Pacific news in brief for 16 July
Photo:
123RF
Tonga's National Health Information System - hacked three weeks ago in a cyber attack - is now back in action.
Health Minister Dr ʻAna ʻAkauʻola said that the system has been fully restored.
Australia sent a Cyber Rapid Response team to recover the system but they've now returned home.
Dr ʻAkauʻola said health staff and Tonga's computer emergency response team have been working to get all patient data secured.
So far, only four patient records have appeared on the dark web.
Earlier reports said the hackers had demanded a US$1 million ransom, which the government refused to pay.
Samoa's caretaker Prime Minister Fiame Naomi Mata'afa has officially launched her new party's election manifesto.
Fiame told supporters that Samoa Uniting Party (SUP) has risen from the ashes of her former FAST Party.
She says SUP has been formed in response to political turmoil and internal divisions.
Local media reports the lineup includes three women and 23 men, most of whom are current caretaker ministers.
Notable absentees from the party's ticket are caretaker ministers Mauʻu Siaosi Puʻepuʻemai and Seuula Ioane Tuāʻau.
Mauʻu has opted to run as an independent, while Seuula will not contest this election.
Despite running independently, Mauʻu was seen at the SUP manifesto launch, raising questions about potential post-election alignments.
Observers say his future support could be pivotal.
Fijian Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka says his vision for a peaceful and secure Pacific region is under threat.
Rabuka told the Pacific Regional and National Security Conference that his 'Ocean of Peace' project cannot come to be in the current geopolitical environment.
He said security in the region must be taken seriously.
The conference brings together leaders from across the Pacific, with climate change, unregulated fishing, and organised crime on the agenda.
Vanuatu's Climate Minister Ralph Regenvanu believes the decision from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) will be a turning point for climate justice.
The decision from the ICJ on countries responsibilities for climate change is due next week.
Vanuatu and Pacific climate advocates brought the case to the UN in 2023 seeking an opinion from the world court on the legal obligations of states in relation to climate change.
Regenvanu said that he is anticipating to see a clear recognition that climate inaction is unlawful.
The government of Nauru has appointed Australian Brian Phelps as chief executive of its new Virtual Asset Authority.
Legislation has already been passed to regulate virtual assets in the hopes one of the smallest countries in the world will become a crypto hub.
Nauru President David Adeang said Phelps' vast experience will ensure the Command Ridge Virtual Asset Authority (CRVAA) will meet the government's goal of attracting businesses that bring investment, job creation, and financial innovation to the nation.
The Nauru government said that Phelps has worked extensively with regulators, industry bodies and government, and served for 21 years at CommSec, Australia's largest online stockbroking firm and subsidiary of the Commonwealth Bank.
The New Zealand auditor-general John Ryan has highlighted recurring challenges in the latest audit report of the Niue government.
Ryan told local media that while there have been recent improvements, Niue still faces issues in terms of capability and capacity to prepare financial statements for annual audits.
After many years of delays, the government's audit reports are finally up to date with the help of Deloitte New Zealand.
Ryan said it is critical Niue remains up to date, as failing behind again could lead to significant costs.
A candidate contesting the Northern Marianas' US House of Representatives seat has expressed concern about the impact President Donald Trump's "big beautiful bill" will have on the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).
The bill was passed on 4 July.
Galvin Deleon Guerrero told
Marianas Press
he applauds the effort to stimulate economic investments through tax exempts, tax breaks and supporting small businesses.
However, he said the cuts to programmes and the silence on specific provisions that benefit the CNMI concerned him.
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
The Panel with Denise L'Estrange-Corbet and Chris Wikaira Part 1
Tonight on The Panel, Wallace Chapman is joined by panellists Denise L'Estrange-Corbet and Chris Wikaira. First, they're joined by political analyst Grant Duncan to discuss the UK's landmark decision to lower the voting age to 16, and the position that puts New Zealand in. Then, school holidays can put a huge strain on parents - should they be shortened? Photo: 123RF
RNZ News
3 hours ago
- RNZ News
Regulations ministry clarifies cost estimate for Regulatory Standards Bill
David Seymour introduced the Regulatory Standards Bill to make rules and regulations more transparent. Photo: RNZ An estimated annual cost to government of $50-60m from the Regulatory Standards Bill is outdated, an official statement shows, but a change that revised that cost down is expected to be at least partly reversed. This week, RNZ revealed MBIE officials feared the Regulations Ministry's estimate of $50-60m a year was on the low end. That estimate was included in a draft version of the ministry's regulatory impact statement (RIS) sent out for agency consultation. The final version released in May put the expected cost at closer to $18m a year. In a statement on Friday, which included a timeline, the Regulations Ministry said the higher figure was based on an earlier version of the bill that would have required a full review of all existing laws - both primary (statutes) and secondary (regulations) - within 10 years. That proposal was later scrapped. The timeline As it stands, the bill would require all new legislation to be assessed against the "good regulation" principles - with some exceptions. It also requires ministries to regularly review the existing primary legislation they are responsible for, but does not set a specific timeframe. Existing regulations are currently exempt from review. The lack of a specific timeframe reduces the pressure on agencies to complete these reviews so quickly and excluding existing secondary legislation also significantly reduces the workload, which explains the cost reduction to about $18m. However, the current RIS also notes the minister is expected to make some secondary legislation subject to the RSB in future. "Existing secondary legislation is initially not in scope by default, with the expectation that some classes of secondary legislation will be brought in (via a Notice) at a later date." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
Parliament versus Executive: Regs Review and the Regulatory Standards Bill
David Seymour. Photo: VNP/Phil Smith Analysis - Parliament recently heard a single week of public submissions on David Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill. The submissions were seldom complimentary . The Finance and Expenditure Committee is considering that bill, but this week a different select committee heard briefings of its own on issues that arise from the bill, because the bill's aims seem in conflict with the purpose of the Regulations Review Committee - even its existence. The Regulatory Standards Bill's own description lists its aims as being to: That may sound good on paper, but the bill does not create or support parliamentary bodies to keep a check on the Executive. Instead, the bill creates an external board which works under the Executive. Parliament already has a committee tasked with the express job of evaluating regulations, including hearing public complaints - the Regulations Review Committee. Regs Review, as it is commonly described, is traditionally one of Parliament's most cross-party, collaborative committees. It is usually chaired by a senior opposition MP; currently that chair is Labour MP Arena Williams. Labour MP Arena Williams chairing Parliament's Regulations Review Committee. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Among the committee's briefings on the bill this week was a public briefing from former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer . Because it was public, this article uses that discussion to help outline the reason the Regs Review Committee is concerned enough to ask for briefings on a bill being considered by a different committee. Williams outlined one purpose to the former prime minister thus: "I would like to progress usefully for the Standing Orders Committee, what the role of the Regulations Review Committee is now." Note: The Standing Orders Committee is the body that considers changes to Parliament's rules. If the Regulatory Standards Bill is passed, the Standing Orders Committee will likely need to adjust Parliament's rules to try and make it all fit. It was Geoffrey Palmer's parliamentary reforms in the 1980s that created the Regulations Review Committee and gave it the job of fixing regulations, with the power to ask Parliament to disallow (ie. kill) bad regulation. Earlier this year the current committee asked the House to do exactly that to a regulation regarding law school curricula - and the House agreed. More often though, the committee asks ministers to fix poor regulation, and is successful in doing so. This role clashes with aspects of Seymour's new bill, which would empower its own non-parliamentary board to review regulations - a board appointed by the minister for regulation and working together with their Ministry for Regulation. Sir Geoffrey Palmer gives evidence to Parliament's Regulations Review Committee. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Sir Geoffrey provided background to the Regs Review Committee's creation in the 1980s. It was part of a response to a period of government under Robert Muldoon when New Zealand was often governed by executive decree, without much reference to Parliament, in spite of the fact that Parliaments - not governments - have supremacy. Sir Geoffrey listed a few former laws that gave ministers vast powers. "The Economic Stabilisation Act, the Commerce Amendment Act of 1979, the National Development Act that allowed you to develop New Zealand by Order in Council, and not by Parliament. These were very grave exercises of executive power, and that led to the repeal of all those statutes. And it also led to the setting up of this committee." The Economic Stabilisation Act from 1948 for example, was used by Robert Muldoon's National Party government in the 1970s and 1980s to freeze wages and prices across the entire country, and to determine interest rates. As one response to the 1970s oil shock, people were forced to choose a day they could not drive their cars. That was all done without reference to Parliament. Despite his own government's repeal of such broad powers, Sir Geoffrey argued that regulation is not inherently bad, but is necessary. "You cannot run a country on the basis of primary legislation alone. It is not possible. And the ministers have to be able to have the ability to have administrative arrangements that are within the competence of the enabling provisions in the primary act that allows detail to be dealt with." Ministers need to be able to act without constant reference to the boss. Many powers are necessarily delegated to a minister or a ministry. That delegated authority is enabled by primary legislation (statute law), and is referred to as secondary legislation - mostly it is regulation. Imagine if no authority was delegated. How would that look? Maybe you couldn't get a new passport until your name had been included in legislation, or your passport was approved by the governor-general. Every price change for a government service (eg. a DOC campsite), and every new-build classroom would need specific approval. That all sounds ridiculous, but power is delegated, and without delegation things must be confirmed at the centre of power.. "The enthusiasm for terrific deregulation makes me nervous," Sir Geoffrey told the committee. "I don't quite know where that desire comes from, because the evidence has not been put in front of this Parliament. It's asserted, but it's not generated as evidence anywhere that I have seen." Putting aside other criticism of the Regulatory Standards Bill, what exactly is the issue for the Regulations Review Committee? Sir Geoffrey noted one glaring issue: "There was nothing said about the Regulations Review Committee in the legislation, or indeed, as far as I can see in any of the consideration that led to the drafting of this ill-considered bill." That is a monumental oversight, or possibly a snub, because the job of the Regs Review Committee and that of the Board that the bill creates will, at best, overlap. They may clash terribly. It's like a second referee being sent onto the field during a game - a referee that answers to someone different, and one with a vested interest. "The conduct of this Parliament," Sir Geoffrey said, "already pretty unsatisfactory in many points of view, is going to get a whole lot worse when you have these confusing areas of responsibility that don't fit." Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan in Parliament's Regulations Review Committee. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan asked the former prime minister which group would have supremacy if they both tried to consider the same regulation - board or committee? "The Regulatory Standards Board is a creature of the minister, and it is not a creature of Parliament. This committee is a creature of Parliament." Only one of those creatures has the power to ask Parliament to strike out bad regulation. Sir Geoffrey indicated that was everything you needed to know. In other words, since Parliament has supremacy over the Executive, Parliament's Regulations Review Committee would have supremacy over the Executive's proposed Regulatory Standards Board. Sir Geoffrey argued that the bill ought to be amended to have no role in secondary legislation at all. He also had advice for the committee and for its backbencher colleagues. "If you are left alone, that would be good; but what you need to do is to be more muscular. …The bad habits of New Zealand legislation have been somewhat restricted by the activities of this committee, but not enough. The bipartisan thing that is necessary to make the committee work properly needs to extend to backbenchers from the governing parties feeling that they can exercise their judgement without fear or favour." He suggests that non-executive MPs-regardless of their political affiliation-ought to do their jobs as parliamentarians, not as voting automatons without a role in keeping a check on governments. * 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.
