Latest news with #DunedinLabour
Otago Daily Times
7 days ago
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
Space Bill debate: I think it's gonna be a long, long time
Dunedin Labour MP Rachel Brooking speaking in the house earlier in the year. Photo: Parliament TV Rachel Brooking gets plenty of time speaking in the House on her main portfolio responsibilities. However the Dunedin Labour MP seldom gets the opportunity to put her party Space spokeswoman astronaut helmet on ... at least not until this week, when the government unexpectedly took urgency to push through all stages of the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Amendment Bill. It is rare for a government to push through an entire law change in 24 hours — pandemic safety requirements or Budget-critical law changes are recent occasions. Security is another reason for haste, and Space Minister Judith Collins said that law change was needed to manage "risks to the national interest posed by the misuse of ground-based space infrastructure". All very James Bond. She later expanded on that, saying that during the past five years "there have been several deceptive efforts by foreign actors to establish and/or use ground-based space infrastructure in New Zealand to harm our national security." Eek! It turns out that the existing law does a good job of covering things happening at high altitude or in actual orbit, but a rubbish job of ensuring that the terrestrial operators of that high tech were authorised, risks were properly assessed, and that enforcement powers were available when needed. "By introducing a clear and modern framework for ground-based infrastructure, we are enforcing New Zealand's reputation as a responsible spacefaring nation," Ms Collins concluded ... and who wouldn't want to live in one of those nations? Certainly not Ms Brooking, who agreed that this country's ventures to infinity and beyond — especially those which emanate from nearby Awarua — needed to be regulated so that they were in the national interest. But ... and there is always a but ... she was not happy that the law change to protect "ground-based infrastructure" such as satellite tracking stations and telemetry systems was rocketing through Parliament. "I understand there may have been some prior consultation on aspects of it, but in general nobody has been having any public discussion about this Bill, and so there may be parts of it that have inadvertent, unintended consequences," she said. "So we do want to go through, in the committee stage, and take it seriously so that we all understand the Bill as best as we can. And I hope the minister is of that view." Given that "taking it seriously" entailed debate taking up all of Tuesday and a decent chunk of Wednesday, Ms Collins' view may have steadily become less favourable as things progressed. What Ms Brooking wanted — and given the circumstances it seemed a not unreasonable request— was a post-enactment review of the law. Her proposed amendment to add one was ruled out of order, but Associate Defence Minister Chris Penk (subbing for Ms Collins) left that "thoughtful suggestion" firmly anchored to the launch pad: "The Minister for Space feels — and I, in her place, am happy to relay but also support the notion — that we don't need to specify a mandated review mechanism, be it in front of the intelligence and security committee or, indeed, the foreign affairs, defence and trade committee as per the original proposal." Thus stymied, Ms Brooking moved into fresh fields of inquiry, such as the Bill conferring the minister with the authority to stop providing electricity or internet services to any offending space infrastructure: "are there any examples of that sort of thing happening anywhere else in the world?" she wondered. Mr Penk said the idea, essentially, was to "buy a bit of time" while someone figured out what to do next. Options which the legislation said, "may include, without limitation," — which offers quite the toolbox to utilise. "It's deliberately not excluding the range of conditions or actions that might be taken — noting, of course, that in this highly technical realm and with developing technology, it might well be the case that there are conditions or actions that might be necessary in the future that we're not able to contemplate now," he added, opening the possibility of all kinds of science fiction ideas being placed in a future Space Minister's hands. Which sounds preposterous — but so, too, and not too long ago, did the idea of New Zealand having a space industry. Hence, eventually, the Bill became law. Hard quiz You know that Tuesday was a big day because Dunedin Green list MP Francisco Hernandez had dug out a tie. He had to wait a long time to display his sartorial splendour, but eventually he got to ask Q12 — just his second primary question in the House — to the Minister of Universities, on the establishment of the new Waikato medical school. As it turned out, the minister was not in the building, so Mr Hernandez instead quizzed Health Minister Simeon Brown — which, one suspects, Mr Hernandez was quite pleased by. It was a good quizzing too, as Mr Hernandez asked pertinent questions such as: will it build a strong, more diverse work force, as claimed; will it generate new doctors faster than the proposal to increase class sizes at Otago and Auckland universities, and — quite frankly — just why does the government think building a new medical school is a good idea when there are two perfectly good ones already, which have the capacity and willingness to expand their rolls? The answers were not that pertinent sadly, Mr Brown favouring sloganeering — such as "we're getting on with it and we're delivering"; "this is a great day for New Zealand"; and "Just say yes. Get on the side of the positive news this is for our country, rather than keeping on complaining." However, keeping on complaining is exactly what Mr Hernadez is likely do. Firstly, about the still unreleased business case which underpinned the decision — which the government said on Monday would be proactively released, and which as of late yesterday was still not public. And secondly, when it finally does see the light of day — and it should have done when the post-Cabinet announcement was made — if the arguments in it do not seem to back up a final decision which has huge ramifications for the University of Otago.
Otago Daily Times
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
Govt says do be hasty
You may have had a bad week but it's probably nothing compared with the week Dunedin Labour MP Rachel Brooking has had. Ms Brooking has oscillated between outrage, anger, despair and disgust during the course of the past few days as the government took urgency to pass two Bills which she was deeply affronted by: the Equal Pay Amendment Bill and the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill. Ms Brooking's dudgeon was in equal parts: she took extreme exception to both the content of the Bills, and the manner in which each was passed in all stages by the government, under urgency. Before the House went into recess three weeks ago, no indication was given by the government that it intended to go into urgency, nor that it intended to rush through two such controversial pieces of legislation. Given the circumstances, the Opposition did rather well to keep argument on both law changes going for a couple of sitting days. Depending on which side of the House you sat on, the Equal Pay Amendment Bill was either an exercise in providing a better framework for assessing whether there was ''a sex-based undervaluation in remuneration in female-dominated occupations'', or a horrible and unfair piece of legislation. We know Ms Brooking is in camp B given those are her words, not mine. ''We are going to take every opportunity to try and amend this terrible legislation that we think is a disgrace,'' she added for good measure. Through Tuesday and Wednesday Ms Brooking took seven calls on the Bill (Taieri Labour MP Ingrid Leary and Dunedin Green list MP Francisco Hernandez were also often on their feet) teasing out the minutae of the Bill as only she can. ''Where the current legislation, back at 13F, has things that are included for consideration, and that happens at subsection (3) - it uses ''including'' - at subsections (1) and (2), it has to be everything; there are and's included,'' she said in part 2 of the committee stage, before going on to quite the discussion about the difference between ''view'' and ''views'' - any port in a filibuster storm. The Opposition was not just posturing here: they had a legitimate point to make, Whether you agree with the law change or not, whether you believe it was a cynical attempt to balance the government's books by deferring a contingent liability or not, it was a terrible use of urgency to pass the Bill in a matter of hours. Given the decades of struggle it has taken for the concept of pay equity to gain purchase, profound changes to the way the system of achieving it operates warranted full discussion from affected parties rather than this week's rush job. As a lawyer, Ms Brooking was understandably vexed by the entire process. Having fought in vain for 48 hours, Ms Brooking was back for more almost immediately, as the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill hoved into view. The Opposition had slightly more of an inclination that this one was coming, it being well publicised that the government had not been best pleased at a recent High Court decision that it was unlawful for the Department of Conservation to authorise the killing of wildlife unless there was a direct link between killing and protecting wildlife. Permissions had been given in the past for consented construction works, such as the Mt Messenger road in Taranaki, which occasioned this lawsuit. The government, fearful that its infrastructure building programme could be interfered with, has moved to reverse the court's findings. Having sat in the family station wagon many a time as a child as it scaled Mt Messenger Southern Say has some sympathy with those who want the road built, but the wider point that Ms Brooking and others were making against the Bill - that its clawback on protections for wildlife could be far-reaching and fraught with unintended consequences - was a reasonable one. This Bill is a stopgap before a much-needed overhaul of the antediluvian Wildlife Act, but given that tidy-up is likely many months away it may well be in force for some time, making it all the more important that a decent period of deliberation be taken to passing it. By lunchtime Thursday Ms Brooking was fed up to the back teeth with it all and let rip in her third-reading speech. ''I have tried over and over again to try and engage with the minister about how it is that the words in his Bill make sense, how it is that they don't contradict each other ... this Bill is a hot mess. I mean, it just shows the craziness of using urgency for all stages, particularly when the policy problem has only arisen recently, so there's clearly not been much time to develop that. ''That is why we are opposing this Bill. It is a dreadful process. The government doesn't know what it's doing, and shame on them.'' That is as may be, but it is now the law.
