Minister back at desk
Wellington, July 7: The Hon W. Downie Stewart was in his office again this morning and he also attended the sitting of the House of Representatives.
Hats off in the House
He was wheeled into the Chamber and remained sitting in his chair beside the Prime Minister. The Leader of the Opposition took the opportunity of welcoming Mr Stewart back to his seat in Parliament and expressed the hope that the apparent improvement in the state of his health would soon be followed by complete restoration. In reply, Mr Stewart expressed himself as being very grateful for the remarks made by Mr Wilford on behalf of the members of the House.
A member of Parliament can wear his hat in any part of the Parliament buildings, even in the Chamber itself, and when a member is addressing the House, but the constituent, who puts him there, once he enters the sacred portals, is met with a peremptory order to take his hat off. The democratic New Zealander, unused to this for many years until the old custom was revived last session by Mr Speaker, has in several instances resented the new order. He seems to think that "Jack is as good as his master" and perhaps a bit better, but he makes a mistake, for is not Parliament the highest court in the land? This session the order of "Hats off" in the precincts has been stiffened up, and for the past few days a messenger has been stationed opposite the door of Mr Speaker's private apartments and another at the end of the long passage on the ground floor. These messengers politely but firmly insist that every man passing must remove his hat. The matter was brought up in the House this afternoon as a question of privilege by Mr P. Fraser, the member for Wellington Central, who said that this year, as last year, visitors who came to Parliament House to see members were sometimes in a peremptory fashion ordered to remove their hats. Sometimes when constituents were speaking to a member, they were approached by a messenger and told to take their hats off. He understood that members of the Press Gallery were subjected to the same sort of treatment. They had to pass to-and-fro from the gallery into the cold corridors. He (Mr Fraser) would prefer to see this rule abrogated and that they should revert again to the procedure that had been in operation formerly. There was, so far as he could see. no justification for the rule, and he thought it should he laid aside. The Prime Minister said the matter was one that was entirely in the hands of Mr Speaker, and he was perfectly satisfied to leave it to him to decide what was required.
Citizenship and cleanliness
A meeting of the Women's Citizens' Association was held last evening in the YWCA Rooms, Miss M.I. Fraser occupying the chair, and there being 15 other ladies present. There was some discussion with regard to rubbish lying about various parts of the town and as to the desirability for greater cleanliness being observed, it being decided that the attention of the City Council be directed to the matter, and that body be urged to see that the regulations were strictly enforced. Miss Fraser gave a brief address on "Citizenship" during which she said that the fall of the Roman Empire had failed because the Roman people had forgotten to be citizens in the real acceptation of the term. True citizenship was putting a lower loyalty aside and giving place to a higher loyalty.
— ODT, 8.7.1925 (Compiled by Peter Dowden)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
6 hours ago
- NZ Herald
A response to sincerely-held concerns about the Regulatory Standards Bill
It appears that most of those opposing the Bill emphasise its failure to include Treaty of Waitangi principles. For them, this omission represents a fundamental threat to Māori wellbeing and New Zealand's constitutional framework. Some fear it will undermine decades of progress. These fears reflect what people have been told, and genuinely believe. Distrust of the bill's intentions is significant. The most ideological submitters think the bill is driven by an unacceptable 'neo-liberal', libertarian ideology. Many more think it prioritises individual property rights over collective wellbeing. The bill's premise is the opposite: that the collective rules all. Parliament represents the collective voice of the nation. Its laws are those of the collective. It is sovereign lawmaker. Nothing in the bill changes that. Instead, the bill makes the Government of the day more transparent and accountable to Parliament when asking Parliament to pass a regulatory measure. Specifically, the bill requires the Government to inform Parliament about departures from key fundamental legal principles, and to provide a reason. Parliament is free to ignore that information. It would be as free as now to implement strong environmental protections, extensive public health measures, or policies specifically to advance Māori interests. The Bill draws on ten legal principles from the Government's own Legislation Guidelines. Photo / Mark Mitchell That is the key point. It is why the bill is merely a transparency measure. A related, sincerely held view is that the bill's selected principles are ideologically biased. They screw the scrum in favour of individual rights. Yet the state's first duty is to protect citizens in their persons and possessions. National defence, the police and the courts are fundamental state responsibilities. At their most basic, constitutional arrangements need to protect citizens, as groups and as individuals, from the unprincipled abuse of the state's power. Chapter 4 of the 2021 edition of the Government's Legislation Guidelines distils 10 default principles from 'the fundamental constitutional principles and values of New Zealand law'. The 10 default principles include preserving the rule of law, a presumption in favour of liberty, and respect for property rights. That is not extreme, it is basic. The six broad principles in the Bill draw heavily from the most relevant of those default principles. This is not accidental. The 2009 Regulatory Responsibility Taskforce drew them from earlier editions of the same publication. (Space does not permit going into differences here.) Why not include a reference to Treaty principles? The open question is 'precisely what difference would this make'? Specific examples would be helpful. For some years now Cabinet has required officials to identify departures from these 10 default principles. Ministers must give reasons for such departures. This is to be done before a measure is put to Cabinet or to a Cabinet Committee. The same requirement applies to another 138 default principles from the other 22 chapters in the guidelines. The problem here is that Cabinet can ignore its own requirements when it wishes to do so. Hence the concerns about measures pushed through Parliament under urgency. The bill aims to make it harder for governments to ignore such requirements, at least in respect of the most fundamental common law principles. Another widely expressed concern is that complying with the bill's assessment requirements will cost many millions of dollars in public sector time. First, that would be worth it if enhanced parliamentary scrutiny could help prevent regulation disasters, such as the housing affordability disaster. Second, it is hard to see any additional costs from the scrutiny the bill proposes – if officials and ministers are complying with the myriad of existing requirements. With respect to the review of existing laws and regulations, there will be additional costs. But the scope for using rapidly-improving AI to greatly reduce those costs has not been factored into current estimates. Nor does the Regulatory Standards Board have 'sweeping powers'. It is pretty toothless. It declares a finding but cannot force anyone to pay it any attention. Its function is to increase transparency. Finally, some common ground. Experts widely agree that regulatory quality in New Zealand is a concern. The challenge now is to move beyond misunderstandings toward a more constructive, better-informed and less ideological discussion about how more transparent and principled lawmaking can better serve New Zealanders.
Newsroom
15 hours ago
- Newsroom
Anne Salmond: A flawed bill
Comment: As many commentators have noted, the Regulatory Standards Bill is based on a libertarian ideology. According to the Oxford Dictionary, an ideology is a framework for understanding the world. In this case, it's all about individuals – their rights and freedoms. The Regulatory Standards Bill sets out its fundamental precepts in the form of 'principles of responsible regulation'. These prescribe that good legislation should not unduly diminish individual liberty, security, freedom of choice or property rights, except where this is necessary to protect the liberty, freedom or rights of another. In this view of the world, there are persons with rights and property, whose liberty must be protected unless it impinges on those of another person. Here, human life is about individuals pursuing their rights and freedoms, without undue interference from others. There are three key problems with this framing. First, it is partial, and mistaken; second, it's non-adaptive; and third, it does not meet its own standards. Basing all lawmaking in New Zealand on so faulty a framework is bound to lead to trouble. To address the first point: the Regulatory Standards Bill emphasises individuals and their rights and freedoms at the expense of collective rights and values. This demonstrates a radical misunderstanding of human life. Though individuals are important, human beings are incorrigibly social animals. Partly, this is a matter of biology. Babies have a mother and father (or at least, they did until technology intervened); and when they're born, they have a long period of vulnerability during which they have to be cared for and taught various skills if they are to survive. Kinship, with families and kin groups, meets this need. With the emergence of language, human beings coordinated their activities in increasingly complex ways, building settlements for shelter and security, sharing experience and knowledge in fishing, hunting, gardening, trading and developing new technologies. The ability to co-operate is a key adaptive advantage of the human species. Pleasure came from other social activities – singing, art to share with others, games, sports and so on. Knowledge was passed on down the generations. As the size of human settlements grew, ways of regulating social life became more elaborate – laws, courts, the police and Parliament itself, for instance. The whole process of making laws – including the Regulatory Standards Bill – is a social activity. Nor is it just about relations with other people. The relational networks between human beings and other life forms and the wider environment are also far-reaching and vital to human survival. Whakapapa, for instance, along with western relational philosophies, is grounded on these realities. It is not just Te Tiriti that's at risk in this bill, but te ao māori itself, with its whakapapa framings that include all forms of life, and its kin-based hapū and marae. None of this is recognised in the Regulatory Standards Bill, bar a hollowed out account of 'the rule of law'. Though individuals matter in human life, relational frameworks are vital to survival, at different scales and with other life forms, landscapes and seascapes, as well as with other people. Any framing of the world that does not recognise these basic facts is partial, and mistaken. To address the second point, a framework that ignores the foundational importance of collective institutions, property and values in human life is non-adaptive. If people are taught to prize their individual freedom and property above all – for instance, the cost-benefit calculating individual of neoliberal economics – the bonds that bind families, communities and societies begin to fray. If the collective rights and values that underpin the social contract, including justice, truth, fairness and respect for others, are undermined, injustice, misinformation and disrespect are likely to follow – as we have seen in the tactics used to promote this bill. If economic models based on the pursuit of self-interest are privileged in law making, ideas of public service begin to fade. Families and voluntary organisations falter; and institutions created to care for others – early childhood centres, schools, hospitals, retirement villages and the like – become dedicated to the pursuit of profit. At the same time, knowledge about relationships with other people and the wider world is set aside. It is no accident that the coalition Government that agreed to pass the Regulatory Standards Bill has withdrawn funding for basic research in the humanities and the social sciences. Policy-making becomes based on ministerial 'reckons' rather than evidence. The disciplines of law, public policy, political studies, public health and nursing, philosophy, the arts and literature, history, urban design, environmental studies, architecture, human geography, sociology and anthropology are defunded, as if understanding human life does not matter. And if relationships with other life forms and the environment are ignored, these also become dysfunctional, with the mass extinctions of other life forms, polluted lakes and rivers, ravaged landscapes, melting glaciers, heating oceans and climate change. None of this contributes to social cohesion or prosperity. A bill that fails to recognise the key challenges facing the human species, and frustrates the strategic deployment of different forms of social co-operation in the public interest is dangerous and non-adaptive. Since the neoliberal revolution of the 1980s, New Zealand has already gone a long way down this track. If we want a peaceful and productive society, a bill that tips the balance even further towards the privatisation of social life and the living world around us is unlikely to prove constructive. On the third, and final, point, the bill fails to meet its own standards. Although the Regulatory Standards Bill requires that individual freedom and choice are given priority in law-making, there are many aspects of compulsion and top-down control in the provisions of this bill. These include the roles of the minister of regulation and his hand-picked board, and the requirement to review all laws and regulations, past and present, against a particular ideological framing. Ultimately, as Peter Thiel has written, a libertarian version of 'freedom' and democracy are incompatible. Taken to the extreme, the unfettered pursuit of freedom by individuals undermines democracy and the rule of law, and the rights of others. Some may want to take New Zealand in this direction. Judging from public reactions to the Regulatory Standards Bill, however, many New Zealanders have grasped where this bill would take law-making in this country, and do not want a bar of it. Of the citizens who voted in the last election, only 8.6 percent of New Zealanders voted for Act, with its Regulatory Standards Bill. Of 23,000 submitters on the bill at the consultation phase, only .33 percent supported it. Of a reported 150,000 submissions to the select committee, a large majority oppose it. This bill lacks even a fig-leaf of popular consent. If it is forced on the country, that flies in the face of the first principle in this bill – that no government should pass legislation that unduly restricts the freedom of choice of individuals. This bill speaks of freedom, but practices ideological imposition. It is self-contradictory, unbalanced and non-adaptive. This subcommittee should do their Parliamentary duty, listen to the people, and discard it.
Otago Daily Times
a day ago
- Otago Daily Times
Action taken on farm conversions
Good news for Gore with the government ending the large-scale conversion of productive farmland into carbon-only forestry. Pre-election I was National's forestry spokesman, and in response to local and national concerns I helped shape the policy we took to the election to restrict good farming land being converted into carbon forestry, while noting the continuing importance of production forestry to our economy. National was the only party to take this policy to the election and we have delivered on it. The first reading in Parliament attracted unanimous support from all political parties. Importantly this legislation will be backdated to the Prime Minister's announcement at Waimumu on December 4, 2024. Last week, I was pleased to see so many from the Gore community come to hear Associate Health Minister with responsibility for rural health and Minister for Mental Health Matt Doocey, in town for the rural health roadshow. This was an opportunity to hear feedback from the community and those working in rural health about what's going well and where barriers may be. It builds on initiatives already under way to improve rural healthcare services. The government is investing $164 million over four years to strengthen urgent and after-hours care nationwide, meaning 98% of Kiwis will be able to access these services within one hour's drive of their home. We are improving access to mental health support, recently announcing $3m over four years to help improve rural communities' access to primary mental health and specialised services. The government is also doubling its investment in the Rural Wellbeing Fund over the next four years. For GPs, the government has confirmed the largest funding boost for general practice in our country's history — $175m this year alone — part of a $1.37 billion package focused on delivering timely care closer to home. This includes a funding increase for GP clinics to help them see more patients and ease wait times and provides support for low-income families and under-14s. It was also great to be down the road in Invercargill last weekend for the Season 57 FMG Young Farmer of the Year Grand Final. What a fantastic celebration of our rural community and congratulations to everyone who took part and helped make it happen. Well done to Otago Southland Regional Young Farmers for a very well-run event, and to Balfour Young Farmers for winning club of the year. You did our region proud.
