Category: Politics

Source: Radio New Zealand

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon will not join US President Donald Trump’s Board of Peace.

In a brief statement on Friday morning, Luxon confirmed the government would not accept the invitation to join the board in its “current form”, after considering the offer.

Foreign Minister Winston Peters posted a longer message on social media where he said a number of states had already stepped up to the board and New Zealand would not add significant additional value.

He said there was a role for the board in Gaza, but it was essential that its work was consistent with the United Nations charter.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins said Luxon was being “too polite” about the invitation and “he should show some leadership”.

“Not joining the Board of Peace is absolutely the right thing to do, it’s preposterous Christopher Luxon would even consider it.

“The idea that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin can sit around a table and decide on one nation’s peace while they wage their own wars is absurd.”

Hipkins earlier condemned the invite, labelling the government’s refusal to rule out joining the board an “absolute disgrace”.

A draft charter for the organisation, which would be chaired by Trump, was sent to a number of world leaders – including Canada’s Mark Carney, Australia’s Anthony Albanese, Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman and Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

Greens-co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick had written to the Prime Minister on Monday, urging Luxon to “publicly and unequivocally reject this invitation”.

The board’s creation comes shortly after the announcement of a 15-member Palestinian technocratic committee, charged with managing the day-to-day governance of post-war Gaza.

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

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

Explainer – The big flood of election adverts and billboards won’t start until closer to November, but the race to influence hearts and minds begins now.

There are many rules regulating disclosure, campaign spending and the timing of certain election advertisements.

There are still more than nine months before we vote on 7 November, which means the candidates and parties have plenty of time to pitch for your vote.

“The lengthy time period is advantageous for parties with more money to spend as they can effectively campaign for the whole year,” University of Otago professor of law Andrew Geddis said. “Based on recent donation returns, that’s National and ACT in particular.”

Here are the basic rules around political advertisements and what you can and can’t do.

Can people legally advertise before the election is even near?

Absolutely, although you won’t generally see election advertisements everywhere until closer to November.

“There is no restriction on when people can publish election advertisements, other than Election Day before 7pm,” the Electoral Commission legal and policy manager Kristina Temel said.

This can include online advertisements or print media.

However, you can’t put election advertisements on TV or radio until the official election regulated period starts.

Wait, what does that regulated period mean?

It’s when we start counting how much is being spent, for one thing. The regulated election period runs in the three months before Election Day – this year, from 7 August to 6 November.

Once that period begins, a bunch of strict rules around election spending kick in.

Electorate candidates are only allowed to spend up to $36,000 during the regulated period. This includes any advertising by someone else that is approved by the candidate.

Registered political parties can spend up to $1,503,000 if they contest the party vote plus $36,000 for each electorate candidate for the party. Registered third party promoters can spend up to $424,000 while unregistered third party promoters can spend up to $17,000.

Temel said that there are still some requirements about how campaign advertising is conducted outside the regulatory period.

“The regulated period is relevant for election expenditure limits, but both before, during and after the regulated period, obligations regarding promoter statements and written authorisation to publish election advertisements apply.”

And of course, all election advertising has to be taken down by midnight on 6 November, including billboards and online ads, and breaches can result in fines.

What counts as an advertisement?

They can be in the humble newspaper, on television, leaflets dropped in your mailbox or ads seen while scrolling online, or they can be big old billboards you see every time you drive to the supermarket.

The Electoral Commission’s candidate handbook defines them as “an advertisement that may reasonably be regarded as encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not vote, for a candidate or party”, or alternatively, “a type of candidate or party the advertisement describes by referencing views they do or don’t hold”.

What that all means is that it’s anything that is trying to persuade you to vote a certain way.

Editorial content – news items such as RNZ reporting Christopher Luxon’s latest announcement, for example – doesn’t count as an advertisement.

Individuals posting their political views online doesn’t count, unless it’s paid content or someone claiming to speak for a political party, for example making a post saying they speak for the Green Party or New Zealand First or others.

An MP’s contact details also doesn’t count as election advertising, nor do columns or opinion pieces solicited or published by media with no payment involved.

There are no limitations on where candidates or advocacy groups can buy advertisements, or how often they can buy them, other than the spending limits during that designated regulation period, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) chief told RNZ.

“The ASA does not restrict election advertisements in those ways,” Hilary Souter said.

But if you are making an election ad, you’ve absolutely, positively got to include a promoter statement.

What’s a promoter statement, then?

Basically, it tells people who’s behind the advertisement. Those small notes you see on billboards telling you “authorised by Joe Bloggs” or something similar? That’s a promoter statement.

Promoter statements are required at all times, even outside the regulatory period, and they must include a name and contact details.

Advocacy groups such as Council of Trade Unions or Family First NZ also fall in this requirement.

They need to be “clearly displayed,” the Electoral Commission says – no 2-point font, please – and it notes “making your promoter statement too small will likely generate complaints”.

Even advertisements related to the election but not pushing one particular view – such as encouraging people to vote or enrol – must include a promoter statement.

If you don’t use a promoter statement, you can be fined up to $40,000 – which could pay for a lot of pamphlets – so it’s probably worth taking the time to credit your advert accordingly.

Elections NZ also can give advice on whether an ad counts as an election advertisement or not, by contacting advisory@elections.govt.nz.

What about election billboards?

There’s no actual national rule about election billboards waiting until the final weeks to go up.

However, election billboard rules are set by local councils and vary from place to place. For example, in Auckland election signs are only allowed nine weeks before Election Day.

“You should talk to your local council before you put up any election signs,” Elections NZ’s website warns.

In 2023 for instance, the ACT party was found to be in breach of electoral rules in Tasman and Marlborough districts by putting up large signs in June before the October election.

The Electoral Act says you can have election signs that are up to three square metres in size in the nine weeks before Election Day. And all those billboards are required to have the mandatory promoter statement, preferably not at microscopic size.

But the internet is likely to be the biggest battlefield in 2026, not billboards.

“The fact is that such blanket forms of advertising are very expensive and the spend-to-result ratio is not that efficient as most people simply are not really thinking about the election,” Geddis said.

“Which is why parties and candidates will put their money towards online messaging that they can target towards individuals they think are most likely to be influenced.”

A compilation of TV ads from the 2023 election:

Are media companies obligated to be fair in the ads they run?

There’s no requirement for equal time, so if one party decides to buy more ads there’s no obligation for media to run an equal amount by another. It’s all about how much money political groups are willing to spend.

“Ultimately, the responsibility to be aware of and comply with all aspects of advertising regulation is shared between all the parties to an advertisement, including the advertiser, agencies, and media organisations,” the Advertising Standards Code says.

And if ads are misleading or violate the rules, there are several ways to file a complaint about them.

How do you make complaints?

The Electoral Commission deals with breaching of election advertising or Election Day rules under the Electoral Act, and election programmes under the Broadcasting Act. Offences could then be reported to the police.

When it comes to content, the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA), the Media Council and ASA can all field possible complaints about election adverts that fall in their jurisdiction.

The BSA oversees TV and radio, the ASA oversees ads in other media, and the Media Council looks at editorial content concerns.

“As in previous years, our focus will be on paid election advertising and compliance under the rules of social responsibility and truthful presentation,” the ASA’s Souter said.

Do all these rules apply in cyberspace?

Of course, the days of people only seeing election ads in newspapers and before the 6pm news are long past.

You’re likely to soon be bombarded by election content every time you start scrolling on your phone.

“We are acutely aware of the ongoing changes to the information environment and how rapidly technology is developing,” Temel said.

Broadly, the rules are just the same for online advertisements.

“Our election advertising rules are media-neutral in that the same requirements apply no matter where they appear,” Geddis said.

“As such, online election ads delivered through social media or elsewhere still must contain promoters statements that alert those receiving them as to who is behind the messages.”

What about AI ads? Are there rules about those?

AI-generated content has taken over much of the world these days, and it’s likely to only get worse this year.

There’s no specific regulations around the use of AI in political advertising, although in 2023 complaints were heard about its use in National campaign advertisements, while an ACT party ad with an AI-generated ‘happy Māori’ image last year also drew controversy.

“We have social media advice on our website for people on what to do if an election ad doesn’t look right,” Temel said.

“There are some checks that can be applied. Does the ad have a promoter statement saying who’s behind it? If it’s from a candidate or party, you can check if it’s on their social media account or website. If you’re not sure about it, don’t share it.”

Existing frameworks like the Harmful Digital Communications Act and Privacy Act also apply to AI content, while other advertising standards can also apply to misleading online election ads.

“The ASA codes do not currently contain AI-specific rules,” Souter said. “The codes apply regardless of how content is generated, edited, or targeted.”

Geddis notes the Electoral Act 1993 includes the offence of undue influence”, which prohibits using “any fraudulent means [to] impede or prevent the free exercise of the franchise of an elector”.

“The limits of this provision are relatively untested, but could be read to capture some AI-generated disinformation that is intended to discourage voters from casting a ballot,” he said.

Should the regulated period be longer when the election isn’t for months?

Geddis said the time between the announcement and Election Day isn’t actually unusually long this year.

“The gap between election announcement and Election Day is two to three weeks longer than in 2023, which is not hugely different.

“The problem is that the further the regulated period – where controls on campaign spending are in place – is pushed out from polling day, the more forms of political related speech get captured.

“It isn’t just candidates or parties that have caps on their election advertisements. All individuals or groups who publish these sorts of messages during the regulated period face spending caps.”

Geddis said because MPs and parties are prohibited from spending parliamentary funding on election advertising during the regulated period, “all parties have an interest in keeping this period at three months”.

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 Prime Minister is expected to attend Waitangi for the annual commemorations next week, RNZ understands.

Details on Christopher Luxon’s timetable are still yet to be revealed, but it is understood the Iwi Chairs Forum is expecting his attendance in the days leading up to the anniversary itself.

Luxon’s office is yet to confirm whether he will be there for the pōwhiri or the dawn service at Te Whare Rūnanga.

While a lot of focus goes on the Waitangi Day commemorations on the 6th, politicians are formally welcomed on the 5th.

Some opt to spend the whole week at Waitangi, to meet with iwi and soak up the atmosphere.

Last year, Christopher Luxon opted to go to Canterbury instead, spending the ‘political day’ in Christchurch to announce a roading upgrade.

He spent New Zealand’s national day in Akaroa, with Ngāi Tahu at Ōnuku Marae.

That will not be an option this year.

Ngāi Tahu, which usually alternates holding Waitangi Day events between Ōnuku, Awarua, and Ōtākou, is taking the unusual step of heading to Waitangi.

Ahead of Waitangi Day 2025, Luxon gave notice in December 2024 that he would not be going to Waitangi.

He revealed his actual destination a few days in advance.

At the time, Luxon said he held the view that he wanted to “go around the country” and visit the places where the Treaty was signed.

A historical precedent

Not every prime minister has been at Waitangi for Waitangi Day itself.

Helen Clark and Sir John Key both stopped going after falling out of favour.

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

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

Sir Bill English, in his sole year as Prime Minister, spent the day with Ngāti Whātua at Ōrākei Marae.

When announcing the election date last week, Luxon said there was a protocol around when he would announce his decision, based on security reasons, and he would announce his decision “shortly,” while talking up the “positive reception” he received at Rātana.

He did not end up going to Rātana last week, instead focusing on the response to last week’s severe weather.

His decision was supported by the opposition and in speeches from the hau kāinga.

That may well have weighed on his mind when deciding whether to go to Waitangi.

The heat has gone somewhat out of the Treaty debate following the end of the Treaty Principles Bill.

But there is still a lot of hurt amongst Māori, with Waikato-Tainui leader Tuku Morgan saying the relationship with the Crown had become “pretty fractured.”

Plus, it is an election year.

The recent RNZ-Reid Research poll showed 62 percent of people think it is either very or somewhat important that New Zealand’s Prime Minister is in Waitangi for Waitangi Day. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/585236/nearly-40-percent-of-voters-think-treaty-of-waitangi-has-too-much-influence-on-government-decisions-poll

Politicians have their say

Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour confirmed he would attend.

Last year, Seymour twice had the microphone taken away from him (although, wearing his own wireless microphone, his speech still made it out to ACT’s social media channels).

He said he would continue to go up and express his view that “we are all equal and alike in dignity and have the same opportunity in this country, regardless of when our ancestors got here”.

Asked whether the prime minister was also going, Seymour said he did not do Luxon’s diary.

“He’ll make his own decision. I’ve previously advocated that the celebrations should move around the country, so I understand if he wants to go to Christchurch or Ngāti Whātua, as he has in previous years. Equally, I’m from Northland and I quite like going up there myself.”

Sons of the North Winston Peters and Shane Jones will also be there, no doubt already preparing to give as good as they get.

Māori Crown Relations Minister Tama Potaka, who often speaks at Waitangi, said Waitangi was “the birthplace of the nation” and confirmed he would be there throughout the week.

He also said he was not responsible for Luxon’s diary, but said “all MPs” should be there.

“It represents the font of kotahitanga in our country, and I’m all about that, and I’m very supportive of that.”

Potaka said there had been volatility in the korero on the paepae, and in the relationship “for the last few decades,” and said the government was working to address longstanding grievances.

“We go with an open heart, with some views 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, that’s where we’re at.”

Labour leader Chris Hipkins said it was New Zealand’s national day, and a significant occasion.

“We’re heading up towards a very significant milestone. Two hundred years of Te Tiriti o Waitangi is not that far away. Now’s the time for us to be looking to the future, sitting down, having those conversations about where do we want to be when we hit that very big milestone, how do we want to celebrate it, what do we want to do between now and then so we’ve got more to celebrate,” he said.

“Now’s the time to have those conversations, and the prime minister should be leading that.”

Teanau Tuiono from the Green Party also said the prime minister should attend.

“I think it’s appropriate that the prime minister should attend Waitangi Day. It is an important day, Te Tiriti o Waitangi is our constitutional founding document and so he should show up. He should answer questions that the iwi have, that Māori have.”

Northland MP Grant McCallum confirmed he would be going, but deflected questions on whether the prime minister would be joining him.

“Waitangi is obviously a great place to be for Waitangi Day and I’m gonna be there as the local MP. And you guys are welcome to come and have a beer.”

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 PM and ministers are running late. The press conference will begin shortly in the media player above

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon is about to speak to media at the Tai Rāwhiti Emergency Coordination Centre after visiting nearby weather-hit areas by helicopter.

He’s joined by Transport Minister Chris Bishop and Associate Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery Chris Penk.

Bishop earlier issued a statement, updating the status of roads around the country.

An estimated 1000 truckloads of debris still need to be cleared from State Highway Two through the Waioweka Gorge after the recent wild weather.

The Bay of Plenty road remains closed due to about 40 slips along the route.

Bishop said crews were working seven days a week, with the goal of reopening at least one lane as soon as it was safe.

State Highway 35 on the East Coast had also been hit hard, with one section between Te Araroa and Pōtaka likely to be out of action for some time.

Meanwhile, State Highway 25 between Whangamatā and Whiritoa was not expected to reopen until next month.

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 former Education Ministry employee says development of the new school curriculum was heavily politicised, causing extensive rewrites and sidelining subject experts.

Claire Coleman made the allegations during a submission to Parliament’s Education and Workforce Select Committee on the government’s Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill.

She told the committee the bill would politicise the education system by giving the government more direct control over the curriculum and over teachers’ professional standards.

“I know from my recent experience at the Ministry of Education the dangers of allowing a public service to be politicised,” she said.

“As a curriculum writer, I was asked to disregard the evidence, the research, and decades of my own experience.

“I watched colleagues run back and forth to the Beehive for approval, watched academics and sector experts be removed from writing teams in favour of corporate resource creators, and saw curriculum documents change radically over a matter of hours in response to the latest red-pen notes from ministers.

“Public servants and their expertise were routinely disregarded, bullied, and removed for not aligning with a predetermined outcome.”

There has been widespread criticism of curriculum development, including leaked emails showing concern within the ministry that some curriculum writers were not being appointed on merit.

The Education Ministry told RNZ ministerial approval of curriculums was normal.

“The ministry is responsible for writing the curriculum and has taken advice and worked with a wide range of local education experts, teachers and other stakeholders over a long period, to produce a knowledge-rich curriculum grounded in the science of learning,” it said.

“The curriculum-writing process is rigorous and includes multiple cycles of review and refinement. It combines evidence, insights, and experiences over the last 20 years with formal feedback and input from a wide range of groups from across the education sector.”

“Ministers have always been responsible for the curriculum sign-off as part of the process.”

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

Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) faced tough questioning at the Governance and Administration Select Committee in Parliament on Wednesday, much of it focused on the organisation’s banning of all powered watercraft used by local fire stations during water emergencies.

FENZ chief executive Kerry Gregory acknowledged that the decision not to deliver a service was tough on communities, but said the organisation had to prioritise what capabilities they were willing and able to invest in.

He also said that FENZ was trying to work with the local councils, iwi and other community groups in Waikato to see if the Ngāruawāhia and Huntly rescue vessels could be run by someone else.

“There’s no doubt that those vessels add value into the community, the question is whether it’s Fire and Emergency’s [job] to allocate resource and financial impact into there to build that capability or whether that sits somewhere else in the community,” Gregory said.

He said it would cost millions to build that capability for New Zealand.

Waikato MP Tim van de Molen, who was on the committee, pushed back against this.

He said the brigades had built their own capability and had never asked FENZ for financial support or resources.

“In this instance we are not asking you to spend millions of dollars. The community fund-raised for the boat themselves, it funded all their own training requirements, they get donations to fund the fuel for it, it’s zero cost on FENZ to operate that and it has been operating safely for decades, why will you not let it continue?” van de Molen asked.

He suggested that FENZ was putting a checklist ahead of the safety of the community.

Gregory rejected that assessment.

“It’s not a checklist, it’s a responsibility of the organisation and we take that very seriously, the safety of our people, because they work in such dangerous situations,” he said.

FENZ deputy national commander Megan Stiffler told the committee she had international recognition for swift water rescue work. She suggested that the vessels used by Ngāruawāhia and Huntly volunteer fire stations were unsuitable.

“The motorised watercraft that I have seen you would never build in a swift water or water rescue programme of work,” she said.

Instead, she said FENZ supplied unmotorized watercraft to provide water rescue. This included land-based rescue where firefighters might throw a bag to someone in the water for them to grab, or paddled inflatables which can travel over shallow water.

Gregory said that what was offered by local stations was a legacy of a time before urban and rural fire services where unified under a new funding model and legislation in 2017.

“Eight years in it’s the right time to look at our organisation and say ‘are we fit-for-purpose, are we right-sized, where do we need to invest, where do we need to divest in and how to we make sure we are sustainable as an organisation going forward so that we can support New Zealanders’ so that’s what we are focused on,” he told the committee.

Van de Molen did not seem to accept this when it came to the grounding of Ngāruawāhia and Huntly’s watercraft.

“They’re both volunteer brigades, they have had for several decades motorized water response capabilities, they have had sign-off for that from the CEO of FENZ post-merger, they have compliance certificates from Maritime NZ to operate that, they have skipper courses for the personnel that operate that, they have MOSS system [Maritime Operator Safety System] – have a certificate of compliance for that – so I’m interested in what has changed?” he asked Stiffler.

She replied that FENZ had to authorize and task the crews for rescue and they would not be building that capability.

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 quarter of New Zealanders say they have little or no trust in the police, new polling shows, but most people’s positions were not rattled by the recent Jevon McSkimming scandals.

Police conduct has recently been in the spotlight following an IPCA report that found serious misconduct at the highest levels.

Former Deputy Commissioner Jevon McSkimming also pleaded guilty late last year to three representative charges of possessing objectionable publications, namely child sexual exploitation and bestiality material.

The latest RNZ-Reid Research poll, conducted from 15-22 January, asked New Zealanders how much trust they had in the police to do the right thing, and whether recent scandals involving McSkimming changed their level of trust.

A quarter of New Zealanders have little or no trust; 70 percent have at least a fair amount

About a fifth of respondents – 20.7 percent – said they had a lot of trust in police, while more than half – 50.5 percent – said they had a fair amount of trust.

Just over 20 percent said they had “not much” trust and a further 5.7 percent said they had no trust at all. Three percent said they did not know.

Trust was lowest among the most left-leaning voters: 48.2 percent of Te Pāti Māori supporters said they had little or no trust, along with 44.1 percent of Green supporters.

Among Labour voters, 28.2 percent either said they had either no trust or “not much”.

Looking at the coalition supporters, a sizeable 36 percent of New Zealand First voters said they had little or no trust in the police.

That compared to just 12.4 percent of National supporters and 18 percent of ACT supporters.

How did the McSkimming scandals impact that trust?

Voters were also asked whether the recent scandals involving McSkimming changed their level of trust in the police.

More than half of respondents – 51.3 percent – said the scandals had not knocked their trust.

That compared to 36.1 percent of voters who said they had.

Ten-point-four percent said they did not know, while 2.2 percent said their trust had increased following the scandals.

“Not everyone in society is going to support or like the police” – Police Minister

Police Minister Mark Mitchell said he was really happy to hear the McSkimming scandals had not shifted the dial significantly when it came to people’s trust levels.

“I said from day one, and I think the public actually came to this place themselves as they recognised the behavior was contained within a very small group of individuals and was not reflective of the overall values of our New Zealand police force.”

Asked about a quarter of New Zealanders having little or no trust in police, Mitchell said the police had to continually look for improvement, but not everybody was going to support or like the police as “often they may be offending”.

Te Pāti Māori co-leaders were unsurprised their voters had the lowest trust levels, and said various reports also reflected low trust levels in the police, especially for Māori communities.

“We are over monitored, we are over arrested, we are put in prison five times more than non-Māori for the same crime,” co-leader Rawiri Waititi said.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said people’s trust had also been diminished by shootings in Taranaki and the lack of “real independent reviews” after the fact.

She said politicians from all parties needed to show leadership and propose transformational change in the justice space.

Greens’ co-leader Marama Davidson said the McSkimming scandals highlighted a problem which stretched beyond “just one person and one police officer”.

“There has long been an acknowledgement of systemic rot across departments, including police, especially when it comes to survivors of violence and abuse.”

But Labour’s Chris Hipkins said he did not believe the case reflected the police as a whole.

“The police leadership let down not just the New Zealand public, but actually all of the serving police officers who had the credibility of the New Zealand Police tested through that.”

Police under scrutiny

In November last year, a scathing report by the police watchdog found serious misconduct at the highest levels of police – including former Commissioner Andrew Coster – over how Police responded to accusations of sexual offending by former Deputy Commissioner Jevon McSkimming.

McSkimming resigned as the country’s second most powerful cop in May amid separate investigations by the Independent Police Conduct Authority and Police.

In response to the report, top government ministers said the public needed to have trust in the police.

The new Commissioner Richard Chambers said trust and confidence were an “absolute priority” given the events.

Chambers told RNZ he was pleased there had not been a significant shift in the support for police and the work they did following the scandals.

“I always had confidence in my people. They just get on with the job.

“Kiwis appreciate that the events of late last year, was an isolated and small group of people.”

Chambers had set a goal of reaching 80 percent trust in the police, and had brought in audits to help identify any behaviour that fell short not only of his expectations but that of the public.

“We do have a tough job, and unfortunately, from time to time, people do let us down.”

Asked whether more work needed to be done in regards to trust in the police by Māori, Chambers said there was “a lot of work to do across all communities”.

“There’s always going to be some communities that have have less trust and confidence, or more trust and confidence in policing. That isn’t new.

“None of that comes as a surprise – it just motivates me and my team more to work really hard.”

This poll of 1000 people was conducted by Reid Research, using quota sampling and weighting to ensure representative cross section by age, gender and geography. The poll was conducted through online interviews between 15-22 January 2026 and has a maximum margin of error of +/- 3.1 percent at a 95 percent confidence level.

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 Prime Minister says Winston Peters is “wrong” about what the India Free Trade Agreement might mean for immigration, with the foreign minister raising concerns about comments by Indian politicians celebrating the deal.

Christopher Luxon was asked about concerns by Peters that the deal would lead to an influx of people arriving in New Zealand, putting pressure on the labour market.

Luxon said he and Peters had different views on the deal.

“He opposed the China FTA. He was wrong then, he’s wrong on this one too,” Luxon said.

The New Zealand First leader criticised the deal when it was announced, withholding his party’s support for it, and saying it was a “bad deal” for New Zealand.

The party had concerns around a range of issues, including that National had “offered far greater access” for India to New Zealand’s labour market than Australia or the United Kingdom had to secure their FTAs, and called it “deeply unwise”.

“By creating a new employment visa specifically for Indian citizens, it is likely to generate far greater interest in Indian migration to New Zealand – at a time when we have a very tight labour market,” Peters said in a press release at the time.

Speaking to Herald Now on Wednesday morning, Peters said “the truth wasn’t being told to the public”.

“Go and dissect what it means. It means we could have tens of thousands of people getting here of right and building up employment opportunities in this country for themselves and taking those opportunities away from New Zealanders.”

Luxon rejected that on Wednesday afternoon and Trade Minister Todd McClay said there was nothing in the agreement that said “tens of thousands of people from any country have a right to come to New Zealand, none at all.”

“It gives no right to any Indians to come to New Zealand if they don’t meet their recurrent requirements, the only commitment is 1670 skilled workers we need in the economy.”

McClay said the conditions for that entry to New Zealand would be set by cabinet, not the trade agreement.

Peters was asked again about his comments, and told the Prime Minister said he was incorrect.

“Modi does not say I’m incorrect, he says I’m totally correct.”

He referred reporters to comments by politicians in India, including that the FTA was being celebrated as “unprecedented”, Peters said.

“Go and see what Modi says and see whether Winston Peters is accurately what the Indians are claiming – that they have got an unprecedented deal.”

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: Perhaps now we’ll finally get a Judith Collins’ memoir that actually ‘Pulls No Punches’.

No question a full account of her storied history in New Zealand politics would make a rip-roaring read, one with high highs, low lows and extraordinary comebacks.

Collins’ retirement from politics will close the chapter on a more-than-two-decade stint as one of Parliament’s main characters.

“I’m sort of over it,” she says of the so-called ‘bear pit’ at Parliament. “I’ve done my dash.”

You wouldn’t think that from Wednesday’s media conference, where she displayed her trademark twinkle, dismissing previous scandals as “rubbish” and telling one reporter off for his “naughty” question line.

Collins is one of New Zealand’s most formidable and polarising political figures, an MP who has achieved the status of household name. She is regarded “Mother of the House” as its current longest serving female MP.

Does she leave with regrets? At first, Collins hedges, then reverts to type. “It’s a tough environment,” she says. “You’ve got to be prepared for the rough and tumble.”

Collins entered Parliament in the 2002 intake, along with one John Key, and went straight into Cabinet after National’s 2008 victory.

In little time she built a reputation as a hard-nosed, no-nonsense operator, leaning into a ‘tough-on-crime’ image as Police Minister and winning the enduring moniker of ‘Crusher Collins’ for her crackdown on boyracers.

Collins has mixed feelings about the nickname, but acknowledges it sent a message: “As long as they’re calling you something, it’s probably better than calling you nothing.”

Behind the scenes, her staff often spoke of a softer side, acknowledging her deep loyalty and kindness, characteristics not always seen in Beehive offices.

Collins’ Cabinet portfolios have stacked up over the years, numbering 18 different roles in total – proof she was considered highly competent, even if controversial.

And, yes, she was no stranger to controversy. Collins notes she leaves with some scars on her back.

The first major ruptures came in early 2014 with a series of scandals, including a perceived conflict of interest related to dairy company Oravida and Nicky Hager’s ‘Dirty Politics’ allegations.

The scandals culminated in her resignation from Cabinet after a leaked email suggested Collins had undermined the former head of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO).

“What a load of rubbish,” Collins says now. “And I was exonerated.”

In late 2015, she was reinstated to Cabinet after an inquiry found no evidence she had been involved in the smear against the SFO boss.

Despite obvious ambitions on the leadership, Collins had great difficulty securing the support of enough of her caucus colleagues to take power.

It took the peculiar circumstances of 2020 for Collins to finally be elevated to the role of Opposition leader, after her predecessor Todd Muller flamed out spectacularly just weeks into the job.

Her stint as leader, however, also proved short and turbulent.

The conditions were far from ideal, with then-Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern at the height of her pandemic popularity and the National caucus riven with leaks and ill discipline.

Collins’ own performance left a lot wanting too as she spearheaded what could only be described as a trainwreck of a campaign.

She led National to a crushing election defeat. “Yeah, that wasn’t great,” Collins wryly recalls. “[But] it could have been worse.”

Not by much. The caucus limped on, demoralised and divided.

In late 2021, Collins announced the shock late-night demotion of her rival Simon Bridges in what was seen as an attempt to strengthen her hold on the leadership.

Instead, it brought about its abrupt end, with a caucus vote of no confidence. Christopher Luxon was installed as her replacement days later.

Many politicians would have taken the opportunity to exit.

But Collins was due yet another comeback.

Rather than retreating, she won the friendship and respect of Luxon, returning to Cabinet as one of the most senior ministers, trusted with weighty portfolios like Attorney General and Defence.

It underscores what is perhaps Collins’ most defining political trait: resilience.

“How come I’m so resilient?” Collins says. “Well, actually, it’s because I’ve had to be.”

She is not quite out the door yet. Collins has delayed her departure for several months to avoid the need for a by-election and will remain in her ministerial roles for at least some of that time.

Luxon is no rush to replace her. He was effusive in his praise of Collins on Wednesday but dismissed suggestions her exit would leave an experience gap.

“We’ve got talent coming through our system,” Luxon said.

Chris Penk is widely expected to enter Cabinet and pick up the Defence portfolio.

Collins, meanwhile, will take up a new position as president of the Law Commission.

The move itself is somewhat contentious given the independent nature of the role. Opposition MPs have raised eyebrows, but Collins says she’ll play a straight bat: “I’m a lawyer, you know.”

She says she expects her time will soon be taken up writing a lot of reports: “I won’t be writing anything… too spicy.”

That next book may have to wait a little while then.

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

More voters think the Treaty of Waitangi has too much influence on government decisions rather than too little, according to the latest RNZ-Reid Research poll.

Voters have also had their say on whether New Zealand’s Prime Minister should be in Waitangi for Waitangi Day commemorations, with a majority thinking attendance is very or somewhat important.

This term has seen Treaty issues come to prominence, and often met with protest.

While ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill, which according to its text sought to define the principles to “create greater certainty and clarity to the meaning of the principles in legislation,” was voted down at second reading last year, ACT leader David Seymour has promised to reignite the debate this election year.

The government is undertaking a separate piece of work, borne out of National’s coalition agreement with New Zealand First, to review references to the Treaty principles in 23 different laws, and will either replace the reference with specific wording that explains their relevance or application, or remove them entirely.

It is also reviewing the Waitangi Tribunal.

A thousand respondents were asked “thinking about the influence the Treaty of Waitangi has over government decision making, do you think it is too much, about the right amount, or too little?”

The most popular response was “too much,” with 38.1 percent, but “about right” was close behind on 31.4 percent.

Just under 17 percent thought the Treaty had “too little” influence, while 11 percent did not know.

Broken down by party lines, it follows a reasonably predictable track.

Just under half of Labour supporters thought it was “about right,” while those thinking it was “too much” or “too little” were relatively split.

That is compared to just over half of National voters who thought the influence was “too much”.

Just under two thirds of New Zealand First supporters also think there is “too much” influence, as do a majority ACT supporters – overwhelmingly on 81.6 percent.

More Green Party and Te Pāti Māori supporters meanwhile believe there is “too little” influence.

Should the PM go to Waitangi?

The Prime Minister is yet to share his plans for Waitangi Day this year.

Last year, Luxon did not attend the National Iwi Chairs Forum on the 4th or the ‘political day’ at Waitangi on the 5th, and spent Waitangi Day itself with Ngāi Tahu at Ōnuku Marae.

That will not be an option this year, with Ngāi Tahu heading to the Treaty Grounds.

Voters were asked “how important is it for New Zealand’s Prime Minister to be in Waitangi on Waitangi Day?”

Most said it was very or somewhat important, with 32 percent saying it was very important the Prime Minister attends, and 29.8 saying it was somewhat important.

Just over 15 percent said it was not very important, while just over 16 percent said it was not at all important.

Supporters of opposition parties were more likely to say it was important for the Prime Minister to attend, with 51.1 percent of Labour voters, 48.5 percent of Green Party supporters, and 55.6 percent of Te Pāti Māori supporters saying it was “very” important.

On the government side, 12 percent of National supporters thought it was very important, along with 10 percent of ACT supporters.

New Zealand First supporters were more evenly split.

This poll of 1000 people was conducted by Reid Research, using quota sampling and weighting to ensure representative cross section by age, gender and geography. The poll was conducted through online interviews between 15-22 January 2026 and has a maximum margin of error of +/- 3.1 percent at a 95 percent confidence level.

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