Category: Politics

Source: Radio New Zealand

Labour leader Chris Hipkins has taken aim at the government’s cost of living and climate policies in his State of the Nation speech in Auckland.

Hipkins did not announce any new policy in the speech on Monday, repeating his promise that the public would see a “different” Labour to 2023.

“Labour didn’t get everything right last time – and some of you don’t hold back in telling me,” Hipkins told the Auckland Business Chamber audience.

“We tried to do too much, too fast, and we lost our focus.”

But what New Zealanders got instead, he said, was rising costs, job losses, and a shrinking economy.

“I’m not promising perfection. Where we make mistakes, I’ll take responsibility,” he said.

“But I am promising this: a government that puts the cost of living first. A government that partners with business to create jobs and raise wages. A government that invests in our people and backs our potential.”

Wary of Labour’s previous propensity to over-promise, Hipkins said he would put affordability at the heart of all decisions he made, and would expect ministers to do the same.

Hipkins said 2000 New Zealanders were leaving every week because they did not see a future here.

“I see young New Zealanders – smart, hardworking, full of potential – making calculations that no young person should have to do. Do I stay in the country I love? Or do I leave to build the life I’ve worked for?

“It breaks my heart. Because it means we are failing them. Not because they aren’t good enough for New Zealand. But because we haven’t made New Zealand good enough for them.”

Riffing off National’s slogan “Fixing the Basics, Building the Future”, Hipkins said New Zealanders would have a choice between two different futures.

He also called for stronger climate action.

“We can carry on treating each disaster as if it’s an isolated event, clean up and move on. Or we can recognise that the cost of inaction on climate change now far exceeds the cost of action.”

He did not give specifics on climate policy, but said New Zealand had an opportunity to be a “renewable energy superpower” but was instead being locked into a volatile global market.

“We would invest in the industries that cut emissions, build resilience, and create jobs. Because that is how you build a stronger economy. Not in spite of climate action, but because of it.”

Hipkins confirmed Labour would oppose the government’s plans to build a new liquefied natural gas terminal, and would not go through with any deal if it entered government before a deal was done.

“We won’t add new charges onto people, like increasing every household’s power bill to pay for a gas import terminal, or tolling the Auckland Harbour Bridge to pay for a new crossing.”

The Infrastructure Commission modelled that tolling the existing bridge and a new Waitemata Crossing could bring in up to $9 billion.

The government has said a toll is something under consideration, but has not confirmed whether it would go ahead with it.

While no new policy was announced, Hipkins repeated Labour’s promises to fund three free GP visits a year, funded through a capital gains tax on investment and commercial property.

Labour was the highest-polling party in the most recent RNZ-Reid Research poll, but the coalition would still have the numbers to return to government.

The party has seen two high-profile departures from its Māori caucus, with former Speaker Adrian Rurawhe already bowing out, and former Tāmaki Makaurau MP Peeni Henare also announcing his exit.

Henare will deliver his valedictory on 4 March.

State of the Nation speeches are a chance for party leaders to set out the priorities for the year ahead.

Earlier this year, Luxon confirmed the government would continue to run a tight Budget, and observed a “rupture” in the rules-based system.

Last weekend, ACT leader David Seymour took aim at “bureaucratic” governments that aren’t balancing their books, and confirmed ACT would again campaign on a smaller ministerial executive.

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters is set to deliver his speech in Tauranga in March.

The Greens, which prefer to call their address State of the Planet, are yet to confirm details of a 2026 speech.

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

Labour leader Chris Hipkins is set to deliver a State of the Nation speech in Auckland, but the party is not promising many bells and whistles ahead of the address.

Hipkins will speak to the Auckland Business Chamber, just as National leader Christopher Luxon did in January – although Labour’s is expected to be a more low-key event than Luxon’s International Convention Centre affair.

The speech will be livestreamed at the top of this page from about 12.35pm.

Hipkins is not expected to announce any new policies during his speech, with Labour preferring to wait until after the Budget to add significant policies to its existing suite.

So far Labour has announced a policy of three free GP visits, funded by a targeted capital gains tax, as well as a Future Fund, free cervical screening, and a GP loan scheme.

Hipkins has confirmed Labour would repeal the Regulatory Standards Act, and reinstate the full pay equity system – though he has been reluctant to say how Labour would pay for the latter.

He also would not say if Labour would replenish the disbanded climate resilience fund, and will not set out partners Labour is prepared to go into coalition with until closer to the election.

Labour was the highest-polling party in the most recent RNZ-Reid Research poll, but the coalition would still have the numbers to return to government.

The party has seen two high-profile departures from its Māori caucus, with former Speaker Adrian Rurawhe already bowing out, and former Tāmaki Makaurau MP Peeni Henare also announcing his exit.

Henare will deliver his valedictory on 4 March.

State of the Nation speeches are a chance for party leaders to set out the priorities for the year ahead.

Earlier this year, Luxon confirmed the government would continue to run a tight Budget, and observed a “rupture” in the rules-based system.

Last weekend, ACT leader David Seymour took aim at “bureaucratic” governments that aren’t balancing their books, and confirmed ACT would again campaign on a smaller ministerial executive.

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters is set to deliver his speech in Tauranga in March.

The Greens, which prefer to call their address State of the Planet, are yet to confirm details of a 2026 speech.

On Sunday, Labour’s deputy leader Carmel Sepuloni did not want to get ahead of her leader’s speech, when asked what the party’s message might be.

“You’ll just have to wait and see. I don’t think it’ll be very career-enhancing if I pre-empted Chippy’s State of the Nation speech,” 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

An Auckland councillor is calling them draconian and heartless, the advocacy group for retailers doubts they will work long term, and a man on the streets says it’s bullying.

But the government says its move-on orders announced on Sunday are part of reclaiming main streets and town centres.

The orders target people as young as 14 and give Police powers to move on rough sleepers, disorderly people or beggars for up to 24 hours.

Breach an order, and it risks a fine of up to $2000 or three month jail term.

“We understand that in certain cities around New Zealand it is a significant problem,” Retail NZ chief executive Carolyn Young said.

“There’s antisocial behaviour and a lot of drug taking and drinking, and it’s pretty unpleasant and it’s quite difficult for people to want to come into the city.”

She welcomes new tools for police, but doubts their long term usefulness.

“The problem we see with it is that if you move someone on, you’re moving them to just another area where they’ll be a problem for somebody else,” she said.

“The move-on orders are for 24 hours, they may just come back again the next day, the question is how many times will it take to move them on before we break the cycle and give relief to those businesses in that region and then it’ll be the same problem somewhere else.”

Young said without wider social support, Retail NZ didn’t believe they would make a difference in the long run.

“And we know that the police do a really great job and they are already stretched, and so it’s hard to know how this is a solution,” she said.

“It’s probably a break in the circuit… it’s how often do you have to break the circuit before you’ll change behaviours.”

Some people on Auckland’s streets who spoke with RNZ after the announcement also had doubts.

“It’s a bully tactic,” Kenneth Dahl said.

He’s 50, and has been on and off the streets since he was 18.

“It’s pushing people into a corner… and as for them moving us into accommodation, they’re forcing us to live in places we do not want to live,” he said.

“It’s a bully tactic right there.”

Dahl currently has provided motel accommodation.

“But I choose not to be there because as soon as I look out the window all I see is grey and white, there’s no greenery whatsoever, nothing, no vegetation or anything around, it’s not a home, it’s a cell or a prison cell.”

The streets, he said, were where he felt most at home.

Benny Ngata was with him in the central city and expected the orders to lead to more crime.

“And they’re trying to move them out of the town to make themselves look better or something… but when it comes to it, how about help those people to advance themselves and give them a place, because the government’s housing is lacking, that’s why people are on the street,” he said.

“And not only that, people who live on the street, those who have mental illnesses or with addictions, so then how about help them… not by kicking them away.

“Because at the end of the day, that’s going to cause more trouble,” he said.

Ngata said it would just end up costing the government money to put people in jail.

“So at the end of the day, the government is going to lose,” he said.

“If you want to be a government, work with the people… how about get off your fat arse and help them.”

Ngata was asked if help was there at the moment.

“No, there’s nothing there, that’s why people are sleeping on the streets, that’s why people are homeless, because the government doesn’t care.”

Auckland councillor Richard Hills posted on Facebook it was earlier government changes that had dramatically increased homelessness.

“These heartless, draconian ‘move on orders will not deliver positive outcomes for people, but they will make the Govt look tough in an election year,” he wrote.

Community Housing Aotearoa said Police were not equipped to assess what health support rough sleepers need.

Chief executive Paul Gilberd said it shouldn’t be the job of officers.

“Often these people are very unwell both physically and in terms of mental health and sometimes substance abuse, so I feel for the police being put in a very awkward situation where they’re being required to make these judgements and I think there’s a strong argument for much better coordination between services,” he said.

Wellington’s City Missioner Murray Edridge said the government earlier signalled any laws to move on rough sleepers would come with support.

“And we heard the Prime Minister early in this conversation say we wouldn’t just move people on and not do anything to help them,” he said.

“Well, I’m still waiting to see what the help is going to look like.”

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith’s office said it’s been made very clear police are expected to connect people given move-on orders with the support they may need.

Back in Auckland, Queen’s Arcade property manager Ian Wright said the orders put the icing on the cake after more security, policing and social support.

“I don’t see it as displacement of the problem, that’s not a solution, it’s very much about holding people to account, drawing a line in the sand and saying we’ve actually got a right to be here too, the people, our visitors, and we want it to be safe and secure and I don’t think that’s too much to ask.”

But Aaron Hendry, who works with at-risk young people, is worried about the orders applying to people as young as 14.

“The support structures are not in place to adequately respond to these children’s needs and so, look, it’s concerning to us, we are concerned around what is looking like a really clear streets to prison pipeline with the lack of resources invested in to ensure that people are looked after,” he said.

The orders will be part of an amendment to the Summary Offences Act, meaning it still has to go through the legislative process.

Paul Goldsmith said there would be a chance for the orders to be scrutinised, but the government also wanted to get them in place as soon as possible.

The National Homelessness Data Project last showed homelessness had more than doubled in Auckland in the year to September.

What the orders do

• The government will amend the Summary Offences Act to give police the power to issue move-on orders to people who are displaying disorderly, disruptive, threatening, or intimidating behaviour.
• They will also apply to people who are obstructing or impeding someone entering a business, breaching the peace, begging, rough sleeping, or displaying behaviour indicating an attempt to inhabit a public place.
• The orders will require someone to leave for a specified time – up to 24 hours – and distance determined by the officer.
• When the order is issued, the person will be warned it is an offence to breach it, unless they have a reasonable excuse for being there.
• The penalty for a breach would be a maximum fine of $2,000 or up to three months imprisonment.

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

An Auckland councillor is calling them draconian and heartless, the advocacy group for retailers doubts they will work long term, and a man on the streets says it’s bullying.

But the government says its move-on orders announced on Sunday are part of reclaiming main streets and town centres.

The orders target people as young as 14 and give Police powers to move on rough sleepers, disorderly people or beggars for up to 24 hours.

Breach an order, and it risks a fine of up to $2000 or three month jail term.

“We understand that in certain cities around New Zealand it is a significant problem,” Retail NZ chief executive Carolyn Young said.

“There’s antisocial behaviour and a lot of drug taking and drinking, and it’s pretty unpleasant and it’s quite difficult for people to want to come into the city.”

She welcomes new tools for police, but doubts their long term usefulness.

“The problem we see with it is that if you move someone on, you’re moving them to just another area where they’ll be a problem for somebody else,” she said.

“The move-on orders are for 24 hours, they may just come back again the next day, the question is how many times will it take to move them on before we break the cycle and give relief to those businesses in that region and then it’ll be the same problem somewhere else.”

Young said without wider social support, Retail NZ didn’t believe they would make a difference in the long run.

“And we know that the police do a really great job and they are already stretched, and so it’s hard to know how this is a solution,” she said.

“It’s probably a break in the circuit… it’s how often do you have to break the circuit before you’ll change behaviours.”

Some people on Auckland’s streets who spoke with RNZ after the announcement also had doubts.

“It’s a bully tactic,” Kenneth Dahl said.

He’s 50, and has been on and off the streets since he was 18.

“It’s pushing people into a corner… and as for them moving us into accommodation, they’re forcing us to live in places we do not want to live,” he said.

“It’s a bully tactic right there.”

Dahl currently has provided motel accommodation.

“But I choose not to be there because as soon as I look out the window all I see is grey and white, there’s no greenery whatsoever, nothing, no vegetation or anything around, it’s not a home, it’s a cell or a prison cell.”

The streets, he said, were where he felt most at home.

Benny Ngata was with him in the central city and expected the orders to lead to more crime.

“And they’re trying to move them out of the town to make themselves look better or something… but when it comes to it, how about help those people to advance themselves and give them a place, because the government’s housing is lacking, that’s why people are on the street,” he said.

“And not only that, people who live on the street, those who have mental illnesses or with addictions, so then how about help them… not by kicking them away.

“Because at the end of the day, that’s going to cause more trouble,” he said.

Ngata said it would just end up costing the government money to put people in jail.

“So at the end of the day, the government is going to lose,” he said.

“If you want to be a government, work with the people… how about get off your fat arse and help them.”

Ngata was asked if help was there at the moment.

“No, there’s nothing there, that’s why people are sleeping on the streets, that’s why people are homeless, because the government doesn’t care.”

Auckland councillor Richard Hills posted on Facebook it was earlier government changes that had dramatically increased homelessness.

“These heartless, draconian ‘move on orders will not deliver positive outcomes for people, but they will make the Govt look tough in an election year,” he wrote.

Community Housing Aotearoa said Police were not equipped to assess what health support rough sleepers need.

Chief executive Paul Gilberd said it shouldn’t be the job of officers.

“Often these people are very unwell both physically and in terms of mental health and sometimes substance abuse, so I feel for the police being put in a very awkward situation where they’re being required to make these judgements and I think there’s a strong argument for much better coordination between services,” he said.

Wellington’s City Missioner Murray Edridge said the government earlier signalled any laws to move on rough sleepers would come with support.

“And we heard the Prime Minister early in this conversation say we wouldn’t just move people on and not do anything to help them,” he said.

“Well, I’m still waiting to see what the help is going to look like.”

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith’s office said it’s been made very clear police are expected to connect people given move-on orders with the support they may need.

Back in Auckland, Queen’s Arcade property manager Ian Wright said the orders put the icing on the cake after more security, policing and social support.

“I don’t see it as displacement of the problem, that’s not a solution, it’s very much about holding people to account, drawing a line in the sand and saying we’ve actually got a right to be here too, the people, our visitors, and we want it to be safe and secure and I don’t think that’s too much to ask.”

But Aaron Hendry, who works with at-risk young people, is worried about the orders applying to people as young as 14.

“The support structures are not in place to adequately respond to these children’s needs and so, look, it’s concerning to us, we are concerned around what is looking like a really clear streets to prison pipeline with the lack of resources invested in to ensure that people are looked after,” he said.

The orders will be part of an amendment to the Summary Offences Act, meaning it still has to go through the legislative process.

Paul Goldsmith said there would be a chance for the orders to be scrutinised, but the government also wanted to get them in place as soon as possible.

The National Homelessness Data Project last showed homelessness had more than doubled in Auckland in the year to September.

What the orders do

• The government will amend the Summary Offences Act to give police the power to issue move-on orders to people who are displaying disorderly, disruptive, threatening, or intimidating behaviour.
• They will also apply to people who are obstructing or impeding someone entering a business, breaching the peace, begging, rough sleeping, or displaying behaviour indicating an attempt to inhabit a public place.
• The orders will require someone to leave for a specified time – up to 24 hours – and distance determined by the officer.
• When the order is issued, the person will be warned it is an offence to breach it, unless they have a reasonable excuse for being there.
• The penalty for a breach would be a maximum fine of $2,000 or up to three months imprisonment.

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 insists move-on orders are just one tool in the toolkit, as it seeks to curb anti-social behaviour and rough sleeping in city and town centres across New Zealand.

Opposition parties have slammed the proposal, however, describing it as “cruel” and “despicable.”

The government has confirmed it will give police powers to issue move-on notices.

The notices will apply for disorderly or threatening behaviour, as well as for begging or rough sleeping.

It will be left to the individual officer to decide exactly how long the order lasts, with a limit of 24 hours, the distance the person needs to move away from, and what support the person needs, if any.

Officers will have to make it clear to the individual that a breach will be an offence, with maximum penalties of fines up to $2000, or up to three months imprisonment.

At the announcement, justice minister Paul Goldsmith insisted the government was not criminalising homelessness.

“What we’re criminalising is a refusal to follow a move-on order,” he said.

Goldsmith said a ‘reasonable distance’ would mean different things in different parts of the country, and denied it would simply shift the problem elsewhere.

“If you’re told to move on and you go up the road and you start doing the same behaviours again, well then you’ll be subject to another move-on order until the message gets through that society doesn’t tolerate these activities.”

Police minister Mark Mitchell said police use discretion “thousands of times a week,” and there was a range of options available to them.

He said the move-on orders filled a “gap” in the police response.

“We’ve got something that will formalise it, that will actually hopefully get them engaging with those services and actually fix those issues, and at the same time we won’t have people living on our streets. I don’t think any fair-minded Kiwi in our country wants to see people out living on our streets.”

Mitchell said the “default setting” would be to work with someone, to try and find whether the solution was a health, mental health, or housing response.

But some simply did not want to listen to police.

“Many of the people that choose to come in and set up and live on the streets and cause the social problems that we see are also vulnerable themselves.”

Minister for Auckland Simeon Brown said he had met with non-government organisations and government agencies across Auckland, as well as the council, to see what actions could be taken to improve safety.

Welcomed by business

Auckland’s central business association Heart of the City had lobbied for social and economic needs to be addressed, and while there had been improvements, anti-social behaviour continued to cause concern.

Its chief executive Viv Beck said she was pleased the government had “listened” in terms of bringing in additional police, a new downtown police station, a housing and outreach ‘action plan,’ and now the move-on orders.

Beck said Auckland was an “aspirational city,” which meant ensuring people were housed and looked after.

“This is another, if you like, another tool in the kit to be able to ensure that we are really ready to capitalise on now, after ten years of disruption for a whole variety of reasons, that our city can actually grow, we can continue to attract investment, and that we’re aspirational so people are looked after if they’re in need but that it’s a really safe, welcoming place for everyone.”

Ian Wright, property manager of the Queen’s Arcade in downtown Auckland, said there was no use creating a “beautiful place” if it was unsafe outside.

He said the council and Heart of the City had started to bring in guards, and the government had allowed for more police on the beat, which had made a difference.

“We’re not where we need to be. But I think this is very much another key tool in the toolbox that will greatly facilitate the change process and just put the icing on the cake to where we’ve been,” he said.

Wright said it was mostly “recidivist offenders” engaging in intimidation, harassment, and general unsocial behaviour.

“We had a gentleman that was around living on the street on Commerce Street, around the corner. He was there for months, and he wouldn’t accept help, but now he’s accepted help, and he’s obviously been taken back into care and he’s getting the care he needs.

“So I don’t see it as displacement of the problem. That’s not a solution. It’s very much about holding people to account, drawing the line in the sand, and saying we’ve actually got a right to be here too. The people, the visitors, we want it to be safe and secure. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.”

‘Punch-down politics’ – opposition

Labour was concerned the policy would not just be a tool, but the go-to tool.

Deputy leader Carmel Sepuloni said the policy was cruel.

“This is another instance of the government oversimplifying a problem, trying to sweep it under the carpet, acting like it’s just a law and order issue, when the reality is it’s so much more complex than that,” she said.

“The government need to be investing in mental health. They need to be building the homes that New Zealanders need. They need to be investing in addiction services. They need to be supporting and resourcing the social and health services that work with so many of the people that we’re seeing on our streets. They’re not doing any of that. Instead, they’re saying that they’re going to criminalise these people and then effectively saying that it will become the police’s responsibility.”

Goldsmith said the government had put additional resources into housing, with 300 extra spots for homeless people, and not all of them were being taken up.

The move-on orders, he said, were to deal with those who refused to take up that extra help.

Green Party co-leader and Auckland Central MP Chlöe Swarbrick, said the policy was some of the most “despicable, bottom of the barrel, punch-down politics” she had seen from the government.

“You are not solving a problem if you are simply trying to move it out of sight and out of mind,” she said.

Frontline police she had spoken to had made it “pretty abundantly clear” they did not have the resources to solve the issues either.

“If the government wants to deal with the issue of homelessness, I have a very clear solution for them: provide housing and the necessary wrap-around support for people to be able to stay in that housing. Unfortunately, the government has decided to do the complete opposite of that, shredding the necessary resources for our communities to thrive.”

Advocate fears ‘street-to-prison pipeline’

Aaron Hendry, director of youth development organisation Kick Back, was particularly concerned the orders could be used on people as young as 14.

His organisation worked with tamariki as young as 9 who were experiencing homelessness, often coming from complex situations where their whole family needed support.

“The idea that police will just be moving children on without intensively providing support to these kids is really concerning,” he said.

“We are concerned around what is looking like a really clear street-to-prison pipeline, with the lack of resources invested to ensure that people are looked after.”

He said social service providers had made it clear to ministers that the resources were not there, and that the move-on orders would not solve the problem and could cause more harm.

“Whānau that are sleeping rough in the city centre are often reaching out to Work and Income for support, being denied support, and as a result are ending up on our streets. That’s a real clear decision the government’s making to criminalise whānau for experiencing homelessness, as a consequence of the decisions they have made to restrict access to shelter and support.”

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 recent European industry summit at a chateau in Belgium wasn’t expected to make headlines.

But when British boss Sir Jim Ratcliffe complained to Sky News UK about “huge levels of immigrants coming in”, it was bulletin-leading stuff in Britain.

“The UK has been colonised by immigrants really. The population of the UK was 58 million in 2020, now it’s 70 million,” said the billionaire founder of the global chemical company INEOS.

He went on to claim the current UK Labour government and its under-pressure leader Sir Keir Starmer lacked the courage to confront that – and rising numbers of people on benefits.

These days men of means criticising the British government is not out of the ordinary – or sounding off about immigration.

Several billionaires backed Brexit and now back Nigel Farage’s new anti-immigration political party Reform which is surging in opinion polls right now.

To its credit, Sky News UK said Sir Jim Ratcliffe was off by about 10m on the UK’s recent population growth – an egregious error for a business tycoon with a ruthless focus on budgets and bottom lines.

A further fact check by the BBC revealed only 6.5 million Britons not working today receive benefits – not the 9 million Ratcliffe claimed.

The fact Sir Jim Ratcliffe himself migrated to Monaco for tax reasons – not paying tax being the main one – amplified outrage in the UK.

And Ratcliffe’s blurt made back-page headlines as well as front-page ones because he is also the part-owner of Manchester United. Many of its players, staff and supporters are either immigrants or the children of immigrants.

(NZ Rugby could have been dragged into this too, but Ratcliffe controversially backed out of its INEOS sponsorship deal in mid-2025.)

Guardian sportswriter Barney Ronay was not surprised by the comments.

“He knows that a slash-and-burn Reform government would be good for business. Immigration is just a wedge issue in this dynamic. This is pre-electioneering on behalf of the super wealthy.”

Wedging immigration into party politics

The anti-immigration One Nation party is polling above 20 percent nationally in Australia. That’s more than the Liberal and National parties of the centre-right put together.

Here, the proposed free trade agreement (FTA) with India has pumped immigration up the political agenda.

When the Prime Minister announced an agreement had been reached with India just before Christmas, NZ First issued a statement criticising it.

Winston Peters told Richard Harman’s subscriber news service Politik that family members of about 5000 people on a new employment visa would be eligible to come to New Zealand.

“You go from saying it’s one child – that’s 10,000 people – to possibly 25,000 or more. They’re not the most populous country in the world for nothing,” Peters told Politik.

“It’s an open secret around Parliament that Peters wants to campaign this year on immigration,” Richard Harman concluded at the time, noting that the NZ First statement condemning the FTA attracted a stream of racist comments on social media.

Two months on, that’s no secret anymore.

“On the question of immigration, which is going to be massive in this matter, the truth is not being told. It means we can have tens of thousands of people getting here by right …taking those opportunities away from New Zealanders,” Peters told the Herald’s Ryan Bridge show at the end of January.

The next day the Prime Minister told reporters Peters was wrong and trade minister Todd McClay later told RNZ that NZ First had pulled support for the India FTA before he’d actually secured it.

But the problem for the news media was the terms deal with India still weren’t clear.

What’s the deal?

Last month the Herald’sAudrey Young reported an Indian government fact-sheet had said that the agreement removes caps on Indian students here – but the Trade Minister Todd McLay had already told Parliament that it doesn’t.

And last week, Todd McClay couldn’t confirm that.

In a long sit-down chat on last Sunday’s TVNZ Q+A show, host Jack Tame repeatedly asked if the total number of temporary Indian migrants in New Zealand will increase.

McLay said the FTA doesn’t extend the rights of visa holders to bring relatives in, though most temporary migrants can after a period of time anyway – and New Zealand doesn’t discriminate.

“It appears sometime in the last two weeks the government has decided that – unlike almost all other temporary work visas… that for some reason this visa that applies only to Indians will mean that people cannot bring their families,” Tame asked, hinting that NZ First’s stance could explain the change.

“Under the Free Trade Agreement there is no right extended further. This is something that a government could do in the future if it wants,” McClay countered.

Last week, the Herald’s Audrey Young helped with a point-by-point summary headed Fact or fiction: Who’s telling the truth on the India free trade agreement?.

That followed Herald political editor Thomas Coughlan clearing things up after obtaining part of the yet-to-be published agreement’s text.

But the lack of clarity had allowed anti-immigration advocates to make hay.

Immigration angst

Last week, The Post’s deputy political editor Henry Cooke noted just 5 percent named “immigration” as a worry issue in the most recent IPSOS issues monitor poll – and a later opinion poll showed majority public support for the FTA.

But simply posting results of the latter online surfaced “seething prejudice and racism one finds against Indians online right now, right here in New Zealand.”

“It is possible that anti-immigration sentiment has ticked up now that this deal has huge prominence in news media, with Winston Peters standing against it and Labour slowly finding its way to probably supporting it,” Cooke wrote.

It’s not hard to find concerns about cultural decline and references to racist replacement theory in the output of local alternative media.

“You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know that if you dilute a culture up to a particular point, that culture disappears,” Reality Check Radio’s Paul Brennan said recently while also insisting the media ignore that issue.

On the same platform, after Winston Peters first sounded the alarm earlier this year, self-described Christian nationalist William McGimpsey said the India Free Trade Agreement has “significant migration risks” Under the heading: Is mass immigration tearing at the social fabric of New Zealand? McGimpsey reckoned 20 percent of people living in New Zealand were not citizens. And some should “politely be asked to leave to reduce the size of the immigrant population to manageable levels and reclaim our country.”

McGimpsey listed news stories that he claimed “show the problems that occur when people from foreign cultures with different values and ways of life are imported here.”

He cited reports of Auckland area beaches stripped of seafood.

This week NZ First’s Shane Jones announced a ban on collecting kaimoana from rock pools along Auckland’s east coast for two years to crack down on what he called “turbocharged foraging.”

On The Platform, host Sean Plunket had no qualms about asking Shane Jones if the problem was created by “recent arrivals to New Zealand.”

“I’ve already said in other parts of the media landscape, that this is a Peking duck problem. We have groups organised via social media on Chinese language sites,” he said.

“I’m coming under attack for my remarks. I don’t care. The vast majority of New Zealanders have been excluded from discussion as to who decided to change the demography of our country,” Jones added.

“I don’t care if I come on your programme or anywhere in New Zealand and I get called out as a racist. You watch me campaign on this issue, buddy,” he told Plunket.

Debating immigration out loud

While some say the media ignores the issue, immigration had aired extensively often in the news.

Unconstrained immigration. What’s the alternative? was the title of a session at the annual New Zealand Economics Forum at the University of Waikato last week.

It also raised the rather clunky question: ‘How do we grow without losing who we are?’

“In an election year, it’s so predictable that immigration becomes a really contested issue,” Tahu Kukutai from the Te Ngira Institute for Population Research told the forum.

“On the one hand we really need skilled migrant labour to fuel our economy. On the other hand… we don’t want m migrants, you know? ‘They’re changing our country.’ That sort of polarised view on immigration is really unhelpful,” she said.

The panel chair Josie Pagani said a recent UN study predicted a halving of the population by the end of the century in more than 20 developed countries.

Leading demography expert Professor Paul Spoonley said New Zealand’s fertility rate was 25 percent below where it needed to be for our population replacement.

Treasury Secretary Ian Rennie made headlines with warnings of the Silver Tsunami on its way. And he said 20 to 40 percent of New Zealand graduates were migrating, often in their peak years of productivity.

On Newstalk ZB, host Mike Hosking agreed – but had a different interpretation of our migration problem.

“Immigrants have replaced our kids. We’ve been dumbed down. Our brightest haven’t been replaced with America’s brightest or Europe’s brightest, but from countries like India and the Philippines. We’re exporting scientists and doctors and bringing in nurses and baristas,” he said.

But it isn’t just scientists leaving and kitchenhands coming in. Some migrants from India and the Philippines do have urgently needed skills – and plenty of people with middling work skills are leaving the country too.

But Hosking was at pains to say: “I love immigration.”

“But we are being forced into this. Not long ago, our net gain was in excess of 100,000 a year. We brought them in and the good ones didn’t leave. See, I figure we can recapture all of that, but a mindset shift is needed.”

Part of that mind shift could be being really clear about what you mean by ‘good’ ones and ‘bad.’

In The Post this week, columnist Dave Armstrong pointed out the unintended consequences of the immigration bar being raised.

Dozens of immigrant bus drivers who rescued Wellington from its recent bustastrophe might now have to leave the country at the end of their visas because new higher English language standards brought in recently will be tough to meet.

“By all means, spend money to train good, dependable bus drivers from New Zealand, but in the meantime, it seems madness to send perfectly good bus drivers home because they didn’t complete a 300-word essay to the standard of a postgraduate university student,” Armstrong wrote.

Whether we’re breeding bus drivers or brain surgeons here, it’s taking longer.

Fresh figures out this week also showed that just 14 percent of births were to mothers younger than 25. And as the gap between generations grows, living together under one roof is also in the up

On Newstalk ZB, Heather Du Plessis-Allan asked Paul Spoonley to ask if this was immigration at work as well.

“You’ve got people from countries like India where, for example, where it is absolutely fine and it’s normal. Or is this actually us, like native New Zealanders, people who’ve been here for a few generations also starting to do this?” she asked.

“No, it’s us. There are definitely some cultural practices, but no – it’s us. We’re changing,” he said.

The ‘us’ and ‘them’ was a little awkward there – and a reminder of just how few of ‘them’ are heard when ‘we’ in the media cover this issue.

Last Wednesday Winston Peters interrupted Green MP Teanau Tuiono to ask why “someone from Rarotonga” should say ‘Aotearoa’.

Teanau Tuiono was born here in New Zealand.

Accused of racism and scapegoating, Winston Peters told Parliament the next day he wasn’t sorry.

But by then his deputy, Shane Jones had gone further – and cruder – NZME’s rural show The Country.

“We are going to continue to remind Kiwis that unfettered immigration is going to fatefully change the trajectory and the character of our nation. And we’re not having it and people are not campaigning on it,” Jones bullishly told host Jamie McKay.

“You’re just being racist. Some of these Indians who might be migrants here will do the work that some of the drug addled Northlanders won’t do,” McKay countered.

Mackay, who also cited Filipinos sustaining dairy farming and Catholic churches in the south.

“But we don’t need any more Uber drivers,” Jones replied.

“Just because I said that the people that are plundering all the rock pools around Auckland happen to be from the migrant community – and in a playful way I use the term the Orient Express – doesn’t mean that I’m a racist.”

Stereotyping migrants as seafood plunderers and Uber drivers clearly is not ‘playful.’ And whether people think it is racist or not, it is a play for political support.

There will be plenty more of this in our media in election year as NZ First – and others concerned about immigration – make this an issue in terms certain to cause offence and attract media attention.

“It’s not hard to imagine anti-migration politics taking a real hold here,” Henry Cooke warned in The Post last week.

“If our major party politicians want to avoid that, MPs will have to explain why immigration is so crucial to a country facing such a demographic challenge.”

Hopefully the news media will sort fact from fiction as we go – as the Herald and others have done lately with claims about the FTA with India.

And hopefully journalists will also sort the facts about immigration from the opinions of people in politics who seem inspired by those exploiting the issue for political support overseas.

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 has confirmed it will give police the power to issue move-on orders – not just in Auckland, but all town centres across the country.

The powers will mean police can move on rough sleepers or people displaying disorderly behaviour as young as 14 years old.

That is despite data showing public order, health and safety offence proceedings reaching levels much lower than they were a decade ago, and the police minister expressing a reluctance towards police leading a homelessness response in Auckland’s CBD and an expectation other agencies “step up and own” social issues.

Last November, it was reported the government was considering measures to move homeless people out of Auckland’s city centre.

At the time, the prime minister said the government was “up for those”, but there had to be supports in place for the homeless.

Now, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith and Police Minister Mark Mitchell have revealed details of the policy, confirming it will be rolled out everywhere, and it will be left to police officers to decide what support a person needs, if at all.

Goldsmith said New Zealand’s main streets and town centres had been “blighted” by disruption and disturbance, with businesses “declining” as bad behaviour went unchecked.

He said police officers currently had limited options to respond, particularly if behaviour did not reach the level of offending.

“It means many disruptive, distressing and potentially harmful acts can occur before officers have any means of intervention. It doesn’t make sense,” he said.

The government will amend the Summary Offences Act to give police the power to issue move-on orders to people who are displaying disorderly, disruptive, threatening, or intimidating behaviour.

They will also apply to people who are obstructing or impeding someone entering a business, breaching the peace, begging, rough sleeping, or displaying behaviour indicating an attempt to inhabit a public place.

The orders will require someone to leave that area for a specified time – up to 24 hours – and distance determined by the officer.

When the order is issued, the person will be warned it is an offence to breach it, unless they have a reasonable excuse for being there. The penalty for a breach would be a maximum fine of $2,000 or up to three months imprisonment.

Specifics on where people could be moved to were light.

Mitchell said someone would be required to move to a “reasonable distance” away from the area, “as specified by the constable.”

He said every situation would be different, and police had the expertise to assess and determine what support would be required.

“They do this every day,” Mitchell said.

Officers were familiar with their area and already had strong networks and partnerships with social and housing services, and Mitchell expected police would work closely with these services as the frontline operational guidance was developed.

However, emails released to RNZ under the Official Information Act showed Mitchell’s office expressing a reluctance for police to lead a homelessness response in Auckland’s CBD.

In the email, dated 5 November, a staff member said: “Feel it is important just to flag that Minister Mitchell does not believe that police has a leadership role in this and has in the past ended up picking up the work of other agencies, which stretches their resources in other areas.”

The staffer said police “obviously” had powers that others did not, and would assist, but Mitchell was “very keen to disabuse anyone of the notion that Police will lead a response to homelessness.”

“Police are already doing good work to curb offending in the CBD. Minister Mitchell’s view is that this needs to be cross agency work led elsewhere, with police continuing to do their part on the offending piece, but that the social issues require other agencies to step up and own those issues.”

The emails showed the government was considering adding in a commitment regarding antisocial behaviour to the Auckland City Deal, with police and Internal Affairs working with the Council to “support enforcement tools and powers, including strengthened bylaws and legislative change, where required.”

Mitchell’s staffer said they were “slightly frustrated” that the wording had progressed somewhat quickly, “as it looks to me like police may end up carrying a leadership role – acknowledge that this may end up having to be feedback on the CRD paper when it comes through, but I doubt Minister Mitchell would support that wording as framed.”

The changes will have to go through a legislative process before coming into effect.

Police data shows public order, health and safety offence proceedings in Auckland City were at a 10-year low in 2025, with just 39 proceedings in December 2025 compared to 168 in December 2015.

Nationwide, there were 428 public order, health and safety offence proceedings in December 2025, compared to 1663 in December 2015.

Earlier this year, the Wellington City Mission said it would actively oppose any move-on orders if they were implemented without support services.

When they were first mooted in November, the Auckland City Mission said any enforcement approach would be “totally and utterly ineffective”, while Green Party co-leader and Auckland Central MP Chlöe Swarbrick said moving homeless people out of the city centre would only shift the problem elsewhere.

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

Minister for Trade and Investment Todd McClay says considerable uncertainty is likely to remain with the latest moves in the US on tariffs.

The US Supreme Court ruled the sweeping tariffs US President Donald Trump imposed on nearly every country were illegal.

Trump has hit back, announcing a new 10 percent levy on global imports.

McClay said New Zealand exports have been holding up well overall in the US market since the original 15 percent tariff was imposed.

While any tariff reduction was welcomed, he did not believe the 15 percent charge was warranted, given American goods coming into New Zealand faced a tariff of just 0.3 percent, he said.

“Our embassy in Washington will engage with their counterparts to get more information so we can continue to work with exporters, however uncertainty around US tariff policy is likely to remain for an extended period of time.”

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

The government will use $3.5 million from the International Visitor Levy to help restore fire-damaged parts of Tongariro National Park.

Around 3000 hectares of the Park were destroyed in two separate fires at the end of 2025.

Conservation minister Tama Potaka said Tongariro was a taonga, and restoring its mauri was essential.

“Tongariro is a Dual World Heritage site, a taonga, and a cornerstone of the Ruapehu District economy. The fires have damaged biodiversity, disrupted recreation, and affected the livelihoods of families and businesses across Ruapehu District.”

The money, spent over five years, will go towards weed control, pest management, and biodiversity monitoring.

“Recovery is already visible, with native plants pushing through the charred ground. But without sustained weed control and pest management, including managing deer, that regeneration will be at risk,” Potaka said.

Shortly after the first fire, a ten-year ‘restorative’ rāhui was been placed over the fire ground itself.

In November, the Department of Conservation said people could still walk on tracks.

The rāhui was not about keeping people out, but about restoring the spiritual, emotional, and physical wellbeing of Tongariro, DOC said.

A Maunga Ora programme between DOC and Ngāti Hikairo ki Tongariro would help restore the ground, based on science, tikanga, and mātauranga Māori.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goldsmith did not speak at the first reading.

Instead, Winston Peters led the speeches on Thursday.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opposition MPs ridicule bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The English language is not under threat. We are literally speaking it and debating in it right now. This is a bill which is an answer to a problem that does not exist, a problem which this government is trying to create in the minds of people across this country, in place of the very real problems of the climate crisis, record homelessness, inequality and infrastructural decay.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First reading on hold

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

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

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

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

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

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

The House adjourned with two speeches still to go.

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

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

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