Category: Politics

Source: Radio New Zealand

Senior National Minister Judith Collins has announced her retirement from politics.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon on Wednesday confirmed Collins had been appointed President of the New Zealand Law Commission.

The Prime Minister’s office confirmed Collins would remain an MP and continue to hold her portfolios until she moves to her new job in the middle of the year.

A spokesperson also confirmed her resignation would not automatically trigger a by-election for the Papakura electorate as it would be close enough to the general election.

First elected in 2002, Collins is the current longest continuously serving female MP, one of the most experienced politicians in the government, and has a reputation for toughness.

There were rumours of her departure over the summer break.

She preceded Christopher Luxon as National leader, taking the party to a resounding defeat in the 2020 election, which led to Labour taking enough seats to govern alone for the first time in MMP history.

The campaign was marked by accusations of racist separatism around the He Puapua report and increasing accusations of announcing policy on the hoof.

During an election debate with Labour’s Jacinda Ardern, she was asked by Aorere College head girl Aigagalefili Fepulea’i Tapua’i about students having to quit school and find employment to support their families, and began with “My husband is Samoan so, talofa”.

She was replaced in November the following year after suddenly demoting rival Simon Bridges in a late-night statement, accusing him of serious misconduct.

The handling of that led the party to a vote of no confidence in her, and her replacement, but under Luxon’s leadership, she has reformed her image as one of the government’s most effective ministers, now holding seven portfolios.

As Defence Minister this term, she has led a huge increase in spending and bolstered the Defence Force’s equipment and property – and has fronted the handling of the Manawanui sinking.

She has also been minister for the spy agencies, the public service and digitising government, and in her former role as Science, Innovation and Technology Minister, led large-scale reforms to the sector.

Early in her political career, she earned the nickname “crusher” Collins for a policy that would see boy-racers’ cars crushed if they were caught speeding.

Collins is no stranger to controversy. In 2014, in John Key’s government, she was on her “final warning” after endorsing Oravida milk, which her husband is a director of.

She received her second final warning when her involvement in the Dirty Politics saga was revealed, and resigned her portfolios later in 2014 after accusations she undermined the head of the Serious Fraud Office as Police Minister, but returned to Cabinet in 2015.

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

Finance Minister Nicola Willis has announced Budget Day will be 28 May.

Willis confirmed the date while presenting the Budget Policy Statement at Select Committee on Wednesday morning.

She promised the Budget would focus on supporting the delivery of core public services like healthcare, education, defence and law and order.

“As has been the case with this government, it will be a responsible budget and it will be a budget that invests in the important things and makes savings to ensure that we can do important things in the future.”

Willis said Budget 2026 would demonstrate tight control of discretionary government spending while funding a limited number of priority commitments.

“There will be no splashing the cash,” she said.

“Careful stewardship of public finances is essential to fixing the basics and building the future. Delivering savings and reprioritising existing expenditure will again be features of the Budget.

“These sorts of decisions are always tough, but they are necessary to ensure we can continue to fund the public services people rely upon while getting the books back in order.”

The Budget date announcement follows Prime Minister Christopher Luxon announcing 7 November as Election Day last week.

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

Ngāpuhi leaders are calling on the government to pause its Treaty settlement mandate process in Te Tai Tokerau, describing it as “divisive” and against the collective interests of hapū.

Ngāpuhi kaumātua and kuia say the process is moving too quickly and is not allowing enough time for hapū to reach collective decisions in line with tikanga.

Frances Goulton, a Ngāti Ruamahue kuia, said the mandate approach was causing harm within communities and reopening old wounds.

“This mandate process is driving wedges between our people,” she said.

“We’ve been here before with Tūhoronuku, and we rejected it then for good reason. It ignores our tikanga and pressures whānau and hapū to fall into line rather than taking the time to build real agreement. That is not the Ngāpuhi way.”

The Crown previously recognised Tūhoronuku as the mandated body to negotiate a Ngāpuhi settlement, but the model was widely opposed and later disbanded following legal challenges and hapū resistance.

Mike Smith, Tahawai kaumātua, said the current process mirrors that earlier approach.

“The Crown wants us to voluntarily extinguish our rangatiratanga now and into the future, that’s what this so-called settlement process is really about,” he told RNZ.

Smith said the historical context is critical to understanding the current tensions.

“Ngāpuhi has proved to be a rather tough nut to crack for the Crown in terms of a settlement. The Waitangi Tribunal two years ago ruled in our favour, confirming we have never surrendered our rangatiratanga authority,” he said.

“Yet the Crown embarked upon a tortuous 10-year process, Tūhoronuku, trying to cajole and manipulate tribes in the north into these extinguishing deals. We refused, and that process collapsed. It divided communities and caused acrimony.”

Now the Crown has returned with a new process, Smith said, seeking negotiators to sit across the table to finalise the settlement of treaty claims.

“They haven’t satisfied their own legal requirements to have a robust decision, but they’re still pushing forward with it.”

He described the current process as “fraudulent” and warned it risks dividing communities.

“People are jockeying for positions about who’s going to be the negotiators. But it doesn’t matter who the negotiators are going to be. You’re still not going to get anything,” he said.

“There’s very little around the edges to negotiate. What you really effectively want is some people who are going to sign the deal. That’s what you want. There’s no negotiation.”

Once agreements are signed, a post-settlement governance entity (PSGE) appointed by the Crown would receive any financial and commercial resources, leaving claimants and negotiators with little influence, Smith said.

“A lot of them have put their whole lives – it’s been a 50-year process. Many of the claimants have died, never seen the resolution of their claims. Their hapū, their whānau have endeavoured to carry that on,” he said.

“Now that it’s moving into this phase where the claimants are just shunted off over the horizon, many of them are trying to stay relevant in the game.”

Smith said the current process undermines tikanga and Māori unity.

“Ngāpuhi have consistently made clear that unity cannot be imposed. Settlement achieved through division, coercion, or exhaustion is not reconciliation – it is destabilisation,” he said.

He also criticised the lack of engagement from those facilitating the government’s process.

“We’ve recurrently requested all documentation to show evidence of engagement because they’re meant to be meeting with our people to convince them, but they haven’t,” Smith said.

“They’ve spent the last 12 months just having meetings with the Crown. So they’re not engaging with us. They’re engaging with the government, which is not a neutral process.”

Smith said the mandate process reflects broader political challenges facing Māori.

“We know that there’s a war on Māori. There’s a war on the Treaty. There’s a war on the environment,” he said.

He also questioned whether now was an appropriate time to negotiate with the current government.

“If we were going to settle with the government, do you think we ought to be settling with this government?” he said.

“They’d be the last ones to afford us any emoticon of justice.”

“Dark clouds loom over Waitangi”

As Waitangi Day approaches, Smith said Ngāpuhi are focussed on commemorating the vision of their tūpuna rather than celebrating government initiatives.

“If we had been getting things right, or at least moving in that direction, it would be a cause for celebration. But nobody up here is celebrating Waitangi,” he said.

“By continuing on its current path, the government risks entrenching conflict and doing lasting damage to relationships within Ngāpuhi and between Māori and the Crown.”

Smith said they are calling for a pause to the mandate process to allow whānau and hapū the time for genuine discussion and tikanga-based decision-making.

“Consent must be freely given and informed. Not manufactured through pressure, deadlines, or by treating silence as agreement,” Smith said.

“We want Treaty justice. We don’t want Treaty extinguishment, and that’s what we’re getting. We’re not getting the justice bit. We’re getting the extinguishment bit. Who does that suit? That suits the government. That doesn’t suit us.”

Smith said the current trajectory undermines decades of work and risks perpetuating grievances across generations.

“The light at the end of the tunnel is the Treaty extinguishment train, and it’s pulling into the station, and it’s just going to mow people down,” he said.

“It’s not only going to deprive the claimants and have no return to them. It’s a really abusive process, and it only benefits the government.”

Minister responds

Speaking to Media on Tuesday, Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Paul Goldsmith said that when talking about a potential Ngāpuhi settlement, there is no surprise “there’s a wide variety of views.”

“Some who are implacably opposed to settling ever, and some who are fully in support.” he said.

“We’re just working our way through the process as carefully and constructively as we can.”

Goldsmith said as it stands, there are currently three or four different groupings across the North who are working their way through that process.

“We’re hoping to have more starting in the next little while. We’re seeing some momentum, so that’s good.”

However, Smith rejected this framing, arguing that it ignores hapū concerns and historical grievances.

“We’re not opposing settlement. We’re opposing extinguishment,” he said.

“We haven’t met anybody who said they don’t want to settle ever. We’re saying taihoa, just hang on a minute, put the brakes on. We need an independent review of what the government is doing so that we can hold that up to some type of standard.”

Smith said Ngāpuhi leaders will continue to advocate for processes that respect hapū autonomy and uphold the spirit and intent of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

“Ngāpuhi deserves a process that builds unity, respects hapū autonomy, and upholds the Treaty,” Smith said.

“Not another failed mandate imposed in the name of expediency.”

RNZ has approached the Minister for further comment.

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 Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi says the government’s $1 million to reimburse marae that provided welfare in response to severe weather events is “not enough”.

He said, “We don’t need money for a response, we need money for resilience, and our communities need it right now.”

The first day back at Parliament saw parties responding to the government’s announcement on Tuesday it would top up the Mayoral Relief Funds with $1.2m for immediate support to those communities affected, alongside $1m for marae.

Christopher Luxon praised support from marae as “exceptional”.

“They have provided shelter, food and care to people in need, and I cannot speak more highly of them.”

Finance Minister Nicola Willis said Te Puni Kokiri would coordinate with NEMA on distributing funds to marae, “often Te Puni Kokiri are the ones with the relationships on the ground”.

“But of course, in all of these responses, it’s a matter for council, marae and emergency response to work together.”

Emergency Management and Recovery Minister Mark Mitchell also praised marae, saying they had stood up and provided support at “just about every event that I’ve been to”.

He said his emergency management bill that was in the house at the moment “actually formally codifies them having a seat at the table, because they are very good at emergency management”.

Luxon went on to say he and Mitchell had the privilege of visiting some of the marae in Northland over the weekend.

“I came away feeling incredibly proud and humbled by the manaakitanga shown by everyone there,” said Luxon.

But Waititi said it was “nice to be proud and humbled by it when you just visit for five minutes”, but those communities had “quite often” had to face severe weather and climate issues without plans to “build resilience”.

“It’s our little communities that are hit first.

“We’re the first to respond, but we’re the last to be given any type of resources,” Waititi said. He wanted the Prime Minister to reconsider “giving the right resourcing to the right communities”.

The recovery period would take “months and months and months” he said, “but we’re sick of response”.

“This has happened before. This is not an unprecedented issue anymore. It’s not one in 100 years. This is not once in a lifetime. These events are happening every year. We’re having these conversations every year.”

He pointed to Te Tai Rawhiti who were having to rebuild roads “all the time”, and marae there who had to respond all the time.

“But they’re responding on the smell of an oily rag.”

He acknowledged those who had lost their lives, “but how many more lives must we lose before we start looking at plans of resilience and not response?”

NZ First leader Winston Peters said Waititi had got up and “made a fool of himself”.

He said NZ First had given the most money to marae upgrades “because we know they’re sustainable institutions” and they demonstrated that during Covid-19 and the current crisis.

His deputy leader Shane Jones brushed off questions about whether climate change was linked to last week’s storms.

Jones said he was not interested in a debate on climate politics but he was all about adaptation.

He had this response when asked if climate change played a part, “no – the volatility of the weather is something we must not take for granted, but taxing cows as they belch and emit from the rear end is something I’m totally disinterested in.”

Jones said he was the minister that found $200m for stopbanks from the Regional Infrastructure fund.

Labour’s Chris Hipkins also said marae should be valued “day in, day out, year round” not only in “times of tragedy”.

“Marae do amazing work when New Zealand’s faced with tragedy, when we’re faced with adverse situations.

“They throw their doors open. They welcome everybody.”

Hipkins was broadly supportive of the government’s initial funding support, saying it was “clearly a start”.

“I recall when cyclone Gabrielle hit initial sums of money looked quite modest, and then we had to build from there.”

He didn’t want to rush and criticise the amount, “because it will take some time to identify exactly what support for rebuild and clean up is required”.

Luxon had outlined this during the post-cabinet media conference on Tuesday when announcing the package.

“The top up of Mayoral funds, which is a very tactical, practical, immediate piece of funding, that is not the ‘be all and end all’ here.”

Finance Minister Nicola Willis echoed this, saying the Mayoral Relief Fund was a “drop in the ocean”.

“Tthat’s just putting cash in local bank accounts to ensure that voluntary efforts aren’t stopped for lack of resource.”

Luxon indicated it was too early to say how much the total cost of recovery would be, but Gisborne District Mayor Rehette Stoltz told Checkpoint on Tuesday she estimated the damage caused to her region alone during last week’s storms will cost some $21.5 million to fix.

Willis said there was “hundreds of millions of dollars available across government for responding to this event”.

She gave the government policy statement on transport as an example, which specifically allocated funds for the rebuild of roads following natural disasters. There was $400m available for the rebuild of state highways and more then $300m for local roads.

The Greens also criticised the government’s $1.2m, questioning why the government had not implemented Civil Defense Payments, which was immediate relief and available under current legislation.

The Greens co-leader Chloe Swarbrick said the government was not doing enough – especially when it came to long term challenges.

She said the government had “knowingly and intentionally made decisions to make climate change worse”.

“Climate change is not only devastating in terms of the loss of life that we see, but also in terms of exacerbating the cost of living crisis – so no, the government is not doing enough.”

The ACT leader said he was more in favour of climate funding going toward adaptation rather than mitigation.

David Seymour noted the government had spent “around a billion dollars on climate change adaptation”. He said the government had done deregulation work making it easier to “raise roads, to build drainage, to ensure that these things are less likely to happen”.

“So are we there yet? Clearly not remotely close,” he said.

“But the government has done a major pivot away from really quite futile efforts to reduce global emissions towards practical improvements to what is on the ground in New Zealand.”

He said he didn’t want to “further politicise it” by pointing out who he thought was politicising it.

Hipkins said in response to whether mitigation or adaptation should be the focus, “we need to be able to do both”.

“The reality here is that without mitigation, the amount of money that we’d need to spend on adaptation would be unaffordable.”

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 Workplace Relations Minister Brooke van Velden will change hazardous substance regulations for research laboratories, saying it will save the industry billions.

The labs would be able to develop their own risk management plans, a new code of practice would be developed, and some specific rules were being tweaked.

One researcher said the changes would make it much easier and cheaper for the sector, which he thought would support the new code of practice.

When the government changed the regulations for hazardous substances in 2017, rules for research labs – which had previously been separate – were lumped in with those for industrial labs including petrol refineries, food processors, and commercial cleaning and pesticide producers.

Van Velden told RNZ carve-outs for researchers were intended to be developed, but that never happened and some of the regulations were not well suited.

“It’s pretty clear there’s a big difference between people who have huge amounts of hazardous goods for … sale and production of goods versus people that have a lot of smaller portions of hazardous goods for research,” she said.

Victoria University of Wellington School of Chemical and Physical Sciences senior lecturer Mathew Anker said it was not that the rules for dangerous chemicals were being softened, but suited to the environment.

For instance, the rules for handling ammonia made sense when using industrial quantities to treat milk.

“In a research lab we have 1000 chemicals, we don’t have 1000 sensors. Half the sensors we’d have to put in don’t exist … on top of that it’s at such a low volume that it won’t happen.

“We have huge amounts of ventilation, we have fume cupboards that suck away all those fumes … but that isn’t taken into account in the regulations.”

A Cabinet paper showed many research labs were now non-compliant with the rules because they were built under the previous requirements.

“The costs to rebuild these laboratories to comply would be extreme …. and overly restrictive, and may not improve safety,” the paper said.

Van Velden pointed to estimates from Universities New Zealand suggesting it would have cost between $1.5 billion and $3b to make the labs compliant if there was no change.

She said current rules specified that labs must be on the ground floor, but at a university it made more sense to have them on a higher floor so people could escape in case of a fire.

The regulator, WorkSafe, would work with the industry to develop a new Approved Code of Practice (ACOP), she said, clearly setting out obligations under the Health and Safety at Work Act to solve problems like that.

“Industry experts as well as WorkSafe will be creating this tailored compliance pathway – it’s not going to be created by a minister that doesn’t have scientific background,” she said.

Cabinet on 2 December had also agreed to change some specific regulations:

• Research labs would be able to manage handling, packaging and storage of hazardous substances through a risk management plan
• Storage sites located nearby, which currently could face more stringent rules, would have the same regulations as labs
• Researchers, who already had higher levels of training, would not need separate certification to handle hazardous substances
• Lab managers would no longer need to be on site at all times, instead only required to be available to provide oversight
• Instead of needing knowledge of all hazardous substances used, managers would only need knowledge of safety risks

Dr Anker said research labs were operating safely, but compliance under the old rules was another question altogether.

For example, the university had spent more than three years and more than $1 million to move a device for purifying solvents without using heat or electricity because the regulations demanded it.

As a result, students now needed to walk through the hallways carrying solvent in glassware rather than simply moving around the lab.

“Two buildings across and three floors down, and that piece of equipment was being used 10, 20, 30 times a day … but we now have our students traipsing across two buildings and down the three floors to collect their very, very small volumes of solvent.”

WorkSafe had intervened, despite Fire and Emergency agreeing with the university about the safest way to do things, he said.

“The industry experts using the chemicals and the experts at putting the fires out from the chemicals agreed with each other, but the regulator disagreed with us.”

He said the research sector had been lobbying the government for eight years trying to get fit-for-purpose rules in place, and the result was a return to a pragmatic, risk-based approach.

He was confident creating their own risk management plans would be unlikely to lead to corner-cutting.

“The onus for responsibility for health and safety is on that person that’s trying to cut around the rules. Now, most people are not going to stick their neck out and say ‘I’m going to do something incredibly unsafe, just because I want to’,” he said.

“Second of all, when the lab managers build these risk assessments and all the rest of it, it has to go through a very thorough process.”

Such risk plans were already used in universities around the country, he said.

WSP Research national manager for research Wendy Turvey in a statement said the codes of practice and other tools agreed on were a pragmatic solution and would provide clearer settings for risk management while recognising the realities of research environments.

“WSP has had input through the working groups as the regulations were shaped, and we’re pleased with the final outcome. Just as importantly, the process has been strongly collaborative – involving MBIE, universities, WorkSafe, [public] research organisations and other independent research organisations and companies.”

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

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

Labour leader Chris Hipkins is getting little clarity from voters on which governing partners he should shut out, with a new poll showing the electorate divided on his post-election options.

Hipkins has so far refused to say which parties Labour would or would not work with in a future government but has promised to set that out “closer to the election”.

The latest RNZ-Reid Research poll, conducted from 15-22 January, asked New Zealanders whether Hipkins should rule out any potential pathways to power.

About half of voters want Labour to rule out deal with Te Pāti Māori

The most definitive response came regarding Te Pāti Māori, with almost half of all respondents – 49.6 percent – saying Labour should rule out working with it, compared with just over 34 percent who said it should not.

A further 16 percent said they did not know.

But Hipkins’ dilemma is driven home when looking more specifically at Labour’s own base.

There, just 38 percent of Labour voters said Hipkins should reject Te Pāti Māori, while 44 percent preferred to keep the option open. Undecideds numbered 18.5 percent.

Supporters of Te Pāti Māori and the Greens were strongly aligned in wanting Labour to leave the door open, with more than 60 percent in favour and just 20 percent against.

Among National voters, nearly two-thirds said Labour should rule out Te Pāti Māori, a view shared by about 75 percent of ACT voters and more than 80 percent of NZ First voters.

The polling lands after months of turmoil for Te Pāti Māori, marked by internal conflict, ill discipline and the expulsion of two MPs, one later reinstated after court action.

Hipkins has increasingly sharpened his criticism, saying Te Pāti Māori clearly was not ready for government right now. He has also said Labour would aim to win every Māori electorate, effectively eliminating Te Pāti Māori altogether.

But Labour’s pathway to power is precarious without Te Pāti Māori’s numbers.

The headline results from the latest RNZ-Reid Research poll show the opposition bloc – including Te Pāti Māori – just short of the majority support required.

NZ First could make the difference and has worked with Labour before, in 2005 and 2027. But leader Winston Peters says he will not work with Labour as long as Hipkins remains leader.

Hipkins has also been sceptical of any reunion, telling media he ruled out NZ First before the last election and that was “highly unlikely” to change.

New Zealand First divides voters most sharply

Voters appeared more open to the idea of a revived Labour-NZ First deal than the parties’ leaders were, though opinions were fairly evenly split.

Thirty-nine percent said Labour should shut the door on NZ First, while almost 37 percent said it should not. Nearly a quarter were undecided.

Labour voters leaned more strongly toward ruling NZ First out, with 45 percent suggesting that course of action and about 35 percent opposed.

In fact, supporters of every Parliamentary party except NZ First were, on balance, more inclined to want Labour to exclude Peters.

That was the stance of 37 percent of National voters, 44 percent of ACT voters, 46 percent of Te Pāti Māori voters and 52 percent of Green voters.

By contrast, just 23 percent of NZ First supporters wanted to kill off the potential partnership. Two thirds were in favour of keeping it on the table.

What about Labour’s good friends in the Greens?

Voters were also divided over whether Labour should rule out the Green Party, despite the two parties’ recent cooperation.

More than 40 percent of respondents said Labour should rule out the Greens, compared with about 46 percent who said it should not.

Once again, views split down government and opposition lines.

More than 60 percent of Labour voters wanted the Green Party to remain in play, as did 84 percent of Green voters.

National, ACT and NZ First voters were far more likely to want the Greens excluded.

Speaking to RNZ, Hipkins said he was giving “plenty of thought” to Labour’s governing options and would outline his position “in the fullness of time”.

“Under MMP, you do need to work with other parties,” he said. “But you’ve also got to make sure there’s some compatability there.”

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 National Party has narrowly outperformed Labour as the party voters trust the most to manage the economy.

The latest RNZ-Reid Research results would return the coalition government to power with a slim majority of 61 seats, if replicated on polling day.

The results saw New Zealand First climb into third place on party preferences, recording its strongest result in the Reid Research series in more than eight years.

The RNZ-Reid Research poll also asked voters a series of topical questions, including what party they trusted most to manage the economy.

A slim majority of 32.2 percent of voters said they trusted National, with Labour just a whisker behind on 31.4 percent.

The next highest score was those who said they didn’t trust any party to manage the economy (9.7 percent) followed by those who said they didn’t know (7.7 percent).

New Zealand First scored next on (7.6 percent) followed by the Green Party (5.8 percent), the ACT Party (3.2 percent), Te Pāti Māori (1.7 per cent) and those who said other (0.6 percent).

The result will be a worry for the National Party, having battled two years of economic headwinds after promising to get the country back on track.

It will also be a concern that National came in behind Labour when voters were asked what party they trusted the most to assist with the cost of living.

Labour lead on 35.5 percent followed by National (24.6 percent), those who answered none (9.9 percent), the Greens (8.3 percent), New Zealand First (8.2 percent), those who said they didn’t know (7.8 percent), the ACT Party (3.5 percent), Te Pāti Māori (1.4 percent) and other (0.7 percent).

The leaders heading up the two major parties have also returned low results in their performance ratings.

There was a small improvement in the public’s perception of National leader Christopher Luxon’s performance, with a net score of -14, an improvement of 1.2 points over his September 2025 rating of -15.2.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins returned the lowest net score of 0.9 since he has been the Leader of the Labour Party.

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

Analysis: For a man who claims little regard for the polls, Winston Peters will surely be feeling more favourably toward their latest offerings.

For the second time in a matter of days, New Zealand First has been delivered a blinder.

The RNZ-Reid Research result – out Tuesday – puts the party in the number three spot and on the cusp of double-digits, its highest score in the series since July 2017.

And more fortune: the lift is also reflected in its leader’s personal standing.

Peters now attracts 12.6 percent support as preferred prime minister, putting him within seven points of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon.

The solid showing follows a similarly eye-catching Taxpayers’ Union-Curia poll last week, which had NZ First on a staggering 12 percent.

Everything seems to be coming up Winston Peters.

More remarkable, the surge is coming despite – or perhaps because of – a general backdrop of pessimism and disenchantment.

While sentiment has nudged up since the gloomy lows of September, it remains entrenched in negative territory.

Only 36.3 percent of voters believe the country is headed in the right direction.

And no wonder why. A convincing majority say they’re finding it harder to cope with the cost of living than a year ago.

A measly 6 percent say life is getting easier. And just 12 percent feel more flush.

Typically, those sort of results would indicate a classic change election, with frustrated voters looking for an alternative to those currently in power.

But no.

Despite the sour mood, the coalition has increased its overall support since the last RNZ-Reid Research poll and retains majority support, even if only just.

And that is largely thanks to NZ First.

Since last election, National and ACT have bled support and now appear to be stagnating. They are bearing the brunt of the blame for the persistent cost-of-living pressures.

If this was the result delivered on 7 November, National would lose eight MPs and ACT two.

NZ First, on the other hand, would grow its caucus from eight MPs to 12.

Despite being just as much a part of the government, NZ First is not receiving the same blame, nor punishment.

Why?

Scrape beneath the surface of the poll results and you can see that NZ First supporters are struggling far more than their National and ACT counterparts.

Six in 10 NZ First supporters say they’re finding the cost of living harder to manage than in January last year. More than half say they’re worse off financially.

Accordingly, they are also markedly more pessimistic about the country’s trajectory, with more saying it is on the wrong track than the right one.

Those voters want a change in direction – but they are not looking to the opposition parties. They are looking to NZ First.

This is new territory for a party with a bruising history in government. In both 1996 and 2017, NZ First saw its support fall away after entering Cabinet.

On each occasion, NZ First was subsequently ejected from Parliament altogether.

This time around seems different. Peters has been successful in differentiating NZ First both from its governing partners and the government as a whole.

That was demonstrated most clearly late last year in Peters’ strident opposition to the India free trade deal, Luxon’s pride and joy.

As well, Peters has come out against National’s flirtation with asset sales and the timeline for its tax cuts, as well as the ACT Party’s Regulatory Standards Act.

He is not shy about criticising his own government’s performance either, openly admitting the coalition had not turned the economy around as quickly as it should have.

Just last week, Peters told reporters the government had not done enough to adequately prepare some communities for extreme weather.

That sort of candour has proved great fodder for the opposition, but it has also reminded voters of Peters’ anti-establishment and populist instincts.

Similar dynamics are playing out abroad with Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party surging in the United Kingdom, and Pauline Hanson’s One Nation in Australia.

In both cases, disenchanted voters are searching for inspiration outside the mainstream parties.

Clearly there is an appetite for a more maverick approach, one sceptical of immigration, climate and so-called woke policies.

Peters has long-standing links to Farage and met with a Reform UK board member visiting New Zealand just last week.

“We take lessons from everybody that knows what they’re doing,” Peters told inquiring media. “Mind you, they take lessons from us as well.”

Labour let down by others on the left

It would be wrong to paint NZ First as the sole beneficiary of the general malaise.

Labour has lifted yet again in this poll, its fourth consecutive increase, securing its position as the country’s most popular party.

That’s quite a turnaround for a party trounced at the last election. This result would secure it an extra nine MPs.

Some in government had assumed, or hoped, that Labour’s momentum would stall once it began rolling out policy, but the arrival of its capital gains tax does not appear to have hurt it.

It is Labour’s friends on the left that have let it down.

Both the Green Party and Te Pāti Māori have endured terrible terms.

The Greens initially weathered a series of scandals, but their support now seems to be slipping away and a rapid staff turnover seems to have taken a toll on strategy and focus.

Te Pāti Māori, which had meteoric success early on, has since come crashing down in a blaze of infighting and turmoil.

Soon Labour leader Chris Hipkins will have to make a call about which parties he is prepared to work with in any future government.

Right now, he needs Te Pāti Māori’s numbers, but he will be mulling whether Labour could perhaps swallow them whole and take those votes for itself.

Watch for more results on that question later in the week.

All polls come with a caveat that they are only ever a snapshot of a single moment in time.

Much could yet change over the very long runway Luxon has set by opting for a November election.

His hope is that improving economic forecasts will have come to fruition by then, and that voters will migrate back to National from either Labour or NZ First.

It’s worth noting that the polls are not shifting around dramatically. Every poll from every pollster is telling effectively the same story: a tight race, tipping marginally one way or the other.

That stasis may well represent a lack of engagement, meaning the numbers could shift around as November draws closer and voters start to pay more attention.

In 2023, Labour shed about 10 points between the first Reid Research poll and the eventual election, following a series of ministerial mishaps.

In 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic turned the election on its head and saw National plummet a whopping 17 points over the year.

And in 2017, party support lurched wildly as a string of leaders stepped aside – themselves influenced by the polls.

All of that is to say: these may be the starting positions, but there’s plenty of race still to be run.

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

Parliament is back for 2026, as MPs return for caucus and Cabinet meetings, and the Prime Minister’s opening address.

Labour has told RNZ its caucus will discuss whether to support the free-trade agreement with India at its first meeting of the year.

Question Time will not be taking place this week, as the first parliamentary session begins with the Prime Minister’s statement to the House.

It is likely MPs will hold a special debate on the recent extreme weather.

At the first Cabinet meeting of the year Minister for Emergency Management Mark Mitchell will address the slip at Mount Maunganui and other storm damage.

Follow the latest in RNZ’s politics blog 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

The government is standing up its Temporary Accommodation Service to help people displaced by last week’s storms.

The Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment will accept registrations from people in Northland, Coromandel, Bay of Plenty, and Tairāwhiti who have been displaced or expect they may need temporary accommodation.

Associate housing minister Tama Potaka said government agencies will continue to work with councils, communities, and iwi to ensure a seamless transition for people in need to access safe, suitable accommodation, and will continue to provide wrap-around support including social services, mental health support, and financial support.

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