Latest news with #NewZealandFirst
Otago Daily Times
18 hours ago
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
Strike out power on Bill in Winston Peters' hands
Winston Peters, Christopher Luxon, David Seymour. PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES New Zealand First are polling better in government than they ever have. No longer encumbered by the optics of being too close to the baubles of office, its leader Winston Peters is free to control the script at a time when his coalition partners are looking tired. One can expect that the (grand)father of the House will spend the next 18 months oscillating between the seriousness of his job as Foreign Minister and the less serious but equally important job of trolling his political opponents. So far, he's winning. A million or more voters would have seen Mr Peters gleefully wave an A4 print of the Soviet flag while describing the Green Party's alternative budget; a tiny fraction would have read the 43-page manifesto. The modern Greens are not communists or socialists; some are barely even social democrats, but that's all beside the point. Mr Peters' best sales pitch is that his party is neither of the main parties (who he suggests can't be trusted) nor any of the others (who he suggests are bonkers). They are enormous claims for the man who appears to have successfully courted the Freedom movement on his way back to Parliament. The departure of Tanya Unkovich from the NZ First caucus comes at an opportune time for Mr Peters, who will be thinking about how to sensibly pivot his party back to the so-called political centre and by doing so claim an even bigger share of the electoral pie. Party insiders have suggested that new list MP David Wilson will help smooth the ride. A reliable member of the party faithful who shares Mr Peters' liberal underpinnings but frank distaste for the excess of market forces. How might Mr Peters use his clear air to grow support for his party further? The most obvious play is to double down on a position that his party is the only independent voice in town, with each of the major parties being dragged either left or right by the demands of smaller parties. The coalition agreement between National and Act commits to passing a Regulatory Standards Bill as soon as is practicable. Well, it won't be practicable if Mr Peters decides it isn't. It could be his next chance to show his credentials as the voice of the people by pulling up the legislative handbrake. For that to happen, Mr Peters needs someone from across the aisle to explain to the public, in a few sentences or less, why the Regulatory Standards Bill is not in their best interests. Most opposition MPs have been fixated on how the Bill enhances property rights by embedding quasi-libertarian ideology into various pieces of legislation. The obvious rejoinder is that we have been doing that already for the past 40-odd years, starting with the Fourth Labour Government. Submissions on the Bill have been notable for two reasons: how many there are and how many are vehemently opposed. Limiting the number of submitters allowed to give oral presentations and having others dismissed as bots, is neither respecting parliamentary processes, nor the people. Questions of fairness and responsible stewardship give New Zealand First further cause to adapt their position on the Bill. Indeed, it is reverence for our political institutions that differentiates Mr Peters from the less effective theatrical populists in other parts of the liberal world. Usually, legislation that risks upending constitutional norms would be something tested via a referendum, or at the very least, receive a clearer mandate on election night e.g. a National-Act New Zealand majority coalition. How might the coalition partners respond if Mr Peters says that the Regulatory Standards Bill must stay on the order paper until after the next election? In 2018, Prime Minister Ardern dismissed the failure to repeal the three strikes as "simply democracy and MMP". Prime Minister Luxon might be compelled to say something similar. For Act leader David Seymour? Probably just the first strike. — Dr Luke Oldfield is a lecturer of political science at Te Herenga Waka-Victoria University of Wellington.
Scoop
a day ago
- Politics
- Scoop
Minister Proud Of Potshots In Seabed Mine ‘Culture War'
The oceans and fisheries minister says Supreme Court judges and local body politicians have been cowed by fear in a culture war over seabed mining. Minister Shane Jones was in New Plymouth on Friday to deliver a stump speech for New Zealand First. Afterwards he said confrontation and fear had led to court rulings that blocked would-be seabed miners, and votes by local councils against the mine. 'The Supreme Court, when it got involved, it was confronted with a highly charged atmosphere which is still prevailing, which is what's driving fear in your local government to stand up against this belligerent, well-organised, rowdy bunch of activists,' said Jones. 'I think these natural resource debates have turned into a culture war.' Jones freely admitted taking shots from one side of the battle lines – including calling South Taranaki mana whenua 'pixie-like hapūs'. 'I am never, ever going to take a backward step to the well-drilled, highly-orchestrated, Greenpeace-orientated campaigners who probably operate out of the local iwi office anyway, such is the level of cross-contamination.' Opponents have fought the proposal to mine the seabed off Pātea since before the first official application in 2013, winning in the High Court, Court of Appeal and finally the Supreme Court in 2021. Spearheaded by Ngāti Ruanui, opposition spread to neighbouring Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi and hapū of Ngāruahine. In the Supreme Court tribes were joined by the Taranaki-Whanganui Conservation Board, the government's Environmental Protection Authority, Kiwis Against Seabed Mining, Greenpeace and Forest & Bird. Also party to the court challenge were Fisheries Inshore New Zealand, the New Zealand Federation of Commercial Fishermen, Southern Inshore Fisheries, Talley's Group, Cloudy Bay Clams and Te Ohu Kaimoana. Jones himself chaired Te Ohu Kaimoana before entering Parliament, controversially continuing to earn an annual fee of $70,000 as a director despite being an MP. Taranaki's eight Crown-mandated iwi agencies have collectively declared against the mine. District councils of South Taranaki, Whanganui and New Plymouth voted to oppose seabed mining after hearing from the miners and from community opponents. Jones claimed 'an enormous amount of brouhaha driven by misinformation' and couldn't think why councillors would stand against the mine – except out of fear as local elections loom. As during his last Taranaki visit, the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries, of Resources and of Regional Development demonstrated a loose grip on details – in spite of his repeated vocal support for the mine. He told his party's public meeting seabed mining was like dredging Port Taranaki – an argument made last month by New Plymouth councillor and former NZ First candidate Murray Chong, who was in the audience. 'Where do you put all the dredgings?' asked Jones. 'I'll tell you where you put them: You put them back into the host environment otherwise known as the coastline of Taranaki.' Over the past four years some three million tonnes of blacksand dredgings from Port Taranaki have been dumped in two approved zones near the shoreline, to keep the harbour clear and restore sand drift to New Plymouth beaches reduced by the port's breakwaters. The ongoing port dredging is less than two percent of the proposed seabed mine's waste: every four years Trans-Tasman Resources would discharge 180 million tonnes of seabed sediment – a recognised pollutant – into the abundant waters of the Pātea Shoals. Trans-Tasman's mining ship would take just 18 days to match four years of port dredging, and continue to do so for at least 20 years at the boundary of the 12-mile territorial limit. The subsidiary of Australian company Manuka Resources wants Fast-track approval to suck up 50 million tonnes of blacksand annually to extract iron, titanium and vanadium and then dump 45 million tonnes back into the marine environment. More mining ships are likely if the application sets a Fast-track precedent, with a second bid by Trans-Tasman's former chief financial officer on hold pending the results. Jones challenged the half-dozen journalists probing him about the mine. 'Don't you find this debate amongst yourselves tiresome?" he asked. 'I mean, haven't you got anything to talk about beyond this?'
Scoop
3 days ago
- Business
- Scoop
New Zealand First's Cash Transactions Protection Bill - What It Is And What It Could Do
Explainer - Cash is king, some people say - while others wouldn't be caught dead without their PayWave and Apple Pay. But a new members' bill put forward by New Zealand First would protect cash as a key option in transactions, requiring stores to take it for purchases up to $500. If drawn from the ballot and passed, NZ First leader Winston Peters said it would "provide for the enduring use of cash as a private, accessible, and reliable method of payment". The party cited rural communities, the elderly and low-income earners as being disproportionately affected by businesses that don't accept cash. As a members' bill, lodged 14 July in the name of NZ First MP Jamie Arbuckle, it's still a long while from possibly becoming law, but it does propose sweeping changes in how businesses treat cash and looks at who gets left out in a digital economy. Here's what you need to know. What does the bill propose? The Cash Transactions Protection Bill would mandate businesses in trade accept cash payment for goods valued up to $500. "The bill ensures that New Zealanders maintain freedom of choice in how they pay, preserving cash as what it should be: an enduring private and reliable option", Peters said in introducing it. "By protecting the sanctity of cash transactions, the bill upholds personal privacy, maintains sovereign control over New Zealand's monetary system, and lessens the risks posed by digital-only payment systems." There are some exceptions given to the bill's requirements, including online retailers and land purchases. The bill also would propose that "payment in cash must be accepted for essential goods or services" - which it defines as food, water, fuel, health care and household utilities. Another part of the bill would require businesses to keep cash on hand for emergencies: "A vendor must ensure they have sufficient access to cash to allow them to continue to trade in the event of a digital or electrical outage that lasts longer than 24 hours." In the introduction, the bill says it "preserves cash as an explicit privacy-preserving payment method, ensuring both freedom of choice and freedom from unwarranted surveillance in financial transactions". "It puts New Zealanders' interests above global trends toward digital currencies, maintaining sovereign control over New Zealand's monetary policy and mitigating the risks associated with digital-only financial systems, like restricted access to funds." The bill also calls for fees or fines from $1000 to a maximum of $5000 for infringements. Will it become law? It's quite a long way from that, actually. As a members' bill, it's not yet guaranteed it will ever go to the House for a vote. The bill first will have to be randomly drawn from the ballot to be considered at all in the House, and then undergo the same process of debate and referral to select committees as any other bill. While it's on the members ballot, MPs are allowed only one bill in the lottery at any given time. NZ First has swapped out its bills on several occasions this term, so there's also no guarantees over how long this legislation will remain in the ballot. Speaking to Checkpoint recently, Retail NZ CEO Carolyn Young said she wondered if the bill was "kind of a sledgehammer for a small problem". Marisa Bidois, chief executive of the Restaurant Association of New Zealand, said the bill ignored realities many businesses deal with. "We understand the intent behind the proposed bill - no one wants to see people excluded from accessing essential goods and services. However, requiring all businesses to accept cash for transactions under $500 doesn't reflect the operational realities many businesses face. "We believe businesses should be trusted to make the right decisions for how they operate and serve their customers." Members' bills are often used to float an idea or gauge public reaction to it, Parliament's website notes. Can a business really refuse to take cash? Yes, as long as they "clearly inform customers in advance that they don't accept cash before you start shopping or receive services from them", the Reserve Bank of New Zealand said. They can do that with a sign on the premises or telling you in person before you pay. "Most hospitality businesses still accept cash, but a small and growing number are moving away from it, particularly in busy urban areas," Bidois said. "Some customers do push back when cash isn't accepted, especially if they haven't been informed ahead of time. That's why we encourage clear communication." You're also only allowed to pay so much of a bill in coins, by the way, in case you're thinking of clearing out that piggy bank - you're allowed up to $5 of 10 or 20 cent coins, $10 of 50 cent coins or $100 worth of $1 and $2 coins. Who uses cash now, anyway? According to the Reserve Bank's latest data released in June, 45.8 percent of the population are still using cash sometimes in "paying for everyday things" - although 79.1 percent are using debit cards/EFTPOS also. Only 3.6 percent of people say they "never use cash," while 33.2 percent said they hadn't used cash at all in the past seven days. Cash isn't quite the king it once was. "We know that less than 10 percent of transactions that happen across New Zealand throughout the year now happen in cash," Retail NZ's Young said. "In the cities a lot less cash is used and in rural areas and areas of deprivation there is a higher percentage of cash that is used." Bidois said in the Restaurant Association's latest survey, 40 percent of respondents said cash made up just 5 to 10 percent of their transactions. Still, when it comes to essentials, "there's no supermarket that doesn't take cash," Young said. On Peters' Facebook page, the post announcing the bill has gathered nearly 3000 comments and 15,000 likes, with many expressing support for the idea. "Thank you! I use cash as a way to keep within my budget, as my mother did," one wrote, while another said it was "an essential bill - especially for many of our elderly population". What are the benefits and downsides of electronic payments? On the other hand, Young said that electronic transactions are often easier for businesses to deal with. "Electronic transactions are much safer for a wide number of reasons," she said, including less chance of being targeted by thieves or counterfeit money, and less time for staff dealing with transactions. "For many retailers and for hospitalities, cafes and things, cash is not always their favoured method of payment because of those challenges." However, frequently complained-about surcharges such as those for PayWave are "not ideal", she said. Many also have concerns about the privacy and security issues around digital payments and the records they leave behind. Are some people being left out with a shift away from cash? Cash also comes back to the table during disasters, such as Cyclone Gabrielle, which saw infrastructure knocked out widely. "We do know that when the cyclones happened in Auckland and Gisborne and Hawke's Bay 18 months ago that the supermarkets were really critical for being able to, especially in those provincial areas … they really provided the cash that people needed to be able to pay for goods and services," Young said. Bidois said that while there was a clear shift toward digital payments, it was all about striking the right balance for businesses. "Many businesses are finding that tap-and-go is what most customers expect, and it makes day-to-day operations simpler. "That said, our members care about customer experience, and most continue to accept cash to accommodate older New Zealanders, tourists, or regulars who prefer it."
Scoop
4 days ago
- Business
- Scoop
Pay Talk Protection: National Backs Labour's Transparency Bill
Members' bills from opposition MPs are more often than not doomed to fail, but there have been exceptions to the rule this term. Tracey McLellan's Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill received unanimous support at its second reading, with all six parties in Parliament voting in favour. Deborah Russell's Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill is being supported by National and ACT, but not by New Zealand First. Others, like Camilla Belich's Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill, have passed thanks to the support of one of the smaller coalition parties (in this case, New Zealand First). But only one opposition bill has had the support of National, and only National this term, and it is another from Belich. On Wednesday night, her Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill passed its second reading, thanks to National voting alongside the three opposition parties. The bill would ensure that pay secrecy clauses, which prevent employees from discussing their salaries with colleagues, would no longer be enforceable, meaning employers could not take legal action if an employee talked about pay. There will be cases where pay differences were justifiable (such as different skill sets or qualifications), but the bill's intention is to shed light on situations where they were unjustifiable. Australia, the UK, the EU, and some US states have either banned pay secrecy clauses or made them unenforceable. Belich said people already talk about their pay with colleagues, but stopping businesses from taking action against them for it would keep New Zealand up with the times. "It takes away the right for them to take action and discipline their employees when they talk about their pay. We know this happens already at the moment. So there's definitely a common sense, pragmatic element to this bill," she told RNZ. "It's making sure that usual human behaviour and workplace discussions are not something that people are disciplined for." Six National MPs took calls on the bill at its second reading. Every one of them referenced the gender pay gap and were hopeful the bill would be a mechanism to reduce it. Banks Peninsula MP Vanessa Weenink, who gave National's first contribution to the bill, told RNZ the party supported the bill because it had a "proud history" of driving down the gender pay gap. "We know that pay transparency is a key factor for driving down the gender pay gap. International studies have shown that when that legislation has been brought in, that it's measurable in the amount of reduction in the pay gap. So we really want to see that continue to fall down." Belich said it was great to see continued support for the bill. "I was heartened by the comments made in the house, where the National Party members said they would support this right through. I hope that's what they do," she said. "I think given the current context, where we've had significant changes to our pay equity regime, where women have had the ability to take pay equity claims severely curtailed, these types of bills, which make small changes to make a more transparent workforce, are increasingly important." Weenink said the "optics" around pay equity had nothing to do with National's support for the bill, as the party had also supported the bill at its first reading, well before the pay equity changes were announced. "It's just our ongoing commitment to doing what we can to make the workplace fair and improve productivity. How I see it is that if you can see you're being paid less than someone else who's working right beside you, doing the same job, then that's going to massively reduce your motivation, isn't it?" She did not see it as National handing Labour a win, but rather an opportunity to put party politics aside and improve things for New Zealanders. The bill passed its first reading in November. Sometimes, a bill is given cautious support at its first reading, in order to send it to Select Committee to see if the kinks are ironed out. The Education and Workforce Committee received 225 submissions on the bill, the majority in support. Belich said a number of changes were made to the bill through the Select Committee process, including making it clear there would be no requirement to make a disclosure. "It's still something that can be a private matter. It's only if you wish to that you shouldn't be disciplined for the desire to actually discuss that. So that was probably the major change through Select Committee." She said there were some definitional tidy-ups, including making it clear what the definitions of remuneration and detriment were, as well as ensuring the bill would not be retrospective. Some privileged or commercially sensitive information, for example, owner benefits for a business owner who also receives an employee salary, would also be excluded. Despite the changes, ACT and New Zealand First continued to oppose the bill. ACT said it would allow people to breach agreements they had signed up to, for which there should be consequences. "Once you've signed something, you are supposed to oblige to the conditions that you have signed for. If you do not agree to something in the agreement that you have signed, then there is an opportunity for you to go back and renegotiate the terms and conditions that you don't agree to," Parmjeet Parmar told the House. "But you don't just breach the agreement and say that there should be no consequences for that." New Zealand First's Mark Patterson said it "runs smack into the brick wall" of the party's belief in the "sanctity" of contract law. "While this bill doesn't prevent pay secrecy and that's still able to be incorporated within a contract, it does limit an employer's ability to enforce it, and that goes against what a contract should be," he said. Belich said she found the arguments against the bill "interesting," as it was specifically designed so businesses would not need to spend money to change their contracts. "If we'd said you cannot have a pay secrecy clause in your contract, or pay secrecy clauses are now illegal to have even in an employment document, there'd be thousands of employment agreements throughout the country that would need to be changed, that would cost money, that would take legal advice. It would be a burden on business." The bill still needs to go through the Committee of the Whole House stage for any further tidy-ups, and then a third reading, though Weenink did not foresee any major changes. "It took a long time to bash some of these things out, and I think we've got it to a really good place." Acknowledging National is a "broad church" and there had been strong discussions about the bill amongst the caucus, she did not expect any changes to the party's position at the third reading.
Otago Daily Times
5 days ago
- Business
- Otago Daily Times
Pay talk protection: National backs Labour's transparency bill
Labour MP Dr Deborah Russell. By Giles Dexter of RNZ Members' bills from opposition MPs are more often than not doomed to fail, but there have been exceptions to the rule this term. Tracey McLellan's Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill received unanimous support at its second reading, with all six parties in Parliament voting in favour. Deborah Russell's Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill is being supported by National and ACT, but not by New Zealand First. Others, like Camilla Belich's Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill, have passed thanks to the support of one of the smaller coalition parties (in this case, New Zealand First). But only one opposition bill has had the support of National, and only National this term, and it is another from Belich. On Wednesday night, her Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill passed its second reading, thanks to National voting alongside the three opposition parties. The bill would ensure that pay secrecy clauses, which prevent employees from discussing their salaries with colleagues, would no longer be enforceable, meaning employers could not take legal action if an employee talked about pay. There will be cases where pay differences were justifiable (such as different skill sets or qualifications), but the bill's intention is to shed light on situations where they were unjustifiable. Australia, the UK, the EU, and some US states have either banned pay secrecy clauses or made them unenforceable. Belich said people already talk about their pay with colleagues, but stopping businesses from taking action against them for it would keep New Zealand up with the times. "It takes away the right for them to take action and discipline their employees when they talk about their pay. We know this happens already at the moment. So there's definitely a common sense, pragmatic element to this bill," she said. "It's making sure that usual human behaviour and workplace discussions are not something that people are disciplined for." Six National MPs took calls on the bill at its second reading. Every one of them referenced the gender pay gap and were hopeful the bill would be a mechanism to reduce it. Banks Peninsula MP Vanessa Weenink, who gave National's first contribution to the bill, said the party supported the bill because it had a "proud history" of driving down the gender pay gap. "We know that pay transparency is a key factor for driving down the gender pay gap. International studies have shown that when that legislation has been brought in, that it's measurable in the amount of reduction in the pay gap. So we really want to see that continue to fall down." Belich said it was great to see continued support for the bill. "I was heartened by the comments made in the house, where the National Party members said they would support this right through. I hope that's what they do," she said. "I think given the current context, where we've had significant changes to our pay equity regime, where women have had the ability to take pay equity claims severely curtailed, these types of bills, which make small changes to make a more transparent workforce, are increasingly important." Weenink said the "optics" around pay equity had nothing to do with National's support for the bill, as the party had also supported the bill at its first reading, well before the pay equity changes were announced. "It's just our ongoing commitment to doing what we can to make the workplace fair and improve productivity. How I see it is that if you can see you're being paid less than someone else who's working right beside you, doing the same job, then that's going to massively reduce your motivation, isn't it?" She did not see it as National handing Labour a win, but rather an opportunity to put party politics aside and improve things for New Zealanders. The bill passed its first reading in November. Sometimes, a bill is given cautious support at its first reading, in order to send it to Select Committee to see if the kinks are ironed out. The Education and Workforce Committee received 225 submissions on the bill, the majority in support. Belich said a number of changes were made to the bill through the Select Committee process, including making it clear there would be no requirement to make a disclosure. "It's still something that can be a private matter. It's only if you wish to that you shouldn't be disciplined for the desire to actually discuss that. So that was probably the major change through Select Committee." She said there were some definitional tidy-ups, including making it clear what the definitions of remuneration and detriment were, as well as ensuring the bill would not be retrospective. Some privileged or commercially sensitive information, for example, owner benefits for a business owner who also receives an employee salary, would also be excluded. Despite the changes, ACT and New Zealand First continued to oppose the bill. ACT said it would allow people to breach agreements they had signed up to, for which there should be consequences. "Once you've signed something, you are supposed to oblige to the conditions that you have signed for. If you do not agree to something in the agreement that you have signed, then there is an opportunity for you to go back and renegotiate the terms and conditions that you don't agree to," Parmjeet Parmar told the House. "But you don't just breach the agreement and say that there should be no consequences for that." New Zealand First's Mark Patterson said it "runs smack into the brick wall" of the party's belief in the "sanctity" of contract law. "While this bill doesn't prevent pay secrecy and that's still able to be incorporated within a contract, it does limit an employer's ability to enforce it, and that goes against what a contract should be," he said. Belich said she found the arguments against the bill "interesting," as it was specifically designed so businesses would not need to spend money to change their contracts. "If we'd said you cannot have a pay secrecy clause in your contract, or pay secrecy clauses are now illegal to have even in an employment document, there'd be thousands of employment agreements throughout the country that would need to be changed, that would cost money, that would take legal advice. It would be a burden on business." The bill still needs to go through the Committee of the Whole House stage for any further tidy-ups, and then a third reading, though Weenink did not foresee any major changes. "It took a long time to bash some of these things out, and I think we've got it to a really good place." Acknowledging National is a "broad church" and there had been strong discussions about the bill amongst the caucus, she did not expect any changes to the party's position at the third reading.
