right to a healthy environment, and the right to restoration and regeneration of habits and ecosystems.  

“Indigenous peoples are the enduring kaitiaki of our moana. When we follow their lead, we can protect our precious species and the places they call home.” 

“The Tohorā Oranga Bill will recognise the inherent mana of tohorā and require decision-makers under a range of environmental law to recognise and provide for the rights of tohorā. 

“By recognising the mana of tohorā, this Bill represents a transformation in how we protect our marine species and the wider moana.” says Teanau Tuiono.

MIL OSI

Queenstown, New Zealand (19 January 2026) Award-winning summit Electrify Queenstown will return in May 2026 with a power-packed programme combining political debate, high-profile speakers, immersive electric experiences and practical advice for businesses and households ready to electrify.

Delivered by Destination Queenstown, with principal sponsor Aurora Energy, Electrify Queenstown 2026 will be held across three days at the Queenstown Events Centre, from Sunday 17 May to Tuesday 19 May 2026.

The centrepiece will be The Future of New Zealand’s Energy System: Political Debate, bringing together representatives from National, Labour, the Green Party, and The Opportunity Party for a rare on-stage energy discussion, moderated by leading journalist Paddy Gower.

Electrify Queenstown 2026 also features a strong line-up of national and international speakers shaping the future of electrification, energy and transport, along with panel discussions on everything from electrification myth-busting to finance.

Beyond the stage, the summit is known for its immersive, real-world electric experiences and demonstrations. Attendees will be able to visit smart homes and businesses, get hands-on with the latest e-bikes, e-boats, e-vehicles, solar panels, batteries, heat pumps, and household tech, and also receive practical, direct advice in the How-to-Hub, hosted by Queenstown Electrification Accelerator.

Earlybird tickets are on sale now.

Mat Woods, Chief Executive of Destination Queenstown & Lake Wānaka Tourism, says Electrify Queenstown continues to evolve as electrification gathers pace.

“Across the country we’re seeing electrification move from early adoption to the mainstream, and this summit captures that moment – bringing together political leaders, global thinkers and real-world examples to show what’s possible, what’s next, and how communities and businesses can be part of the transition.

“And with the General Election this October, Electrify Queenstown 2026 will provide an opportunity to hear directly from politicians about how they plan to power New Zealand’s future.”

Speakers and panellists include renewable electricity advocate, entrepreneur and inventor Dr Saul Griffith, Rewiring Aotearoa’s Mike Casey, and Queenstown-based Xero founder Sir Rod Drury, all returning for a second year, along with Aotearoa environmentalist and entrepreneur Izzy Fenwick.

Queenstown Lakes District Mayor John Glover says: “Electrification is vital for the future of the district and as a business owner, I’ve seen firsthand how smart energy choices can strengthen resilience and reduce long-term costs.

“Electrify Queenstown is valuable because it shows what’s already working, locally. It gives people practical confidence that these solutions are achievable, scalable and relevant to our community.”

Electrify Queenstown 2026 is proudly supported by principal sponsor Aurora Energy, along with supporting sponsors Air New Zealand, Westpac, Queenstown Lakes District Council, TomTom Productions, and Queenstown Catering.

Richard Fletcher, Chief Executive of Aurora Energy, says the company is pleased to be principal sponsor for the third consecutive year.

“This event continues to play a vital role in helping businesses and households understand the benefits of electrification, from cost savings and efficiency gains to reducing emissions and building resilience.

“As the owner of the main electricity distribution network in Queenstown, our role is to ensure the network is safe, reliable, and ready to meet growing demand. We are investing in our network across the Wakatipu area, and have a number of projects underway to support growth and enable future energy choices. As demand for electricity continues to rise, we remain committed to ensuring our network is ready.”

For the first time, Electrify Queenstown 2026 will introduce ticketing, including early-bird pricing, to ensure the event remains financially sustainable into the future.

“It allows us to keep bringing in world-class speakers, immersive experiences and practical content, while building a platform that’s sustainable for the long term,” Woods says.

Tickets are now on sale for Electrify Queenstown 2026, with options to attend individual days, events, or the full three-day programme.

Day 1 – Sunday 17 May: Electric Experiences

Community and business-focused electric tours, demonstrations and exhibitions showcasing electrification in action

Day 2 – Monday 18 May: Business Innovation, Investment & Policy

Keynote speakers, political debate, and finance and investment panels, aimed at business leaders, boards,decision-makers and the community

Day 3 – Tuesday 19 May: How to Electrify

Practical, hands-on sessions for business owners, operators and teams focused on implementation, cost savings and real-world solutions

For more information, visit www.electrifyqueenstown.co.nz

MIL OSI

Explainer – Elon Musk’s X has been in the line of fire over Grok AI deepfakes – with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s office calling them “concerning.”

What’s going on? And is there any role New Zealand should play in how it uses X to disseminate information?

Recent non-consensual adult content created by X’s AI chatbot Grok has led some to call for a boycott of using X.

X announced on Thursday it would make changes to its AI chatbot after the UK joined many countries in planning to investigate the company.

However, the reputational damage X has been accumulating during Musk’s takeover of the company may be lasting.

It’s still a popular forum for many New Zealand politicians and public agencies to use, but some left-leaning political parties have mostly abandoned it. A human rights group has called for greater regulation of X in New Zealand, while the Free Speech Union is calling that censorship.

Here’s what’s got people concerned about X and Grok, and where New Zealand politicians stand on it.

What is Grok AI doing exactly?

Formerly Twitter, the social media platform X was bought by the world’s richest man Musk in 2022.

X launched its AI chatbot Grok in late 2023, and recently it came out that users could edit an image to create deepfake nude or partially clothed images.

At some points earlier in January, hundreds – perhaps thousands – of requests were coming in to change photos of women to put them in bikinis and other suggestive poses every hour, separate analyses by Bloomberg News, Reuters and The Guardian all found.

The company soon said it limited the image function to paid subscribers, although NBC News and others have reported that the standalone app and the Grok section of X is still able to generate the deepfake images.

Hundreds of examples of non-consensual Grok AI creations have since come out, and the chatbot has been blocked by Indonesia and Malaysia and under investigation in the UK.

The company now appears to be altering course after the backlash.

“I have been informed this morning that X is acting to ensure full compliance with UK law,” UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer told parliament today, adding that the government would take further measures if needed.

Musk posted on X today that Grok will always comply with the law of the countries in which it operates, and also said that he was “not aware” of any naked underage images created by Grok: “literally zero”.

“When asked to generate images, [Grok] will refuse to produce anything illegal, as the operating principle for Grok is to obey the laws of any given country or state,” he said.

Musk has not yet made further statements about how exactly Grok will be changed.

New Zealand has been described as “lagging behind” on policing deepfake content and needs enforceable standards, an organisation working to prevent child sexual exploitation told RNZ earlier this week.

Auckland media commentator and journalist Russell Brown said the recent “undressing” posts on X crossed a line.

“It strikes me it’s only a couple of months ago that these ‘nudify’ apps were regarded as totally marginal and now it’s a front and centre service available from X’s flagship product, which is Grok.

“The fact that the company could entirely withdraw that part of the service and say, ‘no undressing app,’ and they’ve made it clear that they won’t do that, it really should raise some questions.”

ACT MP Laura McClure’s member’s bill to criminalise non-consensual sexually explicit deepfakes was pulled from the ballot last year and will be considered by Parliament in the future.

There have been calls to remove Grok from app stores, while Musk himself claimed it was the number one app in New Zealand in a recent post.

Grok hits #1 in New Zealand https://t.co/RPoQilXMnU

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 10, 2026

Are NZ politicians still using X?

World politicians often use X to make announcements and statements, and New Zealand is no different.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon regularly communicates on X, as well as many other social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and TikTok.

In a statement to RNZ on Wednesday, a spokesperson for the Prime Minister’s office said Luxon was aware of concerns about Grok.

“The use of Grok in this manner is concerning. We are actively monitoring developments.”

Many official agencies such as MetService, NZTA and NZ Defence Force still use X.

Labour Party leader Chris Hipkins does post on X, although the official Labour X account hasn’t posted since May 2025.

“Political parties and MPs use a range of social media platforms,” said Reuben Davidson, Labour’s spokesperson for media and digital economy.

“The Labour Party has chosen to prioritise channels where we can engage constructively with New Zealanders and reach the audiences we are focused on.”

The ACT party is also a frequent user of X, but in a statement posted Wednesday condemned deepfakes, while also saying regulating companies or the technology was a step too far.

“The harms are very real, and the problem is not limited to X,” the party’s official account posted on X. “New Zealand law should target the individuals who are engaging in abusive behaviour.”

“We should target abusers directly, rather than shutting down tools used legitimately for news or satire.”

Explicit deepfake abuse is rife, the harms are very real, and the problem is not limited to X.
New Zealand law should target the individuals who are engaging in abusive behaviour.

— ACT New Zealand (@actparty) January 13, 2026

NZ First leader Winston Peters is also a regular user of X, as is the party’s official account.

The Green Party’s official account hasn’t posted since 2024, while Te Pāti Māori last posted in June.

Many other politicians post announcements or statements regularly on X, including Wellington Mayor Andrew Little and Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown.

X-slash-Twitter has wielded a heavy influence on social media over the years, despite its relatively smaller user base than other social networks.

It’s difficult to find precise figures, but research by Meltwater/We Are Social for 2025 showed Twitter was only the 11th most used social platform, with just 23.8 percent of internet users on it, while DataReportal said it estimated 15.2 of eligible audience (those over 13) used it.

In InternetNZ’s 2024 Internet Insights report, X was among sites like Discord and Mastodon that it lumped in with the description “most New Zealanders have never used these social media platforms”. It found 73 percent of New Zealanders never used X.

“Most New Zealanders would agree that the creation and distribution of non-consensual or abusive AI-generated images is utterly unacceptable and raises serious questions about the responsibility of platforms to create a safe online environment,” Labour’s Davidson said.

He said he has proposed a member’s bill that would hold platforms more accountable for harmful content, although it has not been pulled from the ballot.

In addition to McClure’s deepfakes bill, Education Minister Erica Stanford has also promised regulatory changes over social media harm in response to calls for a minimum age of 16 to access social media similar to what Australia has recently instituted.

Has X gone too far?

Brown said that X has lost its usefulness to many people and that some New Zealand accounts have been leaving the platform.

“That’s the tragedy of it. The old Twitter had come to fill a kind of important niche for those kind of institutional accounts and it was a way to reach the public quickly with information. And now you’re asking the public to wade through a sewer to get there. It’s broken now.”

“I think the discussions are being had” about leaving X, he said. “I think there are public groups who are on X who are having the discussion, I think.”

Free speech and human rights groups are also staking out sides on whether to rein in X.

Rights Aotearoa put out an open letter to Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith calling for regulation of X, while the Free Speech Union blasted the rise of “censorship infrastructure.”

Rights Aotearoa said it was “deeply concerned” about X’s Grok tool.

“This represents a serious and immediate threat to human dignity, privacy, and safety,” its chief executive Paul Thistoll said. He said Grok’s image generation raised concerns about image-based sexual abuse, child safety and gendered and identity-based harm.

“The non-consensual creation and potential distribution of intimate imagery constitutes a form of sexual violence with severe psychological and reputational harm to victims.”

However, Free Speech Union chief executive Jillaine Heather condemned calls to block X by the UK and warned New Zealand against doing the same.

“Today it’s X for failing to police Grok. Tomorrow it’s any platform a government decides is insufficiently compliant. Australia already banned everyone under 16 from social media last month. Not from illegal content. From platforms entirely. Safety rhetoric, expanded control.

“Attempts to use child safety as a pretext to ban, restrict, or de-platform X would represent a serious breach of free expression and would be met with determined resistance. If the New Zealand government joins this international suppression effort, it will have a fight on its hands.

“Free speech is not a privilege granted by governments when it suits them,” Heather said. “It is a fundamental right and it will be defended.”

But Rights Aotearoa’s Thistoll said before today’s announcement that the government should act.

“The technology exists. The harm is occurring,” Thistoll said. “The government has both the power and the responsibility to act.”

Brown said what has happened to X is also part of a wider shift away from platforms like Facebook and broad concerns about “enshittification” of the internet and the polarisation of politics sweeping across all platforms.

“I think a lot of people are moving away from social media altogether, and exactly what solution they’ve found for keeping in touch with people I think varies from person to person.

“With what’s happened with Grok and these non-consensual undressing apps, I think we actually have reached the point where decisions need to be made.”

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

There’s simply nothing better than ditching the workwear for an outdoor get-up and heading into the bush.

Thousands will head into the great outdoors this summer, including MPs from across the political spectrum.

RNZ interviewed a range of politicians about their experiences going bush: the highs, the lows and the whys.

Labour’s Duncan Webb is lucky to be alive

Labour MP Duncan Webb has been tramping since he was 13 and still grimaces when he recalls his first bush adventure. He followed his older brother and some of his mates into Arthur’s Pass one day, clad in heavy oilskin jackets with thin sleeping bags tucked into bulky packs they’d borrowed.

“Our parents had no idea what we were doing, and neither did we,” he said.

After an “extremely fatiguing” first day the boys found themselves in poor weather as they were crossing a mountain pass.

“It just rained, just constant rain and driving wind. We were freezing cold and as we came down the other side of the pass we got lost.”

The group took the wrong side of a creek and ended up next to a steep gorge, when Webb’s pack proceeded to fall down.

Webb said he fell into the river retrieving his pack and struggled to carry on to a hut as his drenched clothing chilled his body down.

“I was really tired and exhausted so I sat down and curled up and tried to go to sleep. I had quite advanced hypothermia.”

Webb said his 14-year-old companions “kicked him” until he moved and they eventually found a hut, had a kai and got warm.

The next night proved no better after the group camped next to a lake that flooded their tent in the middle of the night. Desperate to catch a train out the next day, Webb said the group swam across a flooded river “hearing boulders tumbling under their feet in chest deep water”.

“Utterly stupid,” he said.

His happy ending was being sent into a pub as the youngest to fetch some food for the group. Some kind West Coasters gave him hot chips and a lemonade, he said.

“We were all terrified. Our families weren’t pub goers. So, I was sitting there having chips and lemonade while my mates were out the back freezing cold,” he laughed.

Webb’s nightmarish first go at tramping hasn’t put him off what has become a lifelong love of walking in the bush.

“It’s almost meditative because you’re out there and sometimes it’s quite hard work, you’ve gotta pack on and going uphill so all the physical things are going but at the same time, you’re not thinking about anything in particular. You’re just focused on what you’re doing and where you are and it’s really refreshing and re-energising.”

Webb’s favourite place to walk is, somewhat surprisingly, Arthur’s Pass. He’s currently planning a tramp with his grown children in Mount Aspiring this summer.

ACT’s Cameron Luxton on being one with the food chain

A hunter, not a tramper, ACT MP Cameron Luxton’s ideal day in the bush involves tracking wild pigs and deer. Having lived in Galatea, near the foothills of the western side of Te Urewera, Luxton has made many memories. Some are better than others.

“One that immediately strikes is when I was brand new to hunting, I didn’t pick it up until I was in my teenage years. I climbed the biggest hill I could find. looking for the elusive deer. I was up there in my rugby shorts, walking through a beautiful clearning, nice and light green with dark bush around it, I thought this is perfect, this is the sort of place I need to be. That light green turns out to be my first experience of stinging nettle… I needed to learn that lesson once.”

Luxton said hunting for him was more than just gathering food.

“You have to be zen. You have to be part of the bush. You’re inserting yourself into the food chain, into the cycle. You have to be part of what the bush is. It can take a couple of hours, sometimes a day or so, to really get that feeling but when you hit that flow moment, that’s when you really are into it.”

There was nothing like getting off the beaten track either, he said.

“DOCs got some great tracks out there but there’s nothing like getting stuck into some gnarly heads of some gully somewhere, bashing through some bush that you just wouldn’t do if you weren’t after a quarry (game animal). So, hunting opens up a whole lot. Our forest and our hills are a massive untapped resource for a lot of people.”

Over the years, he’s introduced his sons to hunting, though they may not be so keen on following in his footsteps just yet, he said. “My eight-year-old son shot his first deer last year. He’s keen but he’s actually just got really into spear fishing. It’s one of those things like, do you force your hobbies onto your kids or do you adapt to what they’re doing?”

Given summer is not prime hunting time, Luxton said he would be spending it at the beach.

“Come autumn though, as soon as that first chill is in the air, that’s when I’ll start getting really excited to get back into the bush. End of March, early April I start doing silly things like getting the roar horn out and having a moan in the backyard.”

New Zealand First’s Andy Foster loves a long run

NZ First MP Andy Foster is a proud member of the Tararua Tramping Club and has walked many of the trails in the steep ranges north of Wellington. He loves being up above the bush line in the tussocks, grasses and mountain daisies.

“We can only visit that as opposed to staying there long term because it’s can be a hostile environment, but also the views you get to see from up there. Then there’s just being away, you know, away from the busyness of life and often the best part of that is you’re connecting with other people. You’re spending time with other people. I made a lot of good friends out of tramping.”

Though he’s slowed down over the last few years, Foster was at one point a keen mountain runner, clocking some huge kilometres.

“I’ve done runs like round Ruapehu in a day, Milford-Routeburn, Nelson Lakes to Lewis Pass across the table lands to Leslie-Karamea, out of the Wangapeka into the West Coast. It feels really good to do those sort of things. You get to see a lot, you possibly don’t get to appreciate it at the same slower pace that you go tramping but it’s great.”

He’s hit more than a few hurdles out on long runs before but that’s never put him off, he said.

“The run we did from Nelson Lakes through to Lewis Pass, it was in summer and the weather turned ugly. We got over the Waiau Pass heading towards Lewis and the weather started turning ugly, snow on the hills. We decided we’d actually stop slightly short at Cannibal Gorge. We had a couple of pieces of cheese and one bit of pita bread and that was it between us. We got there right as rain in the morning.”

Foster said while there were many highs that had come from tramping and mountain running, there were also some lows that came with the territory.

“Heights are not my favourite thing because you look down and think, if I fall off that’s the last thing I’ll ever do. The sad thing is that over time, I’ve lost a number of friends who’ve fallen off things tramping or low level climbing. It’s not to be taken lightly.”

National’s Barbara Kuriger walks to explore

National MP Barbarba Kuriger and her husband Lewis lace up their tramping boots every summer.

“We’ve done the Queen Charlotte, Abel Tasman, Milford Sounds and we like to get off on a Great Walk when we can. Last year we did a mixture of Coromandel, Waikaremoana, the Tongariro Crossing and, of course, in Taranaki. We’ve always got little short walks we can do on our Taranaki maunga on a Sunday and we go up Maungatautari while we’re in Te Awamutu.”

Kuriger said they make the most of transfer services that carry overnight gear for walkers, making the trails that much more enjoyable.

“We do a little bit of a cheat walk because we tend to take more of the accommodation where there’s food available. We don’t carry our beds and everything with us. We do an option where there’s huts available. It makes it pleasant, because you’re just really walking. You’re not carting things.”

She particularly loved the solitude of the bush, she said.

“You get to the end of the day and you’ve seen some amazing things out of out of civilization. You spend a whole lot of time, 11 months of the year actually, being with people and it’s quite nice just to get out in nature and take that time out.

Kuriger was already looking forward to walking this summer..

“We’re actually doing a little bit of a combo, where we go down the Forgotten Railway and then end up in and around Wanganui, which is actually the great walk that’s not a walk because it’s river. We’re going up to the blue duck station and I’ve always wanted to go up to the blue duck station. It’s exploring different parts of the country. I love it.”

The Greens’ Chlöe Swarbrick on feeling small in the great outdoors

Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick didn’t grow up walking but has come to love it during her adult life.

“I’ve become much more of an outdoor greenie as I’ve got older. It definitely wasn’t a thing that my parents were super into when I was younger. I was very much living an urbanised life up until I made the effort to get outdoors. I’m lucky now to have a lot of friends and community who spend time outdoors and have been teaching me the tricks of the trade.”

Swarbrick said she kept a pretty busy schedule, but still managed to find time for the odd overnight tramp during the political year.

“Probably my favourite one from this year was one up in the Tararua Ranges. We went up to Powell Hut. The visibility was pretty terrible but we spent one night up there and went all the way above the clouds. There’s nothing quite like nature to remind you how small we are and to humble you to the things that really matter.”

She said she walked to connect with friends, and disconnect from life.

“One of my good mates in particular who I get to go tramping with, we will spend time delving into all of the most insane recesses of politics, but then spend hours just tramping along in silence. That’s the thing that I really do enjoy; that opportunity to just take some time and some space and to get off of a screen.”

While she didn’t have any walks lined up for the summer break yet, she was sure she would end up in the bush at some point.

“When I’m in Tāmaki I often do my best to get out to West Auckland, as well as getting across to Aotea. My summer is kind of unfolding. I know that I will be in the Waikato touching base with my family but from that point, I will absolutely be hitting my mates up to see who’s keen on an adventure.”

Note to reader: Te Pāti Māori declined RNZ’s request for an interview for this story.

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

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters says the India free trade deal has been rushed through for political gain, and more wins could have been secured with longer negotiations.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Trade Minister Todd McClay announced the deal at the Beehive on Monday.

The agreement – which Luxon hopes to have signed off next year – includes significant wins for several industries, but only limited gains for dairy.

With New Zealand First agreeing to disagree with National and ACT, support will be needed from across the political aisle to get the majority support needed to pass it through Parliament.

Labour is also withholding support for now, saying the deal does look like a “very small step” forward in a world of trade disruption but the dairy sector will be disappointed.

Labour’s Trade spokesperson Damien O’Connor said meaningful access for the dairy sector must be the priority, and it was naive of Luxon to commit to a deal with India as a campaign commitment in 2023.

The Green Party says the government has not approached it seeking support, and would want to see the full text of the agreement before making any commitment.

Te Pāti Māori is refusing to support the deal, saying Māori have not been consulted, the Treaty of Waitangi clause is too weak, there’s too few wins for dairy, too few protections against corporate exploitation and no transparency.

Peters told RNZ the deal was neither free, nor fair.

“We should not have rushed it through,” he said. “We had been set a target by the prime minister of over the next three years from 2023… well, we got almost a year to go. This is not a good deal, because it has that aspect of being rushed about it.

“I’ve seen deals where the objective was for political purposes rather than economic advantage for New Zealand. This is one of those.

He said the deal was “far too generous”.

“Australia’s Free Trade Agreement has no such conditions. The UK free trade deal has no such conditions. So, why did they get imposed upon us?”

Peters said he would be surprised if the other parties in Parliament, like Labour, did not share his concerns.

“When you make a campaign commitment inside a coalition government, you listen to your partners… I’d be surprised if those other people in Parliament were not concerned with the same issues of alarm that we are facing on this matter.

“The previous Labour government was trying and it failed because of certain barriers, and here we are in this case signing a deal because we’ve taken down our barriers, and those barriers were in our national interest.

“Our market’s totally open to India and has been for a long, long time. All we’re asking for is a fair deal in reverse. And this is not.

He said in the 1980s we thought the whole world would adopt free trade, but they haven’t.

“They’ve kept their protections up, and here we are trying to graft ourselves back into the international economy.”

Peters pinpointed a lack of wins for dairy.

“We needed to spend more time with time to get them to understand that they’re going to need huge food supplies. Going forward, their level of production per cow is far too low compared to New Zealand,” he said.

“It’s in that way we could have helped them in their own market, and both of us profited.”

He said he was confident better terms could have been secured.

“I believe that by spending more time with Indians, we could convince them of the advantages of a fair deal for us. That’s what I’ve always believed.

“Because if you can’t get a fair deal, then you just have to walk away.”

RNZ has sought further comment from Trade Minister Todd McClay.

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

Te Pāti Māori co-leaders say they were “blindsided” at the way things “spiralled out of control” this year.

Both Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi know next year be “tough”, but insist “there is no left bloc without Te Pāti Māori”.

Te Pāti Māori was riding high at the end of 2024, following a historical hīkoi to Parliament grounds.

As the party leaders sat down for an interview with RNZ at the end of 2025, they were in a markedly different position, following months of turmoil.

Ousted MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi – who is temporarily reinstated to the party following months of turmoil that led to her expulsion – told RNZ she was feeling “upbeat” heading into 2026, despite all the “yucky stuff” this year.

Takutai Tash Kemp

The party was rocked when the former Tāmaki Makaurau MP died suddenly in June after battling kidney disease.

Ngarewa-Packer said watching Kemp fight so hard to be an MP, to advocate for her people and be an “influence for her electorate”, while becoming sicker, then to “lose her so suddenly” was the “most devastating thing”.

They tried incredibly hard from the sidelines to support her, she said.

Waititi said she became “gravely ill” and he regretted not having “stronger” conversations with her about “just letting this mahi go”.

“She fought to be in this house, she fought to stay here, even with that, and she wasn’t going to let that sickness define her.

“I think, if any time we can see people really struggling, we should have those conversations and make sure that this isn’t the last stop for many of our people.”

He acknowledged the “fight for our people” was on one level at Parliament, but fighting to be with your “babies and your mokopuna” was just as important, if not more so.

Ngarewa-Packer said she probably wouldn’t grieve properly, until she returned home and could let her breath out.

Waititi reflected on comments he’d made at his aunty Dame June Mariu’s tangi, where he acknowledged that her children had to share their mother with the rest of the country and when the country gave her back, “she was broken”.

He said everybody benefitted from the work people did, but often it was the families who had to “pick up the pieces”.

“Society expects Māori to work harder.”

Ngarewa-Packer said the cost of leadership in te ao Māori was “extremely high”.

“You are expected to grind your way through pain, hold on to your emotions, work when the seasons are unworkable, all these sorts of things, whether it be through grief or fall out.”

There was also the expectation of turning up “on the ground” – just being at Parliament wasn’t enough, she said.

“You don’t get to go away to your holiday house for a treat for a month.”

Tāmaki Makaurau by-election

The party was then thrust into a by-election campaign it went on to win by miles.

In terms of the success, Ngarewa-Packer said the leadership “basically stopped what we were doing” and made it a priority for the electorate to know it wasn’t just getting a candidate, but the “attention, the aroha, the manaaki of the leadership too”.

She pointed out Tāmaki Makaurau was “one of our most established electorates”.

“It’s no disrespect to the candidate, but no matter who the party chose, there was actually quite a large infrastructure around that particular electorate.”

Waititi said “the movement” also played a part, and the victory made it clear Labour no longer had a “hold on those Māori seats”.

The people’s respect for Kemp also helped secure the win, Waititi said, off the back of the “biggest hīkoi this country has ever seen” and “the haka”.

In November 2024, tens of thousands of people marched through the country to Parliament under the banners of Toitū te Tiriti. Te Pāti Māori’s youngest MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke also went viral for starting a haka in parliament during the first reading of the Treaty Principles Bill.

Asked what Te Pāti Māori offered that led to such support, Ngarewa-Packer said one of the biggest things was Māori leadership.

She said the party didn’t have to “settle” for “politically palatable” policies or actions.

“That has its own dynamics to manage, but the reality is what they could see and hear was a movement that wasn’t stifled by non-Māori views.

“What people want to see now and hear and feel is Māori leadership and Māori politicians,” she said.

That was the “brand” the party put forward, “including Māori whanaungatanga”.

Waititi said “our people can see themselves in this movement”.

“For the first time, politically, in this democracy, they could see Te Pāti Māori rising to become a very viable positioning in any future government coming through.”

Leadership

Party leadership has been severely challenged of late, starting with allegations by Toitū te Tiriti spokesperson and son of Te Pāti Māori MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi – Eru Kapa-Kingi.

Months of turmoil followed, including counter-allegations, and an increasingly public fallout between the party and two of its MPs.

It led to the expulsion of Mariameno Kapa-Kingi (now temporarily re-instated) and Tākuta Ferris. A court hearing is scheduled for February 2026 to consider the issue of John Tamihere’s party presidency and the expulsion of Kapa-Kingi.

Asked what happened and how the party could return from the damage, Waititi said he still had not seen evidence to back up those allegations.

“I would love to have seen it, because then we could deal with it.”

He also said the disputes moved “outside these doors into a space that we had no control over”.

He acknowledged that te ao Māori was hurting over the split in the party, but that he couldn’t control the behaviour of others – “All I can do is control my own.”

He said it just “kept going and going and going” in the media and on social media, but re-iterated Te Pāti Māori didn’t take the issue to the media, social media or the courts.

“That should have been in house and we should have continued to have those discussions.”

RNZ suggested the co-leaders must have known an email sent to membership risked being leaked.

Waititi said: “We must have known a whole lot of things.

“That leaking of that email was not of our doing.”

Waititi said, if its electorates asked for information, it would have provided the information, “because the mana sits with them”.

“The mana doesn’t sit with Debbie and I,” he said. “We don’t get to choose what they want to see and what they don’t want to see.”

In terms of the public dispute, Ngarewa-Packer said she “felt very blindsided” by some of the comments and accusations made at the beginning.

“It just spiralled out of control, because you could see we were grinding.”

She hoped there was still enough goodwill to dispute and debate the issues internally, but the “minute it went external” – certainly for her own Te Tai Hauāuru electorate – “that was enough”.

The leaders clarified that was the point at which four of the six electorates decided to expel Kapa-Kingi and Ferris. Tai Tokerau was excluded from the process, while Te Tai Tonga and Hauraki-Waikato abstained.

“They had every right to say ‘enough is enough, we will not tolerate this for our kaupapa’,” Ngarewa-Packer said.

She said she completely understood the way people reacted in “disappointment”, “shock” and “horror”.

“We kept a lot inside for a very long time. We have to accept that our people are still feeling the emotional let down.”

She said you still have to “love” and “fight for” your people, even “when you disappoint them”.

Ngarewa-Packer said – “sadly” – individuals decided to “make it about personality politics”, but she didn’t think it was about Tamihere or any personality – it was about a “fundamental disagreement on how things should run”.

“From our perspective, it should not be the MPs that run the party. It should be the electorates.”

Ngarewa-Packer pointed out not everyone would like their leadership at different times and not everyone would agree across electorates at different times, but “you have to be disciplined”.

Asked whether expelling the two MPs went as expected or whether it had backfired, Waititi said things were “getting worse” before the expulsions.

“It just kept bleeding and bleeding.”

He believed there should be a good reason for people to resign.

“Give us a reason why JT should resign as a president. Give us the reason why.”

Ngarewa-Packer confirmed “absolutely” no consideration was given for Tamihere to step down as president, even if it would help unite the party.

Election year

The leaders knew next year would be tough, but they were adamant “there is no left bloc without Te Pāti Māori”.

Ngarewa-Packer said that was why the leadership should stay, because it showed certainty, and would help the party navigate through the “rough times” and remind everybody “what we’re here to do”.

“We are here, not to win big popularity competitions. We’re here to bring the movement and advance it through.”

Part of that was mobilising – again – the confidence “of our people on the ground”, Ngarewa-Packer said. At times, this would also look like showing political leadership that “may not be popular”.

“If the end goal is to get this government out and to get the left block in, then that has always been our focus.”

She did not deny it would be hard, but she pointed to 2020, when she and Waititi brought Te Pāti Māori back to Parliament.

“Not to play it down, but 2020 was bloody harder.”

Waititi said they had to “pull this waka” from underneath the water.

“We know what it’s like to have to build a rebuild a movement.”

Asked about Labour leader Chris Hipkins increasingly criticising Te Pāti Māori, throwing into question the ability of the two parties to be in coalition together, Ngarewa-Packer called it “poor politics”.

She said using a period of turmoil for Te Pāti Māori to “try and elevate themselves” was naive.

Waititi said Hipkins could critique them all he liked.

“Chris Hipkins, you will not be the prime minister without Te Pāti Māori.

“The Labour Party and the Green Party will need Te Pāti Māori to get over the line.”

Te Pāti Māori ‘unrecognisable’ – Kapa-Kingi

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi – who was awaiting a substantive court hearing in February to confirm whether her reinstatement to the party will be permanent – told RNZ she was feeling upbeat as she wound down the parliamentary year.

The high court’s temporary ruling had given her a sense of “satisfaction” she said.

“That was a good feeling for me to have that decision laid down for me, for my family and everybody.”

The toughest part of this year had been having a “campaign against me and my kids and my family”, she said. Having information “thrown across the media” felt “hurtful” and “wrong”.

She described “pieces of the puzzle” coming out in various ways more recently, with “truth-bombs” happening on the way. She spoke specifically of an interview by MATA with Tākuta Ferris, which levelled new allegations against Te Pāti Māori’s executive.

“That really brought some truth to the surface that people weren’t aware of.”

She indicated the court case next year would “bring it all together” in that particular setting, although she acknowledged court was a “last resort”.

Kapa-Kingi said she had no concerns in terms of information that may come to light in the court case that would paint her in a negative way.

Stuff reported earlier in December on a text message that had been included in the court documents.

One of the key issues that led to the fallout within the party was whether there had been an agreement between Kapa-Kingi and Takutai Tash Kemp to share resources between their electorates – leading to the projected budget blowout Kapa-Kingi was accused of.

Lawyers acting for TPM president John Tamihere said they had evidence showing Kemp was not pleased about how much had been spent by Kapa-Kingi. This was in the form of a screenshot of a text message from Kemp to Debbie Ngarewa-Packer which read:

“I can’t afford another transfer of $45k that’s just ridiculous and would mean they take $79k for five months for doing what,” she wrote, and then included a screaming cat emoji.

In response, Kapa-Kingi told RNZ she questioned the weight of someone’s case if it was based on an emoji, and said she had giggled when she heard of it.

She did not know how people would respond to it, but she was not worried.

“The bigger story, I guess, or the bigger actual decisions and outcomes of that certainly will out outrun any emoji.”

She confirmed she stood by all her spending decisions.

Looking ahead to 2026, Kapa-Kingi said the kaupapa behind Te Pāti Māori was “untouchable”, but the party was not in a good place.

The way it operated was lacking tikanga and fundamental ways of being Māori.

She said she kept hearing the breakdown within the party was about “personality” but she rejected that, saying it was about “systemic failing”.

She said what was need was a reset, “a serious reset, not a pretend, reset, but a real one”, referencing the party’s attempt at a reset as its newest MP Oriini Kaipara was sworn in in October.

“But I’m back in there now, see. So I’m gonna do everything I can to set it back on track.”

One of the missing pieces she said was “honest, straight, upfront kōrerō”, which she said she was going to help organise going forward.

“If it takes longer than 20 minutes in a caucus, then it takes longer than 20 minutes in a caucus.”

The party has not yet had a caucus meeting since Kapa-Kingi’s temporary reinstatement, and she remained distant from the co-leaders at the AGM in Rotorua throughout the day. Tamihere said at the time the party did not want to welcome her back into the fold.

She said that first caucus meeting will be “rough”, “testing” and “challenging,” but some “serious consideration” needed to happen next year if the goal was a change in government.

Currently, the party was “unrecognisable”, she said, but there was an opportunity to “pull it together”.

“And I’m up for that.”

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 targeting “private interests and corporate greed” as it gears up for an election the co-leaders expect to be filled with vitriol and personal attacks.

Swarbrick – facing her first campaign as co-leader – is calling for fundamental economic change, and laid down a challenge to take Richardson’s place in a debate with Willis.

She and Marama Davidson are adamant those saying the party has lost sight of its environmental roots are bad-faith actors, and said climate will be one of three bottom lines the party would bring to negotiations if they are in a position to help form a government.

Push for economic restructuring

Speaking to RNZ in an end-of-year sitdown interview, the two co-leaders say the government spent more time talking about their Green Budget this year than its own.

Swarbrick said their Budget worked “phenomenally well” and the party is planning a repeat for 2026.

“The Greens are the ones asking this government and this country and this Parliament for a meaningful policy debate, which really actually prompts the question of why our Minister of Finance would prefer to entertain a debate with a ghost of this place, as opposed to the Green Party,” she said.

Willis challenged Taxpayers Union chair Richardson – who was National’s finance minister from 1990 to 1993 under Jim Bolger, and delivered the so-called “mother of all budgets” – to a debate this month.

“Anytime, anywhere,” Willis said, but after disagreements over time, venue and moderator Richardson appeared to torpedo the clash, refusing to be part of a “circus or sideshow”.

Swarbrick said the Greens were “very much clearly taking a stand against corporate greed over public good” and eager to take Richardson’s place in a future debate.

“Absolutely. I’ve been challenging her on the tiles for the last week,” she said.

Richardson had wanted to wait to debate Willis until after the December opening of the books.

When it arrived, she characterised it as “the worst in 30 years” and economists warned the government would need to make difficult choices with debt likely needing to rise to cater to an ageing workforce.

Swarbrick described this as a “doom loop” with high unemployment and low growth leading to a lower tax take and requiring the government to borrow more to pay for the same level of services. She argued for reshaping of the economy – taking on more government debt earlier to boost productivity by investing in industry.

“One of the examples that we’ve given is a central North Island wood processing space, which could then be used for sake of helping to decarbonise our electricity system, but also for helping to build more public housing.”

Staffing issues nothing ‘outside of the normal’

The Greens have had several staff resign over the past year, including their chief of staff Eliza Prestidge-Oldfield, director of communications Louis Day, and senior press secretary Johnny Blades.

Swarbrick denies that turnover is “anything other than outside of the normal”.

“We’re in the middle of the electoral cycle, everybody who has worked for us … we have good relationships with. We continue to support all of those who have decided that maybe they don’t want to be here right now.

“I think when you do that work in this fishbowl… it can feel like psychological warfare. This is a deeply inhuman institution to work within.”

Davidson said the party was “really, really stoked” former MP Kevin Hague was taking over as chief of staff.

“He had a particular expertise, skill and incredible level of leadership – but it’s been, what, a decade, and he’s grown that even more.”

Swarbrick said Hague had picked up a lot of what the party already had under way including the strategy of combating “corporate greed”.

“He’s running with it, and he’s helping us to continue to build the institution, the infrastructure that’s necessary to get our best election result ever.”

That’s despite the Greens dipping to just 7 percent in the recent 1News-Verian poll.

“We don’t pretend that it’s going to be an easy task to get people re-engaged in politics when this government has spent two years basically trying to actively disempower people and ignoring them when they choose to engage in the system.”

The ‘most toxic’ Parliamentary term

Davidson says it is difficult for people struggling with living costs to engage in democracy.

“That is intentional, that is designed to stop people from wanting to engage, to stop people from realising their own power.”

She said the party would be putting in effort to get voters registered and active, but was also expecting other parties would be more nasty and vitriolic as the election neared.

“We’re seeing it now, but that doesn’t have to be what we give attention to.”

She said the Greens would love to see all parties sign up to a commitment to not use personal attacks, or using technology and artificial intelligence in a way that “doesn’t tell the truth”.

Swarbrick says this has been “definitely the most toxic” of the three Parliamentary terms she had been an MP.

“And it is also the term in which it appears as though truth is completely fallen off the table. It is incredibly difficult to have meaningful public policy debates with people who refuse to accept that up is up and down is down, and gravity exists, and climate change is real.”

She said the party had been working on putting forward policy to show what they stand for, not just what they stand against, because “that is a far more powerful place for any individual human being to operate from then the politics of division”.

Working with Labour, Te Pāti Māori, or New Zealand First

Questioned about non-negotiables – and clearly anticipating questions about Labour’s tax policy – Davidson said that was “up to the people to decide” and “no politician or political party gets to say what is completely in and what is completely out”.

She said specific priorities would be decided closer to the election, but “always, there’s going to be upholding the wellbeing of people, tangata, the wellbeing of environment, taiao, and that that is only possible through upholding Te Tiriti”.

She named “climate, protecting nature, and ensuring that everyone is taken care of” as bottom lines for negotiations if the party were in a position to help form a government.

“The public good over corporate greed, it’s as simple as that,” Swarbrick says. “We’re not only interested in changing the government but… a government of change.”

Davidson said they hoped Te Pāti Māori could sort out their problems with leadership but “that’s absolutely for them to do”.

“There is time for them to get themselves together. The other thing is, again, it’s for the voters to decide the ultimate votes on the night of election.”

Davidson didn’t engage directly when asked about New Zealand First potentially positioning itself as kingmaker.

“If people want a government that properly talks about the issues, provides the solutions, pulls people together instead of a government that has a party that thrives on the politics of division and targeting vulnerable groups of people, then they really need to ensure that the Greens are strongest.

“I think if you want the real New Zealand First,” Swarbrick says, “you’ve got to party vote Green.”

Keeping up with the climate

While much of Swarbrick’s focus has been on economy and cost of living, she said the public should be paying more attention to climate change.

“The government is relying on climate policy being so complex and therefore potentially boring to people that they disengage from it, but this is a slow-moving car crash, the climate crisis is a cost of living disaster.”

Not only would it mean more severe and frequent extreme weather, she said, but insurance retreat leading to a worsening housing crisis, and less predictable food-growing.

Those saying the Greens have lost sight of the climate and environmental issues – including NZ First’s Winston Peters – are “bad-faith actors”, she said

“They know the questions that we have asked… they know the fight that we’ve put up against the fast track legislation, they know that Marama put out a very clear statement about our intention to revoke if the government chooses to move ahead with the most heinous… fast-track consents,” Swarbrick said.

“We have been pushing Nicola Willis to provide transparency about the cost liabilities and meeting our nationally determined contribution [to the Paris Agreement], which she continues to say that we’re committed to yet won’t show us the money.”

She said the Greens’ vision for the economy “caters to and upholds the wellbeing of both people and planet”, which did not need to be traded off against each other.

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 ban on new prescriptions of puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria in young people – which was due to come into effect this week – has been delayed, pending a judicial review.

In a decision just released, the High Court in Wellington has ruled in favour of the Professional Association for Transgender Healthcare Aotearoa (PATHA), which filed an application for an urgent injunction to prevent the ban coming into effect on 19 December.

The government announced last month it was banning new prescriptions of the drugs (gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues), which are used to halt the unwanted physical changes that come with puberty, until the outcome of a major clinical trial in Britain, expected in 2031.

PATHA is seeking a judicial review of what it calls the “illegal and unethical decision”, saying the use of puberty blockers should remain a decision made by doctors in consultation with affected families.

President Jennifer Shields told the court the organisation was not consulted or even given prior warning of the Cabinet decision.

“PATHA was only made aware that there had been a decision made about puberty blockers from an X post on the morning of 19 November 2025.”

A community researcher on transgender health, Julia de Bres, said parents were deeply shocked by the government announcement and there was “widespread panic and distress”.

In an affidavit for PATHA, a doctor said restricting access to this medication was likely to pose ethical challenges to health professionals who could no longer deliver what was “accepted to be best-practice care”.

Judicial review should happen ‘urgently’ – judge

Justice Michele Wilkinson-Smith said it was not possible to make an order directing the Health Minister to ask the Governor General to amend or appeal the regulations, as PATHA had sought.

“Such an order would potentially pit the Court against the Executive Council and that is constitutionally inappropriate,” she wrote.

“However, in this judgement I make a declaration that the Crown should take no steps to enforce the regulations pending the judicial review being determined.”

There was a reasonable argument that the regulations were “unlawful in a judicial review sense”.

“There is also no evidence of a particular need to act urgently to prevent new prescriptions because of some immediate risk to physical health if young people commence treatment.”

The potential for a negative effect on mental health from banning them was “a far more immediate concern”, she said.

Furthermore, the timing of the regulations, coupled with the lack of notice that a ban was contemplated “had the effect of taking PATHA and the whole transgender community by surprise”.

“Standing back and looking at the overall justice of the situation, I am persuaded that a delay in enforcement of the regulations is the best option now available.

“The judicial review should be heard with all possible urgency.”

Cautious approach required – Health Minister

Health Minister Simeon Brown declined to comment in detail while the matter remained before the courts, but said the government was seeking legal advice.

In his affidavit, Brown said he recommended to Cabinet that it agree to progress policy options to “respond to the issue of poor evidence either for or against any long-term benefits or risks from puberty blocker treatment”.

While puberty blockers had been approved for many years to temporarily delay precocious puberty in very young children, their “off label” use to treat gender dysphoria increased markedly between 2010 and 2020, followed by a fall-off towards 2024, he noted.

The Health Ministry’s evidence review in 2022 found “a scarcity of quality evidence” on the impacts of puberty blockers in terms of clinical and mental health and well-being outcomes.

“The evidence reviewed was found to be of low quality with studies presenting a high risk of bias and significant limitations.”

Brown said the lack of evidence meant there was a risk of unintended consequences for gender dysphoric children and adolescents.

“After balancing the risk of restricting the medicine against the uncertainty and risk of potential harm for those patients, the Minister says he was satisfied that a cautious approach was required.”

Consultation with PATHA and other groups and individuals on whether restrictions were necessary was carried out by the Health Ministry between November 2024 and January 2025.

A ‘sensible’ decision – Labour

Labour leader Chris Hipkins said the court’s decision was “sensible,” and called the original decision by the government “politically motivated.”

Hipkins said Labour’s position was that it was a matter for the young person concerned, their family, and their physician.

“I don’t to buy into the identity politics argument, or culture war, frankly, that the current government are trying to provoke with these sorts of decisions. Because I actually don’t think that’s a good place for our very diverse rainbow community to find themselves.”

Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson said the courts had come down on the side of people having access to gender-affirming healthcare.

“Well done to the communities, organisations out there who showed up for each other. Wish this government would listen,” she 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

Both Labour and the Taxpayers’ Union have hit back at criticism levelled at them by Finance Minister Nicola Willis, saying she must take responsibility for the state of the books.

Treasury’s Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU) – published on Tuesday – showed a surplus was not forecast until 2029/30, although Willis said the government would still target 2028/29.

The expected deficit for 2025/26 was projected to be $13.9 billion, $1.8b worse than forecast in May. A slower economy, lower tax take, higher debt costs were cited as reasons for the revisions.

In her accompanying Budget Policy Statement, Willis mounted a defence of her “deliberate, medium-term” strategy, and attacked her opponents on both the left and the right.

She acknowledged there were calls for her to take a harder approach – and cut spending faster – and those who wanted a softer approach.

But Willis said going harder could hurt lower income families and depress demand in the economy, while going softer was “reckless and irresponsible”.

She used Labour’s opposition to the government’s savings measures to create a hypothetical Labour Budget, with an increase to the deficit and the debt.

Using Treasury’s analysis of the savings the government had delivered over its first two Budgets, Willis’ office calculated that if government spending in 2024 and 2025 had not been offset by its savings programme, then the OBEGALx deficit would be $25b, and net core Crown debt would be 59 percent of GDP over the forecast period.

“We have the receipts, and unfortunately for Labour, having opposed every saving that we have delivered, they cannot take a position of responsible fiscal management,” Willis said.

But Labour leader Chris Hipkins questioned whether Willis had factored in the government’s tax cuts to those forecasts, an initiative Labour would not have gone ahead with.

“We certainly wouldn’t have delivered the tax cuts that they delivered at the last election, which have now created the structural deficit that Nicola Willis is dealing to.”

Labour’s finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds said the government and Willis had made the wrong decisions.

“She’s blamed Labour. She’s blamed Fonterra. She’s blamed Ruth Richardson. She’s blamed the unions. She needs to have a good, hard look at these books and reflect on the choices that she’s made.”

The Green Party’s co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said the government had created a “doom-loop” for itself.

“They have underfunded our public services and infrastructure, they have completely gutted the circumstances necessary for creation of jobs and a productive economy, which in turn has meant they have lowered their tax revenue,” she said.

“All of this has meant that we are circling the drain as a country, and these are active government decisions. Different decisions can be made.”

At her Tuesday media conference, Willis brandished a policy document from the Taxpayers’ Union, which said abolishing Working for Families tax credits would save $2.98b in 2025/26, or $14.95b over the forecast period.

Willis said such a policy would take money away from 330,000 families overnight, with beneficiaries and low-income working families to bear the biggest brunt.

“It would create a level of human misery that I, for one, am not prepared to tolerate.”

The Taxpayers’ Union head of policy and legislative affairs James Ross told RNZ not all of the suggestions in the document had to happen, but the longer it took the government to make choices, the harder it would be.

“The real story is that for the third time in just two years, the minister has seen the surplus slip back and back and back,” he said.

In the HYEFU, the cost of superannuation payments was projected to increase from $24.8b in 2025/26 to $30.9b in 2029/30 (with the number of New Zealanders receiving Super tipped to cross the one million line in 2027/28).

Willis, who temporarily put on her National party finance spokesperson hat, said “all sensible parties” should take a position on superannuation into the campaign.

A policy to raise the KiwiSaver contribution rate, announced last month, was National’s “opening shot,” Willis said, in that the party sees KiwiSaver playing a greater role in people’s retirements.

ACT leader David Seymour agreed superannuation needed to be looked at.

“There is an obvious change that just about every country we compare ourselves with is making, and that is now inevitable in New Zealand. The question is are we going to make that change slowly and gradually in our own time, or have it foisted on us by some financial crisis in the future?”

Edmonds said Labour was not prepared to change the superannuation settings “at this point,” while New Zealand First leader Winston Peters asked what had changed to make people concerned.

“When it’s only 5.2 to 5.3 percent of our GDP, half the imposition that it is in other economies, how can this be the issue?”

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

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

Farmers will be exposed to the uncertainty of the three-year political cycle by the government’s decision to walk away from the bipartisan consensus on climate change, the Greens say.

The government is pushing through all three stages of a bill to weaken the 2050 methane emissions target under urgency in Parliament on Friday.

If passed, a required 24 to 47 percent reduction in methane from 2017 levels will be halved, to a 14 to 24 percent reduction.

In setting the lower target, the government rejected Climate Change Commission advice, arguing it would lower GDP in 2050 by 2.2 percent from what it otherwise would have been.

Instead, it followed the advice of a methane science review it commissioned, which found the lower target was consistent with a controversial principle of ‘no additional warming’.

Methane – which is a short-lived gas but has a huge warming effect while it exists in the atmosphere – makes up roughly half of New Zealand’s emissions. Most of it comes from farms, especially the burps and breaths of ruminant animals like cows and sheep.

Climate Change Minister Simon Watts said the government was supporting farmers and economic growth.

“Farmers have been clear that they need a methane target that is realistic,” he told Parliament.

“This bill reflects our belief that a thriving climate and thriving economy go hand in hand.”

The government was supporting work on farms to reduce emissions, including investing in agricultrual methane-inhibiting technology via public-private partnership AgriZero.

New Zealand’s international targets – including halving net greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 – were not changing, he said.

Green Party MP Francisco Hernandez said the legislation was “a betrayal of the farming community [National] purport to represent”.

Farmers had been previously shielded by the bipartisanship forged when Parliament passed the Zero Carbon Act – which set New Zealand’s original targets – with near-unanimous support in 2019, Hernandez said.

That would end when the amended target was passed either today or tomorrow.

“Every three years, the agricultural community will now have to face the rollercoaster experience of the chopping and changing of targets.”

He criticised the government’s decision to push through the change under urgency, with no public consultation or select committee scrutiny.

“They will not be able to complain when we use the same process.”

Labour Party climate change spokesperson Deborah Russell said the government had chosen “a very curious day” to be pushing through the bill under urgency.

“It is 10 years to the day since John Key’s National government signed up to the Paris Agreement, and here we are today, in this house, downgrading our methane target, valorising dubious science, and walking away from our commitments to reducing climate change.”

Setting a lower target might be cheaper in the short-term, Russell said.

“But the costs will be borne by our children and our children’s children.”

Previous MPs, including from National, had worked hard together to get a bipartisan consensus on the original targets, she said.

“There was genuine consensus… and that party has walked away from it.”

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

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

While many people ease into Christmas, head to drinks, write cards and mentally check out, in its penultimate sitting week of 2025 Parliament is doing the opposite.

This is one of MPs’ busiest weeks of the year.

Ten new bills across different portfolios were introduced, a matching number for Santa’s reindeer (including Rudolf). Probably the most high-profile of them were three comprising the surprise arrival of the government’s major shake-up of the Resource Management Act (RMA).

News of the legislation’s arrival at Parliament took place during an lock-in event reminiscent of Budget Day, in which the government gave opposition MPs, officials and the media a couple of hours to familiarise themselves, before releasing a full outline of its RMA reform plan at 1pm.

The RMA is to be replaced by two new laws – one focused on development planning and one on the natural environment.

Those two bills were introduced this week, but the government opted not to progress them under urgency this week to give “members a good chance to digest them”, Minister for RMA Reform Chris Bishop said.

Those two bills are moving through the default legislative process, so they won’t pass until a few months into next year. They aren’t scheduled to take effect until 2029.

To bridge the three-year gap and provide some certainty in the interim, the government began urgency with a third, RMA related bill – the Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Bill.

“At the moment, consent holders face an unnecessary burden,” Bishop told the House on Tuesday.

“Many of them are required to renew resource consents under the current system, even though the new system will be in place; that will streamline processes. It’s our view that that is inefficient and unnecessary. So these are temporary yet urgent changes that will avoid uncertainty, stress, and cost.”

The third bill extends resource consents that are due to expire before the new RMA regime is passed (end of 2027), and it reinstates and extends recently expired consents in cases where a replacement application has already been lodged.

The RMA was originally passed in 1991 by the fourth National government and was, at the time, internationally novel. More than 30 years later, there’s general agreement that reform is needed. Where political parties’ ideas deviate is how those changes should look.

Because the opposition hadn’t had much time to delve into the details of the extension bill, their grievances on the bill included the use of urgency.

“Minister Bishop and Simon Court have been very, maybe ‘collaborative’ would be too strong of a word, but they’ve involved us at some points along the way in the resource management development. I want to give them credit for that.” said Lan Pham, Green Party spokesperson for RMA.

“What was really disappointing with this was not having any heads-up about it at all. That would have been a really basic thing to do, right? If this is so important and urgent to the transition, just let us at least know about it, right? Then we can actually understand it.

“The fact that we’ve just got this bill, literally an hour or two before it goes through all stages in urgency, is absolutely unacceptable.”

Governing party MPs seldom speak for long in the current Parliament, but under urgency they get very terse. This bill was set down for all stages under urgency, and coalition backbench contributions were barely elevator-pitches. Opposition MPs filled their allotted speaking times.

After a long evening in the Committee of the Whole stage, with Opposition MPs happy to slow proceedings, the Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Bill eventually passed all stages about an hour into Wednesday morning. It’s likely to be signed into law next week.

To listen to the audio version of this story, click the link near the top of the page.

RNZ’s The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament’s Office of the Clerk.

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 coalition’s RMA reforms seem far more likely to stand the test of time than what Labour passed shortly before being voted out.

Four government ministers fronted to announce the Resource Management Act replacements to more than 100 reporters, stakeholders commentators and officials at the Beehive on Tuesday afternoon.

They include a Planning Bill and a Natural Environment Bill the government will send to select committee next week, with the aim of passing by the end of next year, presumably before the election.

Given the consultation processes needed, the proximity to that election may echo Labour’s effort in 2023 which was quickly scrapped by the incoming coalition.

But indications from the opposition are that the merry-go-round of RMA reform will finally come to an end.

Labour won’t repeal – Hipkins

Labour leader Chris Hipkins said the party was still working through the detail of the roughly 750 pages of legislation, particularly the regulatory relief aspects.

“That is the bit that we’re going to want to get into the detail of, because that could be very, very difficult for future governments, for future lawmaking, in the public interest,” he said.

“If you have to be compensating for every sort of infringement on somebody’s unfettered right to do whatever they want with their property, that has potentially far-reaching implications.”

But he indicated Labour would not return the coalition’s favour and again repeal and replace the legislation – opting instead to make changes.

“I think the repeal and replace cycle needs to end. That doesn’t mean that there won’t be amendments but the old idea of constantly going back and starting all over again has to stop.

“From what I can see there’s a heck of a lot of similarities between what they’re proposing now, and the law that they repealed.”

The Green Party said whatever went through had to protect the environment, community voice, democratic processes and the Treaty.

“This government has shown time and time again that they will pass laws that further erode our environment and our living systems, our habitats and species,” co-leader Marama Davidson said.

RNZ has sought comment from Te Pāti Māori.

Certainty amid ‘tsunami of change’ – councils

Local Government New Zealand was happy to have certainty, saying there would be buy-in from councils and communities alike.

Vice President Rehette Stoltz, who is also Gisborne’s mayor, said she saw an increased workload ahead, it would also be an opportunity for more engagement with central government which had signalled it was open to.

“I think local government is seeing a tsunami of change, but we’re ready for that. We want to serve our communities as best as possible. Yes, there will be more work on local mayors. There will be more work also with local communities, because we will have to lean in, and our communities have to lean in to let us know what’s important to them at that local level.”

LGNZ’s regional sector chair Deon Swiggs, who is also chair of Environment Canterbury, said it was an opportunity to think differently about resource management.

He said the coalition’s version was “straight out” simpler than Labour’s, and he hoped the government would use the expertise of regional councils.

“Regional councils have some really, really good people who know this work [like the] back of their hand. And we do have elected members who have been elected to regional councils who were elected because they wanted to be in the resource management space,” he said.

“How we harness the skillsets of those people into this transition framework as well is going to be critical. So we want to be making sure that we have conversations with the government so that we don’t lose that technical skill, that institutional knowledge.”

Farmers, property professionals, Taxpayers Union back ‘ambitious’ reforms

Federated Farmers said the Resource Management Act had been the single biggest handbrake on growing agricultural productivity and rural economies.

Its resource management spokesperson Mark Hooper said it made sense to use certified Farm Plans instead of needing a resource consent.

“Farm Plans can achieve much of the same environmental outcomes as a resource consent, without the need to fork out tens of thousands of dollars on expensive planners and lawyers.”

However, Hooper said the increase in fines and restrictions on the use of insurance to cover a breach did not strike the balance in the right direction.

“This needs to have more nuance so that when harm is done accidentally, for example an effluent system fails due to poor engineering, this is recognised in the regime.”

The New Zealand Planning Institute said the timeframes for transition to the new system were “ambitious”, but supported the legislation.

“There are plenty of positives in the new system, with a refocus on the value planners bring to society,” NZPI Board Chair Andrea Harris said.

“We’ve been advocating for strategic spatial planning, which considers the long-term needs of society and coordinates the provision of infrastructure and growth within constraints.”

The Taxpayers’ Union said scrapping the Resource Management Act would be “the most meaningful tax relief offered by this government or any government in decades.”

Environmental groups rail against ‘regulatory relief’ effects

Greenpeace said companies being able to claim compensation was an “outrageous” idea, and it “flips the entire principle that polluters should pay on its head.”

Spokesperson Gen Toop said New Zealanders should not be expected to pay compensation to companies causing environmental harm.

“In practice, this means that if regions like Gisborne want stronger rules to stop forestry slash destroying homes and rivers, ratepayers would likely be forced to pay offshore forestry companies ‘compensation’. It’s absurd.”

The Environmental Defence Society also expressed concern at the regulatory relief proposal.

“That will have a chilling effect on councils protecting things. If they protect something, then arguably they have to pay the landowner for that, which is really bizarre and I think is a construct that comes out of right wing ideology,” EDS chair Gary Taylor said.

“Councils will have rate caps, so they won’t be able to afford to pay, so they’ll have weaker controls.”

Forest and Bird general counsel Erika Toleman said putting greater weight on private property rights would ignore harms like destruction of biodiversity on private land, erosion of soils and ecosystem services, and cumulative degradation of rivers and landscapes.

“Big environmental issues, from deforestation to water pollution, happen within property boundaries. Excluding these effects is a recipe for decline,” she said.

Toleman said introducing compensation would make councils fear liability for protecting nature.

Ministers sell the policy

Announcing the new regime, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said it would be a “more permissive, consistent and predictable system, that unlocks investment, reduces delays and gives businesses confidence to plan and to grow”.

He said officials estimated up to 46 percent of consenting and permit applications required under the RMA could be removed – between 15,000 and 22,000 consents that would no longer be needed based on 2023/24 figures.

Luxon was flanked by Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour, RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop and Associate RMA Reform Minister Simon Court.

Seymour said it was “an historic and momentous day” because it marked a shift to the principle that “if you own a property and you’re not harming anyone else, you can”.

“We have the best piece of land on the planet but we’ve made it too hard to build an affordable life here, but worst of all we’ve done it to ourselves with planning laws that allowed every Tom, Dick and Henare to say no when people had an idea to make life better.

“It seems that for every person in this country who think they can, there’s a ‘can’t’, who’s empowered by the Resource Management Act to get in the way.”

Bishop said it would mean “less paperwork, less cost, faster and easier progress for those who want to do basic things like putting a deck on a house, building a fence on a farm, or constructing townhouses or even a wind farm”.

“The size of the prize is substantial. The economic opportunities we unlock with these reforms are unbelievably large,” he said.

He said economic growth would begin as soon as the system was set up and would build up over time, unlocking billions in economic value.

“Once this is implemented new Zealanders will be able to go to one website, look at one map, and figure out what they can and can’t do with their property – and in time they may be able to obtain simple consents online within a matter of days by harnessing the power of AI.”

He said councils would no longer be involved in gauging demand or financial viability of projects, retail distribution effects, the negative effects of development on competition.

“Which way your front door faces is an important decision, but guess what, it’s an important decision for you and your family, not for a local council bureaucrat to decide for you.”

Court said the major shift was towards a system with property rights at its centre, “after all, property rights are a core cornerstone of a liberal democracy”.

“Providing for regulatory relief is a critical way to right-size regulation by forcing councils to confront the real cost of these restrictions on private property that for too long have been costless to that council officer holding the highlighter, colouring in people’s property.

“It’s also a way to ensure that when these controls are justified, the property owner can access reasonable relief.”

He said the planning tribunal set to adjudicate when there was disagreement, will hold councils’ feet to the fire.

Bishop acknowledged the new regime had some similarities to Labour’s approach, but said he would “stand absolutely behind the decision” to repeal that law in favour of his own version.

“We started again for a reason and I think we’ve ended up with a with a good outcome. Yeah, I absolutely think that was the right thing to do.”

The third coalition partner New Zealand First did not have a speaker at the announcement, but deputy leader Shane Jones said Māori involvement in the rollout would be key.

“Let’s see how the bill comes out of the Select Committee. But, you know, unless we have development in our Māori rural communities, they’re going to be in strugglers gully,” he said.

“But there’ll be people who disagree, because obviously the debate is ongoing as to how much veto power should Ngāi Tahu, for example, have over the development of the South Island.”

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 says there is no need for a further inquiry into the Jevon McSkimming scandal, claiming the government’s implementation of an Inspector General is the strongest response.

On Sunday, former Police Commissioner Andrew Coster told TVNZ’s Q+A that ministers knew more than they had admitted about McSkimming.

Coster claimed he had briefed former Police Minister Chris Hipkins and current Police Minister Mark Mitchell about the allegations before both said they were aware.

Both Hipkins and Mitchell have denied Coster’s claims.

Mitchell told Morning Report it was “absolute total nonsense,” and that he did not know anything about the allegations before 6 November 2024.

Christopher Luxon has expressed confidence in Mitchell and his timeline of events.

“You can go through the process story of who said what, when, and where, but from my point of view the matter’s settled. Mark’s addressed the issues, I’m very comfortable with that. I think he’s doing an exceptionally good job,” Luxon said.

A further inquiry – such as a Royal Commission – was not needed, Luxon said, as the government’s focus was on responding to the Independent Police Conduct Authority’s report’s findings and making sure it did not happen again.

“No, what we need to do is jump to the solution that any inquiry would generate, which is to give us the strongest statutory oversight mechanism possible, which is that of an Inspector General of Police,” Luxon said.

Acknowledging Hipkins had also come out to deny Coster’s allegations, Luxon said Hipkins and Mitchell had taken the same approach.

“That’s not their recollection of events at all. And I think we have to trust them with that.”

Hipkins said he had spent time over the weekend “reflecting” on conversations he had with Coster while he was Police Minister, and could not recall any where it came up.

Coster’s claim that he told Hipkins in the back of a car while the two were travelling around the South Island “simply never happened,” Hipkins said.

“Certainly not on the road trip that we did across the country, nor at any other time. So I don’t know what he’s referring to there, but he clearly never provided me with any briefing of the allegations surrounding Jevon McSkimming.”

An informal conversation in the back of a car would have been insufficient anyway, as there was an obligation from the Police Commissioner to disclose what he knew during the formal appointment process.

“One of the observations that I would have from this is that there did appear to be a culture within the Police of downplaying the significance of any of these allegations,” Hipkins said.

Whether there was a need for a further inquiry was up to the government, Hipkins said, but he would support any decision they took in that regard.

Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson said it was important system failures were fixed, and for the harm of victims and survivors to be centred.

“I’m hearing a lot of them protecting themselves. I suppose that’s natural, but I would really like to hear any voices involved, especially men in power, to really direct their voices back to fixing the system and to supporting victim survivors.”

Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi wanted an investigation separate from the IPCA, now that allegations were coming out after its release.

“If there are facts coming outside of the IPCA, then obviously the IPCA report hasn’t done its thorough job. There should be another external process, like a Royal Commission, into that particular issue, to ensure that we’re getting all the facts, also taking into consideration the IPCA report but also those other allegations that are coming in afterwards so we’ve got a full picture.”

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

This story has been updated to include additional comment from Oranga Tamariki.

The Green Party is calling on the government to abandon boot camps, after ‘Scrutiny Week’ questioning revealed another intake of the controversial programme is planned for early next year.

During their appearances at Parliament’s Scrutiny Week committees, Minister for Children Karen Chhour and Oranga Tamariki officials were asked if they would move forward with another boot camp or military-style academy (MSA), before the law making it a sentencing option was passed.

The minister denied decisions had been made, but officials later said another camp with a new design was planned for the early new year.

Oranga Tamariki confirmed to RNZ it planned to run a further voluntary programme in March 2026.

The Responding to Serious Youth Offending Amendment Bill, introduced in November last year, would give judges the sentencing option of a MSA for repeat serious offenders.

The discrepancy between the minister’s statements and those of officials was “what Scrutiny Week is actually about – digging into what ministers and officials are saying, compared to what they are doing, and this was a big red flag”, Green Party MP Kahurangi Carter said.

Green Party MP Kahurangi Carter. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith

While passing the legislation may take another six months, job vacancies for the next iteration of the MSA were already advertised, she said.

Carter accused the government of putting the cart before the horse.

“We have a minister and ministry officials saying there are no definite decisions being made, but they are actively recruiting before legislation is in place.”

The “tough on crime” rhetoric came amid rising poverty, hefty cuts to community programmes working with youth and other policies affecting vulnerable families, she said.

“We’ve got a government who is pushing through with cancelling emergency housing, cancelling access to emergency food parcels and bringing in benefit sanctions. All of these things are key indicators of outcomes for children.”

The minister was using young people as a political football to push a tough-on-crime rhetoric, Carter said.

The next boot camp appeared to have been devised without strong evidence on the success of the pilot.

The minister had “cherry-picked” information from the independent evaluation and Carter believed another review was pending.

“My understanding is that the review has been commissioned, but they’re moving forward without it being complete, which just looks like one failed boot camp experiment to the next, without legislation, without making the changes that are needed, without investing in the communities and the people who have been doing this mahi for decades.”

An Oranga Tamariki spokesperson said it had not commissioned any other evaluations or reviews of the MSA pilot.

The move also conflicted with the wishes of survivors of abuse in care and recommendations of the Abuse in Care Royal Commission, Carter said.

The Green Party wanted to see the plan ditched in favour of more funding for programmes that worked with young people in their communities. Boot camps were a failed experiment, she said.

“History has shown us – like in the royal commission of inquiry – that doesn’t work. What works is wrapping support around those kids and making sure we’re taking a holistic view of their lives.

“That’s where things like housing, poverty, having food on the table, education, vocational training, comes into it – where [there are] opportunities for them to participate fully in society.

A ministry evaluation of MSAs held in 2009 and 2010, and sent to Oranga Tamariki staff in March 2024, before the pilot programme, underscored many of the same criticisms found in the independent evaluation of last year’s pilot.

The earlier camps were found to have insufficient screening of staff and participants, lack of clarity around roles, inadequate information, training and resources, and required better engagement with whānau and a need to involve iwi services.

Minister for Children Karen Chhour. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith

The evaluation of last year’s pilot noted “meaningful and positive change” for the young people, but named challenges like rushed implementation, challenging transitions, a lack of continuity around therapeutic support, a lack of capacity in the residential phase, the need to engage with mana whenua earlier and belated support for whānau.

It also found the pilot was too small to provide any meaningful data.

During the pilot, participants ran away, one was kicked out of the programme and another was killed in a three-vehicle crash. Seven of the 10 young men involved re-offended, according to Oranga Tamariki.

Critics said the government was recycling old failures, pushing ahead with an already failed model, but Oranga Tamariki said it had integrated lessons from the earlier programmes.

Groups, including Save the Children, the Law Society and the Children’s Commissioner, have urged the government to abandon the scheme.

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 criticising the $8 million cost to set up the government’s traffic-light system for beneficiaries, which introduced new non-financial sanctions, calling it “smoke and mirrors”.

The Greens have drawn attention to the number, after Ministry of Social Development (MSD) bosses revealed, during Scrutiny Week, that just 12 people had received non-financial sanctions in the six months they’ve been available.

Nearly 13,000 sanctions were issued in total in the September quarter this year.

Green social development spokesperson Ricardo Menendez March said Minister Louise Upston had been “wasting everyone’s time” and money to create more layers of bureaucracy and “effectively unworkable” new sanctions.

Non-financial sanction options are mandatory community work or money management payment cards.

“These were supposed to be a less punitive way of addressing people’s engagement with Work and Income,” Menendez March said. “Clearly, the minister has instead chosen to continue a punitive approach.”

He said the new system merely added another interface for people to interact with, rather than meaningfully assisting people into employment.

“The only thing the traffic light has told us is that most beneficiaries are complying with their obligations… it doesn’t actually solve any problems.”

In response, Upston told RNZ the traffic-light system was “working well”, as it helped people understand their obligations.

In a statement, MSD spokesperson Graham Allpress said the new regime was intended to help beneficiaries avoid sanctions by meeting their obligations, of which and more than 98 percent currently were.

“We invested $8.11 million into a variety of changes, which make it quicker, simpler and easier for our clients to check whether they’re doing what they agreed to do.

“It’s working as intended. People are engaging with us more often.”

Allpress said the small number of non-financial sanctions was because they could be applied only in specific circumstances.

For example, to be eligible, the individual would need to be in case management or have dependent children, fail an obligation just once, and then meet with a case manager within five days of that failure.

Appearing at a select committee on Wednesday, during parliament’s scrutiny week, MSD chief executive Debbie Power denied those circumstances were too narrow, given just 12 people had received non-financial sanctions, saying, “We’re just starting”.

Power said she had heard from the front-line that staff and clients appreciated the transparency of the system’s colour arrangements to better understand what was expected of them.

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

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