Category: Politics

Source: Radio New Zealand

A user-pays bus service for Manawatū children no longer eligible for government-funded services to schools in Palmerston North will stop at the end of the coming school term, starting Monday.

The company that runs the service, Uzabus, has cited low usage and rising costs.

Some children in country areas of Manawatū were, from the start of the year, ruled ineligible for buses funded by the Ministry of Education into the city for schooling after officials reviewed routes for compliance with its policies.

Some teens in Tangimoana and Rongotea, the ministry found, should have attended secondary school in Foxton, as that was their closest college. They’d only be eligible for a ministry-funded bus if they went to class there.

But, families were reluctant to change their children’s schools, so the community organised a user-pays bus service, which initially cost $525 a term.

Weekly passes were also available.

Early in the school year RNZ spoke to families who had taken loans or raised savings to afford the new service, but use of the service gradually dropped off, parent Nikita Walker said.

She helped get it up and running and is disappointed it will stop.

“There’s nothing else for us after that, I don’t think, unless a miracle happens,” she said.

“That was our little glimmer of hope. I don’t really know what we’re going to do.”

Walker’s daughter Jasmine attends Palmerston North Girls’ High School and didn’t want to change for her final two years.

Walker said 50 to 70 families initially used the user-pays service, but that number had halved as costs started to bite.

The service was also more expensive – a pass for term 2 was $604, an $80 rise, she said.

A Uzabus statement said the service was a trial to see if it could become a sustainable route.

“However, due to lower-than-expected usage, the service has not reached a level that allows it to continue operating viably.

“In addition, rising operating costs, particularly fuel, have further impacted the sustainability of the route,” the company said.

The bus company understood the news might be disappointing and apologised for inconvenience caused, saying it was grateful to the families who supported the trial.

The ministry has since halted reviews of bus routes, but has said changes already introduced will stay.

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 Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has admitted that the costs of running the government’s fast-track process are ”well in excess” of what it expected.

The agency was granted a $10 million Crown loan for the set-up costs associated with running the process.

The loan term was for five years and the EPA had said it would need 50 applications a year until 2029 for it to pay the loan back.

A Select Committee review of the EPA reveals that, between December 2024 and December 2025, 49 applications were lodged.

The report said that ongoing operational costs were recovered by charging applicants a levy and application fee.

”The intention is for the regime to be cost-neutral, so that operational costs are entirely recovered from applicants. Applicants cover actual and reasonable costs incurred by government agencies, local authorities, panel conveners, and expert panels.”

The EPA told Select Committee members that that operational costs were “well in excess of what we first modelled”.

“‘The EPA said that, initially, costs incurred by agencies, local authorities, and expert panels for each application were projected to be around $250,000, whereas now it estimates some applications to incur costs of more than $500,000.”

Some Select Commitee members had heard that some councils felt unable to pass the application fee on to applicants.

“Consequently, councils have absorbed some of the costs. The EPA commented that it has seen councils taking time to adapt to the fast-track regime, and that they are often still approaching applications as if they were under the Resource Management Act 1991,” the report said.

“The EPA told us it has had “reasonably tense” conversations with some councils encouraging them to pass costs on.”

The EPA was approached 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

China says it has lodged a serious complaint over the New Zealand Air Force’s alleged repeated harassment near its airspace, which the Defence Force denies.

Spokesperson for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs Guo Jiakun said that a P-8A anti-submarine patrol aircraft of the New Zealand Air Force recently conducted repeated close-in reconnaissance and harassment in the airspace over the Yellow Sea and East China Sea.

“The action undermined China’s security interests, increased risks of misunderstanding and miscalculation, and gravely disrupted the order of civil aviation in relevant airspace,” said Guo Jiakun.

“China has responded in a resolute manner and lodged serious protests with New Zealand.”

Guo Jiakun said China urged New Zealand to abide by international law and basic norms governing international relations, respect China’s sovereignty and security concerns and maintain the safety and order of civil aviation.

China’s Ministry of National Defence spokesperson, Zhang Xiaogang, said such malicious acts by New Zealand harmed China’s sovereignty and security, gravely disrupted the order of civil aviation in relevant airspace, and may easily trigger maritime and aerial incidents.

“We urge the New Zealand side to impose stricter discipline and supervision over its frontline forces, immediately stop irresponsible acts that harass and jeopardise civil aviation safety.”

A spokesperson for the New Zealand Defence Force said New Zealand’s P-8A maritime patrol aircraft has been undertaking activities that monitor North Korean sanctions evasions at sea in North Asia under UN Security Council resolutions.

The spokesperson said New Zealand has contributed to UN sanctions monitoring since 2018.

“These activities are not directed at China but rather aim to monitor evasions of United Nations sanctions on North Korea, which do occur in the Yellow Sea and East China Sea.”

The spokesperson said the New Zealand Defence Force crew operated professionally and in accordance with international law and civil aviation procedures for the region.

“NZDF has reviewed the routes flown and all available information. We have no data which indicates they disrupted civil aviation.”

The Defence Force said New Zealand takes an open and transparent approach to these operations.

“As part of this, there has been dialogue between New Zealand and Chinese officials, and we have made it clear that this is a longstanding deployment enforcing UN-mandated sanctions on North Korea.”

The spokesperson said NZDF won’t be commenting further on the specifics of those discussions, or on the details of the operations.

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 Transport Minister Chris Bishop is playing down political pressure following recent poll results, insisting that he remains focused on the job and confident in the Prime Minister.

Touted as a potential contender for the National Party’s top job amid speculation about Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s job security, Bishop batted down questions of a potential leadership bid.

Bishop also brushed off questions about his marginal Hutt South seat, and said he’s “head down” working for constituents, and will campaign on his record and future plans.

When asked directly, he confirmed he has confidence in the Prime Minister, declining to discuss private conversations but stressing they are in regular contact.

“Look, I’m just head down, bum up on my portfolios and also working hard locally as well.”

“I’ve got a good track record as a local MP, and I’ll be running on that record and also running on my and the government’s plans for the future.”

“You know, Hutt South has always been a closer venture. It always will be. It’s what they call a marginal seat.

“All I can do is put my best foot forward, run on my record, and run on future plans.

“The Prime Minister and I talk all the time… but I’m not going to get into what I’ve said to him or what he’s said to me recently.”

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

Analysis: “I have the numbers” was the quote of the day from an embattled leader and Prime Minister, and one that may still come back to haunt him.

Christopher Luxon was clearly schooled up ahead of his media conference in Pōkeno on Friday to bat away any questions about his leadership with the simple response of “I have the full support of my caucus”.

That’s a reasonable retort when a choir of senior ministers have come out fully backing their leader one by one, but boldly stating he has the numbers sounds like a line out of the loosey-goosey Luxon scriptbook, not that of his strategic communications advisor.

Saying he has the full support of his caucus implies he’s not bothered by the rumblings and his team is behind him, but saying he has the numbers immediately suggests some of his caucus don’t support him as leader, but he believes he has enough in his camp to win any challenge or vote.

It’s looking increasingly unlikely that a formal challenge or vote of no confidence would transpire at Tuesday’s caucus meeting, but there’s no doubt the party’s misfortunes in recent polls and what Luxon plans to do to turn that around will be high on the agenda.

Luxon can also expect to be issued a ‘please explain’ by the caucus as to why he publicly denied his senior whip Stuart Smith had tried to contact him during the last sitting block to discuss his leadership.

RNZ has been told by a well-placed Beehive source that Smith did try to speak to Luxon about caucus concerns regarding his flagging support, yet on Friday his office and Luxon both denied it.

That same source said it was very unclear at this point as to how next week would play out.

And if a TVNZ poll expected in the next fortnight drops on Sunday or Monday night and has National hovering on, or just under, 30 percent, then the nervousness in the caucus will only escalate.

Clearly that anxiety exists given senior minister Paul Goldsmith directly acknowledged it on Friday morning. When asked for his advice to nervous National backbenchers, he offered: “hold your nerve, knuckle down”.

The problem for Luxon is that he’s keen to be Prime Minister and get on with governing, or as he’d say running the business.

But the campaign has already kicked off in many ways, and regular polling is being scrutinised, no more so than by his own backbench and ministers who might be out of a job if National’s stocks don’t improve.

The fastest way for Luxon to deal with these ongoing needling questions about his leadership is lift the party in the polls, but there’s only one story in town – the fuel and cost of living crisis – and that’s not going the way of National.

That’s partly because the electorate feel grumpy, especially as summer comes to an end and winter looms, but it also relies on having a leader who can communicate what is going on and reassure people – these things aren’t Luxon’s strong suit.

Making matters worse is the person most widely tipped to replace Luxon if the caucus decides to make a move – Chris Bishop – was prolific in the media this past week, looking and sounding very across his brief.

After being turfed out of his favourite jobs by Luxon in a last minute reshuffle just before Easter, it was Bishop who stepped in to Nicola Willis’ regular Morning Report panel on Wednesday.

He also appeared on TVNZ’s Breakfast, and on the 6pm news that night, then he appeared on Newstalk ZB on Friday morning and has the Sunday lead interview slot on Q+A this weekend.

For somebody the Prime Minister is trying to give less profile to, he was very busy being seen.

The other big piece of the puzzle for any potential leadership challenge is what coalition partners New Zealand First and Act would make of it.

History suggests changing leaders doesn’t bode well at this point in government, and while Winston Peters and David Seymour are benefiting from Luxon’s poor polling, they’d have a fair bit to say if another MP stepped up to the challenge having not fully consulted them.

Peters told RNZ on Friday morning he doesn’t “start at shadows” while Seymour said what National does is “up to them, but Act is here to keep the government together”.

Luxon to his credit has been quite the unifier of not only the National Party but this coalition government, and anyone attempting to step into his shoes might find both those jobs are more difficult than they realised.

One other problem that Luxon needs to sort sooner rather than later is the unease being felt by staff in the Beehive.

His last-minute reshuffle before Easter had huge ramifications for a number of offices with staff being “evented” – effectively losing their job and having to reapply for any new ones that arise – just six months out from an election campaign.

The job market in Wellington is precarious enough as it is and some staffers are feeling like they’ve been unnecessarily thrown into job insecurity for the sake of a point-scoring reshuffle.

Unhappy staff are just as big a threat to Luxon’s leadership as a disgruntled caucus is.

If Luxon wants to secure his leadership in the coming weeks it will require him to turn the polling around in a meaningful way (no easy feat for a Prime Minister with woeful favourability ratings), calm the caucus and convince them he’s their best bet to win in November, and remind staffers in his ministerial offices they are valued and respected.

All of that, however, requires Luxon to accept there’s a problem in the first place – a self awareness many staffers and MPs have long declared isn’t in his DNA.

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

Watch the livestream and follow live updates in the blog above.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says he is confident he’ll still be in the top job at the election and does not expect his leadership to be on the agenda at next week’s caucus meeting.

Senior National MPs have sought to douse fresh speculation that Luxon’s prime ministership is under threat.

A potential contender for the top job Chris Bishop flatly denied any suggestion of a coup, saying he was not trying to “upend the party”.

The fresh round of pressure comes after a front page story in the NZ Herald on Friday, reporting National’s whip Stuart Smith had attempted, but failed, to warn Luxon of flagging caucus support before Easter.

It cited multiple unnamed sources claiming that Luxon’s rivals were “likely” to make a move in the next fortnight.

In a statement to RNZ, a spokesperson for Luxon said he had not been approached by Smith about his leadership: “The PM has a busy diary but is always available to MPs. He spent the day with Stuart on Tuesday.”

The spokesperson said Luxon wasn’t expecting his leadership to be discussed at caucus on Tuesday and remained confident he would still be leader at the election.

Luxon has a pre-arranged media conference scheduled for shortly after midday on the outskirts of Auckland.

In an interview on Newstalk ZB, Bishop dismissed the renewed speculation as rumours and insisted there was no coup underway.

“I am not trying to upend the party. That is not happening,” he said. “There is no coup happening.”

Bishop said the news stories were “untidy and unhelpful”. He said he would not be the leader of National before the election.

“Everyone wants us to do better. I think that is a statement of reality,” Bishop said. “People want us to do better and I know the prime minister wants us to do better as well.”

Speaking to Midday Report, National’s deputy Nicola Willis says she and her colleagues were entirely behind Luxon.

“I don’t think New Zealanders want to hear any of us distracted by this sort of thing,” Willis said.

“What they want to see us focused on is ensuring we have adequate fuel supply, that we’re taking good steps to strengthen our economy, that we’re mitigating the impact of very serious world events on them and their household budgets.”

Asked about National’s low polling, Willis said the best way to lose more support was to “get distracted by this sort of rubbish”.

“[Luxon] has my 100 percent support. He has from the day I became his deputy leader, and he will continue to have it, and I’m looking forward to us winning the election and him being the prime minister for a few years yet to come.”

Appearing on Morning Report, Cabinet minister Todd McClay said he put little faith in anonymous comments and was “1000 percent confident” Luxon would still be leading National into the election.

“He has my absolute undying support. He’s doing a very, very good job. Something on a front page with unnamed MPs just sounds like speculation and mischief,” McClay said.

“The caucus supports the prime minister. We are united.”

Mark Mitchell – a previous aspirant to the leadership – told Ryan Bridge on Herald NOW the reports were just people “making stuff up”.

He said his support for Luxon was “rock solid” and he was “100 percent behind him”.

“He is doing a bloody great job for us as a country. He has had tonnes thrown at him since we have come into government. As a minister, you couldn’t have asked for a better boss.”

Mitchell said the only time he had spoken to Luxon about leadership was to encourage him.

Another senior minister Paul Goldsmith also rejected claims of a potential leadership coup, but acknowledged some in the caucus “potentially” might not be happy.

“But the process to deal with that is to talk in the caucus, not to do whispering. So I don’t know who’s whispering. I hope it is nobody serious,” he said.

Watch the livestream and follow live updates in the blog above.

Asked about nervous National backbenchers, Goldsmith offered the public advice: “Hold your nerve, knuckle down.”

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

Explainer – Who decides who’s a broadcaster, and who regulates the media in New Zealand? It might all be about to change.

The Broadcasting Standards Authority is likely to be disbanded or completely revamped under proposed media reforms by the government.

It’s recently become part of a debate over what exactly constitutes broadcasting these days – and whether online content should be regulated in the same way television and print news has traditionally been.

“The entire media regulatory system has been on borrowed time for more than a decade,” said Gavin Ellis, a media commentator and former editor-in-chief of the New Zealand Herald.

“Successive governments have failed to deal with the rising issues of technologically-determined regulatory bodies that the Internet Age has put past their use-by dates.”

Broadcasting Minister Paul Goldsmith indicated this week that he is “leaning” towards the option of scrapping the authority entirely. What will that mean for media regulation?

What is the Broadcasting Standards Authority anyway?

The Broadcasting Standards Authority, or BSA, was created by the Broadcasting Act 1989 as an independent Crown entity to make and uphold standards for radio, free-to-air and pay television.

It acts in response to formal complaints made about media content. That means they look after things like offensive content, possible discrimination, accuracy, privacy and fairness.

If it upholds a complaint, it can order the broadcaster to make a statement about the decision and impose fines of up to $5000.

It can even – very rarely “and only for the most serious complaints” – ban a broadcaster for up to 24 hours. (That happened to the now-defunct ALT TV which was banned for five hours in 2007 for broadcasting racist and obscene text messages on screen.)

OK, but what is the New Zealand Media Council? Is that the same thing?

The Media Council is separate from the BSA. It’s a non-governmental group which media outlets voluntarily subscribe to, and it has no legal powers.

Founded as the Press Council in 1972, it was originally meant to focus on newspapers but has since broadened to include online content for broadcasters including TVNZ, RNZ, NZME and others. Complaints are filed against groups that are members of the council and have agreed to abide by its principles.

It does not impose fines, but it does require members to publish its rulings on their content.

There is crossover between the two groups’ jurisdictions – for example, RNZ’s content falls under both, with complaints about radio content being covered by the BSA while online content falls under the Media Council.

Separate from all this, there’s also the Advertising Standards Authority, which deals only with complaints about advertising, not editorial content.

What’s the current stoush about?

It all relates to comments Sean Plunket made last year on his online site The Platform, reportedly describing Māori tikanga as “mumbo jumbo”.

A complaint about that was made to the BSA – which has declared that The Platform comes under its jurisdiction as a broadcaster to act on complaints.

The BSA has not yet made a ruling on the specific “mumbo jumbo” complaint, but wrote in a decision that “It found programme transmissions via the internet fall within the definition’s reference to transmission by ‘telecommunication’, applying a plain English and purposive interpretation of the term”.

Plunket, a veteran journalist for MagicTalk, Newstalk ZB, RNZ and others who launched his independent website in 2021, has said in response that he’s not a broadcaster, he’s a webcaster.

However, the BSA has said that Plunket is “an online broadcaster of a nature we consider clearly falls within BSA jurisdiction”.

Plunket has fought back, telling listeners “It is a hill I’m prepared to die on”.

The authority’s chief executive Stacey Wood told RNZ it decided in 2019 that it also regulated certain online content, although the Plunket incident was the first complaint that met those requirements.

“Our view is that online broadcasters that resemble traditional TV or radio stations clearly fall within the scope of the Act,” Wood told The Post last year.

On his website, Ellis has written that the BSA’s call was an “attempt to ram a round peg into a mouldy square hole”.

“In order to claim jurisdiction over Sean Plunket’s online entity The Platform, the BSA was forced to squeeze every last morsel of possible meaning out of its empowering legislation.”

The question of whether or not the BSA’s interpretation of its powers goes too far has sparked plenty of debate.

“The BSA is just doing its job,” Wellington media lawyer Steven Price has written on his website. “This isn’t a power-grab. It’s limited to livestreams to general audiences, and it’s what the BSA is required to do under the Broadcasting Act.”

At the same time, barrister Samira Taghavi wrote for Law News that the BSA was exceeding its mandate and that “a regulator cannot expand its jurisdiction because new technologies look similar to old ones.”

So it’s all about what “broadcasting” means in 2026?

Basically. The nature of media has changed an awful lot since 1989, when the current Broadcasting Act was implemented.

Even in its own decision on Plunket and the Platform, the BSA noted that “we have been calling with increasing urgency for Parliament to update the Act for over 20 years”.

In 1989, the internet barely existed, and nobody would have foreseen millions of influencers and podcasters taking their voices across the world.

The question is which of those voices might be considered journalists, or broadcasters that would fall under regulatory authorities.

“Until the Act is updated, it needs to be interpreted in a way that has some modern relevance – and, on receipt of a relevant complaint, we are charged with applying the law as it is,” the BSA wrote.

The current landscape is what Ellis has called “a clutter of separate regulatory bodies, each independent of the others, some with statutory mandates while others are voluntary.”

Is the BSA going to be abolished?

It’s looking increasingly likely.

Broadcasting Minister Goldsmith signalled it will “probably” happen in comments at a public meeting this week and confirmed that to Newstalk ZB although he cautioned no final decisions had been made.

“It’s become arbitrary as to who’s covered and who’s not covered, and so I think probably the tidiest solution is to revert to a Media Council-style arrangement.”

It’s all become a bit of a political hot potato, with some politicians demanding the BSA vanish.

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters accused the BSA’s decision on The Platform of “bordering on fascist”. In an interview with Plunket, Peters said, “Frankly, they should go. They should be abolished. They’re out of time. They’ve got no use anymore.”

The ACT party has launched a member’s bill to abolish the BSA entirely, with MP Laura McClure calling it “a legacy institution that has outlived its usefulness.”

“It’s a creature of 1989 – before the internet existed – we live in a different world today and it’s clearly overstepping its mandate,” ACT leader David Seymour told reporters recently.

However, Ellis said the issue shouldn’t become part of partisan politics.

“David Seymour and Winston Peters are making political hay from the BSA determination on The Platform. Paul Goldsmith’s responding equally politically.”

“We don’t have – and don’t seek – the power to censor media,” the BSA notes on its website in a section about the recent debate, where it also says that “Freedom of expression is central to our work and the starting point for every BSA decision”.

“We intervene only when potential harm meets the high threshold to outweigh this right. Over the past three years, in which there were many hours of broadcasts across New Zealand, we’ve upheld complaints just 20 times in 311 decisions.”

What would replace the BSA?

It’s not quite clear yet.

Last year, the government put forward a discussion document on media reform for public debate which could be used as a starting point for possible future legislation. But the government has yet to announce any final decisions on the proposal.

In that report, a draft proposal that “The role of the regulator (currently performed by the BSA) would be revised, with more of a focus on ensuring positive system-level outcomes and less of a role in resolving audience complaints about media content”.

The report said, “Further work will be required to determine an exact definition of ‘Professional Media’, particularly as media forms and services continue to emerge and converge”.

“Our intention is to capture organisations that commission, produce, or directly pay for media content and distribute it as their primary business – including New Zealand broadcasters and streaming platforms, global streaming platforms, online text-based media, newspapers, and magazines.”

However the draft proposal indicates it would not include online platforms that primarily host user-generated content or access to others, specifically mentioning Facebook, TikTok and Google’s search engines.

“There is a compelling need for the politics to be taken out of a serious discussion on the future of media regulation – and that discussion must include the content carried on transnational platforms,” Ellis said.

So what’s likely to happen?

Media regulation reform has reached a tipping point and it’s clear things are about to change.

The BSA has said on its website it welcomes the government’s proposals for “regulation covering all ‘professional media’ regardless of platform”.

“We welcomed these and look forward to seeing them progressed. In the meantime, we will continue to apply the Act in its existing form, consistent with the purpose it was created for.”

Ellis has written that the ideal solution is to form a nonpartisan Royal Commission to look at media regulation, with both National and Labour agreeing to be bound by its recommendations.

“A Royal Commission is not a ‘nice-to-have’: It is vital that it be commissioned,” he said.

“The political gamesmanship we are now witnessing points strongly to the need for an independent body – before which the public has the right to be heard – to determine the basis and structure for future media oversight.”

And then there’s the whole question of whether sites like Facebook, TikTok, YouTube et cetera are actually “publishers” – a question which has dogged courts, lawyers, media analysts and tech companies for years now.

Trust in the media is a key talking point these days, with the latest report by AUT’s Centre for Journalism, Media and Democracy indicating that it’s ticked up slightly in Aotearoa after years of decline.

Ellis said that politicians should keep trust firmly in mind as they tackle the issue of media regulation.

“Is it too much to ask of our bickering politicians that they rise above themselves and collectively place the matter in the hands of a Royal Commission?”

Ellis said politicians ultimately need to rebuild media regulation from the ground up.

“The obvious and critical need is for a complete rethink of the regulatory environment – which must also encompass transnational platform content by deeming them publishers – and the establishment of a new system founded on public trust, the prevention of harm, and the balancing of free expression atop those two pillars.”

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 Trade Minister has dismissed a potential National Party leadership spill, saying he has full confidence Christopher Luxon will lead the party into the election.

The NZ Herald reports unnamed sources claiming the PM avoided meeting with a senior MP trying to present evidence of flagging caucus support.

Todd McClay told Morning Report he had little faith in anonymous comments and the caucus still supported Luxon.

“He has my absolute undying support, he’s doing a very, very good job. Something on a front page with unnamed MPs just sounds like speculation and mischief, the caucus supports the prime minister, we’re united,” he said.

“One-thousand percent confident, the answer is yes he will [lead National into the election].”

National Minister Chris Bishop, who has been rumoured as a potential leadership contender, on Friday told Newstalk ZB that ‘there is no coup happening’.

“Sounds like people have been talking a bit about possible caucus matters … It is ‘rumoured this’ and ‘rumoured that’,” he said.

When Hosking asked him to rule out being involved in a coup or putting pressure on the Prime Minister to resign, he responded:

“I am not trying to upend the party. That is not happening.”

Bishop acknowledged people wanted the National Party to improve.

“Everyone wants us to do better. That is a statement of reality. People want us to do better and I know the Prime Minister wants us to do better as well.”

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

Former greyhound trainers and owners will be paid to look after the dogs until they’re re-homed, once a ban on commercial greyhound racing comes into force on 31st July.

A new government agency set up to wind down the industry and rehome the roughly 1700 dogs has met with trainers and owners across the country this week.

Greyhound Racing Transition Agency head Heather Simpson told Checkpoint those who wish to re-home their greyhound will be paid a daily rate to cover care costs until a new owner is found.

“We are talking to the trainers and owners about that at the meetings we’ve just been having. And yes, we have said that there will be a daily rate paid to cover the costs of looking after the dogs in the meantime.

“We are still in the process of determining what that final daily rate will be, and it may differ according to the circumstances. But yeah, the cost of looking after the dogs will be met by the transition agency.”

Simpson said the agency is still determining what the rate will be, but she estimates it will be “in the $20s or the $30s” a day .

“I can assure you that the figure that we come up with will be based on the actual costs which are incurred by those people looking after them,” Simpson said.

She also said that “legislation guarantees that euthanasia is not the solution to this problem.”

“We are charged with looking after the welfare of these dogs, and that’s the commitment we’re making,” Simpson added.

Simpson said the money for the transition is coming from TAB.

“It’s money that was previously essentially going into greyhound racing and it’s being used to fund the transition programme.”

The agency aims to re-home all greyhounds in two years, but Simpson said it wasn’t going to be a “speedy process”.

Greyhound Racing New Zealand has been running a re-homing programme for a number of years and Simpson said there are already agencies set up to help with the re-homing.

“At the moment we re-home about 600 to 700 greyhounds a year anyway. We just want to increase that so that the 1700 odd greyhounds that are left don’t wait too long for a good home.”

Simpson was confident welfare standards of the dogs will be met, and she said the agency will also help with retraining, redeployment, and support for industry workers in partnership with the Ministry of Social Development.

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 ACT Party would ban unelected appointees on local council committees from having voting rights within 100 days if elected, leader David Seymour says.

“If you’re voting on council decisions, you should be accountable to the people paying the bills. That means facing free and frequent elections,” he has told a town hall meeting in New Plymouth.

The party this week lodged a member’s bill under the name of MP Cameron Luxton, who had campaigned since 2025 on amending the law to ban unelected appointees on council committees from having voting rights.

With his amendment so far not prioritised by coalition partners National and New Zealand First, Seymour said if the member’s bill was not drawn, the party would make it an election commitment to pass it within 100 days.

“When we first raised this issue in September last year, the Local Government Minister told us he had other priorities. But ACT says democracy is fundamental and urgent,” Seymour said.

The issue has come to a head in the Far North, where ACT-aligned councillor Davina Smolders has been at odds with the mayor Moko Tepania over having iwi representatives on the council’s Te Kuaka Māori Strategic Relationships Committee.

The council voted on Wednesday morning to expand the committee to include two representatives of the Northland iwi chairs forum and eight hapū representatives, alongside six elected councillors including Smolders.

She spoke on Duncan Garner’s podcast last week, where the host said he believed the proposed committee makeup was undemocratic and illegal – though Tepania later confirmed it was within the law.

Tepania said the furore had taken him by surprise, given Māori liaison committees were nothing new.

He told LDR it was “a mechanism that allows us to meet our statutory obligations under the Local Government Act, which is to ensure that we include Māori participation in our decision-making”.

More than 100 people gathered outside the council chambers ahead of the vote, many carrying flags and home-made banners in a show of support for Tepania.

ACT had claimed in its Monday newsletter the council was “stacking its various committees with iwi representatives who can vote, diluting the power of those elected and creating a new political order”.

“ACT Local Councillor Davina Smolders is a New Zealand hero. She has stood alone asking hard questions of the Far North District Council, and so far got the Minister for Local Government to ‘engage’ with the Council (with a little help from ACT).”

Smoulders previously faced council code of conduct proceedings after she publicly congratulated Tepania, claiming he had been selected as the Labour Party’s candidate for Northland in the upcoming general election.

Tepania later confirmed he would be staying on as mayor, and would not be standing as an MP. He is expected not to seek re-election as mayor in 2028.

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