Latest news with #NZFirst
Scoop
4 days ago
- Business
- Scoop
ACT's Campaign Calculus To ‘Keep The Government' And Keep Its Edge
Article – RNZ The party's challenge this term has been – and remains – how to stand apart from its coalition partners without pulling apart the government. , Deputy Political Editor Analysis: For the ACT Party, the challenge this term has been – and remains – how to stand apart from its coalition partners without pulling apart the government. That tension has ebbed and flowed – most clearly on display during the Treaty Principles debate and now reemerging around the Regulatory Standards Bill. But ACT's annual rally on Sunday gave a clear indication of how the party intends to navigate the tightrope for the remaining 15 or so months. For one, David Seymour centred his keynote speech on the cost-of-living, a recognition that that remains the biggest risk to the coalition's reelection. Of course, he did it in distinct ACT-style, making a comparison with his Cabinet colleagues' recent criticisms of the big banks, supermarkets or power companies. 'It would be the easiest thing in the world… to write and give a speech saying they're crooked and they need to be punished somehow,' Seymour told supporters. 'But that would be the curse of zero sum thinking.' Though Seymour denied it later, it was hard not to see the comment as a veiled criticism of National and NZ First ministers, given their recent attention on such industries. They might scapegoat those industries, Seymour implied, but ACT won't. Seymour's speech gave a nod to the voters ACT would be targeting next year – landlords, farmers, firearms users, small business owners – all hotly contested constituencies within the coalition. And he was not shy about reminding the 450-strong audience of other differences too. 'Our partners… abandoned us in defining the Treaty Principles,' he told supporters. But beyond the differences came a curious confirmation: that ACT would be campaigning next year to 'keep this government'. The seemingly benign commitment is an open admission that a centre-right election victory will almost certainly require a repeat of the three-way coalition. Asked later by RNZ about the declaration, Seymour made it more explicit: 'We need to keep these parties in power.' These parties. NZ First included. That's perhaps not that surprising given current polling, but it is quite a difference from ACT's approach in 2023 – which saw Seymour viciously attack NZ First and its leader Winston Peters. It's also different from Peters' message several weeks ago as he handed over the deputy prime ministership to Seymour. Then, Peters said he intended to 'remove any doubt' next election. Of course, behind the scenes, ACT and NZ First would much prefer to eliminate the other and become the sole coalition partner. National, for its part, would like to get back over 40 percent to regain choice. But none can afford to bring the whole caboodle down in the process. And there, again, is the tightrope. One foot in Cabinet, the other in campaign mode ACT is currently polling roughly 9 percent – a fraction above its 2023 election result and consistent with its average across last year. Historically, a stint in government has proved electoral quicksand for support parties, but ACT and NZ First seem to be defying the trend. In large part, that's due to the political landscape with the major parties languishing in the low 30s, leaving more room for the minor parties. But ACT has also made a deliberate effort not to vanish into Cabinet. The party has kept one foot in government and the other in campaign mode – trumpeting its policy wins, while also criticising its coalition partners when convenient. It has certainly not shied away from provocation, as evidenced even by its choice of guest speaker on Sunday: anti-woke crusader Dr James Lindsay. Look to the 'gutsy' pay equity cuts, the Treaty Principles Bill, and now the Regulatory Standards Bill. On each occasion, the backlash was immense, but so too was the airtime. And each time Seymour declared unapologetically: we're not here to be liked, we're here to be right. He said as much again in his Sunday speech: 'People will pile on and say I'm defending big business, or whatever, but political risks are part of leadership.' The strategy carries risks indeed. Former National leader Simon Bridges, in his 2021 memoir, reflected on the personal toll of such tactics: yes, the party vote stayed up, but not so his personal ratings. David Seymour is experiencing something similar. His own favourability ratings are routinely poor. In the most recent Post/Freshwater Strategy poll, just 25 percent had a favourable view of ACT, while 47 percent were unfavourable – the second worst result of any party, after only Te Pāti Māori. But for a minor party, that trade-off seems worth it, with visibility counting for more than likability. The cost of instability ACT's strategy has also, at times, fed the perception of coalition instability, or of National being dragged around by its smaller partners. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has repeatedly dismissed that, instead framing the dynamic as simply the 'maturation of MMP'. But voters are still adjusting to that reality. The latest example of friction would appear to be Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill, bubbling away in the background. NZ First has made clear it wants changes to the legislation, but Seymour says he's yet to even hear what they are. Furthermore, he firmly believes he's under no obligation to make changes and that the coalition agreement already requires National and NZ First's support. The apparent impasse remains unresolved. For all that, though, the governing parties are aware the public does not look kindly on instability. Seymour learned that the hard way in the weeks before the 2023 election when he floated the idea of ACT signing a 'confidence-only' deal if National refused to cooperate during negotiations. Almost immediately, the party's support dropped several points in the polls. That lesson still looms over the coalition today, especially given the narrow margins and economic headwinds. All three coalition parties would do well to remember the common enemy. They may be competing for votes inside the tent, but the real fight lies outside it: with the opposition.
Scoop
4 days ago
- Business
- Scoop
ACT's Campaign Calculus To 'Keep The Government' And Keep Its Edge
Analysis: For the ACT Party, the challenge this term has been - and remains - how to stand apart from its coalition partners without pulling apart the government. That tension has ebbed and flowed - most clearly on display during the Treaty Principles debate and now reemerging around the Regulatory Standards Bill. But ACT's annual rally on Sunday gave a clear indication of how the party intends to navigate the tightrope for the remaining 15 or so months. For one, David Seymour centred his keynote speech on the cost-of-living, a recognition that that remains the biggest risk to the coalition's reelection. Of course, he did it in distinct ACT-style, making a comparison with his Cabinet colleagues' recent criticisms of the big banks, supermarkets or power companies. "It would be the easiest thing in the world... to write and give a speech saying they're crooked and they need to be punished somehow," Seymour told supporters. "But that would be the curse of zero sum thinking." Though Seymour denied it later, it was hard not to see the comment as a veiled criticism of National and NZ First ministers, given their recent attention on such industries. They might scapegoat those industries, Seymour implied, but ACT won't. Seymour's speech gave a nod to the voters ACT would be targeting next year - landlords, farmers, firearms users, small business owners - all hotly contested constituencies within the coalition. And he was not shy about reminding the 450-strong audience of other differences too. "Our partners... abandoned us in defining the Treaty Principles," he told supporters. But beyond the differences came a curious confirmation: that ACT would be campaigning next year to "keep this government". The seemingly benign commitment is an open admission that a centre-right election victory will almost certainly require a repeat of the three-way coalition. Asked later by RNZ about the declaration, Seymour made it more explicit: "We need to keep these parties in power." These parties. NZ First included. That's perhaps not that surprising given current polling, but it is quite a difference from ACT's approach in 2023 - which saw Seymour viciously attack NZ First and its leader Winston Peters. It's also different from Peters' message several weeks ago as he handed over the deputy prime ministership to Seymour. Then, Peters said he intended to "remove any doubt" next election. Of course, behind the scenes, ACT and NZ First would much prefer to eliminate the other and become the sole coalition partner. National, for its part, would like to get back over 40 percent to regain choice. But none can afford to bring the whole caboodle down in the process. And there, again, is the tightrope. One foot in Cabinet, the other in campaign mode ACT is currently polling roughly 9 percent - a fraction above its 2023 election result and consistent with its average across last year. Historically, a stint in government has proved electoral quicksand for support parties, but ACT and NZ First seem to be defying the trend. In large part, that's due to the political landscape with the major parties languishing in the low 30s, leaving more room for the minor parties. But ACT has also made a deliberate effort not to vanish into Cabinet. The party has kept one foot in government and the other in campaign mode - trumpeting its policy wins, while also criticising its coalition partners when convenient. It has certainly not shied away from provocation, as evidenced even by its choice of guest speaker on Sunday: anti-woke crusader Dr James Lindsay. Look to the "gutsy" pay equity cuts, the Treaty Principles Bill, and now the Regulatory Standards Bill. On each occasion, the backlash was immense, but so too was the airtime. And each time Seymour declared unapologetically: we're not here to be liked, we're here to be right. He said as much again in his Sunday speech: "People will pile on and say I'm defending big business, or whatever, but political risks are part of leadership." The strategy carries risks indeed. Former National leader Simon Bridges, in his 2021 memoir, reflected on the personal toll of such tactics: yes, the party vote stayed up, but not so his personal ratings. David Seymour is experiencing something similar. His own favourability ratings are routinely poor. In the most recent Post/Freshwater Strategy poll, just 25 percent had a favourable view of ACT, while 47 percent were unfavourable - the second worst result of any party, after only Te Pāti Māori. But for a minor party, that trade-off seems worth it, with visibility counting for more than likability. The cost of instability ACT's strategy has also, at times, fed the perception of coalition instability, or of National being dragged around by its smaller partners. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has repeatedly dismissed that, instead framing the dynamic as simply the "maturation of MMP". But voters are still adjusting to that reality. The latest example of friction would appear to be Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill, bubbling away in the background. NZ First has made clear it wants changes to the legislation, but Seymour says he's yet to even hear what they are. Furthermore, he firmly believes he's under no obligation to make changes and that the coalition agreement already requires National and NZ First's support. The apparent impasse remains unresolved. For all that, though, the governing parties are aware the public does not look kindly on instability. Seymour learned that the hard way in the weeks before the 2023 election when he floated the idea of ACT signing a "confidence-only" deal if National refused to cooperate during negotiations. Almost immediately, the party's support dropped several points in the polls. That lesson still looms over the coalition today, especially given the narrow margins and economic headwinds. All three coalition parties would do well to remember the common enemy. They may be competing for votes inside the tent, but the real fight lies outside it: with the opposition.
Newsroom
4 days ago
- Politics
- Newsroom
The (not so) little leagues turn heads while majors sit by
Analysis: With a little over a year until the campaign proper begins, all eyes are on the smaller – but no longer minor – parties. The Act Party kicked off AGM season yesterday with its so-called Free & Equal Rally. National and the Greens will both hold their AGMs next month, followed by NZ First in September and rounded out by Labour in November. Heading into the next election, every vote will count. Polling is consistently showing tight margins, so each party is looking to define itself; to stand out. On Sunday, Act attempted to do just that – walking the line between showing how it's different from its other right-wing coalition partners, without undermining the three-way union that still has more than a year to run. With Act and NZ First going head-to-head on the anti-woke vote, David Seymour called in the big guns in the form of the American author and free speech advocate James Lindsay. The controversial commentator, who's drawn attention for referring to the Pride flag as the 'flag of the hostile enemy', decried mātauranga Māori as a weapon used by the left to drive a wedge into NZ society, drew lines between policies used in Stalin's Soviet Union and modern day Aotearoa, and spoke about the importance of private property rights. He also received spontaneous applause for reminding the audience that 'communists are not good people'. Seymour hasn't defended Lindsay's comments on rainbow communities, but has defended his right to express such views. And with Lindsay addressing the anti-woke agenda, the Act leader was able to focus his speech on the party's track record in Government, his view of economic and health policy, and the path ahead. Seymour also announced party policy to fast track approval for overseas supermarket chains looking to set up in New Zealand. He believes this fast tracking (along with a guaranteed liquor licence) is the best way to ramp up competition in the market. The Act leader also used his speech to defend the coalition's policy of interest deductibility for landlords, saying this group had been scapegoated under Labour. Seymour told the crowd he knows it's a political risk to defend big business. 'The good thing is, I'm impervious to political risk.' So far, it seems to be true. Though Seymour didn't get his Treaty Principles Bill passed, he is getting a lot of what he wants from this coalition arrangement – just look at the Regulatory Standards Bill. But so has NZ First. And after shedding the title of Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters has openly declared he's shifted into campaign mode for the second half of the term. Seymour says the best form of campaigning is delivering for Kiwis. This may be a response befitting the Deputy Prime Minister, but that doesn't mean he's going to be a wallflower for the next 12-plus months. All four minor parties know it'll come down to the wire next year and whether they say it or not, they're all in campaign mode – it shows markedly in their finessing of social media staffing and strategies. The recent, shocking, death of Te Pāti Māori MP Takutai Tarsh Kemp also shows there is fresh talent lining up on the left, ready to step up to the plate. Well-known broadcaster Oriini Kaipara will stand for Te Pāti Māori in the Tāmaki Makaurau by-election, and the party's lawyer Tania Waikato says she will be throwing her hat in the ring next year – though she's yet to confirm her party of choice. But while the smaller parties go head to head, National and Labour are grappling to come to terms with this changing game. The legacy parties appear to be standing a step back from the fray, biding their time to see what happens next – both with their opposition and their allies. The risk is they wait too long and lose the ability to set the narrative in the way they've always done. The major parties are still major, but the growing might of the small four means they can't take their platform or influence for granted. At some point – perhaps during AGM season, which conveniently falls more or less a year out from the election – National and Labour will need to throw themselves onto centre field. That includes unveiling policy that can help turn heads back to the centre.
Otago Daily Times
4 days ago
- Business
- Otago Daily Times
ACT's campaign calculus to 'keep the govt' and its edge
By Craig McCulloch of RNZ Analysis: For the ACT Party, the challenge this term has been - and remains - how to stand apart from its coalition partners without pulling apart the government. That tension has ebbed and flowed - most clearly on display during the Treaty Principles debate and now re-emerging around the Regulatory Standards Bill. But ACT's annual rally on Sunday gave a clear indication of how the party intends to navigate the tightrope for the remaining 15 or so months. For one, leader David Seymour centred his keynote speech on the cost-of-living, a recognition that that remains the biggest risk to the coalition's re-election. Of course, he did it in distinct ACT-style, making a comparison with his Cabinet colleagues' recent criticisms of the big banks, supermarkets or power companies. "It would be the easiest thing in the world... to write and give a speech saying they're crooked and they need to be punished somehow," Seymour told supporters. "But that would be the curse of zero sum thinking." Though Seymour denied it later, it was hard not to see the comment as a veiled criticism of National and NZ First ministers, given their recent attention on such industries. They might scapegoat those industries, Seymour implied, but ACT won't. Seymour's speech gave a nod to the voters ACT would be targeting next year - landlords, farmers, firearms users, small business owners - all hotly contested constituencies within the coalition. And he was not shy about reminding the 450-strong audience of other differences too. "Our partners... abandoned us in defining the Treaty Principles," he told supporters. But beyond the differences came a curious confirmation: that ACT would be campaigning next year to "keep this government". The seemingly benign commitment is an open admission that a centre-right election victory will almost certainly require a repeat of the three-way coalition. Asked later by RNZ about the declaration, Seymour made it more explicit: "We need to keep these parties in power." These parties. NZ First included. That's perhaps not that surprising given current polling, but it is quite a difference from ACT's approach in 2023 - which saw Seymour viciously attack NZ First and its leader Winston Peters. It's also different from Peters' message several weeks ago as he handed over the deputy prime ministership to Seymour. Then, Peters said he intended to "remove any doubt" next election. Of course, behind the scenes, ACT and NZ First would much prefer to eliminate the other and become the sole coalition partner. National, for its part, would like to get back over 40% to regain choice. But none can afford to bring the whole caboodle down in the process. And there, again, is the tightrope. One foot in Cabinet, the other in campaign mode ACT is currently polling roughly 9% - a fraction above its 2023 election result and consistent with its average across last year. Historically, a stint in government has proved electoral quicksand for support parties, but ACT and NZ First seem to be defying the trend. In large part, that's due to the political landscape with the major parties languishing in the low 30s, leaving more room for the minor parties. But ACT has also made a deliberate effort not to vanish into Cabinet. The party has kept one foot in government and the other in campaign mode - trumpeting its policy wins, while also criticising its coalition partners when convenient. It has certainly not shied away from provocation, as evidenced even by its choice of guest speaker on Sunday: anti-woke crusader Dr James Lindsay. Look to the "gutsy" pay equity cuts, the Treaty Principles Bill, and now the Regulatory Standards Bill. On each occasion, the backlash was immense, but so too was the airtime. And each time Seymour declared unapologetically: we're not here to be liked, we're here to be right. He said as much again in his Sunday speech: "People will pile on and say I'm defending big business, or whatever, but political risks are part of leadership." The strategy carries risks indeed. Former National leader Simon Bridges, in his 2021 memoir, reflected on the personal toll of such tactics: yes, the party vote stayed up, but not so his personal ratings. David Seymour is experiencing something similar. His own favourability ratings are routinely poor. In the most recent Post/Freshwater Strategy poll, just 25% had a favourable view of ACT, while 47% were unfavourable - the second worst result of any party, after only Te Pāti Māori. But for a minor party, that trade-off seems worth it, with visibility counting for more than likability. The cost of instability ACT's strategy has also, at times, fed the perception of coalition instability, or of National being dragged around by its smaller partners. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has repeatedly dismissed that, instead framing the dynamic as simply the "maturation of MMP". But voters are still adjusting to that reality. The latest example of friction would appear to be Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill, bubbling away in the background. NZ First has made clear it wants changes to the legislation, but Seymour says he's yet to even hear what they are. Furthermore, he firmly believes he's under no obligation to make changes and that the coalition agreement already requires National and NZ First's support. The apparent impasse remains unresolved. For all that, though, the governing parties are aware the public does not look kindly on instability. Seymour learned that the hard way in the weeks before the 2023 election when he floated the idea of ACT signing a "confidence-only" deal if National refused to cooperate during negotiations. Almost immediately, the party's support dropped several points in the polls. That lesson still looms over the coalition today, especially given the narrow margins and economic headwinds. All three coalition parties would do well to remember the common enemy. They may be competing for votes inside the tent, but the real fight lies outside it: with the opposition.
NZ Herald
6 days ago
- Politics
- NZ Herald
David Seymour issues regulations bill ultimatum as committee threatens to break Parliament
Murray's explanation: he promised a gig in 'a' central park in Newark, not the Central Park in New York. Hewitt, the fictional diplomat, and Winston Peters, the real life one, have precious little in common, but Act leader David Seymour fired a warning to his colleague across the Cabinet table this week over the NZ First leader's wavering support for the Regulatory Standards Bill, just in case Peters had been taking notes from his fictional public service subordinate. Peters and his colleague Shane Jones have floated making changes after the bill returns from select committee and then passing it, as promised in the coalition agreement. Sniffing a plot to water the bill down before it is passed, Seymour went public this week to remind his partners that the coalition agreement commits them to passing 'the' Regulatory Standards Bill, not 'a' Regulatory Standards Bill. What Seymour has said in public is consistent with what had previously been said in private. Sources have confirmed to the Herald that he has made it clear behind the scenes that the Regulatory Standards Bill's passage is as bottom line as it gets – and he's willing to walk away from the coalition over it, bringing down the Government and triggering an election. It won't come to that (probably) – the polls are too close to risk an election, particularly one triggered by internal instability. But the fact it even needs to be said is an example of how fraught things have become. In the early days of the coalition, to everyone's surprise, it was relations between Act and National that were the frostiest, with National's insistence on having its way rankling Seymour and Act, who believe that way of thinking is a hangover from the first-past-the-post era. Now it seems a vector of conflict has opened between Act and NZ First too, with both sides having a different view of this Government's kaupapa: Act is willing to risk short-term unpopularity, even losing an election, for long-term foundational change; NZ First is not. Acting Prime Minister David Seymour says the coalition is committed to passing the Regulatory Standards Bill. Photo / Mark Mitchell The tension in the Cabinet room is nothing like the inferno of anxiety burning away over the Finance and Expenditure Committee's investigation of the bill held over Zoom this week. Has there ever been a select committee like this? Technological changes at Parliament, a new era of social media politicking, and profound ill feeling against the Act Party after the Treaty Principles Bill have conspired to turn what might have been a fairly bland and technical few days of hearings into something of a circus. The bill sets out principles of 'good' regulation and requires ministers to assess legislative proposals against those principles, although it does not bind their hands in any way. It also creates a Regulatory Standards Board, appointed by the Minister for Regulation (though members would require Cabinet approval), that would independently decide whether legislation complied with the principles. The board can recommend changes, but that's where its power ends. The bill has a retrospective interest, meaning existing regulations will come under its gaze too. The objectors fall into two main camps: the first thinks the bill is a colossal waste of time and resource, unnecessarily ideological and will, at the margin, hamper but not block 'public good' regulation. As Seymour's own Regulations Ministry and the Legislative Design and Advisory Committee have said about the bill, it duplicates the work done by Regulatory Impact Statements, the Legislative Design and Advisory Committee, and Parliament's Regulations Review Committee. The principles themselves are not universal and are more accurately described as Act's principles of good regulation. They're not as contentious as you may think from the public outcry; they're more liberal than neoliberal, but if Act wanted this bill to last beyond the first 100 days of the next Labour Government it might have included a Treaty clause and a nod to collective rights. Former Revenue Minister David Parker passed a slightly less powerful Tax Principles Reporting Act in the last Parliament. These principles were still mostly left of centre, but they were consulted on in a bid to form some consensus before the legislation was passed (like much consultation, it was waste of time — the law was repealed in just three days less than a month after the coalition took office). These criticisms have been made in submissions, public commentary and in a polite but bloody Passchendaele of keyboard warfare in the Newsroom comments section. Their proponents are familiar faces on the select committee circuit, Wellington academics and lawyers associated with Victoria University, Jonathan Boston, Eddie Clark, Graeme Edgeler, Dean Knight and Sir Geoffrey Palmer. To somewhat oversimplify: the conundrum of the bill, in the view of these people, is not that the bill is a powerful constitutional innovation rushed through under urgency, but given its only real power is to shame ministers into being better regulators, it's unlikely to do much more than create a lot of unnecessary and unread paperwork. Former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer is a vocal critic of the bill. Photo / Mark Mitchell A Government, using Parliament, will still be able to do almost anything it wants at any speed it wishes, with unread regulatory standards declarations filed neatly beside their section 7 Bill of Rights counterparts and their 'thanks, but no thanks' advice – the paper-thin checks and balances of our 'yeah, nah' constitution. Politics will always trump paperwork. As for unintended consequences, the biggest unintended consequence will be what the coalition does with all this advice. Ministers in a hypothetical second term may find themselves spending much of their days arguing with the Act party over why they're ignoring a regulations report arguing for change to this or that regulation. As an exasperated Boston described the effect of the law on a future government: 'why would multiple ministers want to make themselves look stupid not just once, but repeatedly, every year from here on potentially until eternity?'. Members of this group are concerned the bill will make certain things such as public health and environmental regulation more difficult, but are clear-eyed about the fact that the bill doesn't force this outcome. Power still rests with Parliament and ministers. The second camp of critics has a slightly wilder flavour. The group would include popular lawyer Tania Waikato, who is associated with the Toitū Te Tiriti group, Dame Anne Salmond and Te Pāti Māori's social media accounts. Waikato said the bill would 'entrench… far right political views' into the fabric of the country via a 'regulatory constitution' and its passage would raise 'significant red flags about the introduction of fascism to this country'. While Salmond wrote in Newsroom that the law would 'tie the hands' of the state if it wished to regulate 'private activities or initiatives that create public harm' (like smoking), by 'requiring' those who benefit from laws or regulations to compensate others for the losses of profit that may arise from such regulation. Te Pāti Māori, meanwhile, took to Instagram claiming the bill would let judges 'strike down Māori-focused laws'. The anxiety arising from this criticism was pictorially represented by submitter Annie Collins. She drew a stick figure Minister for Regulation, Seymour, sitting atop the flow chart of state, vaguely resembling, in pixelated Zoom form, the famous frontispiece of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan and held it aloft to the committee while voicing her fear the bill would lead to 'international corporations suing us'. The correctness of Waikato's critique is a matter of taste. The principles are certainly right of centre but it's a stretch to link the bill to anything fascist. Salmond's criticism is more straightforwardly incorrect. A principle of the bill is that those adversely affected by regulation be compensated, but as with everything else in the bill it doesn't force the Government to compensate anyone for anything. Some in the first basket of submitters noted the principles may burrow themselves into our laws through the courts. The Legislative Design and Advisory Committee also noted courts may 'read in' the principles when making decisions in the way the Bill of Rights has been 'read in' over the past three decades, but this bill specifically excludes allowing companies to sue the government. Te Pāti Māori's attack is flat out wrong – only one Parliamentary party has, this term, proposed allowing unelected officials to strike down laws and that is Te Pāti Māori itself, whose Tiriti commissioner (depending on which co-leader you talk to) could override the will of Parliament. For those of the Act persuasion, there's also a whiff of hypocrisy here – only a few years ago, during the pandemic, these sorts of attacks were swiftly labelled misinformation in the media and the wider public. There is a real sense on their side that public enforcement of the truth has a partisan bias. Act is taking things into its own hands, with unedifying attacks on Salmond and other critics as suffering from a 'derangement syndrome'. The challenge for Parliament is that the critiques of dubious factual merit are the ones that appear to be getting most pick-up. Pity Labour's MPs on the committee, opposing the bill for reasonable and justifiable grounds, but missing out on the attentional cut through garnered by the orgy of unfounded anxiety spread by its benchmates and their supporters. A story from veteran political journalist Richard Harman this week pondered the decline of Parliament's committees as a place of serious work, saying they'd become 'platforms for political protest'. One of the challenges faced by the committees is the sheer number of submissions. Nothing can be done about that – reducing people's right and ability to participate in democracy is a far greater evil than maintaining the genteel lie that all of these submissions are properly read and listened to. A bigger challenge is people using their oral submissions as a stage set for content creation rather than engaging with the bill in any substantive way (Waikato's 'fascism' submission falls into this category). This is a new problem. The streaming of committees only began during the first term of the Ardern Government and regular streaming of all public committees only began in the last Parliament. The streaming means submitters regularly clip up their appearances for use in political campaign videos. There's always been a performative element to select committees and campaign groups have, for decades, banged their particular drum in submissions that are only tangentially related to the bill in question. But the problem Parliament has now is the sheer number of submitters who submit in this way, vastly outweighing substantive submissions. What happens when voters' main engagement with the committee room is watching a social media video deliberately misinforming them about the nature of a law going through Parliament? What happens when the committees are all theatre and not, as the Conchords might say, Business Time?
