Category: Politics

Source: Radio New Zealand

The Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) spy agency says it is providing round-the-clock threat intelligence updates on the Iran war.

The GCSB, along with its partner agency NZ Security Intelligence Service (SIS), appeared at a Parliamentary select committee for their annual reviews on Wednesday.

GCSB Director-General Andrew Clark told MPs it was a very volatile geopolitical environment.

“Conflict and tensions have sometimes arisen with little notice and this week’s major conflict in the Middle East is no exception, and our team has been providing round-the-clock threat intelligence updates to our customers, especially to the NZDF and MFAT,” Clark said.

In general, the bureau, which collects ‘signals’ intelligence, was taking a more proactive approach to detecting and disrupting threats while coping with the “rapid pace” of change in “disruptive technologies”.

“In this changing environment, we’ve provided intelligence relating to terrorist activity and to foreign state activity where that could threaten the safety of New Zealanders and international partners.”

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

The government is considering scrapping the clean car standard altogether, months after slashing the fees importers pay to bring dirty vehicles into the country.

An EV advocate said if the proposal goes ahead, New Zealanders will be sold “the high-emitting leftovers” that manufacturers can no longer sell in Australia.

The Motor Industry Association said it wants to keep the standard, but it needs “recalibration” to make sure it works for importers, car distributors, and consumers.

Transport Minister Chris Bishop said the government is carrying out a first principles review, so “obviously” an option to scrap the standard is on the table.

Introduced by the previous government, the Clean Vehicle Standard charges importers a penalty for cars that exceed the target emissions level, but that can be offset by also importing cars with lower emissions.

That penalty was slashed by nearly 80 percent last November, with Bishop saying supply constraints meant importers could not source enough low-emissions vehicles to avoid being penalised.

That could result in thousands of extra dollars being passed on to buyers, Bishop said.

He said then that a full review of the standard would follow this year but it was unlikely the standard would be removed entirely.

RNZ has learned that a targeted consultation carried out for that review has just ended, which included asking submitters whether the standard should be “abolished”.

The consultation included the motor vehicle industry, international bodies, other government agencies, some advocacy groups, and subject matter experts, but was not open to the public.

In a letter seeking submissions, the Transport Ministry said the review was being carried out in two stages.

Stage one was “a first principles review of the standard … to enable Cabinet to decide to either retain the standard or abolish it”.

Submitters were asked if they supported New Zealand retaining a fuel efficiency standard, and what the risks would be if it was abolished.

It would make New Zealand just one of two OECD countries to not have a vehicle emissions standard – the other is Russia.

Bishop said he had not received advice on the review, but would have more to say once the government had considered it and made decisions.

“If legislative change is required, I expect there would be a select committee process and public submissions.”

Drive Electric was among EV advocacy groups asked to submit.

“We’re really alarmed that there’s the potential of removing the standard completely, because the rest of the world is going in the other direction,” chairwoman Kirsten Corson said.

Australia had just reported the first six months of data since making its fuel efficiency standard mandatory, she said.

“Their overall emissions are dropping, and two-thirds of the car-makers could meet the 2025 emissions targets.”

The changes in New Zealand were due to “spectacular lobbying by some high-emissions vehicle importers”, Corson said.

“It’s interesting that it’s working perfectly well in Australia.”

Drive Electric’s submission warned that Australia’s success made it even more likely that New Zealand would become a “dumping-ground” for less efficient cars.

“This ‘gravity effect’ ensures that while Australians get the latest, most efficient technology from Thailand and Japan, New Zealanders are sold the high-emitting leftovers.”

The government’s claim that car-buyers would be charged thousands of dollars more if the penalties had not been cut was “a false economy”, Corson said.

“[Higher-emissions cars] are a cheaper price to purchase but they cost more to own and more to operate.

“You just have to look at what’s happening with oil prices.”

New Zealanders’ tendency to keep their cars for years meant petrol cars coming into the country today would hang around for decades, she said – costing their owners more to fuel and adding to New Zealand’s emissions.

A slump in demand for EVs had been driven directly by the government’s decision in 2023 to also end the Clean Car Discount, Corson said.

She wanted to see a tweaked version of that re-introduced, potentially targeted at the 70 percent of new car sales that go to businesses,

“If you could have some sort of incentive for businesses … to encourage adoption of EVs by that first-hand business fleet, because they are flipping their fleet typically within three to five years.”

In a statement, Motor Industry Association (MIA) chief executive Aimee Wiley said her organisation supported retaining the standard, “with the emissions trajectory recalibrated to reflect domestic affordability and realistic product availability”.

The framework needed to be “credible, stable, and workable in New Zealand’s small, import dependent market”.

“This is not about reducing ambition,” Wiley said.

“It is about ensuring the settings work for importers and distributors as well as consumers, are durable over the long term and aligned with market realities, including affordability, supply, and demand conditions.”

Stability and clarity were particularly important, she said.

The industry supported aligning with Australia if it reduced “regulatory friction” but New Zealand’s rules needed to reflect the country’s own market conditions.

“We remain committed to constructive engagement with the Ministry [of Transport] to ensure the CVS scheme continues to support steady, measurable emissions reduction in a way that provides certainty for industry and consumers.”

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

A Pasifika leader who lived through the Dawn Raids is accusing the government of scaremongering about overstayer numbers.

Immigration Minister Erica Stanford told reporters there were “tens of thousands more” overstayers than she had expected last month.

“We have a big overstayer problem, tens of thousands more than we suspected, and we have to arm [immigration officers] with the tools to be able to request information from people when they have a reasonable suspicion that they are in breach of their visa conditions.”

Stanford made the comments in the context of the coalition giving immigration officers the power to ask suspected overstayers for identification in homes and workplaces.

RNZ wasn’t able to verify the “tens of thousands more” overstayers figure.

Immigration New Zealand confirmed there were around 20,980 people overstayers as of 1 July 2025 and approximately 14,000 in 2017 – a difference of just under 7000 over eight years.

Stanford has since backtracked.

“I meant to say when I was down on the tiles with all your microphones in front of me ‘thousands’. The figure that we always had in mind was around about in the low teens.

“When it came in at 20 [thousand], that is a significant amount more than we expected. So apologies that I misspoke. It happens on occasion. It wasn’t quite right.”

Tongan community leader Pakilau Manase Lua’s was a child when his family came to New Zealand in the 1970s and lived through the Dawn Raids.

He attended the government apology for the raids as an adult and said Stanford’s comments took him back in time.

“It smacks of what the National Party did back in the ’70s with Robert Muldoon’s Dancing Cossacks and all of those racially motivated cartoons that they put up on the TV to scare New Zealanders into thinking that there’s a big groundswell of Polynesians when the actual majority of overstayers back then were were not Pacific at all.

“We made up less than a third of the actual overstayed numbers and my suspicion is that’s the case here but unfortunately this gaslighting that the government’s doing is going to be disproportionately targeting our people again.

“In an election year, this smacks of government putting the boot into the most vulnerable communities again and it’s not on.

“There was an apology done by previous government about the Dawn Raids and then we saw that they were actually still dawn raiding our people and unfortunately it’s always people of colour that end up being the people under the bus as the bus runs us over again and again.”

The Greens – highly critical of the legislation Stanford is handling – have seized on the minister’s error.

The party’s immigration spokesperson, Ricardo Menéndez March, accused her of fudging the numbers.

“She is using Trump-like tactics to fearmonger the community over the number of overstayers and creating a narrative that was simply not correct nor true to justify a bill that will give Immigration New Zealand more powers.

“It’s her responsibility to be correct when talking about the number of overstayers. Claiming that there’s tens of thousands more, it’s not just irresponsible, it shows that this minister will go [to] any lengths to justify a bill that will pave the path towards what we’ve seen in the US.”

Stanford has previously said the proposed change was narrow in scope and “very different” from powers available to US immigration officers.

On the overstayer figures, she stressed she had made a genuine mistake – and has apologised.

“I was on the tiles and I made a mistake and I’m very sorry about that. I’ve apologised. It was a lot more than we expected but I think the Greens are making an enormous mountain out of a very small mole hole.

“The point is that we have a number of overstayers and we need to make sure that we’re taking action where necessary to make sure that we are ensuring that we’re following through with deportation, especially in cases where there are criminals who are overstaying their visas.”

Lua has not been convinced by her explanation.

“No I don’t accept that at all. Someone in her position should know better, should know her facts, and again, this is going to have detrimental impacts on the most vulnerable, and in this case, our communities.

“Time and time again, we become political footballs during an election year, and this quacks like a duck, walks like a duck.”

Immigration New Zealand said the latest overstayer estimate of around 20,980 people as of 1 July 2025 was produced using newly adopted methodology, which had significantly enhanced the accuracy of the estimate since the previous in 2017.

A spokesperson said the two figures couldn’t be directly compared because of the different methodologies used.

It was important to note that the number of people who have overstayed their visa was very small in comparison to the number of people who travel to New Zealand lawfully each year, they 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

Source: Radio New Zealand

The media and broadcasting minister Paul Goldsmith has confirmed the board chair of TVNZ contacted him after the police minister expressed dissatisfaction with a 1News story about gang numbers.

Goldsmith said the chair of the public broadcaster, Andrew Barclay, had raised the story during the call, but Goldsmith did not respond to the matter.

1News aired a story last Thursday, showing gang members now narrowly outnumbered police officers.

The report aired the same day the latest Crime and Victims survey reported 49,000 fewer victims of violent crime in the year to October 2025 than two years previously.

Following the airing of the report, Police Minister Mark Mitchell took to Facebook to express his frustration with the story.

Mitchell said it was “absolutely unbelievable” that on a day the government had announced fewer victims of violent crime and a reduction in serious repeat youth offending, 1News “chose instead to engage in unbalanced journalism by running a story about gang membership with none of the context around the outstanding work our Police are doing in cracking down on gangs in New Zealand”.

Five days later, on Tuesday night, 1News ran a second story which reported on the crime statistics that the government had announced the previous week.

Media and communications minister Paul Goldsmith, who is also the justice minister and was present at the government’s announcement, confirmed he had spoken to the 1News journalist after the first story aired.

“Just like I often do when I’m not happy with a story, I ring the journalist and give them the benefit of my opinions.”

Goldsmith then said he had a “very short” call from the chair of TVNZ’s board, Andrew Barclay, “on a range of matters”, and the story came up in passing, “but I hadn’t raised the issue”.

He said he “absolutely” did not bring the story up himself, and he did not discuss editorial matters with the board member.

“It’s not appropriate for me to be talking about political discussions and editorial matters with the board, and I haven’t,” he said.

“We certainly do remonstrate and argue with journalists over stories, and we do that on a regular basis.”

Goldsmith would not go into the details of the call, saying that the reporting came up “in passing,” and then they moved on to other matters.

“I just said, well, that’s not for me to discuss. And then we moved on to other issues.”

He confirmed the phone call took place before the second story aired.

During Question Time on Wednesday, Mitchell again raised what he said was an “unbalanced” report.

Labour’s police spokesperson Ginny Andersen then asked Mitchell whether he, any member of his office, or any person acting on his behalf made contact with the TVNZ board regarding the report.

Mitchell said after he put up his Facebook post, he had received a call from a “senior” TVNZ person to apologise, but he had not contacted anyone at TVNZ, and confirmed the person he spoke to was not a member of the public broadcaster’s board.

Earlier on Wednesday, Mitchell explained he had said publicly on Newstalk ZB that he had received a call and an apology from TVNZ.

“I have private conversations with all of you guys, and that is quite normal, and that is quite okay.”

He said he did not name who that was, but he was very clear he had received an apology.

“You’re accountable as well for what you report and what you say,” he said.

“You don’t have carte blanche, and if you decide to take carte blanche, then don’t be surprised when the public actually judge you for and that’s exactly what happened.”

He said it was the “Kiwi way” to address it directly.

“I don’t rush off straight away to report people and try to get people in trouble. No, I’d rather just talk to them, highlight the issues, which is what they did.”

It was put to Mitchell he had posted on Facebook about it, which he acknowledged.

“We did that because, because we felt the story was very unfair. I think Paul Goldsmith spoke to them directly.”

Labour leader Chris Hipkins weighed in ahead of Question Time too, saying if any member of the TVNZ board had been involved in a decision to run the additional story on Tuesday night, TVNZ needed to be “very upfront with the New Zealand public about that”.

He also called for the member of the board to resign “immediately” if that had occurred.

Hipkins confirmed he didn’t have any evidence to suggest it had occurred, he wasn’t alleging it had occurred, but if it had, “then that member of the board has got themselves into some great difficulty.”

RNZ has contacted TVNZ for comment.

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon had to make a personal explanation in the House on Tuesday night, after he stated incorrectly the government was automatically extending visas for people in New Zealand affected by the war in Iran.

The Greens co-leader says he “snuck” into the House “late last night” to correct the record and it shows he’s “not across his brief”.

“He simply does not seem to understand the weight of the things that he is talking about, or the substance or logic that sits behind them,” Chlöe Swarbrick said.

Follow updates with RNZ’s blog

Earlier this week the Prime Minister admitted he “misspoke” when he said New Zealand supported “any actions” to prevent Iran having nuclear weapons.

She says it’s disconcerting to have a leader of New Zealand talking about things that are “currently so much of a powder keg” and every time he opens his mouth “we have no idea how that is going to place our country in the context of the very tense international relations at play”.

In Question Time on Tuesday, Swarbrick asked Luxon if the government would commit to automatically extending visas for people who are in New Zealand now whose home countries have been affected by the war, as happened in the context of the invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Luxon responded saying, “I understand that we are doing that, and the Minister of Immigration will continue to take advice on that too.”

That was in contradiction to what his Immigration Minister Erica Stanford had said earlier that day, where she advised anyone who might be affected by the conflict to contact Immigration New Zealand.

“If they contact Immigration, we will be really pragmatic about making sure that they remain legally in New Zealand.”

She said it would be considered on a case-by-case basis, and the current visa that may be expiring could be extended.

Swarbrick said on Wednesday the Prime Minister had effectively said a blanket extension was happening when “we know it wasn’t happening”.

“So [the Prime Minister] then snuck into the house at 9:02pm I believe, late last night, to correct the record and to say that there was a case-by-case process, which we all already knew, available to those people.”

At 9.03pm on Tuesday night, Luxon sought leave to make a personal explanation.

“To be perfectly clear, Immigration New Zealand has a well established process for international conflicts, and will facilitate and take a pragmatic approach to visa renewal when people are unable to return home,” he explained.

“This was not an automatic process in the context of the invasion of Ukraine, and decisions will continue to be taken on individual visas.”

Swarbrick told RNZ he also “misspoke” or “got his correction incorrect” when he said there wasn’t a blanket extension applied during the war in Ukraine.

“We have it in black and white from a Cabinet paper,” she said.

The paper stated Cabinet agreed to “extend by 12 months the visas of all Ukrainians onshore whose temporary visas were due to expire by the end of 2022”.

She said the extension meant people didn’t have to go through an arduous “case-by-case” basic to have them extended.

Swarbrick said she was now expecting the Prime Minister to have to “correct his correction”.

She said politicians were human beings, “all of us will screw up, we will stumble over our words, we will also make mistakes.”

“But I think there is quite a substantive difference between that and what the Prime Minister has modelled time and again, but very evidently over the last few days, which is that he is not across his brief.”

Comment has been request from Luxon’s office.

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

The Labour Party has changed its tune on legislation that would allow MSD to legally claw back welfare payments once someone has been backpaid for an ACC claim.

Though it still looks set to pass with all three coalition partners on board.

The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has been billing people for supplementary support, like the winter energy payment, once they have received a lump sum from the Accident Compensation Corporation.

The High Court ruled this long-standing policy illegal in late 2025.

One week ago, the Minister for Social Development Louise Upston moved a motion of urgency in the House to align the law to stop what the government described as ‘double dipping’ – legislation that would apply retrospectively.

Lawyers and health professionals urged the government to slow down on the change in a shortened Select Committee stage last week, arguing vulnerable people – including state abuse survivors and mothers with birth injuries – would be among those caught up in the change.

Ten experts also went as far as writing to Upston last Friday to warn her “the bill goes significantly further” than the government stated objective required and “risks producing serious inequity and unintended harm”.

The group suggested seven targeted amendments to the bill, including a provision where MSD could not claw back payments that were received in good faith, and where they would be inequitable.

Labour ‘cannot ignore’ concerns raised, suggests changes

At first reading, Labour’s Willie Jackson said if his party was in government it would “also be seriously looking” at the law change as “double-dipping” should always be avoided.

On Tuesday, he told the House the feedback he’d heard last week “raised serious concerns we simply cannot ignore”.

Jackson said the reality was many MSD clients waiting for an ACC payment were worse off if they had to repay supplementary support they had been forced to take while waiting for ACC support to come through.

“It simply isn’t fair that people who have acted in good faith have, for whatever reason, got an injury due to no fault of their own and are left in a worse situation when trying to seek support from MSD and ACC.

“Many sick and injured Kiwis took welfare payments while their ACC claims were being heard, they’re also some of the poorest and hardest working members of society.”

Jackson said if the law was retrospectively passed it would effectively criminalise people who need help, not debt.

“Many took those welfare payments because they had no other option while waiting for their ACC claim, they didn’t know at all that they would face a claw back and took the money in good conscience.

“So we must remember, and sometimes people forget about these people…but these people are not criminals, yet the feeling that we picked up from some of the submitters is that they made to feel like criminals when they’re burdened with debt and they really should be supported.”

Jackson suggested Labour would only support the bill at third reading if MSD was given clear discretion to not recover payments that would cause further hardship and inequity – and not claw back disability and rehab allowances.

He also said Labour’s support required an exemption for victims of abuse in state care.

“That certainly would placate a lot of our people who made submissions…we don’t believe that that should be so hard for us as a House to consider.”

New Zealand First’s Jamie Arbuckle said his party had raised concerns at first reading about unintended consequences and wanted to look at “some of the finer points to make some changes” at the committee of the whole house stage.

The bill has progressed with the support of National, New Zealand First, ACT and Labour, with the Greens, Te Pāti Māori and independent MPs Mariameno Kapa-Kingi and Tākuta Ferris opposed.

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

The government is brushing off accusations of naivety from the opposition over plans to pursue a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal as prices spike worldwide.

The Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping route connecting the Persian Gulf with open ocean, has effectively closed, after Iran said it would attack any ship trying to pass through.

QatarEnergy has suspended production of LNG, prompting prices to rise by around 50 percent in Europe, and nearly 40 percent in Asia.

Qatar supplies 20 percent of the world’s LNG.

The New Zealand government is proceeding with plans to build a billion dollar LNG import facility in Taranaki, as a back-up to address dry year risk.

The Frontier Report, commissioned by the government last year to look at the electricity market performance, said it would make “no economic sense” to develop a LNG terminal just to meet dry year risk.

The report said it should be considered as a last resort, “recognising that doing so exposes New Zealand to the global price of gas, which would have implications for the competitiveness of industry with high gas demand”.

Labour’s energy spokesperson Megan Woods said the global spike in LNG prices was the concern Labour had been warning the government about all along.

“It exposes New Zealand to this volatility around pricing around the world. We’ve got domestic, made-at-home solutions, where we use the resources we have here in New Zealand that really could give us this independence,” she said.

“What they’re doing is exposing New Zealanders to potentially very high energy bills, whether that’s for households or for businesses.”

She said it was “naive” to rely on LNG.

“New Zealanders are being put at risk, New Zealand households and businesses, from high energy prices if we rely on this form of energy, which has such volatile price spikes that we’re seeing today.”

Woods would not go into questions over whether Labour would rip up a contract if it was signed before the election.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins has previously said if Labour entered government before a deal was done it would not go through with it.

Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick also said the party’s “fears and concerns” were being realised.

“What the government has exposed New Zealanders to by committing the better part of a billion dollars to this project is vulnerability to international supply chain shocks, which is exactly what we are currently seeing playing out as a result of what’s occurring with America’s aggression in the Middle East,” she said.

The energy minister Simon Watts said the government had taken steps to look at increasing security of supply, particularly around fuel sources that were based in New Zealand.

“The impact of volatility in international markets will play through. But in the context of where we are here in New Zealand, we have appropriate stores in place to deal with aspects of volatility.”

Asked later about Woods’ comments around naivety, Watts said future energy prices in 2027, 2028, and 2029 were all down following the government’s announcement.

“I think the announcement that we’ve made in regards to building an LNG capability to import fuel that we don’t have is the complete opposite of naivety. We don’t have LNG fuel sources in a dry year, and that’s why power prices have been spiking, and that’s what we’re looking to alleviate,” he said.

“Our major problem is we don’t have enough gas in the country to make electricity in a dry year. We solve that through importation, and we’re going to look to increase rooftop solar and battery across the board, because that’s positive as well. We want both.”

Oil prices have also risen, which the Finance Minister said the Treasury and Reserve Bank were monitoring closely.

Nicola Willis said while oil prices had risen, it was at a “far smaller level” than when Russia invaded Ukraine.

“New Zealand has very good fuel supplies. We regulated last year to ensure we have 28 days of fuel already in the country, which of course was purchased at prices a month ago, so we wouldn’t expect to see immediate impact at the pump,” Nicola Willis said.

Willis defended the LNG plans, as “ensuring that we can generate electricity when the lakes are low and the sun isn’t shining” was critical for affordability and security.

“I’m actually living in the real world,” she said.

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

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

The Prime Minister has admitted he “misspoke” when he said New Zealand supported “any actions” to prevent Iran having nuclear weapons.

Christopher Luxon also said New Zealand will not join the conflict.

At his post-Cabinet press conference on Monday, Luxon said successive governments have had a longstanding position that any action that stopped Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, from sponsoring terrorism, and from stopping them killing there own people was “a good thing.”

On Tuesday, Luxon described his comments as meaning New Zealand had long supported actions to prevent Iran from getting “its hands on nuclear weapons” and actions to stop the country sponsoring terrorism and repressing its people, but said “obviously, not any action.”

He said that was any action, but not “at any cost.”

Referring to the example raised of carpet bombing Iran, Luxon said “clearly that is not what we want to see.”

When asked how he made the error, given he repeated “any action” multiple times on Monday, Luxon said “I just said to you, I misspoke,” and passed on apologies.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins said it was good that the Prime Minister had admitted he misspoke.

“Words matter – to quote our Foreign Affairs Minister – and in this particular instance words matter a great deal,” Hipkins said.

“Adherence to international law shouldn’t be a matter of discretion, it should be something we expect all countries to adhere to.”

“It’s a no” – Luxon rules out New Zealand joining strikes

Asked whether New Zealand would join the United States in this instance, Luxon confirmed it would not.

“It’s a no from me, and we haven’t been asked to, and I think we’re unlikely to do so as well.”

Luxon reiterated his comments from Monday, in which he said New Zealand was not party to the information that led to the strikes, and would also not speak about US President Donald Trump’s judgement when it came to conflict.

Hipkins welcomed the Prime Minister’s decision to rule out joining in the United States’ actions.

“I would prefer that the New Zealand government continued to take a very principled stance in saying we’re actually opposed to this bombing campaign, because it is a violation of international law, and New Zealand has a lot of reasons to want the rest of the world to be adhering to international law”

Iran and Israel have continued to trade strikes since joint US and Iran airstrikes killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Saturday.

US President Donald Trump has warned that bigger strikes are to come, and says the conflict could drag out longer than the four to five weeks he initially planned.

New Zealanders in Iran are urged to leave if it is safe to do so, and register on SafeTravel.

Luxon confirmed that 2150 New Zealanders were registered.

On Morning Report, Hipkins disagreed with the Prime Minister’s stance that it was not New Zealand’s place to comment on the legality of the strikes.

Hipkins said he believed the strikes were illegal.

“I think New Zealand government seems to be moving away from what has been a long-standing and principled approach to these issues,” he told Morning Report.

“We have been very clear that we think international law matters, and that all parties to these sorts of conflicts should follow international law. That’s not the case here.”

He said it is important that our government speaks with authority and in favour of international law.

“New Zealand’s government should stand up for the international system of rules that we rely on for our own security as a country,” Hipkins said.

“If the situation becomes that the countries with the most power can do whatever they like regardless of what international law says, that’s very bad news for a small country like New Zealand.”

Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson said the latest conflict in the Middle East endangered the rules-based order New Zealand relied on.

“The idea that we can start encouraging and allowing other countries to invade just because we don’t like their leaders is an incredibly dangerous take for this Prime Minister to support.

“He needs to be up front and declare whether he supports the rule of law, whether he supports countries in the world just willy nilly being able to decide, on vibes, whether they can invade or not.

“That’s really dangerous. That puts us and regions of the world in a really unsafe position.”

Deputy Prime Minister and ACT leader David Seymour is backing Luxon’s stance on the US-Israel attacks on Iran.

“One thing he’s noted that’s important is that New Zealand does not have all of the information that the US and Israel have used to justify their actions,” he told RNZ’s First Up on Tuesday. “So, we could spend a lot of time with New Zealand trying to be precise in its position, but I don’t think that’s what the world’s waiting for.”

He said as a result of the strikes, Iranian girls will have an opportunity to “dress as you like, go to school, do things that are normal rights that have been withheld from them by this regime”.

“And finally, for them in Iran and also for all of us around the world, it’s critical that trade is able to continue and resume so that we don’t face price shocks and even more economic peril. Those are the things that I think are important.”

Seymour would not say if he expected advance warning from allies like the UK if New Zealand troops at allies’ bases in the region were in danger.

“That’s something that we constantly talk about with our allies, but I think it’s safe to say that whatever we may or may not be doing won’t be helped by me announcing it on New Zealand radio…

“Clearly, the safety of New Zealand personnel is critical, and whatever moves might or might not be afoot, we’re not going to discuss publicly.”

Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters said New Zealand was not given any advance notice of the attack on Iran, and has again urged New Zealanders to leave if it is safe to do so.

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

While the rest of the world races to harness the power of the sun, New Zealand is languishing – as energy prices continue to climb.

An RNZ investigation has found that ministers were presented with clear evidence that rooftop solar is now among the cheapest sources of electricity households can access; that upfront cost is the primary barrier to uptake; and that Australia’s rapid expansion was driven by more than $11 billion in state subsidies.

But the coalition government chose not to follow the same path.

Documents released under the Official Information Act reveal that after studying Australia’s incentive scheme throughout 2025, the government rejected financial support and instead progressed regulatory tweaks expected to have only a “minor” effect on solar uptake.

Officials refused to release the full paper trail surrounding the solar work or their decision-making record. Of nearly 70 solar-related documents identified by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MVIE), two thirds were withheld in full.

But the result is clear: although New Zealand has higher average sunshine hours than Germany, one of the world’s leading solar markets, only about one in 35 households has panels on its roof.

Meanwhile across the Tasman, one in three Australian homes now generates its own electricity, creating rock-bottom daytime power prices and saving those families an average 40 percent on their electricity bills each year.

“We’re really lagging in terms of solar uptake here, despite the advantages we have,” says Consumer NZ’s head of Powerswitch Paul Fuge.

Consumer NZ is forecasting that power prices could rise at least another 5 percent this year, after a 12 percent increase in 2025 – an issue advocates say solar could help address.

“The research shows it’s actually cheaper to make your own power via rooftop solar than it is to buy electricity from the grid,” Fuge says.

“That’s a real game changer…but only if you’ve got access to capital, and that’s the problem in New Zealand, it’s out of reach for many households particularly households that would benefit the most.”

“Kick the tyres”

The documents show that in early 2025, the Minister for Energy, Simon Watts instructed the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) to “kick the tyres” on barriers to solar uptake.

Officials listed a raft of issues relating to information, installation, and consenting timeframes. The amount of power allowed to be exported to the grid was also an issue, MBIE said. But the report said clearly that the biggest roadblock to home solar installation wasn’t technical – it was financial.

A typical 5-10kW system costs between $10,000 and $20,000. Batteries added another $10,000-$20,000.

“Rooftop solar can produce low-cost electricity for households as it generates where it is consumed and can therefore reduce some network costs,” the briefing said.

“For many consumers the up-front costs to have solar panels and batteries installed are relatively high, and this takes time to pay back for consumers.”

In other words, the cost of solar is in the set-up – but it pays for itself long term via a lower power bill.

Officials warned that without help to bridge the upfront cost, uptake would remain limited to households able to finance the investment.

The Australia example

As part of their work, officials prepared detailed material comparing New Zealand’s approach with overseas subsidy regimes, particularly Australia’s small-scale solar and battery incentives.

The documents noted Australia’s “solar revolution” was aided by $11.5 billion AUD in government grants, which reduced upfront costs by 30% and allowed the industry to achieve massive economies of scale.

Officials also examined risks – including grid congestion and poorly sequenced incentives. Those lessons were cited repeatedly as reasons for caution, with emphasis on avoiding poorly designed subsidies and unmanaged uptake.

“Subsidised uptake in Australia has been so high (including consumers installing systems that were arguably oversized for their needs) that in 2024 regulators enabled electricity networks to charge consumers for solar injection,” the briefing said.

“This is due to high volumes of electricity being injected back to the network during the middle of the day, causing congestion and other network infrastructure upgrade needs.”

The briefing then set up a second argument against a subsidy: that New Zealand’s solar economics differ from Australia’s. New Zealand has lower sunshine hours, and its electricity system peaks in winter evenings when solar panels don’t produce power – unlike in Australia, where daytime summer air-conditioning aligns more closely with highest solar generation.

That means while rooftop solar still makes sense in New Zealand, generation and consumption aren’t as well-matched as in Australia; and systems can take longer to pay off.

However, officials noted rooftop solar paired with batteries can shift load, reduce peak demand in shoulder seasons, and increase resilience. The cost of batteries remains high, but prices are falling.

Despite some complications, the core conclusion remained: rebates accelerate uptake.

Solar secrecy

By mid-2025, multiple workstreams to “boost” solar uptake were in train, the documents show, including improving consumer information and removing the need for council consents for rooftop solar.

A programme to accelerate solar on farms was also underway, run by the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA); while government-backed “green” loans were rejected, leaving banks to finance such initiatives instead.

Officials were still collating information on subsidies, but any substantive information was completely removed from the records released to RNZ.

Of the solar policy paper trail, just two documents of 69 deemed “in scope” were released to RNZ in full. Fifteen were partially released, and 47 withheld entirely.

The withheld material includes draft Cabinet papers, tracked changes and feedback from July through to September; a detailed table of “cost drivers, barriers and proposed solutions”; modelling about the impact that high levels of rooftop solar would have on the market; a document called “solar calcs”; and ministerial communications.

MBIE said the information was withheld to protect confidential advice to ministers and “free and frank” opinions from officials.

“I do not consider that the withholding of this information is outweighed by public interest considerations in making the information available,” Energy Use Policy Manager Scott Russell wrote.

The titles suggest costed options were developed. But the public cannot see what was recommended to ministers – or rejected.

Watts refused to answer questions about whether subsidies were costed or taken to Cabinet.

Labour’s energy spokesperson Megan Woods said the level of secrecy was ridiculous, given it was officials doing the work on the taxpayer dollar.

“Why is it that the government won’t even release the names of the documents that they’ve received in terms of solar policy?” she said. “What are they trying to hide?”

‘Terrifying, loud, and wild’

At the same time the energy minister was receiving advice from officials on solar, he was also deeply engaged with another part of the sector – the power companies themselves.

Correspondence released from Simon Watts’ office shows sustained engagement throughout 2025 with large electricity generators on dry-year risk and wholesale market stability.

One industry report provided to ministers argued strongly against interventions that might soften “price signals”.

The report, sent to Watts by Mercury Energy, stated “wholesale markets are not supposed to be friendly or quiet.”

“They are supposed to be terrifying, loud, and wild… they are something to protect oneself from through investments, operational optimisation, and contracting.”

The report warns that “affordability concerns” should be addressed outside the electricity market rather than through structural changes to pricing or incentives.

Solar isn’t mentioned directly in the report. But the power companies have the most to lose if customers can generate their own power. For example, analysis by Rewiring Aotearoa found if 80 percent of homes had solar, it would provide as much backup as 29 days of added hydro storage and could have halved wholesale peak power prices in 2024.

Such a shift would significantly change wholesale price dynamics.

“What we know is a demonstrable fact is that putting rooftop solar on a householder in New Zealand substantially lowers electricity bills,” says Rewiring Aotearoa CEO Mike Casey.

“Yet what we’ve seen time and time again is we’ve kind of let the energy system up to its own devices – but electricity bills just continue to go up.

“That’s why I think it’s super important that we now look at making sure that if it’s not going to come from industry because it’s not necessarily in their best interests, well, then it really needs to come from central government.”

A “minor” change

When Watts made his long-awaited energy announcement on October 1, there was no new solar subsidy.

Instead the reforms remained regulatory – clarifying that most rooftop installations do not require building consent, fast-tracking consents for new homes with solar, and expanding permitted voltage ranges to allow greater exports to the grid.

In the supporting Regulatory Impact Statement, officials warned the changes would likely have limited impact.

“The Minister’s preferred options may meet the objective of incentivising demand for solar generation and sustainable buildings. However, the incentive effect is not clear and expected to be minor.”

The dominant barrier to uptake remained upfront cost, the RIS said.

Solar uptake continues – but largely among the small proportion of households able to finance the investment themselves.

Meanwhile, electricity cost and demand are both expected to continue to rise in the coming years, due to both lines and energy cost increases.

Consumer NZ has predicted a 5% increase in power prices this year, following a 12 percent increase last year.

Meanwhile, demand for electricity is expected to grow sharply as transport and industry electrify.

Modelling cited in MBIE briefings shows demand could more than double by 2050 – from roughly 40 terawatt hours today to around 90 terawatt hours.

Officials have warned existing hydro generation cannot meet that growth alone, particularly as climate change increases the frequency of dry years.

Rooftop solar does not solve dry-year risk by itself. But analysts say it could have formed part of a broader package of responses, alongside storage and demand management.

Instead, the Government’s response to dry-year risk has been to back a multi-billion-dollar floating LNG import terminal.

Writing for Carbon News, energy expert Christina Hood said modelling commissioned by the Government itself showed the LNG option could lead to higher electricity prices than alternatives such as gas storage or demand reduction – even with its fixed costs subsidised by a levy on consumers.

Hood argued the Government failed to model cheaper alternatives such as demand reduction and accelerated renewables in detail, despite their potential for greater impact on prices and system security, leaving consumers exposed to higher long-term costs.

Supporters argue the LNG facility reduces the risk of extreme price spikes and underwrites renewable investment.

Critics describe it as an “expensive detour” that locks in fossil infrastructure just as solar and batteries come down in price.

“Refusing to subsidize solar while underwriting a billion dollar gas terminal is like renting an expensive fossil fuel heater for a house you’re already planning to electrify,” said 350 Aotearoa Co-Director Alva Feldmeier.

She said the LNG decision clearly showed the government was willing to intervene in the market – and yet was unwilling to do so when it came to bringing power prices down.

“They’re more than happy to slap a gas tax on every New Zealander’s power bill to underwrite this expensive LNG terminal while choosing to shelve plans to help households generate their own cheap, clean power.”

‘Watch this space’

This is not the first time National ministers have considered – and stepped back from – financial incentives for rooftop solar.

Newsroom previously revealed the Government had actively explored a home solar support package during 2024, including potential rebates or finance mechanisms, before shelving it ahead of Budget decisions.

Despite that, Energy Minister Simon Watts continues to cast himself as an advocate for distributed solar.

“Rooftop solar and batteries will be critical for a modern distributed energy system,” he told the Bluegreens conference in February 2026, adding that his government had “made it easier than ever for households and businesses to harness solar.”

Watts also acknowledged New Zealand could do more, noting that Australia demonstrates “just how much further we can go” and saying National would continue to look at opportunities to support solar. “Watch this space.”

One proposal that may yet advance is a Ratepayer Assistance Scheme, which would allow households to finance solar through their rates.

For now, however, no national rebate or finance programme exists. In response to questions from RNZ, Watts said only he was “focussed on making energy more affordable.”

“I acknowledge the valuable role that solar and batteries can play in New Zealand’s energy system,” he said.

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

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

The government says a new survey shows its traffic light system for those on a job seeker benefit is working as planned.

In August 2024, the coalition set up a traffic light system – alongside sanctions – for beneficiaries who don’t meet their obligations.

Social Development and Employment Minister Louise Upston said an evaluation had now found MSD clients were more on top of their job search responsibilities.

“Ninety percent of clients surveyed as part of the Ministry of Social Development’s latest evaluation said they found the traffic light system has been helpful for understanding their obligations, which include a range of activities towards finding employment.

“We’re also seeing nearly 99 percent of clients are fulfilling their obligations, along with a 10.6 percent drop in the number of sanctions issued between the September 2024 and September 2025 quarters.”

Upston said the traffic light system had been designed to reset expectations for those on welfare and it was clear the reset was working.

“The traffic light system ensures the welfare system is more integrated and helps jobseekers understand and navigate their obligations, helping them to be prepared, proactive and seize opportunities when they come along.

“Welfare is conditional on recipients meeting their responsibilities.”

Upston said the coalition remained committed to reaching its target of 50,000 fewer people on Jobseeker Support by 2030.

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