Submissions Show Overwhelming Opposition To RSB
'It couldn't be clearer that by a huge proportion, New Zealanders do not want this Bill passed,' says the Green Party's Regulation Spokesperson, Francisco Hernandez.
'Christopher Luxon and his Cabinet should see the writing on the wall here, listen to the people of New Zealand and put a stop to this deeply unpopular legislation.
'An emphatic 87% of submitters opposed the bill, and only 9% were for it. What's the point of all that consultation if it's going to be ignored anyway?
'After all those hours, all that engagement, all those expert submissions, to go ahead and pass this legislation shows this government's lack of interest in listening to expertise and experience. It's also hugely wasteful.
'Where are Seymour's yellow tape scissors now? Likely dulled by all the cuts being made to crucial public services.
'This Bill risks causing deep divisions, not least because of constitutionally significant ramifications for Te Tiriti o Waitangi and for Aotearoa, which is why the Waitangi Tribunal has warned it is a violation of the Treaty.
'As lawmakers we must listen to the overwhelming evidence, the mass of public opinion and expert advice. Stop this Bill now,' says Francisco Hernandez.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
19 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Former Attorney-General criticises marine and coastal rights law changes
Former Attorney-General and National MP Chris Finlayson. Photo: Nicola Edmonds A former Attorney-General and National MP has lashed out at the government over its decision to push on with controversial legislation that would make it harder for Māori to get customary marine title. Chris Finlayson is calling the move foolish and "extremely harmful" to race relations. But Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says it will see the law returned to its "original intention" and strike a better balance for the rights of all New Zealanders. The changes to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act would toughen the test for judging whether customary rights should be given. Customary title recognises exclusive Māori rights to parts of the foreshore and seabed, provided certain legal tests are met, including proving continuous and "exclusive" use of the area since 1840 without substantial interruption. A 2023 Court of Appeal ruling , however, declared that groups only needed to show they had enough control over the area that they could keep others from using it, and that situations where the law itself had prevented them from doing so could be ignored. The Supreme Court subsequently overturned that and the government put a pause on any amendments to the law. On Tuesday, Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith said after the discussing the ruling, Cabinet felt it still did not achieve the "balance" the government wanted and the test to win customary rights was still too low. His comment were echoed by Luxon who, speaking from Papua New Guinea, said the change would get the legislation back to its "original intention". "We obviously have looked at the Supreme Court decision pretty closely [and] think it's quite broad and able to be interpreted in quite a broad way," he said. "We think the best way to do [that] is actually to get legislation to put it back to its original intent, which struck the right balance." Chris Finlayson disputes that, and told RNZ the Supreme Court had already expressed "very well" what Parliament's intention back in 2010 was. "These amendments do not restore the original intention of Parliament. They undermine them. Let there be no doubt about that at all," he said. Finlayson was Attorney-General at the time the legislation was enacted in law in 2011, which replaced the controversial Foreshore and Seabed Act . "What they are doing by these foolish amendments is destroying the settlement that the National Party and the Māori Party reached in 2010." Finlayson said there was no justification for the move, which he said was "extremely harmful" to race relations in New Zealand. "Tangata whenua have a few wins in court, and it's ripped away from them by the government, which changes goal posts 15 years later. "I am very, very saddened by what they have done, and I think it's a very bad day for race relations in New Zealand. "I just can't believe that they're as foolish as they appear to be," he said. Labour Party Māori Crown-Relations spokesperson Peeni Henare said the changes would restrict the ability of Māori to test their rights in court. "In 2011, the National Party made much of their commitment to Māori 'having their day in court' and this proposed change takes that away again." Henare said the law, as it stands today, does not give Māori ownership rights like control over public access. "This action by the government does nothing to strengthen the Māori-Crown relationship, despite them saying they value iwi Māori. "The government needs to be straight up and admit they don't care about Māori. Their actions don't match their words," he said. The amendments prompted fierce backlash from iwi last year, including Ngāpuhi who walked out of an Iwi Chairs Forum meeting with the Prime Minister in protest of the legislation. It also drew the ire of Northland iwi Ngāti Wai , who said at the time they would not accept the Crown "exercising an authority we do not believe they possess". In September last year, The Waitangi Tribunal found the changes were characterised by a "blind adherence" to pre-existing political commitments at the expense of Māori. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
Cameras on boats: Government confirms pro-industry fisheries changes
'A key feature of the reforms is more efficient and effective decision-making when setting sustainable catch limits. The changes mean specific fisheries will be able to have rules that automatically respond to changes in abundance for up to five years. 'These rules will be subject to the usual scientific evaluation and consultation processes but will allow for greater catch when there are more fish in the water and more responsive intervention when fisheries need to recover,' he said. Minister for Oceans and Fisheries Shane Jones during his stand-up on the Wellington waterfront where he released a consultation document on 'the most significant reforms' of New Zealand's fisheries for decades. 12 February, 2025. NZME photograph by Mark Mitchell This change replaces the slower process currently in place, where each change must be assessed and considered separately, Jones said. Another significant change is the exclusion of footage captured by cameras on fishing boats from being requested under the OIA. 'The information from on-board cameras will continue to contribute to fisheries management but camera footage will not be subject to the Official Information Act 1982,' Jones said. 'Fishers won't need to worry about private or commercially sensitive footage being publicly released and either deliberately or unintentionally misconstrued.' While supported by industry, the proposals copped criticism in February when they were consulted on. The Green Party's oceans and fisheries spokesman Teanau Tuiono said in February the proposals 'seem to reward industry for overfishing, posing a significant threat to the sustainability and longevity of our oceans'. 'If the minister truly cared about sustainability he would ban bottom trawling and champion sustainable, adaptive fishing practices, which will increasingly be required in the context of climate change,' he said. An amendment bill will be introduced this year and people will have a further opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed changes during the select committee process. Jones is the former chairman of the seafood company Sealord and was a one-time member of the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission. He declared donations from the industry for the 2023 election.
Newsroom
an hour ago
- Newsroom
Making heated tobacco products cheaper than cigarettes is no scandal
Opinion: The Government's decision to introduce a lower excise rate for heated tobacco products (HTPs) has been widely framed as 'giving tax breaks to tobacco companies'. It's a provocative line – and politically potent – but it doesn't help us have an honest, evidence-informed discussion about how to reduce smoking harm, particularly for the most disadvantaged New Zealanders, or how to deal with conflicts of interest. Let's be clear: this isn't a corporate subsidy, so long as the reduced tax is passed on with cheaper products. It's an excise adjustment applied to a class of tobacco products that heat rather than burn tobacco. (Like vaping products, HTPs are marketed as smoke-free alternatives to cigarettes, but are not the same thing.) Combustion is what makes smoking lethal. Cigarettes burn at over 800C, releasing thousands of toxic compounds. Heated tobacco products operate at much lower temperatures and don't produce smoke – just an aerosol – with far fewer harmful constituents. That distinction matters. The multinational tobacco company Philip Morris does hold a monopoly over HTPs in New Zealand. That's not ideal, but it doesn't mean the tax policy exists for Philip Morris International. The intention is to make a less harmful product more affordable than cigarettes – a principle long accepted in tobacco harm reduction, and already applied to vaping. Unfortunately, it appears Philip Morris International hasn't yet passed on the tax savings to the small number of HTP users in New Zealand – this is the real scandal. In addition, the apparent impact of PMI on government policy is tough to ignore, and contrary to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which seeks to protect government policy from tobacco industry influence. New Zealand has rightly taxed cigarettes heavily to deter use. But excise taxes are also regressive. The remaining people who smoke – fewer than 7 percent of adults – are disproportionately Māori, Pasifika, low-income, and more likely to experience mental health distress. The associate minister of health, Casey Costello, justified the excise differential by citing relative harm reduction and the growing inequity of uniform excise. Her reasoning deserves more attention than it has been given. Critics argue there's insufficient evidence that HTPs help people quit, but the UK Office for Health Improvement and Disabilities, the UK Committee on Toxicity, and the US Food and Drug Administration all acknowledge HTPs reduce exposure to toxicants compared with cigarettes. That doesn't make them harmless – but being less harmful than smoking is enough to warrant a differential tax. The example of Japan is instructive. There, HTPs make up over 30 percent of tobacco sales. Though vaping is banned, cigarette consumption has plummeted by 40 percent in some markets. Surveys suggest many smokers switched completely to HTPs. Youth uptake has been minimal. No policy is perfect, but that's a shift in the right direction. What's really at stake here? Not a tax break for big tobacco – but increasing the options for people who smoke and want to quit, and whether we believe in a response to nicotine products based on their comparative risks to human health as a foundation for public health policy. A more productive debate would ask: • Are they less harmful than cigarettes, and do they help smokers quit? • Are tax savings being passed on to consumers? • Are HTPs being promoted responsibly? • Will there be an independent evaluation of their impact on smoking rates? In a country that leads the world with its Smokefree 2025 goal, we should be asking how to accelerate the decline in smoking, not defending a one-size-fits-all excise regime that's increasingly disconnected from the realities of risk, behaviour, and equity. If HTPs can help some people switch, pricing them appropriately is not a scandal. It's a good policy – provided it's transparent, monitored, and grounded in evidence, and the tax savings are passed on to consumers.
