Lawyers present evidence in Regulatory Standards bill hearing
te ao Maori 42 minutes ago
Claimants in an urgent Waitangi Tribunal hearing say the ACT Party's Regulatory Standards Bill is a more aggressive and stealthier version of the Treaty Principles Bill. Their lawyers presented evidence to the Tribunal on Wednesday in a tight, online-only, hearing that had to be pushed forward by 3 weeks. Maori news journalist Tuwhenuaroa Natanahira filed this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Mediawatch: Who calls the shots after change at the top?
The New Zealand Herald reports the news that its rival has gone into business with Trade Me. Photo: New Zealand Herald "NZME's D-Day is finally here" said a headline in the New Zealand Herald last Tuesday, before shareholders of its owner NZME settled a bitter battle over its governance. But in the end, there was no fighting on the beaches. The existing board and the activist shareholders who wanted to clear it out compromised late last month and endorsed an agreed slate of nominees. That included the Canadian billionaire who sparked the whole saga, James Grenon. He has lived here for 12 years but had such a low profile only two photos of him appeared in the many media stories about his bid for control. Grenon had not been heard in public here until last Tuesday's meeting, at which he told shareholders he was virtually "a ghost on Google". He has only been an NZME shareholder since February when he bought between 9 and 10 percent of the shares. He currently owns a 13 percent stake. Soon after he told the board he wanted to be the chair - and to act like "an owner-operator" and "delve into the operational details so as to be able to challenge management." This raised eyebrows, given he helped to set up alternative news sites critical of the Herald and other local news media. In mid-March, the main journalists' trade union E tū called on Grenon to guarantee he would not interfere in NZME editorial decisions. The Post reporting in NZME's chair speaking out against a bid to oust the current board of the company. Photo: Stuff / The Post NZME's board - on the defensive at that time - said it was also concerned that Grenon's takeover bid was an effort for "control over a newsroom, rather than anything else". More media eyebrows were raised when the Free Speech Union confirmed it encouraged billionaire Jim Grenon's investment in the NZME as part of a campaign to "retake our institutions - one board at a time." But Grenon insisted his main focus was NZME's financial performance and how it had been represented by the previous board. His belief that NZME's profitable property platform OneRoof could be a source of greater reward evidently resonated with other shareholders too. In the end, after some awkward questions to James Grenon on Tuesday, shareholders gave a green light to the governance plan. Grenon is now on the board led by former radio entrepreneur and government minister Steven Joyce. So peace in our time at NZME - at least, for now. But earlier in the day, shots were fired by NZME's main rival in news publishing. Stuff Group chief executive Sinead Boucher and TradeMe chief executive Anders Skoe. Photo: Supplied / TradeMe Hours before NZME's meeting, Stuff announced TradeMe would take a 50 percent stake in Stuff Digital, the online wing of the company that does not include the newspaper mastheads like The Press, The Post and their websites. It is an alliance observers expected after Stuff's sole owner Sinead Boucher split the company in two last year - and then divided her single share into one million in February. What's in this for Trade Me is pretty clear - more eyeballs for stuff that's for sale on its own online marketplace, especially houses. But what will it do for Stuff and its users? And what is the catch for Stuff? "We've been doing quite nicely on our own ... [but] it allows us to expand and do more and to keep growing," Sinead Boucher told Mediawatch. The money that changed hands in the deal - and the terms - were confidential, but "there is a capital injection there that we will use to do all sorts of things," Boucher said. "We're going to start with rebranding the Stuff Property section and to Trade Me Property and some added features in that. Trade Me has all the data and expertise and insights. We'll be following not too long after that with motoring. Let's see what comes after that." The 50-50 split of Stuff Digital will be run by a board of two members of the Stuff Group, and two from Trade Me including chief executive Anders Skoe. "I will be the chair and I have the casting vote on that board," Boucher said. But Trade Me is much bigger than Stuff. What if they want more bang for the undisclosed bucks they're now investing? "Those scenarios have come up and just been discussed in all we've gone through the last few months to make sure that both sides are perfectly comfortable." Would Trade Me allow Stuff to sell part of its stake to another party? Or seek or accept investment from another? "You're touching on what would be the confidential terms of the deal, so I can't really comment on that in any detail," Boucher said. During the NZME boardroom battle, it also emerged that NZME had approached Stuff about acquiring its mastheads. When asked at the shareholders' meeting on Tuesday, NZME chief executive Michael Boggs said he was still interested in acquiring Stuff's mastheads. "He has my number, but I've got my own things going on at the moment. I'm not intending to do anything with that business at this stage," Boucher said. What NZME's new leaders decide to do will also move the media industry - and public life. It owns the Herald and other weekly, daily and community papers, and the Herald's news website and app have a huge national audience and more than 150,000 subscribers. NZME also has half the country's radio networks, including the country's top-rating talk radio station Newstalk ZB. On top of all that - and maybe worth more on its own - is NZME's OneRoof, which posted a 50 percent leap in revenue last year. The outgoing board was already looking at splitting it off with separate governance and management, or even selling it. Property content platforms can be goldmines for media companies. Stuff's former Australian owner Fairfax Media created Domain to cater for the A$7 billion a year real estate market. It's just been sold for A$2.8b to US property firm Costar by current owner Nine Entertainment - the same company that offloaded Stuff to Boucher for one symbolic dollar five years ago. NZME will be anxious about Stuff's Trade Me property joint venture eating OneRoof's lunch. "We are now dealing with an integrated media enemy," one of the shareholders said at the NZME meeting last Tuesday. For years, Stuff has looked for ways to bring in money - broadband, electricity and even noodle night markets. When Warner Brothers Discovery closed Newshub last year, Stuff struck a multi-million dollar deal to produce ThreeNews. Is property content now the future for funding news? "It reflects the position it holds in people's lives and how important all things about property - buying, selling, saving, mortgage rates - all of those things perform well on our site," Boucher said. "With Trade Me being number one in that area I think we will end up producing a more useful, more relevant product for our audiences." "Before bringing someone in or selling part of part of the business ... you have to be on the same page around the sanctity of editorial independence," Boucher said. "The business continues to run operationally independently, and Trade Me is very happily in support of our editorial independence. They will have absolutely no say on the content that goes on the site." "I fielded one call from someone who wanted to buy one of our local papers. They wanted to change the mayor of the town. Some wanted to buy a whole media company for the power of influence on the public agenda." Concerns that the new board at NZME will seek to change editorial practice have been a sticking point ever since Grenon raised them in his initial bid to be chair. Grenon's final written notes for shareholders to ponder included the claim that AI could be deployed to track political bias in NZ Herald journalism. "Things were drifting downhill from my perspective ... particularly in the editorial front," Grenon said Tuesday's meeting. "I thought, well, maybe I can sort of jump-start something here. And I'm very, very delighted with the way it seems to have worked out." Another shareholder (also coincidentally from Canada) urged Grenon to "inject more balance" on climate change to NZME journalism. "Ultimately, there's very few businesses that you really can try to look over the shoulders of your staff as they're performing the business. I don't know that writing is a heck of a lot different than that," Grenon replied. "But you can have general guidelines, and you can also score after the fact and see how you're doing at meeting these guidelines. If they aren't meeting the guidelines, you can sort of nudge them in the right directions." "Maybe I would like to see more clear score-keeping than has been going on, although perhaps my eyes will be opened when I get on the inside," he added. An editorial advisory board will be established by the new regime. One of the members will be lawyer Philip Crump, who previously blogged and broke the odd story under the pseudonym Thomas Cranmer - an archbishop of Canterbury executed for heresy. It is not Crump's first gig at NZME. In mid-2023, he was appointed as editor of ZB Plus, billed as "a go-to platform for news and commentary" for paying subscribers. ZB Plus was off the ZB site months later - but his is the only media company experience among James Grenon's candidates. "Having worked in the same newsroom as Philip Crump, we do not believe he has the experience, ability, or mana to take on what would be an influential role," E tū's union representative Isaac Davison - also a senior Herald reporter - said in a letter to Grenon in mid-April. Philip Crump has claimed journalists should welcome many of their new ideas for NZME, such as restoring the NZ Herald's editor to NZME's executive leadership team. On his Substack, he published Six Challenges Undermining Media Trust "Addressing these issues requires not just critique but actionable reform," he wrote, but he has declined to be interviewed for Mediawatch about this until later this month. Former Herald editor Gavin Ellis reckoned the new chair Steven Joyce would be aware of the danger of editorial overreach. "The board has an important role, but the board also shouldn't be making individual decisions about individual items ... in the general course of events anyway," Steven Joyce said on Tuesday. "(Editorial advisory boards) are quite common internationally. It's an opportunity to debate and support the development of editorial policy. In every business, we can get very, very busy day to day - and journalism is one of those businesses - so it's that opportunity to test that thinking independently." "I can assure you that the board's view will be ... to try and enhance and strengthen the editorial offering of NZME - and not do anything else." Media Minister Paul Goldsmith appointed Philip Crump to the NZ On Air board recently. This week the minister told Newsroom he would take advice managing the conflict of interest arising from oversight of public funding for journalism. When Newsroom asked the minister if Crump could recuse himself from funding decisions he replied: "Anything related directly to journalism would be an obvious place to start." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
3 hours ago
- RNZ News
The House: A sentencing hearing in Parliament
Rawiri Waititi speaks in the debate on the Privileges Committee's majority recommendation of parliamentary suspensions for three Te Pāti Māori MPs. The noose is a reference to a tupuna who was hanged in Mount Eden Prison. Photo: VNP / Louis Collins The fate of the three Te Pāti Māori MPs who performed a haka during the vote on the first reading of the Principles of Treaty of Waitangi Bill last November was decided on Thursday , following a long, and at times intense debate. The Privileges hearing outcome was something the Government clearly wanted finished, and it ended the week. Leader of the House Chris Bishop, kicked off Thursday's debate by asking the House to bring down the curtain on an issue that has lingered in Parliament for seven months. The debate boiled down to whether the recommended punishments - all unprecedented - were fair, or even wise. Before the debate paused a fortnight ago, the positions of the two largest parties ( National and Labour ) had been outlined. The Privileges Committee Chair, Judith Collins had stood by the recommended punishments, while Chris Hipkins moved an amendment to reduce them to more historically usual levels. Some of the speeches stepped beyond a simple defence or opposition. Some were personal, some philosophical, some emotional. A few moments are noted below. Labour's Duncan Webb, who is Deputy Chair of the Privileges Committee, is a former jurist and went for the dissect-the-facts approach. It felt like a trial defence summary. "It's well known that those three members chose not to attend the Privileges Committee or provide any explanation. They weren't required to attend the committee. They were not called to attend and therefore did not have to. Whilst they can't claim credit for cooperation - nor can they say they were denied an opportunity to explain - neither can they be punished. "It appears that some members of the committee may feel affronted that the members didn't come to the committee when they were invited. They may even consider that the members were defiant in not attending. "However, they were not required to attend. This is no justification for the imposition of a punishment that is disproportionate and arbitrary." Te Tai Tonga MP Tākuta Ferris took Te Pāti Māori's first call, and took a constitutional approach, questioning the underpinnings of the institution making the judgement. "This debate is not about a haka. It is not about a suspension. It's not about the interruption of a vote. "It is, at its heart, about the fact that this House continues to ignore Te Tiriti o Waitangi, that this House continues to ignore Māori sovereignty, and that this House continues to ignore all of the constitutional rights that flow forth from those two things. "The fact of the matter is simple: without Māori sovereignty, there is no Te Tiriti o Waitangi. "Without Te Tiriti o Waitangi, there is no constitutional right for the presence of the Crown in this part of the world. "Without the constitutional right, there is no Parliament." New Zealand First Leader Winston Peters is a harsh critic of Te Pāti Māori. There was a sense that the pot was boiling over as Peters, himself a member of the Privileges Committee, launched into Te Pāti Māori MPs. "No ordinary Māori, Māori, or non-Māori should accept the behaviour or the intent of this party of absolute extremists, screaming out that everybody else in the Parliament is here only by their behest. "Have a look in the mirror. Mr Ferris, look in the mirror. What is the majority of your DNA? What's the majority of your DNA? Well, if you're disgraced by your European DNA, we over here are not. We are proud of all sides of our background because we are New Zealanders first and foremost. As for blood quantum, if the cowboy hat wearer is an example of blood quantum, I'm going to a new biology class." Winston Peters speaks in the debate on the Privileges Committee's majority recommendation of parliamentary suspensions for three Te Pāti Māori MPs. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Labour's Willie Jackson also focused his speech on Te Pāti Māori, playing what could be called the role of 'good cop' and encouraging them to compromise. "You know I love you, but a little bit of compromise could help the situation... I know it's hard to apologise, but I want to say to you Te Pāti Māori that not every single Māori in the country supports you and they don't support some of the strategy. "They love you, I love you, but some of the stuff is not going down well. "This is the centre and a celebration of the Westminster system, and I think our challenge - as, I think, you know - is that we have to imbue some of our Māori culture into the system. "We have to get a partnership going, and I don't think the kōrero so far is going to help with the partnership. You know, we have to get the House to embrace some of our values." Willie Jackson speaks in the debate on the Privileges Committee's majority recommendation of parliamentary suspensions for three Te Pāti Māori MPs. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Former Speaker Adrian Rurawhe is also from Labour's Māori caucus. His speech was a change of pace and had a touch of elder statesman. He began by speaking of a new precedent set - a government majority within the privileges committee punishing the opposition. Raiwiri Waititi and Adrian Rurawhe chat during the debate on the Privileges Committee's majority recommendation of parliamentary suspensions for three Te Pāti Māori MPs. Photo: VNP / Louis Collins "There are no winners in this debate. Each party in this House might think they're winning by talking to the people that support them, but there are no winners in this debate - none - especially not this House. "The Privileges Committee of the future will have a new precedent, without a doubt - a new range of penalties against members who err in the future. You can guarantee that. "You can also guarantee that Governments of the day, in the future, will feel very free to use those penalties to punish their opponents. "This is what we are doing in the House today." The House also heard from the ACT party, who the Te Pāti Māori performed the haka in front of. One of the key points of contention was whether the ACT MPs were victims of intimidation. All three ACT MPs who spoke certainly thought so, with Karen Chhour, who compared the debate to an HR meeting. "I've listened to the speeches across this House, and the hate and the anger that's been chucked from both sides of this House, and it actually really saddens me - it really saddens me. Somebody can say that I don't have the right to stand here and speak, but that's what this place is about. "Four and a half years ago, when I had the privilege of being elected into this place, I felt that burden of what was expected of me when I came to this place, to represent the people that I wanted to come here to make a better life for." "This is what the Privileges Committee is there for - sort of like our HR, where we sit down and we discuss what the issue was and, hopefully, can come to a medium ground where there is a little bit of contrition shown from those who have had the accusations brought to them, and then a simple apology could be enough." Demanding an apology for behaviour found to be intimidating is actually one of the most common punishments recommended by the committee. The Committee's report noted that the MPs not meeting the Committee had no bearing on their decision. As in most courtrooms, where the accused have the chance to represent themselves. All three Te Pāti Māori MPs in question spoke during the debate. Rawiri Waititi used his speech to not only defend his and his colleague's position but as a rallying cry. Rawiri Waititi speaks in the debate on the Privileges Committee's majority recommendation of parliamentary suspensions for three Te Pāti Māori MPs. Photo: VNP / Louis Collins "Turn our rage into power and make this a one-term Government. Enrol! Vote! If you hear the haka outside these walls, add your voice. If you see injustice trending online, amplify the truth. "If you feel fear, remember fear is the coloniser's last currency. Spend it into worthlessness by standing up. You can bench my body from this house for 21 days, but you will never bench our movement." The Greens' Steve Abel, who was the last to speak, also picked up on the courthouse feel to it all, but not just any courthouse. "We're not supposed to critique the courts, but I guess this is a court of our Parliament. The Privileges Committee represents the Parliament. We have two of the most senior members of this Parliament on that Privileges Committee, the then Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters, and the Attorney-General, Judith Collins. "Two of the most senior members, both lawyers, have egregiously punished one of the newest members of this Parliament. "What is the message that that sends to young people watching about the justice of this House, to newcomers to the House? "What is the message that it sends about a young Māori woman who has come and spoken with such certainty of the people she represents? "I think it sends a very bad message and I believe it renders the character of the Privileges Committee under that leadership as something of a kangaroo court." After three hours of debate, the House finally came to vote. All amendments put forward by the Opposition were voted down, and the original motion supporting the punishment recommended by the Privileges Committee was agreed upon, thereby kicking off the suspension period for the three Te Pāti Māori MPs, who also lost their salary and their votes in the House whilst suspended. - 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. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Scoop
14 hours ago
- Scoop
Te Pāti Māori Co-Leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer On The Longest Suspension In Parliament
She says the Privileges Committee process is not equipped to deal with the haka issue. Saturday Morning This week, 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. Ngarewa-Packer told Saturday Morning that the 21-day suspension, which was seven times harsher than any previous sanction an MP has faced, was not proportionate. 'I think the backlash from the public, nationally and internationally, validates that,' she said. Previously, the longest suspension for an MP had been three days, given to the former prime minister Robert Muldoon for criticising the speaker in the 1980s. While New Zealand First leader Winston Peters said the duration of the suspension would have been lessened if the Te Pāti Māori MPs had apologised, Ngarewa-Packer said that was never requested by the Privileges Committee. 'What we have here is a situation where, and some are calling it Trumpism, we've been a lot more specific – we have an Atlas agenda that has not only crept in, it's stormed in on the shores of Aotearoa and some may not understand what that means, but this is just the extension of the attack on the treaty, on the attack on Indigenous voices. 'We made the point the whole way through when we started to see that they weren't going to be able to meet us halfway on anything, even a quarter of the way, on any of the requests for tikanga experts, for legal experts when we knew the bias of the committee.' Ngarewa-Packer added that the Privileges Committee process was not equipped to deal with the issue. 'We hit a nerve and we can call it a colonial nerve, we can call it institutional nerve… 'I think that this will be looked back on at some stage and say how ridiculous we looked back in 2025.' Ngarewa-Packer also added that the language from Peters during the debate on Thursday was 'all very deliberate' – 'and that's what we're contending with in Aotearoa'. 'Everyone should have a view but don't use the might of legislation and the power to be able to assert your racism and assert your anti-Māori, anti-Treaty agenda.' Peters had taken aim at Waititi on Thursday as 'the one in the cowboy hat' and 'scribbles on his face' in reference to his mataora moko. He said countless haka have taken place in Parliament but only after first consulting the Speaker. 'They told the media they were going to do it, but they didn't tell the Speaker did they?' Peters added that Te Pāti Māori were 'a bunch of extremists' and that 'New Zealand has had enough of them'. 'They don't want democracy, they want anarchy,' he said. 'They don't want one country, they don't want one law, they don't want one people.'
