Explainer – New Zealand has signed a deal with Singapore that will ensure exports of essential supplies like food and fuel keep flowing, even during a crisis.

A bit like the one we’re facing now.

While it was inked this week, negotiations concluded last year, and Singapore has kept the fuel coming since the outbreak of the war on Iran.

Neither Christopher Luxon nor his Singaporean counterpart Lawrence Wong would have known just how handy that deal was going to become back in October.

It’s a pretty simple equation, crisis or no crisis: New Zealand needs fuel, Singapore supplies fuel. Singapore needs food, New Zealand supplies food.

With no refinery in New Zealand since the closure of Marsden Point, we’ve had to rely on importing refined fuel from elsewhere. Singapore has supplied around a third of that.

The background

New Zealand and Singapore have a longstanding trade relationship.

In the year to June 2025, two-way trade was worth $11.07 billion.

The two countries signed a free trade agreement (the New Zealand-Singapore Closer Economic Partnership, or CEP) all the way back in 2000.

In April 2020, they committed to a declaration on trade in essential goods, in response to the Covid-19 pandemic.

That declaration ensured neither New Zealand nor Singapore would impose export restrictions like tariffs on 120 essential goods like various foods, pharmaceuticals, and medical equipment.

While the declaration was non-binding, in 2022 former New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern and former Singapore prime minister Lee Hsien Loong established a supply chain working group to build on those commitments and spirit of cooperation.

In October 2024, Cabinet agreed to launch negotiations, and a year later the Agreement on Trade in Essential Supplies (AOTES) was agreed to.

Were we at risk of fuel being cut off?

Singapore has made it clear it was hardly going to turn the tap off anyway, given the relationship and how much it runs counter to our general trade philosophies.

New Zealand farmers are pretty reliant on diesel, in order to produce the food that is then exported to Singapore.

So there was never much of a motivation for Singapore or New Zealand to all of a sudden become more protectionist.

But now it’s in writing, with legal obligations, and sitting within the CEP.

“Unlike the declaration, the AOTES is a binding, treaty level agreement and is not responding to an immediate supply shock but helping both of our countries prepare for future crises,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials wrote in a national interest analysis.

Countries can use a critical shortages exception under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), but this new deal is “novel,” officials said, because it prevents that from happening.

Not that New Zealand has ever used that exception. To the best of their knowledge, officials couldn’t find an example.

So, even if Singapore experiences a supply shock, it still can’t apply that shortages exception, which gives New Zealand more certainty.

But what if the worst happens?

If we’re talking about the absolute worst of the worst of situations, like a nuclear apocalypse which wipes out all of our crops, or the island where Singapore’s refineries are based all of a sudden sinks into the sea, then yes, sure, Singapore and New Zealand could technically circumvent the agreement.

The countries can still use other provisions or exceptions in the GATT or their World Trade Organisation agreements, so they can still impose export controls for “reasons such as national security threats, the protection of human, plant and animal health, public morals, or the regulation of classification, grading or marketing of commodities in international trade.”

That’s where a rapid review clause comes in, meaning both parties can call an emergency meeting to discuss adding or removing goods to or from the list.

Singapore and New Zealand have also promised to share information with each other in the event of a significant or imminent supply chain disruption, such as the predicted impact on their economy or national security, or how long it may last.

There is a provision within Singapore and New Zealand’s CEP which allows Singapore to adopt “any measure” to address critical shortages of essential imports.

So, if there’s a supply chain crisis, Singapore could use the provision within the CEP to prove an exemption from the AOTES.

But, officials said, the threshold was high, as the “relevant goods need to be listed as essential in Singapore’s domestic law, the critical shortages need to give rise to major difficulties for Singapore, and the measure should not be used to arbitrarily discriminate against New Zealand or to impose a disguised restriction on trade.”

So why is fuel still so expensive?

While the deal reduces New Zealand’s risk of fuel shortages, it doesn’t reduce our exposure to prices.

The AOTES ensures both countries continue to “expedite and facilitate” the flow of supplies, and prevents them from imposing export restrictions.

It does not “cut across” the role of the private sector in the production or management of supply chains, and there’s no regulation within the agreement for the private sector.

It also doesn’t mean New Zealand or Singapore have to commit to procurement, or guarantee the supply of goods.

New Zealand importers still have to pay the market rate for the fuel, and that inevitably gets passed on to consumers.

Singapore’s refineries have had to adapt to process sweeter crude than they’re used to, and sourcing it from elsewhere has also brought in extra costs.

The fuel companies can source it. They can refine it. They can transport it. But it’s still going to cost us, especially if that supply gets more constrained.

That’s why, even though the fuel is still coming into New Zealand, we’re still seeing those prices at the pump.

Both Wong and Luxon have been bleak in their assessments of the fuel crisis, with neither thinking it’s going to end any time soon.

What else is in there?

Food and fuel are the headline items, mainly because they’re the most pressing things the respective countries would need in a crisis.

The lists can be changed, but only if both parties agree to the edits.

New Zealand’s list includes petroleum and oils (other than crude, which we wouldn’t need anyway without a refinery), hydrocarbons, medications, vaccines, polymers, medical equipment, and building materials like steel and glass insulation.

Officials on the New Zealand side said the list was chosen to reflect what New Zealand already imported from Singapore, as well as “whether New Zealand could or could not stand-up production of the specific good in the times of crisis, how substitutable the good is, and whether we can easily source the good from elsewhere.”

Singapore’s list is almost entirely food: meats, vegetables, legumes, fruits, dairy, grains.

Coal is also on Singapore’s list, as are photographic cameras, for some reason.

Is it really a world first?

The “first of its kind” definition is technically true.

Australia concluded negotiations on a similar economic resilience deal with Singapore last month, committing to keep supplying Singapore with liquefied natural gas while Singapore promised to keep supplying Australia with refined fuel.

But even though New Zealand’s deal has only just been signed now, it has been locked in for longer.

Luxon has used that to rebuff criticisms that he should have got on a plane to Singapore sooner. The deal was agreed to in October, Singapore promised to abide by it in-principle once the war started, there was no rush.

“We didn’t need to, because the Australians didn’t have what we have. They probably still haven’t got what we have. We put this in place in October, Prime Minister Wong and I are good friends, and we agreed that we would work to this and formally sign it on this visit. So it’s served us incredibly well. We haven’t needed to go sooner as a result of this,” he told RNZ ahead of the trip.

Can we expect others to join in?

Luxon is pointing to the deal as an example of smaller countries innovating and modernising trade architecture, rather than responding to the United States’ tariffs with a tit-for-tat protectionism.

Both he and Wong have expressed openness to other countries wanting to join in.

Singapore and New Zealand’s deal had an advantage because they came from a running start, and had identified the products each other wanted, but both prime ministers have said others can sign up, as long as they can meet the same standards, guarantees, and commitments.

In July, New Zealand will chair a meeting with 15 other like-minded economies such as Malaysia, Switzerland, Norway, and the United Arab Emirates, and Luxon has said it’s possible some of those countries may want to give it a go.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communications breakdown: Emails and the national interest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Confidence in caucus and in coalition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Free trade disagreement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crossing the floor when the Cabinet room won’t do

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Winston Peters is “very, very confused” over the handling of official information relating to the Iran war, National’s deputy leader Nicola Willis said.

Foreign Minister Winston Peters said it was a “process mistake”, while National said he was putting politics ahead of the country.

The Prime Minister’s office in a statement, said Peters had admitted to Christopher Luxon in a private meeting his mistake in releasing emails about the official stance on the United States’ attack on Iran.

Peters publicly acknowledged his error on Thursday afternoon.

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

The emails suggested Luxon had been considering expressing “explicit public support” for the US assault, but Peters’ office believed that would be “imprudent” and “counter to New Zealand’s national interests”.

In the end, the government’s stance walked a more cautious line with no explicit support for the US but Luxon said in a post-Cabinet briefing this was no different to Australia’s stance – which was more supportive -prompted further questions about what the official position was.

However, Luxon’s office had since issued a statement saying the email release mischaracterised Luxon’s view, and claiming his doing so without consulting the prime minister’s office “clearly put politics ahead of the national interest”.

His office said the prime minister’s job was to challenge advice he received and he was merely seeking to test New Zealand’s stance against those of Australia and Canada.

Peters said it was a “process mistake” – but pushed back on suggestions releasing the information was an error.

“The assumption was that the prime minister’s office were doing the same thing, and we should have checked that first,” he said.

“I’ve been around a long time, longer than anybody else here, and I can recall even under the Muldoon government… the view was if it should be disclosed, disclose it if there’s no good reason not to.

“If you can release it, release it… I’m simply just saying I should have made sure that the prime minister’s on the same wavelength.”

National’s deputy leader Nicola Willis said the emails should not have been released by Peters’ office.

“No. Under the no surprises policy you consult before you release emails. If consultation had occurred it may well have been the case that they were released – the problem here is that the coalition agreement sets out very clearly that we will act in good faith.

“He now seems very confused. Very, very confused. One minute it was a mistake, next minute it wasn’t a mistake. Now I understand it’s a mistake again – and the problem with Winston Peters is you never know what you’re going to get.”

That was a reference to Peters telling Pacific Media Network various parts of the reporting of the matter were wrong.

“The claim that it was in the prime minister’s office was wrong, I mean how can you get that fact wrong? And then there’s other parts about it that are seriously wrong as well.

“I was under the understanding that things that should have happened had not happened, and I found out this morning in my office that those things did happen. Now I’m not going to make a big song and dance about it – but the truth will out and I intend to make sure it does.

“I acknowledged that I’d made a mistake and I found out this morning that I didn’t make a mistake,” he had said, but soon was admitting his mistake to reporters at Parliament.

Willis said Peters’ actions were inconsistent with the no surprises principle and were not in good faith.

“This is the problem with Winston Peters. What’s to say he won’t have a bout of similar confusion in coalition talks?

“Judge him by his actions. This is the man who put Jacinda Ardern into the prime ministership,” she said. “He has said that he won’t support a Labour, Green, Te Pāti Māori government, what if he gets confused”.

She suggested Peters’ actions could put coalition stability at risk.

“It’s really important to him that we ensure strong, stable government. And as I’ve said the actions of Winston Peters’ office were inconsistent with achieving that, and the prime minister has a duty to serve New Zealanders and we cannot do that as an executive if some political parties are off pursuing political gamesmanship rather than the national interest,” she said.

“When you release emails that characterise someone else’s position you consult with them. This is how the Official Information Act works… that doesn’t mean you’re always happy about the results of the consultation but you consult.”

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

“He’s been in parliament longer than I’ve been alive and he should know better,” he said.

“It’s standard practice when it comes to these matters that there’s consultation between offices. That didn’t happen … he considers himself a statesman well the reality is he should operate in a way that respects the office of the prime minister.”

Brown said Luxon had been wanting to test the foreign ministry’s advice in relation to what the Australians and the Canadians were saying at the time, but “our position’s very clear, he’s made that position very clear, and it still stands”.

The third coalition partner, David Seymour, played down the dispute.

“The coalition has had a joined up and consistent approach throughout this, I know what you want to talk about but people have discussions behind closed doors before we come to a position. I’d be much more worried if there wasn’t a discussion,” he said.

He diverted from questions about Luxon wanting to express explicit support for the war.

“I think the most important thing that’s happening in New Zealand today as far as the government goes is anti-money laundering legislation … I don’t even understand what your question’s about, most people won’t understand it or care, but actually this government is fixing what matters.”

He said the reporting of the dispute was “one person’s view of another person’s view of something that happened months ago, and the government had a united support position on it.

“The situation has changed so much since that time it’s kind of academic. All I’d say is that Australia and Canada, two of our best friends, came out with a certain position. We tossed up that position, we ended up taking a more moderate one.”

Seymour dismissed questions about whose office the meeting between Peters and Luxon was in.

“I know that there are people who argue about who’s meeting in whose office on which floor. Look, sometimes I meet with people in their office, sometimes I go and meet with them, sometimes I’m technically higher ranked than them, sometimes they’re technically higher ranked than me – well technically it’s only one time – but you know, I don’t think that’s really what matters to most Kiwis.”

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

Debate in Parliament reveals a patchwork of roles and purposes: representational and legislative; government and governance; personal and political. The political weight of everything rises incrementally in an election year.

The variations are most prominently on display in the weekly Wednesday General Debate – the only regular event that has no set agenda, topic or outcome.

It’s like open mic night at Parliament. Every speech can be different, and things may change markedly from week to week.

It’s not first-come-first-rant though. The parties are rostered slots by proportion and choose who will speak.

Sometimes the General Debate includes some genuinely funny political stand-up. More often, MPs’ attempts at humour fail horribly. This week had neither, but there was still plenty to note, especially regarding treaty clause edits, party leadership, rest home exits, the India Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and of course, the election.

Defence and attack from minor governing parties

ACT’s Parmjeet Parmar spent her time promoting the benefits of the India FTA, specifically, and immigration generally. It was a pretty traditional, straightforward rhetorical policy defence.

“Migrants are not on the sidelines of our economy; they are part of our economy. This ‘butter chicken tsunami’ [attack by Shane Jones] is just a slogan. It’s a slogan that has been created to do two things. One is to create fear, and the second is to grab attention. I say this to New Zealanders: don’t fall in that trap.”

The India FTA has been a point of discord within the governing coalition, and Parmar’s speech may have been themed to counter an expected General Debate attack from New Zealand First’s Shane Jones, who has been throwing grenades into the FTA debate.

But Jones avoided the topic entirely. His very individual approach to speechifying had a drill-baby-drill energy.

“Now, it was a fateful and very bleak day when Jacinda Ardern made her captain’s call and condemned the oil and gas industry to a deep-freeze virtual type of termination. It took our government to come, change the law, reverse that juvenile climate-riddled type of analysis, and provide an opportunity for investors,” he said.

An unexpected display of potential National leaders

The National Party provided five of the twelve General Debate speakers. Unusually, most were Cabinet ministers. The sole backbencher who spoke was Dan Bidois, whose speech was electoral, but also felt like a plea for internal unity among a list of most of the presumed main party faction contenders (missing only Mark Mitchell).

“Resource Management Act reform, which Minister Chris Bishop is doing a great job with. We’ve got education reform-isn’t Erica Stanford doing a great job… We’ve got Nicola Willis making sure we actually get back to surplus… We’ve got Minister Simeon Brown, who is doing a great job of turning our healthcare system around.

“And at the helm of this is our Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, who’s knitting together three different coalition partners, knitting together a broad coalition of National MPs, getting us moving in one simple direction.”

National Party minister Simeon Brown spent all of his speech time attacking the Labour Party.

“Labour has learnt nothing in Opposition and nothing from their time in government. If they are elected in November, they will go back to their same old policies of tax, borrow, spend. New Zealanders know better, and that’s why they’ll re-elect National in November.”

Nicola Willis also spent almost all of her time attacking the Labour Party. A core theme of attacks was that Labour wasn’t yet revealing its own election policy, but was instead focused on government policy.

Ironically, both these speeches were equally focused on the opposition.

Paul Goldsmith also attacked the opposition, but unlike Brown and Willis, remembered to praise the prime minister. Goldsmith also praised his own and Mark Mitchell’s work within the Justice and Police portfolios.

Mark Mitchell was the odd man out among National’s ministers (and purported leadership options). As Emergency Management and Recovery Minister, he has a role that allows a less political, less divisive approach.

If the General Debate were an election debate, you might call him the unity candidate. He praised the work of the related spokesperson from every single party – quite a sharp change in tone from the other ministers who spent most or all of their time raging against the Opposition.

Policy-oriented debate from the opposition

On the Opposition side of the House, Labour’s Ingrid Leary used the General Debate to pressure the government on a specific policy – capital repayments to residents exiting rest home properties.

“The government is proposing to change this after enormous pressure… But… the proposed time is 12 months, which is ludicrous, as has been said by Consumer NZ, and, perhaps even more unfairly, will not apply to existing residents.”

Three different MPs from three different parties attacked the government over recently revealed efforts to water down Treaty provisions in existing legislation. Debbie Ngarewa Packer for Te Pāti Māori tied the plan to the politics of distraction.

“We’ve got a climate crisis… We literally have seen cars on fences…What does it do?… It starts a culture war, because that is exactly what the playbook of Trumpism does… Epstein files. What does he do? Start a war. What does this government do? Start a war on Te Tiriti-slyly, quietly, without integrity.”

Green Co-leader Marama Davidson took a gentler approach, but also tied the Treaty clause project to the regular marae role in responding to disasters; “In the face of all of that example of Te Tiriti beauty, this government is choosing to create hate.”

For Labour, the MP who focused on legislative Treaty provisions was Camilla Belich, with “National members are too busy fighting with themselves and doing covert, secret operations to remove Treaty clauses, to actually focus on what matters to New Zealanders”.

Most speeches were in some way an election speech, most obviously the all-attack speeches from National’s Simeon Brown and Nicola Willis. Labour leader Chris Hipkins’ speech was very election-oriented but also drew on National’s recent issues.

“New Zealanders are looking for some reassurance that the government has a plan… They’re getting slogans, blame, and excuses. A government more obsessed with their own jobs than obsessed with the jobs of New Zealanders who are losing theirs.”

The Sunday edition of the House is available from the link above.

*RNZ’s The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament’s Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ.

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

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has cancelled his regular weekly interviews with TVNZ’s Breakfast programme while also lodging a complaint about the conduct of its press gallery team.

Luxon’s office notifed the broadcaster of the decision on Friday afternoon.

In a statement, a spokesperson for the PM said “we have decided to update our approach” to regular media engagements following a review late last year.

“Kiwis get their news in different ways – across radio, television, podcasts and digital platforms, and from next month, there will be three separate morning TV news shows.

“The PM will continue to be available to media, including Breakfast on a case-by-case basis.”

The spokesperson also noted National’s separate concerns about the “inappropriate conduct” of TVNZ staff

“New Zealanders want a fair, balanced and accurate media talking to the issues that matter to them. We respect the role of media, but there are standards, and those standards matter.”

Luxon’s Monday interview slot on RNZ’s Morning Report and NewstalkZB’s Mike Hosking Breakfast will continue.

In 2021, former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern provided similar reasoning when she cancelled her weekly interview on NewstalkZB.

Luxon’s withdrawal comes not long after the appointment of former Newshub political editor Tova O’Brien as Breakfast co-host.

Asked for a response, a TVNZ spokesperson said: “Our news team is committed to providing accurate, impartial, comprehensive and in-depth news coverage.

“Editorial independence is fundamental to this and critical for a free and democratic society. Part of this is holding those in positions of power to account.”

Political complaint lodged

National has also lodged a complaint with TVNZ, claiming members of its Press Gallery team broke Parliament’s rules in their pursuit of an interview with chief whip Stuart Smith.

But TVNZ disputes National’s version of events and says the correct avenue for complaints is with the Speaker of the House Gerry Brownlee.

In a statement to RNZ, a spokesperson for Brownlee said he was aware of the alleged events but had no further involvement with the complaint.

The incident is alleged to have occurred at the end of a frenetic Tuesday in which Luxon called and won a vote of confidence in his own leadership.

A key element of the story was the absence of the party’s chief whip from the critical caucus meeting. Smith had avoided speaking to reporters for five days despite his prominent role in a NZ Herald story about flagging caucus support for Luxon.

In a post on social media, National’s campaign chair Simeon Brown said TVNZ staff followed Smith into a corridor where media interviews were not permitted without express permission.

He said staff then “aggressively” knocked on Smith’s office door for several minutes and pressured him by suggesting how he might be portrayed on TVNZ’s Breakfast programme the following morning if he did not agree to speak.

This week, National has made a complaint to TVNZ about the conduct of its staff.

TVNZ staff:

• followed National Whip Stuart Smith into his corridor, an area where media interviews are not allowed without express permission;

• aggressively banged on his door for several…

— Simeon Brown (@SimeonBrownMP) April 24, 2026

In response to questions from RNZ, a TVNZ spokesperson said the news outlet had a “different view of what took place”.

“Our journalist was asking questions on behalf of the public, as they do every day. This story came to light due to leaking from National Party MPs. It was a legitimate story to follow. We look forward to Stuart Smith making himself available to explain his absence from caucus.”

The TVNZ spokesperson said the correct place for such complaints was with Parliament’s Speaker, not with TVNZ or on social media.

“Simeon Brown is well aware of this,” the spokesperson said.

In his post on X, Brown said the behaviour of TVNZ was “unacceptable” and a “clear breach” of Parliament’s rules governing media access.

“We respect the role of media, but there are standards, and those standards matter,” he said.

He said New Zealanders expected fair, balanced and accurate reporting, rather than what he characterised as “a media-driven soap opera”.

Smith finally addressed media at Parliament on Wednesday, where he flatly denied the earlier Herald report which claimed Smith had tried to alert the prime minister to discontent in the ranks.

Asked why it took him so long to issue a denial, Smith told reporters: “I didn’t feel it was appropriate [to do so earlier].”

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

Shane Jones has apologised after making a jab at the Finance Minister’s weight loss as the coalition ructions shift gears into personal attacks.

The argy bargy between National and New Zealand First first kicked off on Wednesday morning when Winston Peters told RNZ’s Morning Report it would have been “wise” for the Prime Minister to have told him about the motion of confidence vote he was planning to call in National’s caucus meeting on Tuesday.

Christopher Luxon survived the vote but the New Zealand First leader called his decision to even have it a “bad move”, “unprecedented” and suggested it would “have consequences”.

A short time later, National’s deputy leader Nicola Willis told RNZ that Peters was “mischief-making” and that the “risk” with New Zealand First was that the party had a “track record of going with Labour”.

Luxon added to that on Newstalk ZB’s The Country a short time later saying Peters was the person who had put Dame Jacinda Ardern in charge of the country and described New Zealand First and Peters’ own belief system as “anti-immigrant”.

New Zealand First’s deputy leader Shane Jones has gone much further on Thursday, telling reporters on his way into the House that the back and forth between the two parties was simply the “bump and grind of politics”.

When it was put to him that Willis had doubled down on her comments, despite Peters making clear his party would not work with Labour, Jones got personal.

“I dunno, maybe it’s an outcome of losing too much weight, I don’t know,” he told reporters as he walked off to Question Time.

RNZ put that comment to Willis, who had headed off to catch a flight. She said she did not want to comment.

But just an hour after making the remark Jones was back in front of reporters apologising.

“I owe an apology to Nicola Willis, it has been reported that my remarks were not in keeping with what one would expect from a senior parliamentarian.

“I shall be very mindful in answering questions in the future that they don’t have an unnecessary hurtful impact on my colleagues,” he said.

Jones has also personally apologised to Willis, which she has accepted.

It’s the second apology she’s received in 24 hours after Willis took offence to a comment Labour leader Chris Hipkins made in the House on Wednesday afternoon.

Hipkins, during a point of order, said, “I think she may be having a few issues. She may need some medical help”, after Willis made a loud groaning sound.

Willis demanded an apology, which prompted Hipkins to be asked to withdraw the comment, and then outside of the House the pair crossed paths with each other in front of reporters, and Willis again asked for an apology.

Hipkins later in the day got in touch to personally apologise, which she also accepted.

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’s property market is facing another slow patch – leaving some owners who bought in the post-Covid peak wondering what to do next.

Cotality’s latest data shows property sales were down 2 percent in March from the same time a year earlier.

It was the third fall in activity in a row, after drops of 8 percent in January and 3 percent in February.

Values were up 0.3 percent over three months but down 1.3 percent over a year and still 17.1 percent from the peak.

Some people who bought at the peak of the market have been facing tough questions about whether to move and swallow a loss that might so far only be on paper, or rent out their houses.

Property investment coach Steve Goodey said he was encountering a large number.

“There is a heap of people who drank the Kool-Aid during the Ardern Government when interest deductibility was being removed and they all decided simultaneously to buy a two-bedroom townhouse that was cashflow negative at full value at the top of the market. There are a lot of people hanging around now with those and mostly they’ve gone down in value by 20 or 30 percent and stayed down because there’s no scarcity to them. You can buy them everywhere.

“These people are $200,000 or $300,000 down in equity and they’re sitting on them or renting them out.

“They are mainly negative cashflow so they’re costing money each week for people to own them, I see so many people in the market at the moment that have that sitting in their portfolio costing them $200 or $300 a week and mostly they come to me and ask me my advice and my advice is either sit on it forever and it’s not going to come right or go interest-only and rent it out and pull through but if you’re facing a $200,000 loss and you’re feeding it $300 a week it’s probably not going to come right and you need to tear the band-aid off to a degree.”

He said holding on for years in the hope it would come right was often not the best plan.

“It’s costing you the ability to buy something else.”

He said some real estate salespeople had started sending listings of their most motivated vendors.

Cotality chief property economist Kelvin Davidson said activity among owner-occupiers moving from one house to the next had also slowed, which could indicate some owner-occupiers were hesitant to take a loss, too.

While first-home buyers were responsible for 27 percent of purchases in the first quarter, investors were about 25 percent and movers were 26 percent, compared to a normal share closer to 28 percent.

“Relocating owner occupiers at the moment are pretty quiet, so I think whatever decision criteria they use at the moment, they’re just deciding to stay put to some extent and when uncertainty’s high, when the economy’s looking a bit shaky, if you don’t necessarily need to move, you kind of stay where you are and we are seeing that in the figures.”

He said while people were often told there was nothing lost if they bought and sold in the same market, there could be a psychological impact.

“The mentality is a little bit different if you did buy at the peak and your first house was that top dollar price and on paper, at least, that equity has been eroded… it does change the mindset, at least.

“It’s a tricky decision for people who are thinking about moving and perhaps thinking it’s going to be hard to sell this house.”

Some might decide to rent it out instead, he said.

But he said most people would reach a point where they had to make a decision and then get on with it.

“You can go around in circles and stress yourself out. At some point, you’ve got to make a call and sort of live with it.

“At the moment, it’s, you know, if you don’t need to sell, it’s probably not necessarily the time to be selling. It’s definitely a tricky market for sellers and an advantageous market for buyers, no doubt about that.”

Opes Partners economist Ed McKnight said anyone weighing up whether to hold on to a property would need to work through a few steps.

The first was to think about whether they would buy the same property back with a 5 percent discount.

“It costs money to sell a house, often it’s around 5 percent of the home’s value, once you take into account real estate agent fees, marketing, staging and lawyers. If you have a $500,000 property, it usually costs $25,000. So a good framing is to flip it around the other way and say ‘would you buy this house if it was on sale’? If yes, you would, then hold on to the property.”

Then, people would need to think about whether they had something better to invest the money in, he said.

“If you don’t, it might be better to hold on.”

But if they did they would need to think about whether there were any exceptional circumstances, such as legal reasons that might make it helpful not to sell, or finance concerns.

“A real estate agent offered me $500,000 for one of my properties. It’s a good price in today’s market. But I said no. He couldn’t believe it. I said no because when the property was worth more I borrowed against it to buy another property. If I sold that property today, I could pay back the debt. But I couldn’t replace it. The bank wouldn’t let me, because I wouldn’t have enough equity. “

He said he said to people that it was possible to buy at different stages of the market and still make money.

“You can even buy at the top of a downturn, and sell at the top of the next downturn at still make money. But you often can’t buy at the top of the market, sell at the bottom and expect to make money.”

He said it was often the case that the best thing was to keep holding a property.

Although national values were not moving, he said, there were places around the country where prices had completely recovered, including Christchurch.

People should get advice from a financial adviser, he said.

Davidson said it seemed likely that the knock-on effects of the Iran conflict could keep the market subdued for the next few months.

Sign up for Money with Susan Edmunds, a weekly newsletter covering all the things that affect how we make, spend and invest money

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

Winston Peters was doing his best to quell concerns there were ructions in the coalition claiming the government was as stable as a “three-legged stool”.

The New Zealand First leader and both National’s leader and deputy all took turns in their Wednesday morning media slots to launch broadsides on their coalition partner before coming together in the afternoon at Parliament to say all was well and stability ensued.

It was Peters who kicked it off on Morning Report saying it would have been wise for Prime Minister Christopher Luxon to have told him he was planning to have a vote of confidence in his leadership at National’s caucus meeting on Tuesday.

Peters said the action was “unprecedented” and not one he supported, because it would have consequences.

Within an hour deputy leader Nicola Willis was on Morning Report saying Peters had a “track record of picking Labour over National, and that’s the risk you run with them”.

Luxon was next, using his weekly interview on Newstalk ZB’s The Country to say Peters was the person who put Dame Jacinda Ardern in charge of the country.

He accused his foreign affairs minister of trying to “scaremonger” and having an “anti-immigrant bias”.

By early afternoon, the ministers, on their way to Question Time, one-by-one declared the coalition was as strong as ever, while taking the opportunity for a potshot here and there.

Luxon said he didn’t need to tell Peters he was calling a motion of confidence in National’s caucus, because it wasn’t important enough to warrant it.

Peters’ argument was that under the no-surprises policy of the coalition agreement it would have been “wise” for Luxon to have given him a heads-up.

In response to that Luxon said, “Well, I just say Winston Peters isn’t backing an Indian FTA that’s delivering billions of dollars to the New Zealand people, and as a result, I don’t take all of his advice.”

Luxon added the two parties together with ACT delivered “strong stable government” and in the case of Peters, “we cooperate where we can and we differ where we must”.

Peters told reporters on his way into the House that he wasn’t worrying about Willis and Luxon saying there was a risk New Zealand First could go with Labour.

“We are actually just getting on and doing our job.”

On him having put Ardern into power, he said: “yeah I put Jim Bolger in power too, I put National in power. I put Helen Clark in power. I mean at the end of the day, it the deal that we did and we kept our word”.

He said the suggestion he was “anti-immigrant” was a “nonsense”.

And on whether he was a “mischief-maker” as Willis had claimed, Peters got the giggles as he declared, “I’ve been a most responsible son and boy doing my best all my young age – to call me a mischief-maker, that’s an outrage”.

Just across from him, Willis was at the same time doubling down on her earlier comments telling media it was a “statement of fact” that in 2017 “given the choice to support a strong National-lead government they chose to make Jacinda Ardern Prime Minister”.

“That’s a fact of history, and I’m simply reminding people of that fact.”

She added, when it came to New Zealand First you “won’t always get what’s written on the tin”.

The other coalition partner in all this, ACT, has for the most part stayed out of the tit-for-tat sledging.

Leader and deputy prime minister David Seymour did weigh in on whether New Zealand First might go with Labour though, saying, “it can be a bit of a lucky dip…but right now we are in a coalition, and we’re fixing what matters for New Zealanders”.

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 has unleashed on his coalition partner Winston Peters, saying he was the person who put Dame Jacinda Ardern in charge of the country.

In an interview with Newstalk ZB’s The Country, Christopher Luxon shot back at Peters, who earlier told RNZ he should have been given a heads-up about Tuesday’s vote of confidence at National’s caucus meeting.

Luxon has accused his foreign affairs minister of trying to “scaremonger” and having an “anti-immigrant bias” within New Zealand First and his own belief system.

Peters described the vote of confidence as a bad move, unprecedented, and warned there will be further consequences.

‘Track record’

National’s deputy leader Nicola Willis also launched a broadside, saying he has a “track record of picking Labour over National, and that’s the risk you run with him”.

She took aim at her coalition partner after he earlier told RNZ Luxon was wrong to not warn him of Tuesday’s motion of confidence under the no-surprises clause in the coalition agreement.

The comments from both senior ministers on RNZ’s Morning Report signalled the election campaign has well and truly begun, with Willis also saying Peters was “mischief-making”.

This comes after Luxon took the extraordinary move of calling a motion of confidence in himself at Tuesday’s caucus meeting, following intense media speculation about his position.

While he was successful, the prime minister refused to take questions about it afterwards or say if it was unanimous.

Asked on Morning Report if he should have been warned ahead of the vote, NZ First leader, Winston Peters, said: “It would have been wise to yes, of course.”

“In plain ambit of human relations and cooperation, the answer is of course, yes.”

Peters, whose parliamentary career began in the 1970s, said it was an “unprecedented” move from a sitting prime minister, and not one he supported.

“Because you see, you can tell when the next one’s going to happen. Not initiated by himself, but by others, and just wait for the next round of polls. And that’s the sad thing.

“I mean, this is unprecedented… there are going to be consequences. They’re seriously predictable consequences. But what I was astonished by was that they didn’t seem to understand, sadly, what they were doing. And here we are, part of the coalition, where stability of government all the way to the 2026 election and beyond is the critical component. And this is not helpful.”

Asked if he was essentially telling the National Party – which unlike NZ First, has been sliding in the polls – to get its act together, Peters said: “Well, you’ve phrased it that way, but I don’t disagree with you.”

Peters said a leadership spill would not have voided the NZ First-National coalition agreement, but that it would need to be “reshaped” – and warned National MPs against trying it again.

“You don’t sit here with all your responsibilities without looking at possible scenarios playing out and looking at every alternative. And if it’s like an octopus, the decision-making conclusion’s like an octopus with eight legs – you better understand all eight possible legs, not just three of them, five of them… You’ve got too many people with too little experience giving their views about what the outcome should be. That’s tragic.

Peters said it was important the government get back to the basics of governing “as fast as possible”.

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

A member’s Bill could stop public funding to gangs and organisations with gang ties. It’s unlikely to be a hard sell, but one expert says it’s ‘cutting off our nose to spite our face’.

National MP Rima Nakhle is drawing a hard line on gangs: no taxpayer money. Not to gangs and not to anyone linked to them.

Her member’s bill to stop public funding flowing to organisations with gang ties has been drawn from the biscuit tin, and she tells The Detail that National is “sending a very strong message that the people administering the poison are not going to be administering the antidote as well”.

“We are cracking down on gangs, we are cracking down on the misery they are causing in our communities,” she says.

“If I had a child… or family member addicted to meth and then I found out that the people who sold them the meth are getting money to take them off meth, I [would] honestly want to cry. We can’t send that message.”

The last government gave $2.75 million via Kainga Ora in 2021 to a marae-based rehabilitation initiative called Kahukura.

It was developed by Hard2Reach, a consultancy founded by Mongrel Mob life member Harry Tam, and Mongrel Mob members became key leaders of the programme designed to “reduce crime and harm from methamphetamine dependency”, especially among gang associates that other rehab programmes had found hard to engage.

“Rightfully so, a lot of people got very upset about that,” Nakhle says.

In 2024, the coalition government announced Kahukura would stop receiving money from the Proceeds of Crime Fund.

But while that initiative was under the Labour government, former PM Jacinda Ardern said it took inspiration from a National policy.

Nakhle isn’t “100 percent clear” if the coalition government has given any money to gangs since getting into power, and after The Detail’s interview, a National spokesperson couldn’t give a definitive yes or no.

In a written response a spokesperson says, “National isn’t aware of any funding that has gone to gangs under the coalition government. Given this government’s approach to gangs, it’s our expectation that government departments would raise anything relevant to that.”

Nakhle says gangs won’t get any more money on her watch.

“For some reason, or many reasons, it does make me very angry,” Nakhle says.

She says one of the main reasons it makes her angry is that “victims, for me, are really always at the forefront of my mind.”

“And I think to myself, gangs are the reason why most of our drugs in our New Zealand communities are on our shores. They are the ones that are bringing them in, to a great extent, and they are the ones selling them.

“And to say that the sellers are going to become the saviours is just like a smack in the face, particularly of parents, grandparents and family members who are going through the living hell of their whānau members, their family members, being addicted to the drugs that are being sold by gangs to begin with.

“I get so angry thinking about it.”

‘Extremely short-sighted’

But critics are warning that the bill will potentially cut funding to frontline programmes that work with gang members trying to turn their lives around.

Dr Trevor Bradley lectures in criminology at Victoria University.

Bradley told The Detail that the bill is “a great optic, particularly in the lead up to the election later in the year… this is just a natural extension of National’s punitive get-tough approach but I think it’s extremely short-sighted”.

“We do have a very big problem with meth in this country, and we know that there is a strong association between gangs and meth consumption and meth distribution,” he says.

“If we want to reduce that consumption, in particular, then we have to work with those people who are actually problematic consumers of it, and we therefore have to work with the gangs and their gang membership and the associates, and the families and whānau, and not to do so would be to turn down a really important opportunity to make a positive impact.”

He thought the Kahukura programme in Hawke’s Bay “showed pretty good potential” and he was “quite disappointed” when the funding was pulled by the coalition government.

“It did show signs of success, it did have pretty good compliance conditions, and there was pretty strong oversight.

“I think the bottom line is if we want to reach those hard-to-reach communities, and of course gang communities are a very good example of that, then we have to work with them.”

Still, Nakhle argues the principle is simple: public money should go to organisations that uphold the law, not undermine it.

But what counts as a gang link? Is it membership, association or history, and who makes that call?

“There are a few of our laws that do define what gangs are,” Nakhle says.

“And if we were to put it in a nutshell, there are three aspects or characteristics which, in our law, define a gang.

“Firstly, it’s got to be a group of three or more people; second, they have got to have a common name, or signal, or symbol, or colour; and third, they need to be associated with or are involved in criminal activity.

“Plus, there is a national gang list, with the names of gangs known to us, and that list does get updated.”

The debate now shifts to Parliament, where the bill will test not just political appetite for a tougher stance on gangs, but how far lawmakers are willing to go to draw a line in the sand.

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

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

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

New Zealand’s top spies will be weighing cutting the US out of some intelligence it shares with other Five Eyes partners, a former CIA head of counterintelligence has told RNZ.

Susan Miller had a long career in the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), including as its head of counterintelligence. She worked under the first Trump administration, but has since retired from the agency and seen her security clearance cut off by Trump in retribution for leading a probe into the Russian influence campaign during the 2016 US Presidential election.

Miller spoke with RNZ for a new podcast, The Agency, which has just been released in partnership with Bird of Paradise Productions. The podcast examines New Zealand’s close links with the CIA through the story of a Kiwi spy who spent six years in cover for the US agency.

Miller, who described New Zealand’s intelligence community as “righteous”, said she was certain they would be weighing how much could be shared with the US under Trump.

“I’m not going to be in that room when the Five Eyes, minus America, probably sit down and say, what do we do? Do we share Russia with him? Do we? Do we even claim that we’re allies anymore when he’s doing this? What do we do? And that’s what I think is probably going on.”

It was likely they would conclude: “We can’t share everything with this guy,” she said.

“I can’t trust him, and maybe they can on some China things and things like that, but when he’s acting like this … I would think that your leadership right now would be, at a minimum, thinking to themselves, wait a minute. I might not want to share this Russian information with this ambassador here, because he’s a Trump appointee.”

Late last year the UK stopped sharing intelligence with the US about suspected drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean because it was concerned about getting bound up in potentially illegal military strikes on the boats.

Miller said she was saddened that the intelligence sharing relationship had to be curtailed but cautioned against backing out of the Five Eyes arrangement completely.

“We’re always very focused on our relationship with Five Eyes and our joint things that we do on hard targets, whether it’s terrorism or China or, you know, name something else that comes up in the day … It’s super important that we have this and I would ask them to stay as long as they can and do what they are doing, keep that door open. Don’t completely break off from us.”

During her time with the CIA, Miller said she met with then-Prime Minister Dame Jacinda Ardern as well as senior counterparts here to discuss China.

“Your team there, it’s a very small group that works in your intelligence service. They are righteous. I mean, these guys are super smart,” Miller said.

Listen now to all six episodes of The Agency, via Spotify, Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen.

In the podcast, the minister formerly in charge of New Zealand’s intelligence agencies, Andrew Little, agreed the agencies were likely to be thinking about “current conditions”.

“I think given their obligations under the New Zealand legislation – which is they’ve got to act independently, and they have to think carefully about their own legal and human rights obligations before sharing intelligence – I’d be surprised if they weren’t actively considering how they share intelligence and the current conditions.”

The “general sentiment and moves which undermine democracy” were “a cause for worry”, Little said.

“But I’m equally confident that the Five Eyes relationship will endure through that and without agencies like ours, and indeed, the other partners, compromising their principles, their requirement to respect democracy and freedom of expression and all those sorts of things. I think the Five Eyes arrangement will survive.”

A spokesman for the SIS said: “Whilst the global environment continues to be dynamic, the Five Eyes intelligence sharing partnership continues to function largely as it always has, and our relationships with our Five Eyes counterparts remains strong and enduring, regardless of political change within partner administrations.”

The Five Eyes was a “valued partnership”, with significant benefits to New Zealand.

“There are robust policies and processes in place to ensure that any cooperation New Zealand does with its Five Eyes partners, including the US, is consistent with New Zealand’s policy and legal framework, including human rights obligations.”

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

A documentary about former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has been nominated for two Emmy awards.

The production, Prime Minister, looks at how the world’s then-youngest female head of government balanced motherhood with leadership, and navigated crises like the covid-19 lockdowns and the Christchurch terror attack.

The documentary was co-directed by Auckland-based filmmaker Michelle Walshe and American Lindsay Utz.

In a video posted to social media, Ardern’s husband Clarke Gayford said they had been nominated for “not one, but two Emmy Awards.”

He said the periods that the film looks at were some of the toughest times in their lives.

“It was awful in places.

“For one reason or another, I decided to pick up a camera, and film parts of it.”

Variety Magazine in Los Angeles reported it had been nominated in the ‘Best Documentary’ category, and also as ‘Outstanding Politics and Government Documentary’.

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

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

Explainer – It’s election year, and attacks are already starting to fly. What happens if comments about a politician cross the line?

While politicians – deservedly or not – come in for equal-opportunity bashing all over social media, their privacy and rights are just the same as anyone else’s, in theory.

The issue of privacy vs public office sparked up again in the recent storm over posts on social media by Labour leader Chris Hipkins’ ex-wife.

Last week, Jade Paul made a series of since-deleted posts on Facebook of claims about her relationship with Hipkins. The claims did not relate to any unlawful activity.

Hipkins told 1News he had sought legal advice over “the potential publication of things against me, allegations against me that are just untrue”.

“Everybody seems to be piling in on social media, in particular, and a lot of that is just absolute fabrication. It is just no basis in fact whatsoever.”

Can a politician sue for defamation?

Yes. But they may have a higher burden of proof than other defendants when it comes to proving their case.

“Politicians are defamed online a lot but there isn’t a constant stream of defamation proceedings,” said Nathan Tetzlaff, a senior associate at Auckland law firm Smith and Partners.

“The reality is that in all but the rarest and most serious cases, for a politician, making a defamation claim is less productive than the alternatives.”

Defamation law is complex, but it offers people a way to push back against false publicly published statements that they feel have harmed their reputation.

“The law of defamation does not distinguish between different plaintiffs,” Wellington media lawyer Steven Price said. “It applies equally to all.”

The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Defences against defamation can be that the statement was truth, honest opinion or given with the complainant’s permission.

“Even if a statement goes too far and can’t be proved true or an honest opinion, there may be another layer of protection,” Tetzlaff said. “The law recognises the defence of ‘qualified privilege’ in a political context.”

Statements made in Parliament also have a unique defence, called “absolute privilege”, meaning they are typically shielded from defamation actions.

There’s also now a defence that can be used against defamation claims called “responsible communication in the public interest.”

What does ‘responsible communication’ mean?

“It means that people – journalists as well as people on social media – can defend themselves even if they’ve published untrue and harmful statements about a politician (or others), if they can show that they were discussing something of public interest and they had behaved responsibly in preparing the publication,” Price said.

Of course, that benchmark can vary from case to case.

“A lot rides on what a court decides is responsible. It’s not entirely clear what it means. But it will usually involve taking reasonable steps to verify information before publishing it, and may involve putting that information to the person being criticised first.”

Judges typically have to walk the line between freedom of speech and protecting people.

“To avoid chilling public discussion of politics, judges will try to find a balance between protecting legitimate criticism of political figures or their policies, and allowing people to get away with making false and unsubstantiated personal attacks,” Tetzlaff said.

They’re public figures. Can’t you just post whatever you like about a politician?

Politicians are people too, and have the same protections against online (and offline) harassment or threats.

“Public figures do experience a higher level of scrutiny and criticism. However, that doesn’t mean anything goes,” said Netsafe CEO Brent Carey.

“Political speech isn’t exempt from harm. Content can cross the line where it involves harassment, threats, hate speech, or coordinated abuse.”

Of course, politicians learn to expect impassioned reactions from the public, Tetzlaff said.

“Politicians are expected to be thick-skinned so statements made in the ‘rough and tumble’ of political discourse may not be considered defamatory if they don’t allege dishonourable or dishonest motives.”

What’s the down side of suing for defamation?

For one, it may give more air to claims doing the rounds.

“It will usually draw more attention to the allegations,” Price said. “Some people will delight in spreading them, and social media makes that easy.”

If opponents spread falsehoods during an election campaign, it could be difficult to get any legal redress in time.

“In a practical sense, political life moves faster than the courts, so any judgment would arrive well after the damage is done,” Tetzlaff said.

“There are lots of other reasons politicians might decide not to sue,” Price said.

“They may have relationships with journalists that they need to preserve. They don’t want to be seen as thin-skinned or heavy-handed. There may be defences in play that make a lawsuit risky.

“Good PR advice might be to deal with it and move on.”

How often have suits happened?

There have been plenty of times New Zealand politicians have sued for defamation in the past – or been sued.

One particularly notable case was former Prime Minister David Lange, who sued for defamation after a 1995 article in North & South magazine that suggested he had been too lazy for parts of the job. After several years, the Court of Appeal ruled in the case of Lange v Atkinson that journalists had a defence of “qualified privilege,” and that they could criticise politicians on the basis of “honest belief”.

“Historical examples, including David Lange’s unsuccessful action against a journalist, illustrate that even serious-sounding claims can fail where the court considers the publication to be opinion, fair comment, or part of legitimate public debate,” Tetzlaff said.

“The Lange case went on for years and ended up with the courts creating a new defence that undermined his lawsuit,” Price said. “On the other hand, Robert Muldoon is said to have brought 18 defamation cases and won 15 of them.”

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters lodged defamation proceedings in 2017 against then-Mediaworks morning TV host Mark Richardson over comments Richardson made about him.

Former Conservative Party leader Colin Craig also took up numerous unsuccessful defamation claims over sexual harassment allegations.

It’s harder for politicians to sue these days, as it probably should be, Price said.

“Colin Craig probably does not look fondly on his experiences with defamation law, though he had some successes.”

“The main change is that the key question has moved from ‘is it true?’ to ‘was it responsibly published?’ which is a tougher and more uncertain standard for politicians mulling a defamation stoush.”

Politicians from all sides of Parliament have also faced comments that escalate into abuse and threats, such as former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. In 2018, Ardern’s partner Clarke Gayford engaged lawyers to deny rumours that were circulating about him being under police investigation, which police also denied.

Former Green MP Benjamin Doyle, New Zealand’s first non-binary MP, resigned from Parliament last September, calling it a “hostile and toxic place”.

They had resigned citing concerns for their well-being after death threats and abuse. New Zealand First leader Winston Peters and others had amplified social media posts about Doyle’s personal social media accounts.

“Social media is not held to a different standard so defamatory statements made on social media are actionable,” Tetzlaff said.

Could Doyle have sued for defamation over some of the comments made online?

“I can’t speak generally because it depends on the wording of the particular posts,” Price said.

“Some may be protected under a defence of honest opinion, for example. Some struck me as pretty extreme, and I think it would be hard to defend those with defences of truth, honest opinion, or responsible communication.”

Tetzlaff said many social media posts can fall in the grey areas of opinion, insult or hyperbole rather than actionable fact.

If you’re standing for office this year, what can you expect?

Candidates do have recourse over false information, Carey said.

“Candidates can report harmful content to platforms, and make a complaint to Netsafe under the Harmful Digital Communications Act.”

Under the Harmful Digital Communications Act, online content or messages that intentionally causes severe emotional distress can be illegal.

“Netsafe can assess the situation, work with platforms, and support resolution. If there are threats or safety concerns, it should also be reported to police.”

Netsafe has also worked with the Ministry of Women to produce a “Free to Lead” Toolkit aimed to support women in public profiles who typically face the highest rates of abuse.

Political passions are sure to boil over in the months before November’s election, but Carey cautioned that it’s still best to think before you post a particularly hot take that might cross the line.

“Sharing content that is abusive, misleading, or designed to cause harm can still breach platform rules or New Zealand law,” he said.

“A good rule of thumb: pause before sharing – if it targets a person in a way that could cause harm or spreads false information, think twice.”

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

As Muslims in Christchurch prepare to mark seven years since 51 people were murdered while worshipping at two mosques in the city, there are fears hate is again on the rise.

Australian white supremacist Brenton Tarrant opened fire at Al Noor Mosque and Linwood Islamic Centre on 15 March 2019 as the congregations marked Jumu’ah – the most significant prayer of the week.

He left 51 people dead or dying in little over 15 minutes.

The now 35-year-old pleaded guilty to 51 counts of murder, 40 of attempted murder and one of terrorism in March 2020 and in August of that year was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole.

But he is now appealing his sentence and conviction, and there is a possibility of him giving verbal evidence to the coronial inquiry into the deaths of those he murdered.

Seven years on from what former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern described as one of New Zealand’s darkest days, some in the community were still grieving wounds that felt fresh with little closure or solace.

Hamimah Ahmat’s husband Zekeriya Tuyan was mortally injured during the shooting at Al Noor Mosque and became the 51st shaheed, or martyr, almost seven weeks after the attack.

“Life seems to have moved forward around us,” she said.

“People seem to be forgetting March 15 and the lessons from it, while for many of us it often feels like time actually stopped on March 15, 2019.”

Rosemary Omar also lost her son Tariq during the massacre at Al Noor Mosque.

“I know it’s seven years but it does feel like yesterday and obviously some days are better than others,” she said.

“It was such a waste of such a good young man. He was just such a peaceful, kind, caring, compassionate young man that it seems very cruel that he should lose his life like that.”

Farid Ahmed’s wife Husna had left Al Noor Mosque to escort other women and children to safety.

The gunman shot her as she returned to find her husband, who uses a wheelchair.

“It was a dreadful day,” he said.

“For a moment I was thinking it was the end of the world for me. The world was becoming a very narrow for me. I was feeling that I was going to be sinking – swallowed by the earth.”

But the terrorist’s bullets did not just touch 91 people, they tore through the lives of thousands who felt the loss and pain of those killed or maimed.

The shuhada – or martyrs – left behind 34 spouses, 92 children and more than 100 siblings.

Rosemary Omar said the legal process surrounding her son’s death had felt overwhelming at times.

“I think we’ll never move on,” she said.

“I think it’s more a case of learning to sit with Tariq’s death next to me. It’s also more a process as well of appreciating having Tariq for 24 years rather than everything being sort of focused on how he died. And it’s very difficult as the anniversaries approach to actually stay in that moment of gratitude because everything’s sort of thrown up in the air and all these appeals obviously don’t help.”

She believed the terrorist’s appeals were motivated by the intent of further traumatising survivors and victims’ families.

“It’s quite disturbing and he’s sort of mocking everybody by basically breathing,” Omar said.

She hoped the coronial inquiry into her son’s death might result in some positive change.

However, she was cynical about the process especially after the government ended its formal response to the Royal Commission into the attacks with many recommendations scrapped.

Politicians seemed to have used the community for photo opportunities when it suited them but had now moved on, Omar said.

“I don’t believe they have any concept of what families have been through,” she said.

“There appears to be no compassion.”

Federation of Islamic Associations spokesperson Abdur Razzaq said hate crime was on the rise.

“We are tracking, according to police statistics, about three hate incidents recorded per week,” he said.

“That’s a level that we haven’t seen anywhere in the past. Last year, they recorded once over 150.”

Three people had been arrested in recent months for planning or discussing harming the Muslim community, Razzaq said.

There was also an alarming level of Islamophobia online, he said.

Hamimah Ahmat said while most New Zealanders remained quietly supportive of the community, she agreed hate was growing and had experienced it herself.

“Just two years after March 15, I was taking a walk … and a car passed by me and the hooligans shouted ‘go back to your country’.”

It was alarming to have come so soon after the terror attack.

There were also still ongoing and concerning reports of Muslim women having their hijab pulled by strangers as well as an increase in anti-migrant rhetoric, including by some politicians, Ahmat said.

“I would say my experience generally – generally – has been has been great but it’s hard because it just takes one or two incidents to bring us back to that anxiety again,” she said.

She had been involved in a lot of work to foster and improve social cohesion following the shootings.

She believed the government should back a national unity week to coincide with the anniversary of 15 March.

“It’s about our national security,” Ahmat said.

“What are we doing in terms of making sure communities are resilient? How are we ensuring that we respond compassionately and with sensitivity to voices that try to divide us? How do we acknowledge that New Zealand is not predominantly white, that it is made-up of many different peoples, many different countries, with many different cultures?

“Assimilating is not the answer to it. It is about accepting that we are all different and we can all make New Zealand great by being different and being unique.”

Farid Ahmed had a similar mindset and hoped by living as an example to others he could foster love and kindness in the community.

Ahmed moved the world when he publicly forgave his wife’s killer only weeks after the shootings.

“I decided with my 15-year-old daughter that the quickest way of healing for us is to offer forgiveness so we will have the freedom in our hearts from anger, from retribution, from hatred, and we could use our clean heart to work for peace and harmony and love,” he said.

“It is not an easy journey but it is possible that we can carry the grief and at the same time we can choose to overcome it by contributing in love and compassion towards others.”

That philosophy allowed him to live a happy life despite the enormity of his loss.

“From time to time, because of the love, I cry for my wife. When I reflect on the good things that I had, time to time I cry. But every cry I had gives me double motivation to do something better because if she was here she would have wanted me to do this sort of good thing,” Ahmed said.

On Sunday he would mark 15 March at the public service in the Christchurch Botanic Gardens and by giving away 150 cakes to his community, each with a message of love and hope.

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

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

The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the pandemic on Tuesday afternoon released its second report, sparked by public disquiet that its first report did not dig deep enough.

The 500-plus-page report looks at what it calls some of the “most difficult and divisive responses around vaccines and mandates”.

“The adequacy of the processes used to assess and monitor the safety of vaccines” was one of those.

It eked out a pass mark, but with a very big but for the previous government’s efforts to shift the “team of five million” from an early, pretty effective elimination strategy to suppression and minimisation in 2021 and 2022.

“Many of the people we heard from expressed pain and anger about the impacts of the pandemic and response. Some of these impacts on people’s lives continue to this day,” the report said.

“It is clear, however, that ministers and officials were facing a series of complex, high-stakes decisions in a rapidly changing environment and were doing the best they could at the time. Evidence shows New Zealand had among one of the best pandemic responses in the world.”

‘Very bumpy ride’

It was, however, “far from smooth”.

A “very bumpy ride” was how Labour itself summed it up earlier in the day. Though its former top two, Dame Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson, also defended it: “We got a lot right. More than most.”

National immediately used the phase two report to pound Labour.

Asked if his predecessors were just being cautious – it was an unprecedented global crisis, as Labour pointed out – Health Minister Simeon Brown told reporters:

“I think they were putting options to Cabinet, which were not backed up by advice,” Brown said.

“And the reality is Chris Hipkins stood up every single day and he said to New Zealanders that he was making decisions based on advice by health officials… The reality is, in a number of these instances, he was not.”

They did not heed warnings from Treasury about inflation-stoking Covid-19 spending that half the time went on non-Covid things, Brown added.

“We are feeling those consequences today,” Brown said.

In a half-hour stand-up, Brown said “ultimately” 13 times.

“Ultimately, some of those decisions, you will have to put those questions to the ministers who made those decisions at the time as to why they made them,” he said.

Hipkins put their approach at the time entirely opposite: “considered, appropriate and guided by the best evidence available at the time”.

The decisions saved lives, though the responses caused hardship, he said.

NZ has so far reported 4500 deaths due to Covid-19 to the World Health Organisation. That is slightly fewer per capita than Australia, well below Canada’s and about four times less than the US and UK.

What are the lessons for Next Time?

While everyone disagreed on what 20/20 hindsight has shown from the inquiry, everyone agrees on the need to do better now to prepare for next time.

So what are the lessons from phase two for Covid 2.0?

Two words: Be prepared.

“The stakes were immense. Each choice carried the weight and quality of lives in the balance. Yet policy-makers could not delay some hard choices,” the report said.

But the “lack of planning for alternative future strategies” that applied to PCR testing was a common shortcoming elsewhere, too.

Going in next time armed already with better research on pandemics and impacts, better strategies for getting the best advice, and some basic pandemic legislation are among the 24 recommendations.

Two more words: Be smarter.

“Decision-makers told us they learned the importance of giving people an end date, or some indication of ‘light at the end of the tunnel’,” the report said.

Without that, people resisted more and more.

Now we know for next time. But the country had to get a better grip on social impacts ahead of next time, by finding ways to build trust and social cohesion, and ways to demonstrate to people the hard science behind “hard choices”, the report said.

In addition to the main report, an extra 300 pages laid out what people who submitted to the inquiry said.

“People frequently told us that the vaccine mandates caused division in society that lingers to this day,” said this last report.

Things got out of balance. “Wobbles” was how it was put after the first phase report.

Cutting the ‘wobbles’

It needn’t have got that bad is one conclusion that can be drawn from the second phase report.

Lockdown decisions, for one, required weighing up health versus bank balances, from Gore to Papakura.

Decision-makers had to weigh up many more factors than public health goals and social disruption, and think about tomorrow, not just today and impacts on this group, versus that group, and eroding.

“Based on the evidence we have heard, that is exactly what they tried to do,” said the main report.

Trying came up short, though, when painful and untested initiatives created pressures, or helped birth mis-and-disinformation, that upset forecasts and analyses or exploited gaps in them, among a public increasingly prone to doubting the experts.

The officials doing the trying lacked enough analysis of lockdown’s impacts on education, for instance (page 270).

They lacked enough evidence fullstop.

“Ideally, though, decision-makers would have been better supported with clearer, more specific evidence about the effects of public health measures.”

That cut down the options to choose from.

“More comprehensive and robust response strategies should have been in preparation much earlier.”

Being smart required being prepared.

The first phase report ran to 716 pages; some of its lessons were discussed two years ago at the Science Media Centre.

There will not be a part three. The commission received more than 31,000 submissions from individuals and organisations, and obtained 8000 documents from government agencies.

“We are satisfied that we were thoroughly well-informed.”

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 second phase of the Covid-19 response inquiry has found the government’s response was effective but late and not communicated well enough to people.

The country’s transition from its early elimination strategy to suppression and minimisation was “far from smooth”, with consequences like the Auckland lockdown going on longer than needed at the end of 2021, the report, released on Tuesday said.

The second phase tested if the government took a balanced approach and found it largely did, but said the public was not brought on board – and must be in the next pandemic, with one of the 24 recommendations made today that there should be more open decision making in future around the impacts on people’s isolation, health and incomes.

“The evidence shows these factors were considered when many decisions were made. Ideally, though, decision-makers would have been better supported with clearer, more specific evidence about the effects of public health measures,” said the 530-plus-page report by the Royal Commission of Inquiry.

“More comprehensive and robust response strategies should have been in preparation much earlier.”

Public divisions and anger over the pandemic response in part prompted the second phase begun in December 2022, amid questions if phase one had gone far enough. Phase two was a bit shorter and more focused especially on how Covid mandates were rolled out.

The second report echoed the first in finding the early elimination strategy saved lives but the country was not well prepared; as the inquiry chair said in 2024, “The wheels became a bit wobbly.”

The government is now considering both phase one and two recommendations.

Health Minister Simeon Brown will table the government’s responses to them all, as required, by July.

The report itself described how the country got into a cul-de-sac on Covid.

Officials should have started working on a suppression strategy much earlier in 2021, but did not look at alternatives so it became hard to stop and rethink, it said.

“Strategies should have considered a range of scenarios (such as an uncontained community outbreak or new strains of COVID-19) and options to address them.

“They should also have identified the trade-offs to be considered if such scenarios arose.”

It looked in depth at whether the government got enough advice especially around the potentially divisive impacts of responses on social cohesion, health and businesses among other things.

“These key decisions involved some very significant and far-reaching uses of government power to limit the ability of New Zealanders to move about, meet with others, and to attend public events,” said the report.

Brown in a media briefing on Tuesday focused in on what he said were the findings that the previous government ignored evidence, advice and warnings, and so chose bad options around vaccines, the length of lockdown restrictions and mistargeted economic stimulus.

“Options were available to end restrictions earlier, options were available to not have as stimulus an economic response, and ultimately New Zealanders are paying the price of that still today,” he said.

Phase two looked at four areas of pandemic response from February 2021 to October 2022:

• vaccine approval and safety.
• vaccine mandates, including the introduction of the Vaccination Assessment Tool and vaccine passes.
• national and regional lockdowns.
• the procurement, development and distribution of testing and tracing technologies.

“These topics, and the time period covered … capture some of the most difficult and divisive elements of New Zealand’s pandemic response,” the report said.

Phase two unpacked four broad lessons by making 24 recommendations.

The four lessons were:

• To improve systems that promote good decision-making by the government.
• To enact legislation for pandemics as the key guard-rail for rights and freedoms.
• Do more shock-proofing of government economic policies.
• Set up research into pandemic responses to communicate clearly to the public.

The 24 recommendations for the government and agencies included:

• Develop options before “the next pandemic” for income and business support during one.
• Develop clear legislation for managing future pandemics that clearly defines the scope and limits of emergency powers.
• Publish advice about how human rights might be impacted.
• Look at establishing a new strategy body at the core of government that can improve the data about impacts on people from pandemic measures.
• Produce regulatory impact statements in future pandemics, and update the Cabinet rules so pandemic decisions get reviewed.
• Present any elimination strategies as temporary from the start.
• Research unconventional monetary policies in case of a big shock.
• Research into how to get back to normal.
• Be open with the public about decision-making in a pandemic.
• Get an agency to look at how to build trust and social cohesion.

Brown stressed at the media briefing the Auckland lockdown went on too long despite Cabinet having options to end it earlier in late 2021.

Economic warnings from Treasury “were not heeded”, he said in a statement, with the commission finding about half the $60 billion Covid response and recovery fund stimulus was not related to the pandemic; so-called shovel-ready infrastructure projects were not ready.

He said Labour’s health minister Ayesha Verrall should have done more to question the Health Ministry around the advice it had about vaccine risks for 12-17 year olds.

The ministry was advised against applying a two-dose vaccine mandate to them due to myocarditis risks but that mandate carried on.

He called on Hipkins and Verrall to explain.

“The reality is Chris Hipkins stood up every single day and he said to New Zealanders that he was making decisions based on advice by health officials. That’s what he told us.

“The reality is, in a number of these instances, he was not. And only now that this report has been released do we find out that he was not making those decisions on the basis of health advice.”

RNZ approached the Labour MPs for a response.

In a statement, Hipkins said their decisions were “considered, appropriate, and guided by the best evidence available at the time”.

“Ministers and officials were making decisions in an unprecedented global crisis, using the best evidence available at the time. These decisions helped protect New Zealanders.”

The key was to use the lessons, but instead over the past two years the government had cut public health capability while commissioning multiple reviews that repeated the same conclusions, he said.

The second phase gathered evidence for 15 months. Jacinda Ardern, Chris Hipkins and Grant Robertson all refused to appear at public hearings but said they had provided ample evidence privately to the commission.

In a joint statement Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson said the findings of the second phase of the report were similar to the first.

“We got a lot right. More than most. But there are areas that could have been better.

“While in office we established the Royal Commission to independently compile what worked, and what we could learn from. We accept the overall findings and recommendations of both reports.

The job now is to ensure NZ is better prepared for the next pandemic. We join the Commission in urging the Government to take the findings of both reports and implement them as a matter of urgency.

“The Commission’s observation – ‘there is no scenario in which NZ – or any other country – could have confronted the pandemic without some cost’ will be just as true for the next time. Our best safeguard is to ensure we are as well prepared as we can be.

“Over the last four years, we have fully cooperated with both phases of the inquiry, including many hours of interviews, and wish to extend our thanks to the Royal Commission staff for their important work on behalf of New Zealand.”

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

More than $5 million has been granted for a programme to eliminate cervical cancer across the Pacific, with the support of former Prime Minister Dame Jacinda Ardern.

The University of Auckland has found the incidence rate of cervical cancer is up to nine times higher in the Pacific Islands than in Australasia.

It said cervical cancer is a largely preventable disease but remains a leading cause of cancer death among Pacific women prompting the university to support the rollout of safe initiatives across the Pacific.

It comes as the Matariki Fund has granted $5.1 million for a programme to eliminate cervical cancer across the Pacific.

The Matariki Fund, administered by Dame Jacinda Ardern, is supporting the programme by expanding access to new and existing locally led cancer prevention initiatives for more people across the Pacific.

Ardern said Pacific women were disproportionately affected by a disease that could be eliminated.

“There is such excellent leadership within the region – this funding is simply about supporting them to save lives with solutions that should be available to everyone.”

Run through University of Auckland’s Centre for Pacific and Global Health, the programme will focus on the Cook Islands and Niue.

Professor Sir Collin Tukuitonga said cervical cancer was preventable, yet too many Pacific women continued to die from it.

The programme aligns with the WHO Global Strategy to Eliminate Cervical Cancer by supporting countries to achieve the “90-70-90” targets by 2030.

This means aiming to achieving 90 percent of girls aged 15 years receiving the HPV vaccine, 70 percent of women screened by age 35 years, and again at 45 years; and 90 percent of women with pre-cancer and invasive cancers treated.

“This investment allows Pacific countries to work together – sharing expertise, strengthening systems, and supporting women leaders – to achieve elimination,” Tukuitonga said.

It would also look to facilitates timely diagnostics to enable treatment for pre-cancerous lesions and invasive cancer.

Professor Judith McCool, head of the School of Population Health and co-director of Te Poutoko Ora a Kiwa, said the funding enabled sustainable, system-level change.

“This grant allows us to move beyond isolated interventions to a truly collaborative, Pacific-led approach. By strengthening leadership, governance, and regional partnerships, we are building the foundations for long-term health equity.”

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

Pacific-led initiatives set to eliminate cervical cancer across the Pacific

Te Poutoko Ora a Kiwa – Centre for Pacific and Global Health at Waipapa Taumata Rau, University of Auckland, and its Pacific partners, are supporting the rollout of safe initiatives across the Pacific that are proven to prevent cervical cancer and save lives.

Cervical cancer is a largely preventable disease but remains a leading cause of cancer death among Pacific women. In parts of the Pacific, incidence rates are up to nine times higher than in Australasia.

The Matariki Fund, administered by Rt Hon Dame Jacinda Ardern, is supporting the programme by expanding access to new and existing locally led cancer prevention initiatives for more people across the Pacific.

This new partnership enables a new Pacific-led and coordinated programme of work that:

• Increases HPV vaccination coverage to reach at least 90% of girls. 
• Expands access to cervical self-testing to achieve at least 70% of eligible women
• Facilitates timely diagnostics to enable treatment for pre-cancerous lesions and invasive cancer
• Establishes a coalition of Pacific women leaders to lead workforce and capability development, including digital and health system infrastructure.

The programme made possible through a NZ$5.1 million grant by the Matariki Fund, and active work of other partners in the region, will begin with a focus on the Cook Islands and Niue before being scaled up across the region.

Cervical cancer can be prevented through HPV vaccination, regular screening and timely diagnosis and treatment. Yet access to these services remains uneven across the Pacific. This new investment provides a critical opportunity to align national programmes, regional partners, and women leaders around a common goal towards elimination.

The initiative will work alongside successful existing regional programmes, including the EPICC programme (funded by the Australian Government and the Minderoo Foundation) and the Polynesian Health Corridors (PHC) (managed by the New Zealand Ministry of Health and funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade).

Together, these partnerships will help scale effective interventions, reduce duplication, and strengthen regional health systems.

Aligning with the WHO Global Strategy to Eliminate Cervical Cancer the initiative aims to support countries to achieve the “90–70–90” targets by 2030 — a threshold at which elimination becomes possible.  In practice, this means aiming to achieving 90% of girls aged 15 years receiving the HPV vaccine, 70% of women screened by age 35 years, and again at 45 years; and 90% of women with pre-cancer and invasive cancers treated.

Professor Sir Collin Tukuitonga, Co-Director of Te Poutoko Ora a Kiwa, says the funding is a gamechanger for regional collaboration.

“Cervical cancer is preventable, yet too many Pacific women continue to die from it. This investment allows Pacific countries to work together — sharing expertise, strengthening systems, and supporting women leaders — to achieve elimination.”

Pacific women will be at the forefront of the initiative, working in partnership with Te Marae Ora (Cook Islands), the Niue Department of Health, and regional organisations.

Professor Judith McCool, Head of the School of Population Health and Co-Director of Te Poutoko Ora a Kiwa, says the funding enables sustainable, system-level change.

“This grant allows us to move beyond isolated interventions to a truly collaborative, Pacific-led approach. By strengthening leadership, governance, and regional partnerships, we are building the foundations for long-term health equity.”

Rt. Hon. Dame Jacinda Ardern says:
“Pacific women are disproportionately affected by a disease that can be eliminated. There is such excellent leadership within the region – this funding is simply about supporting them to save lives with solutions that should be available to everyone.”
 
Total investment: NZ$5,097,210
Duration: 2026–2031
Lead organisation: Te Poutoko Ora a Kiwa, Centre for Pacific and Global Health – University of Auckland

MIL OSI

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

Dame Jacinda Ardern is moving to Australia.

The news comes after an Australia real estate website reported the former New Zealand prime minister had been house hunting for properties in Sydney’s northern beaches.

According to RealEstate.com.au, Ardern and husband Clarke Gayford were seen looking at homes for sale in Curl Curl and Freshwater.

The website puts the median price for homes in Curl Curl at AUD$4.1 million (NZD$4.8m) with a growth of 6 percent in the last 12 months.

In Freshwater, RealEstate.com.au said the median price was $3.9m.

In a statement, a spokesman for Ardern said her family had been travelling “for a few years now”.

“For the moment they’re basing themselves out of Australia – they have work there, and it brings the added bonus of more time back home in New Zealand.”

Ardern, Gayford and 7-year-old daughter, Neve Gayford, had been living in the United States where Ardern was working for Harvard University.

She is also a trustee of Prince William’s Earthshot Prize.

In March 2025, Ardern joined Oxford University’s Blavatnik School of Government as a Distinguished Fellow and member of the world leaders circle.

Ardern also recent released a memoir, A Different Kind of Power, and a children’s book, Mum’s Busy Work.

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 ACT leader has distinguished his party from its coalition partners in a state of the nation speech, giving a blunt assessment of how tough things are at the moment, especially for young people.

ACT leader and Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour took a swipe at “bureaucratic” governments that aren’t balancing their books, turned an old call for a smaller government into a campaign promise, and rejected the “endless blame game” of scapegoating one group after another.

Seymour spoke to around 200 party supporters at a venue in Christchurch while around 30 Free Palestine protestors gathered outside, alongside a police presence.

Some protestors were also heard chanting inside the venue, with sirens being played during his introduction by deputy leader Brooke van Velden.

Seymour said the number of people leaving the country was a “flashing light on the dashboard of New Zealand”, and he used his speech to specify the “hard choices” needed to “turn down those lights.”

He spoke of five warning lights that needed to be “overcome.”

ACT’s five warning lights

First, he mentioned the cost-of-living crisis, but called it a productivity slump instead, saying wages hadn’t kept up with inflation.

“People work their guts out only to find that they’re further behind, and it’s no wonder that people are getting jaded and angry.”

Related to this, he said, was the problem that the government wasn’t balancing it books, saying the country was on a collision course with bankruptcy unless “we find the courage to change our spending habits.”

“If there are no nasty surprises for the next five years, we’re on track as a government to post a small surplus by 2030, but after that, our aging population will put us back in the red for more decades of deficit spending, where the red ink carries on.”

Seymour highlighted the risk to democracy throughout the world, because people find governments “frustrating and unresponsive”.

While he didn’t think democracy was in serious danger in New Zealand, “we are subject to the same frustrations.”

“People lose faith and trust in our institutions. They see government is so damn bureaucratic and unresponsive.”

He said New Zealanders don’t have a “positive, inclusive sense of who we are”.

“This experiment of dividing ourselves into a treaty partnership between Tangata Whenua and Tangata Tiriti has been a disaster.”

Lastly, he said an entire generation felt let down by those problems, and young New Zealanders who look at their student loan, wages, taxes and the housing market, “they can’t make the numbers add up.”

“No one is saying that the boomers had it easy. Baby Boomers worked hard for what they have, but they worked hard because hard work was a rewarding strategy.

“That deal feels broken.”

He returned to those who were “voting with their feet”.

“It’s a great failing to fail at the expectations of your own citizens.”

He said ACT would be the party to “tell it like it is,” and take on hard issues and provide brave but constructive solutions in order to “set the country up for success”.

He drew a clear line between the current government and the “potential next government” of Labour, Greens and Te Pāti Māori, which he said frightened him.

“I listen to Chris Hipkins, and I hear Jacinda Ardern ‘light’ – a lilting voice that says all the right things, promises Nirvana, but never says how we’ll pay for it or tackle the key issues.

“He reminds me of what I imagine an anesthetist would sound like, just before he gives you the injection to knock you out and make you forget about the pain.

“I listen to the Greens, and I wake up quickly.

“They used to speak for the environment, but increasingly, they channel the young generation’s fear and frustrations, which are legitimate, by blaming others’ success and even bleeding into disgusting and unforgivable anti-semitism.”

He also mentioned Chlöe Swarbrick directly, calling her the “drag down merchant.”

“I listen to Te Pāti Māori and they sort of frighten me, but they also bewilder me,” said Seymour.

“If they want to be living as Māori, well, that’s ka pai.

“If they want everyone to live in a Māori society with themselves as tangata whenua, sitting atop a hierarchy of identity, that’s where we part company.”

He said ACT’s first mission was to keep them out of power. Seymour said if he’d had a dollar for every person who told him they’d leave New Zealand if Labour got back into power, ACT’s fundraising would be done for the year.

He explained he didn’t receive money each time he’d been told, so if people wanted to donate, there was a QR code on the table.

But he also drew a distinction between his own party and his partners in government, in which ACT is now polling lowest. In the latest Reid Research Poll, from January, National was on 31.9 percent, New Zealand First was on 9.8 percent while ACT was on 7.6 percent.

Seymour said on Sunday ACT had spent the past two years proving it was up to the job of “fixing what matters” and that it had an “outsized role” in making savings.

He cited the new school lunch scheme, pay equity changes and that the party had “knocked $200 million off” the cost of the Waikato Medical School.

“We calculate that if you gave your party vote to act last time, then you have saved the taxpayer $57,000.”

He highlighted work done by ACT ministers in government, “Brooke is fixing the Holidays Act, even as she fixes unfair employment laws and restores common sense to Health and Safety law by focusing it on critical risks”.

He highlighted the work done by ACT ministers in government as “competent managers.”

He also highlighted Act policy wins such as reinstating mortgage interest tax deductibility.

He mentioned the Treaty Principles Bill, which was defeated at its second reading, saying “we may have lost the vote, but we won the debate”, and that the first vote won’t be the final say on the legislation.

ACT’s solutions

He proposed the party’s solutions were based on three ideas to “break our country’s slump”:

• 1. Equal rights for all citizens, “so we can all feel like we’re part of a country with a positive and inclusive identity”
• 2. Positive-sum thinking, rather than “scapegoating some small group of New Zealanders,” before listing farmers, firearm owners, supermarket operators, landlords and bankers
• 3. A smaller, more efficient Government “that you can trust to deliver services for taxes you can actually afford”

Seymour said the country needed an accurate and uplifting story, “we are not two peoples.”

“We are many peoples united by a common story,” he said, referencing a nation of settlers, “we don’t see wealth as something to divide, but something to create.”

He also rejected the “endless blame game”.

“Scapegoating one group after another hasn’t solved a single problem. We believe that most people, most of the time, are just trying to make the best of their time on earth, and we should start with that spirit.”

Beyond that, he said the books still needed to be balanced, wages raised, and faith restored in democracy.

He highlighted again a long-standing ACT party call for a smaller, more efficient government. In May last year, Seymour criticised the ministerial line-up as looking “bloated” and full of “meaningless titles”.

The pime mnister rejected the criticism at the time. However, late last year the government announced a mega ministry which will take on the work of housing, transport, and local government functions.

He said ACT would campaign this year on a smaller government, which would be made up of:

• No more than 20 ministers, who all sit in Cabinet
• No more than 30 departments, so most ministers have only one
• No department answers to more than one minister
• No minister has a portfolio; there are only departments with budgets to manage

He said it was an idea “whose time has come”, and the party would be campaigning to ensure it “happens completely.”

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

Explainer – Only one person can decide when Election Day 2026 is. How is it picked, and when is it likely to be?

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon is set to announce a date this week, continuing the tradition in recent years of setting a date at the start of the political year.

It’s the starting gun that fires off a year-long sprint to determine the next Parliament, but how does the PM make this decision? Here’s how it works.

Who decides when the election will be?

It’s all down to the prime minister’s call.

The Cabinet Manual which guides central government states that “the Prime Minister alone” has the right to advise the governor-general to dissolve Parliament and call a general election.

However, in the current National-led coalition government, Luxon would definitely be consulting partners New Zealand First leader Winston Peters and ACT leader David Seymour before announcing any date, said Massey University professor of politics Richard Shaw.

“The decision won’t be one that the leader of the National Party takes without having had extensive conversations with the leader of the two coalition parties,” he said.

“The prime minister will front this, but it will be an announcement on the part of the government.”

Luxon on Tuesday morning would not be drawn on the exacty date, but confirmed to RNZ he would be announcing the date this week.

“I will announce the election date, and that’s just because that’s been a strong convention in New Zealand.”

When are they required to make that call?

They can pick a date any time, but an election has to be called before the end of the current three-year parliamentary term.

The last possible legal date for this year’s election to be held is 19 December.

What can we expect? When could it be?

Several pundits are picking the election to be called for after the American mid-terms set for 3 November, which will be a key indicator for how US President Donald Trump’s remaining two years in office will fare.

Saturday, 7 November has been mentioned most frequently as a likely date.

“My money is on” that date, Victoria University of Wellington professor of law Dean Knight said.

Every general election for the past 30 years since the introduction of MMP in 1996 has been sometime between September and November except for one.

How does a PM make that decision?

The date of an election is a symbolic beginning for the months of electioneering and campaigning ahead.

It’s not required that election days be on a Saturday, but that’s the longstanding convention which allows for greater turnout.

When choosing a date, prime ministers want to avoid things like public holiday weekends, major central bank decisions, the start of Daylight Savings Time or other major events. In 2011, Key made sure to pick a date after the Rugby World Cup final which was hosted in New Zealand.

“You narrow things down,” Shaw said. “It’s an art as much as a science.”

“There are very few rules for how all this happens. It’s largely vibes-based, really.”

Are elections always about the same time?

It’s pretty typical now for an election date to be named for Spring and to be announced early in the year.

While it’s not required, Knight said that at this point, the early call is quite bedded in.

“I have no doubt that the practice that the prime minister announce the election date well in advance, in the first or second month of an election year, has now crystallised into a constitutional convention.”

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced on 19 January the 2023 election would be on 14 October, and in 2020 she announced on 28 January an election for 19 September.

Back in 2017, Prime Minister Bill English announced on 1 February the vote would be 23 September, while in 2014, Prime Minister John Key didn’t announce until 10 March the 20 September election date. In 2011, Key announced the election on 2 February, and it wasn’t held until 26 November.

“The rhythm of parliamentary terms means a general election for a full-term Parliament usually falls in October/November; an announcement in January/February gives folk 9 or 10 months’ advance warning – unlike the old days when it was often only a couple of months’ advance notice,” Knight said.

Prime Minister Helen Clark tended to call elections later – not until June, July and September in 2002, 2005 and 2008, respectively. But that seems to have gone out of vogue.

“An early announcement, as seen in the last five elections, is no longer merely a good idea but is now obligatory and would be met with political heat if ignored,” Knight said.

“You generally get a reasonably early announcement for all kinds of reasons, some of which have to do with stability and predictability,” Shaw said.

Parliament typically runs for the entire three-year term, but there’s actually no law requiring the election to wait until the term ends. An election can be called even earlier – what is known as a “snap” election. Perhaps the most famous snap election was Robert Muldoon’s call in 1984 for a vote that was held one month later.

The only election in recent years that came far earlier than expected was the one Helen Clark called in 2002 for 27 July. Clark called that election in mid-June, after Labour’s coalition with the Alliance party fell apart.

Once the election is called, it’ll still be some time before the regulated period for election advertising begins – it runs the three months before the election date. Before the election, Parliament must officially dissolve and on Writ Day, the governor-general will issue formal direction to the Electoral Commission to hold the election.

This year, the election will take place under changes in the new Electoral Amendment Bill that passed Parliament just before Christmas. Among other things, it requires people to enrol at least 13 days before the election and ends same-day voter enrolment. The government said the bill would improve the timeliness, efficiency and integrity of elections, but the opposition said it would suppress voting.

Do other countries decide election dates like this?

It’s fairly common in many parliamentary democracies, unlike places like America where the date of Election Day is always the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November (typically, around 2 to 8 November).

Australia, the UK and Canada all have similar processes where the PM must call an election before their term ends, or earlier if they want a snap election – sometimes to confirm a new leader’s power base.

Last year, when long-standing Canadian PM Justin Trudeau stepped down, his replacement Mark Carney called a snap election for the very next month, which he easily won. Japan’s new prime minister Sanae Takaichi, who just took office in October, has also called for a snap election as soon as February.

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

Comedian Gary McCormick, a lifelong friend of Sir Tim Shadbolt, says the mayor was fearless but armed with “a landmark smile and laugh” that won people over.

The former Invercargill and Waitematā mayor, who was also an activist and student radical, died on Thursday at the age of 78.

McCormick told Summer Times it was a sad day for New Zealand.

He said he was sitting looking at photos of Sir Tim who did some 60 shows with McCormick around the country.

“He had that landmark smile and laugh. It was impossible for him to be depressed, whether he was in jail, arrested by the police or undergoing the rigours of a council meeting.”

McCormick said Sir Tim had a rare gift for leadership.

“He led by example, he was charismatic and he cut through the nonsense,” he told RNZ. It was a style befitting a man who had been in trouble as a student for using the word “bullshit”.

“There was no bullshit about him. He had a strange kind of fearlessness. He was not awed by people in high positions, whether that was police or anyone else. In jail, everyone liked him.”

McCormick met Sir Tim at a protest in front of Parliament when both were arrested by police in the mid-1970s.

“I was the first into the paddy wagon. My parents were deeply shocked, watching on TV at home in Titahi Bay. Tim was next in. We spent the day in the cells and became friends. We were eventually let go by a wise magistrate who thought if you can’t protest at Parliament, where can you protest.”

‘One of the great characters of his generation’

Sir Tim was one of the “characters of his generation”, former prime minister Helen Clark says.

Speaking to RNZ, she said Shadbolt would have a go at anything and do it fearlessly and in good humour.

“I think we miss some of the characters now in politics, that humour – it has all got a bit more pedestrian.”

Clark remembered Sir Tim from his days as a student activist on the Auckand University campus in the late 1960s. He had formed a political party calling itself the Auckland University Society for the Active Prevention of Cruelty to Politically Apathetic Humans – or AUSA POCPAH

“They used to dress in big capes, looking like the Wizard of Christchurch, and he had an alsatian dog.

“You could never forget him, with his look and capes and dog.

“He was a very good humoured guy who did crazy things.”

Clark said he would take on any cause or role fearlessly.

“When he stood for the mayoralty of Waitakere council, I think a lot of people were probably aghast. But he formed ‘Tim’s Team’ and it did very well for a while.

“And while his last years at Invercargill may not have been great for him, he always had the courage to give things a go. He was one of the great characters of his generation.”

Huge influence on Southland’s fortunes

The former chief executive of Invercargill City Council says Sir Tim Shadbolt was central to efforts to turn around the city’s fortunes.

Richard King met Sir Tim at a rally in his student activist days, and later worked with him for more than 20 years.

He told Morning Report Invercargill was once the fastest-declining city in Australasia, but Sir Tim helped attract jobs and people, in part by championing free tertiary fees.

“That had a huge boost to the city. You had more students spending money, you had people coming like outside investors, buying up houses so they could rent them to the students, and many students decided to stay,” he said.

Sir Tim loved people and was the kind of man who would “give you the shirt off his back.”

He could connect with anyone within minutes, King said.

“He was the sort of person [who] he could walk into a room without knowing anybody – and five minutes later, 95 percent of them were eating out of his hand,” he said.

“When he came to Invercargill, people really rallied around and supported him big time.”

Although political opposition later took its toll, Sir Tim had a good run, King 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