logo
Regulatory Standards Bill hearing, day one: Former PM says ‘no chance' of bill working

Regulatory Standards Bill hearing, day one: Former PM says ‘no chance' of bill working

The Spinoff5 days ago
The bill dubbed the sibling to the controversial Treaty principles bill gets a whole week in parliament to have submissions heard.
Read our explainer on the Regulatory Standards Bill here and our reporting on the urgent Waitangi Tribunal hearing on the bill here.
A new day, a new controversial piece of legislation under scrutiny. After attracting a reported 150,000 public submissions, the Regulatory Standards Bill is having its week in the select committee, with all-day hearings from Monday to Thursday knocking out 30 hours' worth of oral submissions. Whatever the finance and expenditure committee hears could influence changes to the bill, but the passing of it is already a promise made in the National-Act coalition agreement.
The inside of select committee room four was a ghost town on Monday morning, with all MPs on the committee's panel opting to join the hearing via Zoom, and most submitters doing the same. Lawyer Ani Mikaere was one of the first speakers of the day, and had some choice words about the bill and the government at large: 'National and NZ First currently face the spectre of this parliamentary term going down in history as the period when the Act Party governed – as coalition partners, you have been completely upstaged.'
Adam Currie from 350 Aotearoa, who appeared via Zoom link, told the committee the bill can 'get in the compost heap' – then panned his camera over to his own compost heap for visual effect. 'Thank you Adam, very succinct,' committee deputy chair and National MP Ryan Hamilton replied.
Former prime minister Geoffrey Palmer, who submitted against, labelled the bill the 'strangest piece of New Zealand legislation I have ever seen'. Palmer argued that regulation is necessary in many instances – like when he worked as a young lawyer on night clothes regulations, so that young children wouldn't be set alight by heaters while they slept.
'The idea that you would not allow parliament to protect the public from danger is just unreasonable,' Palmer said.
Lawyer Sonja Cooper of Cooper Legal, which represents survivors of abuse in care, said she opposed the bill as it would allow abuse to continue. Cooper said she was concerned with the bill's principle that all are made equal under the law – her clients have a 'very distinct and urgent set of needs' which wouldn't be addressed if they were treated as 'equal', and with many of them being Māori, the bill's omission of the Treaty was a 'refusal to accept the needs for policies which may need to treat people differently to achieve equality'.
When Act Party MP and committee member Mark Cameron questioned whether Cooper was telling the committee that laws should allow people to be treated unequally despite all people being 'created equal', Cooper replied: 'It's a nice thought that everyone is born equal, but that's not the reality.' Their back and forth made Palmer whisper 'oh, god' and at the end of it, he and Cooper just threw their hands in the air in disbelief.
Human resources expert Chris Till supported the bill, but didn't support his 'undemocratic' five-minute submission time. After arguing that iwi have too much power over freshwater resources, and that the RSB would fix this 'racist, tribal and anti-democratic' system, Till continued to argue with Hamilton about his lack of time, so his submission was called off slightly early. Cameron, who had been waiting to ask a question, just gritted his teeth.
Later, former Green Party MP Darleen Tana submitted against the bill, with the argument that it would 'constrain future governance, restrict public investment and sets up a narrow economic lens'. Also submitting against, Dunedin City Council's in-house lawyer Karilyn Canton said the council was concerned that the bill's omission of the Treaty would make it at odds with council obligations under the Local Government Act.
She also highlighted the bill's requirement for review of secondary legislation (such as council bylaws, of which DCC administers about 40), and argued the Local Government Act already has sufficient provisions to the creation of these laws. Canton said it's also still unclear what falls into the scope of 'secondary legislation', and the likes of a district plan – which has the force and effect of a regulation under the Resource Management Act – would fall into this category. 'So the risk is that it creates disputes, creates costs and it creates uncertainty,' Canton said.
Health Coalition Aotearoa's chair Boyd Swinburn opposed the bill, and told the committee the sector's already existing 'regulatory chill' – the absence of regulations which could protect young people from the likes of alcohol marketing – could turn into a 'regulatory freeze' if the bill passed. Swinburn pointed to the Australian government's years-long court case with tobacco giant Phillip Morris over plain packaging for cigarette cartons, which the company argued violated their property rights by confiscating property (their trademark) without compensation.
'It's very naive to think that the industry would not weaponise the privileging of its private property and rights,' Swinburn said.
Far North district councillor Hilda Halkyard-Harawira began her submission against the bill by chucking on a pair of sunglasses, and letting the committee know that up in Northland, if someone speaks to you with their shades on, it's because you're telling a 'whole bunch of lies'. She said the bill amounted to 'historical amnesia', and said the uplifting of personal, economic and property liberties over collective rights was like experiencing a flood in your neighbourhood, and only having the local 'vape store' owner be saved.
Raewyn Moss and Jo Mooar of Transpower, which controls the nation's energy grid, highlighted their concerns with clause eight of the bill, which highlights 12 principles of responsible regulation, including an emphasis on property rights. 93% of Transpower's overhead lines run on statutory rights under the Electricity Act, the committee heard, and Moss said there was concern that a review of the Act will result in Transpower paying compensation to permit them to use and maintain the land their grid rests on.
They were also concerned that protections for these lines under the Resource Management Act would be overruled and ignored for new housing and developments, which could 'have a big impact on public safety'.
Rock the Vote NZ deputy leader Daymond Goulder-Horobin said the party largely supported the bill, but they had some suggestions. For 'better optics', regulations minister David Seymour should share appointment powers of the regulatory standards board that will be born from the bill with other parties, so that the committee is 'balanced'.
'Every party is beneath 50% of the vote, so democratic legitimacy is always vested on [the voting of a bill],' Goulder-Horobin said. 'This does not have to be a bill that antagonises the left.'
The finance and expenditure committee will resume oral hearings into the bill today at 8.30am.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Sovereignty ‘Red Line' In Any Future Ngāpuhi Settlement Message At Whangārei Hapū Hui
Sovereignty ‘Red Line' In Any Future Ngāpuhi Settlement Message At Whangārei Hapū Hui

Scoop

timea day ago

  • Scoop

Sovereignty ‘Red Line' In Any Future Ngāpuhi Settlement Message At Whangārei Hapū Hui

Article – RNZ Much of hap hui agenda taken up by discussions of sovereignty and bill which aims to impose a single settlement on Ngpuhi. A hapū hui in Whangārei has sent a clear message that sovereignty is a 'red line' in any future Ngāpuhi settlement. The vexed issue of sovereignty hit the headlines again recently when Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith said settlement talks with Bay of Plenty iwi Te Whānau-ā-Apanui had been put on hold over a controversial 'agree to disagree' clause. The clause, added during the previous government in 2023, spells out the iwi's claim it is a sovereign nation – while at the same time allowing the Crown to maintain it has sovereignty over New Zealand. A landmark Waitangi Tribunal report in 2014 sided with iwi by ruling that Ngāpuhi chiefs did not cede sovereignty when they signed Te Tiriti in 1840. Wednesday's hui at Ngāraratunua Marae was to have been a routine gathering of Te Kotahitanga o Ngā Hapū Ngāpuhi. Instead, much of the agenda was consumed by discussions of sovereignty and NZ First Minister Shane Jones' member's bill which aims to impose a single settlement on Ngāpuhi, instead of the multiple smaller settlements sought by some hapū. Te Kotahitanga co-chair Pita Tipene said he would not enter any discussions with the Crown if there was no acknowledgement of hapū sovereignty. 'It's a red line for me, a bottom line … it would mean everything that we've been fighting for, prosecuting through the Waitangi Tribunal that we have never ceded our sovereignty, will be signed away by a couple of signatures on a piece of paper,' he said. Anyone willing to sign such a settlement was 'giving up their soul for pieces of silver and gold'. However, Tipene said he was still willing to meet Goldsmith if he travelled to Northland in coming weeks, as indicated by the minister in an interview last week. 'We're always willing to meet with the minister. He's responsible for the government in terms of our Tiriti o Waitangi claims so it's only right that we sit down and talk with him instead of talking with him through the media.' Tipene was also dismissive of Jones' member's bill, which he described as a distraction. 'We will not be corralled into a single settlement. If hapū want to come together, they will do it because they want to, not because they have to.' Tipene said East Coast iwi Ngāti Kahungunu had proven it was possible to split the settlement for a large and complex iwi into smaller agreements based on taiwhenua, or regional hapū groupings. With Ngāpuhi, however, Tipene said successive governments seemed to consider settlement as a kind of trophy, with politicians like big game hunters hoping to be photographed with a gun in hand and a foot on the head of the biggest lion. While he didn't agree with Jones on Treaty matters, Tipene said he respected him and valued his role in stirring up debate. 'One must admire him for agitating. By agitating, it gets people thinking and moving and having conversations that they may not ordinarily have.' 'We do not want a single commercial settlement' – Tipene Tipene said the message from Wednesday's hui was clear. 'We do not want a single commercial settlement. We will be adhering strongly to our own rangatiratanga or sovereignty, and we won't be signing anything that may undermine that.' Earlier, Jones said multiple smaller settlements risked turning Ngāpuhi – which had some of the worst socio-economic statistics in the country – into 'economic confetti'. He told RNZ his bill would bring clarity as to how the claim could be settled. 'Then people can consult on the member's bill, and I accept it will take some time, but they will have a clear target, because at the moment, it's like a flock of ducks quacking loudly, flying in all different directions, and sadly, that's what the Ngāpuhi claim has turned into,' Jones said. Te Kotahitanga co-chair Lee Harris, who also co-chairs the Hokianga Taiwhenua, said a meeting in Rāwene a day earlier came to the same conclusions as the Whangārei hui. 'The position of the hapū that attended was complete opposition to Shane Jones' proposal. We do not accept one settlement for Ngāpuhi. In regard to Minister Goldsmith's kōrero about the removal of any possible clause acknowledging sovereignty, well, we don't agree with that either, especially in light of the stage one Te Paparahi o Te Raki report [that found Ngāpuhi did not cede sovereignty],' she said. Harris also rejected the argument that a single settlement was needed so work could begin quickly on turning around Northland's dire poverty statistics. 'In Hokianga, we're pretty sick and tired of people using our existing very poor standards of living against us as a weapon by trying to push a settlement over the top of us. Paparahi o Te Raki [The Waitangi Tribunal's Northland inquiry] addressed historical grievances. Therefore, any settlement is to pay for the wrongs of yesterday that happened to our tūpuna. It's not to be used to tidy up the contemporary mess of the poor living conditions in which we live in today. That is a separate issue, and that is solely on the Crown.' Not all at the hui, however, considered sovereignty a sticking point. Kaumatua Waihoroi 'Wassie' Shortland said Crown sovereignty was the only way the nation could operate collectively, even if history was littered with examples of governments exercising that sovereignty badly. However, if the Crown maintained Ngāpuhi had lost its sovereignty, that came at a cost that needed to be factored into any future settlement. Like Tipene, Shortland said he was ready to talk to Goldsmith, because he did not have to agree with people to engage with them. Shortland believed settlement would come when Ngāpuhi, which made up one in five Māori and one in 25 New Zealanders, learnt to use the strength of its numbers. About 120 people attended Wednesday's hui. Te Kotahitanga o Ngā Hapū Ngāpuhi is an informal group initially set up by Tipene and the late Rudy Taylor to oppose Tuhoronuku, an earlier attempt to set up a mandated iwi authority to negotiate a single Ngāpuhi settlement. Tuhoronuku was recognised by the government in 2014 but abandoned in late 2018.

Sovereignty 'Red Line' In Any Future Ngāpuhi Settlement Message At Whangārei Hapū Hui
Sovereignty 'Red Line' In Any Future Ngāpuhi Settlement Message At Whangārei Hapū Hui

Scoop

timea day ago

  • Scoop

Sovereignty 'Red Line' In Any Future Ngāpuhi Settlement Message At Whangārei Hapū Hui

A hapū hui in Whangārei has sent a clear message that sovereignty is a "red line" in any future Ngāpuhi settlement. The vexed issue of sovereignty hit the headlines again recently when Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith said settlement talks with Bay of Plenty iwi Te Whānau-ā-Apanui had been put on hold over a controversial "agree to disagree" clause. The clause, added during the previous government in 2023, spells out the iwi's claim it is a sovereign nation - while at the same time allowing the Crown to maintain it has sovereignty over New Zealand. A landmark Waitangi Tribunal report in 2014 sided with iwi by ruling that Ngāpuhi chiefs did not cede sovereignty when they signed Te Tiriti in 1840. Wednesday's hui at Ngāraratunua Marae was to have been a routine gathering of Te Kotahitanga o Ngā Hapū Ngāpuhi. Instead, much of the agenda was consumed by discussions of sovereignty and NZ First Minister Shane Jones' member's bill which aims to impose a single settlement on Ngāpuhi, instead of the multiple smaller settlements sought by some hapū. Te Kotahitanga co-chair Pita Tipene said he would not enter any discussions with the Crown if there was no acknowledgement of hapū sovereignty. "It's a red line for me, a bottom line … it would mean everything that we've been fighting for, prosecuting through the Waitangi Tribunal that we have never ceded our sovereignty, will be signed away by a couple of signatures on a piece of paper," he said. Anyone willing to sign such a settlement was "giving up their soul for pieces of silver and gold". However, Tipene said he was still willing to meet Goldsmith if he travelled to Northland in coming weeks, as indicated by the minister in an interview last week. "We're always willing to meet with the minister. He's responsible for the government in terms of our Tiriti o Waitangi claims so it's only right that we sit down and talk with him instead of talking with him through the media." Tipene was also dismissive of Jones' member's bill, which he described as a distraction. "We will not be corralled into a single settlement. If hapū want to come together, they will do it because they want to, not because they have to." Tipene said East Coast iwi Ngāti Kahungunu had proven it was possible to split the settlement for a large and complex iwi into smaller agreements based on taiwhenua, or regional hapū groupings. With Ngāpuhi, however, Tipene said successive governments seemed to consider settlement as a kind of trophy, with politicians like big game hunters hoping to be photographed with a gun in hand and a foot on the head of the biggest lion. While he didn't agree with Jones on Treaty matters, Tipene said he respected him and valued his role in stirring up debate. "One must admire him for agitating. By agitating, it gets people thinking and moving and having conversations that they may not ordinarily have." 'We do not want a single commercial settlement' - Tipene Tipene said the message from Wednesday's hui was clear. "We do not want a single commercial settlement. We will be adhering strongly to our own rangatiratanga or sovereignty, and we won't be signing anything that may undermine that." Earlier, Jones said multiple smaller settlements risked turning Ngāpuhi - which had some of the worst socio-economic statistics in the country - into "economic confetti". He told RNZ his bill would bring clarity as to how the claim could be settled. "Then people can consult on the member's bill, and I accept it will take some time, but they will have a clear target, because at the moment, it's like a flock of ducks quacking loudly, flying in all different directions, and sadly, that's what the Ngāpuhi claim has turned into," Jones said. Te Kotahitanga co-chair Lee Harris, who also co-chairs the Hokianga Taiwhenua, said a meeting in Rāwene a day earlier came to the same conclusions as the Whangārei hui. "The position of the hapū that attended was complete opposition to Shane Jones' proposal. We do not accept one settlement for Ngāpuhi. In regard to Minister Goldsmith's kōrero about the removal of any possible clause acknowledging sovereignty, well, we don't agree with that either, especially in light of the stage one Te Paparahi o Te Raki report [that found Ngāpuhi did not cede sovereignty]," she said. Harris also rejected the argument that a single settlement was needed so work could begin quickly on turning around Northland's dire poverty statistics. "In Hokianga, we're pretty sick and tired of people using our existing very poor standards of living against us as a weapon by trying to push a settlement over the top of us. Paparahi o Te Raki [The Waitangi Tribunal's Northland inquiry] addressed historical grievances. Therefore, any settlement is to pay for the wrongs of yesterday that happened to our tūpuna. It's not to be used to tidy up the contemporary mess of the poor living conditions in which we live in today. That is a separate issue, and that is solely on the Crown." Not all at the hui, however, considered sovereignty a sticking point. Kaumatua Waihoroi "Wassie" Shortland said Crown sovereignty was the only way the nation could operate collectively, even if history was littered with examples of governments exercising that sovereignty badly. However, if the Crown maintained Ngāpuhi had lost its sovereignty, that came at a cost that needed to be factored into any future settlement. Like Tipene, Shortland said he was ready to talk to Goldsmith, because he did not have to agree with people to engage with them. Shortland believed settlement would come when Ngāpuhi, which made up one in five Māori and one in 25 New Zealanders, learnt to use the strength of its numbers. About 120 people attended Wednesday's hui. Te Kotahitanga o Ngā Hapū Ngāpuhi is an informal group initially set up by Tipene and the late Rudy Taylor to oppose Tuhoronuku, an earlier attempt to set up a mandated iwi authority to negotiate a single Ngāpuhi settlement. Tuhoronuku was recognised by the government in 2014 but abandoned in late 2018.

Mayor slams councillor's 'attack' on Tory Whanau
Mayor slams councillor's 'attack' on Tory Whanau

Otago Daily Times

timea day ago

  • Otago Daily Times

Mayor slams councillor's 'attack' on Tory Whanau

By Nick James and Ellen O'Dwyer of RNZ Porirua's mayor says an "attack" on Wellington Mayor Tory Whanau by mayoral hopeful Ray Chung is disgraceful and not the type of behaviour expected of a councillor. Chung sent an email, seen by RNZ, to three fellow councillors in early 2023 recounting a story he had been told about Whanau by his neighbour about the neighbour's son. Whanau has declined to be interviewed, but in a statement said the claims were a "malicious and sexist rumour". "What's deeply concerning is that some of the individuals spreading these harmful falsehoods are now standing for election," she said. "Ray Chung has circulated a malicious and sexist rumour - a tactic designed to dehumanise, wear people down, and discourage good people from standing for public office." She said she was seeking legal advice. Ray Chung told Morning Report in hindsight sending the email might not have been the best idea. Chung said he had experienced abusive emails, text messages and calls for the last six months. Porirua Mayor Anita Baker has made public comments in the past about her experience of having received death threats and abuse online. Baker told RNZ that Ray Chung's actions were almost slanderous. "You don't attack someone's integrity, especially another mayor or a councillor and someone you work with closely over three years, I think it is absolutely disgraceful. "Whether it's true or not has nothing to do with it." She said that local body politics had never been as dirty as it was now -- especially online. "I've taken myself off social media and I do post but I don't read anything, it's become so vile." Baker said she would not expect behaviour like that demonstrated by Ray Chung around her council table. She believed that there was an increase in misogynistic abuse against female elected representatives. Victoria University associate professor in politics Lara Greaves told RNZ even just taking the politics out of the actions it was quite a gross situation. "I think if any of us think if we are in our work environment if such an email was sent about us how we would feel or feel about that going on for a woman in their life." Greaves said she thought there was more "heat" in local politics with topics such as the Māori wards, rates and three waters. She said that the spotlight was now being put on local government but through "dirty politics" rather than substantive discussion on issues. Last month Local Government New Zealand announced that it would provide a $4500 allowance for the home security of elected members following the upcoming 2025 elections. Anecdotal reports of abuse and the fact the security allowance had been established showed that it was a problem for mayors and councillors, Greaves said. She said that there was a high level of threat for local government while not seeing the same investment. Greaves said that fundamentally people should not talk about sex and colleagues and that the email was not something people would expect to see in New Zealand politics.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store