Category: Politics

Source: Radio New Zealand

New Zealand will resume about $29.8 million in annual funding to the Cook Islands as the two countries sign a defence and security declaration.

Signed by New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters and Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown, the declaration comes more than a year after Brown formally signed a strategic deal with China.

New Zealand had not been informed of the details or consulted ahead of time, despite the Cook Islands as a realm country being expected to do so on constitutional matters, defence and security.

Brown has maintained that expectation did not extend to the China deal, and that the deal did not include defence matters.

However, it did include cooperation with China on ocean infrastructure and transport.

Peters’ office had warned such a lack of transparency could have significant security implications.

This new declaration aims to clear up any ambiguity, setting out a shared understanding of the nature of both countries’ relationship regarding defence and security of the Cook Islands.

While the China deal remains in place, the New Zealand side believes the declaration will prevent similar deals being conducted without the details being communicated to New Zealand in future.

“This declaration resolves this former ambiguity and provide clarity to both governments so that we can move forward focused on the future, not the past,” Peters said at the signing.

Both sides have also been discussing over the past 18 months what the Cook Islands can cooperate with China on – and what it can’t.

Peters said it was vital the Cook Islands and New Zealand be “clear with one another and third parties, about the nature of our special relationship and our responsibilities to one another in the defence and security domains”.

The declaration includes clauses about a “deepened cooperation” between the two countries, and while it sets out that the Cook Islands has control over it internal affairs and can pursue its own foreign policy and diplomatic relationships, those are subject to the constitutional limits of free association – the model the two countries have operated under for six decades.

It says New Zealand is “committed to remaining the primary defence and security partner”, and both partners acknowledge that means timely, transparent and good-faith engagement on defence and security affecting either partner – with subclauses laying out the specifics in finer detail.

New Zealand’s Defence Force will have continued access to Cook Islands territory, and will uplift defence engagement.

Peters confirmed New Zealand’s financial support – about $29.8m annually, which has been on pause for two financial years as a result of the disputes – would be restored following the signing.

He said it had been a difficult decision to pause the funding.

“Now that we have come to a mutually satisfactory understanding of the underpinnings of our partnership, we are pleased to normalise all aspects of our relationship, including New Zealand’s financial support.

“Throughout the past two years, New Zealand has never wavered from our steadfast commitment to the Cook Islands people and their strong attachment to the free association relationship.

“We are pleased to now have a shared certainty about the contours of that relationship and we are grateful to Prime Minister Brown and his government for the constructive way they approached the negotiation of this declaration.”

Peters embarked on his one-day trip to Rarotonga on Wednesday in a Defence Force 757 to attend the signing after an informal meeting with Brown at Peters’ home last month.

That meeting was Brown’s first substantive discussion with either Peters or New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon since late 2024, although diplomatic discussions have continued between officials.

After Peters’ arrival in Avarua, Rarotonga, yesterday evening he and Brown met this morning to conclude the final details of the agreement.

Cook Islands and New Zealand relations were also strained from October 2024 after Brown proposed a separate passport for Cook Islanders.

Brown confirmed the following February – and just weeks before Brown signed the China deal – the passport idea was off the table after “New Zealand bared its teeth”.

New Zealand has also been concerned about the Cook Islands’ shipping registry, brought to a sharp point after Finland seized a CI-flagged vessel carrying Russian oil.

The ship Eagle S had been suspected of causing a power cable outage and damaging or breaking four internet lines in the Baltic sea.

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 livestream is due to start around 8.15am NZT

Foreign Minister Winston Peters is attending a signing ceremony with Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown.

Peters’ one-day trip to Rarotonga is expected to mark friendlier relations between the two countries after an informal meeting in Auckland last month.

Brown has been at odds with New Zealand after a series of disagreements including failing to consult on a strategic deal with China, and proposing a separate passport for Cook Islanders.

The Cook Islands is a realm country, sharing currency and passport rights with New Zealand, and is expected to consult New Zealand on constitutional matters.

New Zealand has paused about $29.8 million in annual funding to the Cook Islands for two financial years, saying resumption was contingent on trust being rebuilt.

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 has joined Australia, France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom in expressing “deep concern” about an Israeli bill expanding the death penalty for Palestinians.

Winston Peters posted on social media on Wednesday night, indicating New Zealand had joined the other nations, and emphasising the country’s opposition “for decades” to the death penalty “in all circumstances”.

It comes as the Green Party tried on Wednesday to move a motion in Parliament on the issue, but failed to get the support of all parties.

The ACT party told RNZ it did not support the motion being put without notice, and noted the Minister of Foreign Affairs was responsible for expressing New Zealand’s position on international issues.

Earlier this week, the Israeli parliament finalised a controversial bill that would effectively expand the death penalty for Palestinians convicted of terrorism and nationalistic murders.

The bill stipulated that residents in the West Bank who killed an Israeli “with the intent to negate the existence of the State of Israel” would be sentenced to death.

The Foreign Ministers of Australia, France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom released a joint statementexpressing their “deep concern” about the bill, saying it would “significantly expand the possibilities to impose the death penalty in Israel”.

“We are particularly worried about the de facto discriminatory character of the bill. The adoption of this bill would risk undermining Israel’s commitments with regards to democratic principles.

“The death penalty is an inhumane and degrading form of punishment without any deterring effect. This is why we oppose the death penalty, whatever the circumstances around the world. The rejection of the death penalty is a fundamental value that unites us.”

The statement also urged the Israeli decision makers to “abandon these plans”.

The Green party wanted to highlight the issue in parliament, and sought support from across the House to move a motion without notice.

Co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick told reporters on Wednesday afternoon convention stipulated motions without notice needed prior agreement from all parties.

“This stops spurious motions going up and clogging the time of our parliament.”

The motion read that the “New Zealand House of Representatives expresses deep concern about Israel’s new legislation which extends the use of the death penalty against Palestinians living under unlawful occupation; shares the concerns of Australia, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Italy about the “de facto discriminatory character’ of the legislation; and calls on the Israeli Government to reverse this legislation”.

Labour and Te Pāti Māori both told RNZ they supported the motion.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins said his party would firmly support a motion in the House to condemn Israel’s use of the death penalty against Palestianians.

“It clearly discriminates against Palestinians – a point underscored by the fact that the law does not apply to Israeli extremists who commit similar crimes. There are major issues with the process including that it removes the right to an appeal. By condemning Israel, we would stand alongside the United Nations, EU and the UK.”

Te Pāti Māori told RNZ it supported the motion, and queried why other parties had not.

“This law further embeds discrimination into Israel’s justice system by allowing Palestinians to be sentenced to death while others are not subject to the same punishment for similar acts,” a spokesperson for the party said.

“It sits within the context of the ongoing genocide against the Palestinian people, and the backdrop of Israel and the United States’ illegal invasion of Iran and Lebanon.”

National and New Zealand First did not respond to queries but the ACT party told RNZ it did not support the motion being put without notice.

A spokesperson for the party said it noted the Minister of Foreign Affairs was responsible for expressing New Zealand’s position on international issues, and “ACT supports that approach over symbolic motions in the House”.

“If the House passed a motion every time a country passed a law of concern, we would spend more time talking about other countries’ legislation than our own.

“All MPs have the right to put a motion on notice under Standing Orders.”

In response, Swarbrick said it was “deeply disappointing” and acknowledged the point was “symbolism”.

“I can point to many different examples when the ACT Party, for example, has put forward very similar motions, evidently for the very purpose of that same symbolism, which in turn means something on the international stage.

“It felt particularly pertinent for our country to take a stand against the perpetuation of abuse of human rights with the Israeli parliament passing the ability to effectively murder, to slaughter Palestinian hostages and prisoners.”

She said a motion on notice did not have the status of being read out in Parliament and having the backing of every single parliamentary party.

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

Legislation to ease alcohol restrictions over Easter, Anzac Day, and Christmas has passed its third and final reading at Parliament.

The bill amends the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act to allow premises that are already open on Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Anzac Day morning, and Christmas Day to sell alcohol under normal licence conditions.

Bottle shops will still have to stay closed, and supermarket alcohol restrictions remain.

The bill passed 66 votes to 56.

It was put forward by Labour MP Kieran McAnulty.

Speaking at the third reading, McAnulty told the House the bill would clear up the guesswork for hospitality staff in deciding what was a “substantial” meal to serve before someone could purchase alcohol, by removing the requirement entirely.

“What is even more ridiculous is that actually they’re not required to eat the meal. They’re only required to purchase it, and it can sit there while they drink, and it could also be argued that they can go and buy another substantial meal in order to keep drinking. That doesn’t make sense. This bill clears that up,” he said.

McAnulty said it was clear there was not a majority in Parliament to amend the Easter Trading laws themselves, something he himself was opposed to amending, and so he was not seeking to change them.

“All we’re talking about here is businesses that can already open. This is not expanding access to alcohol. When we’re only talking about those workers that are working anyway, this is not taking anything away from those workers that otherwise enjoy a guaranteed day off,” he said.

At the Committee of the Whole House stage, and amendment from ACT’s Cameron Luxton was adopted to ensure those venues could continue to serve drinks past midnight the day before the holiday.

Luxton said the provision would allow a business to stay open for its usual licencing hours, and not necessarily that they must remain open or stay open past the 11:59 deadline the day before.

“The amendment says that the premises for which an on-licence is held may remain open during the permitted trading hours that apply to the premises,” he said.

McAnulty said Luxton’s amendment cleared up an anomaly, and he was happy to support it.

Rather than the usual eleven speeches in response to McAnulty’s first call, Assistant Speaker Barbara Kuriger allowed the debate to be split into 22 shorter calls, acknowledging the vote was a conscience matter.

Parliament treats votes on legislation involving alcohol as a conscience matter, meaning MPs are free to vote according to their personal feelings, or those of their constituents, rather than whipped as a party bloc.

It means McAnulty’s Labour colleagues were free to vote against his bill, as Taieri MP Ingrid Leary did.

“I can’t in good conscience continue to see bills come before the House that incrementally change small, nuanced parts of a wider architecture that urgently needs reform,” she said.

ACT voted as a bloc in support, while all New Zealand First and Green MPs opposed the bill.

MP Kahurangi Carter said the Greens had a long history of fighting for alcohol harm reduction laws, and believed the entire Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act needed to be overhauled.

“The Green Party is united in our position that we cannot support this bill,” she said.

New Zealand First MP David Wilson said he valued using those holidays for remembrance and reflection.

“It’s not much to ask to take some time to reflect, to revere, and to respect, and then celebrate with friends and family,” he said.

“A small degree of restriction for a few days to reinforce shared traditions and values is a very small price to pay.”

His New Zealand First colleague Mark Patterson took it a step further, saying the House would be “crossing a Rubicon” with its vote.

“Will they vote to uphold their traditional New Zealand values, history, and traditions? Will they respect our Christian heritage, sacred Christian celebrations of Christmas, Easter Sunday, and Good Friday? Will they acknowledge the solemn commemoration of Anzac Day morning? Or will they sacrifice that heritage at the altar of consumerism and consumption?”

McAnulty’s Labour colleague Lemauga Lydia Sosene said communities in her Māngere electorate wanted to keep those days sacred, and so she opposed it on their behalf.

However, in support of the bill, National’s Greg Fleming said he did not believe the legislation affected the sanctity of those days.

Fleming, who co-founded conservative policy think-tank the Maxim Institute, said many years ago he would have opposed the bill, but he said it was a “considered, incremental, and mature step forward” for a healthy relationship for alcohol, and a healthy respect for differences, rather than being “fearful” of what it meant for sacred days.

ACT’s Laura McClure said people’s behaviour would not change just because trading hours did.

“Our licenced premises have to adhere to really strict rules when it comes to intoxication. One of the safest places you could probably have a few beverages in is a licenced premises.”

National’s Carl Bates, opposing the legislation, said Parliament could have instead clarfied the definition of a “substantial” meal in regulation.

“The idea that the only way to solve this problem is to remove the law, to take a step on that slop towards removing the importance of these days in New Zealand’s history, and in its culture, is in itself absurd.”

Speaking to RNZ before the third reading, McAnulty was hopeful it could get Royal Assent on Thursday, so it could be law before the long weekend.

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

Legislation to ease alcohol restrictions on public holidays has passed in its third and final reading at Parliament – and could be passed into law in time for this Easter weekend.

It is possible it may receive royal assent on Thursday, meaning some restrictions on Good Friday and Easter Sunday alcohol sales could be gone as soon as this long weekend.

The member’s bill from Labour MP Kieran McAnulty amends the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act to allow premises that are already open on Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Anzac Day morning and Christmas Day to sell alcohol under normal licence conditions.

Currently, bars or restaurants can only sell alcohol if the patron is “residing or lodging” on the premises, or “present on the premises to dine”.

McAnulty said the legislation would clear up a “confusing law” that had been in place for a long time.

“Just because something’s always been that way doesn’t mean that that’s a good reason to keep it,” he said.

The general requirement is that patrons have to order a ‘substantial meal’, but McAnulty said that was not defined, and patrons were not required to eat it anyway.

“That is a bit of a farce of a situation. So all we’re doing is clearing it up that those businesses that are already able to operate anyway can do so under normal conditions, and those that can’t like off-licences and supermarkets, they remain restricted, but for those on-licences that are already operating, they can do so normally.”

McAnulty said the timing was a “sticking point,” but as some government bills were scheduled to receive royal assent on Thursday he was hopeful his could be included alongside those.

“It’s quite fortuitous timing, I think, the way that it’s played out. And really, we’re at the mercy and availability of Her Excellency, and I’m not of a mind to flick a text to the governor-general and ask for a solid, so I’m quite happy with the way that it’s played out, and hopefully it does follow through.”

Parliament treats alcohol legislation as a conscience matter, meaning MPs vote according to their personal view or what they think is best for their electorate or community, rather than as a party bloc.

McAnulty’s original intent was to allow any premises that was allowed to operate on those public holidays to sell alcohol, which would have included supermarkets but not bottle shops.

But he said it was changed to keep things simple, and only apply it to on-licence venues.

“It’s proven to be the right decision, because we’ve maintained enough support in Parliament,” he said.

“I know that if we’d stuck with off-licences or supermarkets, there are people that would have withdrawn their support, and it probably wouldn’t have passed.”

An amendment proposed by ACT MP Cameron Luxton has been adopted into the bill.

Luxton’s amendment means bars can open after midnight on Anzac and Easter holidays.

The ACT MP was hopeful it would be in place in time for the Super Round at Christchurch’s new stadium, which will see 10 Super Rugby teams play over the weekend of 24 to 26 April.

Luxton said it would mean punters coming to enjoy the new stadium were not kicked out at midnight for Anzac Day.

“It’s a huge opening that Christchurch is going to be able to make a great deal out of.”

He said it would change the “you don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here” regime currently in place.

“Who knows what’s happening on the streets after that? This bill will enable licensed premises with safety procedures and alcohol policies in place to continue giving people the entertainment, the nightlife that they would like in a responsible and safe way.”

McAnulty said Luxton’s amendment was consistent with the intention of the bill, and he was happy to support it.

“I know that the hospitality businesses in Christchurch are very happy about that, because when their stadium opens and people leave, they won’t have to then be kicked out of the hospitality businesses at midnight because it’s Anzac Day the following day.”

McAnulty, a Catholic, was less concerned with religious opposition to the bill, but understood why people might be opposed on health grounds.

“It’s a valid concern, but because the bill only targets those on-licensed premises that are already able to operate, it’s actually not going to expand the number of premises that can provide alcohol. It just means they don’t have to jump through these ridiculous hoops in order to be able to do it.”

This is not the only piece of legislation that would liberalise alcohol trading laws to pass through Parliament this term.

The government is working through its own piece of legislation to allow restaurants with on-site retail spaces to sell take-home alcoholic beverages, if they also sell takeaway food or non-alcoholic beverages prepared by the business.

Luxton’s own member’s bill to repeal alcohol restrictions on Good Friday and Easter Sunday was voted down at first reading in 2024. That bill would have repealed Good Friday and Easter Sunday as restricted trading days altogether.

Luxton said McAnulty’s bill was “dealing with an element” of what his bill had set out to do.

Another bill by National’s Stuart Smith to allow winery cellar doors to charge visitors for samples and add off-licence categories for wineries holding an on-licence passed successfully through the House in 2024.

Law a ‘fly in the ointment’

Mike Egan, president of the Restaurant Association and co-owner of restaurant Monsoon Poon, said the present law was a “relic from the 1800s” and a “fly in the ointment” for businesses like his.

“The rule is you’re meant to partake in a substantial meal in a pub over Easter on the Friday, and tourists are sort of like, ‘Oh, we’ve eaten, we just all come here for a nightcap,’ or, ‘We just want to have a snack, and you know, we’re wandering around town trying different restaurants and cafes’, and it’s like, ‘No, I’m really sorry, you need to have another meal…’

“People will order a whole meal and not even eat it because the law doesn’t say they actually have to eat it, they just have to have it sitting there in front of them. It’s just a little bit old-fashioned.”

He said the law change would not result in “all this debauchery on Good Friday”.

“[Customers] just want to have a beer in the afternoon after they’ve had a bike ride down the vineyards, you know? So it’s very sort of frustrating trying to police this legislation.”

He said staff would no longer have to act as police officers, checking how much food each customer had ordered if the bill was passed.

“It’ll just make it sort of easier and it’ll just flow like a regular weekend. It will boost business [and] take away a lot of confusion.”

Families struggling with alcohol harm would be worse off – public health adviser

Senior health promotion adviser at Alcohol HealthWatch, Sarah Sneyd, told Checkpoint, she understood people may see it as a small change but it was one that would ever so slightly make access to alcohol easier.

“We have some data from police and emergency departments that show there are fewer alcohol related assaults and ED presentations over the Easter break and that could very well be because it’s harder to access alcohol.”

Sneyd believed there would be real repercussions from changing the restrictions.

“I think it really speaks to a symptom of a deeper problem in our culture we can’t even go a couple of days without access to alcohol. Once again we make it easier to access alcohol on the couple of days where there are some restrictions around it.

“This is not what we hear communities want.”

Sneyd said New Zealand was “saturated” with alcohol and it was a problem with very few protections.

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

Winston Peters has accused the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) of “bordering on fascist” after it concluded it has jurisdiction over the online media service The Platform.

The New Zealand First leader made the comments in an interview with The Platform broadcaster Sean Plunket on Wednesday morning.

The BSA had just published a decision it could consider a complaint made against The Platform, because the programme “meets the Act’s definition of ‘broadcasting'”.

The complaint was regarding comments made by Plunket about karakia and tikanga Māori being “mumbo jumbo”.

Peters told Plunket the move was one of “breathtaking audacity”.

“Frankly, they should go. They should be abolished. They’re out of time. They’ve got no use anymore.”

Plunket – who disagrees with the BSA decision – told his audience he was frustrated by the lack of action from the government.

“I had a personal assurance from the prime minister last year, who said to me, and I’ll quote, ‘Don’t worry mate, we’ve got your back on this’.”

Speaking to reporters on his way into the House on Wednesday afternoon, the prime minister said he did not recall those comments.

“I don’t recall every conversation I have with everybody, but I can’t imagine that’s something I’ve said,” Christopher Luxon said.

Plunket said there was no rationale for the BSA to broaden its remit to include The Platform, and he had assurances from the government they would intervene.

Luxon denied the government had got involved in the matter.

“We have not interfered in this process at all, the BSA is independent, but there is a range of options available to the minister.”

The ACT Party has a private member’s bill to abolish the BSA, which Peters hinted his party would support.

ACT leader David Seymour told reporters at Parliament on Wednesday afternoon that it was time for the BSA to go.

“It’s a creature of 1989 – before the internet existed – we live in a different world today and it’s clearly overstepping its mandate,” he said.

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

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

Analysis: Prime Minister Christopher Luxon will be juggling disappointment and elation when announcing his election-year Cabinet reshuffle on Thursday.

With senior minister Judith Collins set to become president of the Law Commission in the middle of the year, and Shane Reti also retiring from politics at the election, Luxon has a number of portfolios up for redistribution.

Collins currently holds minister of Defence, the Public Service, the spy agencies, digitising government, and space – as well as the Attorney-General, the government’s top lawyer.

Reti, who was on the receiving end of a big demotion in Luxon’s reshuffle at the start of last year losing health, still holds the portfolios of Universities, Science and Technology, Pacific Peoples and Statistics.

With both Collins and Reti in Cabinet, which is currently 20 ministers, it would make room for two elevations to the top table.

Chris Penk, minister for building and construction, veterans, small business, and associate defence minister has long been tipped to take over from Collins in the defence role.

Penk is himself a veteran and knows the portfolio well and is currently a minister outside of cabinet.

Asked by RNZ earlier this month if he wanted the job he refused to say yes or no, instead saying that was a decision for others to make.

Another possible contender to move inside cabinet is Minister for South Island, youth, hunting and fishing and associate transport, James Meager.

The former Beehive staffer is one of National’s rising stars and has the benefit of rural South Island roots, which would help bring some geographical diversity to the table.

Luxon’s reshuffle will only affect National ministers as the coalition agreements with Act and New Zealand First make any other changes too difficult.

For that reason, despite Brooke van Velden last week announcing her intention to retire at the election, she will keep her ministerial portfolios.

One of the biggest appointments Luxon needs to deal with is that of Attorney General.

While tradition means the role is usually held by a lawyer, it’s not a legal requirement.

That could leave the door open for Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith to take on the job.

He’s already filled in for Collins when she has handed her powers over due to conflicts of interest.

If Luxon wanted to stick with the usual convention, then Penk and Conservation Minister Tama Potaka are lawyers, and Housing and Transport Minister Chris Bishop holds a law degree.

It’s likely Bishop will shed at least one portfolio given the workload he is under and the huge amount of legislation, including the Resource Management Act reform work he’s in charge of, that still needs to work its way through the House.

Reshuffles always have winners and losers and it’s a balancing act for any leader to keep everyone happy.

While safe pairs of hands are required on the big jobs, there’s also an opportunity for Luxon to reward talented and hard-working MPs by promoting them to ministerial positions outside of Cabinet.

There would be two such spaces available on Thursday if Luxon fills vacant Cabinet positions with ministers currently sitting outside.

Hawke’s Bay MPs Catherine Wedd and Katie Nimon could well be in the mix, as could chair of the heavy-weight finance and expenditure select committee Cameron Brewer.

One MP who will be watching closely to see if he’s being brought back into the fold is former minister Andrew Bayly.

Last year Bayly resigned to the Prime Minister after an incident involving a staff member that he said didn’t meet the expectations he set for himself.

Bayly has already announced he won’t be running in his safe Port Waikato seat at the election due to his family moving south but has left the option of running on the party list.

That option is motivated by a desire to be a minister again but with Luxon extremely unlikely to entertain the idea, Thursday’s reshuffle will almost certainly confirm his exit from politics in November.

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 is expected to announce a Cabinet reshuffle on Thursday.

He would need to reallocate the portfolios held by Judith Collins, who was set to become president of the Law Commission in the middle of the year.

Collins was minister of Defence, the Public Service, the spy agencies, digitising government, and space – as well as the Attorney-General, the government’s top lawyer.

Shane Reti was also retiring from politics at the election, and Luxon may want to give the Universities, Science and Technology, Pacific Peoples and Statistics portfolios to someone else.

Cabinet currently had 20 ministers, there were eight ministers outside Cabinet, and there were two Parliamentary undersecretaries.

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

Nicola Willis has ruled out reducing the cost of road user charges to give some reprieve to diesel users.

The price of diesel has increased so much in the past week, as a result of the Middle East conflict that has pushed up the price of oil, that it’s now the same price as 91 unleaded petrol.

While the government excise tax is part of the price of petrol, diesel users pay their tax through road user charges (RUCs).

With diesel now on a par with petrol, the additional cost of RUCs has pushed the price of operating a diesel vehicle well beyond that of a petrol car.

The Finance Minister told RNZ on Tuesday she has sympathy for diesel users but there are no plans to reduce the price of road user charges.

“We’ve chosen not to take that measure,” Willis said.

“What we’ve said as a government is doing that, having a reduction in that tax, it would not be temporary, timely, or targeted.

“In fact, it would most likely benefit those on higher incomes and higher fuel users more, and it would potentially directly contradict other measures where we’d have to move into another response phase where we’re trying to encourage people to use less fuel,” she said.

For now the government has chosen to supplement the incomes of families with young children on lower incomes, “and we stand ready to offer other forms of support should we judge them to be prudent, timely, and necessary,” Willis told RNZ.

“I have deep sympathy for diesel users because diesel is the fuel globally that has been most disrupted by the Middle East conflict.”

Willis said the decision not to reduce excise tax came down to a matter of fairness.

“We have a fairness principle in New Zealand that road users contribute equally to the maintenance and funding of roads. We have a different mechanism for achieving that for petrol users from diesel users, but if we were to do something for diesel users, petrol users would fairly ask why they’re not getting it.”

Diesel costs were causing hardship for a lot of families, firms, contractors, and agricultural businesses, Willis said, “and I hear them loudly”.

While she’s ruled out reducing the price of road user charges, Willis told RNZ her focus would remain on ensuring diesel continued to be available and that New Zealand contributed to global efforts to see the price of diesel stabilise in the future.

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

Public Service Minister Judith Collins has shrugged off pressure from coalition partner ACT over the government’s English-first policy, suggesting the matter is not a key priority.

“To be frank, right at the moment, my concern is fuel,” she told RNZ. “That’s my big focus. I’m not too worried about everything else.”

ACT MP Todd Stephenson wrote to Collins a fortnight ago warning of “growing concern” that https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/505103/act-nz-first-hesitant-to-criticise-national-over-kainga-ora-name coalition commitments] were not being “visibly implemented” across the public service.

He pointed to the Public Service Commission style guidelines which still displayed the te reo Māori phrase “Te Kāwanatanga o Aotearoa” in bold above the English “New Zealand Government”.

Speaking at Parliament on Tuesday, Collins said she had responded with a “very nice” letter noting that changes would be handled on a “case-by-case basis”, with cost front of mind.

She said she was sure the commission would issue new guidance to departments “at some stage”, but its focus – like hers – was on the current fuel crisis.

“You’ve just got to [prioritise]… what’s going to make the boat go faster, and it’s possibly not style guides.”

Collins said she did not want agencies spending significant time or money on rebranding and expected any updates to be done as cheaply as possible.

In her letter to Stephenson, she said she had instructed officials to advise her on the potential costs and timeframe for reviewing the guidelines.

She noted that public agencies and Crown entities had recently been reminded to be “to be mindful of the fiscal environment, to minimise unnecessary expenditure associated with rebranding, and to learn from other agencies’ experiences to avoid undue costs”.

In a separate statement, Stephenson said the update would not be a significant change but would set an example for the wider public service.

“ACT does not support costly rebrands involving consultants or flash new signage and stationery. But Brooke van Velden delivered a digital-first rebrand at the Department of Internal Affairs for just $741. The Public Service Commission could follow her example.”

The National-NZ First coalition agreement included a commitment to “ensure all public service departments have their primary name in English, except for those specifically related to Māori”.

It also committed the coalition to require “public service departments and Crown entities to communicate primarily in English except those entities specifically related to 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