The bill that's left people dazed, confused
There have been three previous attempts – and three failures – in getting a bill that aims to improve law making over the line.
But this time, the Act Party's baby is part of the coalition agreement, and David Seymour can see the finishing tape.
The bill has passed its first reading and will shortly hear submissions, but everything about its path has been controversial, including the short timeframe to hear those submissions.
The Detail talks to Newsroom political editor Laura Walters about what the bill aims to do, and why so many people hate it.
Critics include former Attorney-General and Labour Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer, who is an expert in writing laws, and who has reviewed a previous iteration of the bill when he was President of the Law Commission. He calls it 'one of the oddest bills I've ever seen'.
When asked what the new law will actually do, Walters says 'We don't know'.
'I just don't know what the impact is going to be. I'm kind of constantly like … storm in a teacup? Or constitutional nightmare? It's kind of somewhere in the middle.'
Some commentators, including another former Attorney-General, Chris Finlayson, have said the bill is unnecessary. Others say it won't have a big impact because, like the Bill of Rights, it can be ignored by Parliament when forming legislation. Seymour's own regulation ministry and the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee have advised it's not needed.
'Despite what people say, it is constitutionally important, this piece of legislation. People care deeply about this … this is going to impact our future and current laws,' says Walters.
'It is hard to unpick, it is hard to interpret. But it's worth having the debate over.'
Some of the sideshows around the bill have distracted from what it's about. They include a spat between Seymour and one of the country's top academics, Dame Anne Salmond; Seymour's social media attacks on those who disagree with it; some 'unparliamentary language' during Seymour's monologue at the Finance and Expenditure Committee; uproar over the mere 30 hours allocated to hearing submissions; and Seymour making comments that he later had to walk back about most of the submissions coming from bots.
Walters prefers to refer to this bill as the 'good law-making bill', which is what Seymour has billed it as.
'It would essentially set up some foundational principles for what constitutes good law making,' she says.
'All past and all future laws would essentially be tested against these principles. So we kind of refer to them as a set of core principles. They are quite complex but the shortened version of these principles are the rule of law; liberties; taking of property; taxes, fees and levies; the role of courts, and good law making.
'The idea, David Seymour says, is to ensure that all future laws are better, that legislation is of a good quality that will ensure that poor laws aren't made, that we don't have issues with redundant or excessive legislation and regulation.'
But 'when we're talking about the principles of good law making … it's really hard, because those principles are so contested. The idea is that this law should make for better law making, but everyone has to agree that this law is the right mechanism for it and has those principles right in the first place. And it seems New Zealand just cannot agree on that.'
Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here.
You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
5 hours ago
- Scoop
A Never-Ending Visa Queue For Refugees
It could take 10 years to clear a refugee visa waiting queue - but those applicants have already been waiting for seven years, and some have families in danger. When Dawt Tha Thang arrived in New Zealand in 2010, she was with her husband and five of her children. Within weeks, she gave birth to her youngest. But her eldest daughter stayed behind in Myanmar. She had just married and was pregnant. The Thangs are Christian Chins and as a minority, have faced persecution - it is how they became refugees - but over the past several years things have become even more dangerous in Myanmar. First, in 2021 there was a military coup and the country descended into civil war. Then, this March, there was an earthquake that killed thousands. "Myanmar as a whole is a pretty awful situation, with the civil war and the earthquake and forced conscription, but this is a family that ... also comes from a persecuted minority. They have been shaken down in [the capital city] Yangon, ie the army comes round and demands money or they will be sent to jail. They're moving every second or third night to stay away from the army," says Caroline Forsyth, who is friends with the family and speaks on their behalf to The Detail. Under the Refugee Family Support Category (RFSC), the Thangs can apply to bring their daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren here to join them. And the last time applications opened, they did. That was in 2017. They have been closed since then. Right now, the queue is 4190 people long, with only a few applicants coming off that list every year. But the scale of the problem is much bigger, because it does not represent all the people who have not even had a chance to apply. In today's episode of The Detail, Jay Marlowe - professor of social work at Auckland University and co-author with the Red Cross of a report on the RFSC - explains how the category works - and does not. "It's not our position that the RFSC is not working or is absolutely broken... for me fundamentally it's about ensuring that we protect what exists but also to recognise that it is under need of reform," he says. "It's not irreparably broken, but it does need reform." Under the RFSC there are two tiers. Tier One is for people who have come here as refugees who have no other adult family in the country, and Tier Two is for people who do have adult family - like the Thangs, who are a married couple and now have adult children - but have other adult family who they would like to reunite with as well. Tier One is prioritised, because people applying in that category do not have any support here. That category remains open for applications, but Tier Two has only opened for applications twice. The first time was in 2012, and the second was in 2017. Both times, it was only for a few days, and Forsyth and Marlowe say the system was inundated with applications. There are only 600 places a year open for the RFSC, and because Tier One is always open and those applications are prioritised, very few Tier Two applicants get through. This leaves people like the Thangs in a holding pattern, unsure of when - if ever - they will be able to reunite with their families. In their case, their daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren are hungry, they have lost family members to military violence, and the children can not go to school. They have attempted to escape to Thailand, where they'd be able to register as refugees, but haven't been able to. Last month, Labour MP Phil Twyford asked Associate Immigration Minister Casey Costello and General Manager, Refugee and Migrant Service Fiona Whiteridge, for an update on progress. Whiteridge said that "in order to clear that tier two queue, and it obviously is all dependent on how many more people applying to tier one, it would take us between eight to 10 years". Marlowe says there is clear research that reuniting people with their families has a broad range of benefits and the government should think about this category not just in terms of what it costs, but also what it might save in the long term. "Not only does it make sense to reunite families ... but it might even make dollars and cents. "Family reunification is often one of the most important, if not the most important, topic that people want to address." Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here.
Newsroom
10 hours ago
- Newsroom
Last ditch bid to ban new helicopter pads in Auckland
Former All Black Ali Williams' success in winning planning permission for a helicopter pad at his Westmere home is provoking another political showdown on a planning change to ban more of the facilities in residential areas. Planning commissioners controversially okayed Williams' and his wife Anna Mowbray's application in the face of community opposition. And in doing so they could have made it easier citywide to have helicopter use approved. One community group, Quiet Skies Waitematā, is appealing the commissioners' ruling. In parallel, Auckland councillor Mike Lee and a councillor challenging Wayne Brown for the mayoralty in October, Kerrin Leoni, will ask colleagues on Thursday to vote for a specific planning change to not only stop any new leniency but to prohibit more landing pads. If the move succeeds, it would apparently be against the advice of council officers who believe the rules that applied for years before the Williams-Mowbray decision – where pads could be applied for but had to face hearings – remain the best answer. Should the councillors opt for a ban, Auckland Council would then need to seek an exemption from the resource management minister Chris Bishop to pursue the plan change after he directed councils not to make further changes ahead of new RMA reforms. The debate at the council's policy and planning committee on Thursday will be heavy with politics given the mayoral and council election is just under three months away. Lee represents the Waitematā ward of inner-city suburbs and Hauraki Gulf Islands and says the three local boards in his patch back a ban. Leoni is councillor for the Whau ward around the harbour from Westmere and is Brown's highest profile challenger. A similar move by Lee and Leoni in March 2024 failed by two votes. Mike Lee, centre, and councillor colleagues at Lee's campaign launch in 2022. Photo: Matthew Scott Lee told Newsroom he expected the vote 'to be a close-run thing. 'I'm hoping that the proximity of the election might mean councillors who normally vote the way staff advise them to, may be more sensitive, more aware of the depth of feeling out there in the community.' In his view the planning commissioners' decision to approve the Williams/Mowbray helipad and flights at their Rawene Ave property turns the Auckland Unitary Plan, which since 2016 has been the city's planning bible, into 'a circus'. In his notice of motion for the meeting, Lee says it 'redefines the activity class for helipads in the Auckland Unitary Plan from non-complying to a permitted activity or at most restricted discretionary – asserting that helicopters, just like automobiles, are a normal means of transport for residents. 'This extraordinary ruling effectively deregulates helipads to exactly the same status as garages or even bike sheds. Consequently, the disappointment and anger of the 1302 residents who submitted against the application [of 1396] will only add to the widespread negative view towards helipads in residential areas and towards the council on whose behalf the decision was made.' Lee's letter to council chief executive Phil Wilson explaining the notice of motion says residents and campaigners fear the existing 'permissive' approach will be made much worse, with rumoured further helipads being mooted. 'All three local boards concerned, Aotea Great Barrier, Waiheke and Waitematā, represent communities which have been grossly impacted by helicopter landing in built up areas. 'The specific activity class for helipads in the Gulf – 'restricted discretionary' – is as you know very permissive. In this case council has no choice but to process these applications on a non-notified basis,' he writes. 'Not surprisingly as a result there is now an extraordinary number of helipads in the Gulf – 11 on Great Barrier, 64 on Waiheke, with another application in process, and 4 in Waitematā – with rumours of a number of others in the pipeline. 'The effects have not been helped by what has been perceived by neighbours as lax enforcement, with council until recently ignoring the latest national noise standards for at least 5 years before the committee decision of March 2023 to enforce this 2019 national standard.' 'Despite the advice from officers that the matter of helipads was best left to the consenting process to manage, we now find ourselves in a position where an independent commission has effectively ruled that it's 'helipads for all'. 'They are now to be considered analogous to cars and bikes under the Auckland Unitary Plan. This is clearly a damaging, socially destabilising outcome for the community and the Council, coming just as residents receive their new rates invoices. Even the 'independent commission' is calling for clarity. Clarity is what myself and Councillor Leoni hope to achieve.' Williams and Mowbray have been approved for up to 10 flights a month, with a maximum of two a day and before 10 pm.
Newsroom
17 hours ago
- Newsroom
Introducing the Who Benefits project – a spotlight on lobbying, influence and power
Tomorrow, Newsroom unveils the first story in Who Benefits, a year-long project, supported financially by a grant from The Integrity Institute, tracking and disclosing lobbying and influence. It's a new way for Newsroom readers to experience some of the country's best reporting, on politics and public policy. In a series of stories, we will get behind decisions that affect us all but benefit certain sectors, groups or companies above others. Who's getting what they want from our decision makers, how are they organising and what have they achieved? In short, who benefits, or 'cui bono'. We begin on Thursday with a look at the farming lobby, given Government links to the Agri sector and a veritable flood of policy changes, including a consultation on freshwater that finishes this weekend. There's much the public doesn't know, much policy agitation that has come to fruition or is about to, all brought together in one news feature. Then, new sectors and new policy lobbying will be examined over the next 12 months with substantive reports published here on Who's getting their message through to those in power, and getting results? Illustration: Getty Images. This project is a different way of working for us, but our same principles apply. Newsroom often stands back and takes time to analyse, investigate, and explain. With Who Benefits, we've got more time to delve, and breathing room to piece together the puzzle. Our aim is to inform, reveal but never bore – although we will ensure we provide the detail; the receipts. Hang on, though. Isn't Newsroom the subject of influence by accepting a grant from The Integrity Institute? Well, the institute partnership has provided funding, has suggested some places to look, but Newsroom has developed the subject areas, will be led by what we uncover and will retain full editorial control. Our team – Fox Meyer and me, David Williams – are reporting to Newsroom's co-editors, not the institute, and we aim to show influence from all sides of policies. There's pressure on us to perform. While the narrative about the media is one of commercial woe and decline, great journalism is being done every day. Our best moments, as journalists, come when we can ask questions to which we already know the answer. We can't do this alone. We can do even better with your help. If you know where influence is being brought to bear, let us know and we'll take a look. You can email me in total confidence: trublenzOIA@ Find out more information about The Integrity Institute and its mission, here.
