Pacific Foreign Ministers To Meet In Suva
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Foreign Minister Winston Peters will attend the Pacific Islands Forum Foreign Ministers' Meeting in Fiji this week to discuss key regional issues with counterparts.
'In an increasingly challenging world, it is more important than ever that the Pacific family comes together to talk about the things that matter to us,' Mr Peters says.
'New Zealand's membership of the Pacific Islands Forum, the region's leading political organisation, is a crucial part of our diplomacy. As a Pacific country, we remain dedicated to the Forum as the main platform for developing Pacific-owned and Pacific-led solutions to shared challenges.'
Their meeting sets the stage for Forum Leaders' discussions in Honiara, Solomon Islands, in September.
Mr Peters leaves New Zealand on Wednesday 13 August, returning on 14 August.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
16 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Winston Peters hints at Solomon Islands' unilateral decision to block PIF donor partners
Winston Peters and Solomon Islands Prime Minister Jeremiah Manele exchange gifts during a NZ delegation to Honiara. 12 May 2024. Photo: Ministry of Foreign Affairs / Supplied New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters fell just short of confirming that the Solomon Islands has made a unilateral decision to shut the door on Pacific Islands Forum donor countries to this year's annual leaders' summit. Solomon Islands Prime Minister Jeremiah Manele has proposed that the Forum defer the annual dialogue partner meeting when leaders meet in Honiara - a move that will essentially block about two doezen countries from participating at the key regional meeting. The issue has divided opinion among Pacific leaders, with the likes of Palau, Samoa and Cook Islands backing Honiara, while Fiji's prime minister saying shutting donors out can threaten regional unity. While wrapping up his whirlwind trip to the PIF Foreign Ministers' Meeting in Suva on Thursday afernoon, Peters told reporters, "At the moment, the answer is no, no visitors or other, shall I say, associates that we've tried to attract over the past times." When asked whether it was an independent decision by Honiara, he replied: "That's a conclusion you could arrive at, yes." He said the issue "will be resolved in the context of next year". The Foreign Minister said this is the second time in just over five years, the PIF "had a problem". "I remember the last one was the improper positioning of the [PIF] secretary-general's role, not to Micronesia, but to Polynesia. It was clear as daylight back then. I remember it, and we sorted out. "Here we got now one, not of our internal making, but of external influences. We've made it very clear today (Thursday) in our address what New Zealand thinks." When asked about his comments earlier on Thursday about "outsiders" creating tensions within the PIF and who specifically was he referring to, Peters said, "Those people who are saying to the Pacific Islands Forum countries, 'we don't want somebody to come'." "What I'm saying to the Pacific Islands Forum: How does this show respect for us when you got outsiders telling insiders what to do?" "If all sorts of countries want to interfere with the Blue Continent, our job is to critically make sure that it's central to all of our we mean business." China's embassy in New Zealand has rejected what it calls misinformation around partner participation at the Pacific leaders' summit. There have been accusations by regional political watchers and Pacific government officials that China has influenced Solomon Islands' decision to block PIF partners from the summit over Taiwan's participation. However, in a statement, a chinese embassy spokesperson said China is not an "outside" influence, rather a dialogue partner something Taiwan is not. They say Taiwan is a province of China not a country and never will be, something Palau, Marshal Islands and Tuvalu reject. Taiwan is recognised as a development partner of the PIF since 1992.
RNZ News
38 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Greyhound racing industry takes court action
Racing Minister Winston Peters has ordered a halt to greyhound racing from August 2026. Photo: PHOTOSPORT Lawyers for the Greyhound Racing Association have told the High Court in Wellington that the ban on greyhound racing will have a devastating effect on the livelihoods of more than 1000 people. Last December, Racing Minister Winston Peters announced the sport would be banned from August 2026. On Thursday, the association argued in court that the work of a ministerial advisory committee tasked with implementing the ban should be stopped, until a judicial review of the legislation was heard. Lawyer Chris Finlayson said the government had erred in directing the industry to monitor and improve animal welfare standards, only to ignore the results in cabinet's decision-making process. The court was told the racing industry had engaged with three reviews of the sport in just over a decade and had consistently shown willingness to comply with directives to improve animal welfare, and controls surrounding injuries and deaths, as well as track standards and rehoming initiatives. He said the cabinet paper - on which the decision to ban the sport was based - was "misleading" and a "very selective characterisation" of the key issues facing cabinet, which he argued was the industry's animal welfare standards, not the erosion of public license - society's acceptance of the practices of the sport. Finlayson said the government - after directing the industry to undertake a statutory process and then "blandly ignore it" - contradicted its obligation to consider the expertise of the industry in legislating towards the sport. Lawyers for the Greyhound Racing Association (left to right) Chris Finlayson KC and Jonathan Kaye at the High Court in Wellington. Photo: RNZ/Bill Hickman "The standard of animal welfare of greyhound racing is high," Finlayson said. "It aligns with the standards in other jurisdictions and is applied with significantly more rigour than pet dogs." Finlayson said the uncertainty over the recommendations of the ministerial advisory committee's plan to wind down the sport was resulting in members of the industry leaving the country before the ban, a collapse in breeding numbers and serious mental-health issues in participants of the industry. He argued, after the ban, New Zealanders could still bet on Australian dog races, which had "equal or lesser" animal welfare standards than Aotearoa's racing industry. Counsel for the Attorney General - acting on behalf of the Minister of Racing - said interim relief application was "fundamentally premised on a need to stop the legislation". Lawyer Katherine Anderson said the action, if successful, "would frustrate the introduction of the bill to Parliament". She said it was "undeniably clear" the court could not make an order to prevent the introduction of a bill. "It's very clear that the applicant fundamentally [says] the decision is wrong and is attempting to draw you in." She said it was up to the Minister to decide "how and if" parties would be consulted before the bill was put to Parliament. Lawyers for the Attorney General - acting on behalf of the Minister of Racing - (left to right) Katherine Anderson and Emma Dowse at the High Court in Wellington. Photo: RNZ/Bill Hickman "There's no straight jacket on the minister to go to the racing industry saying, 'Is there a ban on greyhound racing that's required on welfare grounds?'. "They've been elected to make policy decisions and, if people don't like it, they can be un-elected," Anderson said. Throughout proceedings, Judge Dale La Hood pressed the Greyhound Racing Association's counsel to clarify how the action would benefit the industry, if it's success was not to prevent the ban. "You need to explain to me... what you're seeking to have... stopped, other than preventing a ban on greyhound racing. I don't know if I understand what the benefit of interim relief would be to your client, if it doesn't halt the ban. "That's crucial to my decision on whether you've got a case," La Hood said. Finlayson said he would undertake to clarify his client's intent in a memorandum to the judge after the day's proceedings. Judge La Hood reserved his decision. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Greyhound racing industry takes court action to stop impending ban
Racing Minister Winston Peters has ordered a halt to greyhound racing from August 2026. Photo: PHOTOSPORT Lawyers for the Greyhound Racing Association have told the High Court in Wellington that the ban on greyhound racing will have a devastating effect on the livelihoods of more than 1000 people. Last December, Racing Minister Winston Peters announced the sport would be banned from August 2026. On Thursday, the association argued in court that the work of a ministerial advisory committee tasked with implementing the ban should be stopped, until a judicial review of the legislation was heard. Lawyer Chris Finlayson said the government had erred in directing the industry to monitor and improve animal welfare standards, only to ignore the results in cabinet's decision-making process. The court was told the racing industry had engaged with three reviews of the sport in just over a decade and had consistently shown willingness to comply with directives to improve animal welfare, and controls surrounding injuries and deaths, as well as track standards and rehoming initiatives. He said the cabinet paper - on which the decision to ban the sport was based - was "misleading" and a "very selective characterisation" of the key issues facing cabinet, which he argued was the industry's animal welfare standards, not the erosion of public license - society's acceptance of the practices of the sport. Finlayson said the government - after directing the industry to undertake a statutory process and then "blandly ignore it" - contradicted its obligation to consider the expertise of the industry in legislating towards the sport. Lawyers for the Greyhound Racing Association (left to right) Chris Finlayson KC and Jonathan Kaye at the High Court in Wellington. Photo: RNZ/Bill Hickman "The standard of animal welfare of greyhound racing is high," Finlayson said. "It aligns with the standards in other jurisdictions and is applied with significantly more rigour than pet dogs." Finlayson said the uncertainty over the recommendations of the ministerial advisory committee's plan to wind down the sport was resulting in members of the industry leaving the country before the ban, a collapse in breeding numbers and serious mental-health issues in participants of the industry. He argued, after the ban, New Zealanders could still bet on Australian dog races, which had "equal or lesser" animal welfare standards than Aotearoa's racing industry. Counsel for the Attorney General - acting on behalf of the Minister of Racing - said interim relief application was "fundamentally premised on a need to stop the legislation". Lawyer Katherine Anderson said the action, if successful, "would frustrate the introduction of the bill to Parliament". She said it was "undeniably clear" the court could not make an order to prevent the introduction of a bill. "It's very clear that the applicant fundamentally [says] the decision is wrong and is attempting to draw you in." She said it was up to the Minister to decide "how and if" parties would be consulted before the bill was put to Parliament. Lawyers for the Attorney General - acting on behalf of the Minister of Racing - (left to right) Katherine Anderson and Emma Dowse at the High Court in Wellington. Photo: RNZ/Bill Hickman "There's no straight jacket on the minister to go to the racing industry saying, 'Is there a ban on greyhound racing that's required on welfare grounds?'. "They've been elected to make policy decisions and, if people don't like it, they can be un-elected," Anderson said. Throughout proceedings, Judge Dale La Hood pressed the Greyhound Racing Association's counsel to clarify how the action would benefit the industry, if it's success was not to prevent the ban. "You need to explain to me... what you're seeking to have... stopped, other than preventing a ban on greyhound racing. I don't know if I understand what the benefit of interim relief would be to your client, if it doesn't halt the ban. "That's crucial to my decision on whether you've got a case," La Hood said. Finlayson said he would undertake to clarify his client's intent in a memorandum to the judge after the day's proceedings. Judge La Hood reserved his decision. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
