Latest news with #ActParty
NZ Herald
5 days ago
- Business
- NZ Herald
New Zealand reaches deal with Canada in long-running dairy trade dispute
New Zealand initiated formal dispute settlement proceedings over restricted access to the Canadian market for dairy exports under the CPTPP in 2022. A dispute panel found in New Zealand's favour; however, Canada failed to fully comply with the panel's ruling. New Zealand threatened further action last year, including the imposition of retaliatory tariffs against Canadian exporters. 'The Government is pleased that this dispute has now been settled, and New Zealand exporters are guaranteed better access to the Canadian market,' McClay said. Under the agreement, Canada has committed to changing the way it administers its dairy quotas under CPTPP, including faster and more efficient access to quotas for New Zealand exporters, reallocation of underused quotas, and penalties for importers who misuse quotas. 'The CPTPP is a world-leading agreement that unlocks significant opportunities for all parties, but its obligations must be upheld. Today's agreement reinforces support for the rules-based trading system,' McClay said. He added that Canada was a long-standing friend and trading partner of this country and 'constructive engagement' had brought about a resolution. Last year, Act Party trade spokeswoman Dr Parmjeet Parmar called the dispute a 'betrayal of our friendship'. She said if Canada could not comply with the CPTPP, it should be 'booted out of the deal'. ExportNZ has welcomed the deal, saying it will unlock higher export value for Kiwi business. Executive director Josh Tan said the outcome was a win for New Zealand dairy exporters, and a win for the rules-based trading system. 'It's essential that our trade agreements function as they were agreed to – particularly in the current global trade context. Likewise, our trade partners should ensure they are playing by the rules.' Canada was a valuable trading partner for New Zealand, Tan said. -RNZ
NZ Herald
08-07-2025
- Politics
- NZ Herald
Taxpayers' Union, Māori data scientist among Regulatory Standards Bill submitters
RNZ Lawyer Tania Waikato has slammed the Regulatory Standards Bill as a 'blatant and audacious attempt' by the Act Party to 'subvert our democratic processes for their own private gain'. She used her submission to raise the issue of safety following the
The Spinoff
07-07-2025
- Politics
- The Spinoff
Regulatory Standards Bill hearing, day one: Former PM says ‘no chance' of bill working
The bill dubbed the sibling to the controversial Treaty principles bill gets a whole week in parliament to have submissions heard. Read our explainer on the Regulatory Standards Bill here and our reporting on the urgent Waitangi Tribunal hearing on the bill here. A new day, a new controversial piece of legislation under scrutiny. After attracting a reported 150,000 public submissions, the Regulatory Standards Bill is having its week in the select committee, with all-day hearings from Monday to Thursday knocking out 30 hours' worth of oral submissions. Whatever the finance and expenditure committee hears could influence changes to the bill, but the passing of it is already a promise made in the National-Act coalition agreement. The inside of select committee room four was a ghost town on Monday morning, with all MPs on the committee's panel opting to join the hearing via Zoom, and most submitters doing the same. Lawyer Ani Mikaere was one of the first speakers of the day, and had some choice words about the bill and the government at large: 'National and NZ First currently face the spectre of this parliamentary term going down in history as the period when the Act Party governed – as coalition partners, you have been completely upstaged.' Adam Currie from 350 Aotearoa, who appeared via Zoom link, told the committee the bill can 'get in the compost heap' – then panned his camera over to his own compost heap for visual effect. 'Thank you Adam, very succinct,' committee deputy chair and National MP Ryan Hamilton replied. Former prime minister Geoffrey Palmer, who submitted against, labelled the bill the 'strangest piece of New Zealand legislation I have ever seen'. Palmer argued that regulation is necessary in many instances – like when he worked as a young lawyer on night clothes regulations, so that young children wouldn't be set alight by heaters while they slept. 'The idea that you would not allow parliament to protect the public from danger is just unreasonable,' Palmer said. Lawyer Sonja Cooper of Cooper Legal, which represents survivors of abuse in care, said she opposed the bill as it would allow abuse to continue. Cooper said she was concerned with the bill's principle that all are made equal under the law – her clients have a 'very distinct and urgent set of needs' which wouldn't be addressed if they were treated as 'equal', and with many of them being Māori, the bill's omission of the Treaty was a 'refusal to accept the needs for policies which may need to treat people differently to achieve equality'. When Act Party MP and committee member Mark Cameron questioned whether Cooper was telling the committee that laws should allow people to be treated unequally despite all people being 'created equal', Cooper replied: 'It's a nice thought that everyone is born equal, but that's not the reality.' Their back and forth made Palmer whisper 'oh, god' and at the end of it, he and Cooper just threw their hands in the air in disbelief. Human resources expert Chris Till supported the bill, but didn't support his 'undemocratic' five-minute submission time. After arguing that iwi have too much power over freshwater resources, and that the RSB would fix this 'racist, tribal and anti-democratic' system, Till continued to argue with Hamilton about his lack of time, so his submission was called off slightly early. Cameron, who had been waiting to ask a question, just gritted his teeth. Later, former Green Party MP Darleen Tana submitted against the bill, with the argument that it would 'constrain future governance, restrict public investment and sets up a narrow economic lens'. Also submitting against, Dunedin City Council's in-house lawyer Karilyn Canton said the council was concerned that the bill's omission of the Treaty would make it at odds with council obligations under the Local Government Act. She also highlighted the bill's requirement for review of secondary legislation (such as council bylaws, of which DCC administers about 40), and argued the Local Government Act already has sufficient provisions to the creation of these laws. Canton said it's also still unclear what falls into the scope of 'secondary legislation', and the likes of a district plan – which has the force and effect of a regulation under the Resource Management Act – would fall into this category. 'So the risk is that it creates disputes, creates costs and it creates uncertainty,' Canton said. Health Coalition Aotearoa's chair Boyd Swinburn opposed the bill, and told the committee the sector's already existing 'regulatory chill' – the absence of regulations which could protect young people from the likes of alcohol marketing – could turn into a 'regulatory freeze' if the bill passed. Swinburn pointed to the Australian government's years-long court case with tobacco giant Phillip Morris over plain packaging for cigarette cartons, which the company argued violated their property rights by confiscating property (their trademark) without compensation. 'It's very naive to think that the industry would not weaponise the privileging of its private property and rights,' Swinburn said. Far North district councillor Hilda Halkyard-Harawira began her submission against the bill by chucking on a pair of sunglasses, and letting the committee know that up in Northland, if someone speaks to you with their shades on, it's because you're telling a 'whole bunch of lies'. She said the bill amounted to 'historical amnesia', and said the uplifting of personal, economic and property liberties over collective rights was like experiencing a flood in your neighbourhood, and only having the local 'vape store' owner be saved. Raewyn Moss and Jo Mooar of Transpower, which controls the nation's energy grid, highlighted their concerns with clause eight of the bill, which highlights 12 principles of responsible regulation, including an emphasis on property rights. 93% of Transpower's overhead lines run on statutory rights under the Electricity Act, the committee heard, and Moss said there was concern that a review of the Act will result in Transpower paying compensation to permit them to use and maintain the land their grid rests on. They were also concerned that protections for these lines under the Resource Management Act would be overruled and ignored for new housing and developments, which could 'have a big impact on public safety'. Rock the Vote NZ deputy leader Daymond Goulder-Horobin said the party largely supported the bill, but they had some suggestions. For 'better optics', regulations minister David Seymour should share appointment powers of the regulatory standards board that will be born from the bill with other parties, so that the committee is 'balanced'. 'Every party is beneath 50% of the vote, so democratic legitimacy is always vested on [the voting of a bill],' Goulder-Horobin said. 'This does not have to be a bill that antagonises the left.' The finance and expenditure committee will resume oral hearings into the bill today at 8.30am.
Scoop
03-07-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Open Letter Calls For Halt To The Undemocratic Regulatory Standards Bill
As some of the country's senior lawyers and researchers in a range of disciplines (law, economics, Tiriti o Waitangi, public policy, environment), including a former Prime Minister and two New Zealanders of the Year, we cannot stand by as the Regulatory Standards Bill is rushed through a parliamentary select committee next week. Each of us has written extensively and spoken out against this Bill from our respective areas of expertise. Many of us have done so for the three previous iterations of this Bill when it was promoted unsuccessfully by the Act Party and the Business Round Roundtable (later, the New Zealand Institute). On each of those occasions Parliament has rejected the Bill as philosophically and legally unsound, profoundly undemocratic, and contrary to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This time the Act Party has sought to bypass rigorous parliamentary scrutiny by securing commitments from the National and New Zealand First parties to legislate the Bill into law. There was an opportunity for public submissions on the proposal late last year, where it secured the support of only 0.33% of the over 23,000 New Zealanders who expressed their views on the consultation document. It is evident that the advice in virtually all the submissions was ignored by the government. The Bill could have profound constitutional consequences. It establishes a set of principles as a benchmark for good legislation/regulation, many of which are highly questionable and designed to establish a presumption in favour of a libertarian view of the role of the state - one that ceased to have any currency globally more than a century ago. Te Tiriti o Waitangi has been excluded altogether. The power vested in the Minister for Regulation and a ministerial-appointed board is not subject to the normal accountabilities of Crown entities, conferring significant yet largely unaccountable authority on the executive. Advertisement - scroll to continue reading Dr Jim Salinger, 2024 New Zealander of the Year, further notes the chilling effect the Bill will have on any future policy on climate change and adaptation following the almost $4 billion cost of the 2023 Auckland Anniversary weekend floods and Cyclone Gabrielle, the highest in our history. While there is a select committee review of the Bill, it is truncated and circumscribed. The Coalition government has decided to submit the Bill to the Finance and Expenditure Committee rather than the Justice Committee, limiting the time to hear many tens of thousands of oral submissions to just 30 hours – at most 360 submissions - with 5 minutes per submitter, and truncating the period for those hearings and the committee's report, further exposes the hypocrisy that this Bill is about good governance, better laws, improved regulation, greater transparency and enhanced governmental accountability. We are gravely concerned that the National Party and New Zealand First appear to be complicit in this undemocratic process. We have each thought long and hard about whether to say we want to challenge this Bill before the select committee, lest it give some credibility to a process that is devoid of legitimacy. Some of us, such as Professor Dame Anne Salmond, 2013 New Zealander of the Year, and Professor Andrew Geddis, made written submissions, but feel there is no point in participating such a harmful process. Professor Emeritus Jonathan Boston, Dr Geoffrey Bertram, Dr Bill Rosenberg and Dr Max Harris have indicated they want to address the committee to reinforce their submissions. In Professor Boston's view: 'The current Bill is destined to have a very short and ignominious life as an Act of Parliament: it enjoys virtually no public support; it lacks cross-party backing; it is opposed by the very Ministry that will be responsible for its implementation; and it endorses principles that have been found wanting by multiple generations of people throughout the world". In similar vein, long-standing academic critic of the Bill Professor Emeritus Jane Kelsey feels a responsibility 'to speak truth to power' - in this case the abuse of proper process and the Act Party's ongoing contempt for Te Tiriti o Waitangi. For a time it appeared the Sir Geoffrey Palmer, former Prime Minister and Minister of Justice, Professor of Law at Te Herenga Waka/ Victoria University of Wellington, author of numerous books on parliamentary constitutinalism, and staunch critic of the Bill, was originally not invited to address the select committee, despite saying but he wanted to be heard. He was subsequently offered an opportunity. All of us appeal to the National and New Zealand First parties to find their democratic voice and prevent this Bill from proceeding past the select committee. Equally importantly, they are calling on Speaker of the House Gerry Brownlee, as the Chair of the forthcoming review of Standing Orders, to conduct a first principles review of the select committee processes to find an appropriate balance for democratic participation in the digital era, and an effective way to reinstate some degree of integrity and rigorous review to law-making in Aotearoa New Zealand. Dame Anne Salmond Sir Geoffrey Palmer Professor Emeritus Jonathan Boston Professor Andrew Geddis Dr Jim Salinger Dr Geoff Bertram Dr Bill Rosenberg Dr Max Harris
Newsroom
30-06-2025
- Politics
- Newsroom
The bill that's left people dazed, confused
The Regulatory Standards Bill is in its fourth iteration. There have been three previous attempts – and three failures – in getting a bill that aims to improve law making over the line. But this time, the Act Party's baby is part of the coalition agreement, and David Seymour can see the finishing tape. The bill has passed its first reading and will shortly hear submissions, but everything about its path has been controversial, including the short timeframe to hear those submissions. The Detail talks to Newsroom political editor Laura Walters about what the bill aims to do, and why so many people hate it. Critics include former Attorney-General and Labour Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer, who is an expert in writing laws, and who has reviewed a previous iteration of the bill when he was President of the Law Commission. He calls it 'one of the oddest bills I've ever seen'. When asked what the new law will actually do, Walters says 'We don't know'. 'I just don't know what the impact is going to be. I'm kind of constantly like … storm in a teacup? Or constitutional nightmare? It's kind of somewhere in the middle.' Some commentators, including another former Attorney-General, Chris Finlayson, have said the bill is unnecessary. Others say it won't have a big impact because, like the Bill of Rights, it can be ignored by Parliament when forming legislation. Seymour's own regulation ministry and the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee have advised it's not needed. 'Despite what people say, it is constitutionally important, this piece of legislation. People care deeply about this … this is going to impact our future and current laws,' says Walters. 'It is hard to unpick, it is hard to interpret. But it's worth having the debate over.' Some of the sideshows around the bill have distracted from what it's about. They include a spat between Seymour and one of the country's top academics, Dame Anne Salmond; Seymour's social media attacks on those who disagree with it; some 'unparliamentary language' during Seymour's monologue at the Finance and Expenditure Committee; uproar over the mere 30 hours allocated to hearing submissions; and Seymour making comments that he later had to walk back about most of the submissions coming from bots. Walters prefers to refer to this bill as the 'good law-making bill', which is what Seymour has billed it as. 'It would essentially set up some foundational principles for what constitutes good law making,' she says. 'All past and all future laws would essentially be tested against these principles. So we kind of refer to them as a set of core principles. They are quite complex but the shortened version of these principles are the rule of law; liberties; taking of property; taxes, fees and levies; the role of courts, and good law making. 'The idea, David Seymour says, is to ensure that all future laws are better, that legislation is of a good quality that will ensure that poor laws aren't made, that we don't have issues with redundant or excessive legislation and regulation.' But 'when we're talking about the principles of good law making … it's really hard, because those principles are so contested. The idea is that this law should make for better law making, but everyone has to agree that this law is the right mechanism for it and has those principles right in the first place. And it seems New Zealand just cannot agree on that.' Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here. You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter.
