Category: Politics

Source: Radio New Zealand

Finance Minister Nicola Willis has committed to releasing all the calculations which she says show the government’s new gas plan will reduce New Zealanders’ power bills.

The government is pushing ahead with plans to build a new liquefied natural gas (LNG) import facility in Taranaki, funded by a charge levied on electricity companies.

Labour was quick to label the levy a “gas tax” which would be passed on to consumers, driving up power bills.

But speaking on Morning Report’s politics panel on Wednesday morning, Willis said the official advice was that the new facility would provide more energy security, ultimately bringing bills down.

“At the moment, in New Zealand, everyone pays a big risk premium for the fact that everyone is desperately worried that in the days when there’s not enough rain in the lakes and the sun’s not shining and the wind’s not blowing, we do not have enough gas.”

Willis said that risk premium would go down once the plant was built around 2028.

“The advice we’ve received… is that the reduction in the risk premium will far outweigh the cost to the energy generators of supporting the development of the LNG plant.

“We did all the analysis because we wanted to be clear that there would be more benefit than cost – and the analysis is very clear.”

Responding, Labour’s energy spokesperson Megan Woods said that was “absolute nonsense”.

“This is putting a gas tax on New Zealanders at a time when they’re already struggling with their power bills. The government hasn’t released the modelling. They haven’t shown us the alternatives they looked at.”

Woods said National was scrambling for solutions after cancelling Labour’s whole work programme on affordable energy storage.

“They are going for an expensive option that is going to be… taxed on New Zealanders each and every month, on their power bill, because this government has failed to do the work.

“There’s a reason they didn’t release the modeling yesterday with all the other papers.”

Willis said the government would release that modelling “pretty shortly”.

“But let’s just remember: Labour’s decisions pushed power prices up. Our solution will save Kiwis money,” Willis said.

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

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

The Justice Minister says it’s uncharitable to say a government retail crime advisory group was a waste of time.

Paul Goldsmith has confirmed the group will wind down four months early, after three of its five members walked away.

Labour this week said it was a stunt from day one, and that it came up with was ideas previously dismissed as ineffective or unsafe.

Police spokesperson Ginny Andersen said the group recycled the bad plans, instead of listening to retailers, victims, and police, and that its wind-down is embarassing for the government.

But Goldsmith said retail crime was a real problem, and suggestions the group put forward had been enacted in legislation to make a real difference.

He dismissed criticism of chairman Sunny Kaushal’s behaviour, saying he was a fierce defender of victims.

Kaushal said his priority was to deliver reform for victims of retail crime, and not to have an “endless talking group”.

“I’m very relaxed about the ministerial advisory group winding up in May,” he said.

“I made sure the MAG delivered our advisory work quickly, so that victims could see legislation in the House before we wrapped up.

“I thought this more important than pursuing endless ‘frameworks’ that other MAG members would have prioritised.”

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

After a stop-start beginning to the year, MPs are back in Wellington for a two-week sitting block. Most of the first sitting week was taken up by debate on the Prime Minister’s Statement. There are still four and a half hours of that debate remaining, but it is no longer the main event. The House is turning its attention to government business.

That business is a hodgepodge of bills at different stages of their legislative journey. Here are the bills from the first week, and then for this week.

From the first week: Legislation on legislation, and two completed bills

The Legislation Amendment Bill completed its second reading. It is an omnibus bill (amending multiple laws), that seeks to improve the accessibility of legislation – both finding it and understanding it. The bill has near-unanimous support, though the Green Party are against it, citing provisions that would expand the powers of revision bills.

Two bills completed their legislative journeys last week and have received Royal Assent from the Governor-General, meaning they are now law. The first was the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Act 2026, legislation aimed at improving the registry system so offenders can more easily comply with it.

The second was the Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Act 2026, which contains cultural and financial redress and an apology from the Crown for historical grievances against the iwi, who are based around the Taumarunui area.

New contractor law

The first bill debated this week was the Employment Relations Amendment Bill, continuing on from the previous sitting week. The bill introduces a salary threshold for personal grievance claims for unjustified dismissal and scraps the ’30-day rule’, which currently requires new employees to be covered by a collective employment agreement for their first 30 days. All three opposition parties are strongly opposed. The government hopes to complete all remaining stages of the bill this week.

That bill is one of many at the second reading stage this week. Second readings give MPs the opportunity not only to consider any changes recommended by the examining select committee, but also to reflect on what the public had to say during the submissions process.

Other second readings this week

The Public Service Amendment Bill’s most notable, and politically divisive change relates to DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion). Among other things, it removes the expectation that the public service should “reflect the communities it serves”. Removing diversity provisions in favour of entirely merit-based appointments was a coalition agreement between National and New Zealand First. Opposition parties are against the bill, with Labour expressing disappointment at the lack of any attempt at bipartisan collaboration.

The 1966 Anzac Day Act lists specific conflicts that Anzac Day commemorates, with the list ending chronologically at the Vietnam War. The Anzac Day Amendment Bill would extend that recognition to all who have served New Zealand in conflicts, peacekeeping operations, and other deployments. The bill has unanimous support.

The Public Finance Amendment Bill amends the 1989 Public Finance Act which mandates fiscal transparency. If passed, it would require governments to publish a tax expenditure statement, increase the minimum forecasting period for economic and fiscal forecasts and, relevant to this year, bring forward the publication window for the pre-election economic and fiscal update, giving voters an earlier snapshot of the government’s books. It also removes the requirement for Treasury to produce a wellbeing report, a change Labour opposes.

The Patents Amendment Bill is more esoteric. It seeks to align the treatment of patent divisional applications so that applications made under the 1953 Patents Act receive the same examination process as those under the 2013 Act. Opposition parties were happy to support the bill through to select committee stage; whether that support continues at second reading will become clear this week.

The Online Casino Gambling Bill would regulate the online gambling industry by introducing a licensing regime for platforms wishing to operate in New Zealand. While opposition parties agree with the principle of regulation, they disagree with its execution, particularly the proposed number of 15 licences.

The government is refining key arrangements and functions of Health New Zealand through the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Amendment Bill, which also places greater emphasis on the entity’s infrastructure responsibilities. All three opposition parties are opposed, citing particular concerns about the role of Māori voices in the health sector.

Two brand new bills

The Armed Forces Discipline Legislation Amendment Bill should get a first debate this week. It makes a series of changes to the Defence Force’s internal justice system including establishing a minor disciplinary regime for low-level offences, along with new powers relating to searches on defence areas and drug testing of personnel. Bills of this nature are broadly uncontentious, though parties may seek technical amendments.

The other first reading this week is the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill, which seeks to realign workplace safety systems toward critical risks, focusing on the more dangerous end of risk, while reducing the bureaucratic and financial burden on businesses associated with complying with regulations.

RNZ’s The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament’s Office of the Clerk.

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 is getting closer to confirming support for the India Free Trade agreement, but says the full text has raised more questions that need answering.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Trade Minister Todd McClay announced the agreement three days before Christmas, touting wins for several industries.

During the announcement, New Zealand First leader Winston Peters revealed he would not be supporting the deal, saying it gave away too much – particularly on immigration – for too little, including dairy.

The divide between the coalition parties means National and ACT will need support from at least one opposition party to get legislation as part of the deal through Parliament.

McClay later revealed NZ First had [https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/585343/nz-first-pulled-support-for-india-fta-before-it-was-secured-todd-mcclay-reveals expressed its disagreement before the announcement.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins on Tuesday said the party expected to write to the prime minister by the end of the week setting out conditions for Labour’s support.

“Just got to do a little bit of wordsmithing on that,” he said. “We clearly have some concerns about the potential exploitation of migrant workers, where we think the government is not doing enough, and we’re going to set out things that we want to see the government doing in that area. And I’ll set the rest of it out in due course.

“The government will need to do something that they have not yet done, which is that they’ll need to sit down and have a conversation with us rather than saying ‘this is the agreement that we have signed, you should just support it’.”

Coalition members had previously been relying on summaries provided by officials, as is usual.

Hipkins and Peters both confirmed their teams had received copies of the full text of the agreement in recent days, with Hipkins indicating that had added complications.

“We’ve got more questions now than we might have had based on the information the government gave us when they announced the deal,” he said.

He said US President Donald Trump’s tariffs had opened the path to securing the deal.

“Everything changed in India as a result of recent developments around Trump, a lot of countries suddenly got access to negotiate trade agreements that they had been really struggling to get,” he said.

He said New Zealand had come out of the process “with a deal that isn’t as good as other countries have been able to secure”.

Rather than blame the negotiators, he pointed the finger at Luxon’s public commitment to secure a deal before the 2026 election.

“Ultimately, those negotiators work within the parameters set by the government. Christopher Luxon tied their hands behind their back. When he said that he was going to secure a deal before the election come hell or high water, that immediately made their job a lot harder.”

He again expressed frustration at the process.

“They could have spoken to us through these negotiations so that we would have been fully familiar with what it is that they were signing us up to. They chose not to do that.”

McClay said the deal was being “legally scrubbed and verified”, and once that was complete “it’ll be available to not only all parties, it’ll be available to the public”.

He said he was happy to keep answering Labour’s questions.

“There is nothing pressing over the next few weeks. But I think the business committee would like to know their position soon.”

He was asked if he regretted not approaching Labour earlier, given he knew NZ First’s stance.

“We have absolutely no regrets at all in doing a trade deal with one of the most populous countries of the world, and probably the best trade deal that India has done with anybody so far. It more than levels the playing field for Kiwi exporters,” McClay said.

He could not remember Labour ever having approached National for support on the EU trade deal, he said – and rejected the idea that was because Labour had a majority, so did not need National’s support.

“In essence I think they probably did, because they didn’t put it … into law when they were a government.”

Student migration stoush

Confusion has continued to surround aspects of the deal relating to student migration.

Documents released by the government point to a handful of provisions for migration:

• 1667 three-year work visas a year, capped at 5000 total visas at any one time. Focused on priority roles on the Green List like doctors, nurses, teachers, ICT and engineering jobs, specialised health services, traditional medicine practitioners, music teachers, chefs and yoga instructors
• Up to 1000 places on New Zealand’s Working Holiday Scheme (ages 18-30)
• Codifies the right for Indian students to work up to 20 hours a week (within the current policy of up to 25 hours)
• Post-Study Work Visas: 2-year for Bachelors students graduating from a NZ institution, 3-year for STEM bachelors and masters, 4-year for PhD students

A document released by the Indian government claimed the FTA would also remove numerical caps on Indian students, but no such cap exists.

International Students seeking visas need funds to be a student, and need to have been accepted to a place at a university or other learning institution, naturally limiting the number of students who can arrive.

Rules were also changed in 2022 to limit international students learning below degree level from working. It meant such students could only work in-demand sectors related to their study, based on the Green List.

While the text of the deal is still secret, McClay and Luxon have both maintained it makes no changes to the government’s ability to impose a cap at a later date.

“No, the New Zealand government, going forward, can make its own independent decisions about what it wants to do with respect to export education, what it wants to do with respect to visas, and any government can make changes to that,” Luxon said.

ACT leader David Seymour agreed.

“And I don’t believe that it’s significant if there was for the simple reason that we have never had a cap … when you restrict the quality and the price of the courses, that changes the quality of the people coming, so you can control it that way,” he said.

Peters claimed something different, however.

“There is a cap now, but the cap is controlled by the country of origin, and the parents of origin paying for the export education. This has changed, and that’s why it’s dramatically different. Our economy will be paying for the export education. So it’s not truly export education,” he said.

Hipkins said he was “still working my way through that”.

“There is conflicting advice coming from the government on that, particularly if you look at their public statements … once we understand what the government is signing us up for, then we’ll set out, set out our views on principle.”

He said Peters’ claims about the deal did not seem to line up with the official advice.

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

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says Labour is talking “a load of rubbish” when it claims the government is implementing a new “gas tax” on New Zealanders.

But Labour has fired back with one of National’s own attack lines – “if it looks like a tax and it quacks like a tax, it’s a tax”.

The back-and-forth came on Tuesday morning, the day after the government announced plans to build a new liquefied natural gas (LNG) import facility, funded by a charge levied on the electricity companies.

Labour was quick to label the levy a “gas tax” which would be passed on to consumers through higher power prices.

But Luxon told reporters that was not the case.

“What a load of rubbish. It’s all designed to lower power bills for New Zealanders. That’s why we’re doing it, and that’s what it’s all about.

“It’s about increasing supply, so we lower the dry risk year, and therefore lower electricity prices.”

Luxon refused to divulge the size of the levy while the procurement process was underway, but he said the government had received advice that the move would save households $50 per year.

“Let me be clear: without doing this, New Zealanders will pay more.”

Labour leader Chris Hipkins said the government simply could not make that commitment.

“Christopher Luxon is struggling to comprehend basic household economics. Probably not surprising from someone who only spends $60 a week on groceries.

“Ultimately, if the government charges every household in the country a new tax every time they receive their power bill, it’s going to cost households more money.”

Hipkins said it was “farcical” for the government to claim the new levy was not a tax, especially given National had promised New Zealanders “no new taxes” before last election.

“I’ll quote from Nicola Willis directly. It’s a quote you might want to go back and find: ‘if it looks like a tax and it quacks like a tax, it’s a tax’.”

Willis made that statement while in opposition in 2022 after Labour proposed changes to how KiwiSaver fees would be taxed. Labour ultimately dropped the plan after a swift public backlash.

Speaking on Tuesday morning, National’s Willis said Labour was “absolutely wrong” to label the government’s plan a tax, pointing to the official advice that electricity prices would fall.

“This is not us conjuring up numbers … Labour have not engaged with that analysis at all. Don’t let them get away with it,” she said.

“I am not going to tolerate Chris Hipkins claiming that we are taxing people when we are actively reducing their energy bills after the mess left to us by the last government.”

Willis said Labour had made a “clear mistake” in banning gas exploration and had not proposed any new solutions to the energy crisis.

“Their previous plan was to invest $17 billion in Lake Onslow, which wouldn’t have been available until after 2030 and would have resulted in a significant cost impost for New Zealand households.”

Hipkins said Labour would reveal its energy policy later this year and was currently keeping all options on the table.

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

New Zealand First will campaign on reinstating sweeping ministerial powers in the fast track legislation this election.

The law, set up as a ‘one stop shop’ process for consenting infrastructure, initially proposed three ministers would refer projects and make the final approval decision.

After widespread pushback during the select committee process, the government changed the legislation so an independent expert panel would get the final say.

Speaking at a breakfast with energy sector stakeholders in Wellington, New Zealand First’s deputy leader Shane Jones was asked by Minerals Council CEO Josie Vidal how the government could convince investors that businesses, not just government, could get projects going.

“When the government was formed in 2023, the Prime Minister met with Winston and myself. I kinda got hōhā and went for a holiday to the Gold Coast so if there’s anything wrong with the coalition agreement you might want to blame me,” he told the group as some chuckled.

“But one thing that the Prime Minister embraced, along with Mr Bishop, was the need to substantially improve the fast track legislation that Parker had in place,” Jones said.

“My honest view, and I have to be bound by the collective decision, I always wanted ministers to be making the decisions. I felt that if something was in a regional or national interest the ultimate test is for a politician who goes every three years to renew their warrant to be the proxy for that national interest.”

Jones said he would campaign on a fast track system where politicians “failed or flourished” by making big calls.

“That malaise you talk about was evidenced through the massive march on Queen Street who felt that that was corrupting a process of assessing risk and finding balance and I just can’t get my head around why four individuals…[are] more morally fit to make those calls than politicians and I’m going to campaign on that.”

‘We’re comfortable with the model’ – National

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said the fast track law was working “exceptionally well” and he didn’t see any need to reinstate the sweeing ministerial powers.

“No, we’re comfortable with the model. It’s got to have checks and balances. Fast track is not a rubber stamp. Fast track is designed to say, bring all your information together, make the case for your project but it doesn’t need to take five years if we can do it in 110 days.

Luxon said New Zealand First was entitled to campaign on changes if it wanted.

“They can do whatever but the point is it actually has got checks and balances on it, deliberately so. It doesn’t mean every project is going to get approved.

“As I said, it’s not a rubber stamp. It’s important that there is rigor and robustness in the cases that are presented… but it doesn’t need to take us as long as it’s been taking us.”

National’s campaign chairperson Chris Bishop said the fast track approvals regime was “the law of the land” as government policy and Jones’ view wasn’t new.

“Shane’s had a view around this for for quite some time and that was how the original fast track proposal started. In the end, Cabinet landed where we’ve got to, which is a pretty robust regime where ministers make the referral decisions.

“They come across my desk at least once a week and I refer process of projects into the process and then they go off to the expert panels for a yay or a nay.”

Bishop said nine projects had been approved through the fast track in the first year and more were in the process of referral or before panels.

“I’m really proud of how it’s working, I think it’s going really well so far.”

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 wants taxpayers to pay for a new liquified natural gas import terminal, but is promising lower power prices will come as a result.

It is estimated the new terminal, expected to be ready next year at the earliest, will save New Zealanders around $265 million a year by reducing price spikes and lowering the risk premiums.

But a new levy will be charged to get it built.

The government is touting it as a solution to New Zealand’s energy woes.

“It will mean that Kiwis will not need to suffer through an endless series of winter bill shocks,” energy minister Simon Watts said on Monday.

‘Vital part of the overall puzzle’ – Energy Resources Aotearoa

The idea is that it will reduce the risk of shortages during a dry year.

Liquified natural gas (LNG) can be imported at large volumes, stored, and then ‘regasified’ to be sent out for use.

John Carnegie, chief executive of industry body Energy Resources Aotearoa, said the terminal would be a useful insurance policy for when the weather did not play ball.

“LNG will be useful as a vital part of the overall puzzle of New Zealand’s energy system security,” he said.

“LNG can be expected to take the heat out of the electricity market when renewable fuels like wind, water, and the sun don’t turn up when they’re needed. It will place downward pressure on wholesale electricity prices and reduce the risk premium in the out years.”

Last year’s Frontier Report – commissioned to review the performance of the electricity market – warned it should only be used as a last resort.

The report said using it just to meet dry year risk made no economic sense, as the large fixed costs would be spread over a relatively small amount of output.

But Carnegie said LNG provided a “virtuous circle” to support the development of more renewables, and pointed the finger at the previous government’s ban on offshore oil and gas exploration as a reason why power prices were spiking in dry years.

“More wind and solar and batteries are great, but also the conundrum is their growth exacerbates the problem of being too weather dependent. So we need a reliable fuel to fill the gaps which domestic gas previously filled. And so New Zealand’s energy system, I believe, will be at its most effective when renewable generation and firming fuels like LNG and domestic gas work in harmony.”

A separate study by gas company Clarus, along with the four gentailers, found it was feasible but would likely be costly, and only needed occasionally.

Following the announcement, Clarus’ chief executive Paul Goodeve said it would increase New Zealand’s energy resilience and increase the range of markets it could draw from.

“At the moment, the coal that we import is relatively restricted where it comes from. The global market in LNG is vast and diverse, and appears to be continuing as we speak.”

Goodeve was confident it could be financially sustainable, and the government’s involvement in the procurement system made sense.

“It appears as though they’ve got work done by financial advisors who pointed out the benefits to the overall New Zealand energy system, but particularly the electricity system, of having LNG in the mix.”

Details on the shortlist of six were being kept under wraps, but all were in Taranaki.

Port of Taranaki chief executive Simon Craddock said it was a great opportunity for the region, and while the port was not an LNG developer, it was keen to support it.

“The current terminal developments, as I understand it, are all focused on the Taranaki region, and the reason for that is largely proximity to the Maui gas pipeline. But the developers are international companies who may or may not partner with local interests.”

Craddock said there was nothing the port had seen that could have major adverse effects on its current trade.

“The port has a number of advantages… the proximity to the pipeline, we’re the only deep water port on the West Coast. So this is the sort of thing we do day to day, where our main customer to-date has been Methanex. We also have other petrochemical customers on the port, so it really is within our core business suite.”

ACT’s energy spokesperson Simon Court said it was a “sad but necessary bookend” to the oil and gas exploration ban.

“Labour promoted the view that gas is something to be ashamed of. It’s not. Gas is a practical, reliable option when hydro lakes are low. Gas keeps factories running, heaters humming, and lights buzzing. And the environmental case for gas is strong too, because when we can’t burn gas, we burn coal,” he said.

‘It’s cooked’ – Green Party

On Monday, Watts said discussions were commercially sensitive but it would cost “north of a billion dollars” to build.

To pay for those infrastructure costs, the government will charge users an electricity levy of $2 to $4 per megawatt hour.

But Watts was keen to point to the net benefit, with advice showing the facility was expected to cut future prices by at least $10 per megawatt hour.

“So straight away, we’re in the money in regards to benefits versus costs, and our expectation of having that certainty of supply takes away the price spikes that we saw, for example, in 2024.”

That has not convinced the Green Party.

Co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said the government was guaranteeing added costs to New Zealanders, while relying on “hopes, wishes, and prayers” for future savings.

“I think it’s absolutely bonkers for power bills, for the planet, for our country’s energy resilience. The only people who want this are the fossil fuel industry and seemingly the National Party. Whatever claim, whatever remaining claim the Nats have to being economic managers is now, frankly, up in flames,” she said.

“Honestly, it’s cooked. Christopher Luxon has once again chosen to throw New Zealanders’ money at fossil fuels, which is bad for power bills, energy security and the planet. This is Christopher Luxon’s New Zealand. Profits are flowing offshore, while New Zealanders are paying handsomely for it.”

[h]’Gas tax’ – Labour

Labour, meanwhile, is calling it a “gas tax”.

Leader Chris Hipkins said households were already struggling with the cost of living, and he did not believe it would reduce power prices.

“I think, if anything, they’re trying to make the argument that this will decrease the rate of increase in power prices. There are other ways to do that. A billion dollars would buy you a hell of a lot of solar panels and batteries, which would save households a significant amount of money.”

Hipkins dismissed questions over whether Labour would terminate any agreements, or put the costs onto the energy companies and take away the levy on households, as “hypothetical.”

The prime minister’s assertion it was a levy, and not a tax, was criticised by the Taxpayers’ Union.

“You don’t make electricity bills cheaper by taxing them. Dancing on the head of a pin over what is a tax and what is a levy is a Labour Party talking point. Luxon should spare us the spin and abandon this folly,” said spokesperson James Ross.

Climate change advocacy group 350 Aotearoa was previously one of twenty signatories that sent an open letter to Luxon and Watts, urging against the new terminal when it was first signalled in October.

Following the confirmation, co-director Alva Feldmeier said while she agreed with the government that New Zealanders were feeling the squeeze with their power bills, the terminal was not the solution.

“Essentially, what they’re doing now is putting a new tax on every New Zealander’s power bill to subsidise an expensive sunset industry,” she said.

Feldmeier said LNG-generated electricity was double the price of new renewable electricity, and the risk of importing and being reliant on international fossil fuels was that New Zealand could also import international price shocks.

“This is a political choice this government is making. They’d rather kowtow to the fossil fuel and the gas lobbies and keep us hooked on gas for longer, than explore how we’re going to get off it, and how we’re going to make some tough decisions in the next few months and years.”

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

Neither the right or left bloc would be able to govern if an election were held today, according to the latest Taxpayers’ Union-Curia Poll.

The Labour Party has dropped 0.3 points to 34.1 percent, while National dropped 0.2 points to 31.3 percent.

New Zealand First dropped 1.4 points to 10.5 percent, while the Greens jumped 2.6 points to 10.3 percent.

The ACT Party dropped 0.3 points to 6.7 percent, while Te Pāti Māori dropped 0.1 points to 2.9 percent.

The combined projected seats for the centre-right bloc was down 3 seats to 60, while the combined seats for the centre-left block rose 3 seats to 60.

On these numbers, there would be a hung Parliament.

For parties outside of Parliament, TOP was on 1.4 percent (+0.7 points), NZ Outdoors and Freedom was on 1.2 percent (+0.6 points), Vision NZ was on 0.4 percent (+0.1 points), and New Conservatives were on 0.1 percent (-0.2 points).

Cost of living remained the most important issue, jumping 7.4 points to 34.9 percent; the highest result since May 2024.

The economy more generally sat as the second most important issue on 12.0 percent (-2.8 points), followed by health on 9.2 percent (+0.4 points).

The poll was conducted by Curia Market Research Ltd for the NZ Taxpayers’ Union. It is a random poll of 1000 adult New Zealanders and is weighted to the overall adult population. It was conducted by phone (landlines and mobile) and online between Sunday 1 February and Tuesday 3 February 2026. It has a maximum margin of error of +/- 3.1 percent.

Curia is a long-running and established pollster in New Zealand. In 2024 it resigned its membership from the Research Association New Zealand (RANZ) industry body.

Polls compare to the most recent poll by the same polling company, as different polls can use different methodologies. They are intended to track trends in voting preferences, showing a snapshot in time, rather than be a completely accurate predictor of the final election result.

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

Few political staff roles are more crucial than a party’s chief of staff.

While television and film depictions of the role in shows like House of Cards and The West Wing have helped cement the role in the political imagination of audiences, those portrayals occasionally ring true but are more drama than reality.

A chief of staff needs sharp political instincts and a deep understanding of how Parliament works, which is why it might not surprise you that former MPs sometimes take the job.

Former MP Kevin Hague is the Green Party’s relatively new chief of staff. After time away, Hague has returned to the Parliamentary ecosystem, likely facing a frantic first year as the Greens prepare for the 7 November election.

New arrivals often have interesting insights (and are more willing to chat), so in late 2025, The House sat down with Hague to talk about what the chief job involves beyond its on-screen reputation.

Hague was a Green MP from 2008 to 2016. He had a reputation around Parliament as a backroom thinker and organiser. In the decade since, he held the role of chief executive of Forest and Bird, along with time spent on various boards.

Hague acknowledges parallels between his new role and being a CEO.

In a political party, “MPs are both the board of the company… the people to whom I report, but also the key clients of our work.”

Another way of looking at it, said Hague, is that of a coach of a sports team; an analogy especially apt in what is both an election and World Cup year.

“You’re not trying to be at your peak performance all the way through, you’re practising things, you’re seeing how things are, how various tactics will go.”

Though the chief of staff does work closely with MPs, the remit is primarily ensuring cohesion between the engine room of a political party (its staff) and the MPs.

Surprisingly, the chief of staff role is not a specifically political one. It is more crucial that the chief is capable of managing a range of highly political personalities.

But politics is unavoidable, he said.

“I think if I didn’t have a commitment to the same values and vision that the MPs have, [and] the party has, it would be difficult to do the job. Fundamentally, you’re giving political advice. Well, how do you do that if you don’t have a shared understanding of what we’re trying to achieve?”

During the current Parliament, an unusually high number of Green MPs have exited, whether by tragedy, choice or scandal. This exodus hasn’t just been limited to MPs. A lot of staff have also resigned, leading to speculations of either testy relations or poor management.

A key part of the chief of staff role is to keep everyone rowing in the same direction and stopping anyone from jumping out of the boat altogether. Hague said he plans to bring some discipline from both his time as a caucus strategist and also as a chief executive.

To listen to The House‘s full interview with Kevin Hague, click the link near the top of the page.

RNZ’s The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament’s Office of the Clerk.

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: For once, it was the opposition feeling some heat at Waitangi, as Te Pati Māori’s internal turmoil spilled out on the ātea.

The public airing of dirty laundry was one of the few moments of note at this year’s political pōwhiri, with Thursday’s events otherwise proceeding much as everyone expected.

Protesters’ plans to block ministers from the Treaty Grounds came to naught, squashed quickly by security. And the activists left well before the coalition leaders had even begun to speak.

The government speeches were met by some stray heckles, sure, and some sustained grumbling, but nothing like the theatre of the past two years.

Perennial agitators Winston Peters and David Seymour seemed almost disappointed at the muted response, with the former clearly trying to provoke a reaction from the crowd.

For his part, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon delivered a well-foreshadowed address, preaching the importance of working through differences with words and debate.

It’s advice that perhaps Te Pati Māori should have taken on board.

Anticipation was high ahead of the party’s Waitangi appearance, its first time fronting to the north since the co-leaders’ no-show at Ngāpuhi’s emergency hui late last year.

On Monday, the party was sitting in court, with its out-and-then-in-again MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi fighting to reverse her expulsion and be permanently reinstated.

In the most blistering of speeches on Thursday, her son Eru Kapa-Kingi upbraided Te Pati Māori – “sort yourselves out” – lamenting the “silencing” of his mother and the wider region.

At first, Waititi appeared to offer an olive branch in response: “I can hear the anger and feel the pain”.

He even extended an apology of sorts: “If I have done you wrong, I offer you my head.”

But any such contrition was short-lived. The speech was immediately followed by a haka tautoko which saw Waititi’s wife Kiri Tamihere-Waititi advance on the host side.

As she squared off with Eru Kapa-Kingi, eyeballing him, Mariameno Kapa-Kingi shouted from the marae’s veranda: “hoki atu” or “go back”.

Any brief hopes of reconciliation were dashed.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi underlined the point later as she stood to speak, defiant: “I’m not going anywhere.”

Speaking to media afterwards, Waititi said the party’s next steps would depend on the court’s judgement.

But he bristled at Te Pati Māori being singled out, claiming many parties had shown division before.

He turned his sights on others in the opposition, decrying Labour’s efforts to try win back the Māori seats.

“Labour don’t do MMP very well,” Waititi declared. “A vote for Labour is now a vote for New Zealand First.”

The comments could apply just as well to the Greens, who used Thursday’s events to unveil their own candidates in the Māori electorates.

Notably, they include a former lawyer for Te Pati Māori, Tania Waikato, and a former Te Pati Māori candidate, Heather Te Au-Skipworth.

Greens’ co-leader Marama Davidson made short shrift of Waititi’s suggestion that they leave the Māori seats alone: “Nobody owns any seats. Nobody owns any votes.”

Labour and the Greens came to Waitangi, hoping to present a united front and to draw a contrast with the warring factions within the coalition. They leave further away from that goal than closer.

Asked what he made of the opposition’s showing at Waitangi on Thursday, Luxon dodged the question, saying that was not his focus.

But Finance Minister Nicola Willis could not help herself: “They looked messy,” she said, a smile on her face.

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