Category: Politics

Source: Radio New Zealand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smith said the current process undermines tikanga and Māori unity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Dark clouds loom over Waitangi”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minister responds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RNZ has approached the Minister for further comment.

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

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

LiveNews: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/01/28/ngapuhi-leaders-challenge-government-over-rushed-and-divisive-treaty-settlement-process/

Source: Radio New Zealand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LiveNews: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/01/28/brooke-van-velden-announces-changes-to-hazardous-substance-rules-for-research-labs/

Source: Radio New Zealand

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

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

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

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

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

A further 16 percent said they did not know.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Zealand First divides voters most sharply

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

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

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

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

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

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

What about Labour’s good friends in the Greens?

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

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

Once again, views split down government and opposition lines.

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

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

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

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

This poll of 1000 people was conducted by Reid Research, using quota sampling and weighting to ensure representative cross section by age, gender and geography. The poll was conducted through online interviews between 15-22 January 2026 and has a maximum margin of error of +/- 3.1 percent at a 95 percent confidence level.

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

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

LiveNews: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/01/28/voters-split-on-who-labour-should-rule-out-as-governing-options/

Source: Radio New Zealand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This poll of 1000 people was conducted by Reid Research, using quota sampling and weighting to ensure representative cross section by age, gender and geography. The poll was conducted through online interviews between 15-22 January 2026 and has a maximum margin of error of +/- 3.1 percent at a 95 percent confidence level.

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

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

LiveNews: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/01/27/national-only-a-whisker-ahead-of-labour-on-the-economy-poll/

Source: Radio New Zealand

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

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

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

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

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

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

Everything seems to be coming up Winston Peters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But no.

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

And that is largely thanks to NZ First.

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labour let down by others on the left

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LiveNews: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/01/27/pessimistic-voters-look-to-winston-peters-to-be-the-change-candidate-inside-the-coalition/

Source: Radio New Zealand

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

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

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

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

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

Follow the latest in RNZ’s politics blog at the top of this page.

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

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

LiveNews: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/01/27/politics-live-parliament-returns-for-2026-special-debate-on-recent-extreme-weather/

Source: Radio New Zealand

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

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

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

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

LiveNews: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/01/26/government-to-offer-temporary-accommodation-to-storm-victims/

Source: Radio New Zealand

New Zealand leaving the World Health Organization (WHO) – a possibility hinted at by Foreign Minister Winston Peters – would be “incredibly stupid”, according to one of his predecessors in the role.

Peters says the country needs to take a serious look at whether taxpayers’ money is being spent responsibly on the WHO. His comment, made on his personal X account, came after the United States withdrew from the organisation.

In his post on Friday, Peters said: “This is what happens when a bunch of unelected globalist bureaucrats are not accountable or responsible with worldwide taxpayers’ money.

“With the US withdrawing its membership it puts into question the current state of the WHO, its effectiveness, and if our taxpayers money is being responsibly spent overseas instead of here at home.”

Peters told Morning Report on Monday the WHO was a bloated organisation and not performing the way it should.

“They’ve forgotten what their original mandate was, they’ve forgotten the original parameters and boundaries they were given.

“I think we’ve got a right to question the issue of funding.

“We need to have a serious conversation in terms of accountability to the New Zealand people.”

Peters said it cost New Zealand millions of dollars to be part of the WHO.

“There have been countless occasions when they’ve sought to make rulings or decisions without any reference to the democratic nations that comprise it,” he said.

“Their job is to ensure they are efficiently the servants of the taxpayers worldwide that subscribe and sustain them.”

Washington formally withdrew from the WHO last week accusing it of numerous “failures during the Covid-19 pandemic” and of acting “repeatedly against the interests of the United States”.

WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said the withdrawal made “the US and the world less safe”and the reasons cited for the US decision were “untrue.”

Speaking to Midday Report, Phil Goff – foreign minister between 1999 and 2005 under Helen Clark – said it appeared Peters wanted to “become a mini-Trump”, referring to US President Donald Trump.

“The WHO has done some incredible things in the world. It’s been responsible for the eradication of smallpox, the near-eradication of polio, fighting pandemics. You can’t fight pandemics on a national basis because diseases don’t respect national borders.

“But also [it brings] the advantage of health care to those countries that desperately need it, the underdeveloped countries. So we spend, I think there’s an annual assessment of about $2.25 million from New Zealand plus a voluntary contribution – it’s not huge money and it’s vitally important.”

Goff was sacked as New Zealand’s high commissioner to the UK by Peters last year after making comments critical of Trump.

‘Gutless’ not to stand up – Goff

Goff said it was “gutless” Luxon had not ruled out joining Trump’s proposed ‘Board of Peace’, which the US president wants to oversee the reconstruction of Gaza and had suggested might one day replace the UN. Trump has invited the likes of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman.

Goff said by not immediately declining the invite, the government was appeasing a bully.

“When you stand up to a bully, they often have to back off. When you appease them, you just encourage them to keep on doing what they’re doing.

“And we know that what Trump is doing is destroying the fundamental basis of New Zealand foreign policy, which is to have an international rules-based order, not one based on personality and might being right. That is totally against what New Zealand has always stood for.

“And for us to suck up to Trump, to fail to criticise him, even when he says that our soldiers and NATO soldiers in Afghanistan didn’t go near the front line – deeply insulting, deeply hurtful to veterans – that’s a disgrace. And surely our foreign minister and prime minister should have felt it necessary to speak out and criticise Trump for saying that, as Starmer did, as Macron did, as Donald Tusk in Poland did.

“We have been gutless in this area, and I really feel that as a person proud of my country and proud of it standing up for the values that we have stood for so often in the past.”

Ten New Zealanders lost their lives during the War in Afghanistan.

WHO, UN need to be more effective – Luxon

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said global institutions needed to be more effective and renew themselves to stay relevant – but there was no question over New Zealand’s membership.

“The WHO plays an incredible role strengthening our healthcare systems, and national healthcare systems throughout the Pacific.

“New Zealand continues to benefit from the World Health Organization, but that doesn’t preclude it from continuing to improve its effectiveness and efficiency in delivery.

“I feel the same about the UN frankly – its relevance, its effectiveness needs serious overhauling.”

Luxon said New Zealand’s membership of the WHO and other global organisations was not in question, but they needed to be renewed and strengthened.

“Our challenge is to make them function better,” he said.

They were stuck in a way of working that’s “not relevant to where we are today”.

After the US withdrawal announcement, Tedros told staff in a memo the WHO would cut costs and review which health programmes to prioritise, Reuters reported. A spokesperson confirmed the memo was authentic but declined to comment further.

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/2026/01/26/former-foreign-minister-says-nz-must-stand-up-to-trump-defends-who-work/

Source: Radio New Zealand

NZ First leader Winston Peters is questioning whether New Zealand should continue to fund the World Health Organization.

His comment, made on his personal X account, came after the United States withdrew from the organisation.

In his post on Friday Peters said: “This is what happens when a bunch of unelected globalist bureaucrats are not accountable or responsible with worldwide taxpayers’ money.

“With the US withdrawing its membership it puts into question the current state of the WHO, its effectiveness, and if our taxpayers money is being responsibly spent overseas instead of here at home.”

Peters told Morning Report the WHO was a bloated organisation and not performing the way it should.

“They’ve forgotten what their original mandate was, they’ve forgotten the original parameters and boundaries they were given.

“I think we’ve got a right to question the issue of funding.

“We need to have a serious conversation interms of accountability to the New Zealand people.”

Washington formally withdrew from the WHO last week accusing it of numerous “failures during the Covid-19 pandemic” and of acting “repeatedly against the interests of the United States”.

The agency’s head Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesu said the withdrawal made “the US and the world less safe”and the reasons cited for the US decision were “untrue.”

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/2026/01/26/winston-peters-questions-nzs-funding-for-world-health-organization/

Source: Radio New Zealand

Schools can open for the 2026 school year from today through to Monday 9 February.

Among their number will be two entirely new state schools and a number of new charter schools.

The new state schools would be in Rolleston and Flat Bush where rolls at existing schools had been pushed to the limit by population growth.

Meanwhile, seven new charter schools were expected to open their doors in term 1.

They include an online school, a school based on classical European education, and a specialist sports school.

School rolls have been growing fast in some areas, reaching an all-time July-high of 856,412 nationally last year.

The Education Ministry expected secondary school enrolments would peak this year before declining next year, while primary school rolls should continue a decline that began last year.

Primary schools begin the year with collective agreements for most of their staff still under negotiation.

Though one group of primary principals settled their agreement last year, principals and teachers belonging to the Educational Institute Te Riu Roa rejected government offers at the end of last year and further talks were expected in February.

Primary schools must open for at least 382 half-days this year and secondaries for 380, but they could subtract four half-days as teacher-only days for work on the curriculum.

Schools must use new maths and English curriculums for students in Years 0-10 this year.

Draft curriculums for other subject areas were out for consultation until mid-April.

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/2026/01/26/back-to-school-2026-pupils-head-back-to-class-from-today/

Source: Radio New Zealand

Phil Goff has accused Foreign Minister Winston Peters of failing to stand up for New Zealand soldiers after US President Donald Trump said allied troops “stayed a little back” during the war in Afghanistan.

In a sharply worded Facebook post on Saturday, the former high commissioner to the United Kingdom said Peters’ silence in response to Trump’s remarks was “deafening”.

Trump’s comments came last week in an interview with Fox News in Davos, Switzerland, when questioned whether NATO allies would support the US if it were attacked.

“‘Will they be there, if we ever needed them?’ And that’s really the ultimate test. And I’m not sure of that,” he said.

“You know, they’ll say they sent some troops to Afghanistan, or this or that. And they did – they stayed a little back, a little off the front lines.”

The remarks sparked outrage among US allies, including the UK, whose prime minister, Keir Starmer, described them as “insulting and frankly appalling”.

Goff contrasted those responses with what he said was silence from New Zealand’s leadership, singling out Peters and his role as foreign minister, for not defending that record.

“No comment has come from any government leader,” he wrote.

“Peters, who claims to lead the patriotic party in NZ, has been typically silent as he has whenever Trump has lied outrageously,” Goff wrote.

Goff said the comments were an affront to New Zealand’s sacrifice in the 20-year conflict.

“For Trump, a man who dodged the draft five times, to belittle the efforts of those who came to the assistance of the US after 9/11, and sacrificed their lives is disgraceful.”

New Zealand lost 10 service personnel in Afghanistan.

Goff, a former foreign affairs and defence minister, said Trump’s remarks were deeply personal.

“Ten New Zealanders died in the war. I attended the funerals of several of them, including my nephew Matt, and saw the grief and pain of their loved ones,” he said.

He also pointed to the actions of Willie Apiata, who was awarded the Victoria Cross for bravery during a 2004 operation in Afghanistan.

“Willie Apiata was behind the front line when he won his VC, deep in enemy territory,” Goff wrote, rejecting Trump’s claim that allied forces avoided combat.

He urged ministers to follow the example of countries such as Canada, which have taken a firmer public line with the US president.

While New Zealand is not a full NATO member, it holds the position of highly valued partner under the Individual Partnership and Cooperation Programme (IPCP).

In March of last year, Peters removed Goff from his role as high commissioner to the UK after the former Labour MP criticised the US president, questioning whether he “really understands history”.

Comments disrespectful to the fallen – NZRSA

The Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association (NZRSA) has also condemned Trump’s remarks.

In a statement, the organisation said Kiwi troops served and died with NATO forces in Afghanistan and any suggestion that allied soldiers “avoided frontline combat was incorrect and deeply hurtful to veterans and the families of those killed”.

“New Zealanders who have been killed or injured in service in recent decades were doing so in support of multinational operations.”

Veteran: Claims ‘ill-informed’

Former army major Simon Strombom, who served in Afghanistan, described Trump’s comments as ill-informed and sensationalist.

Strombom, now managing director of the NZ Remembrance Army, said he worked closely with British, Canadian and other NATO forces and saw firsthand their professionalism and exposure to danger.

“The majority of the weight of the coalition headquarters was not American,” he previously told RNZ. “There were 48 countries involved, and the rest were predominantly NATO.”

Strombom said the comments would be especially painful for families who lost loved ones in the conflict.

“It’d be pretty hard for a family to have suffered such a loss and then hear comments like that, undermining the actual sacrifice,” he said.

Defence Minister Judith Collins previously said the country took great pride in the professionalism, courage, and commitment of all who served in Afghanistan.

Peters’ office has been approached for comment.

Trump has since partially walked back his remarks, praising British troops on his Truth Social platform as “great and very brave”.

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/2026/01/25/goff-takes-aim-at-peters-deafening-silence-on-trumps-nato-comments/