NZ Int Film Festival 2025: Ardern doco and an Aotearoa arts hall of fame
The film, partly shot
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 House: Making law - a final avalanche of edits
Pavan Sharma, the Manager of the House Office at New Zealand's Parliament. Photo: VNP / Johnny Blades There are five parliamentary stages to passing a law. The three reading stages are short and built of speeches. The remaining two are when the real work is done, by two very different committees. Select Committees get a lot of attention and, when governments don't dodge this stage entirely, are the best opportunity to improve or alter an impending law. The second, less glamorous committee, is Parliament's last chance saloon for fixing mistakes or changing minds before a bill is finalised. It is variously referred to as the Committee Stage, Committee of the Whole, or the mouthful Committee of the Whole House. "The Committee of the Whole is essentially a big committee that takes place in the debating chamber. Any MP can participate in the Committee of the Whole, and any member can propose an amendment to a bill. There's no limit on the number of amendments that they propose." That is how Pav Sharma describes the Committee Stage, and he should know. He manages the House Office, which is the part of Parliament's secretariat tasked with looking after the debating chamber. "Our focus is ensuring that members have everything that they need to debate legislation, to debate other aspects of house business, to scrutinise the government's finances." All the 'paper' that comes or goes from Parliament's debating chamber (the House) transits through the House Office. Bills, questions, petitions, papers, reports, and amendments - many thousands of them - make the office a thrumming hive of clever people keeping a large machine running smoothly. Johnny Blades has described them as Parliament's Brain . I often seek their expertise, but have learned that one time not to wander in asking dumb questions is when the House is in the middle of a contentious Committee Stage, as they may be swimming through hundreds of amendments on the bill under discussion. These will have arrived as emails, typed notes, or scribbled on slips of paper. They need processing almost instantly, while they are still relevant and under discussion in the chamber. "It can get very busy," Sharma says. "It can get a little bit tense in the House Office and in the chamber when we have a particularly contentious Committee Stage." The point of all of this is a fundamental of Parliament - the mutability of legislation. That it can evolve and improve during its journey through Parliament. "One of the points of the legislative process is that bills should be able to be amended - that they're amendable. Ideally, a bill will start its legislative process in one way and it will be improved as a result of the legislative process and come out a better, more fit-for-purpose piece of legislation." Most of the amendments Parliament accepts on bills come out of the select committee process. But mistakes are made, problems are missed, arguments continue over both the policy and the method - and the Committee of the Whole is the final chance to fix things. When bills debated under urgency skip a select committee entirely, the Committee Stage becomes the only chance for improvement. Not every amendment arrives in a final scramble. There are two kinds. It's worth noting the difference because you hear MPs in Parliament referring to them by their different names - an 'amendment paper' and a 'tabled amendment'. Roughly, amendment papers arrive in advance, while tabled amendments happen in the action. They might also be drafted by different groups of people. "If it's from the [minister] in charge of a bill, [an amendment paper is] usually drafted by the minister's officials, so the Parliamentary Counsel Office [who also draft government legislation]. If it's an amendment paper for a non-minister, then that's where the House Office comes into play and we will draft the amendments for the member based on their instructions," Sharma said. "The great thing about an amendment paper is that it's printed in advance. It's published on the legislation website. It has its own unique number, so it's really easy to identify and to cite in debate." Amendment papers from the MP in charge of a bill (usually a minister) occasionally substantially rewrite a bill. Amendment papers from opposition MPs are usually much more specific, but they are also often written in advance. "Opposition members do instruct us to draft amendment papers and often they're very organised and we can have a whole raft of amendment papers that are released from opposition members in advance of the committee stage." The tabled amendment is the more last minute of the two. It is referred to as 'tabled' because it can literally be scribbled out on a sheet of paper, walked up to the front of the debating chamber and handed to the Clerk at the Table. As Sharma elaborates: "They can be typed out or they can be handwritten. They can be delivered to the Clerk at the Table in the chamber, or they can be delivered to the House Office. And the general principle is that if they are an 'in order' amendment, then they are voted on." Examples of (both handwritten and typed) proposed amendments to the Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Bill. Photo: VNP / PS Bills are seldom a done deal when they begin at Parliament. Almost all bills are amended, and improved by the process. Improved as law especially, regardless of their policy. But policies are also smoothed, particularly via select committee hearings, when unintended consequences are pointed out and can be avoided. But improvement is not the only reason to offer an amendment. "I think it's important to note that there are different purposes for amendments," Sharma said. "It's quite common for the member in charge of a bill, often the minister, to propose amendments to their own bill. This could be to fix some inconsistencies, tidy up the bill itself, or to potentially introduce some new policy to the bill." An opposition MP suggesting an amendment has a more varied range of purposes, including just eating up House time by slowing the inevitable process. They offer something to discuss in debate and help prevent repetition (which might bring debate to a close). Even the process of voting on them eats time. "In New Zealand, we have party voting. It's pretty quick. You're looking at somewhere like 45 seconds for a particular vote, but if you've got over 100 amendments on a particular part of a bill, then, yep, you're looking at at least an hour of voting, which can be a bit of a challenge for members because votes are taken in silence." It's not all about filibustering though. "They do use up some House time, but they're [also] an important part of the Committee of the Whole debate. [An amendment is] also a really good way of signalling the Opposition's different …policy positions. It could be that they would approach this issue from a completely different angle. It's also a way in which they can [raise] the interests of a community group or other party. So they're kind of almost using their representative function by putting up an amendment." This is a crucial part of the democratic process. "It's a really important principle that members should be able to put up amendments and that every in-order amendment is voted on. That the committee does get that opportunity to make a decision on those amendments. Because some of them actually do improve the bill. A fundamental lore of a 'good parliamentarian' is that, even if they disagree with a policy, they will try to help make good legislation. "A key function for members of parliament is that they are legislators, and when they're putting up amendments to the bill, they are quite often trying to improve the bill," Sharma said. In select committees, working on amendments is a much more collaborative process, but even in the Committee of the Whole government ministers do occasionally accept an opposition suggestion. "It does happen," agreed Sharma. "It happens on relatively rare occasions, and I think part of the reason for that is that the amendments are being put up in Committee of the Whole, and so there hasn't necessarily been the opportunity for ministers and officials to assess those amendments to ensure that they are not going to cause … unintended consequences, for example. That said, there are occasions where you do get that really good debate across the House. Opposition members are able to provide a good explanation of their amendment. They're able to persuade the minister that this is a good idea, and that amendment is essentially adopted by the government and that change is agreed to." When, after much debate, the Committee of the Whole comes to vote on part of a bill, it first votes on all of the amendments relevant to that part, that are within the rules. It is only at this point that amendments are ruled out by the chair. A reason is always given for rejecting an amendment. The rulings come from the chair and are entirely their call, but are based on advice from the clerks. "[Parliament's rules], the Standing Orders say that the Committee of the Whole can make amendments that are relevant to the subject matter of the bill, that are consistent to the principles and objects of the bill, and that otherwise conform to the standing orders and practises of the House. …The default is that unless there's a good reason for an amendment to be ruled out of order, it should be voted on." In brief, an amendment must be three things: it will be relevant to the bill, consistent with its principles and objects, and conform to expectations. Those guidelines lead to a few key reasons for rejecting amendments. "One of the most common [reasons] an amendment is ruled out of order is that it's outside the scope of the bill," Sharma said. That rule is part of the requirement for relevance. "We've got some quite tight rules around what's an acceptable bill. A bill has to have a single subject area and it has to have a focus, which means that you don't have these really big, disparate bills, which you can throw all sorts of different provisions into. "The scope of the bill is really determined by 'how big is this bill at introduction?' and how much it does. So a really narrow bill is going to be much harder to amend than a wide ranging [one]. What we're considering there is how relevant is the amendment to the bill that [was] introduced to the House? "A really good example of that would be an amendment that is 'inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill', which is kind of a parliamentary phrase, but really it's talking about what's the overall intent or the overall thrust of the bill? "You could, for example, have a bill, which is increasing the number of district court judges. An amendment that would reduce the number of judges is definitely relevant to that bill, but it is a completely different direction of travel. So that would be a relevant amendment, which would still be 'out of order' because it's inconsistent with the bill's intent or its principles and objects." An amendment can also be relevant initially and become irrelevant. An amendment already agreed to can alter what is relevant, because now the bill is different and things have moved on. "Sometimes an amendment will come later on in the debate and in the bill, and the committee has already done some voting, …and it's made some decisions. And so those later amendments are inconsistent with the decisions that the committee's already made." It's like the MPs were planning a holiday and have already decided on a beach location, at that point it becomes pointless to debate who will bring the skis. An amendment might be both relevant and consistent and still fail, because it does not conform to the expectations for legislation. "At a basic level, an amendment needs to make sense, …and it needs to make sense in the context of the bill. So you can't just add some random words to the piece of legislation. You have to know where in the bill that amendment's going to go. It has to be a coherent amendment. So if an amendment doesn't do that, it could be ruled out as not in the correct form of legislation. So it's got to be written as if it was part of the bill and actually make sense within the whole." It's complicated. Certainly the advice the clerks offer is both useful, and also essential. The House Office offers advice to all MPs, not just presiding officers. Clever MPs accept that assistance and learn as much as possible. That includes help in drafting amendments likely to fit within the rules - if that is required. Not all amendments need to fall within the rules to be useful for debate. "We do provide advice to members when they are discussing their amendments with us," says Sharma. "We can …say, 'we think it's possible that this could be …out of order for particular reason'. But ultimately, the decision on whether something is in order or out of order sits with the chairperson of the Committee of the Whole, (the Deputy Speaker or the Assistant Speakers). It's their sole decision. Note: The Speaker never presides over the Committee of the Whole, only his team does. "[When an amendment is tabled] we read it really closely. We read it not in and of itself. We also read it in the context of the bill. So that relationship between the amendment and the bill itself is what's going to determine whether it's going to be 'in order' or not. So, yes, is it relevant to the bill? And is it consistent with what the bill's trying to do?" A predictable flurry of amendments is always offered on a bill's shortest section - its title and the date it comes into effect. These 'preliminary clauses' are a bill's first section, but the final one that is voted on. The amendments to them are often (but not always), unserious, even sarcastic, Some may fall within the rules, but many will not. "It's common for members to put up dozens… of amendments on the title clause. Opposition members have been doing this for many, many parliaments. [Historically] we've had amendments which described a bill as 'Orwellian' or as 'betraying senior citizens'. Lots of these amendments are an opportunity for opposition members to signal their dislike of a particular bill, or just critique it." "They're quite good for us because we can rapidly see that they're going to be 'out of order' because they're not necessarily a serious amendment or not an objective description of the bill." The sarcasm or irony in many title clause amendment suggestions carries a small upside of releasing a little tension in the final debate after a long Committee Stage. Oppositions predictably lose the final vote on any government bill, but after many hours of hard debate they get to not just critique the policy, but outright mock it. And once the preliminary clauses are agreed and the sometimes hundreds of amendments on a bill have all been dealt with, the House Office can collectively exhale. But never for long. Another avalanche of paperwork is always heading their way. *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.
Newsroom
2 hours ago
- Newsroom
The secret open letter of .. Sir Ian Taylor
MONDAY Dear Jacinda, How are you? Good, I hope. Here I am at Auckland international airport on my way to Europe, with a copy of your new book. I am writing this Open Letter to you at the Stuff website because you no longer reply to my emails. You are very often in my thoughts. They are very animated thoughts. Not in the sense that I am founder and managing director of Animation Research. But actually a bit like it. Because the way I think about you is like some sharp-nosed sprite from the underworld, waving to the commoners with one hand and stealing their hopes and dreams with the other. That's what I see when I sit at the Koru Lounge and stare at the photo of you on the cover of your book. I cannot take my eyes off of it. TUESDAY Dear Jacinda, I missed my flight thanks to you. I didn't hear the boarding announcement because I was too busy staring at the photo of you on the cover of your book. So here I am still stuck at Auckland international airport and I've had better meals. I don't like the coffee. I need to change my clothes. And the fault is all yours. I stare at the photo of you on the cover of your book and see someone consumed with self-interest. I see the embodiment of evil, a white walker who brings winter with it—I see death. The coffee really is that bad. WEDNESDAY Dear Jacinda, Here I am at last on my flight to Europe. I am in the middle seat of an aisle in cattle class inbetween an obese conspiracy theorist with bad breath and a hollow-eyed woman who keeps breastfeeding an otherwise screeching infant. You know whose fault this is. I can see it in your eyes in the photo on the cover of your book. It's a look of guilt. 'Damn right,' says the man next to me. He expands on his theories the entire flight. I pray that this waka will reach its destination before I lose the will to live. THURSDAY Dear Jacinda, It's quite a long flight. FRIDAY Dear Jacinda, Here I am in the streets of New Delhi. I got on the wrong flight. An easy mistake to make. Not my fault. Your fault. Also I have lost my luggage. I gather it has gone to Paris. I think of it going around and around and around and around on the carousel as I stare at the photo of you on the cover of your book. I am vaguely aware of the traffic. I would like to change my clothes. I wonder how it is I lost my wallet and passport. The world is full of thieves. I don't have to tell you that. You are a light-fingered criminal who has feathered the nest of your own waka. You took and you took and you took. 'Come along with me, sir,' says a policeman. 'You cannot stand in the middle of the road.' Did you know that the Tihar prison is one of the largest prison complexes in the world? They tell me I can read your book in my cell while I wait to see what they will do with me. But I don't want to read it. I just want to stare at the photo of you on the cover. A Different Kind of Power: A Memoir by Jacinda Ardern (Penguin, $59.99) is available in bookstores nationwide.
Otago Daily Times
4 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Hamas submits 'positive' response to ceasefire deal
Hamas said it had responded on Friday in "a positive spirit" to a US-brokered Gaza ceasefire proposal and was prepared to enter into talks on implementing the deal, which envisages a release of hostages and negotiations on ending the conflict. US President Donald Trump earlier announced a "final proposal" for a 60-day ceasefire in the nearly 21-month-old war between Israel and Hamas, stating he anticipated a reply from the parties in coming hours. Hamas wrote on its official website: "The Hamas movement has completed its internal consultations as well as discussions with Palestinian factions and forces regarding the latest proposal by the mediators to halt the aggression against our people in Gaza. "The movement has delivered its response to the brotherly mediators, which was characterized by a positive spirit. Hamas is fully prepared, with all seriousness, to immediately enter a new round of negotiations on the mechanism for implementing this framework," the statement said. In a sign of potential challenges still facing the sides, a Palestinian official of a militant group allied with Hamas said concerns remained over humanitarian aid, passage through the Rafah crossing to Egypt and clarity over a timetable of Israeli troop withdrawals. Trump said on Tuesday that Israel had agreed "to the necessary conditions to finalize" a 60-day ceasefire, during which efforts would be made to end the US ally's war in the Palestinian enclave. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is due to meet Trump in Washington on Monday, has yet to comment on Trump's announcement, and in their public statements the two sides remain far apart. Netanyahu has repeatedly said Hamas must be disarmed, a position the militant group, which is thought to be holding 20 living hostages, has so far refused to discuss. Israeli media cited an Israeli official as saying that Israel had received and was looking into Hamas' response to the ceasefire proposal. An Egyptian security official told Reuters that Egypt, which along with Qatar is mediating ceasefire efforts, had seen Hamas' response and said: "It includes positive signs that an agreement is near, but there are some demands from Hamas that need to be worked on." Trump has said he would be "very firm" with Netanyahu on the need for a speedy Gaza ceasefire, while noting that the Israeli leader wants one as well. "We hope it's going to happen. And we're looking forward to it happening sometime next week," he told reporters earlier this week. "We want to get the hostages out." ATTACKS OVERNIGHT Israeli attacks have killed at least 138 Palestinians in Gaza over the past 24 hours, local health officials said. Health officials at the Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, southern Gaza, said the Israeli military had carried out an airstrike on a tent encampment west of the city around 2 a.m., killing 15 Palestinians displaced by nearly two years of war. The Israeli military said troops operating in the Khan Younis area had eliminated militants, confiscated weapons and dismantled Hamas outposts in the last 24 hours, while striking 100 targets across Gaza, including military structures, weapons storage facilities and launchers. Later on Friday, Palestinians gathered to perform funeral prayers before burying those killed overnight. "There should have been a ceasefire long ago before I lost my brother," said 13-year-old Mayar Al Farr as she wept. Her brother, Mahmoud, was shot dead in another incident, she said. "He went to get aid, so he can get a bag of flour for us to eat. He got a bullet in his neck," she said. 'MAKE THE DEAL' In Tel Aviv, families and friends of hostages held in Gaza were among demonstrators who gathered outside a US Embassy building on US Independence Day, calling on Trump to secure a deal for all of the captives. Demonstrators set up a symbolic Sabbath dinner table, placing 50 empty chairs to represent those who are still held in Gaza. Banners hung nearby displaying a post by Trump from his Truth Social platform that read, "MAKE THE DEAL IN GAZA. GET THE HOSTAGES BACK!!!" "Only you can make the deal. We want one beautiful deal. One beautiful hostage deal," said Gideon Rosenberg, 48, from Tel Aviv. Rosenberg was wearing a shirt with the image of hostage Avinatan Or, one of his employees who was abducted by Palestinian militants from the Nova musical festival on October 7, 2023. He is among the 20 hostages who are believed to be alive after more than 600 days of captivity. An official familiar with the negotiations said on Thursday that the proposal envisages the return of 10 of the hostages during the 60 days, along with the bodies of 18 others who had died since being taken hostage. Ruby Chen, 55, the father of 19-year-old American-Israeli Itay, who is believed to have been killed after being taken captive, urged Netanyahu to return from meeting with Trump with a deal that brings back all hostages. Itay Chen, also a German national, was serving as an Israeli soldier when Hamas carried out its surprise attack on October 7, 2023, killing around 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and taking another 251 hostage. Israel's retaliatory war against Hamas has devastated Gaza, which the militant group has ruled for almost two decades but now only controls in parts, displacing most of the population of more than 2 million and triggering widespread hunger. More than 57,000 Palestinians have been killed in nearly two years of fighting, most of them civilians, according to local health officials.
