Midday Report Essentials for Wednesday 23 April 2025
spiritual practices crime 22 minutes ago
In today's episode, New Zealand's sole cardinal says it is important the next pope continues to prevent child sexual abuse in the church and is politically astute considering the current geopolitical environment, for the second time, Te Pati Maori MPs have declined to turn up to a Privileges Committee hearing at Parliament, a coroner examining the disappearance of John Beckenridge and his stepson Mike in Southland 10 years ago has heard conflicting evidence about what a witness was told, and a Tauranga councillor says a lack of airline competition in the region has been a problem for years.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
6 hours ago
- Scoop
Experts Warn Regulatory Standards Bill Threatens Future Public Health Laws
Article – RNZ One of the experts said it would have a 'chilling effect' on public health measures. , Reporter Public health experts are worried the government's proposed Regulatory Standards Bill will act as a disincentive for future law-makers to limit harmful industries. A group of scholars in health and policy have worked together on a briefing, titled 'Regulatory Standards Bill threatens the public interest, public health and Māori rights'. It's authors are Jonathan Boston, Michael Baker, Andrew Geddis, Carwyn Jones and Geoffrey Palmer. The Regulatory Standards Bill was introduced to Parliament in May, and is now being considered by the finance and expenditure committee. It would set up a Regulatory Standards Board to consider how legislation measures up to the principles. It was part of ACT's coalition agreement, and in putting the bill forward, party leader David Seymour said: 'In a high-cost economy, regulation isn't neutral – it's a tax on growth. This government is committed to clearing the path of needless regulations by improving how laws are made.' The bill wants politicians to show their workings, he said. 'This bill turns the explanation from politicians' 'because we said so' into 'because here is the justification according to a set of principles'.' But Baker said the bill had prompted a large number of concerns, not least from a public health perspective. He said it was problematic that the bill failed to mention public harm in its ethical framework, which was needed to balance out private benefits. Another issue was the 'takings or impairment principle'. The bill in its current form would allow commercial interests, such as the tobacco or alcohol industries, to seek compensation – paid with public money – if any future legislation caused them to lose money. Baker explained this would have a 'chilling effect' on public health measures. He said it would make it less appealing for governments to create any new legislation aimed at protecting public health which could negatively impact harmful industries, which might then seek compensation. This could include the denicotinisation of cigarettes, alcohol restrictions like sponsorship bans, controls on unhealthy food and drink such as limiting marketing to children, and clean air provisions such as mandating emissions reductions by industry. This bill would mean taxpayers paid to compensate these businesses for the money lost because of moves to protect public health. 'And that's going to make it very difficult for any groups – even governments – promoting new public health laws and regulations, that are intended to protect the public interest.' The briefing notes that, rather than this being a by-product of the legislation's overall goal, it 'appears to be the Bill's intention'. Seymour response Seymour accused Baker of 'alarmism'. 'What the bill actually says is that if a politician or government department wants to pass a regulation that infringes on your private property rights, they'll need to justify why. Inconsistency with the principles does not prevent any new legislation from being passed. All it requires is transparency to the taxpayer. That's not radical, it's democratic accountability. If a policy is justified, it will stand up to scrutiny.' 'The Regulatory Standards Bill will help New Zealand get its mojo back. It requires politicians and officials to ask and answer certain questions before they place restrictions on citizens' freedoms. What problem are we trying to solve?' Seymour asked. 'What are the costs and benefits? Who pays the costs and gets the benefits? What restrictions are being placed on the use and exchange of private property?' 'This Bill turns 'because we said so' into 'because here's the evidence'.'
Scoop
7 hours ago
- Scoop
Experts Warn Regulatory Standards Bill Threatens Future Public Health Laws
Public health experts are worried the government's proposed Regulatory Standards Bill will act as a disincentive for future law-makers to limit harmful industries. A group of scholars in health and policy have worked together on a briefing, titled "Regulatory Standards Bill threatens the public interest, public health and Māori rights". It's authors are Jonathan Boston, Michael Baker, Andrew Geddis, Carwyn Jones and Geoffrey Palmer. The Regulatory Standards Bill was introduced to Parliament in May, and is now being considered by the finance and expenditure committee. It would set up a Regulatory Standards Board to consider how legislation measures up to the principles. It was part of ACT's coalition agreement, and in putting the bill forward, party leader David Seymour said: "In a high-cost economy, regulation isn't neutral - it's a tax on growth. This government is committed to clearing the path of needless regulations by improving how laws are made." The bill wants politicians to show their workings, he said. "This bill turns the explanation from politicians' 'because we said so' into 'because here is the justification according to a set of principles'." But Baker said the bill had prompted a large number of concerns, not least from a public health perspective. He said it was problematic that the bill failed to mention public harm in its ethical framework, which was needed to balance out private benefits. Another issue was the "takings or impairment principle". The bill in its current form would allow commercial interests, such as the tobacco or alcohol industries, to seek compensation - paid with public money - if any future legislation caused them to lose money. Baker explained this would have a "chilling effect" on public health measures. He said it would make it less appealing for governments to create any new legislation aimed at protecting public health which could negatively impact harmful industries, which might then seek compensation. This could include the denicotinisation of cigarettes, alcohol restrictions like sponsorship bans, controls on unhealthy food and drink such as limiting marketing to children, and clean air provisions such as mandating emissions reductions by industry. This bill would mean taxpayers paid to compensate these businesses for the money lost because of moves to protect public health. "And that's going to make it very difficult for any groups - even governments - promoting new public health laws and regulations, that are intended to protect the public interest." The briefing notes that, rather than this being a by-product of the legislation's overall goal, it "appears to be the Bill's intention". Seymour response Seymour accused Baker of "alarmism". "What the bill actually says is that if a politician or government department wants to pass a regulation that infringes on your private property rights, they'll need to justify why. Inconsistency with the principles does not prevent any new legislation from being passed. All it requires is transparency to the taxpayer. That's not radical, it's democratic accountability. If a policy is justified, it will stand up to scrutiny." "The Regulatory Standards Bill will help New Zealand get its mojo back. It requires politicians and officials to ask and answer certain questions before they place restrictions on citizens' freedoms. What problem are we trying to solve?" Seymour asked. "What are the costs and benefits? Who pays the costs and gets the benefits? What restrictions are being placed on the use and exchange of private property?" "This Bill turns 'because we said so' into 'because here's the evidence'."
Scoop
15 hours ago
- Scoop
Kahungunu Submission Rejects The Regulatory Standards Bill In Its Entirety
The Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB), currently before the New Zealand Parliament, aims to improve the quality of regulation by establishing clear benchmarks for good law-making and increasing transparency. It seeks to reduce unnecessary and poor-quality regulation, promoting economic efficiency and accountability in the regulatory system. The bill introduces a set of "principles of responsible regulation" that all new and existing legislation must comply with. We do not agree! Immediate Rejection. This submission strongly recommends the immediate rejection of the RSB in its entirety. Te Tiriti Embedding: All regulation and policy should explicitly reference and operationalise Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This includes requiring co-governance arrangements and meaningful engagement with iwi and hapū at all stages of regulatory and policy development and implementation. The RSB represents a significant threat to Aotearoa New Zealand's constitutional framework, democratic processes, and the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The bill's numerous flaws and its potential for far-reaching negative consequences, as highlighted by extensive expert analysis, necessitate its withdrawal. Its potential to undermine Māori rights, weaken environmental protections, and exacerbate social and economic inequalities, as evidenced by the concerns raised by Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated and numerous experts, is deeply concerning. This submission urges the government to withdraw the RSB and initiate a genuine and inclusive process for building on existing and international best practice regulatory frameworks including 'Black, Indigenous, Peoples of Colour', 'United Nations Declaration Rights of Indigenous Peoples' and 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights', which reflects unique values and priorities of Aotearoa.
