Here's what was in Winston Peters' letter to UN Rapporteur on Indigenous Rights
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
23 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Education Minister cut Māori words from future junior books, documents reveal
Education Minister Erica Stanford. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii Education Minister Erica Stanford has imposed a near total ban on Māori in new additions to a series of books used to teach five-year-olds to read. An Education Ministry report shows Stanford decided in October last year to exclude all Māori words except for characters' names from any new books in the Education Ministry's Ready to Read Phonics Plus (RtRPP) series. The paper showed the decision was driven by concern Māori words were confusing for children learning to read English though evidence of that was mixed. Stanford told RNZ the decision affected only 12 books that would finish the series, after which the series, including 27 books with Māori words, could be reprinted. The ministry's report said: "Under this option, we would not include kupu Māori in all phases of the RtRPP scope and sequence for any future books. The 13 RtRPP books currently in development do not contain any kupu Māori, apart from character names." It was not clear in the paper whether the books would be reprinted. "As noted above, the RtRPP resources are expected to have a lifespan in schools of approximately 10 years, so it would take several years for the books containing kupu Māori that are currently in circulation to be replaced in practice." The document showed Stanford also instructed the ministry to develop a teaching sequence in the English curriculum to help teachers prepare children to read Māori words from their second year at school. Stanford told RNZ that would stop teaching children in mainstream classrooms to pronounce and read Māori from being "left to chance". The ministry's document said currently from Year 4, Māori words were included in the curriculum with increasing frequency and complexity. Stanford told RNZ she considered rewriting the 27 books that contained Māori words to retain only the proper nouns in Māori, but later decided against it. "These are very early readers that teach children to learn to read and there are already 'heart' words in there that children have to memorise in English and if there are some te reo words in there as well, then that's okay and we'll leave them as they are," she said. She described the decision as the middle position between conflicting advice. The minister's October decision included reprinting one of the books, 'At the Marae', as a big book but not as a 'reader' for children to take home - something that angered many teachers and principals in the past week. The document showed Stanford raised the issue after "experts in structured literacy approaches" told her that including two different languages in the books could confuse learners and make it harder for them to master English phonetics. The ministry's paper said evidence about that was mixed but there was a case to consider the amount of Māori words in books for children learning to read. Literacy experts told RNZ this week Māori words were part of everyday New Zealand English and did not present problems for beginning readers because their spelling was regular and their vowel sounds matched some of the English vowels. The document said 26 of the 75 Ready to Read books had up to three Māori words and a 27th, 'At the Marae', had six Māori words. A hand-written note on the document showed the minister wanted te reo Māori introduced when children stopped using "decodable" books like the Ready to Read series, usually at the end of their first year at school or early in their second year. "I want to include in the NZC (English) a section on Te Reo vowel sounds and pronunciation to ready students for reading te reo words in school journals as previously discussed," she wrote. Stanford also noted that: "Interestingly - I asked kura leaders if they would accept English words in te reo Māori decodable books and they no. So it would be consistent to keep one language only in very early Year 1 decodable books, except for names." The ministry's paper said the Ready to Read series was designed to teach the reading of English "and the sound-letter correspondences in English". "Our advice to schools is to teach kupu Māori in RtRPP books as "told" words. The foundational skill of phonic decoding within the resoruces is based on the English language and students are not expected to decode the kupu Māori," it said. The paper warned the options could result in pushback from schools. "If we discontinue the use of kupu Māori (apart from character names) in RtRPP books, there may be a negative response and media attention. [REDACTED] In particular, recalling existing books has the potential to generate pushback." The minister wrote in response: "It's only in Year 1 decodable books that teach English and it would align with the approach taken in te reo decodables. Te Reo would be introduced immediately after the use of decodable stops which is typically end of Year 1 early Year 2 where students move on to journals." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
Auckland: 5 paths to prosperity for a could-be super city
Auckland unemployment is 6.1% against New Zealand's 5.2%. Economic growth for the year to March was negative: -1.3% compared with –1.1%. Only 44% of businesses are optimistic, according to the Auckland Business Chamber, down from 51% in its previous survey. And in May, Auckland Council's outreach teams counted 809 people in the city who were 'unsheltered homeless': a 90% increase since September. Fix this now, says everyone. But how? Last week the Business Chamber's CEO Simon Bridges suggested that corporates need a tax cut. He has a fine sense of humour, that man, so perhaps he was joking. Corporate Auckland has done extremely well out of the last five years. No one else has. The banks, with their record profits, have the power to drive progress. But they don't. The big 'service' companies, aka the consultancies, have the influence to make a difference, but do they use it well? As for the big energy companies, where is their shame? These companies don't need a tax break, they need a conscience top-up. I did like the way Bridges phrased his suggestion, though. As BusinessDesk reported, he said the Government needs to stir up Auckland's 'animal spirits'. Tap into the superpowers of the Super City. Very cool. And he wasn't talking about mere movement in interest rates. 'I do think,' Bridges said, 'there is an argument for fiscal stimulus that's pretty strong, actually'. Finance Minister Nicola Willis has also taken to using the 's' word. She claims they are already 'stimulating' the economy; the recent re-announcement of $6 billion of infrastructure investments was designed to make the same point. I love it when centre-right politicians talk like they're Keynesians. But what they're proposing is not enough: we need fresh thinking and a much stronger, future-focused plan. Such a thing would include a decent regional deal, which is now in negotiation, to unlock new sources of funding. And a much better working relationship with Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei: the iwi has $1.5b in assets and its own 100-year plan, but is not integrated into economic planning for the city in anything like the way Tainui or Ngai Tahu are on their whenua. Why is Auckland dragging its heels on that? What about a programme to learn from kura kaupapa, which produce academic, social and cultural results that many schools in poor parts of the city would love to match? And a stronger climate-resilience strategy, because more floods are coming. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon told RNZ on Monday he didn't see how a special package could be applied to Auckland. Really? As well as all the above, here you are, boss, a five-point plan for a prosperous Auckland you can have for free. All it needs is a spot of courage. 1. Fast-tracked transit Prime Minister Christopher Luxon (left) with NZ First leader Winston Peters and Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown, about to ride the CRL under central Auckland. Photo / Michael Craig Luxon rode a train through the City Rail Link last week and was reportedly thrilled. Also last week, the managing director of KiwiSaver fund Simplicity, Sam Stubbs, revealed that by his calculation, 30% of all KiwiSaver funds are invested locally. That's $295b available for productive investment over the next 25 years. Luxon called the CRL 'a major, major feat' that would spur $12b of investment in the economic life of the city. It was 'a bit like Star Trek', he added. And Stubbs' news effectively meant there's enough money to build many more rapid-transit lines. Imagine it: faster travel times and less congestion, boosting economic life all over the city. There are many options for new transit routes, including a second North Shore line, city centre to the airport, Botany to the airport, Westgate to Albany, Avondale to Onehunga, not to mention faster progress on the already-planned Northwest Busway and the under-construction Eastern Busway. There are also mode options for all these routes: light rail, rapid bus, even gondolas. I don't have a fixed view on which should be built first or what modes of transport they should be, except to say tunnels are too expensive, too slow to build and use too much concrete. The Labour Government failed to grasp that we need more transit as quickly as possible. What's holding National back? By the way, I mention gondolas because they are easy, fast and relatively cheap to build, the technology is proven, and they might serve very well on second-tier routes. Te Atatu to New Lynn, perhaps, or Browns Bay to Takapuna to Devonport? Set up a route, for only few million, and see if it creates proof of concept. Fresh thinking. 2. A new energy deal Bridges has been blunt about energy too. 'Energy today is a severe handbrake on business and the economy,' he wrote in the Herald. 'Before 2018, long-term energy contracts averaged $70-$80 per MWh. But since 2021 the average has been $150-plus per MWh and over the last year it's averaged a whopping $190 per MWh.' This is a nightmare for businesses and a government that tolerates it is a government that simply isn't taking economic development seriously. Bridges called for the big gentailers to have their generation and retail functions separated. Almost everyone else agrees, except the gentailers themselves. But while that's needed, it's not all we need and it's not the quickest way to a fix. Solar is now the cheapest way to generate power and batteries make it easy to store, and Auckland is perfect for it. Vast swathes of the city are covered in warehouse and factory roofs. Where are the solar panels? What about residential solar? The Government could supercharge the industry, creating jobs, providing cheap energy and shoring up supply. In Melbourne, around a third of electricity comes from solar; in Auckland, it's less than 2%. 3. Kickstart homebuilding Remember this? Houses being built in Auckland. How did a Government committed to growth allow the momentum of this to collapse? Crashing residential construction will go down as one of the biggest blunders of this Government, especially as it was triggered by the destruction of Kāinga Ora's social and affordable housing programme. Communities were undermined, many people's hopes of a new home vanished, and over the last 18 months the country has lost 17,000 construction workers. Most of the pain has been felt in Auckland. Kāinga Ora needed fixing, to be sure, but not by wrecking an entire industry. As the economy shrank in the post-Covid world, the Government should have stimulated, not retrenched. Now there's a lot to do. Incentives for the return of at least some of those workers. Ramped-up education and training, fast-tracked new projects, new life for off-site production, industry reforms to bring down construction costs. Most of all, the reinstatement of projects cancelled or 'put on hold'. Parallel importing of construction products is now allowed. That's great, but what about the rest? 4. Modern freight management Empty containers hanging about in Wiri. Photo / Alex Burton Some of our freight companies are among the most go-ahead outfits in the country, but the Government's grasp of how their industry works is stuck in the 1980s. Auckland should not be using valuable waterfront land as a freight depot, let alone for storing empty containers. And trucks should not be clogging the highways, making those roads less efficient and more dangerous for everyone else. The freight industry itself is onto this, despite a lack of leadership from the Government, the mayor or even Port of Auckland. The future of freight logistics is now located in Hamilton, where the vast Ruakura Inland Port sits alongside the main trunk line and the Waikato Expressway. It's an initiative of Port of Tauranga and Waikato-Tainui. And it won't be long before a rail line to Northport, at Marsden Point in Northland, unlocks the potential of that port. Auckland shouldn't be worried about these things. It's good that freight management in the upper North Island is evolving. But we do need a coordinated plan and Auckland needs to be part of it. We need a far more functional rail network, including a fourth rail line to get goods to inland ports and off the waterfront quickly and efficiently. Instead, most Government ministers are focused myopically on spending billions on more roads. It's a colossal waste of money. We need roads. But we could have a good road to Northland without it being a super-expensive four-lane expressway. And we certainly don't need the proposed East-West Link, a highway to link Penrose to Ōtāhuhu, replacing Neilson St. The Northern Expressway and the EW Link are both are 'roads of national significance' (RONS). But the only 'significance' of the EW Link is that it will manage the freight traffic at Port of Tauranga's MetroPort facility, located along the route. Moving MetroPort away and freeing the isthmus land for housing is a far better option. RONS like those two are to National what tunnelled light rail was to Labour: absurdly expensive, going nowhere slowly, a pointless distraction from the realistic options we have to solve our transport crisis. 5. Big events Metallica is returning to New Zealand in November. But what about all the other events we should have? Events are vital to the life of a city, for the visitors who come to spend money and for the vibe. Never underestimate the vibe. Auckland's current schedule of events includes a Springbok test, SailGP and Metallica, but the programme is light and getting lighter. This can't be turned around in a hurry, what with the long-term planning of sports world cups and the like, and especially as the council has eviscerated its own budget for big events. Which is why this needs urgent attention. None of these five things is wacky or weird. They're little more than what we should be able to expect from any government, even a business-as-usual one. So why aren't they happening?
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Government undoes RMA Bill discharge rules, farmers won't need consent to pollute waterways
The government's changes mean thousands of farmers won't need resource consents to discharge pollutants into waterways. Photo: 123RF The government has taken what it is calling urgent action to save thousands of farmers from having to lodge resource consents to discharge pollutants into waterways. It said changes to the Resource Management Amendment (RMA) Bill meant farmers could carry on the routine work they had been doing for years without needing consent. Federated Farmers has welcomed the move, but critics called the environmental law changes a last-minute smash and grab that was being rammed through Parliament RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop said last month Waikato Regional Council told the government that unless urgent changes were made to water discharge rules in the RMA, approximately 2800 Waikato farms would require resource consents for on-farm activities. "The Waikato region generates 20 percent of the nation's primary exports, with dairy farming supporting the employment of over 9000 Kiwis in the Waikato alone. If we don't act, the economic heart of New Zealand's primary sector could grind to a halt under what would effectively be a 'stop work' order," he said. Horizons Regional Council, Bay of Plenty Regional Council, Tasman District Council and Environment Southland all requested further changes to water discharge rules as well. The amendment would broaden what water discharges could be allowed as a permitted activity. But Tom Kay, from the freshwater campaign group Choose Clean Water, said local councils would be stripped of the power to have any meaningful say over the future for their communities and environment. The changes would, among other things, prevent councils writing or changing plans and policy statements until 2027, give the minister the power to modify or remove provisions of a Regional Policy Statement or regional or district plan, and weaken restrictions on commercial fishing and farming industries, he said. "Despite claiming to be for the benefit of council efficiency, these changes effectively grind vital planning to a halt while allowing increasing pollution. Councils won't be able to move ahead with protecting things that are important for their communities-like drinking water sources or coastal fisheries-until the government says so." He said the government was doing what agricultural lobby groups Federated Farmers, Beef & Lamb and Dairy NZ had asked for in their submissions on the Bill. Federated Farmers applauded the changes, saying they would spare thousands of farmers from needing an unnecessary resource consent just to keep farming. "I'd love to say this is a practical and pragmatic change from the government - but it's actually just commonsense," its RMA reform spokesperson, Mark Hooper, said. Councils would still be able to require consent for genuinely high-risk activities but would not be forced to do so when something such as a farm plan was a better option, he said. The Bill was expected to pass into law by the end of next week. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
