Gisborne Mayor Invites Act Leader David Seymour To Witness Mayors' Role In Schools And Community
Gisborne Mayor Rehette Stoltz has invited Act Party leader David Seymour to see the work mayors do in the community, including supporting school attendance.
Stoltz is participating in a region-wide campaign to promote attendance, including posters being put up at most schools and around town.
Last month, Associate Minister of Education Seymour wrote a letter to all New Zealand's mayors asking for support on school truancy rates in their communities.
Speaking with Local Democracy Reporting, Stoltz said she would invite Seymour to visit regions to get 'a clear understanding of what mayors do on a day-to-day basis'.
In Seymour's letter, he mentioned four things mayors could do to help attendance in their communities.
This included engaging with the Government's new daily school attendance dashboard, leading conversations with their community, amplifying the message that school helped young people achieve better outcomes, and letting Seymour know what was working in their communities and what was not in an effort to get students to school.
The letter has sparked criticism and confusion from many mayors across the country because of the Government's directive to councils to stick to their core responsibilities.
Stoltz said she, too, was surprised by the letter.
'The Government sent a clear message to all mayors and councils last year to stick to their knitting and focus on the core basics like roads, rubbish and water.'
The Government had also indicated it would remove the 'Four Well-beings' from the Local Government Act, Stoltz said.
'He [Seymour] often publicly criticises mayors and councils for taking part in activities that, according to him, are outside of 'core functions'.
'But then he contacted each mayor individually to ask them to lead discussions in their regions about issues that the Government would clearly put in the community 'Four Well-beings' section and definitely not a council core function.'
Stoltz said mayors – especially in smaller towns or regions – were actively involved in most community activities, attending functions and community meetings that included school, cultural and recreational activities.
'We see it as part of our job and what our community expects of us.
'We go above and beyond what our official job descriptions are.
'I am often invited to schools and talk to leadership groups and classes about leadership and the importance of staying in school and upskilling yourself.'
When requested, she also hosted school groups at the council and talked about the importance of education in making positive contributions, she said.
'I would invite David Seymour to visit us in the regions and get a clear understanding of what mayors do on a day-to-day basis.'
Stoltz said she did check the Government data on school truancy rates and was proud of Gisborne, with attendance numbers around the mid-80% range ... 'taking into account that Covid, as well as two cyclones and seven extreme weather events in 2023, affected attendance and also access to some rural schools'.
'There is always room for improvement, and I will be there cheering our students and teachers on.'
Seymour told Local Democracy Reporting it was great that mayors like Stoltz recognised the country was facing an attendance crisis and were addressing it.
'I hope that more mayors follow her lead.'
Seymour said his letter to mayors didn't ask them to spend money, hire more bureaucrats or make more rules.
'All it asked was for community leaders to play a positive role, encouraging young people to get to school.
'Because ultimately it is an issue we're all going to have to tackle together.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
PSA Welcomes Mayoral Candidate's Commitment To Pay Equity
Press Release – PSA The union representing library workers at Wellington City Council welcomes mayoral candidate Andrew Little's commitment to pay equity, and encourages all local body candidates to make the same commitment. 'This is just the latest example of people across the political spectrum recognising the Government's vandalism of the Equal Pay Act as an unjust attack on women,' said Fleur Fitzsimons, National Secretary of the Public Service Association Te Pūkenga Here Tikanga Mahi. 'We call on the Council to fix the undervaluation it knows is there, and deliver pay equity to these workers.' 'Local body candidates around the country have the chance to do the right thing and recognise the true value library workers bring to their communities.' 'But this is no substitution for legislation that guarantees pay equity in full, with provisions for maintaining it. We will keep fighting to reverse the Government's changes.' The PSA lodged the library workers' pay equity claim with Auckland, Tauranga, Hamilton, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin councils in 2019. Since then, the PSA worked with the councils in good faith to reach a settlement. Library workers were one of the pay equity claims that was close to being settled before being cancelled by last month's amendments to the Equal Pay Act.
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
The Regulatory Standards Bill: What Is It, What Does It Propose And What's Next?
Explainer - A new bill would make big changes to how legislation is drafted in New Zealand, but has also drawn considerable criticism as it works its way through Parliament. The Regulatory Standards Bill presented by ACT Party leader David Seymour is complex, but the heart of the matter is about how the rules and regulations that we all live by are put together, and whether that can or should be done better. It's now out for public comment through submissions to the select committee, due by 23 June. The bill has been called everything from a libertarian power grab to a common-sense solution to cutting red tape. But what's it all about, really? RNZ is here to tell you what you need to know. What is the bill? The bill proposes a set of regulatory principles that lawmakers, agencies and ministries would have to consider in regulation design. Those principles cover the rule of law, personal liberties, taking of property, taxes, fees and levies and the role of courts. Makers of legislation would be required to assess proposed and existing legislation against those principles. The definitions in the legislation as drafted set out Seymour's ideal for what makes good law, but are contested. (See end of article for a complete summary of the principles.) Seymour called the principles "focused on the effect of legislation on existing interests and liberties," while Victoria University of Wellington law professor Dean Knight said they are "strongly libertarian in character". The bill would set up a Regulatory Standards Board to consider how legislation measures up to the principles. Members of the board would be appointed by the Minister for Regulation, currently Seymour. In putting the bill forward, Seymour said: "In a high-cost economy, regulation isn't neutral - it's a tax on growth. This government is committed to clearing the path of needless regulations by improving how laws are made." The bill wants politicians to show their workings, he said. "This bill turns the explanation from politicians' 'because we said so' into 'because here is the justification according to a set of principles'." The bill was part of the coalition agreements National, ACT and New Zealand First agreed to in 2023 which included a pledge to improve the quality of regulation and pass a "Regulatory Standards Act as soon as practicable" (page 4). The bill passed its first reading in Parliament on 23 May. It is now before the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee and open for public feedback. You can read the complete text of the bill right here: . The government's departmental disclosure statement also gives further information regarding the scrutiny of the bill. Okay, but what is regulation, anyway? The Ministry of Regulation, which was formed just last year with Seymour named as the minister in charge, says that"regulation is all around us in our daily lives". "It's in the workplace, the sports field, the home, the shopping mall - in our cities and the great outdoors. Regulation protects our rights and safety, our property and the environment." But what does that actually mean? "Fundamentally, it's a law, something that tells you you have to do something or something that tells you you can't do something," said constitutional law expert Graeme Edgeler. Aren't there already legislative guidelines for Parliament? Yes, such as the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee (LDAC), which produce legislative guidelines and advises on legislative design. "There already are a range of 'best practice' lawmaking guides and practices within government, such as the LDAC's 'Legislation Guidelines', Regulatory Impact Statements, and departmental disclosure statements under the Legislation Act," University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said. Seymour has said the bill is about adding transparency, not enforcement. In an FAQ on the bill, the Ministry for Regulation says the bill "does not require new legislation to be consistent with the principles". "It requires that legislation is assessed for any inconsistency with the principles, and that this assessment is made available to the public. Agencies and ministers are required to be transparent about any identified inconsistencies, but this would not stop new legislation from progressing." Geddis said while the bill was intended to operate in the executive branch of government only, it may have implications for the courts. "Once the particular standards of 'good lawmaking' included in the RSB are written into our law by Parliament, the courts cannot but take notice of that fact," he said. "And so, these standards may become relevant to how the courts interpret and apply legislation, or how they review the way the executive government makes regulatory decisions." Haven't ACT tried to pass something like this bill before? That's right - similar legislation has been introduced to the House three times, and failed to become law three times. Previous tries saw the 2006 Regulatory Responsibility Bill Member's Bill by former ACT leader Rodney Hide; the Regulatory Standards Bill in 2011 also introduced by Hyde and produced by the Regulatory Responsibility Taskforce; and a 2021 Member's Bill by Seymour. Unlike previous versions of the bill, the 2025 iteration adds a regulatory standards board to consider issues, removing courts from the equation "in relation to a recourse mechanism for legislation inconsistent with the principles". The bill has been somewhat softened in this incarnation, Edgeler said. "This is the weakest form of the regulatory standards proposal that there has been." He also noted that future governments could repeal or amend the bill as well. And as the Ministry for Regulation says, "any recommendations made by the Regulatory Standards Board would be non-binding". "It won't stop any future government doing something it actually wants to do," Edgeler said. So what are some of the concerns about the bill? The bill has drawn considerable feedback, with earlier public submissions strongly negative. After the discussion document was launched on the bill in November, the Ministry of Regulation received about 23,000 submissions. Of those, 88 percent opposed the bill, 0.33 percent - or 76 submissions - supported or partially supported it, and about 12 percent did not have a clear position, the ministry reported. Seymour has since dismissed the negative submissions and alleged some of them were made by 'bots'. Among the top concerns the ministry's analysis of the feedback found were that the bill would "attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist"; "result in duplication and increase complexity in lawmaking" and "undermine future Parliaments and democracy". Bill opponent University of Auckland Emeritus Professor Jane Kelsey has said the bill is too in line with minority party ACT's ideology and will "bind governments forever to the neoliberal logic of economic freedom". Other government agencies have also weighed in. In a report on the bill after launching an urgent inquiry, the Waitangi Tribunal found that "if the Regulatory Standards Act were enacted without meaningful consultation with Māori, it would constitute a breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, specifically the principles of partnership and active protection". It called for an immediate halt to the bill's advancement to allow more engagement with Māori. In a submission received by Newsroom under the Official Information Act, the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee said it had "misgivings about the capacity of this bill to offer improvement" and it might have "significant unintended consequences". In terms of the financial impact, a regulatory impact statement by the Ministry for Regulation estimated the bill would cost a minimum of $18 million a year across the public service under the minister's preferred approach. Seymour said the cost of policy work across the government was $870m a year, and the bill was about 2 percent of that. And in an interim regulatory impact statement, the Ministry of Regulation itself expressed some ambivalence about the bill. The ministry said its preferred approach was to "build on the disclosure statement regime ... and create new legislative provisions". It said it supported the overall objectives of the bill but "that an enhanced disclosure statement regime with enhanced obligations, will achieve many of the same benefits" and also impose fewer costs. Does it remove the Treaty of Waitangi from governance? It does not say that, but the bill's silence on Māori representation in government has troubled opponents. "On the consultation point, Māori clearly weren't adequately engaged with before the RSB was created and introduced into the House," Geddis said. "The Waitangi Tribunal's report on the RSB is unequivocal on this issue." Geddis said in contrast, that LDAC guidelines contain an entire chapter of guidance on how Te Tiriti should be considered. "That very silence creates uncertainty as to how the principles in the RSB are meant to interact with these principles of the Treaty." Under principles of responsible legislation outlined at the start the bill, there is a statement that "every person is equal before the law," which some have said dismisses Māori concerns. Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer at the bill's first reading last month attacked the bill. "If you look through the whole 37 pages, which I encourage that you don't, the silence on the impact for Te Tiriti is on purpose. The bill promotes equal treatment before the law but it opens the door [for] government to attack every Māori equity initiative." Seymour has insisted Māori voices were heard through public consultation. "We had 144 Iwi-based groups who submitted... If that's not enough, then I don't know what is," he told RNZ's Guyon Espiner. What does the bill say about property rights? A section that has drawn attention says "legislation should not take or impair, or authorise the taking or impairment of, property without the consent of the owner unless there is a good justification for the taking or impairment; and fair compensation for the taking or impairment is provided to the owner; and the compensation is provided, to the extent practicable, by or on behalf of the persons who obtain the benefit of the taking or impairment". The question many opponents have raised is what "compensation" might mean and who might seek it. "Applied to the real world, this means that anything the government does that decreases corporate profits opens it up to possible legal action," bill opponent Ryan Ward wrote for E-Tangata. What do supporters say? Writing for the New Zealand Institute, Bryce Wilkinson said criticisms of the bill as "a 'dangerous ideological' drive towards limited government are arrant nonsense". "The bill itself is a mild transparency measure," Wilkinson has also written. "The Regulatory Standards Bill's modest aim is to make wilful lack of disclosure harder." "At the end of the day we are putting critical principles into lawmaking," Seymour told Newsroom. "We know bureaucrats don't like this law. For New Zealanders that's a good thing." So how can we have our say on it? Now is the time to do it. Public submissions to the Finance and Expenditure Committee will be accepted until 1pm Monday 23 June. Submissions are publicly released and will be published to the Parliament website. What happens after that? Does the bill look likely to pass? Here's what happens next. The select committee is due to report back on submissions by 22 November, although Seymour has asked that to be moved up to 23 September, Newsroom reported. After the select committee, the bill would proceed to a second reading, then a committee of the Whole House, and a final vote in the third reading, which would need support from more than half of Parliament to pass. If the bill passes, it would likely come into effect on 1 January 2026. While the Treaty Principles Bill, also championed by ACT, failed in Parliament in April and was voted down by every party but ACT, Edgeler said the path for this one was less shaky. "This one, of course, is more likely to pass because the promise in the coalition agreement is to pass it," Edgeler said. That agreement requires National to support the bill all the way through, which is different to the agreement's clause on the Treaty Principles Bill. By extension it also requires New Zealand First to support it all the way through because their agreement requires them to support the agreement with ACT. "Whether it passes in the exact form, who knows, whether New Zealand First continues its support or insists on changes which might drastically alter it, or even water it down further, is a different question." NZ First leader Winston Peters has described the bill as a "work in progress" and Geddis said: "It is possible that the changes NZ First want so alter the RSB's content that it ceases to deliver what ACT wants it to, creating a stand-off between the two coalition partners." Geddis agreed the coalition agreement makes it difficult for National to not support the bill. "Given that these agreements are treated as being something close to holy writ, and given how much political capital David Seymour is investing in this bill, it seems unlikely that National will feel able to withhold its support. That then leaves NZ First as being, in effect, the decider." One last question - what were those regulatory principles again? From the bill itself, in summary, the principles are: the importance of maintaining consistency with various aspects of the rule of law; and legislation should not unduly diminish a person's liberty, personal security, freedom of choice or action, or various property rights, except as is necessary to provide for, or protect, any such liberty, freedom, or right of another person; and legislation should not take or impair property without the owner's consent unless certain requirements are met. The requirements include that there is a good justification for the taking or impairment and fair compensation is provided to the owner; and the importance of maintaining consistency with section 22 of the Constitution Act 1986. Section 22 of that Act provides that it is not lawful for the Crown, except by or under an Act, to levy a tax, borrow money, or spend public money; and legislation should impose a fee for goods or services only if the amount of the fee bears a proper relation to the cost of providing the good or service; and legislation should impose a levy to fund an objective or a function only if the levy is reasonable in relation to: legislation should preserve the courts' constitutional role of ascertaining the meaning of legislation; and legislation should make rights and liberties, or obligations, dependent on administrative power only if the power is sufficiently defined and subject to appropriate review; and the importance of consulting, to the extent that is reasonably practicable, the persons that the responsible agency considers will be directly and materially affected by the legislation; and the importance of carefully evaluating various matters as part of a good law-making process. These include: who is likely to benefit and who is likely to suffer a detriment; and legislation should be expected to produce benefits that exceed the costs of the legislation to the public or persons; and legislation should be the most effective, efficient, and proportionate response to the issue concerned that is available.
Scoop
3 hours ago
- Scoop
Climate Legal Action Necessary Response To Govt Inaction
Press Release – NZCTU We strongly support legal action to ensure that the Government is held to account for its legal obligations under the Climate Change Response Act, said NZCTU President Richard Wagstaff. The New Zealand Council of Trade Unions Te Kauae Kaimahi welcomes the legal action taken against the Minister of Climate Change by a coalition of legal experts as an important step in ensuring that Aotearoa meets its climate action obligations. 'We strongly support legal action to ensure that the Government is held to account for its legal obligations under the Climate Change Response Act,' said NZCTU President Richard Wagstaff. 'The union movement is deeply concerned by the Emissions Reduction Plan 2026-2030, which contains no significant policies to reduce emissions and will fail to get New Zealand meaningfully closer to our 2050 net-zero commitment. 'The actions – or lack of them – by this Government on climate change are the actions of climate deniers, not responsible leaders. 'Workers and communities need real political leadership that combats global emissions and invests in creating a just transition for industries and workers. We need leadership that develops and upholds long term consensus, not more U-turns. 'Instead, we have a government that cancelled 35 climate policies without consulting the public first, as required by law. Robust public engagement is essential. 'Climate policy is yet another area where this Government is prioritising corporate interests over democratic accountability and the interests of working people. 'Evidence is clear that a near-total focus on tree planting through vast pine forests is not a sufficient response – we must reduce emissions at source. 'Alongside the weak emissions budget, in Budget 2025 we saw a total abdication of responsibility on climate change and ensuring a Just Transition for working people in an increasingly volatile world. 'The NZCTU supports bold climate action to reduce emissions, adapt to the changing climate, and transition to a zero emissions economy that provides full employment for workers,' said Wagstaff.
