The efficacy of a submission is dubious in this Bill's case
David Seymour. File photo: Gregor Richardson
We can now see on the Ministry of Regulation website a "summary of submissions" as a result of a consultation on the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill.
The summary is dated May 2025, so we cannot be sure as to when it was published. We do know that the Bill itself was given its first reading on May 19 and is now before the select committee.
The minister in charge of the Bill would have us believe that there is both widespread support for a grave need to legislate a prescriptive standard for our laws and regulations to comply with, and also that his, or the Act New Zealand party's, formula for such legislation is that which the public was asked to make a submission on, in December 2024.
On closer examination, the minister's pronouncements would appear to be somewhat of a stretch, or perhaps he is not familiar with the summary of the submissions made on the proposal and now published by his own ministry.
The executive summary contained in the document records the receipt of "approximately 23,000 submissions" (1) and that "analysis showed that 20,108 submissions (around 88%) opposed the Bill, 76 submissions (0.33%) supported or partially supported it, and the remaining 2637 submissions (about 12%) did not have a clear position".
It does not take a genius to conclude that by a huge majority of those that responded to the consultation, this Bill is not wanted nor seen as necessary. Less than a third of 1% of those citizens who knew or cared enough about this important issue expressed support for it.
A summary of reasons for opposing the proposed Bill included that it would "attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist"; "result in duplication and increase complexity in lawmaking"; "undermine future Parliaments and democracy"; "lack recognition and provision for the Treaty of Waitangi"; "prioritise individual property rights over the collective"; and "lead to worse social, environmental and economic outcomes".
Notwithstanding this overwhelming expression of opposition to the proposed Bill, we find it introduced to the House with none of these matters having been addressed, the minister in charge (David Seymour) stating with confidence that it will be passed in the current session of Parliament and come into effect on January 1, 2026.
That the minister, with the support of his coalition partners, can bring this Bill into law is not questioned. The question is whether it is in the interest of his major coalition partner to continue to support this Bill without, at least, addressing the issues that have been raised by an overwhelming majority of submissions in its consultation stage.
These will no doubt be mirrored in the submissions to the select committee, charged with considering the Bill, as was the case with the Treaty Principles Bill. The potential negative effects of this Bill arguably outweigh those of the Treaty Principles Bill, which both National and New Zealand First did not support past the first reading.
Historically, two National party-led governments have rejected legislation in the same form as now presented for very sound constitutional and political reasons. These reasons remain as sound and as pressing as ever.
Our prime minister will be treading a very narrow path should he choose to overlook the historical rejections of this Bill by earlier National Party-led governments and enact legislation contrived and promoted by the founders of Act, which blatantly tips the balance in favour of the protection and enhancement of property rights over those of good governance and preservation of the common good.
Such a step, in combination with the negative response to the recent unseemly passage of the Fair Pay Amendment Act 2025 and the excessive response by the coalition parties to the performance of Ka Mate in the House, could see dark clouds gather over the prospects of this coalition retaining the Treasury benches come November 2026.
• Noel O'Malley is a Balclutha lawyer. He is a past president of the Otago District Law Society.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Spinoff
7 hours ago
- The Spinoff
Pornographic deepfakes are ruining lives. What are we doing about it?
They're made and spread quickly, cause intense harm and mostly target younger women and girls, but creating and sharing pornographic deepfakes is, in most cases, totally legal. Act MP Laura McClure's member's bill wants to change that. Content warning: This piece discusses suicide and sexual exploitation. The pictures were surprisingly easy to make. All she had to do was upload a photo of herself onto a website found through a quick search, and let it spew out AI-generated images of her naked in the bedroom, the bathroom, the kitchen – there was even a tool to make her appear more childlike. Her body may have been imagined, but for all intents and purposes, it was imagined to be her. It was a first for parliament when Act MP Laura McClure presented a doctored image of herself nude to the House in mid-May, but according to Netsafe, these pornographic deepfakes are now popping up and ruining lives almost daily. They're quick to make, cause incredible emotional damage and they mostly target younger women and girls, but they're not illegal, and there's no way of knowing exactly how many New Zealanders are being harmed by them. A member's bill drafted by McClure would criminalise the creation of these images by adding amendments to the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 and Crimes Act 1961 to expand the definition of 'intimate visual recordings' to include those that have been synthesised. McClure told The Spinoff the bill was born from numerous discussions with parents, school teachers and advocates whose daughters and students had been impacted by pornographic deepfakes. The stories McClure heard were deeply upsetting – in one instance, a 13-year-old girl had attempted suicide on school grounds after being deepfaked in this way. At a school in North Canterbury, 15 girls had explicit deepfaked images of themselves shared on social media. In one Auckland school, a group of 50 girls in the year 10 cohort were targets of this. One teen girl of Muslim faith was deepfaked naked as a 'joke', McClure said. The experience was not only 'deeply offensive' for the girl, but it had a significant impact on her relationship with her family. 'It's something that schools are really struggling to tackle, because there is a grey area in our legislation,' McClure said. 'There is no real way that victims of this can get any justice and real support, because the support isn't there when it's not a crime.' With near-daily calls being made to Netsafe about these images, chief online safety officer Sean Lyons told The Spinoff the fear they instil in targets is 'huge', and can be 'emotionally and psychologically damaging in the very worst ways for many people'. The online safety organisation works with targets and perpetrators to remove this online content and impose civil sanctions (typically a fine) where possible, and while larger platforms such as Pornhub are typically responsive in these cases, others exist solely for the purpose of sharing these images. 'We know the amount of harm that these things cause is directly related to just how long it's up there – just how long people perceive that people can see this really does amplify the harm that individuals feel,' Lyons said. The homespun logic that if you don't take a risqué image of yourself, then you won't be a victim of being seen in a sexually compromising position without your consent is no longer true, Lyons said – now, anyone can be a victim of image-based abuse. In some ways, having a pornographic deepfake of yourself made and posted online can be far more damaging than if the image was real, lawyer Arran Hunt told The Spinoff. 'You have no choice as to that image being created in the first place,' he said. 'It's completely out of your hands.' Hunt has been long advocating for our laws to catch up with this technology because as it stands, no one has been successful in taking a deepfake case down a criminal legal pathway. It all comes down to the intention, Hunt said, and the creation of pornographic deepfakes is typically driven by desire for 'financial gain, a laugh, peer pressure, attention – to cause harm is often not actually the reason they're doing it'. When the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 was amended in 2022 to include unauthorised posting of an intimate visual recording, Hunt was one of many submitters in the select committee process who suggested the definition of this material should include synthesised images. The suggestion didn't make it past the submissions phase, and Hunt worries it will take the death of a 'blonde white female' for our laws to catch up. Hunt said the onus needs to be on the creator of the image, rather than the app or platform that generates it. 'If Little Johnny is creating deepfakes of somebody else and it's causing them harm, then Little Johnny should be facing the court,' Hunt said. 'Not just that we'll have a meeting with Little Johnny's parents and hopefully he stops doing it because he's a menace.' McClure's bill is a member's bill, so it's sitting in the biscuit tin, waiting for a chance to be plucked and introduced to parliament. After telling the Herald in May that he was not considering adopting it as a government bill, justice minister Paul Goldsmith will be meeting with McClure in July to discuss the bill. It's been 'frustrating' waiting for change, McClure said, but a meeting with the minister is a 'positive step forward'. 'What I do think the government needs to consider is, do we want to put these preventions in place now while the issue is just emerging and starting to grow, or are we going to be reactive when a young girl takes her life?'
Newsroom
8 hours ago
- Newsroom
Cabinet frets over funding for Māori foreshore claims
Public funding for Māori claims to rights over areas of coastline could face further tightening, despite blunt cuts in 2024 being found to have seriously breached the Treaty of Waitangi. Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith says the $13m set aside in this year's Budget followed a potential blowout a year ago to $30m – but a coming wave of court hearings and direct negotiations still presents problems for the Government. He has told MPs the Government is now 'turning our mind to the whole framework to see if there's a better way' to arrange financial support for resolving claims under the Marine and Coastal Areas (Takutai Moana) Act. The last cuts for 2024/25 put caps on funding, reduced claimants' lawyers maximum pay rates to those in the legal aid system and forced some to cover the work pro bono (for free) to keep hearings going. Cabinet refused the projected additional funding despite Goldsmith and Māori Development Minister Tama Potaka recommending a further $19m to cover the claimant costs for that year. The Waitangi Tribunal found the way the funding limits were imposed last year breached the Treaty by insufficient consultation, prejudice to the cases before the courts and lacked analysis of legal or treaty implications. It said there are hundreds of court claims and also hundreds of bids for direct negotiations to come, but the direct negotiations had essentially never started and had little chance without funding. The cuts caused 'confusion and disruption to scheduled hearings.' The increase in costs should have been predictable for both past and present governments and officials because Māori had entered the legal process years ago, building cases towards High Court hearings. Preparing for and appearing in court cases was a higher cost than initial research and interlocutory phases. Those cases were starting to hit the courts as part of the normal progression of legal action. 'The escalation of hearings in the High Court is a natural consequence of the Crown's regime, the number of applications filed and the High Court fulfilling its judicial function of determining applications before it.' The $12m in applicant funding for 2024/25 was 'demonstrably insufficient'. Separately the Government introduced a bill in 2024 to amend the MACA Act to tighten criteria by which iwi, hapū and whānau can prove continuous, exclusive use under tikanga (custom) of coastline and waters since 1840. The amending bill would send unresolved court cases for Customary Marine Title (CMT) back to the High Court for re-hearing under its new provisions. In parallel, the Supreme Court set out alternative criteria in a November judgment which would also tighten possibilities of successful claims, and that has seen the Cabinet put the amending law on hold for seven months so it can decide which way to proceed. When Goldsmith appeared before Parliament's Māori affairs select committee as part of Scrutiny Week, MPs quizzed him on the Government's response to the Supreme Court decision, the fate of its amendment bill and its view on the Waitangi Tribunal criticism over the funding cuts. Green MP Steve Abel suggested the now stalled amendment bill would have worsened Goldsmith's budget problem over funding claims under the MACA Act because it would make Māori go back to court for repeated hearings, with a big double-up in costs. The minister answered: 'Based on the legislation we had introduced there was going to be a cost to potentially rehear elements of cases that were underway. The Government is still considering that. 'There's going to be an extra cost and we recognised that but our view was that those costs were justified.' He told Labour's Ginny Andersen the primary budget pressure point for the Government for agency Te Tari Whakatau (successor of Arawhiti – the Office of Crown Māori relations) was 'the payments for claimants for Takutai Moana. The demand is high and our ability to meet the demand is constrained.' Andersen asked if the cost blowout calculated in 2024 impacted the decisions the coalition took in pushing the MACA amendment bill. 'No, we felt the Court of Appeal had come up with a threshold materially different from what the Parliament had expected. 'The cost of the process we are going through at the moment is very high. The first step was to put some budgetary restraint around that as part of a much broader restraint government-wide.' The Waitangi Tribunal's findings on the cuts to the MACA Act funding scheme said 'the Crown does not suggest that the increase in costs incurred by applicant groups weren't actual or reasonable. 'When we consider the claims in this context, we acknowledge that this is an expensive regime. However it is the regime the Crown created. Māori have participated in the regime in good faith. 'The Crown accepts their costs have not been unreasonable. The Crown is concerned that its own regime costs more that it would like, a problem not caused by the applicants.' Despite this the $12m budget amount in 2024 was around 38 percent of what was projected for that financial year. 'Cabinet offered no reason for this decision. There is no evidence that Cabinet undertook a Treaty-compliant balancing exercise as part of this decision. 'This context highlights the serious nature of the [Treaty] breaches by the Crown. 'We find that the Crown has not acted reasonably or in good faith. It has not actively protected Māori interests in relation to this important taonga and not exercised good government.' The tribunal report said funding caps and lawyer rates could prejudice claimants by raising the risk senior counsel walked away from helping. 'We are extremely concerned at such a rudimentary approach being taken to applicant funding under the Act.' In another part of the report, tribunal members observe: 'The only inference we can draw is that this was a purely fiscal decision, but one made without any evidence that the additional funding would affect the economy, not any apparent consideration of how it would impact Māori rights and interests. 'This is not a Treaty-compliant balancing exercise,' the wrote, then concluding the Crown's decision 'breached the principles of partnership, good government, and active protection.' Tribunal members seemed perplexed at how the former Te Arawhiti officials had been unable to anticipate – even though it should have known in 2021 and 2022 – the surge in claimant costs as MACA Act claims moved to the court action phase. 'The Crown should have been on notice from this point that the High Court pathway was gathering momentum which would likely result in a significant increase in demand on the funding scheme.' The agency also had a significantly flawed modelling system to calculate how much would be needed each month, ignoring that some claimants would be involved in more than one case with overlapping Takutai Moana interests. The late identification of the problem had a significant impact, the report says, and the time pressure it put officials under in 2024 'was created by the Crown failing to properly identify earlier the growing pressure on the funding scheme.' The tribunal reiterated its concern over the lack of progress on the alternative Crown Engagement Pathway, in which 387 applications across 20 different coastline areas seek direct negotiations with ministers via Te Tari Whakatau. There has been no successful determination over the years and no chance now for applicants to seek financial assistance 'The Crown Engagement Pathway is effectively suspended at present.' It had advice for the Government for future funding decisions: 'When making decisions, the Crown cannot only consider fiscal matters. It must also consider, in good faith, Māori interests and the potential impacts of any decisions on Māori. 'Such decisions should not be made in isolation.'
Otago Daily Times
9 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
The efficacy of a submission is dubious in this Bill's case
David Seymour. File photo: Gregor Richardson We can now see on the Ministry of Regulation website a "summary of submissions" as a result of a consultation on the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill. The summary is dated May 2025, so we cannot be sure as to when it was published. We do know that the Bill itself was given its first reading on May 19 and is now before the select committee. The minister in charge of the Bill would have us believe that there is both widespread support for a grave need to legislate a prescriptive standard for our laws and regulations to comply with, and also that his, or the Act New Zealand party's, formula for such legislation is that which the public was asked to make a submission on, in December 2024. On closer examination, the minister's pronouncements would appear to be somewhat of a stretch, or perhaps he is not familiar with the summary of the submissions made on the proposal and now published by his own ministry. The executive summary contained in the document records the receipt of "approximately 23,000 submissions" (1) and that "analysis showed that 20,108 submissions (around 88%) opposed the Bill, 76 submissions (0.33%) supported or partially supported it, and the remaining 2637 submissions (about 12%) did not have a clear position". It does not take a genius to conclude that by a huge majority of those that responded to the consultation, this Bill is not wanted nor seen as necessary. Less than a third of 1% of those citizens who knew or cared enough about this important issue expressed support for it. A summary of reasons for opposing the proposed Bill included that it would "attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist"; "result in duplication and increase complexity in lawmaking"; "undermine future Parliaments and democracy"; "lack recognition and provision for the Treaty of Waitangi"; "prioritise individual property rights over the collective"; and "lead to worse social, environmental and economic outcomes". Notwithstanding this overwhelming expression of opposition to the proposed Bill, we find it introduced to the House with none of these matters having been addressed, the minister in charge (David Seymour) stating with confidence that it will be passed in the current session of Parliament and come into effect on January 1, 2026. That the minister, with the support of his coalition partners, can bring this Bill into law is not questioned. The question is whether it is in the interest of his major coalition partner to continue to support this Bill without, at least, addressing the issues that have been raised by an overwhelming majority of submissions in its consultation stage. These will no doubt be mirrored in the submissions to the select committee, charged with considering the Bill, as was the case with the Treaty Principles Bill. The potential negative effects of this Bill arguably outweigh those of the Treaty Principles Bill, which both National and New Zealand First did not support past the first reading. Historically, two National party-led governments have rejected legislation in the same form as now presented for very sound constitutional and political reasons. These reasons remain as sound and as pressing as ever. Our prime minister will be treading a very narrow path should he choose to overlook the historical rejections of this Bill by earlier National Party-led governments and enact legislation contrived and promoted by the founders of Act, which blatantly tips the balance in favour of the protection and enhancement of property rights over those of good governance and preservation of the common good. Such a step, in combination with the negative response to the recent unseemly passage of the Fair Pay Amendment Act 2025 and the excessive response by the coalition parties to the performance of Ka Mate in the House, could see dark clouds gather over the prospects of this coalition retaining the Treasury benches come November 2026. • Noel O'Malley is a Balclutha lawyer. He is a past president of the Otago District Law Society.
