spinofflive
A smiling man in a dark suit stands at a podium with microphones, with a red and white flag and green foliage behind him. A vertical blue banner reads "THE BULLETIN" on the right side of the image.
For once, Winston Peters’ party looks comfortably secure rather than holding on by its fingernails. (Photo: Fiona Goodall/Getty Images)

The BulletinJuly 11, 2025

Winston Peters finds his sweet spot as NZ First enjoys polling surge

A smiling man in a dark suit stands at a podium with microphones, with a red and white flag and green foliage behind him. A vertical blue banner reads "THE BULLETIN" on the right side of the image.
For once, Winston Peters’ party looks comfortably secure rather than holding on by its fingernails. (Photo: Fiona Goodall/Getty Images)

The party has leapfrogged the Greens for the first time in years, buoyed by a weakened opposition and a newfound sense of stability in government, writes Catherine McGregor in today’s extract from The Bulletin.

To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday, sign up here.

NZ First surges ahead

New Zealand First’s latest poll result marks a milestone moment in the party’s unpredictable history. Yesterday’s Taxpayers’ Union–Curia poll has Winston Peters’ party at 9.8% – its highest figure in a mainstream poll since August 2017 and the first time it has overtaken the Greens since a single poll in April 2020. It’s a sharp jump of over three points from the previous poll in June and puts NZ First firmly in third place, ahead of both the Greens and Act, RNZ reports. For Peters, who just handed the deputy prime ministership to Act’s David Seymour, the result is vindication that he still knows how to read the political room. If repeated at an election, NZ First would add four seats to its tally and become a powerbroker once again, showing remarkable resilience in an MMP environment where small coalition partners usually fade.

A rare moment of stability

For decades, Winston Peters’ career has been defined by big swings – in, out, and back again. As Luke Malpass notes in The Post (paywalled), Peters has never clung to government by switching allegiances immediately after a loss; rather, his party has bounced between power and oblivion. What makes this term different is that NZ First isn’t fighting for its life. Instead, it has found an unusual patch of stability, consistently polling above the 5% threshold.

This resilience comes in part from the struggles of its rivals: the Greens have edged leftwards into what Malpass calls a more “Trotskyite hue”, and Te Pāti Māori’s assertive agenda has unsettled some swing voters. Meanwhile, Labour’s long road back to credibility – particularly in Auckland – has left gaps for NZ First and Act to fill. The result is a coalition where Peters’ party, for once, looks comfortably secure rather than holding on by its fingernails. “This time, the run-up to the election looks likely to be from a position of stability and relative strength,” writes Malpass. “Can he finally get two terms in a row?”

Freedom to criticise

A key reason for NZ First’s steady numbers is the unusual freedom minor partners have enjoyed this term. As Dan Brunskill highlights in Interest.co.nz, Peters and Seymour have both had room to air differences and push back on the major party line, something rarely tolerated in past coalitions. The recent spat between Peters and Christopher Luxon over how to frame the “trade war” with the US is a prime example. While Luxon described the growing US–China tariff standoff in stark terms, Peters publicly scolded him for “hysterical” rhetoric, arguing for careful “quiet diplomacy” instead. Far from hurting NZ First, this independent streak has reminded supporters what they like most about the veteran politician. Backed up by savvy social media – including a stream of punchy, conflict-heavy YouTube videos – the party’s base sees a leader unafraid to stand up to power, even when he’s part of it.

Hot-button bills keep NZ First in the spotlight

While Peters’ personality is still NZ First’s strongest weapon, the party’s steady stream of headline-grabbing member’s bills keeps its brand firmly in the culture war trenches. From proposals to define “woman” in legislation to restricting DEI language in the public service, these moves play directly to its socially conservative base. Its latest proposal, however – to force retailers to accept cash for transactions up to $500 – broadens that pitch. Ostensibly aimed at protecting the elderly and rural communities, the bill also appeals to those wary of their privacy being eroded in an increasingly digital economy.

Another less-noticed recent member’s bill would ban any flag but the official New Zealand flag from government buildings – a neat dog-whistle to voters fatigued by what Peters calls “cultural, woke, or divisive political ideology”. If the current polling holds, these stances could help Peters do what he’s never done before: bring NZ First back for a second consecutive term in government.

Keep going!
Did NZ drop the ball on quality assurance for its methane-measuring joint venture? (Image of MethaneSat: NASA/Supplied)
Did NZ drop the ball on quality assurance for its methane-measuring joint venture? (Image of MethaneSat: NASA/Supplied)

The BulletinJuly 10, 2025

What went wrong with MethaneSat – and who should answer for it?

Did NZ drop the ball on quality assurance for its methane-measuring joint venture? (Image of MethaneSat: NASA/Supplied)
Did NZ drop the ball on quality assurance for its methane-measuring joint venture? (Image of MethaneSat: NASA/Supplied)

New Zealand’s first publicly funded space mission has ended with a lost satellite and a debate about how we spend our money in space, writes Catherine McGregor in today’s extract from The Bulletin.

To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday, sign up here.

A sudden silence in orbit

When MethaneSat lost contact last month, it marked an abrupt end to New Zealand’s first publicly funded space mission – and a major setback for local climate science. The satellite, part of an international effort led by the US Environmental Defense Fund, was designed to “name and shame” major methane polluters. As The Guardian’s Veronika Meduna explains, MethaneSat’s main focus was on detecting methane leaks from oil and gas production worldwide; the New Zealand-led side project tracked methane release from agriculture, which accounts for almost half of our greenhouse gas emissions. Meduna reports that in total New Zealand contributed NZ$32 million to the mission – $3m more than the figure widely quoted in last week’s headlines.

Apportioning blame

The questions now are less about whether MethaneSat was a good idea and more about whether its problems should have been spotted sooner. Soon after launch, the satellite faced repeated technical issues, including difficulties with its thrusters and unexpected shutdowns caused by solar activity. Nicholas Rattenbury, Auckland University associate professor of physics, points out that “the principle of caveat emptor is true for spacecraft as much as it is for purchasing a car”. While NZ was not involved in the design and testing, “we were certainly entitled to relevant information to make a fully informed decision on whether or not to invest”.

His colleague, astrophysicist Richard Easther, suggests NZ needs to shoulder some of the blame. Speaking to the Sunday Star Times’ Jonathan Killick (paywalled), Easther argues local checks on the satellite’s design and readiness were too light, especially given the “major problems” that became clear long before contact was lost. All experts seem to agree that New Zealand may have relied too much on assurances from overseas partners instead of independent reviews. It’s one of the main questions that the postmortem, when it comes, will have to answer.

Space agency under scrutiny

The MethaneSat failure has turned the spotlight on how New Zealand runs its space activities. The New Zealand Space Agency, formed in 2016 and now with Judith Collins as its minister, acts both as regulator and supporter of the sector. Simon Hunt, writing for BERL, describes it as a “one-stop shop” for space policy and business support, noting its advantage in being “not burdened down with outdated policies and processes”.

But some researchers argue this dual role can be a conflict. As UoA’s Priyanka Dhopade and Catherine Qualtrough write in The Conversation, the set-up of the agency risks “a conflict of interest between promoting sustainability and fostering economic growth”. Sustainability in space is a growing international concern, Dhopade and Qualtrough write. As the amount of debris in space continues to skyrocket (sorry), scientists are also turning their attention to emerging issues like “ozone depletion from rocket launches and the accumulation of alumina and soot particles in Earth’s atmosphere as re-entering objects burn up”.

The rise of Rocket Lab

While MethaneSat drifts in silence, New Zealand’s biggest space player is enjoying a record run. Rocket Lab – officially a US company – is now valued at over NZ$30 billion, with the share price hitting a record high of around US$38 (NZ$63). The Herald’s Chris Keall reports (paywalled) that two factors are fuelling Rocket Lab’s rise: fallout from SpaceX founder Elon Musk’s feud with Donald Trump, and the upcoming first test launch of Rocket Lab’s “much larger, crew-capable rocket, the Neutron – which will put it toe to toe with SpaceX for the first time”.

But the company’s success has also attracted protest, reports The Spinoff’s Gabi Lardies. Critics have accused Rocket Lab of enabling military surveillance, including through launches of BlackSky satellites allegedly used by Israel’s defence forces. Last Friday Rocket Lab sites were picketed, while Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa has referred CEO Peter Beck, Judith Collins and others to the office of the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. Beck has dismissed the claims, insisting the company abides by New Zealand law and doesn’t launch weapons. Still, the sight of picket lines outside a NZ success story is a reminder that space, like politics, is never free from earthbound controversies.