Have attitudes changed to the C-word?
life and society language 28 minutes ago
A sweary few days in politics has raised questions about the use of the C word. Minister Brooke van Velden dropped the verbal grenade in Parliament in protest over the slur being directed at her and other female ministers in a newspaper column about rushed changes to pay equity laws. Keith Montgomery from the University of Auckland linguistics department spoke to Lisa Owen.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
34 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Why opponents and supporters of the Regulatory Standards Bill are so far apart
Versions of the Regulatory Standards Bill have been introduced the House three times, all have failed to become reality. Photo: VNP/Louis Collins A moment years in the making arrived with a grin from David Seymour. The ACT Party leader stood in the house to introduce the Regulatory Standards Bill for its first reading in mid-May. It's legislation that Seymour has long championed, the origins of which date back to the early 2000s. Now he hopes it will finally pass into law and reshape how governments create legislation in Aotearoa. Declaring himself "extremely excited", he framed the bill as a much-needed removal of red tape and a win for transparency. "This bill is a crucial piece of legislation for improving the long-term quality of regulation in our country and, ultimately, allowing New Zealanders to live longer, happier, healthier, and wealthier lives. But the political left have got themselves in quite a lather about the Regulatory Standards Bill," Seymour said. He was right: the left is mad. Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson described the bill as the most dangerous piece of legislation that the House of Representatives has seen. "It seeks to destroy the very foundation of who we are. It seeks to remove Te Tiriti o Waitangi from lawmaking … It would put private property above protecting the environment or public safety or indigenous rights." Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer pointed out Te Tiriti was not mentioned once in the bill. "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." On one side, Seymour's supporters see a bill about better law-making and transparency. On the other, critics are calling it the "Treaty Principles Bill 2.0" and warn it could gut treaty protections. How can one bill on such a seemingly bland topic have two such drastically divergent interpretations? According to the Ministry for Regulation, the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB) seeks to "establish a benchmark for good legislation" by introducing a set of principles of "responsible regulation". Essentially, the bill creates a set of rules that all lawmakers must consider and follow in regulation design. The rules or principles laid out in the are grouped into six different sections: the rule of law, liberties, taking of property, tax, fees and levies, the role of courts, and good law-making. The key omission, for critics, is that there are no references to Te Tiriti o Waitangi or its principles. The law would also set up a Regulatory Standards Board, which would respond to concerns raised around the consistency of regulation. Appointed by the Regulation Minister (currently ACT Party Leader David Seymour), the board would be able to make non-binding recommendations, much like the Waitangi Tribunal. The bill took its foundations from a report written by Dr Bryce Wilkinson in the early 2000s. The report was commissioned by the Business Roundtable (now merged into the New Zealand Initiative), a public policy think tank and business membership organisation. Wilkinson was tasked with examining the quality of government regulation in New Zealand. Inspired by the Fiscal Responsibility Act of the early 1990s, a transparency mechanism designed to prevent another public debt blowout, he drafted an initial "Regulatory Responsibility Bill". He describes his original concept as a way to prevent regulatory abuses by focusing on making "government laws and regulations more principled and more respectful of personal autonomy and property." Dr Bryce Wilkinson is a Senior Fellow at the New Zealand Initiative. Photo: Supplied Various different versions of the bill have been introduced to Parliament on three separate occasions, each time failing to become law. First, by the ACT Party under Rodney Hide's leadership in 2006, then again in 2011, and then by Seymour in 2021. The RSB was once again resurrected in 2023, this time as part of the coalition agreement signed between National and ACT, which included a pledge to improve the quality of regulation and pass a Regulatory Standards Act "as soon as practicable." The bill defines what it sees as good law-making, but some legal experts warn that this definition reflects only a single political viewpoint. Everyone is in favour of good lawmaking, suggests Andrew Geddis, Professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Otago. "The question is, how do you define what a good law is, and what principles should good law follow?" Geddis argues it would elevate one party's political ideology, namely ACT's libertarian views, into a framework future governments would have to follow. "By choosing a few principles and saying these are the really important principles that matter. These are the ones that must be complied with. It kind of bakes into our law making system an idea that this is what the ideal society ought to look like" he says. Dr Carwyn Jones, Kaihautū Te Whare Whakatupu Mātauranga at Te Wānanga o Raukawa, says the bill is a constitutional overreach which focuses on property rights and wealth. "Those come at the expense of things like environmental protection, protection of human rights that are protected under the Bill of Rights Act, or rights under te Tiriti." Dr Carwyn Jones gave evidence at the urgent inquiry by the Waitangi Tribunal into the RSB. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Of the more than 10 principles which will define good lawmaking, there is no reference to considering the Treaty or its principles. Geddis, an expert in constitutional law, says this puts the Bill at odds with the Treaty, and the principles enshrined in the RSB would constrain the Treaty's impact. "The principles it contains, and the way those principles constrain lawmaking, means that lawmaking in New Zealand can't really respond to the needs or the demands of te Tiriti. It puts a constraint on how our system of government can operate in a way that is treaty compliant, and that in itself, undermines or undercuts what effect the treaty can have." Another key sticking point in the bill is the principle, "every person is equal before the law". That almost identical phrase was featured in the now dead Treaty Principles Bill, also backed by ACT. Whilst seemingly neutral, lawyer and Special Counsel at Tāmaki Legal, Tania Waikato fears the clause could be used to dismantle existing laws designed to address historic inequities. "Every single piece of legislation where it treats Māori differently, they can assess it against that principle and say that doesn't comply. And if that doesn't comply, they then have the ability to review it. It can be repealed." For this reason, Waikato says it is the most dangerous piece of legislation she has seen in the 20 years she has been a lawyer, dubbing it "Treaty Principles Bill 2.0". "It can take away every single right that Māori have under te Tiriti that's in legislation already, and it can stop any new rights being recognised in any incoming laws." It's estimated over 40,000 people marched on Parliament to protest the Treaty Principles Bill in 2024. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Waikato, who also acts as the legal representative for Te Pāti Māori and activist group Toitū te Tiriti, says the legislation will impact the revitalisation of te reo Māori. "If you've got a piece of legislation for te reo Maori that gives funding support, for example, to te reo Māori, that's not treating everyone the same, that's treating Maori differently." Carwyn Jones suggests the RSB will create a "filter" or "control gate" for all existing and new legislation, providing a mechanism to diminish the legal standing of te Tiriti from New Zealand law. "The Treaty Principles Bill was about removing the legal impact and meaning, and effect of te Tiriti from our law... What it will do is provide an opportunity to remove te Tiriti from our law with exactly the same effect, I think, as the Treaty Principles Bill would have." Jones also sees the creation of a Regulatory Standards Board as a kind of 'anti-Waitangi Tribunal'. "The [Waitangi] Tribunal is about protecting those rights under te Tiriti and giving effect to treaty principles, finding practical ways of giving effect to those. The regulatory standards board will be about removing those rights under te Tiriti, finding ways of ensuring that te Tiriti does not have any legal effect or meaning in our law." Wilkinson says he's spent hours trying to understand treaty concerns, but can't see what the problem is. "At the moment I'm just seeing an assertion that somehow these principles are in conflict with the treaty, but I can't see how they would be." He describes the bill as a minor transparency measure, which won't restrict parliament in its lawmaking, more than it will encourage pause for thought. "The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is a much more serious sort of constitutional beast. It doesn't have a treaty clause in it either. So why isn't the eye being directed at the Bill of Rights Act rather than this little transparency measure." Responding to concerns the bill is "dangerous", Wilkinson says he doesn't understand that point of view either. "There's so much public misunderstanding and distrust of this." "Māori are seeing it [the bill] as anti-Māori but people are assuming motives which aren't there, and then they're getting really uptight about it, because they think they're going to be screwed, and that this is about screwing them." In a written statement, Seymour said the RSB will help Aotearoa get its "mojo back". "It requires politicians and officials to ask and answer certain questions before they place restrictions on citizens' freedoms. What problem are we trying to solve? What are the costs and benefits? Who pays the costs and gets the benefits? What restrictions are being placed on the use and exchange of private property? Photo: RNZ / REECE BAKER He said it is about transparent lawmaking and that all New Zealanders benefit. "This bill turns 'because we said so' into 'because here's the evidence.' So if a politician wants to tax you, take your property, or restrict your livelihood, they should be able to show you their work." Seymour said misinformation about the bill was being spread by social media campaigns. "Clearly some groups see this sort of fearmongering and manufactured outrage as a good way of fundraising. Thankfully, I think most Kiwis can see right through this." Critics also argue that the RSB process itself hasn't followed good lawmaking practices, including consultation with Māori. Andrew Geddis says that lack of consultation amounts to a breach of treaty principles. "A principle of te Tiriti is that when a new law is being made by the government that affects Māori, Māori should be consulted and have their views taken into account. That just hasn't really happened at all with regards [to this] legislation… Māori just haven't been talked to about it." The Ministry for Regulation did seek public input on a discussion document about the bill in January, which garnered about 23,000 responses, 88 percent of which opposed the bill. But Jones agrees there was no meaningful consultation with Māori. "Māori who submitted were opposed to the bill, and the particular concerns they raised were around its impact on te Tiriti, and yet the government still didn't identify that there were any particular issues that they ought to be consulting with Māori about." Tania Waikato says it gives a disproportionate amount of power to the ACT Party, allowing them to create "long-lasting intergenerational change without the consent of the people." "Eight percent of the vote does not entitle you to change our constitution, and they were devious and deceptive in terms of how they described this bill and how they failed to consult on this bill." But in an interview on RNZ's 30 with Guyon Espiner , Seymour 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," Seymour said. After an urgent inquiry was launched, the Waitangi Tribunal found that if the RSB was enacted without meaningful consultation with Māori, it would "constitute a breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi". It called for an immediate halt to the bill's advancement to allow more engagement with Māori. Jones also points out that the Bill isn't even something the Ministry for Regulation thinks will encourage good lawmaking. "The Ministry of Regulation, David Seymour's own ministry, their advice to the government was that not only is this not needed, but this is not a very effective way to encourage good law making, and neither is it a very efficient way of doing it," he says. The RSB is currently open for public submissions with the select committee due to report back on 22 November, although Seymour has asked that it be moved up to 23 September. If the bill passes, it would likely come into effect on 1 January 2026.
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Cabinet considered limiting gang members' abuse in care redress
Lead Coordination Minister for the Crown Response Erica Stanford says she sought the advice about gang members on behalf of ministers who wanted to "consider the matter" of limiting redress. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Cabinet sought advice on limiting redress for gang members and serious criminals, but ultimately chose to treat gangs the same as any other survivor and create a new pathway for serious offenders. Information obtained by RNZ reveals the government was advised against a "blanket exclusion" because it risks compromising trust in the integrity of the Crown's response to the Royal Commission into Abuse in care. The advice described any proposal that would deny serious offenders or gang members access to the redress system would run "directly counter" to the Royal Commission's reports. Abuse survivor and former gang member Feke Taito says it is "unconscionable" the government considered leaving them out at all: "It just stunned me, actually." Minister in charge of the Crown's response Erica Stanford announced the coalition's plan for survivor redress last month , specifying a new process for claims from survivors who are also serious sexual and/or violent offenders who have been sentenced to five years or more in prison (high tariff offenders). A spokesperson for Stanford told RNZ she sought the advice about gang members and serious offenders on behalf of ministers who wanted to "consider the matter" of limiting redress. The spokesperson said Stanford accepted findings from the Royal Commission regarding the connection between abuse in care and subsequent gang membership. A briefing paper from the Crown Response to the Abuse in Care inquiry was titled 'Redress options for high tariff offenders and gang members'. It was addressed to Stanford, Lead Coordination Minister for the Crown Response; Simeon Brown, Minister of Health; and Louise Upston, Minister for Social Development and Employment, who also has responsibility for redress decisions under the Children's portfolio (transferred from Karen Chhour). Minister of Justice Paul Goldsmith was also looped in. In November last year, coalition members would not say whether gang members would be excluded or not. The briefing - dated 3 April - said it provided initial advice and options on the "legal and operational implications" of policy changes that would "limit" high tariff offenders' and gang members' entitlement to redress payments under the system. It recommended maintaining the status quo in which state claims agencies treat claimants "equally" and provide redress payments based on the "merits of their claim." "Claimants receive and have free use of any redress payments due to them. An exception is prisoners who do not have an external bank account to be paid into." It specified a "blanket exclusion of high tariff offenders and/or gang members from the state redress system" would likely reduce trust in the integrity of the Crown's response to the Royal Commission and was not recommended by officials. It also noted officials had not been able to identify any options for "imposing controls on access to redress" based only on someone's status as a gang member that were "operationally workable". This was also advised against. It later explained the officials had not been able to identify a "solid basis" for establishing whether someone is a gang member. Corrections holds some information on gang affiliation of the current prison population it said, but noted there would be issues with the comprehensiveness, accuracy and timeliness of that information. It also said the Privacy Commissioner was unlikely to be supportive of new legislation enabling that information to be shared. The briefing explained the Royal Commission had recommended redress should be "open to all survivors" including those in prison or with a criminal record. It stated the Royal Commission had pointed to the "high correlation" between abuse in care and high rates of criminal behaviour, imprisonment and the membership of gangs later on, and recommended that context be considered in the design of any new redress system. "Accordingly, any proposal to deny high tariff offenders or gang members access to the redress system would run directly counter to the Royal Commission's reports," the briefing said. "Moreover, it would likely compromise trust in the integrity of the Crown's response to the Royal Commission and whether the Crown has fully engaged with the Royal Commission's proceedings and the case studies and evidence set out in its reports." The briefing referenced two findings from the Royal Commission, the "Pathways to Prison" and "Pathways to Gang Membership" through State-care. "Previous research has found that one in five, and sometimes as many as one in three, individuals who went through social welfare residences during the Inquiry period went on to serve a criminal custodial sentence later in life," it said, and noted that experience was worse for Māori survivors. "Many Māori survivors shared how their time in care introduced them to gangs and gang life. "Joining was often in response to the violence, isolation and disconnection they experienced in care, including disconnection from their identity, culture, whānau, communities and society." Fa'afete (Feke) Taito is now the chairman of survivor-led organisation Te Rōpu Toiora. He said he was stunned to learn the government had considered excluding gang members, but felt it confirmed what he thought the government was trying to do. "Trying to suppress us at the margins, trying to drive us even further down. "You know, the whole thing to me is unconscionable." He said it read like the government was trying to prevent offenders with criminal records and gang members from receiving any type of redress. "How can they do that? "After they the Royal Commission inquiry clearly states the majority of these offenders and gang members, myself included, we joined and we connected with these gangs because of the abuse we suffered there, in state care, in these boys homes." Taito said it made him distrust the government more, and felt like the government was looking for options of "getting out of having to pay or compensate" survivors the state itself had harmed. He said this, along with the decision not to set up an entirely new system for redress - despite the prime minister promising to do so - showed he could not expect any justice from this government. He was glad the advice from Crown officials told the government it couldn't go ahead with those options, and that the Crown Response Office engaged with survivors. "Because it's nothing about us unless it's from us." The briefing paper said the lead coordination minister for the government's response had commissioned advice on the matter for redress Ministers and the Minister of Justice. A spokesperson for Stanford said gang members weren't treated differently to any other survivor in regard to seeking redress and that will continue to be the case. However, there will be a "new pathway" for new claims from serious violent and/or sexual offenders sentenced to five years or more in prison. That was decided after further advice from officials which highlighted "similar regimes" in Scotland and Australia. That information should be proactively released by Cabinet this week. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Glyphosate health issues to be debated in High Court
The ELI is challenging the EPA's 2024 refusal to reassess glyphosate and glyphosate-based substances. Photo: AFP The judicial review hearing - which is expected to last two days - will see ELI challenge the EPA's 2024 refusal to reassess glyphosate and glyphosate-based substances. There had been significant scientific research on the herbicide since it was first introduced to New Zealand about 50 years ago, Environmental Law Initiative senior legal advisor Tess Upperton said. That was the grounds ELI used in their formal request for a risk reassessment, but the EPA refused last year, prompting the judicial review set to be heard today and tomorrow. Upperton said while the EPA had reviewed some aspects over the years, such as looking at carcinogenicity of glyphosate in 2015, there had never been a full risk assessment, which is the usual protocol when a new product is first approved for use. "That's largely because it was first approved in the 1970s. We have asked the EPA for a record of that original risk assessment. They don't have a copy of that. They don't know what it is." Since then, RoundUp and the more than 90 other glyphosate based formulas sold in New Zealand had been "grandfathered through successive regimes," she said, even though some of the glyphosate-based formulas have been found to have additional ingredients that amplify glyphosates toxicity. In 2021, the EPA issued a "call for information" to assess whether there were grounds to reassess the use of glyphosate. "It went out to the public and asked industry, NGOs, lay people, how do you use glyphosate? What do you see as the risks? And they got a lot of useful information back, but that isn't providing scientific evidence of what the risks are, which there's a lot of information about overseas." She said there was a dearth of domestic studies, particularly on the impact on indigenous species in Aotearoa. "Certainly when we submitted our request to them providing significant new information and asking them to take the good hard look that hadn't been taken domestically before, we were surprised they said no. "There's a wealth of new published peer-reviewed, well conducted research on glyphosate and there are new studies coming out all the time." The bid for a risk assessment did not directly relate to a proposal being considered by the Ministry for Primary Industries , which could see the amount of glyphosate allowed on some crops increased exponentially , but Upperton says one assessment feeds into another, and ELI believed any reassessment of the MRL should wait until after the EPA had conducted a full risk assessment. The government was proposing increasing the MRL from 0.1 milligrams per kilogram for wheat, barley and oat grains to 10 milligrams per kilogram, and 6 milligrams per kilogram for peas. The MRL is partially based on a permitted daily exposure for food (PDE), which was set by the EPA's predecessor, the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA), more than 20 years ago. A public submission period which closed in mid-May saw the ministry receive more than 3100 submissions on the proposal. A spokesperson said it was too soon to have analysed the large of submissions, or to give a timeframe for that to happen. ELI was not calling for an immediate ban on glyphosate, and any possible controls coming out of a reassessment would be up to the EPA and based on scientific conclusions, Upperton said. New Zealand is one of the most permissive regulators of glyphosate globally, including allowing glyphosate use in settings where it's banned elsewhere - such as a pre-harvest desiccant on crops, a practice prohibited in the European Union, she said. Several European countries have banned the domestic sale of glyphosate, restricting its use to regulated agricultural and commercial settings, while in the United States, the manufacturer of the leading glyphosate-based herbicide, Bayer, pulled RoundUp from the residential market itself in an effort to pre-empt further litigation, which has seen the company pay billions of dollars to settle cases over potential links to cancer , with another 67,000 cases pending. Last year, the European Union approved glyphosate use for another decade after member states deadlocked for a second time on the issue, but a number of European countries, including France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria and Germany have partial bans in place. Multiple challenges to the decision are before the European Court of Justice. "There's a whole spectrum of regulation out there. Some countries have banned it, some have restricted its use. New Zealand is at the really permissive end of the spectrum in terms of those with developed regulatory systems, we use a lot of it and everyone can use it, which is quite unusual." The human health impacts of glyphosate are disputed. In 2015, the World Health Organisation's International Agency for Research on Cancer found glyphosate was a probable carcinogen and found strong evidence for genotoxicity, or the ability to damage DNA. One of the grounds to trigger a reassessment is the existence of significant new information about the effects of the chemical, which was the route ELI took in it's request. "There's a whole wealth of new, published, peer reviewed, well conducted research out there about glyphosate, and there's new studies coming out all the time, it's a really developing area." Upperton felt there were two reasons for burgeoning body of evidence on the possible health impacts of glyphosate. "Firstly, long term or chronic effects take a while to show up and into evidence. So if we've had glyphosate now for about 50 years in our populations, those effects are going to be more and more widely felt, but the other primary reason is that when these chemicals are introduced, the assessment of them is reliant on studies of their toxicity, for example, that are conducted by industry itself. "Which makes sense - they should be looking into the safety of their own products - but they also have a very clear direct financial interest in these things being approved. It does mean - and it has been borne out in relation to several different substances, including glyphosate - their studies might focus on less real world effects and more in the laboratory where it doesn't really represent how it would be used In the real world. "It's not to discount industry studies in their entirety, but in ELI's view, independent science is also important because it's a check on that kind of inherent conflict of interest that industry has." The inability to sue companies in the same way as some other jursidictions - Bayer has spent more than US$11 billion settling close to 100,000 lawsuits in the United States, and is attempting to have legislation passed in some states to shield it from future litigation, while reportedly considering dropping the product altogether - meant New Zealanders had to rely even more on the EPA, she said. "You can't sue someone for using glyphosate, or getting sick from glyphosate in New Zealand because of the bar on personal injury claims - that actually makes us more dependent on our regulator to step in and do these things because we can't take these actions in private capacities. We have to use the EPA and ask the EPA to do its job, which is really what this case is about." The situation also highlighted a "wider issue for the EPA and for environmental regulation in Aoteaora generally" which was the under resourcing of the EPA, Upperton said. "ELI is not saying the EPA needs to ban glyphosate tomorrow - we recognise that there's a lot of competing interest and resources at play here. What we want to do is is put it on the radar, put it on the list of things to be thought about, because there is a really big backlog of chemicals that need to be looked at by the EPA. I recognise they aren't resourced to be adequately doing their job at the moment." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
