Latest news with #TreatyPrinciplesBill
Otago Daily Times
20 hours ago
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
MPs scrutinise the cream cheese latte, among other things
Another Scrutiny Week is done and dusted, although some ministers and ministries came under more scrutiny than others. Take Associate Agriculture Minister Mark Patterson, for example. Under the benign and avuncular chairmanship of Waitaki National MP Miles Anderson, the biggest tension of Mr Patterson's appearance before the primary production select committee came even before proceedings began, from the revelation there was such a thing as a cream cheese latte. It would be fair to say this discovery divided MPs' opinions as much as the likes of the Treaty Principles Bill — and not down party lines either. The Taieri New Zealand First list MP's appearance was primarily with his Minister for Rural Communities hat on, although no appearance anywhere by Mr Patterson would be complete without a mention or two of wool. Of which, more shortly. Mr Patterson's opening remarks emphasised rural communities is not a Cinderella enterprise set up to keep a backbencher busy: last year it reviewed more than 120 Cabinet papers to advise how decisions might impact country folk, as well as engaging directly and regularly with 12 other ministries. Mr Patterson — a farmer himself — said the four main issues he had focused his team on were health, education, connectivity and law and order. Now, it can be argued they are almost everyone's four main areas, but not everyone lives up the road from a school, down the road from a medical centre, has ultra-fast broadband or is within minutes of a police station. "Rural communities is not all about agriculture, it is about the needs of about 860,000 people," Mr Patterson said. Wellbeing — in particular mental wellbeing — was a focus of Mr Patterson's presentation. In the recent Budget the Rural Wellbeing Fund received an extra $2 million to double its funding over the next four years, and the government also committed $3m to Rural Support Trusts. "They have proven their worth, not just during adverse events but also managing farmers facing mental health issues ... there is a real issue with isolation and the issues that come with that," Mr Patterson said. "The trusts have credibility and are well led, we have confidence in them ... a lot of this is driven by volunteers, it is genuine peer-to-peer, farmers talking to farmers. That's their secret sauce and it is us leaning into that and saying you have something here that works, what can we do to help it?" The previous week Mr Patterson, along with almost every MP, had been at the annual Field Days event in Hamilton. There he got to push many things, not the least of which was wool — he and Finance Minister Nicola Willis were there as the not at all coincidental announcement was made by Kainga Ora that it had signed a deal for wool carpets to be supplied to state houses. A week later, Mr Patterson was keen to stress this was likely to be only the start — which was music to the ears of committee members like Mr Anderson, who until entering politics was a sheep farmer. "There are 130 procurement arms in government so there is significant ability to be able to leverage government procurement to assist the wool industry," Mr Patterson said. Scrutiny Week is an innovation of this Parliament and in the run-up to last week's hearings each select committee released a report as to how members thought it was going. The primary production committee noted it had spent eight hours on estimates hearings in 2024-25, and under the previous regime it heard from the relevant ministers and officials for just four hours. Even more impressive was the amount of time spent on annual reviews — up from four hours to 13-14. "Our committee has enjoyed the opportunity Scrutiny Weeks provide to dedicate time to hearing from ministers or entities, with that being the only focus for the week," the report said. "It has meant that we get to drill down on particular matters of concern, current issues, and spending without having to squeeze this in around normal business. Being able to focus on scrutiny, and take our time with hearings, has made the process less challenging than the previous approach of scheduling scrutiny hearings within normal meeting times." So far so good, but not everyone was happy. Opposition MPs — some of whom seem to feel that scrutiny was invented just for them — have complained (and not just on primary production) that they are not getting enough time for supplementary questions. Although not endorsing the idea, the committee suggested consideration be given to having an Opposition MP become its chairperson for scrutiny hearings could help avoid that perception. The social services and community committee (chaired by National Southland MP Joseph Mooney) reported in a similar vein, saying it had also increased its time on scrutiny, but warning its workload was already considerable so it had not been feasible to double that allocation of time. The report also noted that while Mr Mooney had allocated the majority of questions to non-government MPs, "some of us consider that a culture shift is still needed to honour the Opposition's role in leading scrutiny of the executive". The committee resolved to "continue to reflect on this over the parliamentary term," although good luck coming up with a definitive answer. The general tenor of all the reports was in similar vein: great concept but needs some tweaking, which seems a fair call. Anything that obliges the government to fully explain what it is up, to to the people who put them there, is welcome accountability — but it only means something if the level of questioning actually makes someone accountable. In the meantime, cream cheese latte anyone?
Newsroom
14-06-2025
- Politics
- Newsroom
Anne Salmond: What's wrong with the Regulatory Standards Bill
Opinion: The Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB) is a dangerous piece of legislation, inspired by libertarian ideas that seek to free the flow of capital from democratic constraints. In a number of respects, it expresses a contempt for collective rights and responsibilities, public goals and values, and liberal democracy. First, it lacks a strong democratic mandate. At the last election, Act was the only party to put forward such a proposal, and it won only 8.6 percent of the vote; 91.4 percent of voters did not support that party. This bill cannot remotely be taken to express 'the will of the people.' Second, the majority party, National, agreed behind doors – despite its prior opposition for almost two decades – to support this proposal from a fringe party during coalition negotiations. Like the Treaty Principles Bill, this undermines the principles of proportionality and accountability to the electorate on which the MMP electoral system is based. That, in turn, corrodes trust in democratic arrangements in New Zealand. Third, the bill seeks to put in place a set of principles, largely inspired by libertarian ideals, that would serve as a benchmark against which most new and existing legislation must be tested. These principles focus on individual rights and private property while ignoring collective rights and responsibilities and values such as minimising harm to human beings and the wider environment. Fourth, this legislation is to be applied retrospectively, applying to all existing laws as well as most new laws and regulations. Rather than upholding sound law-making processes in New Zealand, it radically undermines them. Fifth, the structures and processes this bill seeks to put in place are profoundly undemocratic. It aims to establish a 'Regulatory Standards Board' selected by the Minister for Regulation, the Act leader, and accountable to him, with the legal right to initiate inquiries into all laws and regulations, past and present, that offend against Act's libertarian ideas. This attempt to gain ideological oversight over the legislative and regulatory activities of all other ministers and government agencies constitutes a naked power grab. Such an arrangement is repugnant to democracy, and must not be allowed to proceed. Sixth, as the minister's own officials and many others have pointed out, this bill is unnecessary. Structures and processes to monitor and enhance the quality of laws and regulations already exist. These are accountable to Parliament, not to a particular minister, as is right and proper. They may be strengthened, as required, and must remain rigorously independent from any particular political party. Seventh, there is little reason to trust the integrity of Act's professed intentions in relation to this bill. Although it is claimed the Regulatory Standards Bill is designed to promote robust debate, rigorous scrutiny and sound democratic processes in law making in New Zealand, in practice, Act ignores these at will. The retrospective changes to pay equity legislation it promoted is a recent case in point. Eighth, New Zealand already has too few checks and balances on executive power. The fact this bill, with its anti-democratic aspects and lack of an electoral mandate, is in front of a select committee demonstrates why constitutional reform to protect citizens from executive overreach is urgently needed. Ninth, and perhaps worst, the practical effect of this bill attempts to tie the hands of the state in regulating private activities or initiatives that create public harm, by requiring those who benefit from laws or regulations to compensate others for the losses of profit that may arise. As many experts have pointed out, under such an arrangement, taxpayers may be required to compensate tobacco companies for regulations that reduce their profits by seeking to minimise the negative health and economic impacts of smoking; mining, industrial forestry and other extractive industries for regulations that seek to minimise environmental harm and damage to communities; and many other activities in which capital seeks to profit at the expense of others. The accumulation of wealth and power by the few at the expense of the many is precisely what is undermining other democracies around the world. It is inimical to the very idea of democracy as government 'of the people, by the people, for the people,' in which governments are supposed to serve the interests of citizens, not of capital or corporations. As social cohesion is undermined by radical inequality and an over-emphasis on private property and individual rights, the danger is that it tips over into anarchy; and by removing limits on the right to accumulate wealth and power at the expense of others, into oligarchy. We are seeing something like this in the United States at present. Around the world, democracies that were once strong are collapsing. It is the responsibility of our Parliament to ensure that this does not happen here. Act's attempt to paint this bill as an innocuous attempt to promote good law-making in the interests of citizens is disingenuous, and should be recognised as such. Rather, this is a dangerous bill that attacks the fundamental rights of New Zealanders, and democratic principles. It must not be allowed to pass.
RNZ News
12-06-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
Mata Season 3 Episode 11 Tania Waikato
In the wake of an unprecedented punishment for the haka that drew global attention to the Treaty Principles Bill, Te Pāti Māori legal representative Tania Waikato reflects on the fallout, the opposition to the Regulatory Standards Bill, and what this moment reveals about Māori political power. Parliament took the unprecedented step of suspending both Te Pāti Māori leaders - Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi - for 21 days. Te Pāti Māori MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke was suspended for seven days - but had also been punished with a 24-hour suspension on the day over a haka all three had performed in Parliament, against the Treaty Principles Bill, in November. It is against the rules of the House for members to leave their seats during a debate - which all three did. Waikato said one of the most galling things about the entire process was that the haka was said to be intimidatory and that the process the committee adopted was framed in that way from the beginning. She said in her 20 years of being a lawyer she had not seen a process that "disrespected the laws of natural justice" in the way it did. "I was actually flabbergasted at the lack of respect that that body had for very very basic rights that had anyone who's been accused of any type of behaviour that could have a censure result, let alone a censure of this magnitude, imposed on them should be given." Requests to the committee to have a hearing at a time when both counsels were available and for the accused to bring evidence to defend themselves against the allegations were rejected even though that was provided for in the standing orders, she said. "So right from the beginning of the process they were not following their own rules and they were ... in my opinion trumping up the charges to make them sound as serious as possible and to slant the outcome towards what we ended up with." Asked why the MPs chose not to appear before the committee, Waikato said it was because the MPs felt they would not get a fair hearing. "They felt, and quite rightly I believe, that they had already predetermined what they were going to decide." Waikato, who is also a health and safety lawyer, said Parliament was supposed to be the height of democracy but the behaviour of MPs within the House had degenerated and was "sliding towards this gutter politics style". "I watched some of the behaviour that goes on in the House and particularly in that last debate before the suspensions were made and there is no way that you could behave like that in any other workplace and get away with it - it would be illegal and you would be hauled up on workplace bullying charges in an instant if you behaved like that in any other workplace." Waikato said she would have advised Te Pāti Māori MPs to do the haka had she been their lawyer prior to this on the basis that the Treaty Principles Bill was "the most divisive, racist piece of legislation that has ever been introduced during our lifetimes". It was an exceptional event which required an exceptional response, she said. "And the Speaker took action on the day, it's not like there was nothing that happened on the day, Hannah was censured for what happened, it should have stopped there." It should not have been referred to the Privileges Committee, she said. Photo: Te Māngai Pāho Photo: NZ On Air
Otago Daily Times
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
Letters to the Editor: Māori, supermarkets and Israel
Woolworths and Foodstuffs are effectively the only two players in New Zealand's grocery sector. Photo: RNZ/Marika Khabazi, Simon Rogers Today's Letters to the Editor from readers cover topics including bullying language from Pākehā males, supermarkets rorting the public, and Israel's "vibrant democracy". Outrage fair response to response to column I cannot stand by in silence after reading letters from Pākehā males (Russell Garbutt and David Tackney) responding to the May 30 opinion column by Metiria Stanton Turei. We could choose to think with respect about the experience of our tangata te whenua, our Māori brothers and sisters. Quite simply, and it is simple, could we not take a moment to put ourselves in their shoes. The Treaty Principles Bill had the potential to reduce our first peoples to be stamped upon again; to arrest memory of taking their land — only five, six or seven generations ago. Not to mention the shutting down of te teo — their language, through the numbers of their people lost by way of influenza and war, by government policies including the punishment of school children for utilising te reo, and by integration policies designed to stamp the Māori way out. Imagine having our generationally owned farm taken off us, along with our language. How might we feel? Undoubtedly, enraged. A haka could be considered to be an appropriate way to express their rage. More appropriate than some of the behaviours we have seen previously by others in the Parliament. Mr Garbutt's letter was an outright personal attack on Mrs Stanton Turei, both as a person and on her professional life using very patronising language. His reference to "Mrs Stanton and her ilk" and then stating that he has "no desire to see this country return to tribalism" is unsavoury. Mr Tackney's dramatic language referred to anarchists and Māori radicals and further referred to Māori's need to "grapple with the darker aspects of their culture instead of trying to bring this country to its knees". This is bullying. Frances Anderson Alexandra Inquest coverage Recently the ODT reported on the inquest into Ian Loughran's death. I, and many others were dismayed at the level of detail that was reported. A family member who I spoke to discussed their distress when the article appeared on the ODT Facebook page in a subscriber-only article that they could not access. When the family member queried the ODT, the response was that it was in the public domain. While I understand that it is news that should be reported on, I implore the ODT to reconsider how it is reported. What we need to know is how the system failed him. Holly Aitchison Mornington [The Otago Daily Times recognises that coronial proceedings can canvas material which friends and family may find distressing. We attempt to report these proceedings carefully and responsibly as part of a public judicial process. Editor.] Dastardly duopoly For many years now we have put up with supermarkets rorting the public. Likewise we have all seen numerous insipid reports, investigations, recommendations and consultant's opinions on how to deal with the public perception of being ripped off. What has happened? Nothing. If this or any government is serious about stopping us being ripped off, the solution is simple. To solve our being overcharged for any supermarket offerings, simply force Foodstuffs and Woolworths to sell off all their supermarkets to the highest bidder, ending this insidious duopoly, making sure of excluding anyone or any entity that has any connection to aforementioned businesses. Suddenly, you have something not seen here in an age, competition. We all have a right to be able to eat and feed our families at a price we can all afford. Graham Bulman Roslyn I've lived there and trust me, it ain't that great A. Levy argues with Mark Hammond (29.5 and 6.6.25) whether "happy Israel" is a contradiction. Hammond wonders how Israelis can be happy and at war; Levy gives us typical Zionist propaganda on this "vibrant democracy". I have lived in Israel most of my life and can assure you it is neither. Israel is an apartheid state that derides international law, where open racism is the norm, and expressing your opinion can land you in prison. Israelis are, as a rule, tense, unhappy, aggressive and rude to each other. I am still regularly struck by New Zealanders' kindness and generosity. My family and I are happy here, and were deeply unhappy in Israel. It is no wonder a million of its Jewish citizens left "happy democratic" Israel in the past 10 years. Rod Pik Dunedin Smiles per capita According to A. Levy, a country that has militarily occupied and displaced another people for decades somehow holds unique moral clarity. This, we're told, is confirmed by its high smiles-per-capita — as if national happiness somehow absolves systemic oppression. Oppression that has been recognised by humanitarian organisations and the International Criminal Court as a form of apartheid. Levy also presents Israel as a uniquely persecuted victim, surrounded by enemies and unfairly maligned by criticism and rhetoric. But a recent Penn State University poll shows that this very population overwhelmingly supports actions many scholars and legal experts have described as ethnic cleansing, or even genocide. So is Israel really unfairly targeted by criticism? P. Maloney Dunedin Address Letters to the Editor to: Otago Daily Times, PO Box 517, 52-56 Lower Stuart St, Dunedin. Email: editor@
Otago Daily Times
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
Letters to the Edtor: Māori, supermarkets and Israel
Woolworths and Foodstuffs are effectively the only two players in New Zealand's grocery sector. Photo: RNZ/Marika Khabazi, Simon Rogers Today's Letters to the Editor from readers cover topics including bullying language from Pākehā males, supermarkets rorting the public, and Israel's "vibrant democracy". Outrage fair response to response to column I cannot stand by in silence after reading letters from Pākehā males (Russell Garbutt and David Tackney) responding to the May 30 opinion column by Metiria Stanton Turei. We could choose to think with respect about the experience of our tangata te whenua, our Māori brothers and sisters. Quite simply, and it is simple, could we not take a moment to put ourselves in their shoes. The Treaty Principles Bill had the potential to reduce our first peoples to be stamped upon again; to arrest memory of taking their land — only five, six or seven generations ago. Not to mention the shutting down of te teo — their language, through the numbers of their people lost by way of influenza and war, by government policies including the punishment of school children for utilising te reo, and by integration policies designed to stamp the Māori way out. Imagine having our generationally owned farm taken off us, along with our language. How might we feel? Undoubtedly, enraged. A haka could be considered to be an appropriate way to express their rage. More appropriate than some of the behaviours we have seen previously by others in the Parliament. Mr Garbutt's letter was an outright personal attack on Mrs Stanton Turei, both as a person and on her professional life using very patronising language. His reference to "Mrs Stanton and her ilk" and then stating that he has "no desire to see this country return to tribalism" is unsavoury. Mr Tackney's dramatic language referred to anarchists and Māori radicals and further referred to Māori's need to "grapple with the darker aspects of their culture instead of trying to bring this country to its knees". This is bullying. Frances Anderson Alexandra Inquest coverage Recently the ODT reported on the inquest into Ian Loughran's death. I, and many others were dismayed at the level of detail that was reported. A family member who I spoke to discussed their distress when the article appeared on the ODT Facebook page in a subscriber-only article that they could not access. When the family member queried the ODT, the response was that it was in the public domain. While I understand that it is news that should be reported on, I implore the ODT to reconsider how it is reported. What we need to know is how the system failed him. Holly Aitchison Mornington [The Otago Daily Times recognises that coronial proceedings can canvas material which friends and family may find distressing. We attempt to report these proceedings carefully and responsibly as part of a public judicial process. Editor.] Dastardly duopoly For many years now we have put up with supermarkets rorting the public. Likewise we have all seen numerous insipid reports, investigations, recommendations and consultant's opinions on how to deal with the public perception of being ripped off. What has happened? Nothing. If this or any government is serious about stopping us being ripped off, the solution is simple. To solve our being overcharged for any supermarket offerings, simply force Foodstuffs and Woolworths to sell off all their supermarkets to the highest bidder, ending this insidious duopoly, making sure of excluding anyone or any entity that has any connection to aforementioned businesses. Suddenly, you have something not seen here in an age, competition. We all have a right to be able to eat and feed our families at a price we can all afford. Graham Bulman Roslyn I've lived there and trust me, it ain't that great A. Levy argues with Mark Hammond (29.5 and 6.6.25) whether "happy Israel" is a contradiction. Hammond wonders how Israelis can be happy and at war; Levy gives us typical Zionist propaganda on this "vibrant democracy". I have lived in Israel most of my life and can assure you it is neither. Israel is an apartheid state that derides international law, where open racism is the norm, and expressing your opinion can land you in prison. Israelis are, as a rule, tense, unhappy, aggressive and rude to each other. I am still regularly struck by New Zealanders' kindness and generosity. My family and I are happy here, and were deeply unhappy in Israel. It is no wonder a million of its Jewish citizens left "happy democratic" Israel in the past 10 years. Rod Pik Dunedin Smiles per capita According to A. Levy, a country that has militarily occupied and displaced another people for decades somehow holds unique moral clarity. This, we're told, is confirmed by its high smiles-per-capita — as if national happiness somehow absolves systemic oppression. Oppression that has been recognised by humanitarian organisations and the International Criminal Court as a form of apartheid. Levy also presents Israel as a uniquely persecuted victim, surrounded by enemies and unfairly maligned by criticism and rhetoric. But a recent Penn State University poll shows that this very population overwhelmingly supports actions many scholars and legal experts have described as ethnic cleansing, or even genocide. So is Israel really unfairly targeted by criticism? P. Maloney Dunedin Address Letters to the Editor to: Otago Daily Times, PO Box 517, 52-56 Lower Stuart St, Dunedin. Email: editor@
