The government will spend $131 million on improving students’ reading, writing and maths in this year’s budget, the Education Minister Erica Stanford says.

Stanford made the pre-Budget announcement alongside Prime Minister Christopher Luxon at Boulcott School in Lower Hutt on Monday.

Another 12 initiatives as part of primary and intermediate school education reforms would boost achievement and close the equity gap, Stanford said.

“[Children] will see more resources in their hands, more tutoring catch ups, more time with intervention teachers, and more help with a teacher at the front of the class who knows how to teach maths, reading and writing best practice.”

The new maths initiatives included:

• Maths hubs to improve teacher confidence and capability
• Hands-on maths resources and games for all Year 0-8 classrooms
• 36 additional Maths intervention teachers
• A new times table and division check at Year 5

The new literacy initiatives included:

• New writing workbooks for Year 4 and 5
• A digital writing tool for all Year 6-8 students
• New “decodable” books for older learners in Year 3-10
• A 12-week structured literacy programme for those who are struggling
• A new Year 2 Literacy Check, covering reading, comprehension, writing, spelling and basic punctuation (joining the existing Year 2 Maths Check)
• Guidance for teachers to improve the teaching of literacy, with supporting videos and resources.

There would also be a new reading action plan called Read to Succeed – joining the Make it Count maths plan and Write it Right writing plan.

Asked whether teachers would be overloaded with so many extra workbooks, Stanford said she had been asking schools what would make the biggest difference.

“This is coming directly from the sector themselves, and we are delivering it,” she said.

“Nothing is compulsory, but at least we’re making it free of charge.”

The initiatives would contribute to the government’s target of seeing 80 percent of Year 8 students achieving the expected curriculum level for their age in reading, writing and maths by December 2030, Stanford said.

“Parents will have more information at each step of their child’s journey about how they are doing at school and students will be better set up for success when they enter high school.”

Very early signs reforms are working – minister

Stanford said fresh data released on Monday showed “very early signs” of success with last year’s maths and literacy curriculum changes.

“No one is claiming mission accomplished just yet,” she said.

“But these early results give us optimism and confidence that our reforms are moving in the right direction.”

Stanford said the investments would “level the playing field, reducing costs for schools and backing evidence-led reforms”.

There were early signs the government’s education reforms were already working, she said.

The latest Curriculum Insights and Progress Study looked at student achievement in late 2025 – three terms into previous reforms – and the results “surpassed expectations”, she said.

“A statistically significant improvement of 5 percent in writing and 6 percent in mathematics for Year 6 students between 2024 and 2025 interrupts New Zealand’s long-term decline in achievement between Year 4 and Year 8 and will better set these students up for success at high school.”

The minister credited teachers for that improvement.

Achievement in other areas and year groups was flat, which is what the government expected as the new curriculum was bedded in, Stanford said.

She expected to see “accelerated progress” over time.

The package would be funded from a mixture of new and reprioritised money, but Stanford would not reveal further details before the Budget.

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

America’s Cup winner and Olympic gold medallist Blair Tuke says the government should scrap its Fisheries legislation.

Tuke was speaking to the Primary Production select committee on behalf of the Live Ocean Foundation alongside ultramarathon swimmer Jono Ridler in response to the Fisheries Amendment Bill.

The bill makes changes to catch limits and the handling of on-boat monitoring footage with the aim of growing exports.

Several environmental groups have called for the bill to be stopped, while fishing companies say it helps modernise a system that has worked well for New Zealand for decades.

Tuke said New Zealand was responsible for the fourth-largest ocean space in the world, but the legislation would further entrench bottom trawling and fail to protect habitats – many of which could take centuries to recover.

“For a country surrounded by the moana, when it comes to ocean stewardship we are not leading – in fact, if it was sport, I would say we don’t even rank.”

Ridler said that while the bill did not specifically promote bottom trawling, the amendments “in aggregate prioritise short-term, bulk harvesting over broader ecosystem impacts”.

“It prioritises economic gain and bulk harvesting, including bottom trawling, while reducing safeguards to protect the environment. This increases the pressure on at-risk species and vulnerable habitats.”

He said their second concern was a weakening of environmental safeguards.

Fishing company opposes public access to boat footage

Moana New Zealand general manager Mark Ngata said New Zealand’s largest Māori-owned seafood company would be open to having an independent officer of Parliament review boat footage, but it should not be made public.

He said the company had begun using on-boat cameras eight years before it became mandatory, and having the ministry check footage was “more than sufficient”.

“We have always had the view of transparency, but also collecting information, otherwise you can’t make good decisions on what’s happening out there … it’s very important to maintain the privacy of our fishermen.

“We believe that having an organisation like the ministry out there that’s that watchdog, if you like, we think that’s more than sufficient.”

When questioned by New Zealand First’s Mark Patterson about whether an independent officer of Parliament could do that job instead, he said “trust comes from working together and solving problems … something like that could be considered”.

Overall, he said the bill was an important step for modernising fisheries management, improving responsiveness, efficiency, and certainty.

“We consider the bill to be a natural evolution of the quota management system reflecting advances in monitoring, reporting, and data availability.”

Canterbury council fears for biodiversity

Speaking for Canterbury Regional Council, councillor Genevieve Robinson said it had “serious concerns” that the proposed law risked undermining the council’s ability to meet its obligations to protect biodiversity and threatened species.

“Canterbury has the largest coastal marine area jurisdiction of any regional council in this country. More than 40 percent of our jurisdiction is coastal marine area, and that includes nationally significant ecosystems.”

“Several aspects of this bill move fisheries management away from ecosystem-based management. In particular, the council is concerned about the narrowing of the total allowable catch considerations, the reduced transparency around the onboard cameras, and the increased flexibility around annual catch entitlement carrying forward.”

She said catch limits should be set on an ecosystem-wide basis, and footage from fishing boats should be publicly accessible.

“This bill should not weaken its ecosystem safeguards, reduce transparency, or undermine our own regional councils’ ability to protect under the New Zealand coastal policy statement.”

A flotilla of crafts, from fishing boats and yachts to kayaks and stand up paddle boards, surrounding a floating ‘ban bottom trawling’ banner at Mission Bay in Auckland, New Zealand in a show of opposition to bottom trawling in the Hauraki Gulf marine park (file image).

Greenpeace

Speaking for Greenpeace, Ellie Hooper said the current balance of protection versus profit for New Zealand’s waters was “drastically off kilter” and extractive industry had been prioritised.

“It’s extremely clear that this bill, if it was passed, would take ocean policy in this country further in that wrong direction, prioritising extraction and removing the very few environmental checks and balances that exist in the Fisheries Act to stop further decline.”

She said the bill was “rotten and must be rejected in its entirety”.

“The idea that the minister would be able to disregard the environmental principles currently in the act as if fishing happens in a vacuum and doesn’t have an impact on other species or habitats is kind of non-sensical to us.”

She said they opposed the introduction of five-year catch limits, shortened judicial review timeframes, and exemptions for fishing camera footage from the Official Information Act.

“We note the issues with privacy from the industry, but there is surely a way that we can rectify this with blurring all the releases of segments of footage. This industry does have a large impact on the ocean environment, and locking up that footage from public view is not going to rebuild trust in the commercial sector’s activities.”

“Having a fine that could potentially be five times higher for somebody releasing evidence of environmental damage versus someone who actually did that damage in the first place, we think is pretty egregious.”

Young Ocean Explorers

Steve Hathaway from marine educational charity Young Ocean Explorers said the waters around New Zealand once had abundant crayfish, snapper and other stocks – but things have changed.

“Our goal is to ensure we have a thriving ocean for future generations, and we’re on the coalface with Kiwi kids. We’ve personally given presentations to over 150,000 kids around Aotearoa and we’re hearing regularly that this generation of kids are really concerned about the planet and the ocean they’re inheriting.

“Most of New Zealand is actually ocean, about 93 percent of it, and it’s thought over 80 percent of our natives live there … a very old friend of mine told me that he wouldn’t stop to have a fish at 90-Mile Beach until he saw the ocean was pink, where he knew there’s enough snapper that he would get a good feed. These days are long gone.

“I’ve seen crayfish and scallops in abundance, and something we thought would never run out. They should be our God-given right as Kiwis to harvest, but now our Northlands were not allowed to take either of them, as numbers are so diminished. How has it been so poorly managed that it’s got to this place?”

He said New Zealand needed an ambitious goal for the future of its oceans.

‘Minor updates and modernisations’ – Fishing company

Fishing company Solander Group’s managing director Paul Hufflett said many of the other submitters were making “a lot of noise” and talking “off subject”.

“What we’re dealing with is effectively an update to a piece of legislation that has served New Zealand incredibly well for the better part of 30 years,” he said.

“Really we’re just talking about some relatively minor updates and modernisations of a robust piece of legislation that’s put New Zealand in an excellent position to go forward for another 30 years.”

He said they supported the minister having the power to make five-year Total Allowable Catch decisions, supported excluding boat footage from the OIA, opposed the 20-day time limit on judicial review, opposed the introduction of alternative deem values for inshore and deep water bycatch, and strongly supported allowing fish to be returned to sea.

Ngāti Porou settlement body was not consulted

Whangaokena ki Onepoto Takutai Kaitiaki Trust spokesperson Keryn Goldsmith said the trust was not consulted over the bill.

She said the Crown was obliged to engage with them on any Fisheries legislation that affects regulations in the area under their settlement.

“We’re not opposed to the fisheries reform, rather our submission supports improvements to the fisheries system, provided those changes operate consistently with the statutory and deed-based recognition arrangements already provided and agreed between Ngāti Porou and the Crown.”

She said the Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Act and the deed to amend the deed of agreement 2017 were binding on the Crown.

“They establish a bespoke framework that must be taken into account whenever fisheries decisions or decision making affects our Rohe Moana. Those obligations apply throughout the legislative development, not just at implementation, and they are not displaced by generic public consultation processes.

“As drafted, the bill would reduce scrutiny. It would compress participation time frames, concentrates discretion with decision makers, and limits accountability. Considered together, these changes risk narrowing the practical space in which hapū are able to exercise their authority and responsibilities that parliament has already recognised from a kaitiaki perspective.”

She said the Crown’s obligation was to engage with Ngāti Porou hapū on any amendment to fisheries legislation that affected the recognition and fisheries mechanisms.

“That consultation did not occur prior to the introduction of this bill. This is not merely a procedural irregularity, it is a breach of statutory and deed-based obligations owed to Ngāti Porou hapū. The Crown cannot meet those obligations by treating Hapu as one voice among many in a generic public submission process.”

Goldsmith said they did not oppose the reforms, but they must proceed in a way that honours existing commitments.

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

New Zealand First might want the government to buy back BNZ and meld it with Kiwibank to create a banking competitor to take on the Australian big banks – but there’s limited evidence that it would work.

NZ First leader Winston Peters said at the weekend that the decision to sell the bank in the 1990s was a disgrace.

The bank encountered problems in the 1980s when it expanded into corporate lending after market deregulation.

The Crown coughed up not once ($634 million) but twice ($720m, with the help of another investor) to save it, before it was eventually sold to National Australia Bank, which still owns it.

Speaking at a campaign event at the Trusts Arena in West Auckland, Peters said the new entity – to be known as “National Bank of New Zealand” – would be commercially run and designed to compete more aggressively with the major Australian-owned banks operating in New Zealand.

He estimated buying the bank would cost “$7.5 billion upwards”.

Government-owned Kiwibank has struggled to have an impact in the sector and has been described as a “one-armed boxer” hampered by a lack of capital.

University of Auckland emeritus professor Tim Hazledine said improving banking competition was a worthwhile goal but reducing the number of major brands was unlikely to achieve it.

“Rather than buying back the Bank of New Zealand and merging it with Kiwibank, the government should use its ownership of Kiwibank to position it as a ‘fighting brand’ and reduce interest rate margins,” he said.

“That could put pressure on the big four Australian-owned banks to follow suit.”

Sam Stubbs, founder of Simplicity, said purchasing BNZ would require a willing seller.

“There isn’t one there. That means the price is likely to be high which will limit the ability of the bank to offer cheaper mortgages and higher term deposits. Even if it did work and demand grew, the government of the day would need to spend more taxpayer money to expand, we need that money spent on hospitals.”

He said he could understand a desire to go back to the “good old days” of state-owned banks.

“But I suspect a better and much cheaper for the taxpayer way to achieve the same thing is for Kiwibank to be renamed the National Bank of NZ and listed with only NZ shareholders and let KiwiSaver funds provide the billions required to make it a serious, publicly owned bank.

“Public ownership does not have to mean government ownership. If only New Zealand investors can own shares a listed Kiwibank would be publicly owned, we would be selling the family silver to the family.”

Other sectors in which the government has a strong ownership stake include power – where it owns 51 percent of three of the country’s four major electricity gentailers – and airlines, where it owns 51 percent of Air New Zealand, have their own challenges.

The government bought back KiwiRail in July 2008.

University of Auckland senior finance lecturer Gertjan Verdickt said there was “ample” evidence that NZ First’s plan was not a good idea.

“I have an entire paper on the railway industry in the 1930s: we show that governments are more likely to give money to politically connected railways, not those in economic need.

“Interestingly enough, it doesn’t change profitability, you see employment growth down, but wages of current employees go up. In other words, it doesn’t help the railway, it helps employees, especially the c suite. Also, the chances of those railways going bankrupt actually goes up. So, all in all, bad idea.”

He said there had also been an international study looking at how government ownership and involvement in a banking system affected performance between 1989 and 2004.

“They uncover an interesting pattern of changing performance differences between state-owned and privately-owned banks around the Asian financial crisis. They find that state-owned banks operated less profitably, held less core capital, and had greater credit risk than privately-owned banks prior to 2001. Again – troubles in paradise.”

He said there was some evidence that consumers would benefit if a Government bought a bank. After a bailout, there were lower loan spreads, longer maturities for loans and less collateral held.

“Overall lending goes up but if you see which type of lending, it is politically driven. This to me doesn’t outweigh the risks.”

Kōura founder Rupert Carlyon said in the energy market, the companies had underinvested in generation to keep prices high.

“It is also telling that the government couldn’t put money into KiwiBank and then the private sector were unwilling to, due to its low profitability.

“Let’s figure out where the problems lie and then we can go from there. In my mind, really good regulation is needed and solves the problems.”

He said it would help to have good regulation requiring banks to minimise costs for customers, such as with an annual review of customers’ accounts to ensure they were set up efficiently, and an annual fee letter setting out what fees, interest payments and other relevant sources of revenue applied so customers could compare what they were paying to what they would be charged at other banks.

“Around small business lending and risk appetite, I am not sure there is a huge amount that can be done here – this is the one place where increased competition would be very helpful but we need to let banks set their own risk appetite. SME banking is the issue here. But the government owning BNZ and telling them to relax their credit criteria is not the answer either. Maybe the answer is that we need to instruct KiwiBank to focus primarily on SME banking and give up on corporate and retail banking.”

Kernel founder Dean Anderson also said there was no evidence.

“I think the commentary on government intervention and forced acquisitions raises serious concerns for investors and global relations. Maybe too much time in the Trump sphere.”

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

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

Winston Peters’ threat to nationalise a major Australian-owned bank would send a “bad signal” to potential foreign investors, a veteran economic analyst says.

Peters’ party NZ First said if re-elected in November it would merge BNZ and Kiwibank under state ownership. BNZ was sold by the state in 1992 and is owned by National Australia Bank (NAB), which has not indicated it is looking to sell the profitable subsidiary.

Peters on Monday morning said the price would likely be “$7.5 billion upwards”, and if its owner was not keen to sell, “they always face the prospect of nationalisation”.

“I blanched at that point,” Michael Reddell told Midday Report. Reddell has more than 30 years’ experience in economic analysis, including stints at the Reserve Bank, Treasury and the International Monetary Fund.

“I mean, as a country, we’re supposedly keen on encouraging foreign investment – perhaps New Zealand First not so much – but generally across the parties, across the economic advisers, we’ve said over the years that we’ve actually made it too hard for foreigners to invest here.

“If you go down a nationalisation route, even if you pay a fair price, it seems a pretty bad signal.”

Peters claimed Australia was in a recession, making this a good time for New Zealand to make an offer.

“Contrary to what the minister said, I mean, Australia is not in a recession at the moment,” Reddell said. “There’s no reason to suppose that NAB would be particularly interested in selling unless we paid an over-the-top price. And if we pay an over-the-top price, what’s in it for the taxpayer?”

Peters’ intention was for the new entity, which he dubbed the National Bank of New Zealand, to be commercially run and designed to compete more aggressively with the major Australian-owned banks operating in New Zealand.

Reddell noted that merging two of the five biggest banks in the country would mean fewer banks competing with each other.

“The argument, I suppose, would be that the motivation of a government entity was different than a private entity. But the way we set up [state-owned enterprises] in this country over multiple decades has been that we expect them to operate on a commercial basis. So you’d hope that this new bank would operate commercially successfully.

“The risk is that it wouldn’t, and the political imperatives would drive it. And what’s happened with too many government banks over the years is without the market discipline of being listed on the share market, they take bad credit risks and they end up coming a cropper and costing the taxpayer a lot when that bad stuff happens.”

Instead, Reddell said it should be easier for foreign firms to set up new banks in New Zealand.

“Those are the sort of people that we should be looking to get into the market – private entities taking risk for their shareholders, not getting the government back in the business of banking in some throwback to the 1970s.”

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, whose party National is in coalition with NZ First at present, dismissed the idea and said it would cost far more than Peters thinks.

“That would be $30 billion of more borrowing that we don’t have. And, you know, that sounds like a Labour or a Greens policy, frankly… that just doesn’t make sense, you know, to borrow more money to buy a private company for the government to own.”

Peters predicted any potential coalition partners after the votes were counted would “cave in” and go ahead with the plan.

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

Māori politics has erupted as Mariameno Kapa-Kingi launched a rival party, Te Pāti Māori fractures deepen, and the battle for the Māori vote heats up.

The fight for the Māori vote has intensified, with one of the most dramatic political showdowns in recent memory on the cards.

Bitter infighting, whispers of more defections, coalition questions, and the possible return of political heavyweight Hone Harawira are adding fuel to the fire, which blazed last week after Te Tai Tokerau MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi announced she was breaking away from Te Pāti Māori to launch a new political movement after months of escalating conflict behind the scenes.

“The focus on the Māori seats this election is absolutely warranted,” RNZ political reporter Lillian Hanly tells The Detail. “Not only could they determine various coalition make-ups, and whether even Te Pāti Māori make it back into parliament; the contest in the seats between Labour, Te Pāti Māori, the Greens and now an independent, is going to be fascinating.”

Kapa-Kingi’s split follows months of unrest, accusations, a court ruling, and growing frustration within Te Pāti Māori’s ranks, with critics questioning leadership decisions and the internal handling of conflict.

“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,” Kapa-Kingi said at her announcement that she would contest the 2026 election under a new banner.

But straight after that announcement, there was speculation, then confusion, around who would follow her out the door.

A new media advisor for Te Pāti Māori sent a message to a Stuff journalist saying MP Oriini Kaipara was considering her options, only for Kaipara to declare she wasn’t going anywhere.

“This was very confusing,” says Hanly, who has been following the story closely. “You [as a political party] can make mistakes, but the main issue here is, and the main question is: will Oriini Kaipara and Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke split away? You really don’t want to make a mistake on that particular issue.

“The party has come out strong against Stuff, and they think it was misleading, but Stuff released the messages themselves, showing it was attribution… but it just gets a bit messy.”

Hanly says they have not yet heard from either Maipi-Clarke or Takuta Ferris about their plans.

But veteran activist and former MP Hone Harawira has been vocal, and says he could return to frontline politics to bolster Te Pāti Māori – pending a ‘yes’ from his wife.

“We would be silly to underestimate Hone Harawira returning to politics,” says Hanly. “I think it is fair to say he is considering it. He wouldn’t be out there saying that he’s backing Te Pāti Māori, that he’s considering it, or that he’d do it depending on what his wife and whanau say.

“He’s in the selection process, is my understanding, and therefore those considerations are already underway.”

So who will Māori voters trust at this year’s election? Will they stay loyal to Te Pāti Māori despite the turmoil? Will Labour’s Willow-Jean Prime regain support as the movement fractures? Will Kapa-Kingi star on her own, or will the Green’s Hūhana Lyndon continue to gain traction?

“There are now four candidates who potentially all have a shot,” Hanly says. “It’s just fascinating, and it’s going to be very close.”

So after months of turmoil, negative headlines and walk-outs, can Te Pāti Māori move forward and survive, or will it finally collapse?

“That’s a big question,” says Hanly. “I think it is fair to say that they have had some huge blows, and that a lot of people think that the party has some serious work to do.

“The kaupapa itself behind Te Pāti Māori, that’s something that I don’t think will ever collapse. I think there will be a version of, or an iteration of, that original party born out of protest. There will probably always be space for that in the political spectrum.

“Whether it carries on existing in its current form or if there are changes underway, that’s still to be seen. But at the moment, the leadership is clear… their focus is on the election and getting this current government out.

“So, at this point, they don’t plan on collapsing.”

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

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

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

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has announced a policy to automatically enrol all newborn New Zealand citizens into KiwiSaver with a $1000 government contribution, alongside a proposal to buy back the Bank of New Zealand and merge it with Kiwibank to create a new state-owned bank.

Speaking at a campaign event at the Trusts Arena in West Auckland on Sunday, Peters said the party would make KiwiSaver enrolment compulsory at birth for New Zealand citizens as part of what he called the “KiwiSaver Generation”.

Speaking at a campaign event in West Auckland on Sunday, Peters said the party would make KiwiSaver enrolment compulsory at birth for New Zealand citizens as part of what he called the “KiwiSaver Generation”.

Under the policy, each child would receive a one-off $1000 Crown contribution at birth.

Peters said the scheme would work alongside New Zealand First’s existing proposal for compulsory KiwiSaver enrolment across the workforce, with employee and employer contribution rates eventually increasing to 10 percent.

“Universal birth enrolment will ensure every child begins their financial life as a KiwiSaver member,” Peters said.

The party also unveiled plans to buy back the Bank of New Zealand from Australia’s National Australia Bank and merge it with Kiwibank to form a new fully Crown-owned bank, to be called the “National Bank of New Zealand”.

Peters said the new entity would be commercially run and designed to compete more aggressively with the major Australian-owned banks operating in New Zealand.

He said four Australian-owned banks controlled about 85 percent of the banking system and accused them of extracting billions of dollars in profits from New Zealand each year.

The proposal would be funded through a mix of sovereign banking bonds, Crown debt, investment from the NZ Future Fund and ACC, and Kiwibank’s existing capital base, Peters said.

“This is not nationalisation – this is taking back our country,” he told supporters.

Much of Peters’ speech focused on immigration, superannuation and opposition to what he described as “globalist” policies.

He criticised Labour, National and Act over the recently signed India Free Trade Agreement, claiming it would significantly increase migration and allow uncapped numbers of international students into New Zealand with work rights attached.

Peters also repeated New Zealand First’s opposition to any changes to NZ Super, including means testing or raising the eligibility age.

He accused both major parties of considering asset sales and reiterated the party’s opposition to selling state-owned assets such as Kiwibank or Air New Zealand.

The speech also included criticism of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Paris climate accord, and references to Treaty principles in legislation.

Peters said New Zealand First would continue campaigning against co-governance arrangements and in support of freedom of speech protections.

The West Auckland event also served as a candidate launch, with former National MP and minister Alfred Ngaro announced as New Zealand First’s candidate for Glendene, while current NZ First MP David Wilson would contest Henderson.

Watch the livestream in the player above.

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

The National Party is promising tougher sentences for sexual offending if it’s re-elected.

Its justice spokesperson Paul Goldsmith – who is currently the Justice Minister – revealed on Sunday National would scrap good character assessments at sentencing for all sexual crimes, which meant harsher punishment.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon made the announcement at the National Party Central Conference in Hamilton.

As it stands, judges must consider testimonies from people who were willing to speak to an offender’s character and maintain that their crime was “the exception, not the rule”, Goldsmith said.

“That might serve the interests of well-connected offenders, but it rarely serves the interests of victims,” he said.

“Under National, judges will be prohibited from treating good character as a mitigating factor at sentencing for all sexual offending.

“The result will be tougher sentences, and stopping judges from being forced to consider the public reputation of an offender when sentences for sexual offending are being handed down.”

The criminal justice system prioritises sexual violence offenders over victims “too often”, he said.

“National is fixing the basics in law and order and building a future where all New Zealanders can feel safe in their communities. Ensuring there are real consequences for crime is a critical part of that.”

Goldsmith said the policy built on previous changes which included limiting the discounts judges can apply at sentencing to 40 percent, giving sexual violence victims the power to determine whether their perpetrators receive permanent name suppression, and making stalking illegal and punishable by imprisonment.

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

NZ First leader Winston Peters is due to make a policy announcement.

Peters will be speaking from Trusts Arena in West Auckland where he has been addressing a public meeting.

He is due to take questions around 2pm.

Previously, during his State of the Nation speech in March, Peters had announced his party would campaign on breaking up the Electricity Gentailers (generators and retailers).

He said the policy would ensure energy gentailers could “no longer control both the power and the price”.

The Party has also made a campaign promise to break up the country’s supermarket duopoly in a bid to lower grocery prices.

Its plan is to split Foodstuffs into two competing cooperatives and ramp up enforcement powers and fines.

Watch the livestream in the player above.

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

Education Minister Erica Stanford promises an update on the government’s plans for a social media ban for under-16s next month.

Coalition partner ACT says the situation remains a “mess that needs to be tidied up”, meaning the future of the project remains in some doubt.

Stanford told RNZ papers for her wider programme of work on countering the harms of social media were going through cabinet and the government would have more to say “next month”.

“The government is steadily progressing with work on social media and online harm policy, and due to this, Catherine Wedd’s Member’s Bill is being deprioritised in place of wider work,” she said.

“Parents and New Zealanders are acutely aware of the potential harms of social media. We share these concerns and will have more to say on the work that is progressing in due course.”

She said she was still “aiming to introduce legislation this year”.

That ambition falls short of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s previous commitment to introduce something before the election.

“Certainly before the term, yes, we’ll have our first go at making sure we can put the ban for under-16s in place and then I suspect it will be one of those issues that require ongoing work as well,” Luxon told RNZ in November.

RNZ approached the PM’s office for comment clarifying whether his commitment still held true, and whether it was merely a commitment to introduce legislation or to have the ban “in place” before the election.

“The Prime Minister was referring to the introduction of legislation,” a spokesperson said. “It is still the government’s aim to do that before the election – that has not changed.”

ACT’s opposition to a ban had prevented National from passing it as a government bill, resulting in Wedd’s member’s bill.

If Stanford’s work will make Wedd’s bill redundant – as seems likely from the public comments so far – she and National will still need to work out how to get her government bill through cabinet, potentially without the ACT Party.

Confusion reigns over member’s bill’s future

The National MP whose member’s bill was designed to progress that work – Catherine Wedd – also sent a statement to RNZ.

“My bill has been put on hold, while the minister is progressing a government bill and a broader piece of work,” she said. “This bill is aiming to be introduced this year,” she said.

“I’m very happy the minister is progressing this work to ban social media for under-16s. Please contact the minister’s office for further comment.

“Thanks for your interest in this issue.”

She did not respond to questions about whether she would lodge a new bill, given her current one would be superseded by Stanford’s work.

Stanford’s office also would not say whether Wedd’s member’s bill – which remained on Parliament’s order paper this week – would be withdrawn or when.

Labour had offered tentative support for Wedd’s bill. Spokesperson Reuben Davidson had lodged his own member’s bill, pushing for greater regulation of social media in New Zealand, more transparency and “safety by design”.

He told RNZ Labour had not been approached by anyone from National about the matter and, with Wedd’s member’s bill on hold, the plan for legislation was unclear.

“It seems really confused at the moment, as to what they’re doing and why,” he said. “They had a plan, apparently it’s changed, but it’s a confusing process.

“Age restriction is part of the solution – there are lots of other tools and levers that we can put into legislation.”

ACT Party spokesperson Parmjeet Parmar told RNZ the work at the select committee “was not done properly” and the party would not “jump to conclusions without doing that work properly”.

“It is clear that Erica Stanford had not thought through this properly before, so it’s good that it is put on hold for more work to be done on this and it is actually their own backbencher’s mess that needs to be tidied up, because we had this real opportunity to do this work on select committee and it didn’t happen.”

Parmar said ACT’s objections to the ban included that it could erode privacy and freedoms.

“The goal of the ban is to protect people from the harm they experience online, right? If people are still going to stay online, that means we will not be protecting them.

“Actually, we will be pushing them into darker corners of internet, where they are fewer safeguards, and they will also not be sharing their experience, if they encounter anything that’s harmful.

“In reports from Australia and the UK, we have seen young girls using make-up to bypass restrictions. In the UK, we have seen reports of young boys drawing moustache to bypass restrictions and staying online.”

The wider programme

Stanford’s wider programme of work has been going on some time. In December, just two months after Wedd’s bill was introduced, the minister said it would provide “real teeth” to back up a simple ban, which children could easily evade.

She was considering options like a new regulator or child protection legislation in line with some other countries.

Those comments responded to an interim report from the select committee inquiry. The final report was delivered last week, prompting a lengthy debate in Parliament – with 18 speeches from various parties providing their views.

Green MP Tamatha Paul had attended a separate hearing at the Waitangi Tribunal to bring attention to the online abuse faced by young people and women in politics.

She told Midday Report it was not as simple as having an age limit like there is for purchasing alcohol, “because you have to go into a shop and they are regulated, and there are rules”.

“You do need to provide things like IDs and go in there to access it, whereas with a phone and with the internet, that’s an unregulated beast. Whether it’s social media, even whether it’s things like Roblox or Minecraft that young people are on, those are unregulated beasts.”

She said minority groups like rainbow or disability communities also used social media to connect to each other, and an outright ban would not recognise those positive aspects.

“There has to be something done, but I think an outright ban wouldn’t have been effective, especially talking to under-16-year-olds. It’s about holding those platforms to account and expecting them to have stricter rules, if they want to operate.”

Paul said that could involve having a conversation with social media platforms and laying out the conditions they would be expected to operate under, including facing regulation – and not just for young people.

“Online spaces are not safe,” she said. “There might be some opponents out there that say, ‘Oh, you know, just toughen up and don’t go online’.

“Well, that’s not fair that entire cohorts of young people or women can’t engage in one of the primary ways that humans connect these days, because it’s not safe for them.”

Stanford’s work appears to agree, aiming to bring about a more systemic change that a ban alone could not achieve. Paul did not respond to questions about whether the Greens could support a bill with all their desired regulation, if it still included a ban.

Labour’s Reuben Davidson re-affirmed his party’s support for Wedd’s bill, but noted it would not be a silver bullet.

“On its own, we could support it, but we wouldn’t expect it to solve all of the issues, and that’s why we’ve talked about the need for an independent regulator for transparency and for safety by design.”

Parmar refused to say whether the party backed any additional regulation for social media companies, saying any “new policies come from our leader”.

“ACT Party stands for fewer regulations, but we also know that regulation should be proportionate,” she said. “We will see what is being proposed.

“We are not able to make any comment, but again, we will be taking into consideration people’s privacy freedom and, of course, balancing that with young people’s safety online.”

Parmar – who is not in Cabinet – said she had no insights from National on what Stanford would propose.

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

Ngāti Ruanui is demanding an apology from Resources Minister Shane Jones for suggesting the iwi lacks intelligence during a Parliament debate this week.

Its tumu whakahaere (leader), Haimona Maruera Jnr said Jones’ comments were “shameful” and “an attack on the mana of our entire iwi”.

Jones was thrown out of the House on Wednesday after taking jabs at Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and the iwi.

He was arguing that some “luddites” and “troublemakers” did not see the importance or economic value in mining for critical minerals.

Ngarewa-Packer interrupted Jones to point out he’d “failed” after a mining company withdrew its fast-track application to mine the Taranaki seabed. Ngāti Ruanui had opposed the application.

Jones said it was important that the $1.4 billion sector be enabled to grow.

“Whether it’s through the fast-track legislation … and I accept … that in some areas, the growth in intellect and the growth in intelligence will take a lot longer, and I fear that the longest period of time it will take will be around Ngāti Ruanui and Taranaki.”

Ngarewa-Packer labelled Jones “insecure” because “that little iwi took you on and won” in their battle against mining the Taranaki seabed.

After more back and forth between the pair, the Speaker Gerry Brownlee told Jones to “haere rā … off you go”, and he left the House.

Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Ruanui Trust said on Friday it had lodged a formal complaint with Brownlee and wanted Governor-General Dame Cindy Kiro to encourage the minister to apologise.

Its tumu whakahaere, Haimona Maruera Jnr said Jones’ comments were “shameful” and “an attack on the mana of our entire iwi”.

“This is not the first time the Minister has made disparaging comments referencing Ngāti Ruanui in the New Zealand Parliament,” he said.

“When a minister of the crown uses the debating chamber to insult a Treaty Partner, and does so while hiding behind legal immunity, the relationship risks being fundamentally fractured.”

Maruera Jnr said Jones had attacked the iwi because it holds a different view on mining, which showed “a shocking display of arrogance”.

The comments were an affront to the Ngāti Ruanui Claims Settlement Act which was built on a foundation of mutual respect and a formal Crown apology, he said.

Jones, the Speaker’s office, and the Governor-General’s office have been approached 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

Morale at the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) is “at rock bottom” after a fresh wave of proposed job cuts, the Public Service Association (PSA) says.

The restructure would lead a further 140 roles to be disestablished, with a net loss of 30 positions.

Proposed changes would impact three groups: transport services, commercial and corporate and system leadership, the PSA said.

PSA national secretary Duane Leo told RNZ workers were in a state of confusion and shock after the proposed cuts were put to them.

“Morale is zero, it’s rock bottom at the moment, and there’s real insecurity out there.”

The restructure was especially disruptive, because it came just three weeks after another restructure that affected more than 250 roles in NZTA’s regulatory group.

He pointed out the latest round of changes marked the second major restructure at NZTA since the beginning of the coalition government’s term.

“Restructure after restructure – it’s taken a huge toll on the workers and their families.”

Workers were particularly confused by the cuts to the transport services group, because it was responsible for some of the government’s most critical infrastructure projects, Leo said.

“The transport services group has been given plans to deliver some huge capital transformation programmes, including Roads of National Significance.

“What they’re doing is actually cutting the people who will build their flagship projects.”

This latest proposal meant nearly one-in-five workers at NZTA were facing uncertainty about their employment, the PSA said.

NZTA told RNZ the restructures were in response to a review of how it plans, invests in, delivers and manages transport system assets.

“We have identified the need for clearer, more connected end‑to‑end ways of working, including earlier and more collaborative planning, more consistent investment decision‑making, and a sharper focus on delivery and asset management.”

The changes were aimed at reducing duplication, strengthening accountability, and ensuring it was set up to effectively deliver its services, NZTA said.

Leo said he did not buy that.

“We’ve heard this consistently over the term of this coalition government: ‘it’s about efficiencies, it’s about making the public service more responsive’. This is not the case. It’s cost-cutting.”

NZTA said it was currently formally consulting with people in its system leadership, commercial and corporate and transport services groups on the proposal.

The PSA had made submissions to NZTA on behalf of all the groups that would be affected, Leo said.

Final redundancy decisions would be announced in July for workers in transport services and in August for commercial and corporate and system leadership staff.

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

A critic says a change to the accommodation supplement rules is expected to push some households further into poverty.

The Social Security Amendment Bill was introduced in Parliament on Thursday.

It introduces changes that were signalled in the 2025 Budget, which the government said were designed to better target financial assistance and ensure the sustainability of the welfare system.

It introduces a parental assistance test for 18- and 19-year-old JobSeeker applicants and adjusts the calculation for the accommodation supplement.

Homeowners will be assessed based on contributing 40 percent – not 30 percent – of their income to housing costs before they are eligible for a subsidy.

Child Poverty Action Group spokesperson Isaac Gunson said even households that could meet that threshold would experience “deeper after-housing-cost poverty”.

He said they would probably have to defer things like home maintenance, which could have a flow-on effect to worse health outcomes.

Social Development Minister Louise Upston said the accommodation supplement calculation had not changed for 33 years, and those with unsubsidised housing costs now generally paid a higher proportion of their income towards housing.

“This rebalances that. This will target the accommodation supplement to those with the greatest need, while continuing to support the most vulnerable groups.”

The amount that people are allowed to have in assets and still qualify for the supplement has also not been changed in more than 30 years. A couple or a sole parent could have cash assets up to $16,200.

She said she did not have the details of how many people would be affected or how much it would save.

“The bill has been tabled, they are Budget ’25 measures so there won’t be any surprise there.”

The change does not apply to renters and boarders, nor homeowners who are likely to require longer-term social assistance, including those on superannuation, veteran’s pension, supported living payment, or emergency benefit equivalent of supported living payment.

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

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

Media Minister Paul Goldsmith says David Seymour’s attack on the public broadcasters was unhelpful, while New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has called it “out of order”.

The twin rebukes went further than the prime minister did earlier in the week when Christopher Luxon said he was “super comfortable” with the deputy prime minister’s remarks.

Speaking on Thursday, Goldsmith told reporters he’d had an “informal conversation” with the ACT leader since Seymour’s interview on The Platform where he lashed out at both RNZ and TVNZ.

During The Platform interview, Seymour – who has shareholding responsibilities for both media organisations – suggested changes were coming for RNZ’s leadership as the government reshaped its board.

Goldsmith declined to share any details about his conversation with Seymour, apart from to say he did not “pull him into line” as that was not his role.

“I don’t think some of his comments were helpful in relation particularly to the board,” Goldsmith said.

“We appoint the board, and it’s typically the role of the board to make decisions around management.”

Goldsmith said he “very much” supported RNZ and maintained confidence in its board.

Speaking separately, Peters said he was pleased that Goldsmith had had a word with Seymour about his comments.

“They were out of order, especially if you’re a shareholding minister in that context,” Peters said.

“We can have our criticisms about organisations, but that’s no way to go about it.”

Peters himself came under scrutiny for criticising RNZ last year after threatening its funding during a fiery Morning Report interview: “you’re paid for by the taxpayer and sooner or later we’re going to cut that water off too.”

The coalition subsequently slashed RNZ’s funding by almost $5 million a year, though Goldsmith said the reduction was about fiscal prudence and signed off before Peters’ warning. Seymour, however, said the “significant funding cut” was designed to send a message.

The funding cut came after a boost of about $25m a year from the former Labour government in 2023.

RNZ’s outgoing board chair Jim Mather last week defended the organisation’s editorial independence and said commentary like Seymour’s risked undermining public trust and confidence.

Opposition parties and media commentators also said Seymour had crossed the line.

Legislation governing both RNZ and TVNZ prohibits ministers from directing the broadcasters regarding “a particular programme” or “the gathering or presentation of news”.

Seymour, however, told reporters he had not given any direction and therefore had done nothing wrong.

“We as politicians actually have a role, appointing the people that go on the board. And when we do that in a democracy, people want to know: why, what our objectives are, and are they good people?”

Seymour also questioned why reporters were still fixated on his comments instead of worthier topics: “It kind of proves my point about why every day I get people asking me, ‘what are you going to do about the media?’”

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

Indian negotiators threatened to walk out of trade talks with New Zealand over its persistent efforts to include dairy, New Zealand’s chief trade official says.

Vangelis Vitalis revealed the detail to MPs on Thursday to help explain the “big disappointment” of the Indian free trade agreement (FTA), that being the limited gains for the dairy sector.

Appearing before Parliament’s trade select committee, Vitalis said India “flatly refused to even engage” on typically orthodox elements of trade negotiations, like butter, cheese and milk powders.

“There were moments when there were threatened walkouts, including at ministerial level, when we persisted in seeking an outcome for dairy.”

Vitalis said the talks were “extremely difficult” on that point, noting that no other country had ever secured access for those products.

He said New Zealand did manage to eliminate tariffs on bulk infant formula and some protein-based products. “It’s not nothing.”

Vitalis also talked up the gains in other areas, noting progress on products which were “super sensitive” in India, like apples, kiwifruit and honey. All three products will face reduced tariffs up to a certain quota under the deal.

He said the deal also put New Zealand on “even footing” with its key competitors like Australia, which had pulled ahead of New Zealand in key products like sheep meat since securing its own agreement in 2022.

Before then, New Zealand accounted for 85 percent of India’s imports of sheep meat. That had since dwindled to just 9 percent.

Vitalis said the FTA would give New Zealand exporters greater options in an increasingly challenging environment.

“The jungle is certainly growing back. Things are becoming more turbulent, more uncertain, and all of the major trading blocs in the world are increasingly ignoring or breaking those international trade rules on which we’ve relied for so long.

“The system is battered and bruised… but it is not yet broken.”

Questions about migration, investment

Vitalis also faced questions from MPs on two key aspects of the FTA which have proved contentious across Parliament.

New Zealand First triggered the coalition’s agree-to-disagree clause, allowing it to oppose the deal, arguing it would have “ludicrous immigration implications”.

With encouragement from National MP Tim Costley, Vitalis stressed the FTA contained “important safeguards” around migration.

The FTA introduces a dedicated pathway for up to 5000 Indian professionals over three years through Temporary Employment Entry (TEE) visas.

Vitalis said those applicants had to undergo all the usual character and health tests, and find work only in areas with a “genuine shortage” of workers. There was also no pathway to permanent residence or citizenship – and a three year stand-down.

“After you’ve had your visa for three years, you must leave, and you cannot reapply for three years.”

Vitalis also played down any changes around student benefits, saying Indian students were currently allowed to work 25 hours a week while they studied. He said the agreement included an guarantee that would never fall below 20 hours.

Both Labour and NZ First have also expressed concern about a commitment to promote up to US$20 billion of New Zealand private sector investment in India over 15 years.

Vitalis said the commitment was “very carefully drafted” and India “well understood” that it related only to promotion.

“It is not to reach the target…. We do need to show and demonstrate to India that we are promoting investment there. But it is clear that the New Zealand government cannot give or invest 20 billion US dollars.”

Asked whether India could revoke concessions if it deemed New Zealand had not lived up to its obligations, Vitalis said he did not believe that would occur.

“If we were in that situation, then, more fundamentally, the bilateral relationship with India is in serious trouble.”

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

Labour’s leader says the Prime Minister is embracing the “anti-migrant rhetoric” of his coalition partners.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon told business leaders on Wednesday that immigration was an emerging political issue, and the party would put social cohesion ahead of business profits.

Speaking to reporters after his ‘State of Auckland’ speech on Thursday, Labour leader Chris Hipkins said Luxon is buying into a view on immigration that isn’t true.

“Christopher Luxon is clearly embracing the anti-migrant rhetoric that his colaition partners are adopting and he should be pushing against it – not trying to appease it.”

Hipkins said migrants brought a huge amount to New Zealand, and the country didn’t have to choose between immigration and profitability for businesses.

Meanwhile, a demographer believes Luxon is promising a solution to an immigration problem that does not exist.

Independent think tank Koi Tū senior fellow and distinguished professor emeritus Paul Spoonley told Morning Report on Thursday while immigration had become a polarising globally, that was not necessarily the case in New Zealand.

He said immigration had risen a bit as an issue, but it was not a top 10 concern for New Zealanders – as identified in the latest Ipsos issues monitor. He said polling showed the majority of New Zealanders viewed immigration positively.

“I can only assume that the prime minister is beginning to react to his two coalition partners both of whom seem to want to make immigration a central issue for the coming election, but also to see immigration as somehow being divisive and an issue for New Zealanders – I don’t think it is.”

Spoonley said New Zealand’s points-based system was strict compared to many other OECD countries where immigration had become polarising.

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