Deputy PM Concludes Constructive Visit To New Caledonia
Mr Peters met the French Minister for Overseas Territories, Manuel Valls, and the President of the Government of New Caledonia, Alcide Ponga.
'We came to listen and learn, and to demonstrate New Zealand's support for the continuation of dialogue on New Caledonia's institutional future, led by Minister Valls,' Mr Peters says.
'These institutional discussions in Nouméa over the coming days send a positive signal to the Pacific region about the good faith efforts underway to return peace and stability to New Caledonia,' Mr Peters says.
'Since last year's crisis, New Zealand has consistently said that no matter your position on New Caledonia's institutional future, violence is not the answer - and progress can only be made through careful, inclusive dialogue.
'We wish everyone involved in the discussions in Nouméa in the coming week well. New Zealand, just like France and all our Pacific partners, wishes for a stable, secure, prosperous and cohesive New Caledonia.'
When Mr Peters last visited Nouméa in December 2024, he announced a support package to help New Caledonia's recovery. During this visit, he recommitted New Zealand, during discussions with Minister Valls and President Ponga, to support New Caledonia's development through ongoing constructive, practical support.
'New Zealand is not perfect, but we do have experience over recent decades in promoting economic development across our regions and communities,' Mr Peters says.
'Economic development is the key to social cohesion. We hope there are pragmatic lessons we can share with New Caledonia, working closely with French authorities, including through Caledonian entrepreneurs gaining a deeper understanding of the Māori economy.'
Mr Peters and Minister Valls also discussed regional security and foreign interference in the Pacific.
'New Zealand and France are long-standing partners on Pacific security issues, including humanitarian assistance and disaster response and fisheries surveillance. We have a shared interest in ensuring that the Pacific Islands region is protected from efforts by external influences to undermine good governance and democratic decision making.'
While in New Caledonia, Mr Peters also met with the Director-General of the Pacific Community (SPC), Dr Stuart Minchin. They discussed the SPC's role in providing technical and scientific support to help drive the development of Pacific Island countries.
Mr Peters also met New Zealand Defence Force personnel taking part in the military exercise Croix du Sud currently under way in New Caledonia and Wallis and Futuna, focused on humanitarian assistance and emergency response. In the exercise, NZDF staff are working alongside forces from other Pacific countries and likeminded partners - hosted by the French Armed Forces in New Caledonia.
Mr Peters arrives back in New Zealand later today.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
an hour ago
- 1News
Same-day election enrolments scrapped in electoral law overhaul
Same-day enrolment for elections is set to be scrapped, with the Government announcing legislation to overhaul electoral laws it says have become unsustainable. Previously, voters have been able to turn up to the booth at any time during the advance voting period and enrol at the same time, as well as on election day, with their vote being counted as a special vote. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said late enrolments, while well intentioned, were resource intensive and had placed too much strain on the system. Ballot boxes (file image). (Source: "The final vote count used to take two weeks. Last election, it took three," he said. ADVERTISEMENT "If we leave things as they are, it could well take even longer in future elections. The 20-day timeframe for a final result will likely already be challenging to achieve at the next election without changes." The Government has agreed to close enrolment before advance voting begins, with people needing to enrol or update their details by midnight on the Sunday before advance voting started on the Monday morning (in other words, 13 days before election day). The legislation set a requirement of 12 days advance voting at each election, and the changes would mean special vote processing could get underway sooner. Justice minister Paul Goldsmith says late enrolments, while well intentioned, are resource intensive and has placed too much strain on the system. (Source: The Electoral Amendment Bill contained some other changes, including the introduction of automatic enrolment updates so the Electoral Commission could update a person's address directly following a data match. The process would not be used for new enrolments, to allow for Māori to choose whether to enrol on the general roll or Māori roll when they first enrolled. Postal requirements for enrolment would be removed, to acknowledge the decline of postal services. ADVERTISEMENT Free food, drink or entertainment within 100m of a voting place would be made an offence, punishable with a fine of $10,000. "There has been some confusion in the past around what is and isn't treating. This will make the rules crystal clear," Goldsmith said. The ban on prisoner voting, which the Government had already announced, would also be included in the bill. In addition, the donation threshold for reporting the names of donors would be adjusted from $5000 to $6000 to account for inflation.
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Enrolment changes could have 'significant' impact on democratic participation
Photo: NZ ELECTORAL COMMISSION Justice officials say closing enrolments ahead of advance voting could result in lower turnout and reduce confidence in the electoral system. And electoral law experts are also questioning why the changes need to stretch for the whole advanced voting period. As part of a suite of Electoral Act changes, same-day election enrolments are set to be scrapped . It reverses a change brought in for the 2020 election, which allowed for enrolments and updating details up to and including on election day. It then goes even further, ensuring voters have to enrol or update their details before advance voting begins. The government is also legislating to require 12 days of advance voting. The changes are primarily being made to improve the timeliness of the official vote count, and so give voters certainty of a result. The growth in the number of special votes has been putting a strain on processing a result, with the timeframe for a final vote count stretching into three weeks at the last election. The justice minister said the uncertainty could be avoided if more people enrolled in a timely manner. "We never know what the circumstances are going to be after an election," Paul Goldsmith said. "We don't know what pressure the country will be under. An extra week, extra two weeks, if we do nothing could be longer, then that just creates extra uncertainty that we can easily avoid by people enrolling in a timely fashion." In its Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS), the Ministry of Justice did not recommend the option of closing enrolment earlier. "Its impact on reducing special votes is uncertain, while its impact on democratic participation could be significant," officials said. Special votes take much longer to process than a standard vote, as they need to go through a lot more scrutiny. Officials noted a positive aspect of closing enrolments earlier was it would mean enrolment processing was done by the close of polling, allowing special vote counting to begin promptly. The ministry acknowledged there was value in a timely and smooth transfer of power following an election, but it was uncertain whether any package of changes could reduce the count timeframes. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii The RIS acknowledged the growth of special votes in both volume and as a proportion of the total number of votes, with the largest proportion being those who were not enrolled or needed to update their details. About 300,000 to 350,000 people cast a special vote because they were not enrolled, or not enrolled at the correct address by writ day, or on the dormant roll. Māori, Asian, and Pasifika communities, as well as younger people, are more likely to cast special votes. "This option will create a barrier to participation and may be seen as a step backwards for accessibility, in light of changes to enable greater participation over recent elections. Closing enrolment earlier could harm confidence and trust if people are not able to vote because they missed the deadline or if more votes are disallowed," officials said. At the 2020 election, the rules were changed to allow people to enrol to vote on election day, as they have been able during the advanced voting period since the 1990s. It was a response to what the then-government said was 19,000 voters feeling "disenfranchised" by being turned away in 2017. Goldsmith did not believe the new bill would mark a return to that disenfranchisement. "We've got to balance the fact that we want to have an outcome of an election in a timely manner. It does actually matter if we have an uncertain outcome. People don't start coalition negotiations until they know the final outcome, and if that's drifting into four weeks than that creates more uncertainty." Electoral law expert Graeme Edgeler doubted the changes would prevent people from knowing the outcome of an election, as the Election Night result usually gave a good indication of the makeup of the next government. "Two weeks or three weeks, does it really matter? There's nothing stopping the politicians who look like they've been elected from negotiation before the final special votes are out," he said. "The results, we know they tended to change one or two seats or something like that. The time delay just doesn't seem like a particularly good reason for this." Electoral law expert Graeme Edgeler. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Edgeler did not think removing the ability to enrol on election day would not make too much of a difference, as it had only been in place for two elections. But he was concerned at closing the enrolment period before advanced voting started. "Requiring people to have a think about the election two weeks before the actual vote happens is probably more of a big change than the same-day enrolments." On Election Day 2023, 110,000 people enrolled or updated their details. Labour's justice spokesperson Duncan Webb questioned whether the trade-off to get votes counted faster was worth it. "Counting the vote took an extra week, last election. I think 110,000 votes are worth it. I think every single New Zealander is entitled to have a voice in who represents them in this place. If it takes another week, that's OK by me because democracy is worth waiting for," he said. Celia Wade-Brown, the Green Party's spokesperson for democracy and electoral reform, said it would lead to fewer people participating in democracy. "This government is reducing the number of people, particularly those who are mobile, who move around, who change addresses, and preventing them from voting. This should be a government for all New Zealanders." Labour Party justice spokesperson Duncan Webb. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Opposition parties were not consulted on the Electoral Act changes. University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said some parts of electoral law, such as changing the voting age or the term of Parliament, were protected by entrenchment provisions, requiring a 75 percent majority of MPs or a referendum. Everything else was left to a simple majority of votes in Parliament like any other piece of legislation. "Because the government has a majority in Parliament, if it wants to do this, it can. It's just a question of whether it's the right thing to do," he told Checkpoint . "Democracy is more than just what a current government wants it to be. It has to be, what is the best rules for our polity, us as a group, to choose our leaders." Geddis said the growth in special votes had been causing strain, but questioned why the government had taken this option. "The government's response has essentially been to bring down a guillotine and say, 'well tough.' All of those people who haven't enrolled or changed their details before voting starts, 'tough. Your votes just won't count. We're just not going to listen to you.'" While officials did not recommend closing the enrolment period, they were in favour of introducing automatic enrolment updates. This option has formed part of Goldsmith's package of reforms, and would allow the Electoral Commission to update people's enrolment details using data from other government agencies. The option would make it easier for electors to keep enrolments up to date, and reduce the number of special votes over time. It was something Edgeler was in favour of. "Allowing the government to do the work for you in that area, you've told one government department you've moved and got a new address, allowing that to be used for election purposes as well will hopefully mean that fewer people need to update their enrollment details during the election period itself." He said there would need to be a significant publicity campaign from the Electoral Commission reminding people of the deadlines. While that would be up to the Electoral Commission in how that was communicated, Goldsmith said they had received more funding at the Budget. "Their core role up to now is to encourage people to enrol. But they've also been saying 'but by the way, you don't really need to, you can just rock up and enrol on election day.' "And so we've now got a clear message: get yourself organised, get enrolled, make sure you're enrolled before election day starts."
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Erica Stanford faces greatest NCEA test
Arguably, Stanford's most important move was the simplest: her ban on smartphones in schools informed by New York University's Professor Jonathan Haidt. The damage smartphones do to developing minds is comparable to alcohol and cannabis, so that nothing else will much matter if they're not sensibly regulated. At least, they must be kept out of schools, which Stanford delivered three weeks after being sworn in. Likewise, no amount of money or other reforms would much matter if primary students remained in barn-like so-called modern learning environments (MLEs), pushed on schools by the Key Government for reasons never properly explained and retained by Jacinda Ardern's Education Minister, Chris Hipkins. Effectively compulsory until Stanford arrived, she quickly made MLEs voluntary and has now banned new ones from being built altogether. But these were quick-win prerequisites to ensure structured learning could begin again in primary classrooms. Stanford also began the much more difficult work of restoring content and rigour to the school curriculum. First were new maths and English curricula, spelling out clearly what teachers are meant to teach, and how. That departs from recent decades, when subject curricula would instead focus on 'outcomes', leaving teachers to work out what to do for their students to achieve them. Now, practical teaching resources are included in curriculum documents, with over 800,000 new maths resources already provided to primary schools. That the curriculum was not just launched but is already being implemented in 92% of primary schools suggests Stanford has a rare ability to force bureaucrats to do what she wants, rather than the reverse. It's too simplistic to call Stanford's new maths and English curricula 'back to basics', but they do focus more on teachers passing on knowledge to students than on facilitating 'learners' to discover or invent knowledge themselves. The latter can wait for primary students to start their post-graduate work in a decade or two. In the meantime, Stanford's curriculum assumes there's foundational stuff they need to learn first. Following maths and English, the next priorities are the natural sciences, the social sciences, health, and Te Reo Māori. Stanford's curriculum reforms will become harder politically as they move into more contested subjects. But the politics may be easier if her focus remains on foundational knowledge, delivered in a structured environment, in a logical sequence, rather than trying to introduce the latest and most advanced theories in primary classrooms. Kids need to learn addition before multiplication, how to read before how to interpret texts, about atoms before electrons, and that the Treaty of Waitangi was signed in 1840 between the British Crown and Māori chiefs before considering how well it has been honoured. As these students reach secondary school, Stanford's next big decision is how to extend her approach into the qualifications system and what to do about NCEA. Political blame for NCEA can be shared widely. Every party in Parliament has been part of a government that contributed to the fiasco, and all were warned by the country's best educators that it would dumb down secondary education and lead to a two-tier system, benefiting the rich and well connected at the expense of the middle class and poor. Everyone meant well. The NCEA's origins were David Lange and Phil Goff's Learning for Life report, which recommended establishing the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) 'to provide an across-the-board approach to the validation of qualifications in schools and in vocational and advanced academic areas'. This was a response to everyone needing some form of higher education in a more advanced economy, and a desire to break down the distinction and allow cross-crediting between vocational training and academic study. National's Lockwood Smith saw the advantages in trying to clearly define what knowledge, understanding and skills students and people in the workforce were meant to achieve, and to worry less about where they might develop them and more about whether they had. He was backed by employers who argued they needed to know exactly what potential recruits knew and could do rather than that they had scored 59, 71 or 82 in an exam. The proposed system was at the centre of Smith's Education for the 21st Century, which I ghost-wrote. But politicians should always be wary of utopianism, and the idea that NZQA or anyone else could write or validate rigorous outcomes statements for the entirety of human knowledge and capabilities, and then operate a system giving each student a detailed certificate accurately recording what they knew and could do was preposterous. To National's credit, it was never confident to finally press go on the new system. That was left to Helen Clark's Labour Government. The Key and Ardern-Hipkins Governments then set up review panels and made tweaks, but basically left the system unchanged. Meanwhile, the universities never took the system seriously while increasing numbers of schools adopted foreign systems or tried to develop their own. The upshot is NCEA delivering the opposite of that intended. If students go to a school offering Cambridge or the International Baccalaureate or take a traditional university route, their qualification is taken seriously, domestically and internationally. If they don't, they're left with the NCEA which isn't. You don't need to be a Marxist to see who that has benefited, and it is surely not those Lange, Goff or anyone intended. Now, as revealed by the Weekend Herald, even the left-wing education bureaucracy accepts NCEA has failed. Stanford faces probably the most consequential decision she'll ever make. Will she follow the Key and Ardern-Hipkins Governments and try to save NCEA with another review? Or will she accept the whole concept was utopian from the outset, and has delivered the catastrophic unintended consequences utopian visions invariably bring? For better or worse, schools, parents and students have tended to favour Cambridge, an internationally recognised qualification originally developed for Third World countries without their own systems. Singapore used it for many years after independence while getting its house in order. The least-disruptive option would be Stanford following Singapore's approach, abolishing NCEA from Year 11 next year, and engaging with Cambridge to roll out its system nationwide. That would require demanding Cambridge work with New Zealand experts to develop rigorous assessments for subjects like New Zealand history and Te Reo Maori. For a long-term, nationwide contract, it would surely be prepared to do so. Like Singapore, we would then progressively evolve Cambridge's exams into a genuinely New Zealand system. Stanford moved swiftly and boldly on smartphones, MLEs and curriculum reform. The same is needed to quickly put the multi-decade, multi-party NCEA disaster behind us.
