Latest news with #RegulatoryStandardsBill
Kiwiblog
17 hours ago
- Politics
- Kiwiblog
TPM now threatening violence
The Herald reports: Act leader David Seymour is condemning an 'immature' challenge to a charity fight from prominent Treaty activist Eru Kapa-Kingi. In a video posted to social media yesterday, Kapa-Kingi took exception to Seymour calling his mother, Te Pāti Māori MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi, an 'idiot' during the House's debate on the Regulatory Standards Bill last week. 'David Seymour crossed a line when he attacked my mum in Parliament. This just got personal,' Kapa-Kingi said. He said Seymour was clearly unaware of the rule that should someone talk 'smack' about a person's mother, 'then you're bound to get slapped up'. … Kapa-Kingi, also a Professional Teaching Fellow with the University of Auckland, then raised the possibility of a 'charity fight' between the pair, in which he promised to devote all funds to pro-Treaty initiatives, should he win. Kapa-Kingi threatens violence against Seymour, because he called another MP an idiot in the House. He is or was a Vice-President of Te Pati Maori, was on their payroll, and was a candidate for them at the last election. A party of threatened violence and extremism.
Scoop
a day ago
- Politics
- Scoop
The Regulatory Standards Bill: Neoliberal Shackles Disguised As 'Good Law'
Press Release – Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement We argue that the bill is not about making regulation better or fairer, but about handcuffing future lawmakers to an ideology that privileges private property, contract law, and the capitalist right to profit. When the New Zealand Parliament debates 'better law-making,' most people yawn. It sounds procedural, technocratic — even boring. But beneath the jargon of 'clarity,' 'predictability,' and 'transparency,' lurks a political agenda. The Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB), first introduced in 2011 by ACT Party founder Roger Douglas's disciple Rodney Hide and continuously revived in various guises since, represents a stealth weapon in the arsenal of neoliberal capitalism. It is a Trojan horse for embedding pro-market ideology into the very machinery of the state — making it harder for any future government, let alone a radical movement, to challenge the dominance of capital. We argue that the bill is not about making regulation 'better' or 'fairer,' but about handcuffing future lawmakers to an ideology that privileges private property, contract law, and the capitalist 'right to profit.' Its passage would mark a dangerous deepening of bourgeois legalism, constraining any collective attempts to democratise the economy or dismantle capitalist structures through parliamentary reform — let alone revolutionary means. The Origins: ACT's Neoliberal Dream To understand the Regulatory Standards Bill, we must start with ACT. Founded in the 1990s as the ideological successor to Roger Douglas's Rogernomics project, the ACT Party exists to finish what the Fourth Labour Government started: the total commodification of public life. With its roots in Chicago School economics, ACT idolises the free market, loathes the state (except when protecting capital), and views regulation as an obstacle to 'freedom' — defined narrowly as consumer and investor liberty. In 2009, the National-ACT confidence and supply agreement commissioned a taskforce led by arch-neoliberal Graham Scott to look into 'regulatory responsibility.' Its conclusion: regulation should conform to a strict set of principles designed to prevent the state from interfering too much with market activity. This taskforce gave birth to the Regulatory Standards Bill. Rodney Hide introduced the first version in 2011. It was met with scepticism, even from centrist legal scholars, who warned that the bill would judicialise politics and constitutionalise neoliberalism. While the bill didn't pass, its zombie-like persistence over the years shows how committed the New Zealand right remains to embedding capitalist ideology in law. What the Bill Proposes: Rights for Capital, Not People At first glance, the RSB reads like a list of nice-sounding principles: laws should not be retrospective, should respect property rights, should avoid creating unnecessary costs, and should be clear and accessible. But a closer look reveals its insidiousness. 1. 'Property Rights' as Sacred One of the central tenets of the bill is that laws should not 'take or impair property' unless justified. This may sound reasonable, but in practice, it elevates private property above public interest. It would give courts — not the people — the power to decide whether environmental protections, housing controls, or land use laws unduly infringe on property rights. It shifts power from democratically accountable institutions to unelected judges, many of whom are steeped in commercial law and capitalist ideology. This is a direct threat to mana whenua struggles for land justice. Imagine if land reform legislation, urban rent controls, or even a future law to nationalise fossil fuel companies were struck down because they infringed on 'property rights.' The bill constitutionalises the most reactionary legal principle of all: that the right to own and profit from land or capital is inviolable. 2. 'No More Than Necessary' Another clause says that regulation should not impose 'obligations, costs, or risks' that are more than 'reasonably necessary.' But who decides what's 'necessary'? Under capitalism, this often means what's necessary for profit. Environmental laws, workplace protections, or rent freezes could all be challenged for being 'too costly' to business. The bill invites judicial activism — not in the progressive sense, but as a means of protecting capitalist interests from redistributive policies. 3. Parliamentary Veto in Disguise The bill would require that every new law be accompanied by a 'certification' that it complies with these principles. If it doesn't, it must be justified — and could be challenged in court. This sets up a system where legislation is no longer judged on its social merit, but on how well it conforms to market logic. In essence, it's a regulatory veto wrapped in legal procedure. The aim is to make it politically and legally risky for any future government to pass redistributive or transformative laws. Embedding Capitalist Ideology into Law What makes the RSB especially dangerous is not just its content, but its method. It doesn't ban socialism outright. Instead, it sets up legal roadblocks that make any move toward economic democracy more difficult, expensive, or outright unconstitutional. This is classic capitalist strategy: not just win political battles, but rig the rules. It's the same logic behind investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) clauses in trade agreements, which allow corporations to sue states for regulating in the public interest. It's the logic behind independent central banks, which remove monetary policy from democratic control. And it's the logic behind 'fiscal responsibility' laws that force governments to prioritise debt repayment over social investment. The RSB is part of this neoliberal constitutionalism. It transforms what should be political questions – Who owns the land? Should rent be controlled? Should fossil fuels be nationalised? – into legal technicalities. It makes revolution, or even reform, illegal by stealth. Aotearoa's Class War by Other Means The Regulatory Standards Bill must be understood in the context of Aotearoa's broader class structure. We live in a settler-colonial capitalist state where wealth is concentrated among a small elite – disproportionately Pākehā – while working-class, Māori, and Pasifika communities struggle under the weight of exploitation, housing precarity, and intergenerational poverty. In such a context, regulation is one of the few remaining tools communities have to fight back. Whether it's tenant protections, limits on corporate land use, environmental regulations, or worker rights, regulation is one of the few levers available within capitalist democracy to redistribute power and resources. The RSB seeks to destroy that lever. It cloaks itself in legal neutrality, but in reality, it is a ruling class weapon designed to foreclose collective action. It represents the judicialisation of class war. One where the capitalist class doesn't need tanks or cops to crush resistance, just well-written legislation and friendly judges. The Limits of Parliamentary Critique It's important to note that opposition to the RSB has come not just from the left, but from mainstream legal figures and centrists worried about the erosion of parliamentary sovereignty. The New Zealand Law Society, in a rare political statement, warned that the bill would shift power from Parliament to the judiciary, undermining democratic accountability. But for anarcho-communists, the issue goes deeper than defending Parliament. Parliamentary democracy in a capitalist state is already limited, corrupt, and structurally skewed toward the ruling class. Our concern is not that the RSB undermines Parliament per se, but that it further consolidates capitalist power within the state, making radical transformation through any legal means even harder. In this sense, the RSB is not an aberration but a logical outcome of a capitalist democracy reaching its authoritarian phase. As global inequality deepens and ecological collapse accelerates, capitalist states are preemptively locking in protections for the wealthy – insulating themselves from the possibility of revolt. A Vision Beyond the Bill Anarcho-communists reject the premise of the RSB because we reject the premise of capitalist law itself. We do not believe the protection of property is a neutral good. We do not believe 'regulatory efficiency' should be the measure of political action. And we do not accept a legal framework that privileges capital over collective well-being. Instead, we fight for a society based on direct democracy, collective ownership, and ecological harmony. We envision a world where land is returned to tangata whenua, where housing is a right not a commodity, and where communities make decisions together, without the distortions of profit or property law. In such a world, the RSB would be unthinkable — not just because it's unjust, but because its very logic would no longer apply. There would be no 'regulators' because there would be no corporations to regulate. No 'property rights' because the land would belong to all. No 'cost-benefit analyses' because human need, not market efficiency, would guide our choices. What Is to Be Done? The Regulatory Standards Bill has not yet passed — but it remains a live threat. ACT and National are eager to revive it, and a future coalition could easily slip it through under the radar. We must oppose it not just with legal submissions or op-eds, but with direct action and radical education. We must expose it for what it is: a blueprint for capitalist entrenchment, not a neutral law reform. And we must prepare ourselves intellectually, and organisationally for the broader authoritarian turn it signals. This means: Popular education in unions, hapū, and community groups about the bill's implications. Legal support for those resisting unjust property laws and regulations. Resisting co-optation by parliamentary parties who offer weak, technocratic opposition. The battle over the Regulatory Standards Bill is a battle over who controls the future: the people, or capital. Let's make sure it's us.
Scoop
a day ago
- Politics
- Scoop
The Regulatory Standards Bill: Neoliberal Shackles Disguised As 'Good Law'
Press Release – Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement We argue that the bill is not about making regulation better or fairer, but about handcuffing future lawmakers to an ideology that privileges private property, contract law, and the capitalist right to profit. When the New Zealand Parliament debates 'better law-making,' most people yawn. It sounds procedural, technocratic — even boring. But beneath the jargon of 'clarity,' 'predictability,' and 'transparency,' lurks a political agenda. The Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB), first introduced in 2011 by ACT Party founder Roger Douglas's disciple Rodney Hide and continuously revived in various guises since, represents a stealth weapon in the arsenal of neoliberal capitalism. It is a Trojan horse for embedding pro-market ideology into the very machinery of the state — making it harder for any future government, let alone a radical movement, to challenge the dominance of capital. We argue that the bill is not about making regulation 'better' or 'fairer,' but about handcuffing future lawmakers to an ideology that privileges private property, contract law, and the capitalist 'right to profit.' Its passage would mark a dangerous deepening of bourgeois legalism, constraining any collective attempts to democratise the economy or dismantle capitalist structures through parliamentary reform — let alone revolutionary means. The Origins: ACT's Neoliberal Dream To understand the Regulatory Standards Bill, we must start with ACT. Founded in the 1990s as the ideological successor to Roger Douglas's Rogernomics project, the ACT Party exists to finish what the Fourth Labour Government started: the total commodification of public life. With its roots in Chicago School economics, ACT idolises the free market, loathes the state (except when protecting capital), and views regulation as an obstacle to 'freedom' — defined narrowly as consumer and investor liberty. In 2009, the National-ACT confidence and supply agreement commissioned a taskforce led by arch-neoliberal Graham Scott to look into 'regulatory responsibility.' Its conclusion: regulation should conform to a strict set of principles designed to prevent the state from interfering too much with market activity. This taskforce gave birth to the Regulatory Standards Bill. Rodney Hide introduced the first version in 2011. It was met with scepticism, even from centrist legal scholars, who warned that the bill would judicialise politics and constitutionalise neoliberalism. While the bill didn't pass, its zombie-like persistence over the years shows how committed the New Zealand right remains to embedding capitalist ideology in law. What the Bill Proposes: Rights for Capital, Not People At first glance, the RSB reads like a list of nice-sounding principles: laws should not be retrospective, should respect property rights, should avoid creating unnecessary costs, and should be clear and accessible. But a closer look reveals its insidiousness. 1. 'Property Rights' as Sacred One of the central tenets of the bill is that laws should not 'take or impair property' unless justified. This may sound reasonable, but in practice, it elevates private property above public interest. It would give courts — not the people — the power to decide whether environmental protections, housing controls, or land use laws unduly infringe on property rights. It shifts power from democratically accountable institutions to unelected judges, many of whom are steeped in commercial law and capitalist ideology. This is a direct threat to mana whenua struggles for land justice. Imagine if land reform legislation, urban rent controls, or even a future law to nationalise fossil fuel companies were struck down because they infringed on 'property rights.' The bill constitutionalises the most reactionary legal principle of all: that the right to own and profit from land or capital is inviolable. 2. 'No More Than Necessary' Another clause says that regulation should not impose 'obligations, costs, or risks' that are more than 'reasonably necessary.' But who decides what's 'necessary'? Under capitalism, this often means what's necessary for profit. Environmental laws, workplace protections, or rent freezes could all be challenged for being 'too costly' to business. The bill invites judicial activism — not in the progressive sense, but as a means of protecting capitalist interests from redistributive policies. 3. Parliamentary Veto in Disguise The bill would require that every new law be accompanied by a 'certification' that it complies with these principles. If it doesn't, it must be justified — and could be challenged in court. This sets up a system where legislation is no longer judged on its social merit, but on how well it conforms to market logic. In essence, it's a regulatory veto wrapped in legal procedure. The aim is to make it politically and legally risky for any future government to pass redistributive or transformative laws. Embedding Capitalist Ideology into Law What makes the RSB especially dangerous is not just its content, but its method. It doesn't ban socialism outright. Instead, it sets up legal roadblocks that make any move toward economic democracy more difficult, expensive, or outright unconstitutional. This is classic capitalist strategy: not just win political battles, but rig the rules. It's the same logic behind investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) clauses in trade agreements, which allow corporations to sue states for regulating in the public interest. It's the logic behind independent central banks, which remove monetary policy from democratic control. And it's the logic behind 'fiscal responsibility' laws that force governments to prioritise debt repayment over social investment. The RSB is part of this neoliberal constitutionalism. It transforms what should be political questions – Who owns the land? Should rent be controlled? Should fossil fuels be nationalised? – into legal technicalities. It makes revolution, or even reform, illegal by stealth. Aotearoa's Class War by Other Means The Regulatory Standards Bill must be understood in the context of Aotearoa's broader class structure. We live in a settler-colonial capitalist state where wealth is concentrated among a small elite – disproportionately Pākehā – while working-class, Māori, and Pasifika communities struggle under the weight of exploitation, housing precarity, and intergenerational poverty. In such a context, regulation is one of the few remaining tools communities have to fight back. Whether it's tenant protections, limits on corporate land use, environmental regulations, or worker rights, regulation is one of the few levers available within capitalist democracy to redistribute power and resources. The RSB seeks to destroy that lever. It cloaks itself in legal neutrality, but in reality, it is a ruling class weapon designed to foreclose collective action. It represents the judicialisation of class war. One where the capitalist class doesn't need tanks or cops to crush resistance, just well-written legislation and friendly judges. The Limits of Parliamentary Critique It's important to note that opposition to the RSB has come not just from the left, but from mainstream legal figures and centrists worried about the erosion of parliamentary sovereignty. The New Zealand Law Society, in a rare political statement, warned that the bill would shift power from Parliament to the judiciary, undermining democratic accountability. But for anarcho-communists, the issue goes deeper than defending Parliament. Parliamentary democracy in a capitalist state is already limited, corrupt, and structurally skewed toward the ruling class. Our concern is not that the RSB undermines Parliament per se, but that it further consolidates capitalist power within the state, making radical transformation through any legal means even harder. In this sense, the RSB is not an aberration but a logical outcome of a capitalist democracy reaching its authoritarian phase. As global inequality deepens and ecological collapse accelerates, capitalist states are preemptively locking in protections for the wealthy – insulating themselves from the possibility of revolt. A Vision Beyond the Bill Anarcho-communists reject the premise of the RSB because we reject the premise of capitalist law itself. We do not believe the protection of property is a neutral good. We do not believe 'regulatory efficiency' should be the measure of political action. And we do not accept a legal framework that privileges capital over collective well-being. Instead, we fight for a society based on direct democracy, collective ownership, and ecological harmony. We envision a world where land is returned to tangata whenua, where housing is a right not a commodity, and where communities make decisions together, without the distortions of profit or property law. In such a world, the RSB would be unthinkable — not just because it's unjust, but because its very logic would no longer apply. There would be no 'regulators' because there would be no corporations to regulate. No 'property rights' because the land would belong to all. No 'cost-benefit analyses' because human need, not market efficiency, would guide our choices. What Is to Be Done? The Regulatory Standards Bill has not yet passed — but it remains a live threat. ACT and National are eager to revive it, and a future coalition could easily slip it through under the radar. We must oppose it not just with legal submissions or op-eds, but with direct action and radical education. We must expose it for what it is: a blueprint for capitalist entrenchment, not a neutral law reform. And we must prepare ourselves intellectually, and organisationally for the broader authoritarian turn it signals. This means: Popular education in unions, hapū, and community groups about the bill's implications. Legal support for those resisting unjust property laws and regulations. Resisting co-optation by parliamentary parties who offer weak, technocratic opposition. The battle over the Regulatory Standards Bill is a battle over who controls the future: the people, or capital. Let's make sure it's us.
Scoop
a day ago
- Business
- Scoop
The Regulatory Standards Bill: Neoliberal Shackles Disguised As 'Good Law"
When the New Zealand Parliament debates "better law-making," most people yawn. It sounds procedural, technocratic — even boring. But beneath the jargon of 'clarity,' 'predictability,' and 'transparency,' lurks a political agenda. The Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB), first introduced in 2011 by ACT Party founder Roger Douglas's disciple Rodney Hide and continuously revived in various guises since, represents a stealth weapon in the arsenal of neoliberal capitalism. It is a Trojan horse for embedding pro-market ideology into the very machinery of the state — making it harder for any future government, let alone a radical movement, to challenge the dominance of capital. We argue that the bill is not about making regulation 'better' or 'fairer,' but about handcuffing future lawmakers to an ideology that privileges private property, contract law, and the capitalist 'right to profit.' Its passage would mark a dangerous deepening of bourgeois legalism, constraining any collective attempts to democratise the economy or dismantle capitalist structures through parliamentary reform — let alone revolutionary means. The Origins: ACT's Neoliberal Dream To understand the Regulatory Standards Bill, we must start with ACT. Founded in the 1990s as the ideological successor to Roger Douglas's Rogernomics project, the ACT Party exists to finish what the Fourth Labour Government started: the total commodification of public life. With its roots in Chicago School economics, ACT idolises the free market, loathes the state (except when protecting capital), and views regulation as an obstacle to "freedom" — defined narrowly as consumer and investor liberty. In 2009, the National-ACT confidence and supply agreement commissioned a taskforce led by arch-neoliberal Graham Scott to look into 'regulatory responsibility.' Its conclusion: regulation should conform to a strict set of principles designed to prevent the state from interfering too much with market activity. This taskforce gave birth to the Regulatory Standards Bill. Rodney Hide introduced the first version in 2011. It was met with scepticism, even from centrist legal scholars, who warned that the bill would judicialise politics and constitutionalise neoliberalism. While the bill didn't pass, its zombie-like persistence over the years shows how committed the New Zealand right remains to embedding capitalist ideology in law. What the Bill Proposes: Rights for Capital, Not People At first glance, the RSB reads like a list of nice-sounding principles: laws should not be retrospective, should respect property rights, should avoid creating unnecessary costs, and should be clear and accessible. But a closer look reveals its insidiousness. 1. "Property Rights" as Sacred One of the central tenets of the bill is that laws should not 'take or impair property' unless justified. This may sound reasonable, but in practice, it elevates private property above public interest. It would give courts — not the people — the power to decide whether environmental protections, housing controls, or land use laws unduly infringe on property rights. It shifts power from democratically accountable institutions to unelected judges, many of whom are steeped in commercial law and capitalist ideology. This is a direct threat to mana whenua struggles for land justice. Imagine if land reform legislation, urban rent controls, or even a future law to nationalise fossil fuel companies were struck down because they infringed on 'property rights.' The bill constitutionalises the most reactionary legal principle of all: that the right to own and profit from land or capital is inviolable. 2. 'No More Than Necessary' Another clause says that regulation should not impose 'obligations, costs, or risks' that are more than 'reasonably necessary.' But who decides what's 'necessary'? Under capitalism, this often means what's necessary for profit. Environmental laws, workplace protections, or rent freezes could all be challenged for being 'too costly' to business. The bill invites judicial activism — not in the progressive sense, but as a means of protecting capitalist interests from redistributive policies. 3. Parliamentary Veto in Disguise The bill would require that every new law be accompanied by a "certification" that it complies with these principles. If it doesn't, it must be justified — and could be challenged in court. This sets up a system where legislation is no longer judged on its social merit, but on how well it conforms to market logic. In essence, it's a regulatory veto wrapped in legal procedure. The aim is to make it politically and legally risky for any future government to pass redistributive or transformative laws. Embedding Capitalist Ideology into Law What makes the RSB especially dangerous is not just its content, but its method. It doesn't ban socialism outright. Instead, it sets up legal roadblocks that make any move toward economic democracy more difficult, expensive, or outright unconstitutional. This is classic capitalist strategy: not just win political battles, but rig the rules. It's the same logic behind investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) clauses in trade agreements, which allow corporations to sue states for regulating in the public interest. It's the logic behind independent central banks, which remove monetary policy from democratic control. And it's the logic behind 'fiscal responsibility' laws that force governments to prioritise debt repayment over social investment. The RSB is part of this neoliberal constitutionalism. It transforms what should be political questions - Who owns the land? Should rent be controlled? Should fossil fuels be nationalised? - into legal technicalities. It makes revolution, or even reform, illegal by stealth. Aotearoa's Class War by Other Means The Regulatory Standards Bill must be understood in the context of Aotearoa's broader class structure. We live in a settler-colonial capitalist state where wealth is concentrated among a small elite - disproportionately Pākehā - while working-class, Māori, and Pasifika communities struggle under the weight of exploitation, housing precarity, and intergenerational poverty. In such a context, regulation is one of the few remaining tools communities have to fight back. Whether it's tenant protections, limits on corporate land use, environmental regulations, or worker rights, regulation is one of the few levers available within capitalist democracy to redistribute power and resources. The RSB seeks to destroy that lever. It cloaks itself in legal neutrality, but in reality, it is a ruling class weapon designed to foreclose collective action. It represents the judicialisation of class war. One where the capitalist class doesn't need tanks or cops to crush resistance, just well-written legislation and friendly judges. The Limits of Parliamentary Critique It's important to note that opposition to the RSB has come not just from the left, but from mainstream legal figures and centrists worried about the erosion of parliamentary sovereignty. The New Zealand Law Society, in a rare political statement, warned that the bill would shift power from Parliament to the judiciary, undermining democratic accountability. But for anarcho-communists, the issue goes deeper than defending Parliament. Parliamentary democracy in a capitalist state is already limited, corrupt, and structurally skewed toward the ruling class. Our concern is not that the RSB undermines Parliament per se, but that it further consolidates capitalist power within the state, making radical transformation through any legal means even harder. In this sense, the RSB is not an aberration but a logical outcome of a capitalist democracy reaching its authoritarian phase. As global inequality deepens and ecological collapse accelerates, capitalist states are preemptively locking in protections for the wealthy - insulating themselves from the possibility of revolt. A Vision Beyond the Bill Anarcho-communists reject the premise of the RSB because we reject the premise of capitalist law itself. We do not believe the protection of property is a neutral good. We do not believe 'regulatory efficiency' should be the measure of political action. And we do not accept a legal framework that privileges capital over collective well-being. Instead, we fight for a society based on direct democracy, collective ownership, and ecological harmony. We envision a world where land is returned to tangata whenua, where housing is a right not a commodity, and where communities make decisions together, without the distortions of profit or property law. In such a world, the RSB would be unthinkable — not just because it's unjust, but because its very logic would no longer apply. There would be no 'regulators' because there would be no corporations to regulate. No 'property rights' because the land would belong to all. No 'cost-benefit analyses' because human need, not market efficiency, would guide our choices. What Is to Be Done? The Regulatory Standards Bill has not yet passed — but it remains a live threat. ACT and National are eager to revive it, and a future coalition could easily slip it through under the radar. We must oppose it not just with legal submissions or op-eds, but with direct action and radical education. We must expose it for what it is: a blueprint for capitalist entrenchment, not a neutral law reform. And we must prepare ourselves intellectually, and organisationally for the broader authoritarian turn it signals. This means: Popular education in unions, hapū, and community groups about the bill's implications. Legal support for those resisting unjust property laws and regulations. Resisting co-optation by parliamentary parties who offer weak, technocratic opposition. The battle over the Regulatory Standards Bill is a battle over who controls the future: the people, or capital. Let's make sure it's us.
NZ Herald
2 days ago
- Politics
- NZ Herald
Letters: What David Seymour could learn from brave 8-year-old; Run it straight ban a no-brainer
Hairdressers, (who may or may not be qualified), can now offer their clients coffee and dogs can enter a salon if the owner allows it. While David Seymour gives a 'buzz cut' to archaic regulations, the minister may want to have his department turn the shears on himself totally wasting taxpayers' money. I'm fairly certain the Child Cancer Foundation could have made better use of that money. Mary Hearn, Glendowie. Run it straight out of town I find it hard to believe the Government is going to 'seek advice' about the possibility of banning Run it Straight events. Duelling with swords and pistols has been banned for decades. This new contest of who has the thickest skull may not involve weapons, but as we've seen already the potential for a fatal outcome is, tragically, only too obvious. How many more combatants will have to die or be maimed for life before the 'advice' being sought comes to the conclusion this new brand of stupidity should be outlawed immediately? Jeremy Coleman, Hillpark. RMA changes at what cost? So the Government has traded off increasing pollution of our water and land for higher returns for farmers and easier property development. The proposed RMA changes loosen regulations and standards to promote more industrial farming, make mining and quarrying easier and reclassify wetland to allow more building development. This will mean more pollution of our water, land and air, no matter how you cut it. This will bring with it huge health and environmental costs, which we all pay. This may be a quick sugar rush for the short-term business cycle but it's bad for everyone and the planet in the long term. The vital concept of sustainability has been smothered by the siren song of unrelenting growth. We are going to pay a very high price for this short-term thinking. Jeff Hayward, Auckland Central. Regulatory Standards Bill demands scrutiny The Regulatory Standards Bill, put forward by David Seymour, is marketed as upholding democratic values, but it does not explicitly protect free speech and may in practice do the opposite. It threatens protest rights and freedom of expression. For months, people across Aotearoa, including in downtown Auckland, have gathered peacefully to call for an end to Israel's assault on Gaza and urge our Government to uphold international law. Under this bill, such protests could be deemed 'inconsistent' with vague principles, judged by a minister-appointed board. The bill also sidelines Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It lacks any requirement to honour Treaty principles or include Māori voices, a major constitutional failure. Steve Bannon, former Trump adviser, once spoke of 'flooding the zone with chaos' to overwhelm the public. This bill feels just like that: unnecessary, confusing and dangerous. We already have checks in place: the Bill of Rights Act, Regulatory Impact Statements, select committees, the courts and oversight bodies like the Ombudsman and Human Rights Commission. With the June 23 deadline approaching for submissions, now is a good time for anyone concerned about our democratic rights to look closely at what this bill could mean. Dana A. Patterson, Waiheke Island. On stopping crime early Re 'Police push crime message' (Herald, May 28): since most crime is fuelled by substance abuse, each arrest is an opportunity not just for accountability but also for intervention, rehabilitation and healing. Most citizens consistently report wanting this approach rather than contributing to mass incarceration. The 'Broken Windows' theory of policing, which began in 1982, suggests that not intervening at lower levels of crime will result in the escalation of crime and also supports taking all theft crime more seriously. New Zealand is known for its innovative approach towards crime reduction, beginning with juvenile offending. Giving free passes to minor crime is inconsistent with best practices. Eugene M. Hyman, Judge Superior Court of California (retired), California, USA. Political blame game The coalition Government has been in the House for half of an electoral cycle and yet continues to blame Labour, who coped with a massive pandemic and kept thousands of the population alive, and also a huge cyclone, for the lack of economic growth. They also continue to blame Covid for their lack of action to address vital basic needs. The best this Government can do to rectify this is chase 30,000+ of our brightest offshore, make massive job cuts, disrespect women and our indigenous people, reduce the income and housing for those who have remained, increasing homelessness and poverty. They have not addressed child poverty or the climate change issue but pander to the wealthy and lobbyists by making laws under urgency with little or no consultation. These MPs live in a fantasy world and are totally out of touch with the real world. Marie Kaire, Whangarei. Something in the soil According to an article published in the 1961 American Popular Mechanics' science overseas section, New Zealand made headlines by the discovery that the metal molybdenum ingested with foods grown rich in the metal prevents cavities in teeth. A New Zealand study showed residents of Napier have fewer cavities than those of nearby Hastings, although they have common milk and water supplies. The different factor in their diet is the crops grown for food. Napier grows its crops in a former lagoon that has higher amounts of molybdenum, titanium and aluminium than those used for crop-growing in nearby Hastings. Gary Hollis, Mellons Bay. NZ's voice on Gaza Firstly, I agree with John Minto (Herald, May 30) As usual he speaks from the heart and empathises with persecuted people wherever they are in the world. The United States, by supplying the weapons of war to Israel, is hugely complicit in the genocide of innocent women and children in Gaza. Our Foreign Minister's apparent willingness to go along with everything the Trump White House does actually makes us loosely complicit too. Our Government should have the fortitude to speak out whenever and wherever injustice is. Evidently, 147 of the 193 UN members recognise Palestine as a sovereign nation. It shocked me to learn New Zealand is one of the 47 countries that do not. To me this is shameful and needs to change. Surely this is the least we can do? Glen Stanton, Mairangi Bay. More female referees too It is not only 'NZF under fire for overlooking female coaches' (Herald, May 29), it is also female referees. When I watch the all-men NRL games every weekend, often the major referee is a woman. Here they are always men in both male and female games. Why not share the jobs of rugby coaches and referees so half of both tasks are done by women? Please do it in 2025 for fair equal rights and fair choice, as New Zealand women absolutely deserve to have this equal right now. Murray Hunter, Titirangi. Online gambling harm Auctioning 15 online gambling licences is going to be devastating for addicted gamblers and their families. Thousands of those caught in this cruel addiction will be financially ruined. The odds are heavily stacked in favour of the online casinos, run by remorseless multinational corporations. The gambler will inevitably lose everything they gamble. Now thanks to legal online gambling, this will be available all-hours in your own home. How cruelly short-sighted and expedient is this? So the Government can generate a few million dollars in taxes and licence sales, many thousands of people will be financially ruined. The health and social costs incurred alone will dwarf any gambling tax gain. Jeff Hayward, Auckland Central. Speak out about Gaza I completely agree with all the statements made in the letter from Keith and Jo Ballagh (Herald, May 29). Being a small country, all we have is our voice, which we have used very effectively in the past. For example, helping stop nuclear testing in the Pacific during the 1980s, despite the French Government's threats to damage our trade relationship. I urge our Government to recognise Palestine as a state and a full voting member of the UN. Ineffective hand-wringing and vague comments about joining with other countries etc do not help the starving, mutilated and dying people of Gaza and the West Bank. The time is now! Those who see an injustice and turn away or delay action become complicit in the actions of the perpetrator. We have our own voice and should use it in total condemnation of the Israeli genocide now. Silence is complicity. Ruth Coombes, Auckland. Tiny setback for school lunches The school lunch programme continues as an embarrassment and frustration for David Seymour, with a report that a larva was found in one school lunch recently. However, the school lunch programme delivers approximately 244,000 lunches to schools daily. This one lunch represents 0.0004% of all lunches. Although hygiene should be of paramount importance in any food programme, this is hardly evidence of gross mismanagement to the point of being overly concerned. Let's just call it added protein. I was given banana sandwiches as a kid that were brown and mushy by the time I got to eat them. I saw, I ate and I survived! Bernard Walker, Mount Maunganui. A quick word It's going to be a long 18 months as we watch David Seymour hog the headlines as Deputy Prime Minister. What an opportune time for Prime Minister Christopher Luxon to reassert his authority and call a snap election. Graham Fleetwood, Tauranga. The Holocaust: Nazis treated Jews like animals, confiscated their property, herded them into camps with unspeakable and unstoppable violence. Needing additional Zionist inhabitable space, Israel is tragically repeating its own history. Michael Howard, Mt Eden. There has been a lot written about the Equal Pay Amendment Bill 2025 but did I miss the publication of all the companies that don't pay women the same as men who are doing the same work? That is what is missing from all that has been written. Mike Wells, Kawerau. The problem with patients absconding from hospital ED units is not a crime. Patients are not prisoners and are free to make their own decisions no matter how wrong. Neville Cameron, Coromandel. When I returned to NZ after years abroad I was advised not to subscribe to the Herald as it was too right-wing. I have not found this to be the case. Your editorial (May 28) that Nicola Willis' Budget, like her $1100, dress highlights the growing gap between the haves and the have-nots confirms my view. You ask readers to consider supporting local foodbanks or social agencies. Please continue to highlight the huge gap in this country between those who can afford to fly business class and those who struggle to find a bus fare. Sarah Beck, Devonport. Imagine there's less Super, it's easy if you try, no Working for Families, it isn't hard to do, dreams Matthew Hooton (Herald, May 30) like a neoliberal John Lennon. Mike Wagg, Freemans Bay.
