Starmer seeking to quell revolt over welfare reform plan
They said: 'Delivering fundamental change is not easy, and we all want to get it right, so of course we're talking to colleagues about the Bill and the changes it will bring, we want to start delivering this together on Tuesday.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
34 minutes ago
- Otago Daily Times
Personal attacks by minister also attacks on democracy
Our select committee process is the most important democratic institution in our Parliament. It is the way the public has a say in making laws. Select committees enhance transparency, accountability and public participation in governance. Their work strengthens the legislative process, improves the law and reinforces our trust in our democratic institutions. It is the only time between elections where parliamentarians must listen to ordinary people talk to them about the impact of policy decisions on their lives and families. It is the only scrutiny you and I have over future law. We do not get to decide the law, but we do get to have our say about it. That is part of the representative government arrangements. We give our representatives the right to decide for us, as long as they have the obligation to listen to us and take our views into account. This is why there is such a strong push for submissions to select committees. Without the public submissions to select committees, legislation would be even more prone to political manipulation and poor drafting, leading to more uncertainty and increased costs. When select committees issue the invitation to submit, they are committing to an open democracy and inviting scrutiny and transparency. This process reinforces democratic legitimacy. If the government does not open itself to scrutiny, how can it argue it has consent to govern? New Zealand's parliamentary select committee process is fundamental to our view of democracy and good government. While there is always room for improvement, the select committee system remains one of the most robust mechanisms for safeguarding democratic values in Aotearoa New Zealand. This means that when ministers attack members of the public who are engaging with the select committee process, they are also attacking our democracy. This is not an exaggeration. Without unfettered access to the select committee process, you and I are locked out of our only mechanism to scrutinise future law. It does not matter who you vote for. It does not matter what political ''side'' you consider yourself on. Your access to select committees should never be threatened. But this is where we now find ourselves. A senior minister has launched public, and very personal, attacks on some people, myself included, who make submissions to a select committee. This raises many questions. One is why would the person who has ultimate authority over the content of the Bill feel the need to personally attack those who disagree with it? This is not the action of someone confident in their rationale. A confident minister would allow the select committee process to proceed without trying to hinder or constrain it. A confident minister would welcome, rather than complain about, the public's engagement with their proposed legislation. Only a minister who fears the critique would personally attack the critics. Which suggests a second question: why such a minister would fear for the passage of the proposed legislation? In the case of the Regulatory Standards Bill, it is unclear why the minister is so anxious. The Bill is the subject of the coalition agreement between Act New Zealand and National, so National's support is guaranteed. The New Zealand First agreement requires it to support the policy proposals in the Act agreement, so NZ First will also have to vote for the Bill. Because of these political deals, the Bill will pass. So the only concern must be about the content of the Bill. The Bill might pass but the content of the Bill is open to change based on the submissions. And the anxiety of the minister over the submissions strongly suggests that these criticisms have legitimacy. The critiques have been well-traversed. One is that the Bill leaves open the opportunity for corporate entities to sue the government for regulation and legislation that does not meet the Bill's narrow principles. This is not as unlikely as some assume. Corporate entities have similar rights to those of natural persons and the fear of litigation by companies has led to a chilling effect on some good public policy protections. The Bill does not protect the government from such litigation. Another critique is that the Bill will constrain government and local government regulation and bylaw-making powers. This concern has been expressed by our own Dunedin City Council this week as it defends local decision-making and local democracy. And, of course, that the Bill is itself contrary to the rule of law it proposes to promote, because it excludes the Crown's constitutional obligations under te Tiriti o Waitangi. The rule of law is not confined to concerns of private property. The rule of law includes constitutional protections, like those found in te Tiriti, and in democratic processes, like our select committees. You will judge yourself as to the legitimacy of the deputy prime minister making ad hominem attacks against policy critics. But make no mistake, his attacks against individuals just disguise his attacks against democracy. ■Metiria Stanton Turei is a senior law lecturer at the University of Otago and a former Green Party MP and co-leader.
The Herald Scotland
35 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Rebellion grows as Labour welfare bill faces critical vote
Sir Keir Starmer is currently in talks with Labour rebels in a bid to salvage the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment (PIP) Bill. More than 120 Labour MPs — including a third of the party's Scottish group — have added their names to a 'reasoned amendment' which would effectively derail the changes. READ MORE The bill aims to restrict eligibility for PIP in England and limit sickness-related payments under Universal Credit, as part of a package aimed at saving up to £5 billion a year. It would also increase the basic rate of Universal Credit, in what the Government claims is the most significant uplift in out-of-work support since the 1980s. But campaigners warn that 3.2 million disabled people could lose out, with up to 400,000 pushed into poverty. A coalition of ten major disability charities has condemned the plans, while polling shows widespread public concern. PIP has been mostly devolved to the Scottish Government, which began replacing it with Adult Disability Payment (ADP) in 2022. The SNP has ruled out replicating the changes. However, any reduction in PIP spending will have an impact on the block grant to the Scottish Government. Speaking to journalists in Holyrood, Mr Sarwar said the party was not split: 'Everyone agrees we need reform. We all agree we have to get our welfare system on a more sustainable footing. 'We agree we have to prioritise work and help people get back into work. We agree those who can't work should get the support they need. And we agree that any change must be a fair one. 'But those conversations and discussions are obviously continuing between Labour, MPs and ministers, all of whom are doing the right thing, doing their job.' Pressed on whether he supported those Scottish Labour MPs who oppose the legislation, Mr Sarwar said: 'Well, those conversations are ongoing. What matters is that we accept the principle of reform — but we also make sure any changes are fair. That is what MPs and ministers are focused on.' Asked whether the draft legislation needs to change, Mr Sarwar replied: 'Clearly, with the number of MPs who have signed the reasoned amendment, there will have to be further conversations — and those are ongoing.' He added: 'Whatever reforms are made, welfare spending will increase over the course of this Parliament. The number of people receiving benefits will also go up. What matters is that we prioritise work, ensure people who need support get it, and that reforms are fair.' Meanwhile, Sir Keir has told MPs he wanted the reforms, which will restrict access to sickness and incapacity benefits, to demonstrate 'Labour values of fairness'. The Prime Minister told MPs there was 'consensus across the House on the urgent need for reform' of the 'broken' welfare system. 'I know colleagues across the House are eager to start fixing that, and so am I, and that all colleagues want to get this right, and so do I,' he said. 'We want to see reform implemented with Labour values of fairness. 'That conversation will continue in the coming days, so we can begin making change together on Tuesday.' READ MORE Meanwhile, The Times reported some MPs opposed to the plans had blamed Sir Keir's chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, and suggested the time had come for 'regime change' in Downing Street. Asked if Sir Keir had confidence in his chief of staff, the No 10 spokesman would not comment on Downing Street staffing matters. Asked whether he thought Sir Keir had the right advisers around him, Mr Sarwar replied: 'I work very closely with the Prime Minister and his team. It's the same team that delivered a landslide victory across the country and is now working hard in government.' He added: 'I'm not interested in internal politics. I understand why political journalists are — but I'm focused on the implementation of policy and what it means for people.'
The Citizen
2 hours ago
- The Citizen
‘Greatest political mistake': Steenhuisen says Ramaphosa firing Whitfield was a ‘calculated assault'
The agriculture minister contended that the president's decision is 'hypocrisy at the highest form'. Democratic Alliance (DA) leader John Steenhuisen has warned that South Africa's future is at risk following President Cyril Ramaphosa's dismissal of Deputy Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition, Andrew Whitfield. The announcement of Whitfield's dismissal was made on Thursday. This was due to Whitfield's trip to the United States (US) earlier this year without the president's approval – a decision made during a period of strained relations between South Africa and the US. Whitfield's removal could place the future of the government of national unity (GNU) in doubt once more. Steenhuisen reacts to Whitfield sacking Speaking during a National Assembly plenary session on Thursday, Steenhuisen said Ramaphosa had informed him shortly before Tuesday's Cabinet meeting that Whitfield would be removed as minister. The DA leader said he had requested for 24 hours to speak to Whitfield and to inform his party about the developments. 'However before I could do so, just three hours later, Whitfield received a letter informing him of his removal,' Steenhuisen said. He confirmed that the US trip was the reason for the 'sudden ill-considered' decision to fire Whitfield. Steenhuisen was then heckled by MPs, while MK party MP Brian Molefe asked why the DA leader was discussing an issue that was not on the agenda. 'The last time I checked, we were debating the Division of Revenue Bill,' Molefe said. ALSO READ: ANC stands divided over DA While Parliament's chair of chairs Cedric Frolick asked Steenhuisen to stick to the relevant topic, the agriculture minister insisted that he was setting a path of how the DA would vote on the Bill. The Division of Revenue Bill sets out how government revenue is allocated among the national government, provinces and municipalities. Steenhuisen argued that Whitfield had written to Ramaphosa requesting permission to travel to the US on 12 February. However, 10 days later he had not received a reply or 'any response whatsoever'. 'The facts of this matter contradict this flimsy reasoning,' the DA leader said. Watch the plenary session below: According to Steenhuisen, Whitfield subsequently wrote to the president to apologise if he had caused offence, but he received no response again. 'Then yesterday, months after the incident, and without a further word on it, the president unilaterally removed a DA deputy minister without even giving his largest coalition partner an opportunity to discuss it with the member or his party. 'According to the president's spokesperson, this move is not part of a broader reshuffle and there can therefore be no other conclusion to be drawn that this is a calculated assault on the second largest party in the governing coalition,' he remarked. Steenhuisen take swipes at Ramaphosa and ANC ministers Steenhuisen further described Whitfield's removal was 'a product of a flagrant double standard' and listed ANC Cabinet ministers accused of questionable conduct. 'There are members in the Cabinet who are implicated in the VBS scandal and looting. 'There are members in the Cabinet despite apparently misleading Parliament over an attempt to deploy corrupt cadres to Seta [Sector Education and Training Authority] boards remains in the Cabinet,' Steenhuisen said. READ MORE: Higher education minster accused of covering up tender irregularities — report 'Serial underperformers and people implicated in state capture continue to sit around the cabinet table. 'Now, instead of being summarily fired like Whitfield was, these ministers get an opportunity to submit a report to the president on their behaviour. 'In the past, even ministers who had serious public protective findings against them were merely admonished or had their pay docked. Yet a DA deputy minister is dismissed with the flimsiest of excuses.' 'Hypocrisy at the highest form' The minister claimed that Whitfield was succeeding in his job, asking 'uncomfortable questions' about the controversial national lotteries licence tender, among other things. 'Now if this situation is not corrected, it will go down as the greatest political mistake in modern South African history. 'And so seeing the president is now 'cleaning house', I would like to suggest that he sweeps in front of his own doorstep before he sweeps in front of the DA's doorstep.' Steenhuisen emphasised that Ramaphosa's decision is 'hypocrisy at the highest form'. 'The ball is now in the president's court and he must show us now that he is a man of his word.' He indicated that the DA would ultimately vote in favour of the Bill 'not for politics, but for South Africa'. The DA leader called for the dismissal of ANC ministers implicated in corruption within 48 hours. 'This is now the moment of truth.' NOW READ: SA's coalition government is at risk of crumbling: Why collapse would carry a heavy cost
