Minnows, pike and parliamentary sovereignty

"In a lake stocked with minnows and minnow-eating pike, freedom for the pike means death to the minnows."
So said 20th century philosopher Isaiah Berlin. He was warning us to be wary of occasions when the rich and powerful argue for greater freedom. They already have a great deal of freedom, usually a lot more than the rest of us.
Act New Zealand's proposed Regulatory Standards Bill appears to be one of these occasions.
The Bill states that any proposed legislation will have to be held up to certain principles. However, they are a very limited number of principles, mostly based on individual rights and property.
Why just the principles important to Act? Why not hold legislation accountable to how it will affect child poverty? How it will impact on rights to education and health? Whether it will lead to increases in crime or unemployment?
There are any number of principles they could align legislation to, and yet individual and property rights is where they are focused.
Why have principles that primarily benefit the rich and powerful? Why not have principles that benefit the majority, especially those in these unending crises we have had since the Global Financial Crash in 2008?
One of the main objections to the Regulations Standards Bill is that it puts limitations on Parliament's sovereignty and it is beyond ironic that one of Act's objections to the way that the Treaty of Waitangi was being applied was that it encroached on Parliament's sovereignty.
We have a system that has created a lot of wealth for certain individuals, and some of those who have accumulated that wealth want to ensure that they keep it and are also able to accumulate it at an even faster rate.
This month the NBR announced that the total valuation of New Zealand's rich list had risen from $95.55 billion last year to $102.1b this year. Their wealth has gone up by 6.8% and is not an outlier. In 2023 the valuation of the rich list was $72.79b, meaning that their combined wealth had gone up 50% in the two years that included a recession and a cost of living crisis.
The annual inflation rate is currently 2.5%. The New Zealand cash rate is 3.25%, Kiwi Bonds are around 3.5%, and one-year term deposits are less than 4%. So the very wealthy are accumulating wealth at a much faster pace than the rest of society.
Some of the money the very rich make is ploughed back into their businesses to make them more efficient and productive, and some is used to look for further business opportunities. Sometimes these are very risky opportunities, and sometimes that riskiness is a surprise such as earthquakes, cyclones and their close cousin, presidentially declared tariffs.
However, a lot of their wealth appears to go into buying assets.
United Kingdom economist Gary Stevenson claims that the super wealthy live in an economic black hole that sucks in wealth. If you have $100million and your wealth conservatively goes up 6% that is $6m a year. That is a lot of money to try to spend on holidays, food and clothes.
They can't spend that much and so what they do, according to Stephenson, is buy assets. They are always ahead of inflation so their money just grows and the value of the assets they have, and the assets they buy, goes up.
It is his explanation as to why it is so much tougher to buy a house than 20 years ago and why real estate, gold and the stock market continually trend upwards.
Structurally, if it is true that our current system is tailor-made to shift wealth from one part of society to a very small minority of society, it is no wonder they want to lock it all in place before the rest of us find out.
At the same time as our small population of very wealthy are growing wealthier, the number of homeless people is skyrocketing. Statistics New Zealand claimed at the 2023 census over 112,000 New Zealanders were "severely housing deprived", including 61% living in "uninhabitable housing".
This did not include any of the 396,000 people they had no information on.
Change needs to come, but not in legislation that locks in the gains of the top 5% and locks in the losses of the majority. We don't have to worry about the rich, they will be OK. Even if they lose their fortunes, they have the skills and networks to bounce back up again.
We need an economy that rewards risk and innovation but at the same time provides affordable housing and health, education and social services.
Parliament is perfectly able to do all this without passing the Regulatory Standards Bill.
Submissions on the Regulatory Standards Bill close on June 23.
• Dr Anaru Eketone is an associate professor in the University of Otago's social and community work programme.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

RNZ News

an hour ago

• RNZ News

The House: Tactics from the 'Scrutiny Week' bear pit

Photo: VNP/Louis Collins This week, Parliament hosted a twice-yearly event called 'Scrutiny Week'. It was a sitting week and MPs were expected to be in Wellington, but the House didn't sit, no legislation was debated and there were no question times. Instead, the ministers were all expected to spend time fronting hearings in the 12 subject select committees defending their budget plans - hence 'scrutiny'. On the Sunday edition of The House (above) you can hear an interview with Lawrence Xu-Nan about Scrutiny Week and the intense preparation necessary. You can also listen to a quick description of a few of the more political tactics observed in hearings. Politics muddies everything in Parliament, including Parliament's role in providing governance over governments. In Scrutiny Week, some politics is inevitable in both MPs' questions and ministers' answers. Our focus on the tactics is more about the answers than the questions, because those answering tend to employ a wider range of techniques. Either the ministers have more tactical options available or they are more creative in finding them. No matter who is in government, some ministers genuinely engage in the spirit of the event, freely answering questions and providing information. Others tend to be grudging with details. Some face aggressive political questions evincing fiercely political answers and a few appear to just really enjoy the stoush. Photo: VNP/Louis Collins Listen above for examples of political questions and answers tactics, including rejection of questions, answering alternative questions, redefining the terms, insult and humour as a defence, and various ways to eat up time. Oddly, sometimes ministers get so involved in the tussle that they ignore options to their own benefit. Typically, sitting beside a minister under scrutiny are senior ministerial officials - whose answers are less politically suspect. Sometimes, if an official can get a word in, the detail given is positive and the minister had no reason to be obfuscating - other than for the fun of the stoush. The audio above might give the appearance that Scrutiny Week is an endless and frustrating bear pit, and it can be, but we also saw hearings where ministers from all the governing parties gave good answers and had constructive interchanges with the committees, sometimes even in contentious areas. That is especially true in hearings where officials from ministries or agencies are providing information, but examples of good in-depth discussions are, almost by definition, far too lengthy to include in a short programme. Good politics is seldom quick politics. Photo: VNP/Phil Smith *RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ.

Scoop

a day ago

• Scoop

Defence Heads Face Scrutiny Week Hearing, Promise To Be Fiscally Responsible

Defence heads have assured politicians their huge new budget takes into account soldiers actually having to fire their weapons. They fronted up to an even-tempered scrutiny week hearing with MPs at Parliament on Thursday afternoon. Greens MP Lawrence Xu-Nan asked whether the budget boost of $9 billion new spending over four years allowed for buying the likes of replacement Javelin missiles, which cost $400,000 each. Defence secretary Brook Barrington responded that the increased budget meant troops could now move past the approach from the last 50 years of being only partly equipped. "The defence force is actually being provided with funding to ensure that, if we upgrade the capabilty, we are also able to shoot things with it," he said. Along with defence force Chief Air Marshal Tony Davies, Barrington laid out a raft of measures they said would enable them to buy weapons and other systems faster and smarter. "The demand queue is growing," Barrington said. "The longer it takes us to lodge an order, someone else has got their place in the queue before us and some of this stuff takes three years. "You know, you lose your place in the queue... and you're losing time." They felt a sense of urgency, but also had to ensure quality thresholds were set, so that in 3-4 years he was not up before MPs again being told, "We knew we couldn't trust you folk to bloody get your way out of a paper bag", he said. "We've got to find a sweet spot between rigour, confidence and pace." He added defence had already met with 280 people from 174 companies, both last month and this month, and that an industry strategy would be put out soon. They would be fiscally responsible with the billions of taxpayer money, Davies said. To accelerate, they would drop the old approach of trying to get 30 years of life from gear and retreading it, and instead, look at getting a "minimum viable product" quickly out to the field, he said. "Simple... quick... lean." On the personnel front, they had to rebuild forces, he said. The budget and plan had "buoyed" personnel, but their thinned-back ranks still constrained how much notice they needed to deploy, how long they could deploy for and whether they could mount multiple operations. Personnel turnover had fallen to less than seven percent, but vacancy rates in February were about 30 percent, an Official Information Act request (OIA) showed. The army was short 1500 people, Air Force 660 and navy 630. Defence was "over-training" people to hit 100 percent, when it did not need to, so was reviewing how to speed training up, Davies said. The 15-year plan was to add 20 percent to combat forces - or 2500 people - and the only way to do that currently was to cut civilian jobs down, he said. "At the moment, we've got ships tied up that can't go to sea, because we haven't got the sailors. We've got people that are going on their fifth deployment overseas, because we don't have the number of soldiers. "We've got Joint Force headquarters out at Trentham with watchfloors that can't be filled, because we haven't got the uniformed people with those skills. "We need those. The money is tight, still, even with uplifts." An OIA response showed that, in March, a hefty 313 positions were vacant at Joint Defence Services, far more than in other sections. Defence Minister Judith Collins said the point was to be able to defend against anybody who "threatened our people, or our assets". "Our people are not going to have to wave a white flag anymore. They are going to be able to get out there and protect themselves." She said she had told "prime" multinational defence contractors their best bet for getting a share of the business was to involve New Zealand firms. The small firms would not be written "out of the equation", Barrington said. He added the business cases for two very large projects - replacing the 757s and the maritime helicopters - were well advanced. Other business cases would be made short and sharp. The fleet renewal planning was by far the biggest job, but the budget gave the ministry a couple of million dollars extra for teams to do that. "What happens in two years, if the world situation's got worse and we need to step it up again?" Davies said. "How are we going to accelerate our capability acquisition process. It might be that we need to double our efforts there, so we are constantly looking at ways to fine tune it." The budget set aside $155m over four years for new military allowances for deployments and hundreds of millions for more operations.

RNZ News

a day ago

• RNZ News

UK Parliament votes in favour of assisted dying

By Sarah Young and Andrew MacAskill , Reuters The legislation passed by a vote of 314-291, clearing its biggest parliamentary hurdle. Photo: Unsplash/ Marcin Nowak Britain's Parliament voted on Friday (local time) in favour of a bill to legalise assisted dying, paving the way for the country's biggest social change in a generation. The legislation passed by a vote of 314-291, clearing its biggest parliamentary hurdle. The 'Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life)' law would give mentally competent, terminally ill adults in England and Wales with six months or less left to live the right to choose to end their lives with medical help. The bill now proceeds to Britain's upper chamber, the House of Lords, where it will undergo months of scrutiny. While there could be further amendments, the unelected Lords will be reluctant to block legislation that has been passed by elected members of the House of Commons. The vote puts Britain on course to follow Australia, Canada and other countries, as well as some US states, in permitting assisted dying . Prime Minister Keir Starmer's Labour government was neutral on the legislation, meaning politicians voted according to their conscience rather than along party lines. Starmer voted in favour. Supporters of the bill say it will provide dignity and compassion to people suffering, but opponents worry that vulnerable people could be coerced into ending their lives. Hundreds of people gathered outside Parliament to hear news of the vote. When the result was read out, those in favour of the legislation hugged, clapped and cheered. They shouted "victory", "we won", and waved placards. Those opposed to it stood in silence. Emma Bray, who has motor neurone disease, said she hoped the result would help people in her condition. Bray, who is 42 and has two children, said she plans to starve herself to death next month to help relieve the pain after being told she only has six months to live. "This result will mean that people will not have to go through the same suffering I have faced," she told Reuters. Opinion polls show that a majority of Britons back assisted dying. Friday's vote followed hours of emotional debate and references to personal stories in the chamber and followed a vote in November that approved the legislation in principle. Opponents of the bill had argued that ill people may feel they should end their lives for fear of being a burden to their families and society. Some lawmakers withdrew their support after the initial vote last year, saying safeguards had been weakened. John Howard, a Catholic priest who led about a dozen people in prayer outside Parliament while voting took place, said he worried that some people would be forced to end their lives early under pressure from family members. "I feel great sorrow and concern, particularly for the most vulnerable and disabled," he told Reuters. "This is a dark day for our country." Friday's vote took place 10 years after Parliament last voted against allowing assisted dying. The 314-291 vote showed narrowing support from the 330-275 vote in favour in November . In the original plan, an assisted death would have required court approval. That has been replaced by a requirement for a judgement by a panel including a social worker, a senior legal figure and a psychiatrist, which is seen by some as a watering down. The Labour lawmaker who proposed the bill, Kim Leadbeater, said the legislation still offered some of the strongest protections in the world. "I am fully confident in the bill," she told the BBC after the vote. "The safeguards are extremely thorough, extremely robust, and I'm confident that this will help the people it needs to help." Opponents had doubts not just about the potential for coercion, but also about the impact of assisted dying on the finances and resources of the state-run National Health Service, how the law might change the relationship between doctors and their patients and whether it could mean that improvements to palliative care might now not be made. Care Not Killing, a group that opposes the law change, issued a statement calling the bill "deeply flawed and dangerous", saying that its safeguards had been weakened since November. "Members of Parliament had under 10 hours to consider over 130 amendments to the Bill, or less than 5 minutes per change. Does anyone think this is enough time to consider changes to a draft law that quite literally is a matter of life and death?" said the group's CEO, Gordon Macdonald. The law was proposed under a process led by an individual member of Parliament rather than being government policy, which has limited the amount of Parliamentary time allocated to it. Some lawmakers have said that such a major social change should have been allocated more Parliamentary time for debate and involve a greater degree of ministerial involvement and accountability. - Reuters