Category: Politics

Source: Radio New Zealand

Labour MP Kieran McAnulty was ordered to leave the House during a tense session that included many challenges on the Speaker’s rulings.

Question Time began with Gerry Brownlee indirectly rebuking New Zealand First leader Winston Peters for his remarks towards Green MP Teanau Tuiono on Wednesday, but stopping short of demanding an apology.

The situation meant tensions did not die down in Parliament, leading to McAnulty eventually being thrown out for accusing the Speaker of double standards.

On Wednesday, Peters took issue with a question line by the Green MP, after he referred to the country as Aotearoa in his primary question.

“Why is [the minister] answering a question from someone who comes from Rarotonga to a country called New Zealand…” Peters started, before being interrupted by noise from other MPs in the debating chamber.

At the time, Brownlee said he had not heard Peters’ remark.

Peters then completed his question, asking why somebody from Rarotonga had decided “without any consultation with the New Zealand people” to change the country’s name.

In response, Brownlee said that was not an acceptable question, and it would be the last time those sorts of questions were directed “so personally” to other members.

Tuiono has both Māori and Cook Islands Māori heritage but was born in New Zealand.

On Thursday, Brownlee stood ahead of Question Time to rule on Wednesday’s incident, and said it was “highly disorderly” to question an elected member’s rights and privileges.

“Members who engage in such comment can expect to be ejected from the House. Such comments are not only disrespectful to the member concerned, but also to this House, and also disrespectful to the electors in the electoral process that allows members to sit in this House.”

While Brownlee said he undertook his review to Peters’ question, he did not refer to Peters directly in his ruling.

In March 2025, Brownlee ruled that the use of Aotearoa was not a matter of order.

On Thursday, he again pointed members to that ruling.

“I would encourage members unfamiliar with it to become familiar with it. Further questioning of the ruling will be considered highly disorderly, with the usual consequences.”

In a lengthy back-and-forth, Labour MPs took issue with Brownlee’s decision not to take further action against Peters, particularly as he had said members who made such comments could be ejected.

Shadow Leader of the House Kieran McAnulty said at the very least, Peters should have been made to withdraw and apologise.

“In August last year, you required Chlöe Swarbrick to withdraw and apologise for comments that were made on the day prior. Now, at the time we expressed concern about that, because we felt in doing so, that was setting a precedent,” McAnulty said.

“But nevertheless, here we are again in a situation where you are saying that you are unable to require a member to withdraw and apologise for something that happened yesterday.”

McAnulty said it ran the risk of applying different standards to some but not others, a point Brownlee accepted, and said he would avoid in the future.

Labour MP Willie Jackson said he took “personal offence” to Peters’ comments, to which Brownlee asked why he did not raise that at the time.

Swarbrick also encouraged the Speaker to apply the same consistency, “lest you be accused of double standards”, a comment Brownlee said was “borderline trifling” with the chair.

Green MP Ricardo Menéndez March pursued a different line of questioning, relating to Peters’ assertion that Tuiono was from Rarotonga.

“Unless the former deputy prime minister was deliberately trying to mislead the House, I think a correction should be an order, because there was a factually incorrect statement being made about where he was born.”

Brownlee said Menéndez March was making a suggestion there had been a breach of privilege, and there were processes for dealing with that.

Eventually, Brownlee called the matter to a close, and Question Time began, but the matter was not settled for the opposition.

After Brownlee chastised Jackson for repeated interruptions, McAnulty raised a further point of order.

“It’s quite clear that Willie Jackson is on a warning that if he interrupts you again he’ll be sent out,” McAnulty began.

“No it’s not,” Brownlee said.

“OK, so he can carry on?” replied McAnulty, to which Brownlee warned him he would be trifling with the chair if he carried on.

“I’m concerned that just by that statement it’s quite clear that you’re saying that if I trifle with you again that I will leave, but you won’t even require someone making a racist comment to withdraw and apologise,” McAnulty said.

He was then ordered to leave the House.

Speaking on the tiles shortly afterwards, McAnulty repeated his belief the Speaker was applying double standards.

“Winston Peters is able to trifle with him, undermine him, make racist comments, make questionable comments, certainly unparliamentary comments and actions in the House, and there is no action against that,” he said.

“We challenged the Speaker today in a respectful and highly appropriate way, and yet I’m the one that gets kicked out. Proving my point, to be fair.”

He reiterated that Labour had lost confidence in the Speaker following his ruling there was no private benefit in an amendment paper that listed projects under the Fast Track bill.

Peters insisted Swarbrick’s situation was different, as she had been told to apologise and would not, and then when she came back the next day again refused to apologise.

“[McAnulty] was raising the parallel circumstance, which were not parallel,” he said.

Peters said he was not sorry for his comments towards Tuiono.

“You’re saying that we can change the name of the country without asking the New Zealand people? That’s fascist. That’s antidemocratic.”

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

LiveNews: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/02/19/labour-mp-kieran-mcanulty-ordered-to-leave-the-house-after-challenging-speaker/

Source: Radio New Zealand

Labour says the Housing Minister has been undermined by his leader and colleagues following the announcement to lower the maximum number of houses in Auckland from 2 million to at least 1.6 million.

Meanwhile, ACT leader David Seymour says “we’re not there yet” and wants to see the location of the 1.6 million homes before supporting it.

Chris Bishop announced the change to Auckland leaders at the International Convention Centre on Thursday.

Deputy leader and spokesperson for Auckland Carmel Sepuloni said it’s a humiliating backdown for Bishop and there’s been a relationship breakdown between government ministers.

Sepuloni said there’d been “self-interest” from some MPs, including Epsom’s David Seymour and Howick’s Simeon Brown, and that they were “concerned with their own leafy suburbs” and the feedback they’d got from their constituents.

“This is a humiliating backdown for Chris Bishop, who has spent months talking up housing reform only to be forced into swallowing a dead rat when Christopher Luxon threw his plan under the bus,” Sepuloni said.

She said Bishop had been ambitious for Auckland, “he knows how important housing is”, and called it a huge blow for Auckland families looking for affordable homes.

She’s concerned about the uncertainty the change brings, given council entered into agreements with government in good faith and “this really turns all of that on its head”.

The Greens were similarly frustrated, with co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick saying she’d call it embarrassing if it wasn’t “harmful”.

“We’ve been having this debate for longer than I have been involved in politics. Aucklanders and New Zealanders deserve far better.”

She said cities weren’t museums, and they needed to house people.

Swarbrick said she found it “profoundly ironic” that the government was capitulating to those who own property at the expense of everybody else at a time where the Infrastructure Commission called for “clear-eyed, evidence-based criteria” for development in New Zealand.

She asked if Bishop was willing to show his spine and do the things he said he believed in.

Neither Labour nor the Greens would rule out making further changes or campaigning to make further changes to the plan.

Nor did the ACT leader give his full endorsement for the change, with Seymour saying it was good progress the government was making changes, “but we need to see what 1.6 million looks like before we vote for it”.

He said when parliament voted for 2 million homes, “we hadn’t seen the maps from the council”.

“They had kept them hidden and basically released them the next day. This time, we need to see what 1.6 million looks like before we vote for it.”

Asked about Auckland mayor Wayne Brown’s comments that the change was an overreach from central government, and he didn’t want to seek Cabinet’s approval on another plan, Seymour suggested the mayor “be a bit of a democrat” and help inform the public of what 1.6 million looks like.

“I don’t think he has the right to withhold information that’s important to many Aucklanders.”

Seymour said people did want housing intensification but they wanted to see it being consistent and looking sensible, saying it would be “crazy” to have a field of single family homes with a 150 metre tower in the middle.

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters was pleased the change was happening, saying a lower number of homes was “doing better” and the change was more “attuned to the actual realities of future growth” rather than “wild speculation”.

“You’ve got to compromise, in my view. I’ve talked to a lot of planners there. We could have done better, and we still can.”

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

LiveNews: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/02/19/opposition-parties-react-to-auckland-housing-u-turn/

Source: Radio New Zealand

Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop has told Auckland leaders the government’s not “shagging spiders” as it progresses work on a second Auckland harbour crossing.

Public discourse about another Waitematā Harbour crossing was reignited this week after the Infrastructure Commission suggested a toll as high as $9 per trip to help pay for it.

Bishop went on a self-described “rant” during a question-and-answer session at the International Convention Centre after being asked when the harbour crossing would be tolled.

“The mayor’s about to self-combust down the front here,” Bishop joked in response.

Bishop said a decision on the crossing – be it a bridge or a tunnel – would be made later this year “with Auckland” and “in conjunction with the opposition”.

He added it would “almost certainly be tolled”.

“It’ll be the biggest project ever built in New Zealand, no matter what shape or form it is – it’s [an] extremely large amount of money, and I’ve said publicly that it will almost certainly be tolled.

“The idea that you ask people to pay to use a new bridge or tunnel is [not] unreasonable. It’s how the original one was paid for.”

Bishop was then asked if people would have to pay to use the old crossing.

He replied there were several factors to consider: what was built, the direction of travel across both and congestion pricing the council was working on.

“There’s any number of different things that factor into all of those calculations and I’m trying not to get ahead of any of it because unlike previous times we’ve confronted this debate, we’re going to do the work first.

“Rather than just me spout off and say we’ve got a plan, and by the way I’ll work out how much it costs later and we’ll work out all the details and make a big, flashy announcement and stand up and say, ‘We’re building this and we’re building that,’ and everyone go, ‘Oh, that’s great,’ I’m trying not to do that.

“I’m trying to work through it in a proper way; actually look at what’s deliverable, what do we need, how long has the current bridge got, how does congestion pricing factor into it, what sort of toll do we need to charge, what’s economically sustainable, what about the diversions, what about congestion pricing?

“There’s any number of different complicated things you have to think about, and we’re trying to do it properly and facile debates about – you know – this and that, aren’t helpful.

“Anyway, rant over,” he finished, before ramping up again.

Bishop stressed the government was “a wee way away” from a decision and “everyone just needed to taihoa a bit”.

“Everyone says they want politicians to make comprehensive, well-informed, evidence-based, reasoned decisions and go through a thorough process. Well, that’s what we’re doing.

“Then the same people who say we really need to take our time on this and get this and get it right go, ‘What are you doing? Why can’t you tell me? How much will it cost? What will it be?’

“You can’t have it both ways. There’s a tension there. I get people want certainty, but when you’re spending 15 billion bucks of government money on a new bridge or tunnel – not saying one or the other – people would want us to take a proper process around it.

“I don’t think that’s unreasonable. We’re not shagging spiders here – we’re creating a massive multi-generational infrastructure project for the next 50 years of New Zealand. So let’s get it right.

“Sorry about the rant, but anyway, it’s been an interesting week.”

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

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

LiveNews: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/02/19/were-not-shagging-spiders-minister-on-second-auckland-harbour-crossing/

Source: Radio New Zealand

Cabinet has agreed to lower the maximum number of houses in Auckland from 2 million to at least 1.6 million.

Housing Minister Chris Bishop announced the new figure to Auckland leaders at the International Convention Centre this afternoon.

Auckland Council had been progressing a new plan to accommodate up to 2 million homes in the coming decades.

The council opted out of medium-density rules that apply to most major cities on the proviso it set up zoning for 30 years of growth.

The council’s Plan Change 120 set out the process for doing this, but the government has since come under pressure from proponents of heritage homes who have raised concerns about further intensification in character areas that were already seeing major development.

Bishop has now confirmed Cabinet has signed off on legislating to “soften” the housing capacity equivalency requirement.

“Currently, that number equates to at least 2 million, and we are lowering it to at least 1.6 million,” he said.

The Minister told Auckland leaders PC120 had been “divisive” and fears the government had a target of building 2 million homes did not exist.

“The 2 million number was a red herring that transformed into a lightning rod….It’s clear a lot of Aucklanders are concerned about what growth means for them.

“That’s completely understandable. People want to know that their suburbs will continue to be liveable. That is what government wants too.

“This kind of angst in Auckland isn’t helpful for our housing goals. We need people to come with us on the journey of more capacity and more housing. We hear you and we are ready to act.”

Bishop said the government believed 1.6 million houses was the midpoint between the 1.2 million figure in the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) and the 2 million figure in PC120.

“This reduction is significant and strikes an appropriate balance between those Aucklanders concerned about densification, and those who wish to see more growth.”

He said Cabinet had asked for a summary of the provisional zoning changes the council would make once the government legislated for it.

“Once we legislate the lower housing capacity number, the rest is in Auckland Council’s hands.”

“The council will determine which parts of Auckland they wish to downzone in PC120. They can then formally withdraw parts of PC120 from the Plan Change, except for those parts needed to implement the NPS-UD or to upzone around key CRL stations.”

Legally complicated

Bishop said it was legally complicated to legislate in the middle of a process that was already underway but the coalition had found a workaround.

“We have devised a way through that will allow Aucklanders to see the areas that will be removed from PC 120 and provide another opportunity for Aucklanders to have their say – including those who have already submitted on PC120 and others who would like to join.

“I want to stress that I am determined to put this issue to bed once and for all. Auckland has been struggling with an update to the AUP since 2021. I accept Parliament hasn’t helped, but it’s now 2026. I think we’ve now got the balance right.”

He said the new plan would mean growth around the areas that made the most economic sense and where there was the most support – CRL stations, rapid transit stations and metropolitan centres while allowing more flexibility around suburban Auckland.

Existing provisions, such as setback requirements, tower dimension controls, and height limits, constrain development should be revisited, he said.

Bishop said “for largely unfathomable RMA legal reasons” the City Centre Zone was not included in PC120 and the council did not have a simple mechanism to unlock this potential.

“Cabinet has agreed that I will start an investigation into these planning provisions that are holding back Auckland’s city centre, with a view to making regulations under the RMA – similar to what we have just announced for Eden Park.

“My intention is that any additional housing capacity enabled in the city centre will count towards the new requirement to provide capacity for at least 1.6 million dwellings.

Together, these changes announced today will provide Auckland Council greater flexibility to respond to the feedback of Aucklanders and tackle our housing crisis.”

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

LiveNews: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/02/19/government-weakens-housing-intensification-rules-for-auckland/

Source: Radio New Zealand

The details of the government’s election year U-turn on housing plans in Auckland are expected to be announced shortly.

The Housing Minister has had to grapple with potentially legislating over a plan change that is already underway – a process which he says is “legally complicated”.

“Rarely if ever does it happen,” said Chris Bishop.

But, government ministers say it is “democracy”, and the Prime Minister says he is listening to feedback.

Others are concerned it is slowing the delivery of housing in Auckland.

The change comes after various iterations of plans to allow for more housing in Auckland.

In 2021, National and Labour agreed to allow three homes of up to three storeys tall on most properties in New Zealand.

Auckland Council then had to grapple with the effects of the Anniversary Weekend floods in 2023 and decisions around where – and where not to – build new homes in the future.

Bishop said the council could opt out of the medium-density rules that applied to most cities, as long as it delivered the same number of homes overall.

That was enough for at least the next 30 years of projected growth, a requirement under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPSUD) from 2020.

Auckland Council proposed enabling up to two million new homes through a new plan, called Plan Change 120.

This, in part, proposed a change to district plan rules to enable intensification mainly around rapid transit stops and went out for consultation late last year.

In January this year the coalition confirmed it was taking another look at the housing intensification plans after pushback from critics.

“Ultimately, the feedback is saying things are going to need to change, and there will need to be some changes,” said Christopher Luxon in January.

Bishop echoed this the same week, “We needed to make some changes there to make it more sustainable politically.”

He said the 2 million number took on “a life of its own”.

It was not entirely clear what official feedback the government was talking about, given Auckland Council had not yet seen the public submissions at that time.

Chair of the Policy, Planning and Development Committee Richard Hills told RNZ in January staff were still going through the submissions as part of the $3m consultation process.

“The only frustration from council’s point of view, is that all of these requirements on us were passed through cabinet and there are people clearly in cabinet who have acted like they didn’t know about it.”

Bishop shared that frustration, speaking to RNZ this week.

“I’m as frustrated as everybody else,” pointing to the NPSUD which came into effect multiple years ago.

He said Auckland was the last remaining city to implement its rules and regulations around land for housing.

Infrastructure NZ’s Nick Leggett thought central government and Auckland Council had been on the same page.

“I’m never surprised when politics gets in the way of infrastructure.

“Unfortunately, political intervention causes lots of problems and costs more money for New Zealanders when it comes to infrastructure.”

He was waiting to see the details, but was concerned about any weakening of planning allowances that meant “Auckland couldn’t grow up as well as growing out”.

Chief executive of the Property Council of New Zealand, Leonie Freeman, said the development community needed certainty around what you could build and where.

“We had changes with the medium density, we had Plan change 78 now Plan change 120 – any calibration of figures or numbers or where houses are going to go need to be targeted and need to be evidence based.

“We need to take the personal opinions out of it.”

She said when there were continuous changes, it was hard to plan, and if you did start planning then the rules changed, “you’ve wasted a whole lot of time, money and energy”.

“It’s probably unintentionally slowing the delivery of houses in some places in Auckland, or it’s limiting intensification in areas where it does make sense.”

RNZ asked multiple cabinet ministers about making a change despite the formal consultation process still being underway. Bishop, Paul Goldsmith and David Seymour indicated they were listening to constituents and it was “democracy”.

Seymour, who is also the MP for Epsom, told the NZ Herald in January the issue of intensification in Auckland had been “highly politicised” and “symobolic” rather than a practical one about how to make it easier to build more houses faster and cheaper.

He said residents in his Epsom electorate were not “anti-intensification”, but if they were told towering buildings would be constructed “looking into everyone’s backyards and their swing sets and their pools”, they would ask, “Why would you do that?”

Speaking to RNZ he said the number of houses stipulated by Parliament was simply too high. He said Auckland Council had not been transparent about where exactly those houses would go.

“If the council had been transparent about what two million actually looked like, we probably would have got a different result in Parliament – we ain’t gonna make that mistake again.”

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

LiveNews: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/02/19/government-expected-to-make-announcement-on-auckland-housing-plan-u-turn/

Source: Radio New Zealand

A law expert says it is ironic the coalition appears to have run out of time to put a four year Parliamentary term to a referendum.

The government has ditched a bill to put a longer electoral term to a binding referendum, citing time constraints and a desire to prioritise law and order policies.

University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said the proposal was basically dead now.

“Ironically, it’s dead because the government has run out of time which is the very thing that governments say they need more of and which is why they’re so keen to actually get a four year term if they can get the public to agree to it.”

The select committee that considered the bill had recommended it progress to second reading without the ACT Party’s proviso a longer term came with greater checks and balances on the government of the day.

New Zealand and Australia are outliers in having three-year parliamentary terms; four or five year terms are far more common.

The arguments for a longer term include that there three years is too short for a government to accomplish its goals, with the first year settling in and the third year all about gearing up for another campaign.

Those wary of allowing longer terms argue New Zealand lacks certain checks and balances on government power other countries have, such as a supreme court that can strike down legislation or an upper house like the Senate in Australia and the United States or Britain’s House of Lords.

Geddis said MPs clearly had concerns about the uncertainty the legislation might bring.

“The original legislative proposal, which was an ACT Party move, was that four year terms would only happen if the government agreed to give opposition parties control [of] the select committee and that would be written into the legislation.

“The worry about that was you never actually knew whether you’d have a three year or four year parliamentary term until the government made the decision as to whether to let opposition have select committee power.

“Putting that into the legislation itself could create future uncertainty down the track. So the select committee said it would be better to have a simple vote on whether to have a three year term or four year term with no extra complications put into the legislation.”

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said a four year term was something a future government might look at.

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

LiveNews: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/02/19/ironic-that-government-has-run-out-of-time-to-pursue-longer-parliamentary-term-law-expert/