Category: Politics

Source: Radio New Zealand

MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi has been reinstated as a member of Te Pāti Māori, following an interim ruling by a high court judge, and will now attend the party’s Annual General Meeting this weekend.

The decision will be revisited at a full hearing in early February next year.

In a ruling published Friday afternoon, Justice Paul Radich said there were “serious questions to be tried” on the manner in which Kapa-Kingi was expelled from the party.

He said there were “certainly tenable arguments” that the expulsion was founded upon “mistaken facts and procedural irregularities”.

Justice Radich said he’s of the view there was a “position to preserve’. He acknowledged Kapa-King’s position in Parliament no longer reflects her election as an MP for Te Pāti Māori.

He pointed to practical considerations that weigh in favour of preserving her position as a member, such as access to party databases.

“While excluded, she and her staff can no longer access Te Pāti Māori database.

“Equally, the second applicant’s email address has been cancelled by the Pāti. That causes all sorts of issues for representation of the electorate,” said Justice Radich.

He also said Kapa-Kingi was not able to attend the AGM or other hui if she was not a member of the party.

“While the respondents have, in the assurances they have given, said that Ms Kapa-Kingi is welcome to attend the “protocol” session prior to the formal AGM – and that this is where the real discussion and pātai take place.

“That is a poor substitute for the full participation that would be open to her were she a member.”

Justice Radich’s decision to make an interim order pending the substantive hearing that will take place in February next year was released on Friday afternoon.

It followed Kapa-Kingi’s application for a temporary court order to reinstate her into the party and remove party president John Tamihere, which was heard by Justice Radich in the High Court at Wellington on Thursday morning.

Kapa-Kingi was expelled from the party, alongside Tākuta Ferris, in early November after a period of internal conflict.

The party’s co-leaders said the decision had been make in response to “serious breaches” of the party’s constitution, with both MPs fiercely disputing their expulsions.

She took the fight against her expulsion to court just days before the party’s AGM, taking place on Sunday in Rotorua, which she wasn’t able to attend in full following her expulsion.

The case

Kapa-Kingi’s lawyer Mike Colson KC said his client disputed how Te Pāti Māori’s constitution had been applied to two primary issues that had come to a head in recent months: a projected overspend on the Te Tai Tokerau budget and public statements made by her son Eru Kapa-Kingi.

Colson’s submissions were dense but focused on the party’s constitution and the step-by-step processes followed – or not followed – for the expulsion of Kapa-Kingi.

He submitted the national council meeting in which the decision to expel Kapa-Kingi was made wasn’t legitimate because her electorate was excluded from the hui.

On the decision itself, Colson said it had myriad issues, including the national council having no power to suspend or expel a member, the parliamentary funds in question not being party funds, there being no misuse of the funds (including for personal gain) and that a natural justice process had not been followed.

Tamihere’s lawyer Davey Salmon KC argued Kapa-Kingi’s assertion her case for legal intervention against her expulsion was “overwhelming” was was not borne out by the facts.

On the constitution, he said the national council did have authority to expel Kapa-Kingi as it was the “primary heavy lifter of hard decisions in this context”.

The constitution did not provide for a member to get a special disciplinary hearing and this was common practice used by other political parties, he said.

Salmon submitted there had been a quorum for the decision to expel Kapa-Kingi and that it was not relevant to suggest the funds in question were parliamentary funds, not party ones.

Allegations of misuse of funds were a “red rag to a bull” to certain media outlets and political opponents, and Te Pāti Māori had been determined to deal with them quickly, he said.

A more substantial hearing has been set down for 2 February 2026.

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 Oceans and Fisheries Minister has raised concerns about fish “heading to Te Waipounamu” due to warming waters.

“In my lifetime, we’re seeing the drift into the South Island of fisheries resources that have been historically located in the North Island,” Shane Jones said.

The minister appeared before the Primary Production select committee for Scrutiny Week on Friday morning, and was asked about his “favourite topic, climate change” by Green MP Teanau Tuiono.

“I did anticipate this question,” Jones responded.

In October, Tuiono had asked Jones about the risk posed by warming oceans to the sustainability of the fishing industry after the Our Marine Environment 2025 report showed the rate of warming in ocean waters around New Zealand was 34 percent faster than the global average warming rate.

Environment Minister Penny Simmonds also told Tuiono the report showed evidence that climate change was affecting primary industries including fisheries in a written parliamentary question.

The director of primary sector policy, Alastair Cameron, said during the hearing some fisheries were moving further south into “cooler waters”.

The Ministry for Primary Industries provided more information to RNZ, indicating marine heatwaves – that impact fish stocks – were becoming increasingly common in recent years. The ministry said it was a complex and developing issue and the exact way fish stocks were impacted was not fully yet understood.

MPI explained warmer waters meant species such as snapper and john dory may experience “shifts in their home range and overall productivity”.

Cameron said MPI considers the evidence and information about what impacts climate change could have on warming seas and the effect on fisheries and their distribution.

One of the responses to that work was looking at the regulatory systems, he said.

“How do we make those a bit more agile, a bit more flexible, to account for the changes that we might see.”

Jones said the fishing industry had asked and he had instructed officials to look at how to “cope” when big fishing boats were catching fish that was never there historically, and catching more because of the technology they use.

“If you’re catching a type of fish that’s historically not been present in a net, and you’re not able to bring it back to shore in a form that generates a good economic return, you are still being charged, through deemed value, a levy for having caught that fish.

“Now they’re not targeting it. It’s present because of changing water temperatures.”

He said smart regulatory responses that reflected oceanic changes were needed.

“We’ve got to have practical solutions, because the fish is heading to Te Waipounamu, e hoa,” Jones said.

He also joked he now needed “certain people in Te Tai Tokerau to follow the fish in the South Island”.

After the hearing, RNZ asked if the minister was alarmed to hear fish were migrating, to which Jones replied it was reflective of his “favourite subject, climate change – not”.

He said he was concerned if it imposed unnecessary burdens on the industry and they did not have the ability to deal with it.

Asked if the news gave him pause for thought around issues such as mining, he said he responded to the issue by requiring officials to “derive regulated responses on behalf of the state.”

“I don’t want to close down the economy to keep a few shrill voices in Dunedin happy.”

During the hearing, Jones also discussed the issue of public favour when it came to managing primary industries.

He spoke about an upcoming decision that was “more than likely” to stop the access of recreational and commercial people in New Zealand from taking crayfish from the entirety of Northland’s east coast.

“Those are very, very big decisions to make. But I’m making it.”

He said officials had used science and spoken to the public who had said “enough is enough. We have mined this resource to such a point it can’t survive if we stay on the current trajectory”.

“These decisions, they have to find public favour,” said Jones, but acknowledged later the public was not “of one mind”.

He said the government had “shifted the pendulum” so climate change was no longer regarded in quite the “polarising, ideological way” it had been.

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 and Climate Change Minister Simon Watts are meeting with their Australian counterparts in Auckland to discuss energy security and affordability.

It is the third such trans-Tasman meeting, with a focus on strengthening cooperation on climate action, clean energy and related regulations.

In a joint statement, Australia’s Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen said both countries were working together to seize “the golden economic opportunities of the net zero transformation”.

“Delivering on our shared commitment to net zero is critical for investor certainty, cheaper, cleaner energy in our region and advancing climate action across the Pacific.”

Earlier this week, Willis cast fresh doubt on whether New Zealand would pay for the offshore carbon credits it needed to meet its 2030 promise to halve greenhouse gas emissions.

It was not in New Zealand’s best interests “to send cheques for billions of dollars offshore”, she told reporters.

“That’s not our priority.”

Watts laid out the 12 things the ministers had agreed to work together on. They agreed to:

• coinvest funding to upgrade energy product regulatory systems, and regulatory regimes to accelerate adoption of energy-efficient technologies
• further align regulatory settings for consumer energy technology for a joint approach to enable EV chargers with smart tech
• develop vehicle-to-grid standards for EVs to ensure markets are aligned, including adoption of international communication protocols
• pursue regulatory alignment and market opportunities on solar and battery systems
• develop a trans-Tasman sustainable finance fuel strategy
• expand technical collaboration and information sharing on livestock emissions reductions
• continue bilateral and international engagement to develop complementary sustainable finance frameworks
• establish a working group of government and industry to share information and collaborate on solutions to help ensure insurance remains accessible
• find opportunities to align payment systems, licencising and digital asset reforms
• align building codes and standards
• work together on aligned product safety standards
• coinvest funding (NZ$1m from New Zealand and AU$4.1m from Australia) to upgrade energy product regulatory systems, and regulatory regimes to accelerate adoption of energy-efficient technologies.
• co-host a targeted technical assistance and training initiative with the Pacific for Pacific energy regulators in 2026.

Bowen highlighted the importance of the vehicle-to-grid standards, “which has such potential for both our countries to stabilise our energy grids, to ensure consumers become more in charge of their own energy”.

“They move from being consumers to ‘prosumers’, with solar panels on their roofs and batteries in their garage and on their driveway, putting them in charge – it is a big regulatory task to ensure that those regulations are fit for purpose… the more they can be aligned, the better for both countries.”

Watts was asked to explain how the governments would work together on securing insurance accessibility. He said the work would be important and there was a “real opportunity” in working together to strengthen the way the markets worked.

“We need our citizens to ensure they have insurance cover to deal with the impacts of climate change, and that’s one of the areas we’re looking to continue to explore.”

Willis said several insurance firms operated on both sides of the Tasman, “and to the extent that we can share lessons and align, we can ensure that we’re supporting more affordable insurance into the future”.

Bowen also thanked New Zealand for its support on Australia’s bid to take a leadership role at next year’s COP31 climate conference.

Australia initially aimed to host the conference, and was criticised by Pacific countries after pulling out. The conference will now be held in Türkiye. with Australia acting as president of COP negotiations, holding a pre-COP meeting in partnership with the Pacific.

“We discussed on Friday making sure that this is a COP which is meaningful and generational for the Pacific, making sure that the pre-COP which will be held in the Pacific is an important event and Australia and New Zealand will be working closely together in planning… together with of course our Pacific family,” Bowen said.

They would also work “to ensure the Pacific voices which have been ignored for so long actually get a good and solid and strong hearing in the important climate negotiations”.

Chalmers also announced Willis had accepted an invitation to take part in the discussion of state and territory treasurers next year, saying the economic challenges being grappled with were “familiar and common” across both countries.

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

Inland Revenue is planning to crack down on shareholders taking loans from companies, in a move that could hand some an extra tax bill.

Inland Revenue (IR) is asking for feedback on proposals to improve the way new loans by companies to shareholders are taxed.

David Carrigan Inland Revenue deputy commissioner for policy, said it would bring New Zealand’s treatment of loans in line with other similar countries, while still allowing the normal business use of short-term drawings.

“We recognise that most companies manage their loans to shareholders and drawings responsibly. However, the current rules can allow some loans to become unmanageable, to the point they may never be repaid. For instance, our data has revealed some very large outstanding loans from companies to their shareholders.

“For the 2024 tax year, IR data shows about 5,550 companies had outstanding loan balances of more than $1 million each.

“When a shareholder borrows a large amount from their company and doesn’t pay it back, our current rules mean they can pay less tax compared to other shareholders who receive taxable dividends or taxpayers who earn income through salary or wages.”

The current rules often failed to collect tax on the funds left in the hands of the shareholder when a company was wound up, Carrigan said.

He said the main proposal was for a time limit that would treat certain shareholder loans as dividends, and tax them accordingly, if they were not paid back within 12 months from the end of the income year in which they were made.

“The change will only apply to new loans made after today, so it won’t apply to existing loans. To ensure it does not impact small businesses and ordinary transactions, the proposed time limit would only apply to companies whose total lending to shareholders is $50,000 or more.

“In addition to this main proposal, the issues paper also consults on proposals for outstanding loans to be taxed when a company is removed from the Companies Register and for improved reporting obligations on companies.”

Inland Revenue was going through a consultation period until February before it gives advice to ministers on the proposal.

Deloitte tax partner Robyn Walker said the proposal made it clear loans were common and a legitimate way to manage cashflow, and “not a problem per se”.

“However, the paper cites data about loan balances, with the key concern relating to companies and shareholders with material loan balances which have been outstanding for some time.

“For example, 5500 companies have shareholder loans outstanding of over $1m and 540 have loans of over $5m. The concern is that the use of loans with limited/no repayment provides an unintended tax benefit as compared to paying shareholder salaries or declaring dividends, and the use of – in some cases poorly documented – loans can be a contributing factor to other business issues such as being unable to pay creditors or outstanding tax debt.”

She said the impact would be most felt by small, family businesses.

“In some cases, there is a lot of blurring of the boundaries between business and personal expenses, particularly by using current accounts. The consultation paper indicates for around 50 percent of such businesses there is absolutely no issue because the outstanding loan balances are below the proposed threshold of $50,000; for the other businesses, 2026 should possibly be the year for talking with an accountant and putting in place a plan for managing how shareholders take money from the business.

“The paper points out that current accounts are not a problem in themselves, but it shouldn’t be one-way traffic of a balance just getting larger and the shareholder never earning anything in their own right.

“While interest is charged on loans and tax generated on that income, it results in a generally lower amount of tax in the short term and different timing of tax compared to when other taxpayers are paying tax for those who have no ability to pick and choose such as sole traders, employees …”

Sign up for Money with Susan Edmunds, a weekly newsletter covering all the things that affect how we make, spend and invest money.

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

About 95 percent of feedback on the fast-track amendment bill is opposed, with the coalition-majority select committee reporting back after less than a month.

The government intends to pass the legislation, which it says aims to address supermarket competition, by the end of the year.

All opposition parties oppose the bill, saying the claim it boosts supermarket competition is disingenous.

Despite submissions being open for just 10 days, some 2518 individuals and groups provided written feedback, and 85 appeared in hearings over 15 hours.

They raised concerns about:

• Potential removal of environmental safeguards
• Limits on the ability for iwi, hapū, Treaty settlement entities and other Māori groups to meaningfully engage in the fast-track process, with potential Tiriti o Waitangi implications
• The Environment Minister’s new ability to direct the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), potentially affecting the independence or perceived independence of the panel convenors
• Shorter timeframes for those expert panels to consider technical information before deciding whether to grant consent to a project, with a default maximum of 60 working days, along with shortening a range of other timeframes. The panel convener raised concerns that the shortened processes would not be workable
• That people lodging applications under fast track would now need only ‘notify’ rather than ‘consult’ certain affected groups before applying, with those notified given 20 working days to respond
• The panels would have less discretion to seek comment from anyone they consider appropriate, because of a new requirement to first find out if local or consenting authorities plan to comment on the matter
• New limits on the ability to appeal a panel’s final decision to proceed with a fast-track project, potentially leading people to instead seek judicial review
• The ability for the Infrastructure Minister to issue a Government Policy Statement (GPS) by designating projects as nationally or regionally significant, potentially influencing the panels which use national and regional significance as a core metric for approval

The coalition MPs on the committee pushed back on some of these criticisms.

They said the current fast-track regime “includes some environmental safeguards” including that applicants must provide detailed information to the expert panels, and these provisions were not changing.

There was a requirement, they wrote, that anyone performing functions under the Act would still be required to act in a way that was consistent with Treaty settlements and some customary rights.

Policy statements were also only one thing the panels must consider, and the panels could still deline approval “if the adverse effects of a project were found to be significantly out of proportion to its regional or national significance”.

The bill also allows some time frames to be extended in certain circumstances or with agreement from the applicants.

Coalition to push changes through without public consultation

Unusually, the committee recommended no changes because of the short timeframe, and because the government plans to introduce other changes in the Committee of the Whole House stage, without public consultation.

“Advisers have brought several issues to our attention following public submissions. We understand the government has identified several changes that it plans to make to the bill,” the report said.

“We agree that these identified issues warrant further consideration by the House.”

Instead, the committee “suggested changes” to be considered at the Committee of the Whole House stage. Committee recommendations are usually debated and voted on earlier, at the Second Reading.

The suggested changes include:

• The Infrastructure Minister should be able to consult anyone they want during development of a GPS
• Clarify that projects cannot be submitted for approval before the window for notified parties to give feedback ends
• Require the EPA to provide substantive applications to the panel convener within five working days of receiving it
• Remove the proposed timeframe for appointing expert panels
• Retain the power of the panel convener to request certain reports, rather than enabling expert panels to do so
• Clarify the provision that would enable applicants to modify substantive applications
• Increase the default maximum time for an expert panel to make its decision to 90 working days
• Increase the maximum time that an applicant may suspend processing of their application to 100 working days
• Clarify that conditions can only be placed on the approval holder
• Improve assurances and clarify the scope of the Minister’s ability to direct the EPA
• Clarify the scope of the proposed regulation-making powers related to cost recovery
• Clarify that proposed new section 117A(3) would not allow new projects to be added to Schedule 2 of the Act
• Amend the description or described location of certain projects listed in Schedule 2 of the Act
• Enable certain other parties to raise issues regarding prospective panel members
• Require an expert panel to begin work within five working days of being appointed
• Clarify that the panel convener would not be required to appoint members with sectoral expertise if not practicable
• Include the Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry for Culture and Heritage in the definition of administering agency in section 103 of the Act
• Include commencement and transitional provisions

RNZ sought comment from RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop, but he was unavailable.

Opposition parties cry foul

On top of the criticisms raised by submitters, Labour claimed the bill was making “major changes” despite the minister describing it as “rats and mice”, while the Greens said it was “disingenuously framed”.

Labour complained about the short consultation period, the lack of a Regulatory Impact Statement, and the unusual process – saying it was a “terrible way to make law”.

The new ability for developers to complain about a person being appointed to the expert panels was “outrageous”, Labour said, and opposed the proposed retrospective and Henry VIII provisions.

The Greens called the bill “unprecedented and unacceptable overreach on communities’ democratic participation” which would “only make this harmful legislation worse”.

The party – which last month pledged to revoke certain fast-track consents – pointed out many of the controversial changes were only supported by those with fast-track applications, and said it would reinstate a mechanism “far too open to potential corruption”.

Te Pāti Māori said the bill would allow ministers to approve or decline projects without acting in partnership with Māori, with tapu sites able to be authorised for destruction or modification, and leaving groups that had not yet reached a Treaty settlement unable to be involved in decisions affecting them.

The party warned the bill would collapse legal barriers to seabed mining and drilling, and “undermines everything Aotearoa claims to value about partnership, accountability, and intergenerational responsibility”.

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 government decision to reject stronger climate targets is pitiful, and will cost households in the long run, scientists, advocates and opposition politicians say.

However, a scientist who contributed to the government’s methane review said he’s not surprised the Climate Change Commission’s “activist” recommendations were rejected – but has still taken a swing at the lack of concrete policy action.

The coalition on Thursday released its response to the independent Commission’s advice to strengthen New Zealand’s 2050 targets for methane and carbon emissions, and include emissions from international shipping and aviation in the targets.

It rejected all three recommendations.

The status quo targets are to hit net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, and reduce methane emissions by 24-47 percent from 2017 levels.

The Commission had recommended increasing the lower bound of the methane target to a 35 percent reduction, and pursuing a net-negative target for carbon dioxide and other long-lived gases – meaning New Zealand would need to suck more greenhouse gases from the air than it emitted.

The government had already indicated it would reject both the methane and carbon recommendations, and instead lower the methane target to a 14-24 percent reduction.

In its formal reasons for rejecting the commission’s advice, the government said it had weighed the benefits of climate action against the economic costs.

Modelling indicated that GDP would be 0.4 percent lower than the status quo in 2035, and 2.2 percent lower in 2050, if it implemented the stronger targets.

“Implementing the Commission’s recommended target would also require major policy reform and private sector action,” it said.

The government said it took into account concern from rural communities about land-use change and food production loss if it strengthened the methane target.

Former Climate Change Commissioner James Renwick said the government’s decision was “a deeply disappointing response, and a dangerous one”.

He and his fellow commissioners found that setting higher targets was not only compatible with long-term economic growth, but would prevent future costs, he said.

“This government seems to be all about economic growth now, this quarter, this year, and anything that is apparently a cost that would limit that is off the table.”

In its advice to the government in November last year, the Commission said the global climate outlook had worsened since the 2050 targets were first set.

The county could, and should, do more, including through faster-paced electrification of transport and industry, and greater uptake of methane-inhibiting agricultural technology, it said.

Dr Renwick said the commission had also warned of the intergenerational inequity of not acting faster, now.

“What’s the future going to be like for my children and their children?”

Labour’s climate spokesperson Deborah Russell said today’s decision was “bollocks”.

“They’ve focused on the costs of climate action but they haven’t looked at the cost of not doing anything and they also haven’t looked at the lost opportunity-cost of green jobs.”

Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said the economic rationale for rejecting the advice did not stack up.

“We’re talking about tiny numbers in terms of the GDP impact, and this is to be contrasted with the thoroughly evidence-based assessment that the Climate Change Commission has made.”

Greenpeace Aotearoa executive director Russel Norman said climate change would cost the country anyway.

“Climate change is going to cause immense damage to the New Zealand productive sector, both the agricultural sector… but everywhere else as well – think about the impacts of Cyclone Gabrielle and other extreme weather events like that.”

The global accord to tackle climate change via the Paris Agreement had been hard-won and New Zealand’s actions undermined that, Dr Norman said.

“If more governments behave like the Luxon government, it will unravel global efforts to cut emissions.”

But Canterbury University Professor Dave Frame, who was on the expert panel tasked with finding a methane reduction level consistent with a policy of ‘no additional warming’, said he was not surprised the “activist tone” of the Commission’s advice was rejected.

“The [Commission] never really explained to New Zealanders why we, alone, should commit to including international aviation and shipping, biogenic methane, and net negative emissions, when other countries are, for the most part, pledging to get to net zero emissions by 2050.”

Long-term targets mattered less than concrete policy signals and the government’s form on that score was “mixed”, he said.

He agreed with Finance Minister Nicola Willis’ assessment that it would be reckless to pay billions of dollars for overseas carbon credits, and if the country missed its first Paris target, “so be it”.

However, the government had been “pretty reckless” in dismantling programmes like the Clean Car Discount for EVs, he said,

“Because we have a comparatively clean electricity grid, transport is a more important sector for New Zealand than for many other countries.

“We really have been sluggish where others are actually taking action, and it’s pretty hard to square the pandering to SUV drivers with the government’s claims to be serious about getting to net zero.”

The “clear impression” that carbon markets had was that the government was back-tracking on climate policies.

“There needs to be initiatives to build better policies, not just dismantle ones you don’t like.”

The 2050 targets were due to be reviewed again in 2030. However, proposed amendments to climate law will now see that review pushed out to 2032.

RNZ has requested an interview with Climate Change Minister Simon Watts.

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

KiwiRail’s board chair says a director of the rail company with a number of links to transport businesses is affecting the governing body’s capability and efficiency.

In July it was announced by Rail Minister Winston Peters that Scott O’Donnell was appointed to the KiwiRail board.

There were several measures put in place to manage his conflicts of interests related to the 10 companies he is involved in – many of them in transport.

Treasury put a plan together to manage these interests, which featured seven measures.

It included eliminating access to sensitive information, the vetting of board agendas and papers before they are sent to O’Donnell, the requirement for O’Donnell to declare if any agenda items pose a conflict before board meetings, and recusal from discussions.

As reported in September by RNZ he was also one of the four directors of Dynes Transport Tapanui, which donated $20,000 to NZ First in July 2024.

Peters said at the time that the donation from Dyne’s Transport played no part in O’Donnell’s appointment to the board and that he was aware of the extent of the conflicts of interest.

Despite the restrictions on what O’Donnell could be involved in, he would be effective in his role, Peters said.

Treasury did not advise against the appointment of O’Donnell, he said.

During a KiwiRail briefing on Tuesday during Parliament’s scrutiny week, KiwiRail board chair Suzanne Tindal said the conflict management that had been put in place had resulted in O’Donnell having to recuse himself from “a number of items on the board agenda”.

“We are due to report how we are managing that conflict management to the two shareholding ministers early in 2026.

“It will become quite evident when we do the amount of time that director has to be recused.”

Tindal was asked by the ACT Party’s Simon Court if it had impact on the board’s capability and efficiency.

“It does have an effect is the answer to that.”

She said “more importantly” that director needed to consider whether they can discharge their duties as required in accordance with the companies act.

When approached by RNZ KiwiRail would not say how many board meeting agenda items he had missed because of his conflicts.

“That information is being compiled as part of the regular reporting to Shareholding Ministers on the conflict management plan, which is due in the first few months of next year.”

Simon O’Donnell has not responded to RNZ’s request for 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

Analysis – Headline writers have had their fun calling it ‘Coster’s Last Stand’, and like the general’s doomed battle, it ended with a crushing fall.

The comparison falls apart pretty quickly after that. Yes, Andrew Coster leaves behind a mixed legacy, but the former police boss will never gain the folk-hero sheen of his near-namesake.

Public Service Commissioner Brian Roche struck a somewhat conflicted tone in his interviews on Wednesday.

Clearly he thought Coster’s resignation was the right and inevitable outcome, and named the former police chief ultimately responsible for the extensive failings set out in the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) report.

At the same time, he commended Coster’s performance at the Social Investment Agency and said he respected the man.

Roche even went so far as saying he did not believe Coster was personally guilty of wrongdoing.

That generosity goes a little too far. Even Coster, in his statement on Wednesday, acknowledged he had placed too much trust in deputy Jevon McSkimming and failed to properly interrogate the allegations about him.

“It was sobering to read of a number of missed opportunities which should have proceeded differently and more appropriately,” Coster wrote.

One of the most startling sections of the IPCA report described how Coster tried to shut down an official investigation, even contacting the IPCA directly to encourage a quick wrap-up.

“He sought to bring a serious criminal investigation to an unduly rapid conclusion so that it did not impact on a job application process,” the report found.

Sobering is an understatement.

Ministers, meanwhile, veered too far in the other direction. Judith Collins came close to branding the conduct corrupt, while Mark Mitchell marched across that line entirely before hastily retreating.

With rhetoric like that, it is little wonder some people may be wondering why Coster is not facing criminal charges.

The answer lies in that IPCA report. As both Coster and Roche pointed out on Wednesday, it did not uncover corruption or an intentional cover-up.

What it found was a colossal lapse in judgement and an almost inexplicable disregard for proper process. That is serious misconduct, but not criminal offending.

That nuance partly explains why the saga dragged on for three weeks. It is a fair question as to why it took so long when the conclusion felt obvious.

Roche’s explanation is that he had to tread carefully to ensure the process was lawful and defensible. It’s noteworthy that Coster’s failings occurred in a previous job, not his current one.

Certainly, the outcome would have been far worse had it ended up in the courts.

Coster leaves with three months’ salary in lieu of notice – roughly $130,000.

Roche insists the payout was required under the contract, though it’s not clear whether that would’ve been the case had Roche formally dismissed him, as he says he was prepared to do.

Again though, the situation could’ve been much worse for the taxpayer. Coster still had four years left on his contract.

In his statement, Coster began the work of repairing his reputation. There was no hedging, nor deflecting. He accepted “full responsibility” for police shortcomings and apologised both to the woman at the centre of the case and to the wider police force.

Coster ended with a simple admission: “I am prepared to take responsibility – I got this wrong.”

What we have not yet heard are those words spoken aloud. Coster has not fronted media or taken questions.

He closed his statement with a suggestion he might return to public service “at some point in the future”.

If he hopes to return to a leadership role, it will take far more than just a written apology to rebuild trust.

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 Education Ministry says the English and maths curriculums introduced by primary schools this year have had a bigger impact than expected.

Appearing before Parliament’s Education and Workforce Select Committee, the ministry’s chief executive, Ellen MacGregor-Reid, said she was thrilled for children.

“The results have exceeded my expectations. We’d been working for some time on structured literacy as an approach, we’d identified for some time we had issues in mathematics teaching. The investment that has been made in recent years has outstripped my expectations in terms of what we are now seeing coming through for children,” she said.

Asked why it did not move faster, she said: “We took a while working with people, working with the sector getting buy-in. My reflection in hindsight is while that worked, a short amount of time in the life of an adult is a long time in the life of a child. So that’s my overall reflection is we need to get the right balance between getting changes to occur in the classroom but making it manageable for the teachers and leaders.”

Asked if introducing the new primary school English and maths curriculums quickly had been the right decision, MacGregor-Reid said “For maths and literacy, yes, it was the right decision and I think our teaching profession has done themselves proud”.

MacGregor-Reid said she had heard anecdotal reports of children telling their teachers and others that maths was their favourite subject.

“That’s a big thing for this country,” she said.

MacGregor-Reid held out some hope for schools and early childhood services facing big bills for cleaning up asbestos contamination from colour sand.

She said the ministry was looking at “some options” but had not made any decisions.

Questions overs free lunch scheme

Later in the hearing, Associate Education Minister David Seymour appeared before the committee and Labour Party education spokesperson Willow-Jean Prime challenged him over complaints about the cut-price free school lunch scheme.

“At what point after a child has been burnt, another has bitten into plastic, bugs have been served up in lunches, will you concede that this programme has been a flop,” she asked him.

“About the same time as you get an Oscar for that performance,” Seymour responded.

Prime suggested Seymour bullied people who criticised the lunch programme.

“This is supposed to be an exercise in evaluating value for taxpayer money, if you’re looking for another career as an actor then I don’t like your chances,” Seymour said.

That prompted Labour’s Phil Twyford to interject.

“Give it a rest. Jerk,” he said.

Education Minister Erica Stanford also appeared before the committee and was challenged over the government’s decision to cancel schools’ legal obligation to uphold the Treaty of Waitangi.

She denied the 1500 schools that had since publicly affirmed their commitment to the treaty was proof the government got it wrong.

“We always said it is up to schools if they wish to confirm that. As long as they are doing the things that we ask of them which are very clearly laid out – raise Māori achievement, offer te reo Māori, and be culturally responsive. Over and above that, if schools wish to uphold the treaty as many have reconfirmed their position, then they are free to do so,” she said.

Stanford said the government’s reforms were having a positive effect and the biggest improvements were among Māori and Pacific students.

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 putting $15 million towards a United States and NATO initiative to supply weapons and equipment to Ukraine, the Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List (PURL).

Foreign Minister Winston Peters and Defence Minister Judith Collins revealed the decision in the early hours New Zealand time, calling the funding a significant contribution to support Ukraine’s defence.

“The defence of Ukraine has significant implications not only for the security of Europe, but also for the Indo-Pacific,” Peters said.

A written statement said the money would only be used for weapons and equipment that met New Zealand’s international obligations and domestic policies.

Collins said New Zealand stood in solidarity with Ukraine, which was entering its fourth winter defending itself from Russian aggression.

“The challenge for the Armed Forces of Ukraine to defend its cities and its people remains immense in the face of the ongoing and relentless bombardment of Ukraine by Russian drones,” she said.

Ukraine Ambassador Vasyl Myroshnychenko told RNZ he, his president and every Ukrainian was thankful for the funding.

“I was on a trip with Minister Judith Collins in Ukraine three months ago … she was able to come to some of the sites of the destroyed residential buildings.

“Even for me who had seen it before, that was extremely confronting especially realising that some of those residential buildings, they lost 22 people, 23 people in one go, and the kids were killed there in that same building.”

The PURL initiative sells US-manufactured weapons and equipment into Europe and other partners for the defence, in line with the needs identified by Ukraine.

Myroshnychenko said the country had huge demand for ammunition, artillery and air defence missiles to protect critical infrastructure as a fourth winter of fighting closed in.

“Winter is here and … it’s cold, and Russia’s hit our electricity distribution system, our power generation, our heating systems and many cities go through blackouts when they don’t have a steady supply of electricity. The same applies to heating.

“We estimate it is 150,000 war crimes committed, and lots of crimes against humanity, and the war is still ongoing. Russians control 20 percent of our territory. Ukrainians realise that they don’t have an alternative but to fight because if we don’t fight we are done. It’s the end of Ukraine. It’s end of our sovereignty. It’s the end of our identity.

“They just erase Ukrainian identity by rewriting curriculums, by forcing everybody to accept Russian citizenship – this is imperialism of the 19th century, and this is so brutal, and Russians are doing it at the moment.”

The $15m for PURL adds to the $26m already spent on weapons and ammunition, more than $12m for a NATO fund for other equipment, and $4.1m for satellite imagery.

It brings New Zealand’s total monetary contributions to more than $53m, more than half of it for weapons and ammunition.

Defence Force personnel have also been involved in training Ukrainian armed forces in the UK and Europe, as well as providing intelligence, logistics and liaison.

Labour’s Defence spokesperson Peeni Henare said the funding was a continuation of the kind of model started under the last government, and called for the matter to be debated by the full Parliament.

“Ministerial statements through the House allow the other parties to have a contribution in the debate, and it goes on public record, it allows questions to be asked of ministers … which hopefully gives us a little bit more comfort about what the plan is.

“The question is, how long is a piece of string? How much longer can New Zealand keep offering support here? Which is why I’d encourage the opportunity to have a debate … so that we can test the waters again in our democracy about where we stand.”

Labour’s de facto governing partner the Green Party’s spokesperson Teanau Tuiono said he supported the funding too – but there was a smarter way to use it.

“I support the deployment of funding, but I would prefer if it went into humanitarian aid, I would prefer if it wasn’t for procurement of weapons … there’s a role we can pay in terms of advancing the issues of peace and diplomacy, and I think those are the things that we should be putting our efforts into.

“And I note the enthusiasm for this government for the Trump administration – we’ve had them roll out the red carpet for the FBI for example; an increase of defence spending – which will further align us with the US and I think that’s a problem.”

Henare disagreed on that point.

“We were encouraging, even when we were in power, the role of the US in this whole thing, [that] has always been part of the negotiations and the discussions and the support that we offer around Ukraine.

“We were close with the UK as well – that’s why we sent our troops there – and I understand our troops are still there training people so I’m not surprised that the US is still heavily involved.”

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