The secret diary of...the letters to the United Nations
Dear United Nations
How are you? Good I hope.
My name is David Seymour, and I write to you as the de facto prime minister of New Zealand, a trading post in the South Seas governed by the Atlas Project.
What we do here is our own damned business and that includes the way we treat our natives, which is with manifest kindness unless they get uppity.
One of your officials has criticised my Regulatory Standards Bill for its approach to indigenous affairs. I don't appreciate it. The irony is that I'm indigenous. I can trace my whakapapa directly back to Ayn Rand.
We don't like strangers in these parts and I'll thank you to shut your face.
TUESDAY
Dear United Nations
I hope this letter finds you well.
My name is Christopher Luxon, and I write to you as the CEO of New Zealand, a private equity company with a duty of care towards the sorted.
I am writing to express my utmost respect for the work you do at the United Nations and to clarify a matter concerning communication that may have arisen.
It has come to my attention that some individuals have been reaching out to you, claiming to act on my behalf without the proper authorisation. I wish to emphasise that these communications do not reflect my views or intentions. I value integrity and transparency in all my dealings, and I am committed to ensuring that any correspondence from me is sent directly and officially.
If there are any queries or concerns regarding these unauthorised communications, please do not hesitate to contact me directly. It is important to me that our correspondence is clear and accurate, free from misunderstanding or misrepresentation.
This letter was not written by AI.
WEDNESDAY
Dear United Nations
Long version: This is Winston Peters. You know who I am. OK. Listen. An idiot recently wrote you a letter in regard to criticisms from a UN official. He claimed to be running the show in New Zealand. He is not running the show. I am running the show. I have always been running the show. I am the show. The letter that clown sent to you isn't worth the paper it's written on. It's worthless. It's junk. Don't even worry about it or give it a second thought. I know the guy who sent it. He's a weak, spineless character who trembles like a jellyfish every time you go near him. He floats away if you poke him with a stick. I like poking him with a stick. It's something that passes the time. You'll know all about the need for amusements when you get to my age. If you get to my age. There are no guarantees in this life. No-one ever gave me anything. I fought for what I have. I'm still fighting. I'll go down fighting. What time is it? I need to go down for a nap. A man needs his sleep. I find mornings are best but afternoons are good too and let's not discount the evenings. All right. Let's leave it at that.
Short version: This is Winston Peters. Don't bother reading any correspondence from Christopher Luxon. ZZZ.
THURSDAY
Dear United Nations
Kia ora, as we say in New Zealand.
My name is Chris Hipkins, and I am a close personal friend and former colleague of Jacinda Ardern.
You will have received letters from the three leaders of our coalition government.
The previous government was headed by myself, after I replaced Jacinda Ardern.
The letters confirm what everyone already thinks in New Zealand, that most days it seems Christopher Luxon isn't in charge of his own government, and that David Seymour and Winston Peters do what they like.
Jacinda Ardern knows all about them.
She has probably mentioned me to you. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you want my opinion on New Zealand affairs. The days are long and I don't have a lot on my plate. I expect it's much the same for Jacinda Ardern.
FRIDAY
Dear Messrs Seymour, Luxon, and Peters
My name is Albert K. Barume, the United Nations' Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples. I wish to amend my remarks concerning the Regulatory Standards Bill.
I had previously remarked, "I am preoccupied that the Bill threatens Māori-specific laws that address structural inequalities in matters relating to, for example, land, language and environmental stewardship, and because it seems to impose a monocultural legal standard, marginalising Māori as legal subjects without respecting their own governance frameworks".
I wish to amend the letter. Strike "seems to".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
13 hours ago
- Scoop
New Zealand First's Cash Transactions Protection Bill - What It Is And What It Could Do
Explainer - Cash is king, some people say - while others wouldn't be caught dead without their PayWave and Apple Pay. But a new members' bill put forward by New Zealand First would protect cash as a key option in transactions, requiring stores to take it for purchases up to $500. If drawn from the ballot and passed, NZ First leader Winston Peters said it would "provide for the enduring use of cash as a private, accessible, and reliable method of payment". The party cited rural communities, the elderly and low-income earners as being disproportionately affected by businesses that don't accept cash. As a members' bill, lodged 14 July in the name of NZ First MP Jamie Arbuckle, it's still a long while from possibly becoming law, but it does propose sweeping changes in how businesses treat cash and looks at who gets left out in a digital economy. Here's what you need to know. What does the bill propose? The Cash Transactions Protection Bill would mandate businesses in trade accept cash payment for goods valued up to $500. "The bill ensures that New Zealanders maintain freedom of choice in how they pay, preserving cash as what it should be: an enduring private and reliable option", Peters said in introducing it. "By protecting the sanctity of cash transactions, the bill upholds personal privacy, maintains sovereign control over New Zealand's monetary system, and lessens the risks posed by digital-only payment systems." There are some exceptions given to the bill's requirements, including online retailers and land purchases. The bill also would propose that "payment in cash must be accepted for essential goods or services" - which it defines as food, water, fuel, health care and household utilities. Another part of the bill would require businesses to keep cash on hand for emergencies: "A vendor must ensure they have sufficient access to cash to allow them to continue to trade in the event of a digital or electrical outage that lasts longer than 24 hours." In the introduction, the bill says it "preserves cash as an explicit privacy-preserving payment method, ensuring both freedom of choice and freedom from unwarranted surveillance in financial transactions". "It puts New Zealanders' interests above global trends toward digital currencies, maintaining sovereign control over New Zealand's monetary policy and mitigating the risks associated with digital-only financial systems, like restricted access to funds." The bill also calls for fees or fines from $1000 to a maximum of $5000 for infringements. Will it become law? It's quite a long way from that, actually. As a members' bill, it's not yet guaranteed it will ever go to the House for a vote. The bill first will have to be randomly drawn from the ballot to be considered at all in the House, and then undergo the same process of debate and referral to select committees as any other bill. While it's on the members ballot, MPs are allowed only one bill in the lottery at any given time. NZ First has swapped out its bills on several occasions this term, so there's also no guarantees over how long this legislation will remain in the ballot. Speaking to Checkpoint recently, Retail NZ CEO Carolyn Young said she wondered if the bill was "kind of a sledgehammer for a small problem". Marisa Bidois, chief executive of the Restaurant Association of New Zealand, said the bill ignored realities many businesses deal with. "We understand the intent behind the proposed bill - no one wants to see people excluded from accessing essential goods and services. However, requiring all businesses to accept cash for transactions under $500 doesn't reflect the operational realities many businesses face. "We believe businesses should be trusted to make the right decisions for how they operate and serve their customers." Members' bills are often used to float an idea or gauge public reaction to it, Parliament's website notes. Can a business really refuse to take cash? Yes, as long as they "clearly inform customers in advance that they don't accept cash before you start shopping or receive services from them", the Reserve Bank of New Zealand said. They can do that with a sign on the premises or telling you in person before you pay. "Most hospitality businesses still accept cash, but a small and growing number are moving away from it, particularly in busy urban areas," Bidois said. "Some customers do push back when cash isn't accepted, especially if they haven't been informed ahead of time. That's why we encourage clear communication." You're also only allowed to pay so much of a bill in coins, by the way, in case you're thinking of clearing out that piggy bank - you're allowed up to $5 of 10 or 20 cent coins, $10 of 50 cent coins or $100 worth of $1 and $2 coins. Who uses cash now, anyway? According to the Reserve Bank's latest data released in June, 45.8 percent of the population are still using cash sometimes in "paying for everyday things" - although 79.1 percent are using debit cards/EFTPOS also. Only 3.6 percent of people say they "never use cash," while 33.2 percent said they hadn't used cash at all in the past seven days. Cash isn't quite the king it once was. "We know that less than 10 percent of transactions that happen across New Zealand throughout the year now happen in cash," Retail NZ's Young said. "In the cities a lot less cash is used and in rural areas and areas of deprivation there is a higher percentage of cash that is used." Bidois said in the Restaurant Association's latest survey, 40 percent of respondents said cash made up just 5 to 10 percent of their transactions. Still, when it comes to essentials, "there's no supermarket that doesn't take cash," Young said. On Peters' Facebook page, the post announcing the bill has gathered nearly 3000 comments and 15,000 likes, with many expressing support for the idea. "Thank you! I use cash as a way to keep within my budget, as my mother did," one wrote, while another said it was "an essential bill - especially for many of our elderly population". What are the benefits and downsides of electronic payments? On the other hand, Young said that electronic transactions are often easier for businesses to deal with. "Electronic transactions are much safer for a wide number of reasons," she said, including less chance of being targeted by thieves or counterfeit money, and less time for staff dealing with transactions. "For many retailers and for hospitalities, cafes and things, cash is not always their favoured method of payment because of those challenges." However, frequently complained-about surcharges such as those for PayWave are "not ideal", she said. Many also have concerns about the privacy and security issues around digital payments and the records they leave behind. Are some people being left out with a shift away from cash? Cash also comes back to the table during disasters, such as Cyclone Gabrielle, which saw infrastructure knocked out widely. "We do know that when the cyclones happened in Auckland and Gisborne and Hawke's Bay 18 months ago that the supermarkets were really critical for being able to, especially in those provincial areas … they really provided the cash that people needed to be able to pay for goods and services," Young said. Bidois said that while there was a clear shift toward digital payments, it was all about striking the right balance for businesses. "Many businesses are finding that tap-and-go is what most customers expect, and it makes day-to-day operations simpler. "That said, our members care about customer experience, and most continue to accept cash to accommodate older New Zealanders, tourists, or regulars who prefer it."
Scoop
13 hours ago
- Scoop
Parliament Versus Executive: Regs Review And The Regulatory Standards Bill
, Editor: The House 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: promote the accountability of the Executive to Parliament for developing high-quality legislation and exercising stewardship over regulatory systems; and support Parliament's ability to scrutinise Bills; and support Parliament in overseeing and controlling the use of delegated powers to make legislation. 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. 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. Background to Regulations and Regs Review 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 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." The double-up 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 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.
NZ Herald
15 hours ago
- NZ Herald
NZ follows UK in condemning Russian cyber attacks
New Zealand has joined other countries in condemning cyber attacks orchestrated by the Russian government. 'Russia's hostile behaviour in cyberspace continues to threaten global cybersecurity and undermine agreed international rules and norms,' Foreign Minister Winston Peters said in a statement this morning. It comes as the
