Regulatory Standards Bill Inflicts ACT's Far-Right Principles On Aotearoa
'The Regulatory Standards Bill tries to make all future lawmakers in government follow a rigid set of the ACT Partys far-right principles – prioritising corporate interests over people, nature, and Te Tiriti,' says Greenpeace spokesperson Gen Toop.
The Government is facing backlash over David Seymour's controversial Regulatory Standards Bill which passed its first reading today, under the shadow of the Budget.
'After the uproar over the Treaty Principles Bill, the Luxon Government looks to be trying to keep Seymour's latest unpopular Bill quiet. They've clearly chosen to introduce it in Budget week to minimise scrutiny,' said Greenpeace spokesperson Gen Toop.
'The Regulatory Standards Bill tries to make all future lawmakers in government follow a rigid set of the ACT Party's far-right principles – prioritising corporate interests over people, nature, and Te Tiriti,' says Toop.
This is the fourth time ACT has tried to pass the bill. It's failed not once, not twice, but three times already. This time, more than 20,000 people submitted on the Bill during its first consultation, with only 0.33% of submitters in support, while 88% opposed it outright.
The Bill was also the subject of a Waitangi Tribunal inquiry, brought by over 13,000 claimants. The Tribunal found the Crown had breached its Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations and called on the Crown to halt further work on the controversial bill until it consults with Māori.
One of the principles in the Regulatory Standards Bill would create a new and unprecedented expectation that the Crown compensate corporations if environmental or public interest laws affect their property.
'It's a simple principle: polluters should pay – not be paid by the public. But Seymour's bill turns that on its head,' says Toop.
'If this bill becomes law, corporations like ExxonMobil, Fonterra and Monsanto would expect taxpayer handouts when the government introduces basic environmental or public protections.'
'These extreme neoliberal ideas have no place in our legal system here in Aotearoa, where we have long valued fairness and collective responsibility rather than individual entitlements to harm nature or others under the guise of freedom,' says Toop.
Greenpeace, along with Forest & Bird, WWF-New Zealand and the Environmental Defence Society, issued an open letter to the Prime Minister on Monday calling on him to reject the Regulatory Standards Bill, warning that it is an 'unprecedented threat' to environmental protection, climate action, and the country's democratic and constitutional foundations.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
9 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Radich stands by letter to government
Despite community backlash and being opposed to writing it, Dunedin Mayor Jules Radich is standing by his letter to the government seeking sanctions against Israel. Critics said Mr Radich's letter — sent to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters on July 2 asking them to back Green Party co-leader Chloe Swarbrick's Unlawful Occupation of Palestine Sanctions Bill — was embarrassing, a cop-out and read like a "word salad". "The whole tone of your letter pretty much reads like you were forced to write it at gunpoint," one email to the mayor read. Others said the tone of the letter was appropriate given backing the Bill was "none of local government's business". Mr Radich said the letter accurately reflected how the council arrived at the decision to send it following the lodgement of a "divisive" motion. Dunedin city councillors narrowly passed a motion at June's community services committee meeting to support the Bill and chairwoman Marie Laufiso's casting vote was required to break a 7-7 tie. Mr Radich, who voted against the motion, was directed to write to Mr Luxon and Mr Peters asking government MPs to back the Bill. In his letter, he also detailed the vote's outcome and said the situation in the Middle East was of great concern to many Dunedin residents. "There are also many who do not think that international relations are the business of local government," he wrote. Correspondence released to the Otago Daily Times under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act showed Mr Radich's letter was not welcomed by those who supported the Bill. In the week from July 2, Mr Radich received communications from seven people criticising him and his letter. One person said Mr Radich should recall and rewrite it with "some degree of pride" in his position and should accept it with grace when a decision went against him. One email said Mr Radich had intentionally misconstrued a council decision. "You have chosen to throw your toys out of the cot, rather than to uphold collective responsibility," another said. He also received three emails in support of his letter, from those who felt the decision to back the Bill was "none of local government's business". Between July 4 and 14, Mr Radich and councillors received 2284 impersonal emails from "concerned American and global citizens", urging them not to support the motion to support the Greens' Bill. Council chief information officer Graeme Riley said it was not uncommon for councillors to receive bulk emails when considering "contentious" issues. Mr Radich said he stood by the letter, saying it was "an accurate description of what happened". "Trying to divide our council and our community by asking the government to support an opposition party Bill, I think is ... inappropriate and it's just looking to create further division in the community." He had not received a response from Mr Luxon or Mr Peters.
The Spinoff
10 hours ago
- The Spinoff
The Green Party positions itself as the left's leader, and a friend to the coal miners
Sitting at around 10% in recent polls, the Greens will need to reach communities they haven't traditionally related to if they realistically want to lead the left bloc. Many of the promises made by political progressives this year have fallen under the umbrella of 'we'll clean up whatever the other guy is doing'. Labour would repeal the Regulatory Standards Bill within its first 100 days, Te Pāti Māori would establish a te Tiriti commissioner, and the Green Party, well, they hope to be leading the pack. Already armed with an alternative budget and a fiscal strategy, and with their sights set on a new eco-friendly industrial era and a new voter base among miners and farmers, the still self-described hippies reckon they're the strongest offering the left has got – but they're self-aware enough to know they'll have to spend the next 12 months convincing Aotearoa of that. The mood at the party's annual general meeting, held over the weekend at Wellington's Te Auaha – a Whitireia and WelTec creative campus set for the chopping block in the Te Pūkenga demerger, much to the party's chagrin – was jovial, ambitious and resolute. Powered by vegan salads and doughnuts from plant-based bakery Belén, party members spent the weekend fundraising by way of a 'Greenathon', which saw MPs perform in front of attendees for donations – Lan Pham did a dance routine with her twin, while Steve Abel, Benjamin Doyle and Kahurangi Carter belted out a rendition of Chappell Roan's 'Pink Pony Club', the latter of which raised $20,000 in five minutes. In the more serious moments, attendees did breathing exercises to deal with the bullshit, reaffirmed their political earnestness and also reaffirmed the importance of trying to understand where your racist uncle is coming from every now and then. When co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick delivered her address on Sunday – the main event of the AGM – she urged her supporters not just to connect with each other, but with 'the New Zealanders outside of this room', to build a bridge between those who 'straight up hate' politics and 'a bunch of earnest nerds' (aka the Greens). It's time to build a bridge and get everyone over it, the Greens reckon. 'In the political arena, it is pretty common for people to accuse the other side, and particularly the people who vote for them, of being idiots,' Swarbrick told the crowd. 'If we can't understand why people do the things that they do, then the logic tends to flow: they're wrong, and they just don't get it. That's clearly not a winning formula.' She's right – in terms of giving the major parties a run for their money, it hasn't been. The Greens have a loyal core voter base and 2023 was their most successful election ever, with 11.6% of the party vote and three electorates giving them 15 seats. Since then, polling has kept the party safely above 10% of the vote, and it remains the best-polling minor party alongside Act – but there's still a long way to go in terms of getting a shot at leading a government. And though the Greens have stayed mum on whether their closest frenemy's inability to dream up something concrete in terms of policy will aid them in the long run ('that's a question for the Labour Party,' Davidson told The Spinoff, smiling), there's no doubt that being the man with a plan has to mean something to someone. The Greens' AGM coincided with the tail-end of a small stint around the South Island by the Labour caucus, which reaffirmed that the legacy left party wouldn't commit to any policy promises until closer to the general election. In lieu of announcing any concrete policy, the party has instead gone hard on highlighting what they see as the government's failures, from school lunches to Family Boost to the price of butter – and are still polling on triple the numbers that the Greens have. Of course, the Greens are also constantly scrutinising the government's decisions while also offering up policies and alternative plans, but they have struggled to get the biggest power on the left bloc on board with the likes of their Green budget . It's one thing to be the 'big idea' factory, as Swarbrick described the party, but if you can't get the CEO to sign off on the proposals, you're not going to get anywhere. So why not try to position yourself as the one who should be calling the shots? Future finance minister? And so, the party has hopes that those who aren't traditional Green voters (specifically, the farmers and miners) could be persuaded to see the light. Yet reaching out to the blue-collar worker – who probably has some underlying feelings of class consciousness because their boss is driving a BMW while they've had to pick up extra shifts and still be stuck on public transport – hasn't been something the Greens, and the progressive left as a whole, are best at. After recently visiting miners on the West Coast, Swarbrick reckoned her party had 'a heck of a lot more in common with coal miners' than most realised – their shared interest being decent incomes, community and pride in their work. 'There were a few surprises to be perfectly honest [because], as you say, it's not a ground the Green Party are expected to occupy,' Swarbrick said. 'But it's not good enough for us simply to have the stacks of evidence if we're left clinging to [it] when the last tree is cut down – we have to bridge that gap.' With her sights quietly set on a possible future as finance minister, Swarbrick wouldn't confirm whether the party had any bottom lines ahead of possible coalition talks following next year's election. She and her co-leader have plenty of time to try to talk things through with Chris Hipkins, and less time to convince swing voters and those literally at the coal face that their version of a tail-wagging government would be better than the current one. And anyway, Swarbrick and Davidson made sure to repeatedly reaffirm their belief that 'no political party, no politician, is entitled to anything – New Zealanders get to decide the future of our country'. So, all of this aside, there might still be a bigger and more uncomfortable truth for the Greens to deal with: there are still many New Zealanders who aren't ready, or just don't want to, elect what's being touted as Aotearoa's most progressive parliament. Page 2
RNZ News
19 hours ago
- RNZ News
Here's what was in Winston Peters' letter to UN Rapporteur on Indigenous Rights
Winston Peters sent the letter in his capacity as Foreign Minister. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii Foreign Minister Winston Peters' response to a UN official raising concerns about the government's approach is far milder than the one initially sent by ACT leader David Seymour. Seymour was rebuked by Peters and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon after writing back to the Geneva-based UN Rapporteur on Indigenous Rights Dr Albert K Barume, who raised concerns about the Regulatory Standards Bill. His letter, in his capacity as Regulations Minister, said Barume's views on the government's agenda were wrong and an affront to New Zealand's sovereignty, and Barume's letter itself was "presumptive, condescending and wholly misplaced". Peters and Luxon at the time said the Foreign Minister - who the letter was addressed to - was the appropriate person to send New Zealand's official response. While Luxon said he "fully agreed" with the contents of Seymour's message, Peters rejected Seymour's suggestion his official response would "make the same points". That official response , published on Monday night with a handful of redactions by the UN, said New Zealand "deeply regret this breakdown in protocol and appreciate the opportunity to put the record straight". It said the Regulatory Standards Bill was "a result of a Coalition Agreement between two of the three political parties that currently comprise the New Zealand Government", and was "intended to reduce the amount of unnecessary and poor-quality legislation". David Seymour was rebuked by Peters and Christopher Luxon. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii The letter also pointed out the bill was being considered by a select committee. "As a mature democracy, New Zealand has well established systems for developing legislation in a way that takes account of a wide range of interests." It said New Zealand "honours the undertakings that the Crown has made through past Treaty of Waitangi settlements and continues to address historical Treaty grievance claims", pointing to 101 such claims having been signed by iwi, hapū and the Crown. An appendix to the letter also provided further information about "relevant constitutional provisions", pointing out that "all legislative proposals that are submitted to the New Zealand Cabinet must consider the human rights and Treaty of Waitangi implications of the proposal". A second appendix on the Regulatory Standards Bill set out the bill's purpose, and how it aimed to achieve that - providing a straightforward explanation of how the bill would work, with links to public consultation and other publicly available information, noting it would not constrain Parliament's ability to make laws. It also noted "nothing in the bill will prevent any additional principles from being considered in the process of lawmaking, or in the review of existing law", and stated the absence of the Treaty of Waitangi from the bill "reflects a decision to focus on a discrete set of goals, including promoting the accountability of the Executive to Parliament". RNZ has sought comment from David Seymour.
