Govt's modern slavery trade commitments questioned in the UK
New Zealand's lack of effort in tackling modern slavery has been criticised by British observers scrutinising a trade deal signed between the two countries, as hopes of a cross-party deal to pass a new law fade.
The last Labour government announced plans to make businesses publicly report on what they were doing to address exploitation risks in their operations and supply chains, in a move supported by National.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
14 hours ago
- Scoop
The Regulatory Standards Bill: Neoliberal Shackles Disguised As 'Good Law'
Press Release – Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement We argue that the bill is not about making regulation better or fairer, but about handcuffing future lawmakers to an ideology that privileges private property, contract law, and the capitalist right to profit. When the New Zealand Parliament debates 'better law-making,' most people yawn. It sounds procedural, technocratic — even boring. But beneath the jargon of 'clarity,' 'predictability,' and 'transparency,' lurks a political agenda. The Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB), first introduced in 2011 by ACT Party founder Roger Douglas's disciple Rodney Hide and continuously revived in various guises since, represents a stealth weapon in the arsenal of neoliberal capitalism. It is a Trojan horse for embedding pro-market ideology into the very machinery of the state — making it harder for any future government, let alone a radical movement, to challenge the dominance of capital. We argue that the bill is not about making regulation 'better' or 'fairer,' but about handcuffing future lawmakers to an ideology that privileges private property, contract law, and the capitalist 'right to profit.' Its passage would mark a dangerous deepening of bourgeois legalism, constraining any collective attempts to democratise the economy or dismantle capitalist structures through parliamentary reform — let alone revolutionary means. The Origins: ACT's Neoliberal Dream To understand the Regulatory Standards Bill, we must start with ACT. Founded in the 1990s as the ideological successor to Roger Douglas's Rogernomics project, the ACT Party exists to finish what the Fourth Labour Government started: the total commodification of public life. With its roots in Chicago School economics, ACT idolises the free market, loathes the state (except when protecting capital), and views regulation as an obstacle to 'freedom' — defined narrowly as consumer and investor liberty. In 2009, the National-ACT confidence and supply agreement commissioned a taskforce led by arch-neoliberal Graham Scott to look into 'regulatory responsibility.' Its conclusion: regulation should conform to a strict set of principles designed to prevent the state from interfering too much with market activity. This taskforce gave birth to the Regulatory Standards Bill. Rodney Hide introduced the first version in 2011. It was met with scepticism, even from centrist legal scholars, who warned that the bill would judicialise politics and constitutionalise neoliberalism. While the bill didn't pass, its zombie-like persistence over the years shows how committed the New Zealand right remains to embedding capitalist ideology in law. What the Bill Proposes: Rights for Capital, Not People At first glance, the RSB reads like a list of nice-sounding principles: laws should not be retrospective, should respect property rights, should avoid creating unnecessary costs, and should be clear and accessible. But a closer look reveals its insidiousness. 1. 'Property Rights' as Sacred One of the central tenets of the bill is that laws should not 'take or impair property' unless justified. This may sound reasonable, but in practice, it elevates private property above public interest. It would give courts — not the people — the power to decide whether environmental protections, housing controls, or land use laws unduly infringe on property rights. It shifts power from democratically accountable institutions to unelected judges, many of whom are steeped in commercial law and capitalist ideology. This is a direct threat to mana whenua struggles for land justice. Imagine if land reform legislation, urban rent controls, or even a future law to nationalise fossil fuel companies were struck down because they infringed on 'property rights.' The bill constitutionalises the most reactionary legal principle of all: that the right to own and profit from land or capital is inviolable. 2. 'No More Than Necessary' Another clause says that regulation should not impose 'obligations, costs, or risks' that are more than 'reasonably necessary.' But who decides what's 'necessary'? Under capitalism, this often means what's necessary for profit. Environmental laws, workplace protections, or rent freezes could all be challenged for being 'too costly' to business. The bill invites judicial activism — not in the progressive sense, but as a means of protecting capitalist interests from redistributive policies. 3. Parliamentary Veto in Disguise The bill would require that every new law be accompanied by a 'certification' that it complies with these principles. If it doesn't, it must be justified — and could be challenged in court. This sets up a system where legislation is no longer judged on its social merit, but on how well it conforms to market logic. In essence, it's a regulatory veto wrapped in legal procedure. The aim is to make it politically and legally risky for any future government to pass redistributive or transformative laws. Embedding Capitalist Ideology into Law What makes the RSB especially dangerous is not just its content, but its method. It doesn't ban socialism outright. Instead, it sets up legal roadblocks that make any move toward economic democracy more difficult, expensive, or outright unconstitutional. This is classic capitalist strategy: not just win political battles, but rig the rules. It's the same logic behind investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) clauses in trade agreements, which allow corporations to sue states for regulating in the public interest. It's the logic behind independent central banks, which remove monetary policy from democratic control. And it's the logic behind 'fiscal responsibility' laws that force governments to prioritise debt repayment over social investment. The RSB is part of this neoliberal constitutionalism. It transforms what should be political questions – Who owns the land? Should rent be controlled? Should fossil fuels be nationalised? – into legal technicalities. It makes revolution, or even reform, illegal by stealth. Aotearoa's Class War by Other Means The Regulatory Standards Bill must be understood in the context of Aotearoa's broader class structure. We live in a settler-colonial capitalist state where wealth is concentrated among a small elite – disproportionately Pākehā – while working-class, Māori, and Pasifika communities struggle under the weight of exploitation, housing precarity, and intergenerational poverty. In such a context, regulation is one of the few remaining tools communities have to fight back. Whether it's tenant protections, limits on corporate land use, environmental regulations, or worker rights, regulation is one of the few levers available within capitalist democracy to redistribute power and resources. The RSB seeks to destroy that lever. It cloaks itself in legal neutrality, but in reality, it is a ruling class weapon designed to foreclose collective action. It represents the judicialisation of class war. One where the capitalist class doesn't need tanks or cops to crush resistance, just well-written legislation and friendly judges. The Limits of Parliamentary Critique It's important to note that opposition to the RSB has come not just from the left, but from mainstream legal figures and centrists worried about the erosion of parliamentary sovereignty. The New Zealand Law Society, in a rare political statement, warned that the bill would shift power from Parliament to the judiciary, undermining democratic accountability. But for anarcho-communists, the issue goes deeper than defending Parliament. Parliamentary democracy in a capitalist state is already limited, corrupt, and structurally skewed toward the ruling class. Our concern is not that the RSB undermines Parliament per se, but that it further consolidates capitalist power within the state, making radical transformation through any legal means even harder. In this sense, the RSB is not an aberration but a logical outcome of a capitalist democracy reaching its authoritarian phase. As global inequality deepens and ecological collapse accelerates, capitalist states are preemptively locking in protections for the wealthy – insulating themselves from the possibility of revolt. A Vision Beyond the Bill Anarcho-communists reject the premise of the RSB because we reject the premise of capitalist law itself. We do not believe the protection of property is a neutral good. We do not believe 'regulatory efficiency' should be the measure of political action. And we do not accept a legal framework that privileges capital over collective well-being. Instead, we fight for a society based on direct democracy, collective ownership, and ecological harmony. We envision a world where land is returned to tangata whenua, where housing is a right not a commodity, and where communities make decisions together, without the distortions of profit or property law. In such a world, the RSB would be unthinkable — not just because it's unjust, but because its very logic would no longer apply. There would be no 'regulators' because there would be no corporations to regulate. No 'property rights' because the land would belong to all. No 'cost-benefit analyses' because human need, not market efficiency, would guide our choices. What Is to Be Done? The Regulatory Standards Bill has not yet passed — but it remains a live threat. ACT and National are eager to revive it, and a future coalition could easily slip it through under the radar. We must oppose it not just with legal submissions or op-eds, but with direct action and radical education. We must expose it for what it is: a blueprint for capitalist entrenchment, not a neutral law reform. And we must prepare ourselves intellectually, and organisationally for the broader authoritarian turn it signals. This means: Popular education in unions, hapū, and community groups about the bill's implications. Legal support for those resisting unjust property laws and regulations. Resisting co-optation by parliamentary parties who offer weak, technocratic opposition. The battle over the Regulatory Standards Bill is a battle over who controls the future: the people, or capital. Let's make sure it's us.
Scoop
14 hours ago
- Scoop
Worsening Poverty And Social Misery In New Zealand
Press Release – Socialist Equality Group The government is seeking to solve the worsening economic crisis by ramping up the exploitation of the working class, while protecting the fortunes of the super-rich. Last week New Zealand's Treasury released a Child Poverty Report, which forecast that the proportion of children living in poverty will increase from 17.7 percent in 2024 to 18.4 percent in 2029. The report was released along with the National Party-led government's austerity budget, which starves public services, while cutting workers' wages, reducing government contributions to retirement savings and barring thousands of unemployed teenagers from welfare. The government is seeking to solve the worsening economic crisis by ramping up the exploitation of the working class, while protecting the fortunes of the super-rich. Asked by a TVNZ interviewer why the government had not done more in the budget to address child poverty, Finance Minister Nicola Willis declared: 'there is not actually a magic money tree that allows me to show such generosity that I can solve every problem at once.' Year after year, successive Labour and National Party governments have trotted out this refrain, even as they have handed tens of billions of dollars to the corporate elite through tax cuts, subsidies and bailouts, and spent billions on the armed forces. The National-led coalition government—with the support of the opposition Labour Party—will spend an extra $13 billion over the next four years as part of its plan to double the size of the military and integrate New Zealand further into US-led imperialist wars. Sarita Divis of the Child Poverty Action Group, a non-government organisation, pointed out in a New Zealand Herald column last month that the $3 billion annual increase in defence spending is exactly what the Treasury itself estimated it would cost to halve the level of child poverty by 2028. The government's Child Poverty Report actually understates the extent of child poverty. Its data is more than a year old, covering the period from July 2023 to June 2024. Over the past year, the number of people in full-time work has fallen by 45,000 as unemployment increased from 4 to 5.1 percent, and living costs have continued to rise while wages stagnated. Moreover, the government defines poverty as less than 50 percent of the median household income after paying for housing costs—an extremely low bar. While the percentage of children below this poverty line was unchanged in the year to June 2024, the number of children living in 'material hardship'—the poorest of the poor—increased by almost a third between 2022 and mid-2024, from 10.5 percent to 13.4 percent. 'Material hardship' is defined as lacking access to six or more 'essentials,' such as decent housing, heating, healthy food, warm clothes and shoes, etc. Another survey, by the Ministry of Health, found that last year 27 percent of children 'lived in households where food ran out often or sometimes,' up from 21 percent the year before. Numerous reports illustrate an increasingly severe social crisis. The Christchurch Press wrote on May 22: 'Some families have moved into one heated room to keep warm, while others are taking out loans to pay their power bills as costs rise and temperatures drop.' It noted that last year, 'Consumer NZ estimated 140,000 households had to take out a loan to pay their power bill, and a further 38,000 households had their power cut at least once as they couldn't pay their bill.' In Wellington, the Post reported on May 10 that 'Food charities are facing an unprecedented surge in demand from struggling middle income earners.' In February, one soup kitchen 'served 7930 meals, 1200 more than across the same month in 2024.' Nationwide 500,000 people, one tenth of the population, relies on food banks on a regular basis. Homelessness continues to become more visible in every major centre. The government has boasted about reducing the number of emergency housing places from 4,000 in September 2023 to around 500 in December 2024—despite the 2023 census finding that 112,496 people, or 2.3 percent of the population, are 'severely housing deprived' (up from 99,462 people in 2018). According to government data cited by the Press, 'the number of emergency housing special needs grants, which fund temporary accommodation for people in need, have dropped from 8873 in July 2023, to just 1338 in March 2025.' Growing social misery and hopelessness is reflected in an unprecedented surge in the use of dangerous drugs. In Northland, the poorest region, as well as Southland and Otago, wastewater testing shows methamphetamine use has tripled in the past year. Nationwide, the amount of meth consumed between October and December 2024 was 78 percent higher than the average over the previous 12 months. There is also a profound mental health crisis, particularly affecting young people. A May 14 report by UNICEF revealed that New Zealand had the worst youth suicide rate of the 36 countries in the OECD, with 17.1 suicides per 100,000 people aged 15 to 19 (based on data from 2018–20). UNICEF appealed to the government to increase welfare payments for families with children and to address food insecurity by expanding the provision of free school lunches. The government has made cruel cuts in both areas. The government has deflected blame for young people's poor mental health onto social media. It is seeking to ban under-16-year-olds from social media platforms. This has nothing to do with protecting children but is aimed at strengthening state control over the internet and stopping teenagers from accessing political material, especially socialist articles explaining the real causes of inequality, poverty and war. While the Labour Party has criticised the latest budget cuts, this is entirely hypocritical. Homelessness, child poverty and the cost of living all became worse during the 2017–2023 Labour government, which is why it lost the 2023 election in a landslide. Labour transferred tens of billions of dollars to the super-rich through corporate bailouts, subsidies and quantitative easing measures during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Last year's National Business Review Rich List, profiling more than 100 of the country's richest individuals and families, showed that their collective wealth increased from $72.59 billion to $95.68 billion in just one year. More than half of this figure, over $50 billion, was held by just 10 billionaires. This enormous wealth, accumulated by exploiting the labour of working people, must be expropriated, along with the money being wasted on war, so that it can be used to eliminate poverty, expand schools and hospitals and meet all other social needs. The task facing workers and young people is to reject all capitalist parties, including Labour and the Greens, and the union bureaucracy which has suppressed any resistance from workers to the government's attacks, and to take up the fight for the socialist reorganisation of society. By Tom Peters, Socialist Equality Group 30 May 2025
Scoop
15 hours ago
- Scoop
The Regulatory Standards Bill: Neoliberal Shackles Disguised As 'Good Law'
Press Release – Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement We argue that the bill is not about making regulation better or fairer, but about handcuffing future lawmakers to an ideology that privileges private property, contract law, and the capitalist right to profit. When the New Zealand Parliament debates 'better law-making,' most people yawn. It sounds procedural, technocratic — even boring. But beneath the jargon of 'clarity,' 'predictability,' and 'transparency,' lurks a political agenda. The Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB), first introduced in 2011 by ACT Party founder Roger Douglas's disciple Rodney Hide and continuously revived in various guises since, represents a stealth weapon in the arsenal of neoliberal capitalism. It is a Trojan horse for embedding pro-market ideology into the very machinery of the state — making it harder for any future government, let alone a radical movement, to challenge the dominance of capital. We argue that the bill is not about making regulation 'better' or 'fairer,' but about handcuffing future lawmakers to an ideology that privileges private property, contract law, and the capitalist 'right to profit.' Its passage would mark a dangerous deepening of bourgeois legalism, constraining any collective attempts to democratise the economy or dismantle capitalist structures through parliamentary reform — let alone revolutionary means. The Origins: ACT's Neoliberal Dream To understand the Regulatory Standards Bill, we must start with ACT. Founded in the 1990s as the ideological successor to Roger Douglas's Rogernomics project, the ACT Party exists to finish what the Fourth Labour Government started: the total commodification of public life. With its roots in Chicago School economics, ACT idolises the free market, loathes the state (except when protecting capital), and views regulation as an obstacle to 'freedom' — defined narrowly as consumer and investor liberty. In 2009, the National-ACT confidence and supply agreement commissioned a taskforce led by arch-neoliberal Graham Scott to look into 'regulatory responsibility.' Its conclusion: regulation should conform to a strict set of principles designed to prevent the state from interfering too much with market activity. This taskforce gave birth to the Regulatory Standards Bill. Rodney Hide introduced the first version in 2011. It was met with scepticism, even from centrist legal scholars, who warned that the bill would judicialise politics and constitutionalise neoliberalism. While the bill didn't pass, its zombie-like persistence over the years shows how committed the New Zealand right remains to embedding capitalist ideology in law. What the Bill Proposes: Rights for Capital, Not People At first glance, the RSB reads like a list of nice-sounding principles: laws should not be retrospective, should respect property rights, should avoid creating unnecessary costs, and should be clear and accessible. But a closer look reveals its insidiousness. 1. 'Property Rights' as Sacred One of the central tenets of the bill is that laws should not 'take or impair property' unless justified. This may sound reasonable, but in practice, it elevates private property above public interest. It would give courts — not the people — the power to decide whether environmental protections, housing controls, or land use laws unduly infringe on property rights. It shifts power from democratically accountable institutions to unelected judges, many of whom are steeped in commercial law and capitalist ideology. This is a direct threat to mana whenua struggles for land justice. Imagine if land reform legislation, urban rent controls, or even a future law to nationalise fossil fuel companies were struck down because they infringed on 'property rights.' The bill constitutionalises the most reactionary legal principle of all: that the right to own and profit from land or capital is inviolable. 2. 'No More Than Necessary' Another clause says that regulation should not impose 'obligations, costs, or risks' that are more than 'reasonably necessary.' But who decides what's 'necessary'? Under capitalism, this often means what's necessary for profit. Environmental laws, workplace protections, or rent freezes could all be challenged for being 'too costly' to business. The bill invites judicial activism — not in the progressive sense, but as a means of protecting capitalist interests from redistributive policies. 3. Parliamentary Veto in Disguise The bill would require that every new law be accompanied by a 'certification' that it complies with these principles. If it doesn't, it must be justified — and could be challenged in court. This sets up a system where legislation is no longer judged on its social merit, but on how well it conforms to market logic. In essence, it's a regulatory veto wrapped in legal procedure. The aim is to make it politically and legally risky for any future government to pass redistributive or transformative laws. Embedding Capitalist Ideology into Law What makes the RSB especially dangerous is not just its content, but its method. It doesn't ban socialism outright. Instead, it sets up legal roadblocks that make any move toward economic democracy more difficult, expensive, or outright unconstitutional. This is classic capitalist strategy: not just win political battles, but rig the rules. It's the same logic behind investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) clauses in trade agreements, which allow corporations to sue states for regulating in the public interest. It's the logic behind independent central banks, which remove monetary policy from democratic control. And it's the logic behind 'fiscal responsibility' laws that force governments to prioritise debt repayment over social investment. The RSB is part of this neoliberal constitutionalism. It transforms what should be political questions – Who owns the land? Should rent be controlled? Should fossil fuels be nationalised? – into legal technicalities. It makes revolution, or even reform, illegal by stealth. Aotearoa's Class War by Other Means The Regulatory Standards Bill must be understood in the context of Aotearoa's broader class structure. We live in a settler-colonial capitalist state where wealth is concentrated among a small elite – disproportionately Pākehā – while working-class, Māori, and Pasifika communities struggle under the weight of exploitation, housing precarity, and intergenerational poverty. In such a context, regulation is one of the few remaining tools communities have to fight back. Whether it's tenant protections, limits on corporate land use, environmental regulations, or worker rights, regulation is one of the few levers available within capitalist democracy to redistribute power and resources. The RSB seeks to destroy that lever. It cloaks itself in legal neutrality, but in reality, it is a ruling class weapon designed to foreclose collective action. It represents the judicialisation of class war. One where the capitalist class doesn't need tanks or cops to crush resistance, just well-written legislation and friendly judges. The Limits of Parliamentary Critique It's important to note that opposition to the RSB has come not just from the left, but from mainstream legal figures and centrists worried about the erosion of parliamentary sovereignty. The New Zealand Law Society, in a rare political statement, warned that the bill would shift power from Parliament to the judiciary, undermining democratic accountability. But for anarcho-communists, the issue goes deeper than defending Parliament. Parliamentary democracy in a capitalist state is already limited, corrupt, and structurally skewed toward the ruling class. Our concern is not that the RSB undermines Parliament per se, but that it further consolidates capitalist power within the state, making radical transformation through any legal means even harder. In this sense, the RSB is not an aberration but a logical outcome of a capitalist democracy reaching its authoritarian phase. As global inequality deepens and ecological collapse accelerates, capitalist states are preemptively locking in protections for the wealthy – insulating themselves from the possibility of revolt. A Vision Beyond the Bill Anarcho-communists reject the premise of the RSB because we reject the premise of capitalist law itself. We do not believe the protection of property is a neutral good. We do not believe 'regulatory efficiency' should be the measure of political action. And we do not accept a legal framework that privileges capital over collective well-being. Instead, we fight for a society based on direct democracy, collective ownership, and ecological harmony. We envision a world where land is returned to tangata whenua, where housing is a right not a commodity, and where communities make decisions together, without the distortions of profit or property law. In such a world, the RSB would be unthinkable — not just because it's unjust, but because its very logic would no longer apply. There would be no 'regulators' because there would be no corporations to regulate. No 'property rights' because the land would belong to all. No 'cost-benefit analyses' because human need, not market efficiency, would guide our choices. What Is to Be Done? The Regulatory Standards Bill has not yet passed — but it remains a live threat. ACT and National are eager to revive it, and a future coalition could easily slip it through under the radar. We must oppose it not just with legal submissions or op-eds, but with direct action and radical education. We must expose it for what it is: a blueprint for capitalist entrenchment, not a neutral law reform. And we must prepare ourselves intellectually, and organisationally for the broader authoritarian turn it signals. This means: Popular education in unions, hapū, and community groups about the bill's implications. Legal support for those resisting unjust property laws and regulations. Resisting co-optation by parliamentary parties who offer weak, technocratic opposition. The battle over the Regulatory Standards Bill is a battle over who controls the future: the people, or capital. Let's make sure it's us.
