Latest news with #GuyonEspiner
RNZ News
a day ago
- Business
- RNZ News
The David Seymour ‘bots' debate: Do online submission tools help or hurt democracy?
ACT Party leader David Seyour in studio for an interview on season 3 of 30 with Guyon Espiner. Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly A discussion document on a Regulatory Standards Bill is not, on the face of it, the sort of thing that might have been expected to prompt 23,000 responses. But in an age of digital democracy, the Ministry for Regulation was probably expecting it. The bill , led by ACT Party leader David Seymour, is controversial. It sparked a response from activists, who used online tools to help people make their opposition known. Of the 23,000 submissions, 88 percent were opposed. Seymour this week told RNZ's 30 with Guyon Espiner , that figure reflected "bots" generating "fake" submissions. He did not provide evidence for the claim and later explained he wasn't referring to literal bots but to "online campaigns" that generate "non-representative samples" that don't reflect public opinion. Seymour has previous experience with this sort of thing. The Treaty Principles Bill got a record 300,000 submissions when it was considered by the Justice Committee earlier this year. Is Seymour right to have raised concerns about how these tools are affecting public debate? Or are they a boon for democracy? Submission tools are commonly used by advocacy groups to mobilise public input during the select committee process. The online tools often offer a template for users to fill out or suggested wording that can be edited or submitted as is. Each submission is usually still sent by the individual. Taxpayers' Union spokesperson Jordan Williams said submitting to Parliament used to be "pretty difficult". "You'd have to write a letter and things like that. What the tools do allow is for people to very easily and quickly make their voice heard." The tools being used now are part of sophisticated marketing campaigns, Williams said. "You do get pressure groups that take particular interest, and it blows out the numbers, but that doesn't mean that officials should be ruling them out or refusing to engage or read submissions." The Taxpayers' Union has created submission tools in the past, but Williams said he isn't in favour of tools that don't allow the submitter to alter the submission. He has encouraged supporters to change the contents of the submission to ensure it is original. "The ones that we are pretty suspicious of is when it doesn't allow the end user to actually change the submission, and in effect, it just operates like a petition, which I don't think quite has the same democratic value." Clerk of the House of Representatives David Wilson said campaigns that see thousands of similar submissions on proposed legislation are not new, they've just taken a different form. "It's happened for many, many years. It used to be photocopied forms. Now, often it's things online that you can fill out. And there's nothing wrong with doing that. It's a legitimate submission." However, Wilson pointed out that identical responses would likely be grouped by the select committee and treated as one submission. "The purpose of the select committee calling for public submissions is so that the members of the committee can better inform themselves about the issues. They're looking at the bill, thinking about whether it needs to be amended or whether it should pass. So if they receive the same view from hundreds of people, they will know that." But that isn't to say those submissions are discredited, Wilson said. "For example, the committee staff would say, you've received 10,000 submissions that all look exactly like this. So members will know how many there were and what they said. But I don't know if there's any point in all of the members individually reading the same thing that many times." Jordan Williams co-founded the Taxpayers' Union in 2013 with David Farrar. Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly But Williams said there were risks in treating similar submissions created using 'tools' as one submission. "Treating those ones as if they are all identical is not just wrong, it's actually undemocratic," he said. "It's been really concerning that, under the current parliament, they are trying to carte blanche, reject people's submissions, because a lot of them are similar." AI should be used to analyse submissions and identify the unique points. "Because if people are going to take the time and make a submission to Parliament, at the very least, the officials should be reading them or having them summarised," Williams said. Labour MP Duncan Webb is a member of the Justice Committee and sat in on oral submissions for the Treaty Principles Bill. He said he attempted to read as many submissions as possible. "When you get a stock submission, which is a body of text that is identical and it's just been clicked and dragged, then you don't have to read them all, because you just know that there are 500 people who think exactly the same thing," he said. "But when you get 500 postcards, which each have three handwritten sentences on them, they may all have the same theme, they may all be from a particular organisation, but the individual thoughts that have been individually expressed. So you can't kind of categorise it as just one size fits all. You've got to take every single case on its merits." Webb said he takes the select committee process very seriously. "The thing that struck me was, sure, you read a lot [of submissions] which are repetitive, but then all of a sudden you come across one which actually changes the way you think about the problem in front of you. "To kind of dismiss that as just one of a pile from this organisation is actually denying someone who's got an important point to make, their voice in the democratic process." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
3 days ago
- Business
- RNZ News
The Politics Panel for 4 June 2025
All things politics are discussed in this laser-focused version of The Panel. Today Wallace Chapman is joined by RNZ host of 30 with Guyon, Guyon Espiner and Maria Slade, BusinessDesk journalist. Political scientist Grant Duncan also provides analysis. They discuss a developing story involving allegations that the Prime Minister's deputy chief press secretary recorded audio of sessions with sex workers. Also, they dissect the latest RNZ Reid Research poll results, the huge press response to Jacinda Ardern's memoir, and more. Photo: RNZ/Marika Khabazi
RNZ News
3 days ago
- Business
- RNZ News
'We have massive problems with regulation' - Seymour defends Regulatory Standards Bill
Deputy Prime Minister and ACT Party leader David Seymour has hit back at criticism of his flagship Regulatory Standards Bill, defending the legislation against claims it breaches Treaty of Waitangi principles and contradicts its own standards when compared with the recently passed Pay Equity Bill. In an at-times heated exchange with Guyon Espiner, Seymour stood firm on the need for regulatory reform despite New Zealand's high international rankings in governance and legal standards. Espiner pointed out that New Zealand ranks 99 out of 100 for regulatory quality in the World Bank index, placing it just behind the global benchmark. Seymour dismissed the ranking, arguing it measured whether a country is "basically a third-world country" and failed to capture the real-world frustrations faced by businesses, particularly in agriculture and construction. "You can read all the indices you like, but once you start getting down to talking to the actual people … we have massive problems with regulation," Seymour said, citing delays in approval for lower-emission agricultural chemicals as one. ACT Party leader David Seyour in studio for an interview on season 3 of 30 with Guyon Espiner. Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly Espiner went on to challenge Seymour on whether the government's recent Pay Equity Bill - pushed through under urgency - violated the principles laid out in the Regulatory Standards Bill itself. These principles include ensuring laws are not retrospective and that proper consultation takes place. Seymour did not deny the lack of consultation or the retrospective nature of the law change - which left 33 current pay equity claimants in the lurch - but argued it was irrelevant. "It was breached because it didn't matter," Seymour said. "All we did was dismantle a Byzantine crazy system… deciding how much the government would pay different workers it was employing anyway." He described the previous equity process as "effectively an internal government activity of arguing with each other" and derided those who had submitted pay appeals under the former system. "They said, 'We work so hard.' I said, 'Really? You think work is arguing with each other?'." The debate turned toward Māori engagement when Espiner pointed out the Waitangi Tribunal's conclusion that the Regulatory Standards Bill, due to a lack of meaningful consultation with Māori, breached the Treaty principles of partnership and active protection. Seymour insisted Māori voices were heard through public consultation. "We had 144 Iwi-based groups who submitted … If that's not enough, then I don't know what is." However, Espiner highlighted that of the 23,000 total submissions, only 76 supported the bill - a support rate of just 0.33 percent. Seymour dismissed the figure as misleading. "That quantum reflects nothing more than the fact that it's got easier and easier for people to make really, frankly, fake submissions … They've got bots, they can make a submission." Despite dismissing the opposing voices as fake, Seymour maintained that what mattered was not the opposition but the quality of the legislative framework, which is non-binding in its nature, thus not enforceable - despite the bill's $20 million price-tag. Seymour argued the Regulatory Standards Bill was about transparency, not enforcement. He compared it to the Public Finance Act and the Reserve Bank Act - also non-binding in nature, but important for government accountability. "There's nothing to stop a minister of finance writing to the governor of the Reserve Bank before an election saying, 'Run the presses, prime the pumps,'" Seymour said. "But it does allow the voters to judge them for doing it… and I want to do the same thing for regulation." Watch the full conversation with David Seymour and Guyon Espiner on 30 With Guyon Espiner . Subscribe to the podcast feed now to get every episode of 30 on your phone when it lands: On Spotify On iHeartRadio On Apple podcasts Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Scoop
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Greens Must Reject ‘Tokenism' To Connect With Marginalised Communities
'People are right to be frustrated,' the co-leader tells Guyon Espiner. But she says 'tokenism' isn't the answer. , Producer – 30′ with Guyon Espiner Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick says her party must confront the uncomfortable reality that it continues to struggle with support from lower-income New Zealanders, despite advocating policies aimed squarely at economic and social justice. In a wide-ranging interview on RNZ's 30 With Guyon Espiner, Swarbrick said the Greens were committed to engaging beyond their traditionally urban, affluent voter base, but acknowledged it was a 'big issue we have to crack open'. 'Lower-income people tend to not vote, and that is a really big issue,' she said. 'We haven't got there yet, but that's why we need to keep going.' Swarbrick admitted the Greens have work to do to be more 'present' with marginalised New Zealanders, conceding the left has not always earned trust. Swarbrick said building trust means 'actually listening to people and understanding what their issues are, and working with them to create solutions'. 'We need to have quite a lot of humility in building rapport with communities who do not engage with politics at all. Identity politics – 'People are right to be frustrated' Swarbrick also addressed claims both from political opponents and parts of the left that 'progressive' identity politics have contributed to a global backlash enabling the rise of right-leaning populist figures like Donald Trump. Former Labour finance minister David Parker recently criticised the political left's 'obsession' with identity issues to the detriment of meaningful progress during his valedictory speech. In response, Swarbrick argued that representation initiatives and material outcomes for society are not mutually exclusive. But she also noted the missteps of superficial diversity efforts that fail to shift power. 'Anything other than material redistribution is tokenism.' 'People are right to be frustrated,' she said. 'But some of these self-styled strongmen are punching down, scapegoating minority groups instead of confronting the systems that caused inequality in the first place.' She pointed the finger instead at other political leaders inflaming culture wars. 'If we're going to talk about who's inviting this inflammatory culture war, it's the deputy prime minister deciding to bicker about what bathrooms people can use.' Greens' Wealth Tax: 'We've shown people our hand' Swarbrick also defended her party's proposed wealth tax, a 2.5 percent annual levy on net assets over $2 million, as a necessary structural change. She addressed criticism that such a tax could hurt asset-rich, income-poor homeowners. When asked how the Greens could justify making a widow living on the pension in a family home pay an annual wealth tax of $25,000 or more, Swarbrick was unapologetic, noting the policy includes a deferral mechanism. 'If they don't have income at the time, the tax can accumulate against the property.' 'This is about the top 3 percent,' she said. 'It unlocks the resources necessary for all of us to live better lives.' Swarbrick also backed a wealth transfer tax on large inheritances and gifts, framing it as a matter of fairness. 'That income hasn't been earned, it's been passed on. We all belong in this country and have a responsibility to support it.' The tax platform is central to the Greens' alternative budget and is expected to be a key issue in the next election campaign. 'We've shown people our hand,' Swarbrick said. 'If we want to have the country that all of us ultimately deserve, we are going to radically need to turn this economy around.' Would work with National – but only on Greens' terms While stopping short of confirming openness to a National coalition, Swarbrick said the Greens could work with 'anyone' who supports meaningful action on climate and equity. Pressed on whether the Greens would consider governing with National, Swarbrick replied: 'Sure. If the National Party were to completely U-turn on their callous, cruel cuts to climate, to science, to people's well-being.' She noted some cross-party work on climate adaptation legislation but was critical of National's wider climate approach. 'Right now they are knowingly shredding climate action,' she said, referencing the party's emphasis on carbon capture technology. Her comments hint towards a more pragmatic stance compared to previous Green leaders, though she made clear any cooperation would require a 'demonstrably different' National Party. 'The Green Party has always stood for both environmental and social justice,' she said. 'These were never separate issues.'
Scoop
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Greens Must Reject 'Tokenism' To Connect With Marginalised Communities
, Producer - 30' with Guyon Espiner Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick says her party must confront the uncomfortable reality that it continues to struggle with support from lower-income New Zealanders, despite advocating policies aimed squarely at economic and social justice. In a wide-ranging interview on RNZ's 30 With Guyon Espiner, Swarbrick said the Greens were committed to engaging beyond their traditionally urban, affluent voter base, but acknowledged it was a "big issue we have to crack open". "Lower-income people tend to not vote, and that is a really big issue," she said. "We haven't got there yet, but that's why we need to keep going." Swarbrick admitted the Greens have work to do to be more "present" with marginalised New Zealanders, conceding the left has not always earned trust. Swarbrick said building trust means "actually listening to people and understanding what their issues are, and working with them to create solutions". "We need to have quite a lot of humility in building rapport with communities who do not engage with politics at all. Identity politics - 'People are right to be frustrated' Swarbrick also addressed claims both from political opponents and parts of the left that "progressive" identity politics have contributed to a global backlash enabling the rise of right-leaning populist figures like Donald Trump. Former Labour finance minister David Parker recently criticised the political left's "obsession" with identity issues to the detriment of meaningful progress during his valedictory speech. In response, Swarbrick argued that representation initiatives and material outcomes for society are not mutually exclusive. But she also noted the missteps of superficial diversity efforts that fail to shift power. "Anything other than material redistribution is tokenism." "People are right to be frustrated," she said. "But some of these self-styled strongmen are punching down, scapegoating minority groups instead of confronting the systems that caused inequality in the first place." She pointed the finger instead at other political leaders inflaming culture wars. "If we're going to talk about who's inviting this inflammatory culture war, it's the deputy prime minister deciding to bicker about what bathrooms people can use." Greens' Wealth Tax: 'We've shown people our hand' Swarbrick also defended her party's proposed wealth tax, a 2.5 percent annual levy on net assets over $2 million, as a necessary structural change. She addressed criticism that such a tax could hurt asset-rich, income-poor homeowners. When asked how the Greens could justify making a widow living on the pension in a family home pay an annual wealth tax of $25,000 or more, Swarbrick was unapologetic, noting the policy includes a deferral mechanism. "If they don't have income at the time, the tax can accumulate against the property." "This is about the top 3 percent," she said. "It unlocks the resources necessary for all of us to live better lives." Swarbrick also backed a wealth transfer tax on large inheritances and gifts, framing it as a matter of fairness. "That income hasn't been earned, it's been passed on. We all belong in this country and have a responsibility to support it." The tax platform is central to the Greens' alternative budget and is expected to be a key issue in the next election campaign. "We've shown people our hand," Swarbrick said. "If we want to have the country that all of us ultimately deserve, we are going to radically need to turn this economy around." Would work with National - but only on Greens' terms While stopping short of confirming openness to a National coalition, Swarbrick said the Greens could work with "anyone" who supports meaningful action on climate and equity. Pressed on whether the Greens would consider governing with National, Swarbrick replied: "Sure. If the National Party were to completely U-turn on their callous, cruel cuts to climate, to science, to people's well-being." She noted some cross-party work on climate adaptation legislation but was critical of National's wider climate approach. "Right now they are knowingly shredding climate action," she said, referencing the party's emphasis on carbon capture technology. Her comments hint towards a more pragmatic stance compared to previous Green leaders, though she made clear any cooperation would require a "demonstrably different" National Party. "The Green Party has always stood for both environmental and social justice," she said. "These were never separate issues." Watch the full conversation with Chloe Swarbrick and Guyon Espiner on 30 With Guyon Espiner.
