Hobson’s Pledge, Act crow over voting victory as Te Pāti Māori fumes – Audrey Young

That is until Local Government Minister and National MP Simon Watts announced this week that the Government would pass a law banning advisory members from voting.

Auckland Council and Environment Canterbury, which have their own legislation giving voting rights to appointed iwi representatives, are among those with exemptions.

The issue came to a head when the Far North District Council proposed to allow eight hapū membership of the Māori liaison committee, not just larger iwi.

Act and Hobson’s Pledge have been crowing about their victory. And incidentally, New Zealand First this week announced Hobson’s Pledge spokesman Elliot Ikilei as one of its candidates.

Te Pāti Māori sees it as another in a long line of attacks on Māori by the Government.

“Every time we think this Government couldn’t possibly harm te iwi Māori any more, they always find more rights to take away,” co-leader Rawiri Waititi said.

“They are doing everything they can to ensure that Māori get absolutely zero say in any decisions made on our whenua.

“This coalition only cares about democracy when it can be weaponised against Māori. And they have the cheek to call iwi representation ‘undemocratic’ while they are pushing through these changes without a select committee process.

“Every Government MP is a hypocrite, and they all know it.”

United States Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth made waves in New Zealand when he accused us of “freeloading” on defence spending, despite the Government’s plan to double it to 2% of GDP by 2032-33 (although he did say the US has had a fruitful relationship with New Zealand for a long time).

It was prompted by a question from New Zealand journalist Anna Fifield, for which she should be commended – not criticised, as some have – and has led to some welcome debate on what should be appropriate and why.

By the way, in last week’s Budget, New Zealand’s expenditure on defence was 2.9% of total Government expenses, but was only 1.22% of forecast GDP.

By comparison, here are the latest figures on global defence spending as a percentage of GDP for 2025, published by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute: Australia 1.92%, Canada 1.63%, France 2.03%, Japan 1.41%, Philippines 1.3%, Singapore 3.05%, South Korea 2.6%, UK 2.35%, United States 3.12%.

Hegseth said the US was moving from $1 trillion of spending last year to $1.5t this year and that President Donald Trump was setting “the gold standard”. He worded the spending goal for other countries of 3.5% as a demand by the US rather than an expectation: “We demand 3.5% from our allies and partners, and we are going well beyond that number.”

Incredibly, Hegseth’s speech repeatedly described the US approach to defence as “strong, quiet and clear”.

Strong? Absolutely. But “quiet and clear” in the wake of the Iran debacle is highly debatable.

Hegseth was clear on one thing: the US will not allow China to supplant its position in the Pacific.

“What we seek and what the President has constantly articulated is a genuinely stable equilibrium that works for Americans as well as our allies, a favourable but durable balance of power in which no state, including China, can impose its hegemony and hold the security or prosperity of our nation and our allies in question ... We defend the status quo that has enabled extraordinary growth and opportunity across the region ... This is the balance America upholds and will not allow others to overturn.”

Newly promoted Defence Minister Chris Penk has had an early lesson in how not to think aloud after an interview with Bloomberg Television in Singapore went badly wrong – and how not to make stuff up when you get back home.

He was asked by the interviewer about New Zealand’s anti-nuclear laws, which ban nuclear weapons and nuclear-propelled vessels such as the Aukus subs being ordered by Australia. “Might you ease that so you are able to have nuclear-powered submarines in the waters of New Zealand?” he was asked.

Penk said there “is no change” in the New Zealand Government’s policy along those lines. “Traditionally, the New Zealand public have been very sceptical about nuclear weapons, which might be an interesting conversation in terms of the extent that is different from nuclear propulsion. Of course, our only formal ally, as at now, being Australia, acquiring the nuclear-powered submarines means that it would be helpful, I think, to have that conversation in New Zealand.”

To be clear, Penk’s first problem is not that New Zealand can’t or shouldn’t ever have conversations about its laws. It’s about a new Cabinet minister casually suggesting that a law that has been fundamental to New Zealand’s place in the world since 1986 might be up for debate, six months out from an election, with no consultation with his leader or coalition partners, because of submarines that might never arrive in Australia.

That the issue is above his pay grade is an understatement. Christopher Luxon cleaned up Penk’s mess by saying he had misspoken and there would be no change in the law while he was Prime Minister.

There is no question that Penk was the best choice for promotion to the Cabinet after the retirement of Judith Collins. But he perhaps needs to temper his confidence, especially in a field where the slightest change of word can have significant meaning.

The second issue was Penk’s failure to own up once he got back to the headlines at home.

It would not have been hard to say he had misspoken, that he should have expressed himself better, and that what he should have said was X, Y or Z.

Instead, he reinvented the interview. The best example was on Ryan Bridge TODAY when questioned by Nadine Higgins. She asked whether he had been musing or serious when he said it would be helpful to have a conversation about the differences in the nuclear law.

“No, the conversation I was saying we need to have is what defence looks like for us and our region in the wake of Australia acquiring nuclear submarines,” Penk replied. “It wasn’t that our nuclear policy should change ... We all know [that], under the Aukus deal, Australia is acquiring nuclear submarines, so what else we might do to increase our security, our partnerships in the region, is the conversation we should have in light of the fact that we do have a nuclear-free policy.”

This is pure invention. It might be the answer he wished he had given to a question he wished he had been asked. But the question by Bloomberg was clear, his answer was clear, and it did not resemble what he said he had said.

Labour was mocked mercilessly last week after leaked recordings of the ducks v horses exercise (“would you rather fight 100 duck-sized horses or one horse-sized duck?”) revealed Labour candidates being encouraged to answer the question they wanted to be asked rather than the question they were asked. But Penk put it into practice when he went into defensive mode about the interview.

By the way, the Prime Minister had no fewer than five references to ducks in his Budget speech, including this intro in response to Labour leader Chris Hipkins: “I think, on behalf of everyone in the coalition Government ... I would rather face 100 duck-sized horses than sit through another speech as woeful as that from the leader of the Opposition. I have to say, I haven’t seen Labour MPs struggle that much to get through something since Ayesha Verrall took up singing.” Ouch.

“I actually take some offence at those comments” – Prime Minister Christopher Luxon reacts to US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth saying New Zealand is “freeloading” on defence spending.

Which former Green MP is now the party’s chief of staff at Parliament? (Answer at the bottom of this article.)

Goes to Defence Minister Chris Penk for saying things he should not have said on nuclear matters, then making excuses. You’re in the major league now, Chris. Be more careful.

Goes to Statistics Minister Scott Simpson for securing the least sexy but important Budget announcement for a $57 million upgrade to the Integrated Data Infrastructure, a research database of government agencies. Crucially, it should mean more evidence-based funding decisions in future for social services.

China sanctions: China sanctions four Kiwi MPs who visited Taiwan in political first

Nuclear-free policy: Luxon hoses down ‘conversation’ on altering nuclear policy

Defence spat: ‘Very much as we would expect’ – Defence Minister responds to US ‘freeloading’ jibe

Lobbying controversy: Former Beehive staffer used private email to receive climate doc, Hipkins says ‘stinks to high heaven’

Voting change: ‘Anti-democratic loophole’ – unelected people to be banned from voting on council committees

Gender comments: Uni denies Robertson breached neutrality rules over gender definitions bill

New candidate: Another Hobson’s Pledge spokesperson to stand for NZ First in general election

Moana Pasifika liquidation: Coalition partners wary as Peters explores saving Moana Pasifika franchise

Copyright laws: Split Enz to benefit from Government copyright changes

Maternity mistake: Post-natal stay announcement ‘incorrectly characterised’, Luxon says

Document dump: Budget night document dump reveals plans for benefit automation, new charities tax rules, Working for Families change

Budget response: Labour not saying what it would keep or cut from Budget 2026

Opinion – Budget 2026: Nicola Willis gives herself some breathing space and puts the squeeze on Labour – Thomas Coughlan

Quiz answer: Kevin Hague, an MP from 2008-16 and, until 2022, chief executive of the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand.

For more political news and views, listen to On the Tiles, the Herald’s politics podcast.