Category: Politics

Source: Radio New Zealand

Senior Labour MP Peeni Henare is “taking a step back from politics”, saying the time has come to put his energy elsewhere.

Earlier on Tuesday, the former minister confirmed to RNZ he would not be contesting the Tāmaki Makaurau seat this year.

But in an interview with Māori start-up Tuia News, Henare went further, revealing he would step down after 12 years in Parliament, six of them as a minister across multiple portfolios.

He told the outlet there were many other issues within Te Ao Māori he wanted to focus on, including in Te Tai Tokerau and for Ngāpuhi.

Henare noted the energy required to be successful in election year, and the recent resignation of his colleague Adrian Rurawhe. He said he realised he was the only one left.

“Kua tae te wā,” Henare said. The time had come.

Both Henare and the Labour Party confirmed the decision not to seek re-election around 3pm on Tuesday.

“I have thought long and hard about this over the summer and decided not to seek the nomination for Tāmaki Makaurau again or a place on the Labour Party list,” Henare said in a statement.

“Last year was tough after losing the by-election and after careful consideration and kōrero with my whānau over the break, I have decided that it is time for me to take a step back from politics.

“It’s time to focus on my family, my wellbeing and my future”.

It stated Henare would leave Parliament in the coming weeks.

Hipkins won’t be drawn

Speaking to reporters around 2pm, Labour leader Chris Hipkins refused to comment on Henare’s movements.

When asked, Hipkins wouldn’t say whether Henare had his backing for the Māori seat or not.

“I’m not going to start a conversation on this.

“I’m still leaving Peeni the space to make his own decisions and his own announcements.”

He rejected his refusal to answer implied a lack of confidence, “no, it just means I’m leaving him the space.”

Hipkins said he’d been told by Henare in the last week or two that he wouldn’t be putting nominating himself as a candidate for the seat.

The news from Tuia broke as Hipkins was speaking, but despite the confirmation of Henare’s plans, Hipkins declined to answer.

“It’s not fair for me to go out and comment on people’s decisions before they have communicated them.

“You’re not going to have to wait that much longer.”

Hipkins said an announcement would be made at 4pm on Tuesday.

He said he’d comment on the news later on.

A decade in Parliament

Henare entered Parliament in 2014, winning the the Tāmaki Makaurau seat over the Māori party. He held onto the seat for nearly a decade, before being ousted by Te Pāti Māori’s Takutaki Tarsh Kemp in 2023 by a slim margin.

He contested the seat in the Tāmaki Makaurau by-election in 2025, following Kemp’s death, but lost to Oriini Kaipara who received around twice as many votes.

During the by-election he batted away suggestions of a Labour leadership bid, but didn’t rule it out.

At the time Henare said Hipkins, the current leader, had his full support.

During the previous Labour government, he held portfolios such as Defence, Whānau Ora, Civil Defence, Tourism and ACC.

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

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

A shake-up for the driver licensing system is on its way, with changes the government says will make it a lot cheaper for those looking to get their licence.

The changes include no longer needing to sit a second practical test to get a full licence, an increased learner period for those under 25, fewer eyesight screenings and an expanded zero-alcohol rule.

Making the announcement in Auckland on Tuesday, Transport Minister Chris Bishop said the current system was “expensive, outdated and no longer works as well as it should”.

The changes will mean it’s “significantly cheaper” to get a full driver licence, Bishop said. He also said New Zealand was an outlier in requiring a second practical driving test when moving from a restricted licence to a full licence.

“Removing the second practical test reduces costs and makes it easier to progress to a full licence, provided drivers demonstrate safe driving behaviour while on their restricted licence.

“We’re making practical, common-sense improvements to the driver licensing system to ensure it is accessible, efficient, and affordable, while keeping road safety front and centre.”

Bishop said the shake-up was the first major change to the system since 2011, when the learner licence age was increased from 15 to 16. The changes were informed by public consultation last year.

He said the proposal was refined to “ensure the system strikes the right balance between access and safety.”

Those tweaks included extending the learner period, extending the restricted period by six months for drivers who get demerit points rather than resetting it entirely, and keeping the existing demerit threshold for licence suspension for restricted drivers.

Key changes

• No more full licence test: Drivers will no longer need to sit a second practical test to move from the restricted to full licence, saving time and money. This applies to Class 1 (car) licences only.
• Longer time spent on learners for under 25s: There will be a 12-month learner period for under 25s, an increase of six months.
• Option to reduce learner period: There will be an option for under 25s to reduce their 12-month learner period back to six months by recording practice hours or completing an approved practical course.
• New restricted periods: The restricted period will be 12 months for under 25s and six months for over 25s, with no option to reduce it with a defensive driving course.
• Cheaper to get a full licence: The total cost of getting a Class 1 (car) licence will reduce by $80 under the new system.
• Encouraging safe driving: Drivers on their restricted licence will face a further six months on their restricted if they get demerits.
• Fewer eyesight screenings: Eyesight screenings will only be required at the first licence application and at each renewal. This applies to Class 1 and Class 6 (motorcycle) licences.
• Zero-alcohol rule expanded: All learner and restricted drivers, regardless of age, will be subject to a zero-alcohol limit.
• Stronger oversight of training providers: NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) will gain new powers to monitor and suspend driver training course providers.

There are no changes to licence processes and requirements for overseas drivers or seniors drivers.

NZTA will review the existing learner and restricted tests.

People must continue to adhere to the current system until the new system takes effect from 25 January 2027. The expanded zero-alcohol limit will be implemented separately.

A review will be undertaken by the Ministry of Transport after three years to assess the impact of the changes on road safety, employment and economic outcomes.

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

There’s a rupture in the international rules-based order, but that doesn’t mean New Zealand will be crushed by bigger powers

New Zealand has been a beneficiary of the international rules-based order for decades – trade disputes, action on serious issues, being heard on the world stage; there was a world body to give us a hand sorting stuff out.

While there have been inconsistencies, hypocrisy from superpowers, and the system hasn’t been perfect, it has, generally, worked for us.

But Russia and America between them have shaken up the system, and in a remarkable speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney laid it all out.

“I thought this might be the most important political speech on geo-politics for many a long year,” says Tim Groser, a former diplomat; once New Zealand’s chief trade negotiator; ambassador, including to the United States and the World Trade Organisation; and a National government Minister of Trade.

He says the key message of the speech was to acknowledge the reality that we are seeing a rupture of the rules-based system.

“It’s not just the United States. It is also the invasion back in 2014 of Crimea by Russia, to break the most important norm of the post-war order in Europe, which is, do not try and change sovereign frontiers with force.

“This has been the most important issue facing Europe now for at least 500 years, and was the cause of three wars … the Franco-Prussian war, and the two world wars.

“So it’s not just the United States. The order that we lived in from 1945 to, I think around 2010, was quite remarkable in so many respects, and almost perfect for a small country like New Zealand.”

Mark Carney’s speech spelt out how the ‘middle powers’ such as Canada, Japan and Australia need to act together, “because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu”.

New Zealand is not a middle power, but not helpless either, says Groser.

“Some New Zealanders vastly exaggerate our influence. They seem to think that the whole eyes of the world are watching every move that we make and if we only do the right thing everyone else will think ‘oh my goodness me, we must do what the Kiwis are doing’. This is a fantasy.

“But the more common fantasy is to understate our significance.

“Of course we are a small country. But in terms of GDP measured in conventional terms, we’re the 52nd largest economy in the world in relative terms. Which means since there are over 200 sovereign countries in the world, there are 150 countries smaller than New Zealand.”

New Zealand has also had historic developments to help us cope with these world changes, when in the 1950s Britain joined the European union and our main trading partnership evaporated. It forced us to diversify our markets. Groser says Canada needs to do the same now.

Canadian journalist Jayme Poisson, who hosts the CBC’s Front Burner podcast, says Carney’s speech has landed well in Canada with those who like the idea of being a middle power with power.

But there’s a debate going on in the wake of Carney’s speech over how realistic that strategy actually is.

“Because at the end of the day, we share this massive land border with the United States. We send 70 percent of our exports to the United States. So we’re not just like some random middle power. We are the middle power right next door to the hegemon and we are inextricably tied to them for security and economics … so you can see why people are debating here how much our role is to not rupture our relationship with the United States, and how much our role is to lead this pack of middle powers to do something more ambitious.”

Carney, she says, is “good at bluntly describing reality in a pretty sophisticated way. He was one of the first leaders to come out and say the world has changed … and our relationship with the United States is not what it was before.”

The speech has been criticised for Carney poking the bear when he didn’t have to, and when up until now he’s kept his head down.

But it’s possible Carney has just displayed the kind of strength and leadership that the US President so admires.

“They just spoke,” she says, “and Carney has reported that it was a fine conversation. And while we did see this response from the Americans – you know, mockery, you can’t live without the United States, and threat of a 100 percent tariff floated if we get close to China, that has not come to fruition. It’s just kind of subsided. So certainly that’s a pretty good argument to make – that he likes strength, he likes winners. And that he’s so mercurial that you might as well just stand up to him anyway, because you don’t really know what he’s going to do, day to day.”

Poisson says there’s a lot of anti-American sentiment in Canada right now and Carney’s remarks resonated. His approval rating rose eight points in the wake of the Davos speech, and is currently up at 60 percent.

“I think everybody [in Canada] thought this was a good speech,” she says. “I think the critiques are … was it smart? And is it going to come with consequences, and are those consequences worth it?”

Listen to the podcast to find out why Tim Groser isn’t entirely pessimistic about international developments, and why a rupture doesn’t mean collapse.

Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here.

You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter.

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

An Auckland principal says the government’s new report cards will help children who change schools.

Fulfilling an election campaign promise, Education Minister Erica Stanford unveiled the new approach to report cards for reading, writing and mathematics on Monday.

The reports will include:

• A standardised approach across New Zealand
• A percentage mark out of 100
• Five grades of progress: Emerging, Developing, Consolidating, Proficient, Exceeding
• Previous ratings, to enable tracking of progress over time
• Attendance data

These would be backed by:

• Twice-yearly testing for years 3-8 to gauge progress against the curriculum for each year level
• An AI tool to help teachers write reports and carry out the tests

The new approach to testing and reports would be mandatory for children from new entrants – Year 0 – right up to Year 8, the final year of intermediate school, and optional for secondary schools for Years 9 and 10.

Students would be marked on their progress throughout the year, so would likely start on the lower end and get higher gradings as the year went on – then start again the following year with that year’s curriculum.

Remuera Intermediate principal Kyle Brewerton previously headed the Auckland Primary Principals Association, and said the standardised reporting would make a difference for children who moved school.

“At the moment when we look at school reports, if you were to take a sample of school reports from primary schools across or New Zealand you would be looking at probably as many different examples of the school report – there’s not a great deal of consistency.

“If you’re moving from one school to another, and the report looks completely different, it can be challenging for a parent to make sense of … ‘in my old school, they said they’re ‘developing’ and now over here they said they ‘need to work on it’ – Is that the same thing? Is it different?’

“Hopefully it will start to solve some of those problems.”

Brewerton said the language of emerging to exceeding may take some time to get used to, but the changes would be unlikely to add much to schools’ workloads.

“The average teacher that’s in school, you won’t see a great departure from what they’re currently doing. It’s really just the actual reporting that’s been sent home … it’ll be some work to do for sure, but it’s not particularly onerous.

“Schools are all using their own version of the same thing, whether they’re using a three-point, a four-point or a five-point scale. They’ve all got variations on a theme and generally that is ‘this young person needs some extra support, they’re not quite there yet; these young people are where they need to be; these ones are showing progress beyond what we would expect.”

He said it was unclear, however, if the parents of the most vulnerable students would pay attention or not.

“We know success happens when the families are heavily engaged with the schools, and the schools are heavily engaged with families. Often those young people who perhaps their attendance is particularly low, or that partnership is not particularly strong, are our young people that aren’t achieving.

“Whether we change the language on a report is going to change that or not remains to be seen.”

He said learning relied on a collective effort between the school, the parents, and the child themselves – and assessing children’s progress would always depend on teachers’ subjective views.

That was where having a clear curriculum could help, he said – but parents should also understand that the twice-yearly testing was only a snapshot picture of how the child was doing on that particular day.

“Whilst we have these formal assessments, really it’s those conversations day in and day out and the teacher’s knowledge of the curriculum that give a really clear sense of what that young person is capable of and what their next steps are.

“Over time, it will give us a picture of how that young person is progressing. But it’s equally important that we pay attention to what those teachers are telling us … we’ve got to be careful we don’t put all our eggs into that formal testing bucket.”

Most schools also used some kind of New Zealand-based assessment tool anyway – some going back to the 1980s – and again would not take much adjustment.

“And it’s free – one of them we have to pay for at the moment, so if it’s great and it’s free and it’s aligning with our curriculum, then that sounds like a good thing to us.”

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

Opposition parties are criticising the coalition for having “secret” talks with the United States about the supply of rare and critical minerals.

New Zealand is in discussions with the US about the supply of rare and critical minerals, as Donald Trump seeks to reduce America’s reliance on China for material it sees as pivotal for tech innovation and national security.

While no decisions have been made, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade confirmed officials are working through analysis, targeted consultation and providing advice to relevant ministers.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon stressed no Cabinet decisions have been made but said the government would “develop in [its] own brutal self interest”.

The Minerals Council – the industry association representing mining in New Zealand – said the country should scale up mining, arguing it can be done responsibly.

Opposition parties weigh in

Labour’s energy and resources spokesperson Megan Woods said mining opportunities shouldn’t be exploited at the expense of the environment, especially country’s conservation estate.

“We are not against mining as long as it is done in an environmentally sustainable way. Under the Labour government, we were doing work on critical minerals that would help us decarbonise and move away from fossil fuels like coal in a way that ensures jobs in the long term.

“However, the government’s plans as outlined in the MineraIs Strategy for New Zealand, combined with the Fast Track law and refusal to phase out fossil fuels, have lead to greater environmental and climate risks with no public scrutiny.

“Most New Zealanders would be upset that talks about mining and exporting critical minerals are taking place without transparency or accountability.”

Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said the critical minerals discussions were happening “largely in secret and on terms dictated by the United States”.

Luxon’s government had not campaigned on this, she said.

“When exactly did we agree as a country to be in Trump’s corner? There are far better decisions that we can be making if we are to, even for sake of argument, be thinking about mining more of these rare earth minerals.

“If we return to some of the rhetoric used by both Christopher Luxon and even Shane Jones last year, as they were trumpeting doing more of this kind of mining, they were telling everybody that it was about our clean, green energy transition.

“So it doesn’t take much to put two and two together and figure out that this is a house of cards.”

Te Pāti Māori was approached for comment.

Coalition parties’ positions

New Zealand First’s and self-proclaimed “pro-mining Minister” Shane Jones said the talks followed the coalition releasing its mining strategy and critical minerals list.

“Then there was an invitation for us to sign a global accord shared by the Koreans last year and now America has invited a whole host of nations to work with it and enter into a compact or an accord.

“The status of those negotiations and the final result lies with Cabinet and that’s covered by confidentiality.”

Asked exactly what the government had signed up to in the global accord, Jones said it was about cooperation.

“This is the puzzling thing. We’ve got all these sort of frothy milk fed critics of mine but basically contemplated a lot of cooperation in terms of research, technology, opportunities for nations to work together, both financially and strategically, and boost the availability and access to these valuable minerals.”

The ACT Party’s resources spokesperson Simon Court said his party supported expanding mining in New Zealand.

“We want high paid jobs and we want an economy that can pay our own way so yes, ACT supports more mining, including for these critical minerals.

“That’s why we secured the coalition commitment to create a critical minerals list that provides a simplified pathway for essentially prospecting, getting mining permits and eventually consenting mineral developments.”

ACT was also supportive of New Zealand’s critical minerals talks with the US.

“The United States is a key defence and security partner and it’s important that we are responsive to the markets when we have something to sell.

“We’d also be hypocritical to try and stop it. We all use and benefit from these devices made from these minerals so restricting mining here just means that [if] the US can’t get those minerals from New Zealand, they will be dug up somewhere else, probably somewhere with poor environmental oversight and more child labour.”

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

MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s lawyers have claimed Te Pāti Māori’s co-leaders were also projected to overspend their parliamentary budget, and there was discussion of a settlement proposal during the hearing to consider the Te Tai Tokerau MP’s expulsion.

Kapa-Kingi’s lawyers are arguing Te Pāti Māori’s constitution was not upheld during a process that resulted in her expulsion from the party, with Mike Colson KC saying a “political party which was created to fight injustice has visited a serious injustice”.

The substantive hearing is taking place at the High Court in Wellington on Monday, and follows a period of turmoil for the party that resulted in the expulsion of two of its MPs, Kapa-Kingi and Tākuta Ferris.

Kapa-Kingi challenged her expulsion late last year, resulting in a temporary reinstatement prior to the party’s AGM in December, allowing her to attend.

At the time, Justice Paul Radich said there were “serious questions to be tried” on the manner in which Kapa-Kingi was expelled from the party.

Both party president John Tamihere and Mariameno Kapa-Kingi were present in the courtroom on Monday morning.

Kapa-Kingi’s lawyer Mike Colson KC begun the hearing by saying the Speaker had not been properly notified by Te Pāti Māori about Justice Radich’s decision late last year, and she remained an independent MP, pointing out this could be in contempt of court.

Colson went on to summarise his client’s key argument: that the party’s National Council did not have the power to expel Kapa-Kingi, and that it breached the dispute process and tikanga.

“And I suppose thematically, that we are now seeing a revisionist approach to the decisions that were made, in which there seems to be an emphasis that there was not actually an expulsion, but a cancelation of the membership.”

Colson then referred to Te Pāti Māori’s constitution, outlining the importance of tikanga, arguing “tikanga should be part of the lens” through which the case is considered.

He then highlighted various clauses, pointing out relevant parts of the Constitution to the case.

In particular, Colson highlighted a clause he said did not allow the National Council to “cut across independently” a separate clause specifying a Disciplinary Disputes Committee.

Colson said Kapa-Kingi was given “no notice whatsoever” that there was going to be a hui where her expulsion would be considered.

He referred to various parts of the party’s constitution, claiming the party hadn’t adhered to it.

Colson provided documentation including a range of emails discussing the projected parliamentary overspend, a key reason for Kapa-Kingi’s expulsion.

Colson acknowledged the judge would not be able to resolve who was right or wrong on the issue of the budget, which he said didn’t “particularly matter”.

But Colson said Kapa-Kingi was entitled to “additional payments” due to the additional work she had undertaken.

In relation to the forecasted overspend, he said the party had argued Kapa-Kingi used those funds for her “personal gain”, which he rejected.

He explained “a fix” was arranged between various parties – including a parliamentary representative – in relation to her forecasted overspend of $133,000.

He then outlined Te Pāti Māori’s co-leaders were also forecasted to overspend their budget.

“It’s a bit ironic that the party to say this forecast overspend was misuse when we know at the time the co-leaders office was also in a budget deficit situation,” referencing the Te Pāti Māori co-leaders who had an overspend of around $40,000.

He also mentioned a “level of unsatisfactoriness” of evidence from the respondents, referencing affidavits that “seem incorrect”.

A settlement proposal was referred to during the hearing, which is expected to be addressed later.

Tamihere’s lawyers will respond Monday afternoon, but their initial arguments during the interim injunction last year stated the National Council did in fact have the authority to expel her.

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 and Education Minister Erica Stanford have unveiled changes to how students’ progress is reported.

The government says the new reports will give families clearer information about their children.

It says the reports will ensure all primary and intermediate schools describe children’s achievement in reading, writing and maths twice a year in the same way.

They will rank children’s achievement on a five-point scale – emerging, developing, consolidating, proficient and exceeding.

The reports will also provide an overall percentage score and describe what the child can do in each of the three subjects .

The government says schools will report on other subjects and on student behaviour as they do now.

It comes as schools are opening up again for 2026 and must use new maths and English curriculums for students in Years 0-10 this year. Draft curriculums for other subject areas are out for consultation until mid-April.

By the end of 2025, nine percent of students in Year 13 and 15 percent of Year 12s had not achieved the literacy and numeracy co-requisite, figures provided to RNZ by NZQA show. The achievement rates were the lowest in the past five years.

They equated to about 5000 Year 13s and 10,000 Year 12s who would not receive any NCEA certificates because they had not yet met the requirement.

Watch the announcement live at the top of this page.

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

Resources Minister Shane Jones shut down the possibility of New Zealand signing up to a ‘road map’ away from fossil fuels at the annual global climate summit, documents reveal.

Opposition MPs say the documents underscore the disproportionate influence that National’s minor coalition partners wield over government policy.

But Climate Change Minister Simon Watts said it was “appropriate” to consult Jones because of his portfolios.

Australia, the UK, the European Union and a group of Pacific nations were among 80 countries pushing for a ‘road map’ to be included in the formal negotiations at COP30 in Brazil last November.

They were unsuccessful, but Australia and several Pacific nations were among 24 nations that signed the Belém Declaration on the Transition away from Fossil Fuels on the final day of the summit.

Documents released to RNZ under the Official Information Act show New Zealand’s negotiating team was also considering signing the declaration – before officials back in New Zealand informed them that Jones did not want them to.

Earlier, a copy of a ‘decision submission’ was sent to New Zealand’s climate ambassador Stuart Horne to share with Climate Change Minister Simon Watts, who was at COP30 with Horne and the rest of the negotiating team.

In the submission, senior foreign affairs officials said the declaration “does not conflict or compromise New Zealand policy settings”.

“It is consistent with the COP28 outcome regarding the transition away from fossil fuels which Parties, including New Zealand, agreed to.”

An assessment against government priorities found that signing up to the declaration would have a neutral or even positive effect.

While drafting the submission, officials noted there was “an open question about engaging Minister Jones for concurrence, consultation, or information”.

The final submission was sent to Jones for consultation.

It was also sent to Trade Minister Todd McClay, but for information only – his input was not sought.

An email sent the next day said Jones had been consulted.

“Minister Jones does not want New Zealand to join the Declaration,” a Ministry for Foreign Affairs official informed his colleagues.

“We have shared this information with the team supporting Minister Watts in Belem.”

That was the last email in the chain released to RNZ.

Green Party MP Francisco Hernandez, who attended COP30, said the government’s agenda “seems to be driven so much by the need to appease New Zealand First”.

“Why are they even talking to Shane Jones? He doesn’t have a climate portfolio – why does it require sign-off from him?”

National was giving its junior coalition partner too much power, Hernandez said.

“It’s for consultation, but it does very much read like they’ve effectively taken what Jones has said and used it as an indication of a veto.”

Hernandez got the impression while he was at COP30 that the New Zealand delegation had been “very much on the fence” about signing up to the declaration.

“It seemed to be a finely balanced thing and I feel like [Jones’ view] ended up being a decisive factor.”

In a written statement, Simon Watts said it was “appropriate” to consult Jones because of his resources and associate energy portfolios.

Watts did not directly reply to a question about his own stance on the declaration.

“New Zealand did not join the declaration at COP30 but as I have previously signalled, the Government continues to support the COP28 agreement to transition away from fossil fuels,” he said.

“We’re contributing to that, for example, through our work to double renewable energy.”

Labour Party climate spokesperson Deborah Russell, who attended COP30 alongside Watts, said there was “no reason” not to sign the declaration.

“It’s consistent with what we signed up to at COP28 and all it did was ask for a road map for getting out of fossil fuels – what’s the problem with that?”

It was fine for officials to consult Jones, she said.

“The problem is that the reason we didn’t sign it, seemingly against officials’ advice, was because Shane Jones said he didn’t agree to it.”

Russell said it was clear that government inaction on climate change was coming from the minor coalition parties.

“Shane Jones has been very pro the extraction of fossil fuels. [So] this is unsurprising given his position on that; it’s nevertheless very disappointing.”

Jones told RNZ that “lofty agreements” like the declaration were “conceived in milk-fed politics that are vastly different from my earthy, pragmatic approach”.

“I don’t see a future for New Zealand if we deny ourselves access to fossil fuels,” he said.

The country’s current energy system had to be shored up – including with imported and domestic coal – while geothermal energy and potentially more hydroelectricity was opened up, he said.

“New Zealand has a plan, however, it’s going to take a lot longer than most activists believe.”

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

With the 2026 General Election looming, Parliament has begun the ritual of farewell speeches from MPs choosing not to contest another term.

Known in parliamentary parlance as valedictory statements, the year’s first was delivered this week by former Speaker of the House Adrian Rurawhe – albeit reluctantly.

Although this parliamentary term has already seen six valedictory statements (and nearly twice as many departures), election years tend to bring a cascade of them, as MPs decide to hang their boots up. Rurawhe leaves Parliament with the honorific ‘Right Honourable’, a distinction few MPs can claim – it is now awarded only to prime ministers, speakers, chief justices and governors-general.

Despite that honorific, the former MP for Te Tai Hauāuru does not seek the limelight and did not want a valedictory. He told MPs that, when he informed his Labour caucus colleagues of his retirement, he said he would “leave quietly” and skip the speech altogether.

“I can tell you, if you want to upset 33 Labour MPs, tell them you’re not doing a valedictory speech… I don’t think I’ve ever upset so many people so quickly.”

Not one to ignore instructions from the leader, even on his way out, Rurawhe said Labour leader Chris Hipkins insisted that he deliver a valedictory speech.

“I will deliver a speech, but I did not write a speech, so whatever comes out of my mouth… and there are plenty of stories I could tell, just [about] the people sitting in this room.”

Rurawhe held the Te Tai Hauāuru seat from 2014-23, when he chose not to stand as an electorate MP again. That decision came from the presumption that, if he retained the role of Speaker, he would not be able to serve the electorate to the extent he felt he should, particularly given its size, diversity and the number of iwi.

“Te Tai Hauāuru is vast – it’s the biggest electorate in the North Island. It’s as big as Taiwan.

“It’s diverse. It has an urban area, Porirua.

“It has provincial cities like Palmerston North, Whanganui, New Plymouth. It has rural towns and a lot of farming areas.

“Within there, there is also a diverse range of iwi that I got to engage with.”

Rurawhe then proceeded to recite the very long list of iwi within Te Tai Hauāuru.

As is probably the case with most MPs who have gone on to presiding roles, Rurawhe never had a stint in the Speaker’s Chair on his bingo card. Nevertheless, that’s where his party felt his composure, amiability and leadership experience could best be utilised.

Speaking on Wednesday evening, he reflected on redefining political success beyond Cabinet.

“Of course, we all want to be Ministers, but not everyone can be and there are valuable roles outside of that as well. If you’re a true team player, you will do whatever is the best for your party.

“I’m not just talking about my party, but it’s probably a good lesson for everyone to learn, because you never actually know where [these roles] might lead to. I certainly didn’t.”

“I pinch myself almost every day and, you know, wonder how this guy from Rātana Pā gets to be the Speaker of this House.”

Calm humility is a fixture of the Rurawhe brand. His long reluctance to engage in politicking earned respect and goodwill across the House, particularly during his time as Speaker. His predecessor and successor, by comparison, have more adversarial histories.

While some departing MPs use their final speech to burn bridges, Rurawhe chose to acknowledge political opponents that he had worked with in his decade or so as an MP.

“I also want to mention the National Party MPs that I got on really well with, actually.

Ian McKelvie – now, I knew Ian before I came into Parliament. He was so easy to work with, and we could have really good discussions and do the best for our respective electorates.

“Louise Upston – I really enjoyed working with Louise. I remember that we co-hosted the South Waikato event – actually, from Tokoroa – down here at Parliament.

“That was an excellent kaupapa to be involved with.

“I worked with Jonathan Young on the Waitara Lands Act and there’s Barbara Kuriger in Taranaki-King Country, who is the Deputy Speaker.”

Rurawhe went on to name and thank the many people who worked in his parliamentary and electorate offices, along with the parliamentary staff who supported him during his tenure as Speaker.

Rurawhe’s formal final day at Parliament will be Waitangi Day, after which Hamilton-based unionist Georgie Dansey will replace him for the remainder of the sitting year.

Expect to see a steady stream of farewells, as the election nears closer. To date, Celia Wade-Brown (Greens), Paulo Garcia (National), Maureen Pugh (National), and Judith Collins (National) have also already announced 2026 departures.

You can listen to the audio version of this story by clicking the link near the top of the page. Additionally, you can watch the full valedictory speech on Parliament’s website.

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

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has confirmed he will return to Waitangi next week to meet with iwi, after opting to be elsewhere last year.

Luxon, however, will not stay up north for the national holiday itself, instead spending Waitangi Day at a community event in Auckland.

In a statement, a spokesperson said Luxon was looking forward to visiting and engaging with iwi about the recent weather response and work the government is doing to grow the economy.

Last year, Luxon observed Waitangi Day with Ngāi Tahu at Ōnuku Marae in Akaroa.

At the time, he said his intention was to celebrate the day around New Zealand, rather than in one location.

Luxon’s confirmation means all party leaders in Parliament will travel north next week.

ACT leader David Seymour said he intended to use the occasion to make clear that: “we are all equal and alike in dignity and have the same opportunity in this country, regardless of when our ancestors got here”.

Māori Crown Relations Minister Tama Potaka said Waitangi represented the font of kotahitanga.

“We go with an open heart… and some pretty strong convictions around what we need to do to get things like the economy back on track, and public services, but also with an absolute appetite to settle and implement Treaty claims.”

The recent RNZ-Reid Research poll showed 62 percent of people think it is at least somewhat important for the prime minister to be in Waitangi for Waitangi Day.

Previous prime ministers have adopted different approaches.

Chris Hipkins and Jacinda Ardern spent a considerable length of time up north in the days leading up to and including Waitangi Day.

John Key and Helen Clark, however, adjusted their plans after falling out of favour.

After being heckled and jostled in 2004, Clark went up for breakfast in subsequent years, but would not visit Te Tii Marae.

And when Key was denied speaking rights in 2016, he opted to go to the NRL Nines in Auckland instead.

Bill English, in his sole year as prime minister, spent the day with Ngāti Whātua at Ōrākei Marae.

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