Strike out power on Bill in Winston Peters' hands
New Zealand First are polling better in government than they ever have.
No longer encumbered by the optics of being too close to the baubles of office, its leader Winston Peters is free to control the script at a time when his coalition partners are looking tired.
One can expect that the (grand)father of the House will spend the next 18 months oscillating between the seriousness of his job as Foreign Minister and the less serious but equally important job of trolling his political opponents. So far, he's winning.
A million or more voters would have seen Mr Peters gleefully wave an A4 print of the Soviet flag while describing the Green Party's alternative budget; a tiny fraction would have read the 43-page manifesto.
The modern Greens are not communists or socialists; some are barely even social democrats, but that's all beside the point. Mr Peters' best sales pitch is that his party is neither of the main parties (who he suggests can't be trusted) nor any of the others (who he suggests are bonkers).
They are enormous claims for the man who appears to have successfully courted the Freedom movement on his way back to Parliament.
The departure of Tanya Unkovich from the NZ First caucus comes at an opportune time for Mr Peters, who will be thinking about how to sensibly pivot his party back to the so-called political centre and by doing so claim an even bigger share of the electoral pie.
Party insiders have suggested that new list MP David Wilson will help smooth the ride. A reliable member of the party faithful who shares Mr Peters' liberal underpinnings but frank distaste for the excess of market forces.
How might Mr Peters use his clear air to grow support for his party further?
The most obvious play is to double down on a position that his party is the only independent voice in town, with each of the major parties being dragged either left or right by the demands of smaller parties.
The coalition agreement between National and Act commits to passing a Regulatory Standards Bill as soon as is practicable.
Well, it won't be practicable if Mr Peters decides it isn't.
It could be his next chance to show his credentials as the voice of the people by pulling up the legislative handbrake.
For that to happen, Mr Peters needs someone from across the aisle to explain to the public, in a few sentences or less, why the Regulatory Standards Bill is not in their best interests.
Most opposition MPs have been fixated on how the Bill enhances property rights by embedding quasi-libertarian ideology into various pieces of legislation. The obvious rejoinder is that we have been doing that already for the past 40-odd years, starting with the Fourth Labour Government.
Submissions on the Bill have been notable for two reasons: how many there are and how many are vehemently opposed. Limiting the number of submitters allowed to give oral presentations and having others dismissed as bots, is neither respecting parliamentary processes, nor the people.
Questions of fairness and responsible stewardship give New Zealand First further cause to adapt their position on the Bill. Indeed, it is reverence for our political institutions that differentiates Mr Peters from the less effective theatrical populists in other parts of the liberal world.
Usually, legislation that risks upending constitutional norms would be something tested via a referendum, or at the very least, receive a clearer mandate on election night e.g. a National-Act New Zealand majority coalition.
How might the coalition partners respond if Mr Peters says that the Regulatory Standards Bill must stay on the order paper until after the next election?
In 2018, Prime Minister Ardern dismissed the failure to repeal the three strikes as "simply democracy and MMP". Prime Minister Luxon might be compelled to say something similar.
For Act leader David Seymour? Probably just the first strike.
— Dr Luke Oldfield is a lecturer of political science at Te Herenga Waka-Victoria University of Wellington.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
3 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Better late than never
The government's reasoning for stopping late voter registration, including enrolling and voting on election day, is flimsy. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says allowing late enrolments, however well intentioned, has put too much strain on the system and it is taking too long to get the final vote count. He says this could worsen in future general elections, conveniently not mentioning the other delay to new government formation — protracted negotiations between political parties. There were multiple issues with the count in 2023, but should the blame for the time taken fall on late enrolled voters or a system which was poorly resourced, staffed and organised? The law was changed for the 2020 election to allow enrolment on voting day after 19,000 people who had turned up at the previous election to enrol and vote were disenfranchised. The Electoral Amendment Bill, introduced to the House last week, will not take the situation back to that which existed for years before 2020. Then, late enrolments could be accepted up until the day before the election. (That is the case for local elections, and officials have pointed out having substantially different deadlines for the two types of elections may confuse voters.) Now, for a vote to be valid in a general election, enrolment would have to be completed 13 days before the election; a day before advance voting starts. In his media release announcing the proposed change, Mr Goldsmith referred to the Australian law setting the enrolment deadline for 26 days before the Federal election. Whether he was trying to provoke an odd Trans-Tasman rivalry — anything the Aussies can do we can do in half the time — is not clear. It was a strange comparison to make because, unlike New Zealand, Australia has compulsory voting. He did not mention almost half of the states in the United States of America allow same day enrolment and voting, as does Canada. In our last election, special votes included more than 97,000 people who enrolled during the voting period and nearly 134,000 people who changed electorates during that time. Officials have suggested this gives some indication of the number of people who may be affected by this policy change, and the earlier the deadline, the more people who are likely to be impacted. Also, Electoral Commission data indicates special votes are more likely to come from areas with larger proportions of Māori, Asian and Pasifika, and younger people. We should be encouraging these voters, not putting obstacles in their way. When, traditionally, special votes have favoured the Left, this move by the current Right-leaning government looks self-serving. The argument that if people were taking their voting responsibilities seriously, they would ensure they were enrolled with up-to-date information well before voting begins, assumes everyone has an orderly and predictable life, and fully understands their obligations. For David Seymour to say he was "a bit sick of dropkicks that can't get themselves organised to follow the law" was another illustration of his failure to make the transition from shoot-from-the-lip party leader to the gravitas-requiring role of the deputy prime minister. Call us picky, but the special voters lodging votes on or close to polling day in the last two elections were not outlaws. Mr Goldsmith's description of Mr Seymour's comments as unhelpful was an understatement if ever there was one. Among other things, the Bill also proposes reintroducing a total ban on prisoner voting for those convicted and sentenced, something which is not a surprise from the government. It is more about cynically playing to those still convinced by its tired tough-on-crime mantra than considering its fairness or contravention of the Bill of Rights Act. It also is against the advice of the Ministry of Justice which supported giving all prisoners the right to vote. Whenever changes are proposed to electoral law, major consideration should be given to whether alterations might improve or dissuade participation from all parts of our society. In this instance, it is difficult to see what weight has been given to this for both prisoners and those who, for whatever reason, might not be up to date with their voter registration 13 days before an election.
NZ Herald
16 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Winston Peters immigration comments labelled ‘divisive rhetoric', ‘cynical politicking'
The remarks have not gone down well with two of the Opposition parties. The Greens' immigration spokesman Ricardo Menendez March said Peters' 'tired, decades-old playbook of blaming migrants' was a 'distraction' from other actions the coalition Government had taken, such as changes to pay equity rules and tightening emergency housing settings, which critics argue has led to an increase in homelessness. 'We aren't waiting for [Prime Minister Christopher] Luxon to show leadership and shut down this divisive rhetoric, which is why we are fighting to create 40,000 new jobs through a Greens Job Guarantee, build enough public housing and restore pay equity claims,' the Green MP told the Herald. 'We will also ensure every migrant worker is treated with respect and is free from exploitation.' The Greens' Ricardo Menéndez March was critical of the comments. Photo / Mark Mitchell Phil Twyford from Labour told Newstalk ZB it was 'cynical politicking' by Peters. 'Instead of focusing on the things that I think are important to New Zealanders, like the cost of living, they are resorting to imported culture wars that, frankly, New Zealand just doesn't need,' Twyford said. While he said there was always more to be done to improve the system, Twyford said New Zealand 'is completely reliant on immigration for our economy to work and for our society to work'. 'Migrants make a hugely positive contribution to this country. They enrich our communities. It's not helpful for politicians, for their own political purposes, to be trying to divide the community and turn one group of people against another.' Luxon on Sunday said it was important immigration was linked to 'our economic agenda and our ability to support immigration with good infrastructure'. 'Those are the three things that have to come together for any country, and certainly here in New Zealand as well,' the Prime Minister said. 'We have accelerated pathways for residency through the Green List for when we have got job shortages that we desperately need to get into our communities.' Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said immigration needed to be linked to the country's economic agenda. Photo / Mark Mitchell Peters told the Herald NZ First believed immigration should not be used as an 'excuse for our failure to train, skill and employ our own people'. That was one of the party's founding principles 32 years ago and remained 'as much a principle now as it was back then', Peters said. 'We, like wise countries, have always believed we should be training and employing our own people first and not use immigration as an excuse not to do that. That is still our plan.' He said New Zealand still didn't have strong enough initiatives to 'take people from secondary school into employment' and stressed the need for appropriate infrastructure to be in place to support migrants. 'There was a time when we were getting people from around the world putting down £10 to get here. They were coming to a job and a house and infrastructure, schooling, everything. Teachers and doctors and all sorts of people were coming here.' In the year to May 2025, there was a net migration gain of 15,000, driven by 140,000 arrivals and offset by 125,000 departures. The number of arrivals is down from a peak of roughly 235,000 in late 2023, but still above the long-term average of 119,000. However, due to the large number of departures, the net gain is below the average of nearly 28,000. Jamie Ensor is a political reporter in the NZ Herald press gallery team based at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub press gallery office. In 2025, he was a finalist for Political Journalist of the Year at the Voyager Media Awards.
NZ Herald
a day ago
- NZ Herald
Winston Peters: ‘Careless' immigration ‘transforming cities', Nigel Farage's Reform ‘compelling'
Peters, who is the Foreign Affairs Minister, spoke about what he described as an 'alarming development' overseas. 'People are concerned as to where their countries are going, and New Zealanders are no different. They are more acutely aware of the problem we're dealing with here than the politicians are. 'They have seen the international circumstances of careless immigration policies transforming cities, changing cities, changing centuries of development and social life, and people feel at risk because of it.' He pointed to several European countries, including England, where he said there were concerns about 'people who have come there who don't salute the flag, don't salute the values of the country, don't salute the people who were there before them, don't respect the right to have your own religion'. 'These sorts of things are values that we need to stress. If you don't subscribe to that, don't come here.' He believed New Zealand was experiencing similar issues. 'Some of these people are out there celebrating diversity, flying all sorts of flags. We have one flag in this country and it's been there since 1904 ... That's what they should be saluting. People have died for it.' NZ First leader Winston Peters speaks to the Herald about his party's view on immigration. Photo / Mark Mitchell His comments come against the backdrop of the rising popularity of Nigel Farage's Reform UK party. It has soared past Labour and the Conservatives in recent polls, though a general election could be several years away. Peters has told the Herald he is 'friends' with Farage and that they communicate. He was 'entertained' by the Reform leader last time he was in the UK. 'I think that there are things to do with that party and New Zealand First which are so similar. That is why we've got confidence going into the future.' Those similarities were 'true grit, determination and principles'. Asked whether he looked at Reform and its targeting of immigration, Peters responded: 'Yes, I do. It's very compelling, but that they had to come to that is a serious worry'. Farage, best known for his Brexit advocacy, takes a hardline approach to immigration policy. Last year, he said British culture was 'under threat' and 'in decline', and proposed a freeze on non-essential migration. He warned of riots last year if migrants did not 'integrate' into their communities. While Farage has faced allegations of emboldening racism – he denies this and says Reform is 'non-racist' - his party appears to be influencing the public debate in the UK about immigration. An Ipsos poll in May found Reform had the highest level of trust on immigration policies, while Prime Minister Keir Starmer's Labour Party has taken a stronger line on border issues. In a May speech, Starmer said the UK risked becoming an 'island of strangers'. He later expressed regret after criticism that his comment echoed British politician Enoch Powell, who said in 1968 that the UK's white population could find themselves 'strangers in their own country'. Massey University distinguished professor Paul Spoonley previously told the Herald that he didn't believe there was a similar anti-immigration sentiment here. 'Australia, Canada and New Zealand target skilled migrants, and we use our point[s] system to identify who's going to be appropriate. We have a very managed immigration system. Most of Europe does not.' Winston Peters met Reform UK leader Nigel Farage in the United Kingdom last year. Photo / Facebook/Winston Peters 'Still our plan', 32 years on The interview with Peters was held as NZ First celebrates its 32nd birthday. When it was formed, the party laid out 15 principles, including acknowledging that, while New Zealand would need 'overseas skills and expertise', it did not want immigration to be 'an excuse for our failure to train, skill and employ our own people'. That remained 'as much a principle now as it was back then', Peters said. 'We, like wise countries, have always believed we should be training and employing our own people first and not use immigration as an excuse not to do that. That is still our plan.' He expressed concern about the current number of migrants to New Zealand. In the year to May 2025, there was a net migration gain of 15,000, driven by 140,000 arrivals offset by 125,000 departures. The number of arrivals is down from a peak of roughly 235,000 in late 2023, but still above the long-term average of 119,000. However, due to the large number of departures, the net gain is below the average of nearly 28,000. Peters' concern about the immigration figures is in part prompted by his desire for New Zealanders to be employed, but he also remembers a time when arriving migrants were supported by appropriate infrastructure. 'There was a time when we were getting people from around the world putting down £10 to get here. They were coming to a job and a house and infrastructure, schooling, everything. Teachers and doctors and all sorts of people were coming here.' New Zealand's infrastructure deficit and pressures in the health system are well-reported, and Peters said work was under way on a population policy that he hoped would be revealed this term. 'If you're going to bring in people that you essentially need, we've got to make sure we've got the infrastructure for them,' he said. Net migration gain is below the long-term average, but about 140,000 people still arrived here in the year to May. Photo / Alex Burton In 2003, while speaking from the opposition benches in Parliament, Peters complained that 'a hundred thousand New Zealanders are out of work, yet we are bringing in tens of thousands of immigrants'. With Peters now in power, the Herald put it to him that, at the end of June, 216,000 people were receiving Jobseeker support while thousands of migrants were arriving. He responded that, if his party's message had been given more prominence, it would have 'far more members and we'd be in control of the circumstances now'. 'Unfortunately, you didn't, and we're working for the next campaign to ensure that this time our voices are heard on the way through. 'We are still saying that the drivers to take people from secondary school into employment aren't strong enough. 'Too many people are able to access social welfare without making every effort to get employment, to get jobs. How come we've got so many people who are so-called job-ready but not in jobs?' Part of NZ First's coalition agreement with National included strengthening obligations for beneficiaries and sanctions if those were not fulfilled. Coalition engagement While NZ First may have strong views on immigration, it's National MP Erica Stanford who is the Immigration Minister. 'She's inherited the most difficult portfolio, and it's very hard to try to meet the demands of employers who need essential workers when we've had such a haphazard system,' Peters said. The Government announced last month that it would establish a Parent Boost Visa in September. Based on a National Party election policy, it will allow the parents of migrants to visit New Zealand for up to 10 years as long as they fulfil certain criteria, including having health insurance. As the Herald has reported, the visa has no cap, but Stanford doesn't expect it will lead to an 'explosion' in migration. However, Cabinet documents warned there was 'significant uncertainty' about how many people might take up the visa and that there would be impacts on the health system. Asked for NZ First's view on the policy, Peters stressed that conditions attached to the visa required migrants to pay their medical costs. 'There'd be no cost on the New Zealand taxpayer. Why should the New Zealand taxpayer be paying for someone to come here as a worker, but also now they've got somebody else who is coming here to access our social welfare for free? 'The condition was they would not be required, would not access our social welfare system. That's still our position.' Officials' advice, however, highlighted that, even if the parents had insurance, they could take up spots in GP clinics and emergency rooms. Peters said it was the Government's responsibility to fix 'our GP problem'. He also suggested that, while the visa had no cap, there was a limit on how many people would meet the criteria. Ministers were warned of an impact on the health system from Parent Boost. Photo / File In 2023, NZ First campaigned on having a cap of 1000 on the Parent Resident Visa. It's currently 2500. Asked if he was happy with that cap, Peters responded: 'There are a number of things we're not happy with, but we're working on them every day and every week with the ministers who are concerned. 'We want the outcome and the finality of a policy to be accepted and hopefully across the political divide.' So why should people vote for NZ First over National or Act when it comes to immigration policy? 'There's only one nationalist party in this country, and you're looking at it. The rest are globalists. They don't deny that. 'We're a nationalist party, and I see the success of Croatia, modern Croatia. I see the success of modern Poland. These countries are focused on their people's national interests first and foremost because that's what democracy is answerable to: the people, not the world, but your own people.' Jamie Ensor is a political reporter in the NZ Herald press gallery team based at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub press gallery office. In 2025, he was a finalist for Political Journalist of the Year at the Voyager Media Awards.
