Category: Politics

Source: Radio New Zealand

Significant fuel rationing will only come into force if the country moves into the highest “phase” of its fuel response plan, the government says.

Emergency services, hospitals, banks, transport operators and electricity generators were among those who would have prioritised access to fuel if the ongoing crisis worsened.

The National Fuel Plan had four phases – ranging from minor to severe impacts – and phase three and four had been under consultation.

The government on Monday announced the “priority user” approach would only be used in phase four, which is a “major and ongoing fuel supply disruption”.

It was “highly unlikely” the country would ever reach phase three or four, Finance Minister Nicola Willis said.

Fuel access conditions under phase four:

• Critical users – priority and uncapped access. This includes emergency services, health, schools, courts, money services and lifeline utilities.
• Food and freight – uncapped access to fuel, subject to demand reduction requirements based on fuel‑saving plans. The government would monitor adherence to fuel-saving plans through spot checks.
• Commercial and community users – same access as food and freight, but higher savings targets in their fuel-saving plans. This includes businesses and organisations other than food and freight.
• General public – transaction limits at the pump aimed at reducing overall fuel use by an amount greater than what is expected for other groups.

“In the unlikely event we ever need to move to phase four, it is critical that business and industry have a clear understanding of the objectives and measures, and can put them into action,” said Willis.

“That is why we have taken the time to consult, and the feedback we received has shaped the revised plan. We heard that the earlier proposed approach, particularly around the priority bands, was too complex and needed simplifying.”

A jet fuel plan had also been developed alongside the aviation industry, “recognising that the types of users and demand for jet fuel are different to those for petrol and diesel”, the government announcement 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

Te Tai Tokerau MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi has announced a new political party – named after her electorate.

The MP was expelled from Te Pāti Māori last year, before the High Court ruled her suspension and expulsion was unlawful.

Kapa-Kingi was reinstated to the party in March, but has now decided to contest the 2026 election under a new banner.

“This is about restoring balance, strong local representation, and sending a clear signal that Tai Tokerau political power will no longer be taken for granted,” she said.

Kapa-Kingi said the new Te Tai Tokerau Party would be grounded in tino rangatiratanga, local decision-making, and mana mokopuna.

“For too long, our people have been asked to fit into systems that were not designed by us, for us, or with us in mind. Te Tai Tokerau Party is about saying our communities have the wisdom, the data, the leadership and the strength to shape their own political future.”

Her announcement did not contain any details on policies or the party’s structure, with Kapa-Kingi saying that would come in due course.

She said she hoped the party would spark broader conversations across the country about what self-determined politics could look like in other regions.

“We hope other rohe are inspired to build independent political powerhouses for their people across the motu.”

Speaking shortly after her reinstatement, Kapa-Kingi said it was possible she would run as an independent.

Since being reinstated to the party, Kapa-Kingi has continued to share an office with Te Tai Tonga MP Tākuta Ferris, who did not contest his expulsion.

Last week, the entire Te Tai Tonga electorate committee resigned from Te Pāti Māori.

Te Tai Tokerau is shaping up to be a key Māori electorate battleground, with three sitting MPs set to contest the seat.

Labour has put forward Willow-Jean Prime for the electorate, while Hūhana Lyndon is running for the Greens.

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 fees-free university scheme did not achieve any of its goals, the Prime Minister says, and it is better to direct funding elsewhere.

The scheme had given university students their final year of study free, but Winston Peters [

last week revealed it would be scrapped in the Budget this month].

Christopher Luxon on Monday told Morning Report economic growth was key to making sure young people were successful in New Zealand.

He said the harsh reality was the scheme had been “quite a failure” and it was better to stop it and redirect some of that funding to trades training.

The government needed to make sure it was actually growing the economy.

“The fees programme is not working… it would be absolute insanity to support something that isn’t meeting its objectives,” he said.

Luxon said he wanted to put more support behind trades in New Zealand.

Several things were being done to make sure young people were work ready, Luxon said, and there were some programmes which were getting good outcomes.

“But again. what we have to do is get this economy growing.”

According to Stats NZ, the NEET (not in employment, education or training) rate for young people was 14.4 percent in the March 2026 quarter.

Luxon would not say things were tough for young people in New Zealand specifically, but did say it was “tough for New Zealand”.

“What I say to those young people is we’re building and rebuilding a country… you should have a great education for your kids and great healthcare for your parents and that’s the proposition that we are rebuilding in our government.”

The President of the Victoria University Students Association Aidan Donaghue, told Morning Report, scrapping the fee-free scheme was “disheartening” for all students.

“It’s disheartening to see… as usual students are the first on the chopping block if changes are made to the Budget. For us it’s just really, really gutting.”

In his own experience, Donaghue said the scheme had helped him make the decision to go to university.

He began studying in 2022, with his first year free and said he was the first in his family to go to university.

“Yeah it was a factor. I had to make the big move from Kirikiriroa (Hamilton) to Pōneke, so it’s helped, yeah.”

He said it was also hard for students or those who had just graduated to find jobs, resulting in many choosing to o to Australia.

“I love this country, been brought up here my whole life, I want to give back, but if I don’t have the opportunity to it’s only rational for me to go overseas and I doubt you’ll get many students back.”

Finance Minister Nicola Willis last week confirmed Peters’ comments.

“Ongoing coalition negotiations have led to good Budget policy decisions that further the immediate and long-term interests of New Zealanders,” she said.

“We will have more to say about this in due course”.

Willis also confirmed that students completing their tertiary studies this year remained eligible for fees-free.

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

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

The government is taking 10 initiatives to protect vital undersea Internet and power cables.

Sabotage and accidental damage of cables in Europe and Asia have sparked efforts there to safeguard them better.

A newly released government report showed, compared to international best practice, New Zealand was “generally well set up”, but the growing international threats prompted Assistant Transport Minister James Meager to ask for 10 “no-cost, low-effort” options to counter the greatest vulnerabilities.

Eight were done or underway, but two depended on partners, the nine-page report said.

One of the 10 included the first exercise simulating a data cable break on 10 March.

Another was a biannual threat assessment, although in the report to Meager, most of the assessment was blanked out, apart from references to fishing, anchoring and earthquakes were the likeliest threats.

Officials presented the minister with the first threat assessment last October.

A third of the 10 initiatives was setting up a national surveillance warning capability, which was trailed successfully late last year. The MOT paper asked Meager if he wanted to launch a full system.

Last year, National Security and Intelligence Minister Christopher Luxon ordered a review of critical underwater infrastructure (CUI), saying, “A new threat has emerged“.

In 2024, officials had warned that submarine cables were “attractive espionage targets”.

The latest report to Meager sketched examples of compromised cables, including several in waters between Taiwan and China.

It said an exercise called ‘Iceland Unplugged’ last year simulated all four of the island’s telecom cables to Europe being severed and “is of such direct relevance that we judge that we do not need to model the impact on New Zealand currently”.

“Feedback from industry indicates that, if we lose one of the five current international cables, then we would not be noticeably impacted.

“This is because the cables are designed to have spare capacity and the companies work cooperatively, so that the disrupted cable’s traffic would be immediately rerouted.”

Iceland’s exercise showed, if more than one cable was lost, the main impact was overseas web pages would not load, causing loss of productivity.

For electricity, a long outage of the Cook Strait power cables – they provide up to 30 percent of the North Island’s power during peak demand – could “seriously impede” supply nationally and push up wholesale prices.

The “most effective hedge against disruption is having more CUI and having it more geographically dispersed”, said the latest report.

A new cable from the US to New Zealand would cost about $1 billion and the main thing companies wanted from the government was “an effective regime to protect these investments”.

Encouraging investment was “working well”, with work begun on one new international cable and planning advanced for one other.

One of the two initiatives not begun as of March 2026 was a ship-tracking system called AIS transmit – or Automatic Identification System – that would allow cable operators to detect vessels near cables.

Another initiative mentioned surveillance for “suspicious vessel behaviours”, but it was not clear if or how that was being done.

The country has cable protection zones and penalties aimed to discourage mariners from going in them, although not for all cables.

In the Pacific, under a marine maintenance agreement, a cable repair ship is either laying cable or on standby to respond to cable breaks from its home port in Fiji.

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

When there is a Cabinet reshuffle, I tend to feel a little sorry for fresh ministers who get elevated up the rankings and landed with a big new job, or three.

A new ministry to run may be a dream realised. But for an MP who is conscientious or self-aware, it’s surely also a terrifying responsibility. So, how do they manage that transition, and how are ministers assisted and guided into their new roles?

The House asked a newish minister, recently further elevated, who has a reputation for being both competent and conscientious. Here is the edited conversation.

Chris Penk (National, MP for Kaipara ki Maharangi), is Minister of Defence, Space, the GCSB and SIS, Building and Construction, Veterans, and Associate Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery. He admits it’s a lot but professes to “enjoy it all”.

Learning on the job

How did you transition to becoming a minister?

A certain amount of it is learning on the job. For a very new member of Parliament becoming a minister probably is a challenge because they are learning two new jobs all at once.

Operating in Parliament, you’re aware of what ministers do, and you’re aware of the need for different skills, knowledge, and experience that you simply don’t have to have until such time as you reach that particular role.

As an MP, you’re contributing but you’re not really in charge of anything.

The reality is, it’s not the case that you’re making decisions on an individual basis as an MP. However, as a minister, there are decisions you make. Yes, government decisions are made almost by definition with Cabinet collective responsibility, but you propose things as a minister to your ministerial colleagues. (You don’t always get them across the line, by the way). And then there are statutory powers that the minister has to make in a particular area.

[Note: Legislation often delegates ongoing powers and specific decisions to individual ministers.]

A lot of people come to Parliament having never really been the boss of anything. You were a partner in a law firm and you’d been an officer in the Navy.

I’d been in charge of a couple of quite small teams, and so I had at least that experience, and whereas some people come to this place without having been in a leadership role and possibly find it difficult when they are asked to make a decision and every eye around the table is on you, waiting for you to pronounce as to your decision.

Conversely, colleagues who come in who have been used to being in decision-making roles, and [then] they don’t get much decision-making power, at least until they become a minister.

So when you became a minister you have to learn a lot of new rules before you actually have an enormous stack of papers land on your desk.

The papers come pretty well from day one. But yes, the briefings do as well, in terms of how to conduct your role. And some of it is just the mechanics of what the Cabinet Manual says about, you know, decision making, disclosures of interest, different rules for declaring gifts.

So, the rules of the game are different and you do need to get your head around that, but you also have to move very quickly to be able to do your job from day one. So the information flows, the decisions are needed.

[It can be much harder] if there’s a change of government. Inevitably, you have a large number of new ministers, and [issues requiring decisions will have built up], and suddenly you’re right in the deep end.

You would have a lot of decisions to make all at once and a lot of catching up to do, and a whole lot of people who maybe hadn’t done it before, and so no one much to mentor you either.

Usually, even in a new government, there will be some colleagues who have been ministers before. Coming in 2023, we had the benefit of former ministers from previous National administrations to talk to the new National ministers about how things work, and we had the ability to ask any [political] questions that wouldn’t have been appropriate [to ask] of the Cabinet Office.

You were already busy with building and construction, and veterans. But you’ve added a stack of extra portfolios. What happens when you take on new roles? Are there briefings, people to meet, places to visit? How do you get your head around it?

You do have to prioritise a bit. The inevitable elements are a BIM (Briefing to Incoming Minister) for each new portfolio, even if you’re transitioning from associate minister to minister.

The BIM sets out what’s within your control from a government point of view, but also the state of the sector more generally. In defence that was pointing out the shape of the Defence Force, the state of that, and also an update of upcoming decisions needed to keep the show on the road.

Also there’s the outside world in which one interacts. For example in building and construction, there are a couple of government-adjacent bodies, but also there’s a whole private sector of builders and other tradies who you need to be interacting with. Otherwise you can get the view only from the Beehive and not out in the real world. So all that is necessary as quickly as possible coming into a new role.

The team, the ministry, and the papers

We’re in your office in the Beehive. People might picture a vast team of helpers guiding you. But you haven’t got a big team, have you? Ministerial offices are small, especially as an international comparison.

Yeah, I think we’ve got a team that is appropriately small on the political side of things, so to speak. So in my role, I have one press secretary, one ministerial advisor, an SPS (someone who runs the office) and one person on the front desk. Between us, we do a lot.

There are the agencies or ministries themselves, but crucially, there’s a role which is halfway-between, which is what we call a private secretary, but you might call a secondi, or from a Defence point of view, they call a mil-sec (Military Secretary). That’s someone who comes from their agency to work in your ministerial office in the Beehive, and they provide a vital link between the agency and the minister and his or her team.

Yeah, a minister will have two or three of them for each of the departments or ministries or groups that they’re responsible for, right?

I’ve usually had only one private secretary for each of my portfolios until now. I’ve got one in the building and construction portfolio, but there are more in defence because they cover the Defence Force itself, also there’s Veterans (with different responsibilities and a lot of different work that needs to be done there), and there’s the Ministry of Defence, which is different again.

Those people help keep you apprised, but when the people with lots of brass on their shoulders turned up for meetings you must have felt a bit like a wee hamster; desperately sprinting, trying not to be the only guy in the room that didn’t know what was going on.

Yeah, that’s right. It’s literally the top brass in the room when it comes to defence.

[I have] a little bit of a defence background, but seeing these very senior figures coming in, it is an interesting, different way to operate and it’s very humbling to be their champion inside the Beehive and to be responsible for getting across the line, the things that they need to do their job safely and well.

You end up inevitably working closely with people, and the degree of trust personally between chief executives and ministers, I think, is really important if you’re to be successful in your role.

They run the department, and you are their champion, their front person, in a governorship role, right?

That’s right, but also you have to avoid appearing as though you’re captured [co-opted], and of course, avoid actually being captured. It’s not my role simply to do the things [an agency] wants to be done; but to understand, respect and acknowledge the importance of the work they do, and to represent that well, and to go into bat for them (consistent with the government’s aims), is the balance that every minister needs to try to strike.

Every ministry has a list of things they desperately want. But you’re between that rock and the hard place (the finance minister). You have to make difficult calls, I suppose.

It can seem very much like that. A classic of the genre, of course, is Yes Minister, or for modern audiences, Utopia is a brilliant documentary (as opposed to comedy). Just to echo that famous characterisation. But I think, all satire aside, I think there’s a genuine but healthy tension that needs to be struck between the … public sector … on the one hand, and the elected members of the Government.

The continuity and the stewardship of the public sector functions are important, but at the same time it’s important that the minister is able to represent not only the wishes of the government, but the people of New Zealand.

Ministries give their ministers copious briefings. How do you stay afloat? [Lists of ministerial briefings are often proactively released. The most recent examples from Defence include a very busy May 2024.]

Yeah, there’s a huge amount of information. The trick is to understand what’s most important; and to weigh that which is urgent with that which is important. Part of that is just judgement that you develop.

I think also you need a degree of trust in the government agencies, and in your staff, to highlight the things that are most worthy of your limited attention. But also, if you’ve got background or experience in a particular area, then you can make some of those value judgements yourself.

Having been a lawyer and also a naval officer, there are aspects of the role on which I’ve got a bit of a head start. I speak the language to some extent. I don’t know some other areas of the Defence Force so well, but then again, in my day job as MP for Kaipara ki Maharangi, the Whenuapai Airbase is within that so I’ve had a bit of interaction with the Air Force over time. So it’s all grist to the mill.

But on the other hand, coming into an area fresh, sometimes enables you to ask questions as an outsider with fresh eyes in a way that actually is helpful and quite healthy.

The fuller, audio version of this conversation is available at the link near the top of the article.

RNZ’s The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament’s Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ.

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

The Environment Select Committee has recommended disestablishing the Ministry for the Environment, despite overwhelming public opposition.

In its report, the committee said the creation of a new Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport mega ministry under a bill currently before Parliament would not significantly change the functions of the current ministry.

The committee received 588 written submissions. All but five submissions were overtly opposed to the bill.

It has recommended by majority that the bill be passed, despite strong opposition from Labour and Green Party members.

The Green Party members slammed the bill as ”yet another action by the most anti-environment government that Aotearoa New Zealand has ever had.”

The Labour Party members said they were ”appalled by the constant attacks on the environment by this government.”

Greens environment spokesperson Lan Pham said the government’s plan to get rid of the Ministry is ”an absolute travesty for New Zealand.”

”The Ministry for the Environment was established because years ago New Zealanders decided that a voice for the environment at the heart of government was actually essential. It was established at the same time as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, reflecting how important New Zealanders believed environmental oversight should be,” she said.

”Now, this government is pushing to bury that Ministry inside a mega-ministry focused on development and economic growth, despite no party campaigning on this and overwhelming opposition from experts, iwi and communities.”

Pham also raised concerns about transparency.

”We had no assurance as a Select Committee, for example, that expenditure that comes from government that goes towards the Ministry for the Environment will actually be transparent and clear.”

The bill is expected to return to Parliament for its second reading on Tuesday.

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 Parliamentary Service says threats against MPs are increasing, but staff feel hampered by MPs’ ”underwhelming” engagement with security efforts.

Parliament’s Petitions Committee has considered a call for an inquiry into the scale and nature of abuse and intimidation targeting women MPs and local body representatives.

Petitioner and former political staffer Sam Fisher said aggressive behaviour and violent threats were discouraging women from entering politics and damaging democracy.

His petition asked Parliament to investigate the scale and nature of threats.

In a submission, the Parliamentary Service told the committee it had noticed an increase in threats and abuse directed towards MPs, both online and in the community, despite what it believed to be a high threshold before MPs reported abuse.

”It believes it is already well established that threats and abuse towards elected representatives, particularly those who are women, is a serious issue requiring attention,” the Select Committee report said.

”The Service told us that its main limitations are resourcing and “underwhelming” engagement by MPs with its security offerings. It plans to continue expanding its offerings and hopes that members will be proactive in learning about and engaging in the services available to them.”

Researchers from the Fixated Threat Assessment Centre also provided a submission to the committee.

Clinical lead Justin Barry Walsh said the prevalence of threats and abuse against MPs was a ”concerning” and ”wicked” problem.

”I would not underestimate the harm that this causes, both to the public figures and their staff, but also I would suggest to our communities and our society,”‘ he said.

Local Government New Zealand told the committee that there had been an increase in harassment of politicians.

”A mid-2025 survey of LGNZ members found that bullying and harassment was very common, reported by 91 percent of women and 83 percent of men surveyed. Women reported more harassment on social media and in everyday interactions outside formal settings,” the report said.

”Survey results showed that most respondents take no formal action, which echoes the concerns of underreporting expressed by the Parliamentary Service.”

Anecdotally, LGNZ’s female members had reported gendered abuse, sexualised comments and threats, with wāhine Māori particularly targeted.

”It notes that much abuse is online and that this abuse is unavoidable when politicians need to use social media to campaign. In-person abuse has taken place at public events, in the supermarket, and at politicians’ homes. Children have been present during instances of in-person abuse and some women reported that their children had been followed home from school,” the report said.

The committee said that consideration of a report from the Ministry for Women would provide a chance for parliamentarians to consider many of the issues raised by the petitioner.

”We consider that opening a separate inquiry is not necessary at this stage.”

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 Parliamentary Service says threats against MPs are increasing, but staff feel hampered by MPs’ ”underwhelming” engagement with security efforts.

Parliament’s Petitions Committee has considered a call for an inquiry into the scale and nature of abuse and intimidation targeting women MPs and local body representatives.

Petitioner and former political staffer Sam Fisher said aggressive behaviour and violent threats were discouraging women from entering politics and damaging democracy.

His petition asked Parliament to investigate the scale and nature of threats.

In a submission, the Parliamentary Service told the committee it had noticed an increase in threats and abuse directed towards MPs, both online and in the community, despite what it believed to be a

high threshold before MPs reported abuse.

”It believes it is already well established that threats and abuse towards elected representatives, particularly those who are women, is a serious issue requiring attention,” the Select Committee report said.

”The Service told us that its main limitations are resourcing and “underwhelming” engagement by MPs with its security offerings. It plans to continue expanding its offerings and hopes that members will be proactive in learning about and engaging in the services available to them.”

Researchers from the Fixated Threat Assessment Centre also provided a submission to the committee.

Its clinical lead Justin Barry Walsh said the prevalence of threats and abuse against MPs was a ”concerning” and ”wicked” problem.

”I would not underestimate the harm that this causes, both to the public figures and their staff, but also I would suggest to our communities and our society,”‘ he said.

Local Government New Zealand told the committee that there had been an increase in harassment of politicians.

”A mid-2025 survey of LGNZ members found that bullying and harassment was very common, reported by 91 percent of women and 83 percent of men surveyed. Women reported more harassment on social media and in

everyday interactions outside formal settings,” the report said.

”Survey results showed that most respondents take no formal action, which echoes the concerns of underreporting expressed by the Parliamentary Service.”

Anecdotally, LGNZ’s female members had reported gendered abuse, sexualised comments, and threats, with wāhine Māori particularly targeted.

”It notes that much abuse is online and that this abuse is unavoidable when politicians need to use social media to campaign. In-person abuse has taken place at public events, in the supermarket, and at

politicians’ homes. Children have been present during instances of in-person abuse and some women reported that their children had been followed home from school,” the report said.

The committee said that consideration of a report from the Ministry for Women would provide a chance for parliamentarians to consider many of the issues raised by the petitioner.

”We consider that opening a separate inquiry is not necessary at this stage.”

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 Green Party has criticised the government’s decision to scrap the fees-free tertiary education scheme.

Finance Minister Nicola Willis has confirmed the scheme will be ditched in the upcoming Budget, following comments made by NZ First Leader Winston Peters on Newstalk ZB.

“Ongoing coalition negotiations have led to good budget policy decisions that further the immediate and long-term interests of New Zealanders,” she said.

Willis also confirmed students completing their tertiary studies this year would remain eligible for fees-free, but many of those students completing three-year-courses or longer had already had their first year free.

At the end of 2024, the government modified the system, offering students their last year free, rather than the first, as it was when Labour first introduced the policy.

Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson told RNZ the government should be investing more in the future of young people, not less.

“This is absolutely outrageous – another kick in the guts for our generations of young people particularly and anyone who wants to dream about giving back to their community.”

The Greens would fight to re-instate fees-free support, she said.

“The Greens know that it is a fantastic, wise, smart investment to invest in tertiary education for students and our communities.”

The government should be incentivising tertiary study, given more than 14 percent of young people were not in work or education, she said.

Students disappointed, not surprised

Victoria University Student Association president Aidan Donoghue said he was disappointed the scheme was getting the axe, but not surprised.

“We’ve continually seen attacks on students from this government and this is just another example.”

Fees free encouraged some students to enter or continue study, because debt was a deterring factor, he said.

“To pay an extra $12,000 in fees is not a good pill to swallow.”

Scrapping the scheme would have a particularly tough impact on those from lower-income backgrounds, Donoghue said.

“Students have been calling for more money week-to-week and… we’re not sure that this will be replaced with anything else that will address the concerns of students with the cost of living.”

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

Explainer – New Zealand has announced would-be citizens will have to pass a test about starting next year. What might that look like and how do other countries do similar tests?

The test on various topics around New Zealand life and government would be required for many applying for citizenship from next year.

“Becoming a New Zealand citizen is a significant milestone in a person’s life and a great honour,” Minister of Internal Affairs Brooke van Velden said in announcing the change.

“This change reinforces the value of New Zealand citizenship, and what it means to obtain it.”

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon told Morning Report on Thursday that New Zealand was following similar tests in other nations.

“I just don’t think there’s any harm,” Luxon said of introducing the tests.

The exact date the test will launch hasn’t been set, but the announcement said late 2027.

While it will be new to New Zealand, tests like this aren’t uncommon – they’re already in use in Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States among others.

Here’s what we know so far about citizenship tests and what we can learn from other countries.

Who has to take the test?

If you’re applying for citizenship by grant from late 2027, you’ll have to take it in addition to any other application requirements.

There are three ways to become a citizen – by birth, by descent (being born overseas but having at least one parent who was a NZ citizen when you were born), or by grant – which means you’re a foreign national who has usually been a permanent resident of NZ for at least five years.

Most people who apply by grant will have to take the new test, but there are some exceptions – you don’t have to sit the test if you:

• are under 16 years old
• are aged 65 or over
• have been granted a waiver for the English language requirement for citizenship
• are not of full capacity
• have a severe medical condition that would prevent completing the test
• have unique personal circumstances that would prevent completing the test
• are a New Zealand citizen by descent applying for citizenship by grant
• are applying from overseas but meet the presence requirement – for example, if they live in Niue, the Cook Islands or Tokelau, or are working overseas for the NZ government.

“Exemptions from the test are intended to ensure the approach is proportionate, fair, and in line with approaches taken in comparable countries,” van Velden said.

Van Velden also told RNZ’s Checkpoint there would be no exemptions based on income levels.

How’s test taking going to work?

The test will consist of 20 multiple-choice questions and applicants must get 15 answers, or 75 percent, correct to pass.

The test will be only offered in person, at locations throughout New Zealand.

The aim is not to just have testing spots in main centres, the announcement said. Service accessibility to all will be a key consideration, van Velden said.

“I did consider an online test, however, with rapid development of AI and ability for individuals to have help at home, I considered this a less robust test than an in-person test,” van Velden said.

What’s it going to cost?

There will be a fee to take the test in addition to existing citizenship application fees, but a specific amount hasn’t been chosen yet.

“The cost itself hasn’t been borne out yet,” van Velden told Checkpoint.

The Department of Internal Affairs plans to look for a potential third-party provider to provide the test and the cost would be determined then, she said.

“I do believe it is important that there is a cost to the test because we do want people to study for it, and when there’s a user-pays component … people do take that seriously and if there wasn’t a cost, it is possible that people might sit multiple times without looking at the guidance that DIA provide.”

Currently, applying for citizenship by grant costs $560 for adults and $280 for children aged 15 and under.

If you fail the test, you can take it again but the government says applicants “will likely” have to pay a new fee each time they sit the test.

If you fail to pass the test three times, you have to wait 30 days. You’ll only get six tries in total to pass the test, however, and then you’ll be “provided options” including withdrawing your citizenship application and getting a partial refund of application fees.

What kind of questions will they be asking?

In the announcement, van Velden said the topics will include the Bill of Rights Act, human rights, voting rights and democratic principles, New Zealand’s system of government, some criminal offences and questions about travelling overseas on a New Zealand passport.

Notably, there was no mention of Te Tiriti o Waitangi or Māori tikanga in the announcement.

However, there will be a Treaty of Waitangi question in the test, van Velden confirmed to RNZ.

She said the questions themselves have yet to be decided.

“I won’t go into any particular question itself because we won’t be releasing those, but the questions are revolving around freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of association, the fact that men and women have equal rights, that we have protection from discrimination, that we have free elections … all the things that have made our country good.”

The Department of Internal Affairs is handling the details of how the test will be implemented. There will be guides and other resources ahead of the test introduction to allow people to prepare and pass.

“On balance, it’s very, very similar to what the UK and Australia have been doing for years,” Luxon told RNZ.

“It’s probably not a bad thing to remind people that things like freedom of expression, freedom of speech and women having equal rights, all those kind of things, to have them positively affirmed is probably a good thing.”

Will the test remain even if the government changes before 2027?

Of course, there’s also an election this year, so will that have an impact?

When asked by RNZ if he supported the exam, Labour leader Chris Hipkins said he was open to strengthening citizenship rules, but expressed concern about no mention of the Treaty of Waitangi in the original announcement.

“Do we want those who are gaining New Zealand citizenship to basically be signing up to adhering to New Zealand’s rules and so on? Yes, of course, that’s inherent in the citizenship process, but excluding a big part of our own history from that seems to undermine what they’re trying to do.”

As noted, van Velden has since indicated there will be one question on the Treaty.

How do tests work in other countries?

As mentioned, Australia, the US and UK all have some form of test most applicants for citizenship must take.

“New Zealand has looked at approaches used in comparable countries such as Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada when developing the test,” van Velden said.

“This includes elements like the number of questions, passing rates, exemption categories, and delivery approach.”

Sample questions available online in training sites and apps show these tests have a wide spectrum of possible questions would-be citizens might be asked – and perhaps a guidepost for how New Zealand’s test might work.

Australia requires a test and has a 20-question multiple choice exam that asks questions about Australian values and history. A practice test is also available online where questions such as “Who can deliver a Welcome to Country?” and what Anzac Day commemorates can be found.

In the United Kingdom, most applicants must take the “Life in the UK” test with 24 multiple-choice questions about British traditions and customs and show English language proficiency. Practice tests on an unofficial test preparation website ask questions such as who William Shakespeare was and whether pool and darts are traditional pub games, plus somewhat harder questions such as “Who was reigning in England when Wales became formally united with England by the Act for the Government of Wales?” (If you answered Henry VII, you’re correct!)

Over in the United States, a two-part test covering English language skills and civics is required for many applicants. The civics test is conducted as an oral test of 20 questions from a possible 128. Sample questions for that one cover how the three branches of American government work, who wrote the Declaration of Independence and why America entered the Vietnam war.

There’s also a few freebies such as “What is the name of the President of the United States now,” in case the applicant hasn’t been paying attention to, well, anything, the last 10 years or so.

Sometimes questions on a test can be controversial. For instance, The Washington Post reported many took issue with a question that asked “When did all women get the vote?” The test’s answer was in 1920 – after the US Constitution was amended to allow women to vote – but many pointed out that Black and Native American women voters actually faced barriers to voting for decades after 1920 and the wording of the question to say “all women” was misleading.

It goes to show that the questions – and how they’re phrased, especially around touchy issues – could be a tricky road to navigate in putting together New Zealand’s future citizenship test.

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