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

Explainer – What were some of the biggest topics RNZ’s journalists explained this year? Here’s a look back.

Explainer features have exploded in journalism the last few years as a way for writers to make sense of complicated topics in quick, digestible fashion, whether it’s the latest bills facing Parliament or new ideas in health, technology or business.

In an increasingly confusing world, we hope RNZ can help make sense of some of the things going on out there.

Here’s ten of the most read explainers RNZ has featured in 2025:

Why are our summer holidays so long?

After a post on LinkedIn claimed that New Zealand’s long summer breaks hurt business productivity, Kiwis spoke up in favour of our leisurely Christmas and January. Compared to some countries, Kiwis do get a generous amount of paid leave time. The latest version of the Holidays Act from 2003 entitles employees to at least four weeks of paid annual leave after 12 months of continuous work. That’s quite a contrast to, say, America, where there is no legally mandated paid holiday time. Here we looked at how our holidays became a cultural institution and why that isn’t too likely to change any time soon.

Read it here.

What happens if a political party decides to roll its leader?

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon spent much of the year battling back against poor showings in the polls. The last poll of the year found Labour with an eight-point lead ahead of National as next year’s election looms. Talk about both National and Labour possibly changing leaders before then reached a fever pitch in media pundit circles as the year went on, which sparked us to take a closer look at how leadership challenges work. New Zealand history is filled with dramatic moments when confidence in a party leader has dropped and a leadership challenge is held. They’ve even happened to sitting prime ministers.

Read it here.

How pornographic deepfakes may soon be criminalised

When an ACT MP held up a digitally created nude photo of herself in Parliament earlier this year, she was making a point about the rise of online manipulation as a weapon. Laura McClure’s member’s bill to criminalise non-consensual sexually explicit deepfakes has been pulled from the ballot and may be considered by Parliament in the year ahead. Here, RNZ looked at how the Deepfake Digital Harm and Exploitation Bill looks to close a loophole by amending existing laws to expand the definition of an ‘intimate visual recording’.

Read it here.

Fake New Zealand doctors are trying to sell you weight loss products

They’re smiling out from you in catchy Facebook ads and elsewhere on social media. But they’re not even real. It’s part of a flood of fake medical professionals flooding the internet hawking weight loss products and trying to capitalise on the popularity of GLP-1 medications like Ozempic and Wegovy. RNZ took a deeper look at how these operations work and try to deceive ordinary Kiwis, and what might be done to stop them.

Read it here.

Why were New Zealand musicians leaving Spotify this year?

Is Spotify over? This year rising discontent with the music streamer saw many bands move their music off the platform, including Kiwi icons like Tiki Taane and The Bats. “We refuse to be exploited by Spotify any longer,” a statement released by NZ musicians said. But what’s turned them against the streamer? RNZ takes a look at how profit sharing, artificial intelligence and even the sale of military technology has led to a larger exodus from Spotify this year.

Read it here.

How are our roads being repaired after Cyclone Gabrielle?

It’s been nearly three years since roads around the country were torn apart by Anniversary Weekend floods and Cyclone Gabrielle hitting in quick succession. The damage wasn’t easy to fix – requiring engineering analysis, careful management to allow resident access where needed and most importantly, futureproofing against future weather events made more likely by climate change. “Water’s a strange beast. It’s unbelievable what it can do,” one Auckland Transport staffer said. RNZ takes a look at one popular West Auckland road leading out to the beaches at Piha and how and why it took two and a half years for access to be restored on Scenic Drive.

Read it here.

Can US Customs legally search your phone?

The return of Donald Trump to the White House has led to a steady stream of headlines and big changes to who the United States is allowing to emigrate to or even visit the country. One of the biggest controversies was announcements that your social media history may be searched before you enter America, with the latest that such searches can go back up to five years. But is this legal? RNZ took a deep dive into why your phone isn’t the safe space you may think it is to vent about Trump or other political topics, and what you can do about it.

Read it here.

How ‘Run It’ style games can cause fatal brain injuries

One of the more bizarre fads of 2025 was ‘Run It,’ a combat sport where a ball runner and defender charge at full speed at one another without any helmets or safety gear. The “dominator” is the winner and could get large cash prizes. But it is also highly dangerous, made tragic by the death of a 19-year-old Palmerston North man in May. Here, RNZ looked at exactly how vulnerable the brain is to catastrophic injuries with contests like this and what medical experts say about them.

Read it here.

Is New Zealand’s weather getting more chaotic?

Do the seasons mean the same thing anymore? We can get hammered by torrential flooding in the peak of summer or scorched by wildfires in the middle of winter. Our seasons are actually changing, scientists say. What does this mean for spring, summer, autumn, and winter as we know and define them? RNZ takes a look at why the transition between seasons just isn’t what it used to be and what impacts that might have across Aotearoa.

Read it here.

How New Zealand plans to spend billions to boost our military

The world is a more dangerous place these days, with wars and conflict raging in Gaza, Ukraine and Sudan. Defence Minister Judith Collins unveiled New Zealand’s new Defence Capability Plan in April, setting out a $12 billion spending blueprint for the next 15 years. “Our current defence spending is simply too low,” Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said as it was announced. But where are these billions of dollars going to be spent, and where is the cash coming from? RNZ dove into the world of military spending and where it’s going.

Read it here.

You can also take a full look back at all of RNZ’s What You Need To Know stories here.

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

You’d hardly know it, given how often he appears in the media, but Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters has done some serious air miles this year.

He’s visited 31 countries on 12 separate trips, racking up 85 days offshore and 182 political engagements.

Across the term, he’s been to 51 countries (78 if you count repeat visits) with a total of 201 days offshore and 511 political engagements.

“It’s been exhausting,” Peters chuckled in his Beehive office during a sit-down interview with RNZ before the summer break.

“We’ve been flat to the boards and we are very pleased to be going to Christmas, but it’s been absolutely exhausting.

“We’ve travelled mainly at night, during the parliamentary breaks or when Parliament’s not sitting and as a consequence I spent half a year offshore.”

Victoria University of Wellington’s centre for strategic studies director David Capie said Peters’ travel programme was “extraordinary”.

“It’s a travel schedule that’s befitting the scale of the challenges that New Zealand is facing and the disruption we’re seeing in the world at the moment.”

‘We’ve got to regain our mojo’

Peters has been highly critical of the former Labour government’s efforts in his portfolio and said he had to make up for lost time.

“One hates to say this but I inherited a totally neglected portfolio where the then-Minister didn’t want the job in the first place, didn’t want to travel in the second place and despite that, the then-Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern thought it was of so little significance she pushed her into that job.

“As a consequence, there were so many countries that have never seen us for all those three years and that’s why it’s been so hard for us.”

Capie said former Foreign Affairs Minister Nanaia Mahuta was in a “difficult spot” in that she also held the local government portfolio when Labour was pushing its Three Waters scheme.

“Those are two portfolios that are pretty difficult to keep in balance, plus you had the Covid-19 border closures,” Capie said.

“In hindsight, New Zealand stayed home too long at a time when lots of the rest of the world was already getting out and talking about its interests and building those new connections. We were probably slow out of the blocks.”

Peters said New Zealand was no longer living up to its reputation and had to work hard to get its “mojo” back.

“We have a good reputation but it’s not the reputation that we once had, where we were regarded as a world leader.

“People couldn’t understand how we were. They couldn’t understand how a country so far away from its markets, comprised of a population the size of Manchester, was billing a country the size of the UK.

“They were amazed by that. That’s where we were in the ’50s. So here we go. We’ve got to regain our mojo.”

‘The curiosity effect’

Easily the country’s most seasoned politician, Peters (80) said he lived by some advice he got a while ago: “Winston, don’t act your age”.

The minister’s demanding travel schedule would tire most people, but Peters’ energy, charisma and experience clearly buoy him along.

“One of the great things about having some experience or having age, may I put it, is the curiosity effect,” Peters said.

“They always are curious, particularly Pacific leaders who say, holy hell, Winston, you’re still going and they’re not saying it in a nasty way – but they were running around kindergarten when I was starting.

“These guys are serious guys in their governments nowadays and the Prime Minister Marape from Papua New Guinea is always going on about it.”

Peters believed his work in foreign affairs was now drawing votes domestically.

“I’m pleased in this context that for the first time ever, foreign affairs is bringing votes back in New Zealand.

“It’s never happened in the past, but all of a sudden, people started to realise this is a very tricky and difficult world, and foreign affairs is – for the first time in my whole career, which has spanned since the late 1970s – this is the first time I’ve seen it bring in votes, because people realise this is serious and we don’t need amateur hour here.”

South America in his sights

While Peters would kick into election campaign mode proper sometime next year, he wasn’t slowing down on the travel just yet.

He planned on visiting Kiribati early in the New Year, and South America in Q1 where trade progress had “stalled for three decades”.

“I’m going to do my best to help Todd McClay get things going,” he said.

Peters said he had worked closely with both Trade Minister Todd McClay and Defence Minister Judith Collins this term as all three portfolios complemented each other.

“We’ve tried to support the Minister of Trade to the maximum because we realise we’ve got to get this country’s trading relations in a far better, far more profitable state and that’s just hard work.”

Having pushed back against requests to cut his Ministry’s budget, Peters said every dollar spent in foreign affairs delivered dividends down the line.

“Those small economies that are doing magnificently well have done exactly that. They spent two and a half times on foreign affairs than we do.

“Ireland, Singapore and Croatia. Now Croatia’s got two and a half million people, two million less than us. They’ve got 86 posts. They know what they’re doing, where they’re going. There’s a lesson that’s for us, big time.”

Peters said foreign affairs would only grow more complicated and more important, so it was a portfolio that needed a lot of care and attention.

“We’re way out here in the South Pacific for goodness sake, we’re north of the penguins.

“Our isolation means we’ve got to go to it, flat to the boards, but there is some good news. I think there are exciting things happening… I think next year could be an exciting year, in foreign affairs and many other things.”

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 Reserve Bank Governor Anna Breman will not hesitate again to issue a statement for markets to understand how she interprets the economy.

Breman sat down for an extensive interview with Morning Report presenter and incoming RNZ business editor Corin Dann, just a day after she took the unusual step of issuing a statement about financial conditions, which she believed had gone “beyond” the RBNZ’s recent projection for interest rates.

It came on the heels of some banks raising interest rates, believing the bank may raise the official cash rate, despite it cutting the OCR to 2.25 percent late last month.

“Financial market conditions have tightened since the November decision, beyond what is implied by our central projection for the OCR,” she said in the statement. There was still the possibility of another rate cut from the path forward published in the bank’s November Monetary Policy Statement.

Breman told RNZ it was important for markets to understand how she was reading the economic data.

“I am rather new in my role – still just about two weeks into it – and I thought given that it’s a long time until the next monetary policy meeting in February, I thought it was reasonable for markets to see how I read the economic data and also to see how I relate compared to the last Monetary Policy Statement.”

She said she did not want to say whether markets were right or wrong, but the forecast the Reserve Bank had for the official cash rate was different to how the market reacted.

“So there is still a small probability, but it’s still a probability, that we’ll do another rate cut in the near term. We will get much more information how the economy is evolving over just the coming days. We’ll get GDP numbers, we get inflation numbers out in January and all of this will be important when we go into our next meeting.”

Breman – a Swedish economist who was First Deputy Governor of the central bank of Sweden until taking over NZ Reserve Bank Governor on 1 December – said she would not hesitate to make a statement again. She said transparency was important.

“Given I am new in my role, if I comment on monetary policy, I do want everyone to have that information at the same time.”

Covid

Breman described how she had been part of the monetary policy response for the Sveriges Riksbank, Sweden’s central bank. The country was known for responding quite differently in the Covid crisis to New Zealand – the Ardern government here pursued an elimination strategy, Sweden’s was more of a light touch.

“I was in the room when we made monetary policy decisions during Covid and we saw a deep recession coming. We saw even though maybe there were differences in exactly how the restrictions and the lockdown was done, we saw the economy almost in free fall.

“So it was a very severe situation and we acted to support the economy in different ways. So I think in that respect, all countries experienced a lot of both, obviously human suffering but also suffering in terms of economic loss because of the pandemic.”

In a wide-ranging interview, she was asked about the state of the New Zealand economy after Covid.

“I think that what we’re seeing now is that New Zealand has had several years with weak growth, a weak labour market, and we’re starting to see the economy recovering.

“And from my perspective, given that we see inflation also falling and being low and stable going forward, it’s very important now that we see growth that’s lasting, that we see that we have a period where growth is coming back. We see stronger labour markets while of course keeping inflation low and stable. So it’s very important and that’s also why I wanted to stress (in my statement yesterday) that the cut that the Reserve Bank did in late November that was really to support economic growth going forward.”

Cash

Breman believed it was important that people continued to have access to cash.

In a statement in November, the Reserve Bank said its research showed 80 percent of adults use cash sometimes, over half (56 percent) store cash and 8 percent rely on cash.

Breman said: “It is very important that people still have access to cash and as part of our job to ensure that. And the two parts of it is for financial inclusion. People need to be able to pay and sometimes cash is the best option. It’s also crisis preparedness. We saw that with the cyclones. There could be other reasons why the digital systems are vulnerable to attacks. So having cash in a society is important and that’s one of the things that we’re working with.”

Watch the full interview on rnz.co.nz on Wednesday morning

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 Plymouth readers checked out more than 667,000 books from the Puke Ariki library this year with a historical novel set during the Vietnam War topping the list of adult fiction issues – again.

Kristin Hannah’s novel The Women was issued 159 times, capturing top spot as it did last year. Not far behind was her novel The Four Winds with 112. Lee Child’s In Too Deep came in second with 140 issues.

Tumuaki Whare Pukapuka – Puke Ariki Manager, Angela Jowitt, said thriller fans couldn’t get enough of Lee Child and Freida McFadden, with multiple titles by both authors featuring in the top issues list.

“This year’s borrowing stats continue to reflect the interests of our community. So whether you’re after a gripping thriller for the beach or a cookbook to try out a new recipe, or a memoir to inspire you in 2026, our friendly team can help you find your next read.”

The non-fiction list reflected readers’ appetite for inspiration and self-improvement.

Former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s memoir A Different Kind of Power was the most-borrowed non-fiction title with 95 issues, followed by Mel Robbins’ The Let Them Theory (94).

Memoirs from Ruth Shaw, Jenny-May Clarkson, and Alison Mau resonated strongly with readers seeking authentic Aotearoa stories.

Jowitt said on the teen shelves, Suzanne Collins dominated the list with three Hunger Games titles making the top 10, including prequel The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes (issued 33 times) and brand-new release Sunrise on the Reaping (50).

Holly Jackson’s A Good Girl’s Guide… series (133) and Rick Riordan’s Percy Jackson adventures (82) also proved addictive for young adult readers.

In Puke Ariki’s Discover It! children’s section, younger readers had an unwavering devotion for graphic novel adaptations of The Baby-Sitters Club (726) and Dav Pilkey’s Dog Man series (470) – proving that engaging stories and vibrant illustrations remain timeless.

Jowitt said as summer beckoned and the beach calls, Puke Ariki was encouraging Taranaki readers to borrow one of 2025’s most-borrowed titles from its catalogue for their holiday reading – all free with your library card.

“Leap into your new favourite book this summer at Puke Ariki or any of our community libraries.”

Beyond books, the New Plymouth District Council run Puke Ariki offered free wifi, research support, free events, and digital resources such as film streaming and eBooks accessible 24/7. Joining was easy and free and did not expire.

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 – ‘Tis the season for political speculation, as pundits attempt to predict the future of National and Labour party leaders.

What happens when political parties decide it’s time to launch a challenge against their leadership? As one expert describes, it can trigger a “Shakespearean” battle for power.

To be clear, there’s been absolutely no sign there will be a leadership change for National or Labour at this moment in time.

But persistent murmurs about Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s leadership have increased in recent weeks, with senior MP Chris Bishop having to deny he was plotting to roll Luxon, while the Sunday Star-Times on the weekend featured a story by national affairs editor Andrea Vance calling recent actions by Bishop a “failed coup”.

Luxon’s poll rating as preferred prime minister was under 20 percent in September’s RNZ/Reid poll and the government’s performance rating hit a new low in the recent IPSOS Issues Survey.

But does that all actually add up to a possible leadership challenge before next year’s election?

New Zealand history is filled with dramatic moments when confidence in a party leader has dropped and a leadership challenge is held. They’ve even happened to sitting prime ministers.

Here’s how leadership challenges tend to work.

How does a leadership change happen?

It’s as simple as a member of the party caucus calling for a no-confidence vote in its leader. If the party heads up the government, that could mean a change in prime minister if the vote succeeds.

For the National Party, it’s a straightforward majority rule vote by the party’s MPs.

“Formally, in the case of the National Party the decision rests with the caucus (which the party’s constitution refers to as the ‘Parliamentary Section’), which can move at any time to replace the leader (who must then be approved by the board),” Massey University professor of politics Richard Shaw said.

The Labour Party caucus also can directly vote for its new leaders, but if it doesn’t make a decision within seven days, it gets turned over to their electoral college – a combination of the caucus, party members and unions – to decide.

Prospective leaders must also get a two-thirds majority in the Labour caucus vote, or it’s also off to the electoral college.

The caucus room vote totals in leadership elections are generally not made public.

“Any member of caucus could go to a caucus meeting and in theory give notice that they’d like to move that the caucus has no confidence in a leader,” said Chris Eichbaum, adjunct professor at the School of Government at Te Herenga Waka-Victoria University of Wellington.

“If you were in a splendid isolation of one that wouldn’t last long,” however, he noted.

A successful leadership challenge is all about building up the votes.

This process can play out in the media – witness how many columns and hot takes have been published in the past few months speculating about the prospects of Chris Bishop, Education Minister Erica Stanford or Finance Minister Nicola Willis – but it also plays out behind the scenes at Parliament, said Eichbaum.

“It is incredibly Shakespearean – it is covert, it’s behind the scenes, there’s speculation, and then something will happen to turn speculation into substance. And if it’s a serious challenge, that’s where people start doing the numbers.

“It tends to be part of the choreography of it that once it becomes known that there is a move afoot to unseat then essentially it’s a matter of the candidates, the incumbent and the challenger sort of doing the votes.

“… One of his allies or it could even be one of the party whips, they may present the prime minister with a list saying: ‘Prime minister, you simply don’t have the votes.’”

Has a sitting prime minister ever been rolled?

Several New Zealand prime ministers have resigned after facing leadership challenges, although the last time it happened was nearly 30 years ago when Jenny Shipley mounted a challenge against the late Prime Minister Jim Bolger in 1997. Bolger resigned before a vote was taken, a tactic which has generally proven to be the case instead of prime ministers being forced out by a vote.

Other prime ministers in relatively recent times who stepped down include Sir Geoffrey Palmer, who resigned and was replaced by Mike Moore prior to the 1990 election, or David Lange who resigned in 1988 after unsuccessful challenges to his leadership.

Eichbaum worked in the Beehive as an executive assistant at the time that Sir Geoffrey faced a challenge by his Cabinet, and then went on to work as a senior advisor for Helen Clark.

“Palmer went about six weeks out from the 1990 election,” he said. “But the issue was never taken to the caucus – where he may well have enjoyed majority support – because essentially, reflecting polling that indicated some Cabinet members were at risk of losing their seats, he was told that he didn’t enjoy the confidence of his cabinet or sufficient of them. His erstwhile senior colleague Mike Moore made no secret of his willingness to assume the role.”

And then there’s leaders who stood down after losing an election like Helen Clark, or resigned for other reasons like Sir John Key and Dame Jacinda Ardern.

“Clark stepped aside because she had lost an election, and Key and Ardern left because they had calculated that their parties stood a better chance of the next election without them,” Shaw said.

“A leadership change can occur for all sorts of reasons, some of which are internal to a political party and its sense of momentum and/or the need for a new sense of energy and direction.”

Luxon isn’t the only party leader who has been subject to leadership speculation.

Former Prime Minister Chris Hipkins has remained Labour’s leader after losing the 2023 election and made no indication he plans to leave before next year’s election, although there has still been media speculation about what a change at the top might mean for Labour’s chances.

Of course, there have been heaps of leadership changes to parties outside government – the National Party went through a run of four leaders after Key resigned in 2016 until Luxon became leader in 2021, including Todd Muller’s mere 53 days at the helm, while Labour also went through four leaders between Clark and Ardern.

Do different parties have different rules?

There’s no overall guideline for leadership challenges in New Zealand politics, which are left to parties to set the rules.

For instance, the Green Party allows leadership challenges to be put forward by party delegates, such as a series of unsuccessful challenges in 2021 and 2022 to former co-leader James Shaw’s co-leadership.

The Labour Party has changed how it allows votes a few times, and from 2012 to 2021 it allowed party members, the caucus and unions to decide every leadership vote. That could result in clashing priorities, as with 2014’s leadership election, Eichbaum said.

“The most recent case involved Andrew Little and Grant Robertson, where the MPs’ preferred candidate was not the person that became the party leader.

“That was the case with Grant Robertson who was preferred by his caucus but because the broader party had basically a vote in the proceedings by dint of the arrangements they have, Andrew Little was able to come in over the top.”

Of course, facing grim polling, Little himself stepped down in 2017 just seven weeks before an election, and Deputy Leader Ardern went on to become New Zealand’s 40th prime minister.

What can trigger a leadership change? Is it just about the polls?

Parties can roll their leaders in disagreements over policy, and it’s been known to happen.

“Polling/public sentiment can, of course, be major drivers, but there have also been instances – and I think the 1996-1998 National/NZ First government was a case in point – in a party where a caucus and a cabinet will feel that a change is due regardless of the public’s views,” Shaw said.

But these days, a lot is still driven by how they’re doing in the polls. Blame the influence of American presidential-style politics and the increasing spotlight shown on leadership – polls now typically include preferred party vote side-by-side with preferred prime minister picks.

“It’s polling twinned with a presidentialisation of politics,” Eichbaum said. “Leadership has always been important, but it’s been elevated now.

“Because of the frequency of polling around leadership, the nature of the polling going into the attributes of the leader just becomes much, much more salient. There’s a machine out there and the raw material is what we think about a leader.”

But polls still aren’t the only factor, Shaw said.

“While polling and public sentiment are clearly important, there are institutional filters – including the party organisation, caucus and cabinet – which mean that the line from opinion polls to a leadership change is neither straight nor straightforward.”

While being removed as leader could be seen as humiliating, Eichbaum said leaders often have a fair bit of leverage in the process.

“There’s an element of decorum and dignity quite often which is unusual in politics. At times, they say: ‘Okay, what’s in the best interest in the party in this situation?’

“He or she may well say ‘All right, I will resign, but I want these things to occur,’” he said.

Leaders could also be heavily involved in tapping their preferred successor, such as when Sir Bill English replaced Key.

How a prime minister manages their caucus – particularly if it’s large – also matters. Every vote counts in a leadership race, whether it’s a senior MP or an obscure back-bencher.

One of the roles of a prime minister is “basic HR,” Eichbaum said.

“A very, very good prime minister will make a point of staying very close to his or her caucus and also meeting with backbenchers on a regular basis.”

Luxon told reporters recently he had “no concerns” for those National MPs who could lose their jobs on current polling, explaining he was confident all its MPs would return after the election.

Still, fears for marginal seats or list MPs can also play a role in being rolled. “If you’re one of those (at-risk) MPs, how do you feel?” Eichbaum asked, describing the “creeping incremental insecurity” that has emerged to fuel previous challenges.

What happens if the government is a coalition and the leader is rolled?

The nature of a coalition requires cooperation. In the 1996-1998 National/NZ First government, the coalition crumbled in 1998 when Prime Minister Jenny Shipley sacked Winston Peters from cabinet. Peters and NZ First had gone into government with Bolger, who was rolled by Shipley. Only a small group of independent MPs held the government together until the 1999 election.

“The interesting thing about what happened with Bolger, and I think this raises issues in the current context, is how its coalition partner reacted to Bolger being rolled,” Shaw said. “I don’t recall there being a significant public outcry, but there certainly was a significant response from NZF.”

The current three-headed Coalition of NZ First, ACT and the National Party could also create issues if Luxon were replaced.

“Hypothetically, therefore, were the National Party to seriously entertain removing Luxon as party leader, the fact that he is also the prime minister gives the ACT and NZF parties some stake in the issue as well,” Shaw said.

“In other words, in cases of coalition government the issue of the party leader is necessarily an issue for the government’s constituent partners.

“Any destabilisation of a coalition government’s major player, it’s going to be of deep interest to the coalition’s minor players.”

Don’t the public get any say in these things?

We elect our local electorate MPs and choose our preferred party when we vote, but the public doesn’t get to choose what might happen inside the Beehive after Election Day.

Still, how the public may react to leadership changes is key.

“The optics of these things are also important and that’s a consideration,” Eichbaum said.

For instance, Australia went through five prime ministers in 10 years in a series of leadership spills creating what was called “a decade of disposable prime ministers.”

“Is the party going to get a bump in the polls as a result of a person going? What’s it doing to the perception or the perception of the party as the kind of viable governing force if we are seen as a house divided against itself and we can’t hold on to a prime minister?”

And of course, there’s also this factoid – any time in the past 50 years or so that a prime minister has resigned mid-term, their party has gone on to lose the next general election.

Eichbaum said current talk about leadership challenges is largely fuelled by the media, but in the end, it really all comes down to what happens inside party caucuses.

“A very well-executed leadership spill of course – this is where Shakespeare comes back in – you know, you’re not going to see it coming.”

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

From memoirs to biographies, autobiographies – both authorised and unauthorised – to the mid-career manifesto, the documented lives of politicians come in many forms.

This year has seen two well-received memoirs from high profile politicians – Dame Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson.

They’re among the legions of former MPs and prime ministers who’ve penned their thoughts (or had others pen for them) either mid-career or after stepping back from public life.

While history is said to be written by the victors, sometimes it’s told by the losers – and often those are much more interesting.

The Detail talks to a political history professor and a seasoned political journalist who both have voracious reading habits, when it comes to the political tome.

They talk about their favourite books, what makes a good yarn and which politicians they’d like to see a book written about.

Victoria University’s Jim McAloon has read his fair share of such works, but says there are two standout leaders who haven’t had books written about them – Sir Sid Holland, National Party Prime Minister 1949-57, and William Ferguson Massey, Reform Party Prime Minister 1912-25.

“Neither of them have had substantial biographies at all and that’s a great gap,” he says.

“Holland was instrumental in making the National Party a modern, liberal conservative party, contributed greatly to their long-term success, a very wily character, pragmatic, not regarded as an intellectual, but very, very shrewd.

“Then Massey, of course, ended that long period of liberal hegemony, really helped created the first mainstream conservative party in New Zealand, led the country through the First World War into the 1920s, very hard politician, very tough, uncompromising, firmly committed to the British Empire, a villain to the organised labour movement – but perhaps not as bad as he’s always painted to be.”

Did they have colourful personal lives that would keep a reader gripped? Not really, but the political purist would still be interested in their political lives.

McAloon says he would also look forward to reading a book on Pita Sharples and says Sir John Key deserves a more searching analysis than the book that’s already landed.

“The other person who I think in that government is really interesting is Bill English,” he says.

“Quiet, self-effacing, but very much an achiever and I think with a very coherent intellectual vision as well.

“In many respects, he’s a classic example of that farmer-politician, like Keith Holyoake, like Massey himself, like Jim Bolger, and I think it gives them a certain relatability, if you like.

“Even if you might disagree with them, it’s hard to dislike them.”

McAloon also talks about the best time to write a memoir. Listen to the podcast to find out which textbook of biographies had the cast-iron rule that “you had to be dead”.

Newsroom co-owner Tim Murphy says former Labour leader David Shearer is top of his wishlist for politicians who haven’t already been written about.

“International aid worker and leader of big humanitarian gains for civilisation, really, in the last couple of decades… not so much his initial family upbringing, but his formation and what led him that way. He was sort of an anti-politician.”

When it comes to political works, Murphy says he wants to know “stuff that only they know”.

“I want them to take us in behind the closed doors. Nothing more unsatisfying in a political biography or memoir – and Jacinda Ardern’s was a bit like this – where… at crucial parts they say ‘caucus has always had a rule that what goes on in caucus stays in caucus and I’m not about to break it now’.

“To me, you might as well turn the page, close the chapter and move on.

“Grant Robertson’s book is really good for that – he actually tells you some things, including observations from around the Cabinet table, sitting next to Winston Peters and what Peters was kind of looking at on his laptop, and the kind of moments and motivations that Peters would spring out of his stupor, and have a go about something New Zealand First-like.

“[He] described it in a way you could relate to. I want to be taken where none of us get to see.”

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 best-known opponent of letting cats wander where they please is thrilled the government has stopped “pussyfooting” around the issue.

Describing feral cats as “stone cold killers”, Conservation Minister Tama Potaka told RNZ on Thursday they would “join their buddies, stoats, ferrets, weasels – mustelids, rats and possums” on the official Predator Free 2050 hitlist.

“In order to boost biodiversity, to boost heritage landscape and to boost the type of place we want to see, we’ve got to get rid of some of these killers.”

The move comes two years after then-prime ministerial candidate Christopher Luxon promised they would be added, and 12 years after economist-turned politician Gareth Morgan controversially called for an end to all wandering cats – feral or domestic.

The ‘Cats to Go’ proposal was widely criticised at the time and was dismissed by many as being a bit extreme.

“The condemnation was absolutely universal,” Morgan told Morning Report on Friday.

“I went from, according to Reader’s Digest, the sixth-most trusted New Zealander that we had at the time because of my work on funds management, to the most-hated New Zealander, in a period of about six weeks – so it just showed you the intensity of the opposition.

“But I think people misunderstand the issue. The issue is not anti-cat. The issue is anti-wandering cats, and feral cats are a big part of that crime family.”

No one knows just how many feral cats there were in New Zealand. Estimates range from 2.5 million to 14 million.

Morgan said the government’s move was “better late than never”, but still did not go far enough.

“Cats wander to kill – they don’t wander for the exercise. So feral cats are just part of this greater crime family that’s out there killing New Zealand wildlife.

“Wandering cats are the issue. Feral cats are a subset of that. So the next step is to deal with domestic cats that are let out wandering.

“The only cat that should be protected is the cat in the lap, the one that you own, and the plea, I think, from rational people, is keep it to yourself.”

Morgan suggested previous prime ministers’ cat ownership – John Key’s Moonbeam and Jacinda Ardern’s ill-fated Paddles, for example – got in the way.

But he praised Key and the National-led government of the time for creating the predator-free goal in the first place, and for extending it to cover some cats.

“I think we can all be forgiven for being a bit ecstatic for achieving this step, even though it’s just one small step with respect to cats.”

He doubted however the hitlist would be extended to cover wandering domestic cats.

“Oh, no, it’ll be another 12 years of intensive lobbying because the opposition to this is entrenched.”

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 – Once a liberal darling and champion of progressive policing, former police commissioner Andrew Coster has gone to ground, his reputation and legacy in tatters.

Coster is on leave from his role as chief executive of the government’s Social Investment Agency after a damning Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) report identified “serious misconduct” among the upper echelons of police.

An employment process is now underway with the Public Service Commission.

Speaking at Parliament on Tuesday evening, Attorney General Judith Collins said the IPCA report identified a massive failure of leadership: “If this was me being named in this report, I would be ashamed of myself.”

Police Minister Mark Mitchell said Coster should “be held to account”, and the minister who appointed Coster to his current position, Nicola Willis, said she was “shocked and appalled” by the IPCA’s findings.

Coster has declined to speak to media. A spokesperson provided a brief statement to RNZ: “this is now an employment conversation”.

Coster’s fall …

The IPCA report paints a picture of a group of police executives seemingly blinded by loyalty to one of their own.

Coster and others dismissed repeated complaints from a young woman about former deputy commissioner Jevon McSkimming over many years, going back as far as 2018, but particularly in 2023 and early 2024.

Neither Coster, nor McSkimming, disclosed the allegations to the Public Service Commission when McSkimming was going through the appointment process for that deputy role in early 2023.

An investigation into the woman’s claims was finally launched in mid-2024, but only after police had already charged the woman with causing harm through the deluge of emails she had sent to McSkimming’s work email.

But the IPCA report said that investigation was not properly conducted and that it was was only notified of the allegations in October 2024.

That same month, Coster wrote to the IPCA to raise concern that its inquiries could “increase Jevon’s victimisation” and harm his chances during the appointment process for the top commissioner job.

Soon after, Coster convened a meeting with key players within police to ensure “natural justice” for McSkimming and to bring the investigation to “a rapid and premature conclusion”.

One staffer told the IPCA: “it was quite clear that [Coster] was very invested in Jevon becoming the next Commissioner.”

The IPCA report said senior decision-makers held “an entrenched view” that McSkimming was a victim rather than offender and were “unduly preoccupied” with protecting his future career prospects.

…after his rise

Coster was appointed as police commissioner in early March 2020, the youngest in the service’s history at age 44.

At the time, then-Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern commended Coster’s “positivity, inclusion and integrity”.

That word – “integrity” – comes up repeatedly in politicians’ descriptions of Coster.

He had not been considered a frontrunner for the top job, but boasted an impressive resume with considerable leadership experience within the police, as well as in law and with the Ministry of Justice.

Coster quickly got offside with the National Party – then in opposition – clashing with leader Simon Bridges and police spokesperson Mark Mitchell.

Bridges publicly declared Coster to be a “wokester” and suggested he was soft on gangs. Mitchell was openly critical of Coster’s advocacy for a “policing by consent” model.

But after National’s success in the 2023 election, new-prime minister Christopher Luxon took a different position, telling RNZ: “I’m not Simon Bridges, if you haven’t noticed.”

Coster continued with his five-year term as police commissioner, but finished up about six months early to take up a new role as Secretary for Social Investment.

It was seen as a win-win, with Mitchell keen to appoint a replacement more in line with his tough-on-crime rhetoric. In a social media, Mitchell said Coster had “served with integrity” and would be outstanding in the new role.

Social Investment Minister Nicola Willis said she was delighted by the appointment, having seen his “passion” for improving the lives of New Zealanders.

Luxon told reporters Coster had done an “exceptionally good job” as commissioner: “He has delivered big time for us.”

Then-Acting Public Service Commissioner Heather Baggott said Coster was a “proven leader with a pragmatic, realistic and delivery-focused approach to achieving change”.

“He is a highly respected and impressive public service leader who has considerable experience delivering initiatives to address complex social issues.”

Labour was also in favour of the appointment, with Carmel Sepuloni also noting his “integrity” and work ethic.

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

Climate scientists and advocates say the government needs to come clean on how New Zealand plans to meet its first international climate target.

A decade on from the Paris Agreement, and as a New Zealand delegation heads to the annual UN COP climate summit, the government says its climate ambition has not changed.

But it is yet to commit any funding, or announce detailed agreements, to purchase the estimated billions of dollars of offshore carbon credits it needs to meet New Zealand’s Paris obligations by the 2030 deadline.

Failing to act could soon start to jeopardise free trade agreements and leave New Zealand vulnerable to an international legal challenge, climate experts say.

The previous government pledged to slash net greenhouse gas emissions to half of 2005 levels by 2030, as New Zealand’s contribution to the Paris Agreement.

The overarching goal of the agreement is to limit warming to no more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, and well below 2°C, and countries are required to present their pledges – known as nationally determined contributions – every five years.

The current government has confirmed it would continue to pursue New Zealand’s first nationally determined contribution.

It will also present its update contribution at this year’s COP30 summit, which starts today in Belém in the Brazilian Amazon.

New Zealand will put forward an updated target of a 51-55 percent reduction in overall emissions by 2035 – criticised as “shockingly unambitious” when it was first announced at the start of this year.

But first the 2030 target must be met – and climate experts say the government is rapidly running out of time to say how it will be achieved.

When it was first announced, then-Climate Change minister James Shaw said domestic emissions would not be enough to meet the target and New Zealand would have to purchase offshore credits to make up the shortfall, at a cost of about $1 billion a year.

An official tracking report submitted by New Zealand last year found the gap had narrowed, but still projected a shortfall of 84 million tonnes of emissions, taking into account all planned domestic reductions.

The amount is roughly equivalent to a full year’s emissions.

Lawyers for Climate Action executive director Jessica Palairet said successive governments had failed to act on offshore mitigation and it was time to commit.

“For the government to just remain in a state of indecision, she’ll be right, we’ll work it out nearer the time, my view is that is contrary to international law.”

An International Court of Justice opinion released earlier this year made it “very clear that we have to make best efforts to use all means at its disposal to achieve our [targets]”.

“Save some extraordinary technological advance that no one sees coming having effect by 2030, I think avoiding offshore mitigation is next to impossible.”

By insisting it was committed, but not explaining how it would actually meet the target, the government was “dancing on the head of the pin”, Palairet said.

Climate change minister Simon Watts and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon have both affirmed New Zealand’s international target.

However, their coalition partners are opposed to offshore mitigation, and they also face opposition around the Cabinet table: forestry and agriculture minister Todd McClay told Morning Report last year that the concept was not “palatable” to New Zealanders.

Watts confirmed to RNZ that that there was no current Cabinet decision or agreement to purchase offshore credits and the focus was on domestic emission reductions.

“When we came in, the gap was 149 [million tonnes] or so, it’s now down to 84,” he said.

“Our emissions reduction plan does highlight that there is a gap and that is a significant challenge for us as a country, but the point that we’re optimistic around … is that, particularly in agriculture, there’s quite a lot of work underway that does have a material impact on [domestic] emissions reduction.”

The shortfall was continuously monitored and the government would keep re-assessing the situation, Watts said.

“It’s not cross your fingers and hope.

“We’ve got to do everything we can domestically … and as time evolves, as it will, more things are coming on to the plate.”

But independent climate change and carbon market expert Christina Hood said the government should be laying out a “really clear plan” right now for how it would meet the Paris target.

“These [offshore] emission reductions have to occur by 2030 in order to be able to count, so we really need to get our skates on. The key issue is that the government is not committing any real money to do this.”

Despite pushing for international carbon markets at successive COPs, New Zealand had done very little beyond signing a handful of “very high level agreements around just a general willingness to cooperate”, Dr Hood said.

“Other countries that are going to be needing international cooperation to meet their targets, like Japan, like Switzerland, have been really active for a number of years already, not just setting up partnerships, but they’re actually been establishing projects and getting emission reductions happening.”

Watts said there were no agreements at all in place when he came to office, and the cooperation agreements signed since then had been on his watch.

In February, Watts told a meeting of farmers that there was no financial liability on the government’s books if it failed to meet the target.

“No one sends you an invoice,” Farmers Weekly reported him saying.

Jessica Palairet said although that was true, there were plenty of other consequences.

“One is that we have free trade agreements with the European Union [and] with the United Kingdom that require us to effectively implement the Paris Agreement. So if we are seen to fall foul of that, it opens New Zealand up to the possibility of trade sanctions.”

That was not far-fetched, she said.

“Internationally, New Zealand is actually getting some pretty bad headlines for its backsliding on climate and you could see countries wanting to make an example of us.

“We know that the EU likes to … try to use their influence to shape international law and international trade norms.”

New Zealand could also face international legal challenges if it was perceived to not be genuine about trying to meet its targets, Palairet said.

“The International Court of Justice also opens the door to the possibility of one state bringing legal proceedings against another state if it is seen to be breaching its international obligations.

“You could imagine some of our Pacific partners, for example, looking at decisions being made in New Zealand and being really quite unhappy with those.”

There were wider reputational consequences to consider, too, she said.

“What side of history do we want to be on as a country?”

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

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

MIL OSI

“​The ​blatant, ​blatant ​bias ​of ​the ​New ​Zealand ​media ​makes ​you ​want ​to ​weep,” an exasperated Mike Hosking told his Newstalk ZB listeners last Thursday.

A new unauthorised biography of Jacinda Ardern by journalist David Cohen triggered that complaint.

“One ​of ​the ​things ​that ​most ​upset ​me ​during ​that ​period ​was ​the ​acquiescence ​of ​the ​New ​Zealand ​media ​to ​her. ​Their ​journalistic ​integrity got ​completely ​and ​utterly ​blown ​up,” he said.

David Cohen interviewed dozens of people about her for the book – including Mike Hosking, who complained about the media “falling in love” with Ardern when she was PM.

“When you’re a journalist, you’ve got to put that to one side and cover it in a fair and balanced way. But fairness and balance just went out the window,” he said.

But over the years some of his critics have said similar things about the friendly tone of Hosking’s own interviews with other PMs he clearly liked more – including the current one.

Back in 2013 he even endorsed John Key while MC’ing the PM’s state of the nation speech. Petitions were launched to take the job of moderating TVNZ election debates away from Mike Hosking.

Bias is in the eye of the beholder, but he’s far from the only one questioning the media’s trustworthiness out loud these days.

The latest annual report of the official broadcasting watchdog – the Broadcasting Standards Authority – said formal complaints for the public for the year were down. The BSA found only eight breaches of standards all year.

This month the BSA released another report – zeroing in on public trust in the media.

Several surveys in recent years have shown our trust in news sliding significantly, but the BSA’s online survey and focus groups didn’t just add more numbers to the others. They asked people who’d lost trust in it why – and what, if anything, might restore it for them.

Large majorities told the BSA they wanted news backed by credible evidence, more neutrality, prompt corrections and more in-depth reporting. They also wanted more transparency, accountability and facts distinguished from opinion and advertising.

They also wanted less clickbait, sensationalism and aggressive attack style journalism.

So far, so much like many other surveys.

But while bias was also cited as a major reason for slumping trust, respondents also acknowledged that their perceptions of bias were coloured by their personal views – and whether their own views were reflected in the media.

Why has trust slumped?

“Why do news outlets continue to exhibit the sort of behaviour that contributes to declining trust when the solutions are so obvious?” former New Zealand Herald editor turned scholar and commentator Gavin Ellis asked this week.

“A day does not go by when I do not witness the opinion of a reporter indelibly over-written on reportage. I – and the rest of the audience – am left to my own devices in separating one from the other,” he said in an article about the BSA research, claiming solutions to declining trust are staring news media in the face.

“The practice not only transgresses journalistic boundaries but also provides ammunition for those seeking every opportunity to diminish and discredit media outlets with claims of bias.”

Ellis also said we saw clickbait headlining and story selection all the time, particularly on news sites that use artificial intelligence algorithms and analytics. And while consumers applied higher trust scores to outlets offering hard news rather than light lifestyle or entertainment content, that stuff keeps coming in spades from the mainstream media too.

While he was at it, Ellis said reporters should be “off-limits for commercially-linked stories”

As if to illustrate that problem, TVNZ 1News viewers in the ad breaks currently see the hosts of TVNZ Seven Sharp, nominally still a current affairs show, promoting their upcoming ‘Swede As’ national roadtrip to hype the launch of Ikea.

Daily prizes are on offer and being in to win requires signing up to the Ikea Family loyalty programme via Seven Sharp’s website. It’s the kind of thing that confirms for some the news media are for sale when the price is right.

Yet some of the same ad breaks also feature urgent and persuasive messages for immunisation which could save lives in the current measles outbreak, showing the medium as a force for good.

Almost three in 10 respondents in the BSA research said there was nothing a news provider could do to reverse their lost trust – but more than twice as many said they could.

“The forms of redress in the BSA report are quite simple and represent no more than the re-emphasis of traditional journalistic values,” Ellis insisted.

“Transparency and accountability, clear editorial boundaries and commitment to impartial and fact-based reporting were – and should still be – the cornerstones of journalism.”

Fixes – easy and hard

RNZ’s executive editor of podcasts and series Tim Watkin once worked under Ellis at the Herald in the time before online technology and social media changed the nature of public trust.

In his new book – How to Rebuild Trust in Journalism – he sees the relationship between the audience and the media of today as like a relationship on the rocks. And he believes it’s the media that need to change and come to terms with the fact that the public are “just not that into them anymore”.

“The trends (in the research) are really clear. It’s very easy to say we are well-served by media in New Zealand and our journalism is of a high standard. But people don’t see that, and are making some pretty serious claims about what we do,” Tim Watkin told Mediawatch.

“The Reuters Institute research across 47 countries points to the fact most of the public does not trust most of the news most of the time. Edelman does research across 28 countries and 64 percent say journalists purposely mislead people.

“Here in New Zealand, RNZ is at the top of the trust tree. But we’re still only getting about half of the people reliably trusting us. I think that speaks to a burning platform.

“People have turned against us for some time now and it’s been a pretty clear trend for a generation or two. The people have spoken.

“If we fail to take it seriously, the news business might start running out of public to serve – and might not have much of a business left to do.”

The BSA research on trust found fewer than one in five who experienced a drop in trust as a result of a particular event or period report an improvement since that time. The loss of trust appears locked in for them.

But the same survey also found that of people who have experienced an event which strengthened their trust, almost 75 percent are more likely to maintain or increase their levels of trust.

Those people are there to be won back?

“It is not irretrievable. If you go back to the end of the First World War, there was a global pandemic, real social upheaval and political discord,” Watkin said.

“And at that time, there were a lot of commentators saying the trust in our news is falling apart. There was a reaction to that, especially in the US, but around the world, in the form of objectivity.

“Journalism decided as an industry to say ‘we are different from public relations, we’re different from government information, we stand apart, we try and write detached, factual information that describes the world as it is’. And that worked pretty well for us for the best part of a century.

“Now the media landscape is way more complicated, but the principles and the lessons are still pretty sound. We can work our way back.”

But is it really ‘them’ and not ‘us’ that’s changed?

Does asking people about their trust in media actually invite – or even incite – increased scepticism? Asking people if they use and value news media in spite of their reservations might yield different results and less definitive conclusions about loss of trust?

“It’s true if you highlight something, it creates a situation where people start to see a problem. But I think we’re well past it just being journalists or news media being able to really take any comfort from that,” Watkin told Mediawatch.

“Trust is around human connection and relationships. If the other partner in a relationship perceives you as a problem, then it doesn’t really matter what the facts are,” Watkin said, who did research in the philosophy department at the University of Glasgow.

In the relationship with the public, the media also have money problems and insecurity. And Watkin said the news media needed to do the work of the “cheating spouse”.

But in decades gone by, the public did not express huge distrust. They’re now the ones who often aren’t paying for news, have stopped valuing journalism and using free and alternative sources of news and content online.

“We could absolutely say: ‘Come on public, stop cheating on us with social media, stop running off with Instagram and Facebook – and come back to your good solid relationship with mainstream news media that actually knows how to treat you well,” Watkin told Mediawatch.

“But the reality is that people are dallying with TikTok and all the others and we can blame them or we can do something about it. In a world where… nobody is complaining about having not enough information, we can control the quality of that information that we provide.

“We say in a lot of cases that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and looks like a duck – it’s a duck. The problem with journalism is there are a lot of things that walk and quack and look like journalism, but they’re not journalism.

“We need to protect our specialty as journalists, I think, and we haven’t been very good at doing that.”

Powering up superpowers

Watkin’s book identifies four “superpowers” to differentiate journalism’s “duck”.

The first is objectivity, the subject of many inconclusive and often frustrating debates among journalists.

Some say it’s not realistic or achievable – or even really desirable if it fosters ‘both sides’ equivalence that can actually mislead the audience. Others say it’s the only way to overcome – or at least moderate – inevitable biases.

“I thought long and hard about this and concepts around impartiality. But sometimes journalists do need to be partial towards their communities, towards democracy, for example, towards a free press.

“So I kept coming back to objectivity. We all come with our baggage and bias. But what people don’t get – and it’s incredibly frustrating that we have to keep having this argument – is that it’s because people are biased that we have an objective method.

“As a journalist, you sign up to a method of telling a story. An Iowa professor defined objectivity as describing the world as it is, not as you want it to be.

“That shows that we are putting the interests of the people we serve ahead of our own opinions. Frankly, the public does not give one hoot about our opinions.

“Verification links in with transparency, which is the third superpower. Verification is the one that we kind of take for granted. You should be able to go to mainstream journalism and know that we have, as part of our professional creed, checked things.

“Balance is important, but how much better that we go beyond balance to actually verification? What we then need to do is be transparent and show our workings.”

Do the public want the workings? Does it risk clogging up stories and content like long labels on American food products that no one really reads? Or software licensing T’s and C’s of which almost everyone simply scrolls to the end?

“As journalists we are better at communicating than those ingredients labels. But those labels are actually useful and they do build trust in products. I’m not talking about sodium at 0.5 percent, but we can certainly be a lot more open in our journalism about how many people we spoke to, who refused to comment – and explaining some of the context or some of the history behind the story.

“Research consistently shows the public does not understand how journalism is different from the rest of the content that’s so much part of their lives these days. We actually have to do a much better job of saying why you can trust us more than Bill on TikTok.”

The fourth of Watkin’s superpowers for media is “caring”.

His book says journalism needs to be “more humble and care more about how it presents the verified and objective facts gathered in the public interest.”

Sounds nice, but does that alienate people who already think media care about the wrong things – and that their own values and motivations don’t align with the media?

“It’s not ‘caring’ in a way that takes sides. That would undermine the objectivity part of the superpowers and often the verification part too. It’s the kind of caring (like) friends in your life who… are prepared to tell you what you need to hear and are actually honest with people.

“They care enough to investigate the stories. They care enough to hire people who look like me – the different ethnicities, classes, rural, urban, university-educated and not university-educated.

“They should care enough to spell correctly, to have a podcast on their favourite app or a website that doesn’t glitch. All of these things show that we care about the information we’re providing.”

Fact vs opinion

Another persistent gripe that the research picks up is the blurring or even the blending of fact and opinion.

Watkin runs a separate site devoted to opinion – pundit.co.nz. In election years, he runs the podcast Caucus in which senior RNZ presenters give opinions on how the campaign is going.

Does that blur the line?

“Gavin Ellis is right that just slapping ‘analysis’ on the top doesn’t cut it. I think we need to be overly demonstrative in showing the difference between an article of factually-checked news – and an opinion piece which is based on facts but doesn’t have to be balanced because it’s their opinion.

“I’ve suggested that opinion pages on sites could be kept separate. In newspapers they could even be changed to a different colour so that it’s much clearer.

“On Caucus, we can probably do better on the transparency front but we’re really careful not to take sides, not to be partisan. We offer analysis and decades of experience covering politics to try and give people some quality information and some insight from our experience.”

Media are also often criticised for ignoring or marginalising some views and groups and featuring too narrow a range of sources.

“Again, when you go through the research and you see a lot of workshops and focus groups and so forth, they often get frustrated that they listen to the news and it doesn’t sound like them or look like them. 23 percent of journalists in the US live in three cities: New York, Washington DC and LA.

“New Zealand probably suffers from a similar thing in that Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch probably dominate. But local media are usually the most-trusted media – because people see that they care and are part of their community.

“We probably need to be better at finding people from all walks of life who can tell stories and help us understand because they bring an understanding of the world with them. If we are too narrow in the kind of people who we hire or the people we interview, then we miss a lot.”

“I really hope, regardless of my book, that people at least start thinking seriously about the importance of who they trust and who they don’t trust – and make good choices. And for journalists to actually work really hard at earning that trust.”

View from abroad

In 2019, Melanie Bunce pondered the current and future state of journalism here in a BWB text titled The Broken Estate.

She’s now the director of the new Centre for Media and Democracy at London’s City St George’s University, also researching trust in news around the world.

“If you get three different people telling you they don’t trust the media, they might have three different reasons so it’s a really hard one to counteract. But in a crisis, when people want to actually know what’s happened and where to for help they overwhelmingly still go to the mainstream media, even when they say they don’t trust those organisations,” Prof Bunce told Mediawatch.

“Here in the UK, the BBC for example is wrapping itself in knots around the coverage of Gaza and Israel, as it did during its reporting of Brexit, because people are trying to perform their balance and impartiality.

“But then you perhaps end up giving a lot of space to a side of the argument or interpretation of the argument that your audience at home doesn’t think should have any oxygen given to it whatsoever. So it’s incredibly hard.

“I think you need to explain to the audience as much as possible that you are trying to give due impartiality… based on where the evidence lies. But it’s not easy.

“A lot of the growth and distrust in the media over the last decade or so has resulted directly from political elites attacking and discrediting the media. Not giving the media a free ride or anything, but we should always wonder what’s in it for a political elite when they are saying you can’t trust that news and that ‘fake news’ media.

“In New Zealand because we’re lucky that there’s still high readership of local news. That genuinely is not the case in the UK. I live in London, one of the world’s global cities, but there’s very little news coverage of my borough, even though it’s larger than my hometown Dunedin.

“I can’t read the equivalent of the Otago Daily Times about the place that I live because of how the media ecosystem here works.”

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

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

MIL OSI

Source: Porirua City Council

MIL OSI

MEDIA RELEASE – 4 November 2025

Family First says that according to official government data, every month on average an unborn child is surviving an attempted abortion but is not being given life-sustaining treatment.

These shocking numbers may be well underestimated because some districts couldn’t or wouldn’t provide the data.

According to Official Information Act requests to Health New Zealand, it reveals that since the beginning of 2020, approximately 80 attempted abortions have resulted in a child being born alive but not given life-sustaining care. Gestation periods range from 20 – 30 weeks.

Disturbingly, Te Tai Tokerau district said that life-sustaining care is considered only for “wanted babies at 22 weeks + 5 days”. At Waikato, there is “parental discretion to opt in or opt out of resuscitation”. Canterbury have previously advised that the “baby is wrapped in a blanket and held until it passes”.

Some larger districts including Waitemata, Counties Manukau, Bay of Plenty, Waikato and Capital Coast & Hutt Valley refused to provide the data.

“We are not surprised by this data – but it is still truly shocking. Whether the unborn child is 15, 20, 30 or 40 weeks in the womb, it will naturally be fighting for its life. That is our human instinct. We should be protecting the lives of innocent babies who survive attempted abortions. We should be making abundantly clear that this is an obligation on medical professionals,” says Bob McCoskrie, CEO of Family First NZ.

This shocking data comes at the same time as recent studies reveal that active treatment and survival rates for babies born at 22 weeks and 23 weeks are increasing. Between 2014 and 2023, survival among 22-weekers who received active treatment rose from 25.7% to 41%. Rates of survival rose from 7.4% to 32% for babies born at 22 weeks who did not receive active treatment.

A 2025 study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) has revealed that both active medical treatment and the survival rate of babies born as early as 22 weeks are increasing.

In 2020, an amendment to the Abortion Legislation Bill (requiring the care of a child born after an attempted abortion) was only supported by 37 MPs (less than a third). The amendment clarified that a qualified health practitioner who performed an abortion that results in the birth of a child after an attempted abortion has a duty to provide the child with appropriate medical care and treatment, no different than the duty owed to provide medical care and treatment to any other child born.

“The vote against such a provision was actually just confirmation of how extreme and radical Jacinda Ardern’s abortion law was – and the agenda of its supporters.”

At the time of the debate in Parliament, then-Minister of Health & Labour MP Andrew Little said “I would like to see the science about a child being born after an abortion.”

“Here is the evidence. This is not about politics – this is about having a heart,” says Mr McCoskrie.

Based on this disturbing evidence, Family First is calling on the Government to immediately introduce and pass legislation which requires life-sustaining care of any child born alive after an attempted abortion.

Family First is also questioning why this data is being withheld from some districts, and is calling on the Ministry of Health to keep more accurate and transparent information about these occurrences.

MIL OSI

The new proposed version of the relationship and sexuality education (RSE) curriculum has just been released.

Earlier this year, the Ministry of Education developed a draft framework in preparation for the refresh of the Health and Physical Education curriculum.

Thanks to your feedback to the Ministry, more than half of the responses sent a clear message about RSE – “Less or later RSE”: This group emphasised the role of parents and family values. A much smaller group (approximately 25%) wanted “more or earlier RSE”.

THANK YOU to the many of you who sent this simple clear message – and who were concerned about the extreme and age-inappropriate content being dumped on children as young as primary school that we had highlighted to you.

In the Ministry’s InfoSheet announcing this new draft curriculum, there is this key statement:

Parents will still be able to have their children exempted from taking part in sexuality education. Clearer information about what is being taught helps parents, teachers and leaders to navigate these conversations. Sex education is now clearly set out in the teaching sequence. Parent-friendly information about relationships and sexuality education is available on the Parent Portal.”

[If you are not aware of the Parent Portal at your school, please ask your school about it. It is one of your biggest friends in monitoring what is being taught in schools.]

THE BIG WINS

* there is a notable absence of the words “sex”, “gender” & “preferences” in any of the primary school material, and “gender” in the secondary school material!

Remember the Relationships and Sexuality Education Guidelines(or RSE for short) which were released by the Ministry of Education in September 2020 under the Ardern Government?
In the curriculum for primary-age children, requirements included:
* students should be addressed by their preferred name and pronouns
* schools need to ensure that students can access toilets and changing rooms that align with their gender identification… trans students should not be required to use the gender-neutral toilet rather than male or female toilets of their choice
* teachers should challenge sex norms – for example, the assumption that sex characteristics at birth are always male or female
* teachers should challenge homophobia, transphobia, sexism, gender binaries… even interrogate the ongoing effects of colonisation [our emphasis added]
They wanted seven- and eight-year-old children “..able to identify gender stereotypes, understand the difference between gender and sex, and know that there are diverse gender and sexual identities in society.”
They wanted this ideology – this indoctrination – in all primary-school lessons and within virtually all subjects.
The year 7/8 guidelines wanted pre-teens to, “know about pubertal change (including hormonal changes, menstruation, body development, and the development of gender identities).” [our emphasis added]

This removal of the indoctrination of gender ideology & sexual ‘identities’ is a noticeable change – and a major win.

Credit should be given to both the Minister of Education & National MP Erika Stanford and also NZ First’s Winston Peters for listening to the concerns of parents & families.

* sex education is not introduced until year 8 – and in a very refreshing & welcome move, the curriculum starts by saying:
“In New Zealand, the legal age of consent for sexual activity is 16 years. Engaging in sexual activity with people below this age is considered unlawful under statutory provisions designed to protect young people from harm and exploitation.”
This has not been stated in previous curriculum material that we have seen.
This statement is also the leading statement in years 9 & 10 also.

* In year 10, students are rightly warned: “Engagement in harmful sexual behaviours, including non-consensual distribution of intimate content and unsolicited sexual advances, can result in significant psychological, social, and legal consequences for all involved.”

* at year 6 (primary) there is the first introduction of the harms of drugs – and a very clear message of “say no to drugs”, how to set boundaries and resist peer pressure. This continues through to year 10 with warnings about the negative effects of substance abuse, and strategies on how to say no or seek help! The harms of vaping are giving special emphasis also. (Some parents may feel that Primary school and perhaps even Intermediate school is too early to introduce specifics around these topics.)
However, the overall messaging is a very welcome change to the dangerous ‘harm minimisation’ messages (how to use drugs ‘safely’) that radical groups like the Drug Foundation and the Green Party constantly push.

* there is a notable emphasis on staying safe online – highlighting privacy, password & harmful content online to primary age, and then highlighting to intermediate and secondary students the online dangers & harms of cyberbullying, unrealistic body images, sexualised & pornographic content, and other exaggerated behaviours.

* there is an emphasis on “boundaries and staying safe” starting in year 2, and then consent about “personal belongings, space and bodies” & respecting others. In intermediate school, consent around sharing digital content is covered

THE RED FLAGS

* parents may still be concerned about the content of the sex education which begins in year 8. Despite the explicit opening message that sexual activity under the age of 16 is illegal, the curriculum then discusses “Communication and respect create safe and positive experiences within intimate and sexual relationships” and “there are a range of sexual activities in which consenting adults experience and express their sexuality.” Why is this being taught to underage children aged 12-13 years old?

* the year 9 (13-14 y/o) curriculum says: “Sexual development includes forming values, understanding consent, and knowing how to access confidential advice and support for sexual health when needed.” Note the age of the child and the secrecy. What is the role of parents in all of this? Interestingly, the module on the myth of “safer sex practices” has been delayed to year 10.

* the year 10 (14-15 y/o) curriculum says “Various forms of contraception (including abstinence, barrier methods, and hormonal options) can prevent unplanned pregnancies. Barrier methods can also reduce the risk of sexually transmissible infections (STIs). STIs can be transmitted through sexual contact and can affect multiple body systems. Access to confidential sexual health services (including testing, treatment, and counselling) can help to maintain personal health and relationships.” Secrecy continues to be encouraged.

* there is a notable absence around discussion of commitment, marriage, faithfulness etc. The word family is mentioned only once in each age bracket. In fact, the only use of the word abstinence (which the overwhelming (and growing) majority of the students will be choosing, according to all the surveys) is only mentioned once – to year 10 – in the context of being a form of contraception!

* most notably, there is still this Guide to LGBTQIA+ Students on a Ministry of Education-affiliated site. This is the site which, amongst other things, tells teachers to keep a child’s gender identity issues secret from his or her parents, by allowing the child to adopt a new persona whilst at school – including the use of preferred “pronouns”. There is no requirement to inform the parents that there are identity issues/gender dysphoria. They specifically advise teachers to ask young people: “Check with the student about the name and/or pronouns they want to be used in the records that parents or caregivers may see, as they might be different to the ones they use at school.” [our emphasis added]. They also have a page titled “Plan sexuality and gender education years 1-8 (i.e. primary and intermediate schools).

READ THE CURRICULUM CONTENT 

Be sure to check the age groups that your children are in, and ask yourself whether you want teachers and even outside groups to be talking to your children about these subjects. The Ministry needs to hear from you – the parent – because you can be sure that radical groups like InsideOut and Family Planning will be trying to push this framework to its radical extreme.

Years 0–3 (Young Primary) Phase 1 https://newzealandcurriculum.tahurangi.education.govt.nz/new-zealand-curriculum-online/nzc—health-and-pe-phase-1/5637293082.p

Years 4–6 (Older Primary) Phase 2 https://newzealandcurriculum.tahurangi.education.govt.nz/new-zealand-curriculum-online/nzc—health-and-pe-phase-2/5637293089.p

Years 7–8 (Intermedia) Phase 3 https://newzealandcurriculum.tahurangi.education.govt.nz/new-zealand-curriculum-online/nzc—health-and-pe-phase-3/5637293090.p

Years 9–10 (Jumior Secondary) Phase 4 https://newzealandcurriculum.tahurangi.education.govt.nz/new-zealand-curriculum-online/nzc—health-and-pe-phase-4/5637293085.p

THEY WANT YOUR FEEDBACK

https://education.surveymonkey.com/r/NWCBTPH

The consultation period ends Friday, 24 April 2026. You will be asked to give feedback on each of the “Phases 1-4” as shown above. This is where you can say whether its age appropriate or not, and emphasise the role of parents and values of the family.

Following consultation the draft content will be finalised, with formal release of the updated curriculum content planned for mid-2026. Years 0–10 Health and Physical Education will become required teaching from the start of 2027.

We will continue to update you on this material, and send you a reminder about the consultation period when it is getting close to cut-off date.

But progress has been made – thanks to your voice!

PS: Bob McCoskrie and Simon O’Connor discussed the new proposed curriculum along with a few other breaking news stories on social media yesterday. You can watch the discussion here (starts at the 14’50” mark).

MIL OSI

MIL OSI

[Keynote speech to the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs (NZIIA) national conference, Takina Convention Centre, Wellington]

Good afternoon.

National Chair of the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs, Dr James Kember, Executive Director Dr Hamish McDougall, members of the Diplomatic Corps, distinguished guests. 

It is a pleasure to speak here today at the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs’ Annual Conference.

The NZIIA contributes to, and facilitates, discussion and debate about New Zealand’s foreign policy, and we thank you for hosting us. 

In May last year, it was the NZIIA that hosted us in Parliament for a speech that addressed the challenges we face in a more fractious world and outlined how the Coalition Government was bringing more energy, more urgency and a sharper focus to our foreign policy.

Just over a year later, we thought we’d reflect on the Government’s Foreign Policy Reset, where progress has been made, and the foreign policy themes we have accentuated in the year since we last spoke to you.

This is also the time for a clear-eyed appraisal of New Zealand’s strategic circumstances, and the sharply deteriorating international outlook, as evidenced by the protracted illegal war in Ukraine and in the catastrophic escalation of the conflict in the Middle East. 

Twenty-five years ago, New Zealand enjoyed a world that was becoming more open, more democratic, and more free. Trade liberalisation was gathering pace. Effective multilateralism helped underpin a liberal- oriented international rules-based system.

Turning to the world of today – and looking out to tomorrow – the changes are stark. Uncertainty is now pervasive across the globe. We face an international operating environment under serious strain, one that poses complex challenges while exposing structural weaknesses in that operating environment.

While geography remains a constant, distance is no buffer. There is no opting out from the geopolitical realities we face. So, this is a timely reminder of what is at stake, and why our foreign policy matters for all New Zealanders. 

Foreign policy can often be perceived as far removed from New Zealanders’ daily lives. But recognising how our foreign and trade policy underpins New Zealanders’ security and prosperity is crucial to the open and mature national conversation we must continue to have in our vibrant democracy.

While operating for the most part quietly and in the background, our foreign and trade policy helps deliver outcomes that matter for all of us.

From the export dollars our farmers and manufacturers earn in key markets and helping to remove barriers for our exporters.

• To new international market opportunities being opened for our innovative services firms.
• To the international rules that provide us with our Exclusive Economic Zone and its resources, preserve Antarctica as a zone of peace and science, and which govern behaviours in outer space and cyber space.
• To the international security partnerships that enable us to tackle common threats, such as the flow of illegal drugs into our country, or terrorist threats.
• To the standards that underpin everyday fundamentals we all rely on, whether international air and sea shipping, our telecommunication devices, or biosecurity measures.
• And to the opportunities for young New Zealanders to travel and work overseas and return with new skills and experiences.

So while foreign and trade policy may seem abstract, how we act in the world matters for New Zealanders every day.

This fundamental link between how we advance our interests abroad, and our security and prosperity at home, is why the Coalition Government prioritises foreign policy as a crucial instrument to achieve both. That, after all, is how we maintain support from the taxpayers who underwrite our efforts.

This demands being present, engaged, and explaining ourselves. There remains no substitute for in-person diplomacy, relationship building, and educating the public about the choices we face. 

Now, our critics complain that we are leading a radical repositioning of our foreign policy. But only in one very narrow and important respect are they right. We have radically increased the tempo of our diplomacy, in recognition of our predecessors’ torpor, but also because of the sheer magnitude of the challenges we face. 

Since being sworn into office in November 2023, we have visited 46 countries, several more than once, met with well over 100 Presidents, Prime Ministers, Deputy Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers, and had over 400 political engagements. 

Through this engagement we are better informed about the world around us, as are counterparts about New Zealand’s foreign policy perspectives and the values that underpin them.

And we continue the important duty of communicating New Zealand’s foreign policy priorities to the public and explaining the nature of our changing strategic circumstances and the choices that flow from them.

We push ourselves to work harder, and explain ourselves better, because New Zealand has understood these past 80 years, that as a small state geographically isolated from the great landmasses of Asia, Europe and the Americas, only through the conduct of a highly active foreign policy can we advance our national interests, defend our region, and make it more prosperous.

Foreign Policy Reset: Progress

Distinguished guests, in our speech to you last year we outlined the six priorities that form the Government’s foreign policy reset. Today’s speech is an opportunity to recap the ambition that Cabinet set out and highlight key areas of effort and progress.

First, we are significantly increasing our focus and resources applied to South and Southeast Asia. 

With 34 outward Prime Ministerial and Ministerial visits to the region since February 2024 – advancing new business and investment opportunities, while expanding defence and security cooperation, and upgrading a range of key relationships – we are investing in the wider region, commensurate with its strategic and economic significance.

In 2025, we have upgraded our Viet Nam relationship to a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, and we are working hard to similarly achieve upgrades in our ASEAN and Singapore relationships.

It was a pleasure to again visit India last month, and to contribute to this important and growing relationship, including welcoming the negotiations underway towards a comprehensive free trade agreement.

Complementing this investment in South and Southeast Asia, the Government also remains focused on the depth and breadth of our important relationships across North Asia. Our bilateral relationship with China is New Zealand’s largest trade relationship. It’s proven mutually beneficial and significant for both countries.  The relationship is supported by regular people exchange, including political dialogue, business, education and tourism links. And we are pleased that with the Prime Minister visiting China this week we will have completed reciprocal visits between our respective counterparts over the past two years.

Our long-standing political connections enable frank and comprehensive discussions on areas of disagreement, including those that stem from our different histories and different systems. Indeed, it is a sign of healthy relationships that we can and do express disagreement on important issues. 

Japan and Korea are two likeminded democracies in the Indo-Pacific, who view the region and the world in the same way we do and are increasingly central to achieving our interests.

Second, we are renewing and reinvigorating meaningful engagement with traditional and likeminded partners. 

Our circumstances underscore the importance of an even deeper strategic partnership with Australia as well as other partners with which we share a deep history and enduring interests.

Consultations with Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong in Adelaide last month highlighted that New Zealand has no closer or more important partner that Australia, our one formal ally, with whom we share interests across the full expanse of regional and international issues.

We have grown the important partnership with the United Kingdom, including advancing trade opportunities and reiterating our shared commitment to tackling international security challenges. 

Similarly, enhanced engagement with the European Union and its member states is a significant focus for New Zealand.

The change in the US Administration in January has inevitably generated changes in the priorities and direction of US foreign policy. But the significance of the US’ continued role in the security and stability in the Indo-Pacific and as an essential economic partner remains, and this continues to be the focus of our engagement, including during discussions with Secretary Rubio in Washington and Admiral Paparo, Commander of US INDOPACOM in Honolulu.

Third, we are sustaining a deeper focus on the Pacific, working in collaboration with Pacific Leaders to protect and advance our interconnected security, economic, social and environmental interests.

In a more complex global environment, coming together as a region is even more important.  Which is why Pacific regionalism sits at the core of our Pacific approach, with the Pacific Islands Forum at its centre. 

We will always be members of the same Pacific family. A series of cross-party Parliamentary delegations into the region, alongside our exhaustive travel around Micronesia, Melanesia, and Polynesia, have demonstrated that New Zealand’s commitment to the region spans the political spectrum and is foundational to who we are as a country.

Our Pacific-focused International Development Cooperation programme – reshaped to achieve more impact by doing fewer, bigger, projects better – is helping to build climate and economic resilience, strengthen governance and security, and to lift heath, education and connectivity.

Fourth, we are targeting our multilateral engagement on priority global and transboundary issues, working to defend and preserve core principles of international law that underpin our security and prosperity.

Respect for the UN Charter principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the prohibition on the use of force is essential to avoid a return to a world where the exercise of hard power reigns supreme.

Where these principles are flagrantly violated, such as in Russia’s continued illegal invasion of Ukraine, we must stand against such aggression and lend our efforts to achieving a just and sustainable peace.

New Zealand’s response to the Israel-Hamas conflict is also grounded in upholding international law, including international humanitarian law.

While the multilateral system has served us all well for many decades, it most certainly is not without flaws. We recognise that defending, strengthening, and modernising the rules-based system also means supporting reform of multilateral institutions. 

We actively support efforts to make these institutions more responsive, efficient and effective to ensure they are focused on making a difference for our citizens, and we feel an urgency around necessary reform.   

Fifth, we are supporting new groupings that advance and defend our interests and capabilities. 

The relationship between the Indo-Pacific Four (IP4) countries – Australia, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand – is an example of this new support. 

Deeper political-level engagement between NATO and the IP4, begun by predecessor governments, has allowed us to raise the profile of shared strategic challenges in the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific, and to drive enhanced cooperation on priority areas including cyber, artificial intelligence, and defence capability.

This effort will be given further momentum next week, when the Prime Minister travels to The Hague for engagements with fellow IP4 partners and NATO countries, during the NATO Summit.

And sixth, we are working hard to advance the Government’s goal of seriously lifting New Zealand’s export value over the next decade. 

This means harnessing every potential gain from our trade and economic agenda; promoting New Zealand as a place to do business; and creating opportunities for our world-class exporters. 

This Government has conducted eleven successful trade missions, as we work towards the target of 20 missions involving New Zealand businesses during this Parliamentary term.

New trade agreements concluded with the United Arab Emirates and the Gulf Cooperation Council will open doors and provide greater certainty as well as create more chances for our exporters to grow and diversify their businesses. 

As will our efforts to leverage and expand existing trade agreements – such as through the United Kingdom’s accession last year to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).

Mid-term reflections

In recent speeches we have outlined that the priorities identified in the foreign policy reset are underpinned by three key concepts:

• The realism that informs the Government’s foreign policy.
• Our view of the crucial role that diplomacy needs to play in our troubled world.
• And our unshakeable belief that small states matter and that all states are equal.

In fashioning foreign policy responses, the realist tendency is to err on the side of prudence. That is, we are careful in what we say, and when and how we say it. 

We leave it to the small cabal of ill-informed critics of our foreign policy approach to shout impotently at clouds. They are good at that. Take AUKUS. In our speech to the NZIIA last year we were candid about what AUKUS Pillar 2 was, why the Ardern/Hipkins Governments launched work on it, and we laid out the necessary pre-conditions for participation. 

A year on, there is nothing new to report, which you might think says something about the current dynamic, but still critics insist dark clouds have formed around our independent foreign policy. Their arguments were ill-informed and rubbish then. They’re ill-informed and rubbish now.

We said we would update New Zealanders on Pillar 2 when there was something new to say. And we will.       

In conditions of great uncertainty and disorder, such as we are currently experiencing, prudence is a both a logical and necessary guiding principle for a small state like New Zealand.

We see our responsibility to the New Zealand people, in conducting foreign policy, as making cool-headed calculations of the country’s own strengths and weaknesses as we fashion our responses to events large or small that impact upon New Zealand’s interests.

For a small state like New Zealand, the role of diplomacy is a crucial instrument of our foreign policy. In our complex geostrategic environment never has effective diplomacy been more needed. 

Summing up our wide foreign policy discussions in our National Statement to the United Nations last year, we said it has never been more apparent just how much diplomacy and the tools of statecraft matter in our troubled world. 

Since war and instability is everyone’s calamity, diplomacy is the business of us all. We have observed that at this moment in time the ability to talk with, rather than at, each other has never been more needed. 

Those who share our values, and even those who do not, gain from understanding each other’s position, even when we cannot agree. From understanding comes opportunity and from diplomacy comes compromise, the building block of better relations between nations. We said we need more diplomacy, more engagement, more compromise. 

As Churchill also said in his later years, “meeting jaw-to-jaw is better than war.”

The inherent tensions and imbalances in the global order – between the desire for a rules-based order that protects small states against aggression, and the unjustified exercise of power by certain Great Powers – have only grown over the last past eight decades. 

Yet small states matter now as much as they did then. New Zealand holds the foundational belief that all states are equal and that our voices matter as much as more powerful states. Adopting a prudential approach to our diplomacy also means not reacting to everything that happens around us. 

In closing, it’s fitting to return to the broad theme of the event – New Zealand’s foreign policy in a contested world.

The outlook is challenging, to say the least, and we – government and public alike – must grapple with the reality of the fraught strategic circumstances that New Zealand faces.

We have many friends in the world, but no-one owes New Zealand a living. It is incumbent upon us to chart our course, assert our priorities, cultivate our partnerships, and pursue our interests with the vigour we have injected into our diplomatic efforts these past 18 months.

Amidst serious challenges and risk, there are also opportunities. Realising these means that we must continue to bring energy, urgency and a sharper focus to our foreign policy. 

Through the Foreign Policy Reset, we are focused on doing exactly that and ensuring that we continue to deliver security and prosperity for all New Zealanders.

Thank you

MIL OSI

ACT Leader David Seymour: Address to Craigs Investment Partners Auckland

Introduction

Thank you to Craigs Investment Partners for hosting me today.

Every three years, we elect a new Parliament. Every year, we get a new Budget. And every Budget brings a flurry of headlines, hot takes, and handouts. But too often, what’s missing is a long view, a vision that extends beyond the next fiscal year, the next election, or the next political sugar hit.

In other words, instead of looking towards the next election, we should be thinking about the next generation.

Right now, New Zealand is in the middle of a repair job. After years of economic mismanagement and runaway spending, this Government is trying to patch the roof while the rain still falls. ACT supports that effort. But we also ask a bigger question: what comes next? Not just in the next quarter or the next Budget, but in the next few decades.

Because building a stronger economy starts with a long-term economic vision. A vision that restores freedom and personal responsibility to the individual, and rewards effort and innovation.

In a week’s time the Government will be revealing Budget 2025. It will detail the Government’s specific spending and revenue choices, key new infrastructure investments, the path for borrowing and debt and our plans for strengthening the fundamentals of the New Zealand economy.

New Zealand has gone through a tough few years of high inflation, high interest rates and little to no real growth. The Government has been running big deficits and accumulating debt. I’m proud to be part of a government that is slowing the spending of previous governments and making savings so we can fund the things that are most important.

Inflation and interest rates have been beaten back. Government doesn’t control every factor influencing them, but we can control our own spending. The Government’s commitment to spend less and maintaining that discipline over four years has helped win the war on inflation and interest rates.

Last week, Brooke van Velden MP made long-overdue changes to a broken pay equity system. As usual, Labour and the unions responded with scare tactics and misinformation. The fact is that Brooke’s changes bring back common sense. Pay equity claims will still be possible – but they’ll need real evidence of discrimination, not assumptions. That means a system that’s fair, workable, and sustainable for the long term.

The reason I bring this up is because Brooke’s fixes will have major budget implications, billions of dollars that balance the books and allow investments in important areas like health and education. She’s managed to do it in a way that means claims can still progress in cases of genuine sex-based discrimination – but if you’re a librarian looking to get a pay rise comparable to a fisheries officer then you’re out of luck.

Not many MPs would have the guts to take a controversial piece of work like this and progress it for the greater good. Brooke has shown what ACT is bringing to this Government – a willingness to take on tough issues and stand by our principles. This approach needs to be replicated and applied across a wider range of issues in order for New Zealand to tackle long-term issues.

Looking beyond a four-year cycle

Next week’s budget will take another step in the right direction for economic recovery. But while short-term repair is essential, we also need a long-term vision. What happens beyond this four-year cycle?

Previous Labour Budgets offered headline-grabbing sugar hits, ‘Wellbeing Budgets’ that felt good in the moment but lacked staying power, they essentially worked to pick a group, give them some money, and promote their generosity. The point that was often missed was that to give money to that group someone else had to stump up, probably your children and grandchildren. Now, this Government is carrying out the hard, necessary work by cutting unnecessary spending and reinvesting in core areas. But what comes next?

When it comes to government spending, New Zealand is standing on a burning platform. Last year, even as our population grew slightly, thanks to births and inbound migration, our economy shrank by one percent.

But here’s the real kicker: $10 billion of what the government spent was just to pay interest on existing debt. And next year? We’ll pay interest on the interest. The consequence? Government debt is forecast to soar past $200 billion in 2026.

Our national debt is growing by almost $2 million an hour, or more than $47 million a day.

As of the first quarter of 2025, New Zealand’s unemployment rate stands at 5.1 per cent, the highest in 4.5 years. Employment growth is minimal, and wage inflation has decelerated. At the same time, the doubling of debt we saw under the previous government is the new normal with $234.1 billion in debt by 2028/29, that’s $46,800 for every man, woman and child in this country today. The opposition is quick to deny responsibility. But let’s be real – it was under them debt went from 20-40 per cent of GDP. We are now projected to see a slowing and a decline. It was under Labour that inflation rose to 7 per cent and hollowed out the economy, it is under us that we have seen it come down to the usual low levels.

This is not sustainable. Not if you want your children and grandchildren to experience the same opportunities you once had.

And the challenges don’t stop there. There’s a demographic tailwind in our population growth, that’s becoming a headwind when it comes to balancing the books.

Our population is aging fast. Every year, around 60,000 people turn 65 and become eligible for superannuation.

We cannot keep ducking the big questions. Because what’s coming is not just a fiscal ripple, it’s a tidal wave that will envelop the country.

The global economy is more interconnected than ever before. As a small, open economy, New Zealand won’t escape the next global shock.

When Grant Robertson cranked up the money printers, blame was levelled at Putin, Covid, and cyclones. But crises are a fact of life, not an excuse for policy failure. It would be too easy for this Government to blame Trump. But a resilient country must be prepared regardless of who or what is happening around them.

In the 1990s, New Zealand demonstrated that resilience. Years of smart fiscal policy took our net core Crown debt from 55 per cent to just 5.4 per cent by 2008. Critics called it ‘austerity.’ But they’re still crying austerity when debt is 42.5 per cent. In 2019, pre-Covid, Jacinda Ardern’s Government was spending 28 per cent of GDP. In 2024, spending was 33.1 per cent of GDP. I don’t recall Labour being accused of austerity. But journalists and commentators find the current Government guilty of austerity when it spends 5 per cent of GDP more. Get real.

When the Global Financial Crisis and Covid hit, we were ready. Fast forward to today. That 5.4 per cent is now 42.5 per cent. Net core Crown debt has exploded from $10.3 billion in 2008 to over $175 billion today.

How did we get here?

Well, the simple answer is out of control spending from irresponsible governments. We’ve been here before. After the Muldoon Government’s reckless spending nearly bankrupted the country, it took the Lange Government and Sir Roger Douglas’s economic reforms to steer us back from the brink.

Growth and ambition

New Zealand’s population is expected to reach 6 million by 2043. That’s a good thing. We should be encouraging our best and brightest to stay, and welcoming innovative minds from around the world. We have the wide-open spaces and natural beauty to attract people, but not the ambition or economic opportunity to retain them judging by the roughly 69,100 New Zealand citizens choosing to leave in the year to February 2025.

We’ve tried spending more and the result was more debt and many of the same problems. In fact, if there’s one thing Grant Robertson taught us all it’s that we can’t spend our way out of this mess. Without radical policy change, there is no plausible path that avoids long-term fiscal and social collapse.

So what can we do?

Smaller, smarter government

We should make government itself more efficient. Fewer ministers, fewer departments, and clearer accountability. New Zealanders don’t need 82 portfolios to live better lives. They just need a government that does its job, and then gets out of their way.

It’s a shift away from the idea that the government exists to solve every problem by creating a minister named after it. And towards a view that the government’s job is to manage your money responsibly and provide core public services that allow you to go about your life, respecting your property rights.

If the Government was truly focused on outcomes rather than optics, we’d have fewer ministers but higher standards. We’d have fewer bureaucrats, but better services. We’d be empowering New Zealanders to make their own decisions, not adding layers of officials to make them for us.

Our proposal is to have:

• Only 20 Ministers, with no ministers outside cabinet
• No associate ministers, except in finance
• Abolish ‘portfolios’, there’s either a department or there’s not
• Reduce the number of departments to 30 by merging them and removing low-value functions
• Ensure each department is overseen by only one minister
• Up to eight under-secretaries supporting the busiest ministers, effectively a training ground for future cabinet ministers

More personal choice in education and health

A lot of the biggest problems we face as a nation can be solved by ensuring the next generation has access to a great education.

While our Government has made a lot of improvements in this area, banning devices that were destroying children’s concentration, bringing back charter schools to ensure there is more flexibility and choice in the system, and returning logic and common sense to the curriculum in key areas like literacy and numeracy, many parents still ask, how do we spend $330,000 on every child’s education and still get these results?

What if we gave New Zealanders a choice?

With $333,000 per student over a lifetime, how many families would choose a better option if they had control over that money instead of handing it over to the Government. Like a KiwiSaver account, parents and students would be able to see the balance of funding that is available and make choices about how to fund an education.

It is taking power away from the bureaucracy and back to the people. The only way to ensure New Zealand’s schools become leaders rather than laggards is to have an education system that is responsive to parental demand rather than political orthodoxy.

We can apply the same concept to the health system. How do we spend $6,000 per citizen annually on health, and still end up on waiting lists?

What if every person could opt out of the public health system and take their $6,000 to buy private health insurance? Many would. And many would be better off.

We shouldn’t have a default position of tax and spend for every public service. If the past few years have taught us anything it’s that taxing and spending more doesn’t lead to greater outcomes. Giving people greater control over their own lives would bring about real change.

Zero-basing government

We need to stop assuming government departments and activities should continue because they always have. It’s easy to think of New Zealand companies that no longer exist. Anyone shopped at Deka lately? Read the Auckland Star? Got a loan from South Canterbury Finance? Had Mainzeal put anything up for you? Anyone here had a night in thanks to Video Ezy this decade?

For a variety of reasons those national brands along with a lot of other local businesses are gone. Basically, if they don’t deliver better than anyone else could, they go. But when was the last time you heard of a government department being surplus to requirements and closed down?

How many zombie departments and zombie bureaucrats does this country have? People who just carry on collecting a pay cheque for their own purposes instead of any public purpose. Why do we put up with the idea that government can get bigger, but it can never get smaller?

ACT says we need to zero base government. By that I mean going back to zero and asking ourselves, if the departments and bureaucracies we have now didn’t exist, would we establish them today?

We would ask every department to answer the simple question; if you didn’t exist, who would notice and why?

The justifications will have to fit with a robust view of what government can, and can’t, do.

• Can the private sector provide this service?
• Is there a genuine conflict between citizens’ interests that cannot be resolved without government intervention?
• What are the costs and benefits of this activity, and do the benefits outweigh the costs?

The size of government would be reduced dramatically by eliminating activities that don’t fit with these simple questions.

Tackling the hard conversations

We need a serious conversation about the future of retirement income. Not because it’s easy, but because it’s essential.

We need to face facts on superannuation. People are living over ten years longer than they were two generations ago, and they are having fewer children to pay taxes for superannuation. That means we need to consider whether our current approach is fair or sustainable. This could mean increasing the age by two months per year until it reaches 67. Someone who is currently retired would see no difference from this policy. Someone who is currently 64 would be eligible for superannuation two months later than currently planned. Sooner or later, a Government will need to address this.

The Winter Energy Payment makes a big difference for a lot of Kiwis, but for a lot more it lands in a special account that gets put aside for a holiday fund. Why don’t we ensure that the Winter Energy Payment went to those who needed it. It could be restricted to over-65s who hold Community Services Cards and recipients of main benefits.

Then there’s the corporate welfare. It took political courage for Sir Roger Douglas to ditch the agriculture subsidies and ask farmers to embrace the market. Looking back, I don’t think you’d find a farmer who wouldn’t agree that it was the right decision.

Why don’t we just let people keep more of their taxes and spend and invest their money the way they’d like to?

Between health, education, pensions, and welfare you have around $95 billion, a massive chunk of the government’s budget. The question isn’t whether we’re spending enough in these areas, it’s how we can find more productivity growth so New Zealanders get better services.

Cutting red tape

Housing and infrastructure costs are out of control not because of material costs, but because of government regulation. The RMA, excessive building codes, and earthquake regulations are driving prices sky-high. Reform is long overdue.

The Government is doing a huge amount of work in this area, most importantly by delivering a property rights based RMA – a concept ACT has fought hard for.

Long term, there will need to be a change in attitude when it comes to lawmaking. The Regulatory Standards Bill is one tool to do this, bringing transparency to lawmaking so when a politician makes a silly populist law, they’ll need to justify it to the public.

I think the Regulatory Standards Bill could have prevented many of the issues we’re dealing with today. Take earthquake regulations. In Auckland the chance of a major seismic event is roughly one in 110,000 years, yet property owners there are still being forced through costly assessments and upgrade requirements designed for high-risk areas.

It makes no sense. These one-size-fits-all rules are driving up costs and pushing down property values without delivering meaningful safety benefits. Instead of scaring owners into unnecessary spending, good policy would have adopted a risk-based approach that targets genuine seismic threats, not bureaucratic box-ticking.

These law changes are costly, mainly in lost productivity for decades to come. The Government’s default position should be not to regulate. Regulation should be the exception, not the rule. We must trust people, not bureaucracy.

The challenge

If we carry on in the current direction, we won’t remain a first-world country. We’ll be a middling island in the Pacific, lamenting the opportunities we let pass us by.

There is a way forward. But it starts with honesty.

We must rebuild New Zealand as a country that works, not just for today, but for generations to come. That means putting power back in the hands of people. That means cutting waste, reforming entitlements, and restoring ambition.

It means choosing freedom over control, responsibility over excuses, and aspiration over resentment.

MIL OSI

Speech to Tauranga Business Chamber: The Case For a Smaller, Focused Executive

Intro

The term of Government is nearing half time, when we should be reviewing the first half and planning the second.

I believe the Government can point to significant progress, and this is reflected in us maintaining a lead in the polls despite tough economic times.

Inflation and interest rates have been beaten back. Government doesn’t control every factor influencing them, but we can control our own spending. The Government’s commitment to spend less, and maintaining that discipline over four years has helped win the war on inflation and interest rates. This week’s announcement that we will come in $1.1 billion under the allowance this year is a very positive development.

The priority in crime has switched from criminals to victims. There is nothing wrong with rehabilitating criminals to reduce crime, and save money on imprisonment. There is a big problem, however, with seeing the gangs as partners, a lower prison muster as a goal in itself, and spending more on pre-sentencing reports for convicted criminals than victim support.

Across the board we have made innocent people the priority and criminals the target. Gangs are no longer partners to the Government, Three Strikes is back, and the expansion of prisoner rights will be reversed, to name just a few. As a result, violent crime is falling and we’re not finished yet.

In healthcare the prescription is very simple and very complex all at once. What we need to do is stabilise years of restructuring and chaos so that New Zealanders get value for money. The health budget is up 67 per cent, from $18 billion in 2019 to $30 billion six years later. The complex part is unblocking the myriad issues that make the system so frustratingly unproductive.

Finally the Government has taken many steps to restore our country’s commitment to liberal democracy. The liberal part means all people are equal, regardless of their immutable characteristics. The democratic part means each person gets an equal say on the wielding of political power, or one person, one vote. These are uneasy conversations, but essential ones. We have problems to solve and they’re easier solved together as a people united by our common humanity than divided by identity politics.

Half time talk

Any good half time team talk, though, should be warts and all. Have we done well? I claim we have. Is it time to declare victory? Far too early? Could we do better? Absolutely, and here’s one way we might do better in the future.

I often hear the change is too slow. People look at Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Javier Milei and ask, why don’t you just change things faster like them?

Part of the reason that we are not a dictatorship, with all the power in one office. That’s a good thing. Power in New Zealand rests in many institutions. There are boards, like the board of Pharmac. There are councils, such as in universities. There are individuals’ statutory positions, such as the privacy commissioner. All of these are there thanks to parliamentary laws, which take time to change. Unless you’re Che Guevara, you probably want a stable, thoughtful political system that consults people affected by its changes and governs by consent.

On the other hand, it’s time to start planning play even better in the future. Today I’d like to float an idea about how we could transform government management and get better results for the people who pay for it.

The suggestion I’m making changes the way we think about government. At the moment it’s supposed to be something that can solve all your problems – although the track record is not good.

Like any business, it needs to be an organisation focused on running itself well first. It is something that a determined manager would do as the first order of business, getting the right people in the right seats on the bus before setting off on the journey, so to speak.

It’s also about tackling head on the lingering feeling in New Zealand of paralysis by analysis, that NOTHING GETS DONE, because there’s too much hui and not enough dui. Everyone is always consulting someone to make sure nobody’s feelings would be hurt if, hypothetically, anybody ever actually did anything.

Our current set up of government, that has evolved over the past 25 years, seems to be an example of our national paralysis.

The idea I’m about to share may seem a little like shuffling deckchairs, but it’s more like pass the parcel, because it involves seriously reducing the number of seats. It goes like this.

Untangling Spaghetti

Here’s a simple question. Each government minister has specific areas of responsibility assigned to them called portfolios. How many ministerial portfolios do you think New Zealand has today? 40? 60?

Well, don’t feel too bad if you’re well off the mark. The truth is, most people wouldn’t know. And frankly, most wouldn’t believe it if I told them.

We currently have 82 ministerial portfolios. Yes, you heard that right. Eighty-two.

Those 82 portfolios are held by 28 ministers. And under them, we have 41 separate government departments. That’s a big, complicated bureaucratic beast. It’s hungry for taxpayer money and it’s paid for by you.

Let’s put this in perspective.

Ireland, with roughly five million people, has a constitutional maximum of 15 Ministers managing 18 portfolios.

And yet, somehow, the Irish have managed to keep the lights on, run hospitals, fund schools, maintain roads, and defend their borders without 82 portfolios, 28 ministers, or 41 government departments.

In fact, they’ve done much better than us on most measures this century. That’s not in spite of having simpler government, I suspect it’s because they have it.

If we look further abroad, the comparison is even more stark.

South Korea, with a population of 52 million, has 18 Ministers. The United Kingdom, with 67 million people, has around 22. The United States, with over 330 million citizens, runs a Cabinet of about 25.

By comparison, New Zealand’s executive looks bloated.

Now I recognise these countries have different political systems. But that doesn’t mean we should accept inefficiency as inevitable. It certainly doesn’t mean we should celebrate it.

Something has to change. That means fewer portfolios, fewer ministers, and fewer departments. Sure, that might put me and a few of my colleagues out of a job. But if that’s the price of having a government that delivers core services efficiently and gives taxpayers real value for money, then it’s worth it.

It wasn’t always this way.

New Zealand once had a lean cabinet. Sixteen ministers all sat at the same table. Each responsible for one or two departments. You were the Minister of Police. That was your job. Everyone knew who was accountable.

Then came the 1990s and the dawn of MMP.

Suddenly, governments needed to bring in coalition partners. The idea of ministers outside cabinet was invented. These were people with the title but not the seat at the table. Four of those ministers were created initially. That brought the total number to 20.

A few years later, Helen Clark came along and took things further. Her government had 20 cabinet ministers and eight Ministers outside cabinet. 28 in total. And it’s stayed around that number ever since.

With such a large executive, coordinating work programmes and communicating between ministers inside and outside cabinet is difficult, and as a result governments run the risk of drifting.

Some departments now report to a dozen ministers or more.

Officials at MBIE report to 19 different ministers. When you have 19 ministers responsible for one department, the department itself becomes the most powerful player in the room. Bureaucrats face ministers with competing priorities, unclear mandates, and often little subject matter expertise. The result? Nothing happens. Or worse, everything happens, badly. There’s a wonderful line in a report by the New Zealand Initiative: “Confusion empowers the bureaucracy.”

The size of the executive might have stabilised, but the number of portfolios has exploded.

It used to be roughly a one-to-one equation between a minister and a department. Now ministers hold three or four portfolios each.

There are portfolios without a specific department, including Racing, Hospitality, Auckland, the South Island, Hunting and Fishing, the Voluntary Sector, and Space, just to name a few of the 82 portfolios that now exist. We have to ask ourselves, do we need a Government Minister overseeing each of these areas?

I’m not saying those aren’t important communities. What I am saying is that creating a portfolio or a department named after the community is completely different from running a real department to deliver a service. It’s not a substitute for good policy. It’s not proof of delivery.

It is an easy political gesture though. The cynics among us would say it’s symbolism. Governments want to show they care about an issue, so they create a portfolio to match. A Minister gets a title, and voters are told in the most obvious way possible that it is a priority.

Take the Child Poverty Reduction portfolio under the Ardern Government. It came after Jacinda Ardern made child poverty her raison d’être. Creating the portfolio was a way to show she meant business. But five years later, has the creation of the portfolio improved the rate of child poverty? Were children better off because of a new Minister for Child Poverty Reduction?

We all know the answer. Child poverty rates plateaued and New Zealand is still grappling with the same problems. At the time, only ACT had the courage to say this and to vote against the Child Poverty Reduction Act, because we knew it was window dressing.

I’m proud to be part of a government that believes the path out of poverty isn’t paved by political slogans but better school attendance and achievement, making it easier to develop resources and build homes, getting more investment into New Zealand, and ending open-ended welfare in favour of mutual obligation.

Deep down I think we all know that the only true path out of poverty is building the individual’s capacity to provide for themselves and their family. There are no examples of anyone escaping poverty though dependence on their fellow citizens.

I know that if I start talking about specific ministries, people will start talking about the examples and the politics of who survives and who is cancelled and so on. Let me just say that I’ve been through the current list and I believe we could easily get to 30 departments.

Now, some people might be thinking, hang on, didn’t you just create the Ministry for Regulation? Yes, I did. And here’s why it matters.

Because government doesn’t just spend and tax. It also regulates. It restricts what people can do with their property. It dictates what can be built, where, how, and by whom. In fact, everything government does is either tax your money or put rules on the property it hasn’t taxed yet. That’s it. Try to think of something government does that isn’t either a) taxing and spending your money or b) making rules about what you can do with your remaining property.

And yet, until now, there was no central department looking at the cumulative effect of regulation. No one asking whether the rules were achieving their goals or just stacking up and strangling productivity in red tape.

The Ministry for Regulation is one of just five central agencies in government. It was created not to grow bureaucracy, but to hold the bureaucracy accountable.

We don’t need more Ministers, we need fewer. But we also need smarter government. And that means focusing on what matters

Portfolios shouldn’t be handed out like participation trophies. There’s no benefit to having ministers juggling three or four unrelated jobs and doing none of them well.

Take Nanaia Mahuta. She was Minister for Foreign Affairs and Local Government. Two large, complex areas. It’s not uncommon for a Minister to fail at one of their major portfolios when performing this juggling act. She managed to be equally bad at both.

Ministers should have a remit over a single, clearly defined, policy area. Stretching ministers across multiple, disparate areas of complex policy empowers the bureaucracy because there will always be a knowledge gap where ministers are overly dependent on the bureaucrats. This situation empowers the Wellington bureaucracy.

That’s how they get away with spending your taxes with little accountability. Take Labour’s health restructure as an example. There’s no doubt our health system needed change, it clearly still does, and this government is working hard to address this. However, the change it needed was never to create more enormous, tax-absorbing bureaucracies with little explanation of how they would change things for you. That’s what Labour delivered.

There was never any evidence that the creation of the Māori Health Authority and Health NZ was going to have any positive impact. Labour politicians simply knew that health was a big issue and Māori health in particular has appalling statistics.

Progress would be figuring out the underlying causes and addressing them with evidence-based policy, like this Government has done with its changes to bowel screening ages. However, it was easier to publicise a glitzy administrative reform that cost billions. It’s decisions like this that mean our next budget is going to be so tight, and getting a doctor’s appointment is still just as difficult as it was before the change.

They burnt billions of dollars shuffling deck chairs, restructuring, and creating the divisive and ineffective Māori Health Authority. We even got to the point where a call to Healthline, New Zealand’s primary telehealth service, began by asking patients’ ethnicity. A voice would say, “If you are Māori and would like to speak to a Māori clinician, please press 1. Alternatively, please stay on the line with Healthline who will triage your call.”

I’m pleased our government is now prioritising workforce training, development, and retention. It doesn’t grab as many headlines, but it’s more likely to provide another GP down the road, train another mental health nurse, or deliver a midwife to rural New Zealand. We’re unwinding the divisive race-based categorising that was so prevalent. The goal must be to treat people first, as human beings, and to not make assumptions of people based on their background.

You could say that the health reforms were just bad policy by Wellington’s prospective Mayor Andrew Little, who despite that disaster is somehow an improvement on the current Wellington Mayor.

But I’d say that the size of the bureaucracy was as much the culprit for the health reforms. They write the memos. They draft the advice. When a minister isn’t providing leadership, they decide the pace and direction of reform, if reform happens at all. When no one is clearly responsible, the only people left standing are the officials. Because if you want to know why it’s so hard to shrink government, why red tape keeps piling up, and why reform feels impossible it’s because no one is really in charge and the bureaucracy is too big to pull itself into line.

That’s not how a democratic system should function.

Now, for the first time, ACT is at the centre of government.

We didn’t set the table, but we’re sitting at it. If we could set it, there would be a lot fewer placemats.

Here’s how we’d do it:

• Only 20 Ministers, with no ministers outside cabinet
• No associate ministers, except in finance
• Abolish ‘portfolios’, there’s either a department or there’s not
• Reduce the number of departments to 30 by merging them and removing low-value functions
• Ensure each department is overseen by only one minister
• Up to eight under-secretaries supporting the busiest ministers, effectively a training ground for future cabinet ministers

Some simple rules to improve the way government works.

This wouldn’t just act as a structural reform, but as a philosophical one.

It’s a shift away from the idea that the government exists to solve every problem by creating a minister named after it. And towards a view that the government’s job is to manage your money responsibly and provide core public services that allow you to go about your life, respecting your property rights

That’s it. That’s enough.

I think we could easily cut the number of portfolios in half, while reducing the number of ministers by eight. Bringing cabinet back to a scale that is manageable, focused, and accountable.

New Zealanders deserve better than bloated bureaucracy and meaningless titles. They deserve a government that respects them enough to be efficient.

New Zealanders don’t need 82 portfolios to live better lives. They just need a government that does its job, and then gets out of their way.

I’m looking forward to the second half, and floating more ideas like this as we plan for a better tomorrow.

Thank you.

MIL OSI

The Haps

Your property is safe as Parliament is shut and David Seymour is the Acting Prime Minister. Yesterday, ACT made the big announcement that for the first time ever, we’re seeking candidates to stand in local council elections. We want common-sense Kiwis to champion lower rates, less waste, equal rights, and an end to the war on cars. If that sounds like you, learn more at actlocal.nz.

Meanwhile ACT MPs have been out in force at A&P Shows and Field Days, they report tremendous support from rural New Zealand and we are grateful to hear it.

The Oppression the Left Forgot

Besides a pandemic, the last decade has consisted of economic paralysis and cultural division as Governments dumped years of live-and-let-live liberalism to focus on identity politics. Jacinda Ardern and Justin Trudeau were the pin ups for this dismal movement, managing to tank their respective countries’ economies and make everyone angry at each other.

Free Press regrets to inform you that the DEI brigade missed a large oppressed group. This group has disastrous education statistics, lives years less than the national average, in part because of their high suicide rates, and is far more likely to be arrested, charged, sentenced, and imprisoned. Some speculate this is due to years of violence, including being held in state institutions, and in armed conflict.

In recent years, prominent members of this group have been forced by their managers into public humiliation, pronouncing that they’re sorry for being part of this group. The group is regularly ridiculed in media and advertising, and not expected to complain.

The group is, of course, men. If any other group had the social statistics men do, there would be a special ministry, a ‘day,’ targeted support programs, and probably quotas to help them on their way.

That there is none of that, and that some people will be angry to read any of this, is just one of those modern mysteries. Why are men such a blind spot for all the luvvies, despite dismal social statistics that would normally justify an entire Government department?

Some will point out that women do face serious problems. Domestic and sexual violence are overwhelmingly problems for women. Even today there is a connection between domestic work and earned income. Claudia Goldin won the Nobel prize for explaining the remaining gender pay gap this way.

Other people having problems, or even causing other peoples’ problems, has never stopped the luvvies before. There must be some better reason why men’s abysmal suffering is not the subject of some major leftie sympathy.

Our best theory is that men doing badly blows up the whole DEI identity politics movement of the past decade. The movement’s basic story is that if anything is wrong in the world it’s because bad people have been oppressing them, perhaps for hundreds of years.

Why are Māori doing badly in the stats? Colonisation. Women? The patriarchy. LGBTQI+. So many reasons. There is even a fattist movement claiming ‘society’ has designed its aeroplane seats, magazines, and institutions to silence fat voices (we are not making this up).

But who oppressed men? Men can’t be oppressed. They are needed to play the villain of the piece. In a play where everyone is a victim or a villain for historic reasons, not everyone can be good, and certainly not those needed to be bad.

A worse conclusion would be that women are oppressing boys. Practically all early childhood teachers, six-out-of-seven primary teachers, and two-out-of-three high school teachers are women.

If it was the other way around the picture would seem sinister. Perhaps teacher gender is why last year 42 per cent of girls came out of high school with University Entrance compared with 32 per cent of boys. Oddly this explanation of oppression by a dominant group has not been emerged.

Nor should it. The whole idea that we are not thinking and valuing individuals but instead members of a group is bunk. It’s led to more division and anger than it’s worth (which is not much to start with). It’s disempowered people by making them think they are products of history, instead of masters of their own destiny.

A better way is to let people problem solve by innovating. Charter schools are a pin-up example of this. Vanguard Military School (run by ex-servicemen), and Te Aratika Academy (run by a civil construction firm) offered different education that some might see as filling the male role-model gap in education.

The same could be said for most problems we’re currently blaming on colonisation, the patriarchy, or whatever cause du jour is on people’s minds. More innovation in social services, more economic opportunity for people who want to take it, a more dynamic and innovative society generally is what’s needed.

For all those who still think the world is made up of victims and villains, with the past made up of endless oppression, what are you doing for men?

MIL OSI

Media Release – 12 March 2025

Family First NZ is welcoming moves by the Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters to ‘weed out the wokeness’ from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade as a result of an exposé by Family First on some of the content on the MFAT website and also its actions around the Pacific Islands.

In a Substack by CEO Bob McCoskrie by CEO Bob McCoskrie, the government body that should represent New Zealand to other governments, ensure security in the region, and negotiate trade agreements has become fully captive to DEI (diversity, equity & inclusion) & wokeness.

Their website zeroes in on sexual orientation and gender identity, intersectionality, “inclusion of our rainbow communities”, and they have even produced a glossary of reo Māori terminology for people of diverse SOGIESC – compliments of the taxpayer.

MFAT says: “In this way, we celebrate the place of rainbow communities in Aotearoa New Zealand as part of the diversity of the peoples of Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa.”

The MFAT website says:

“Indigenous Takatapui LGBTQIA+ terminology are crucial for people-centred development in the Pacific as they honour and recognise the diverse cultural expressions and experiences of Indigenous peoples of Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa…. It fosters cultural pride, self-determination, and social cohesion, promoting inclusive and sustainable development in the region.”

The then-Labour government also appointed an “Ambassador for Gender Equality (Pacific) / Tuia Tangata” in 2022 who travelled around Pacific countries pushing wokeness.

According to a report on the Newsroom website in 2022;

“Foreign Affairs Minister Nanaia Mahuta announced Louisa Wall’s appointment as a new ambassador for gender equality in the Pacific – less than a fortnight after Wall announced the end of her 14-year career in Parliament. The timing of Wall’s appointment, coupled with the well-established tensions between the outspoken MP and some within Labour, led to speculation that the role – to which she was appointed directly, without advertisement – had been created to move her on from Parliament.”

In response to the expose, the Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters released a statement this morning, saying:

“Since returning to the Foreign Affairs portfolio in November 2023, the Minister has been concerned about the impact that the woke agenda of his predecessor and the Ardern/Hipkins Government had on New Zealand’s diplomacy and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Over the past 16 months, the Minister has made clear to successive Secretaries of Foreign Affairs and Trade that he expects MFAT and New Zealand’s diplomats to reflect the agenda of the current New Zealand Government. This has included a determination to remove references to the previous government’s policy priorities from the Ministry’s online publications.

While the Minister continues to hold New Zealand’s diplomats in the highest esteem, he is disappointed that there continue to be outdated references to discretionary legacy initiatives of the previous Labour Government on the MFAT website. He has instructed Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade Bede Corry to review the Ministry’s website and ensure its alignment with the Coalition Government’s agenda.

He looks forward to that review being conducted with a sense of urgency.”

It’s time that MFAT got back to their core activity – foreign affairs and trade, security in the region (including especially the Cook Islands), free trade deals – rather than ramming down DEI and Wokeism 101 down the throat of every other country.

This appears to be the target of the NZ First bill released last week, and should be supported by the coalition partners National and ACT.

MIL OSI

The Haps

The world keeps changing, as Free Press surveyed last week. So far, trade wars have not affected New Zealand or interrupted our usual diet of domestic political stories about lunches and Wellington gossip. That could change quickly and we’ll be watching closely for trade trouble coming to our farmers and manufacturers. Meanwhile, New Zealand reached out to the world with the Infrastructure Investment Summit on later this week, the contrast reminds us New Zealand actually needs the world to function and invest.

Can your efforts make a difference?

For many people, the ACT Party began with them reading Richard Prebble’s excellent classic I’ve Been Thinking. The book is nearly thirty years old but the heart of the party is summed up as the line ‘this is not like bad weather’; you can change your future.

Prebble bases the thesis on an unusual but fascinating source. 1950s’ academic David McClelland took it upon himself to study nursery rhymes in different cultures, thinking that whatever parents told young children was a window into a culture’s true beliefs.

Long story short, McLelland divided the stories into luck-based stories and achievement-based stories. In some stories characters drifted along at the whims of mystical powers, in others they took charge and changed their future.

Prebble pointed out the popularity of Aladdin at the time of his book may not be good for us, we wouldn’t get rich by rubbing magic lamps. On the other hand, McClelland predicted the Japanese, with their achievement-based stories, would quickly recover from the destruction of WWII to become an economic powerhouse.

Free Press has limited intel on contemporary Kiwi nursery rhymes. We worry about hagiographies of Jacinda Ardern, and stories about the magic of being born Māori, and we hope they’re not representative.

We do know a bit about public policy since Prebble remarked on Aladdin. We think there are clues about why this country has lost its mojo, and how to lead the country back to it, in the simple idea that people should be able to make a difference in their own lives.

Since the mid 1990s basically every policy has been designed to disconnect effort from reward, and our productivity growth has tanked. Take the NCEA.

When Prebble wrote there were such things as School C and Bursary. These exams were kept secret until the moment every student at that year level and subject sat it at the same time. The NCEA changed all that, you could pick your units and do them in your own time, as many times as you liked.

This year when the Government said there would be a mandatory minimum level of numeracy and literacy testing, principals went berserk. They said it wasn’t fair, students might fail. What hope do their students have in the real world with educational leadership like that?

Subsidies and price caps have made tertiary education an offer young people can’t refuse. Interest free loans and price caps on tuition mean degrees for everyone, but the value of them has declined at the same time. You’re damned if you do spend three years and take on $40,000 of debt, but everyone else has so you’re damned if you don’t.

Remuneration has been compressed so that many people’s efforts make less difference to their outcome. Working for Families is effectively a guaranteed minimum income, but if you want to go above that you lose massively to abatement.

When Michael Cullen became Finance Minister, in 1999, there were two income tax rates, 19.5 and 33. Now there are five, from 10.5 to 39, and the top rate is nearly four times the bottom rate. Combined with Working for Families, if you work harder you get whacked harder, but the reverse is also true.

Pay equity, brought in under a National Government, has a similar effect. It compares workforces (say nurses and prison guards) and decides what to pay them. It means whole professions are paid based on what a Judge thinks their work is worth, because of who they are not what they do.

Added to all this is the thicket of employment law meaning it is very difficult to get dismissed for bad behaviour, and employers find it easier (but not easy) to just pay up rather than fight. This can be true even if they’re caught on a technicality like failing to properly tell someone how not to steal on the job.

Outside of education, remuneration, and employment policies, red tape and regulation add costs to nearly everything and prevent productive activity, but we are running up against the word count here.

One thing we can’t ignore, though, is the Treaty industry. The entire reinvention of the Treaty this century, is based on the unspoken assumption that our history is our destiny. You are either a victim or a villain because of things other people did a century or more before your own birth. That is the ultimate form of determinism.

Now, all is not lost. The current Government is putting content back into the curriculum, rolling back the mediocre Te Pukenga that briefly replaced polytechs with one-size-fits all averageness.

Brooke van Velden got rid of ‘Fair Pay’ Agreements and extended 90-day trials, now she’s on to holiday pay, health and safety, contracting, and personal grievances.

The Ministry of Regulation is going sector through sector reducing red tape, and Treaty determinism is being rolled back in multiple policy areas. All well and good. If the trick to getting our national mojo back is to reconnect effort and reward, then the Government is heading in the right direction.

ACT is one party that can point to pushing it there, but given the pervading sense of decline in New Zealand right now, ACT will need to keep the Left from taking us back again, and give the current Government the boldness to go further.

MIL OSI

The Haps

David Seymour’s speech at the Treaty Grounds today is widely anticipated. This week’s Free Press covers other matters, but for a preview of ACT’s Treaty approach, you can read Seymour’s column in the Herald.

The COVID Royal Commission, Mark II, designed by Brooke van Velden, is open to public submissions, and now there’s an online portal to make it easy. After Labour’s attempted whitewash, ACT campaigned for people to be able to say what they think about the lockdowns, mandates, and other public health measures. There will be another pandemic, probably not this decade but almost certainly this century, and lessons learned from this one could be worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

If you don’t normally listen to Radio New Zealand, we understand. However Kathryn Ryan interviewed David Seymour for half an hour on the Regulatory Standards Bill, and we think it’s worth an exception.

Owning the Wrong Stuff

Last Monday we shared David Seymour’s State of the Nation speech. This week it is still in the headlines. How is this possible? The speech said two things people know deep down are true, but politicians are afraid to say.

The Government owns the wrong stuff. Its books show $570 billion worth of assets, enough to build a four-lane highway from Whangarei to Invercargill six times, but you wouldn’t know it. The Government is having to downsize hospitals while the rest of the world is buying military hardware, and our roads and pipes need attention.

Meanwhile, in New Zealand, the Government is invested in houses (60,000), a property valuation firm, farms, electricity generators, and sunset industries such as mail and television, among many other weird and wonderful things.

Could it be an idea to, just maybe, just ask the question, without anyone getting their knickers in a knot: Does the Government own the right stuff. And if not, should it try selling some shares in power companies to invest in some roads and water treatment plants?

Perhaps all Governments should think of ownership like this. Every year we ask what we own, what benefits the public get from it, and could the Government own something with greater public benefits for the same money? If the answer is yes, and it doesn’t look like it’s going to change, then sell the thing that doesn’t pay and buy something that does.

As for healthcare and education, the Government shells out a fortune, nearly $6,000 in healthcare for every single person each year. That’s up from $4,000 five years ago, but nobody’s happy. Perhaps it is time to say, if you want to take your $6,000 to a private insurer like Southern Cross, you can.

There would have to be rules. The company would need to accept any patient who applied, without discrimination. The company could never cancel anyone’s policy. They would become responsible for all of the person’s care. Hospitals still owned by the Government would need to accept patients from any insurer at the same price.

If this all sounds out there, fear not. It’s roughly how most healthcare systems in Europe work. It means that there would be people with an incentive to sort out the endless waste and dysfunction in what’s been described as our third world system run by first world medics.

The Left say in a private system the poor miss out. Europeans would be surprised to hear this. What the Left don’t seem to get is this: You can have equal public funding, but allow competition to provide the service. Some would say the best of all worlds.

Of course there is a reason why few politicians dare to raise these questions. The media have demanded to know from David Seymour exactly what he will sell tomorrow. They want a list. The hard Left say this is another Seymourian conspiracy, but they can’t say what. The Opposition have called on the Chris Luxon to rule out ever selling anything. Luxon says he won’t now but might in the future.

There’s another reason why there are still articles in today’s papers, ten days after the speech was given. People know that, while New Zealand is a success story, as countries go, we’re not holding our ground at the moment. What we’re doing isn’t working.

If we want to remain a first world nation and an island paradise—most countries can only do one—we need to work differently. That’s the other thing about Seymour’s speech, it told the truth we avoided all through the Clark-Key-Ardern era.

As goes the Treaty Principles Bill, so goes this speech. This country needs a party that’s brave, articulate, and patriotic, and we’re glad we have ACT.

MIL OSI