Latest news with #VNP
Otago Daily Times
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
MPs set to debate on Te Pāti Māori trio's fate
Te Pāti Māori MPs , Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, Rawiri Waititi and Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke face ACT MPs as they perform the haka last year. Photo: VNP/Louis Collins Parliament has begun debating proposed punishments for three members of Te Pāti Māori party after they performed a haka during the reading of a controversial Bill last year. The MPs were reacting to the first reading of the Treaty Principles Bill. Introduced by coalition partner ACT, the Bill aimed to clarify the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi) and to establish a clear legal framework for how these principles should be understood and applied in New Zealand law. Some critics argued the Bill undermined Māori rights and would disrupt established interpretations of the Treaty. The Bill was defeated at its second reading last month. The Privileges Committee has recommended to the Speaker that party co-leaders Rawiri Waititi and Debbie Ngārewa-Packer, and MP Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke (who led the haka Ka Mate but showed contrition) receive stand-downs of 21 and seven sitting days, respectively. Speaker of the House Gerry Brownlee set out the parameters of the debate last week, including that all 123 MPs be allowed to speak. There is concern there will be filibustering. If any amendment is put forward, MPs would then be allowed to speak again. Such amendments could include a change to the length of the suspensions. The debate could go on well into the night - or even for weeks. If the debate is still going at 10pm today, Brownlee will decide whether it continues tomorrow or is adjourned until June. Parliament's public gallery will be closed today, but a protest is planned on the forecourt in Wellington. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has flatly rejected any concessions being made and doubled down this morning, saying the government stands by the recommendations in the privileges committee report. Iwi say a suspension of Te Pāti Māori MPs is a "punishment for being unapologetically Māori".
Otago Daily Times
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
Te Pāti Māori decision: Debate primed for filibuster
Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke rips up a copy of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill at the conclusion of the Bill's first reading last year. Photo: VNP/Louis Collins Labour is unlikely to engage in filibustering to slow progress of a debate into whether three Te Pāti Māori MPs should be suspended from Parliament after performing a haka during the first reading of the controversial Treaty Principles Bill. And the president of Te Pāti Māori says Parliament needs to recognise that society is evolving and tikanga Māori should be incorporated increasingly more into the House. It has been recommended to the Speaker of the House by the Privileges Committee that Te Pāti Māori co-leaders Rawiri Waititi and Debbie Ngārewa-Packer, and MP Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke (who led the haka Ka Mate but showed contrition) receive stand-downs of 21 and seven sitting days, respectively. The debate is set to begin on this afternoon and could go on well into the night - or even for weeks. The Treaty Principles Bill, introduced by the ACT party, aimed to clarify the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi) and to establish a clear legal framework for how these principles should be understood and applied in New Zealand law. It was defeated at a second reading last month. Unusually for New Zealand's Parliament, it will be a debate primed for filibuster. Parliament's Speaker Gerry Brownlee set out the parameters last week, including that all 123 MPs will be allowed to speak. If any amendment is put forward, they would then be allowed to speak again. Such amendments could include a change to the length of the suspensions. Should the debate continue long enough, the Budget, to be delivered on Thursday, would take precedence over it and Te Pāti Māori MPs would be able to participate - including having their votes against the Budget recorded. Parliament's public gallery will be closed today, but a protest is planned on the forecourt in Wellington. Te Pāti Māori MPs Rawiri Waititi, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke face ACT MPs as they perform the haka. Photo: VNP/Louis Collins Green Party musterer Ricardo Menéndez March said the proposed ban was unprecedented and of concern to all the party's MPs, so it was likely they would want to speak during the debate. "It raises really really serious concerns about whether this new standard only applies when haka, waiata or tikanga Māori is used in the House." The Greens were hoping to be able to speak with government MPs and ultimately be able to reduce the penalty that had been given, he said - but elected Te Pāti Māori MPs should be able to vote during the Budget procedures. "We will be using the tools available to us to ensure that we can challenge this decision however we can." Menéndez March said he would not accept "performative outrage" on the issue of filibustering from government MPs. "They're the ones who have chosen to deal an unprecedented punishment and are unable to reflect on the issue that many have been raising about how tikanga can be better incorporated in the House." Labour leader Chris Hipkins agreed the proposed punishment was disproportionate. Hipkins told RNZ's Morning Report programme today there should be some kind of sanction, but the penalty on the table was too extreme. "Two other MPs have been sanctioned in this term of Parliament for bullying and intimidating behaviour - one National MP and one Green MP. Neither of them was suspended from the service of the House at all." Te Pāti Māori had a right to protest against the Treaty Principles Bill, he believed. "Frankly if they'd done the haka 90 seconds later I would've supported it - because the vote would've been declared, they would've been doing the haka after the vote as a form of protest to the law that Parliament had just passed." Prime Minister Christopher Luxon yesterday ruled out any compromise, so a deal between the government and Opposition for a shorter debate seems unlikely. ACT leader David Seymour, whose bill prompted the haka, told RNZ Te Pāti Māori's actions showed its MPs believed their behaviour was acceptable. "I hope the debate will be over very quickly ... this is Budget week and New Zealanders deserve to see how the government will manage the economy over the coming year, not hijinks in response to very wrong hijinks of Te Pāti Māori. "These are unprecedented offences and they deserve unprecedented penalties." He said the previous record of three days suspension, handed to former Prime Minister Sir Robert Muldoon for publicly criticising the Speaker of the House, was "very different from breaking ancient laws of our Parliament - tikanga if you like - that you should not leave your seat". "If they believe that is a legitimate way to do business, the punishment should be strong enough to persuade them of that belief, and I'd give them three months. "If it was up to me, a 90-day sentence of suspension but then subtract all the days they haven't shown up anyway. Like time served." New Zealand First leader Winston Peters, who was on the Privileges Committee that proposed the punishments, has long decried what he sees as falling standards at Parliament, putting the first-reading haka into that category. It will therefore be up to the Speaker and the opposition parties how long the debate lasts, and Brownlee has stated his willingness to support the minority in this case. Whether the disruption to the government's agenda is worth potential backlash for time wasting will be the political calculation being made.
RNZ News
06-05-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
National MP puts forward member's bill to ban under-16s from social media
File photo. National MP Catherine Wedd Photo: VNP / Phil Smith The National Party wants to ban 16-year-olds from accessing social media by forcing companies to use age verification measures, but for now that's not government policy. National MP Catherine Wedd, with the backing of leader Christopher Luxon, has put forward a members' bill which would follow Australia's lead on cracking down on the social media giants. The Prime Minister said he wanted to explore picking it up as a "broader government bill," which would mean it could become law more quickly. Right now the legislation does not have government-endorsed, meaning it would be debated only if it was drawn from the ballot at random. Wedd said the Bill would put the onus on social media companies to verify someone is over the age of 16 before they access social media platforms, and is modelled off Australian legislation. "Currently, there are no legally enforceable age verification measures for social media platforms in New Zealand." Wedd said she'd heard from parents, teachers and principals that there wasn't enough protections in place. "My Social Media Age-Appropriate Users Bill is about protecting young people from bullying, inappropriate content and social media addiction by restricting access for under 16-year-olds." The bill would require social media platforms to take "all reasonable steps" to prevent under-16s from creating accounts. It would also introduce "penalties for non-compliance", including financial ones. Christopher Luxon said he wanted to see whether other political leaders from across parliament would come on board and support the bill. Photo: Lawrence Smith / Stuff Social media platforms would be able to rely on "reasonable verification measures to demonstrate compliance." The responsible minister would have the authority to designate specific platforms as age-restricted. The law would be reviewed three years after it came into force to assess its effectiveness and make any necessary changes. Luxon, who felt "very strongly" about the issue, said he'd been talking about it for the "last 18 months" and the caucus had worked on the issue over the "last year or so," before signing it off as a National Party Bill last month. But he wanted to see whether other political leaders from across parliament would come on board and support the bill. "I think there could be quite a lot of good bipartisan support for something like this. "It's not a political issue. It's actually a New Zealand issue." Luxon said he had spoken to ACT and New Zealand First about it, but wouldn't comment on their positions. "I'm just saying to you that I also want to make the pitch as a bipartisan piece of work." Labour leader Chris Hipkins said he's open to the idea - but think's it's something the government should "show some leadership on." "I'm concerned that they're just leaving that to a members bill." Hipkins pointed to Australia where there was "government led action" on the issue. "If the National Party believes in this, make it a government bill. "This is a conversation we need to have as a country. The Australians have been courageous and tackled it. I think New Zealand needs to do the same." He referenced New Zealand First's use of members bills to raise various issues. "It'll probably be like a New Zealand First bill. How long will it stay in the ballot before they come up with another little itch they want to scratch?" Last week the Minister of Internal Affairs, ACT's Brooke van Velden, told RNZ that Australia was "free to make their own rules around social media use." She said a "minimum age for social media is not something the New Zealand Government is considering." Van Velden said Australia's "minimum age" restriction would not come into force until later this year and was interersted to see how the policy was implemented.
RNZ News
26-04-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
Democratic guardrails: Is NZ safe from authoritarianism?
RNZ's The House asks: What are the restraints on power in New Zealand, to guard against it running away unchecked? Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Benevolent democracy is not guaranteed. Nations can easily backslide down 'Despot Boulevard', eroding rights and freedoms, the rule of law or democracy itself. The easy slide towards authoritarianism seems to have been particularly strong recently. Freedom House rankings between 2005 and 2021 show more countries have declined than have improved, every year but one. Sometimes, twice as many. It's worrying to watch. It made me wonder what constitutional safeguards are there in our own democratic system to act as guardrails against governments stumbling off the democracy high road. For help in answering the question I wandered across the street from Parliament to Wellington's law school (within Te Herenga Waka-Victoria University of Wellington), to meet one of New Zealand's foremost constitutional scholars, Professor Dean Knight. You can listen to highlights from this interview at the link, or read below for examples of some of New Zealand's democratic guardrails. Dean Knight Photo: Supplied / LDR New Zealand does have a constitution, it's just not all in one place. "We're an odd country with an unwritten constitution," Knight says. "We don't have that sort of MasterTech supreme constitution that regulates executive power very explicitly. We have what we might call a customary constitution, a multitext constitution. Our rules and expectations are littered all over the place - some of them written down in legislation, some of them written down in other important documents, some of them arise from just the practice - an expectation about exercising power in a proper way." "I guess the distinctive thing about New Zealand is a lot of the checks and balances and controls on executive power in our system are political in character, rather than legal and involving courts. So we position ourselves in a slightly different way than some other jurisdictions." I drew Knight's attention to one aspect of the constitution, lying on a desk where we were chatting - the current edition of the Cabinet Manual. "We're very proud of it in New Zealand. It's something we've actually exported to the United Kingdom, who borrowed the idea of it from us. And what we have in that Cabinet Manual is essentially a collection of the existing constitutional conventions about how executive government, you know - ministers and the prime minister and departments, will exercise their power and run the state." Like many of the guardrails listed below, the Cabinet Manual is an example of something that is not nailed down, but evolves. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Most checks on executive power flow from New Zealand's system of 'responsible government' - where the executive is a subset of the legislature, and the legislature can replace the executive or prime minister at will. "The Parliament, the House, expresses its confidence in the collective of ministers as a whole. So there's an interlocking sort of relationship-confidence between those ministers. Decision-making in New Zealand, under the Cabinet system, is done collectively around the Cabinet table." Those layers mean that not only the prime minister or cabinet must be convinced of a policy, but a majority of their parliamentary party must agree as well. "Everybody's concerned to maintain the confidence of their colleagues and the confidence of the House of Representatives and ultimately the people. That confidence… can evaporate, and so that conditions or causes a degree of restraint [against] the prime minister or ministers, acting to excess." During Question Time, Labour's health spokesperson Dr Ayesha Verrall holds aloft a document, released under the Official Information Act by ACT's Casey Costello, the existence of which Costello was reluctant to admit. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Donald Trump never has to stand in Congress and answer probing questions from the opposition. In New Zealand having to do so is a direct practical outcome of 'responsible government'. Question Time is not often allowed to function well, and many ministers avoid answering questions, but it is still a guardrail. "Question Time is a crucial time for opposition members to hold the executive government to account. I know it feels like political theatre, but it actually has a really important role in the system." "The first obligation of accountability is to render account, and that's what happens - to explain what's going on in government, what's gone right, what's gone wrong, what's going to be fixing it. So that requirement to render account, whether it's Question Time, whether it's select committees through Scrutiny Weeks, or other things like that, it has a civilising effect on the exercise of power." A sign pointing to a polling site on Manners Street, in central Wellington, in 2020. Photo: VNP / Daniela Maoate-Cox Parliamentary democracies come with a significant potential weakness in guarding against autocracy; the group that supplies the executive has an automatic majority in the legislature. Under New Zealand's earlier First Past the Post (FPP) electoral system, that majority was usually held by a single party. Our current proportional representation electoral system (MMP) has provided a new guardrail by typically requiring executive power to be negotiated between multiple political parties. "In the pre-MMP days, …we did have times where we had a very dominant executive in the House of Representatives... That era is described as an 'elected dictatorship' or an 'executive paradise'. …And that's why we celebrate MMP - when it atomised that power." "It took us to a period of multiparty-government, where a cabinet or a prime minister couldn't automatically assume that their program would get through the House, and they had to negotiate and do better to try and ensure they can get the sort of support for different initiatives. …That sharing of power, that multi-party government brings in tensions and frictions, and slows the process down, and ideally removes excesses. "The question we might want to ask is whether our parties have now mastered the system, such that we're returning to a time in which the Government can quite confidently just push everything through, and there isn't that contestation on a sort of a policy-by-policy basis." Photo: Getty Images / Hagen Hopkins In many countries, an early target for a wannabe dictator is the judiciary, particularly if there is a constitutional court or supreme court with power to overrule the executive or parliament. New Zealand's courts do not have that power, though they can point out where new law is contrary to the current constitution. "Our system of parliamentary sovereignty means laws that are passed by the Parliament prevail, and nobody can disapply the product of Parliament, except in very unusual circumstances. But as a general proposition, the courts don't have the power to strike down legislation." Knight says governments abiding by the law is the "first and fundamental guardrail... Law can be changed and the executive can change the legal settings if they want, but they need to change that law if they want to act differently." That may sound obvious, but as prime minister, Robert Muldoon tried to ignore the law - and his actions led to a constitutionally important court decision. "Respect for the law is a fundamental, but it's also vulnerable... to political expediency. I think there's a good question to ask is - culturally, how strong is our commitment to the rule of law? Because that's what we're seeing being eroded elsewhere, and there's instances where the Trump administration has basically signalled that they don't care what the courts say." "But here in New Zealand, there's still a sense when the courts speak, and speak properly in terms of law, that that will be respected by our governments and adhered to." Public Service Commissioner Brian Roche Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone In the USA, when the presidency changes so does the entire upper layer of government agency staff - as political appointments are replaced. A recently reiterated Trump executive order has deepened the allowance on those replacements by reclassifying many thousands of less senior, career public servants as political hires. This action undermines the 1883 Pendleton Act, which was passed to stop rampant political cronyism and corruption, referred to as the "spoils system". Neither of these are issues in New Zealand, where government departments do not have political appointees - not even at chief executive level. Chief executives are appointed by the Public Service Commissioner. New Zealand's professional, permanent and neutral public service is a strong democratic guardrail. "That's really, really important in our system because it provides a stability in the system. It generates a degree of friction, because one of the key obligations of the neutral public service is to proffer free and frank advice." Our system includes people whose job includes saying to ministers, "What the heck are you thinking?" This crucial guardrail is at risk though because, Knight says, "there is thinking that perhaps we should follow more of the US model or some of the Australian models that see politicians have a bigger say in the selection. It reduces... one of the key checks and balances that comes from that neutrality, that free and frank advice, if you're able to get people that are just heavily responsive to do your bidding." One crucial aspect of New Zealand's constitution is that the actual power is formally vested in the sovereign, who only exercises that power on the advice of their ministers. The governor-general gets to wear the ribbons and medals but… "they don't actually make the decisions about that power. That's done by ministers, Cabinet, who are drawn from the House of Representatives." Unlike in some nations, the Cabinet or prime minister cannot sign off executive orders themselves. The governor-general still has to sign all the laws, instruments and orders. So what happens when a government has a particularly bad idea or plans to breach constitutional norms. Can the governor-general refuse to follow their advice? Knight acknowledges "there's a theoretical question about whether the governor-general could refuse or act differently, [but] we don't see that in practice." "It's a very, very strong constitutional convention, grounded in the idea of democracy - that when the prime minister and the ministers advise the governor-general to act in a particular way, they will do so. The governor-general has the ability to counsel and warn, and even say, 'I'm not convinced this is a great idea, but I'm obliged to give effect to it.' "There is some of that soft power that lies in the governor-general." Knight suggests that requiring ministers to formally sit down with the governor-general and explain to them what they want to do and why, in effect to convince them, can act as a guardrail. "It's not a high bar, because we know the practice over decades and decades and decades is the governor-general [has always agreed]. But that scintilla of doubt [that the governor-general could refuse], at least in a theoretical sense, might have some effective conditioning power. It may mean that prime ministers or ministers don't offer up advice that would be very egregious and extreme and things like that." Knight believes that separation of formal versus substantive powers is a useful guardrail - it "in some ways conditions and constrains the use of power against its excesses." * RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ.
Yahoo
07-02-2025
- Climate
- Yahoo
Field Notes 02/27/10
WSI is 93 in Borderland The winter severity index for the International Falls area was 93 on Friday, reports Frank Swendsen, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources area wildlife manager. The WSI was 134 last year at this date, and 96 two years ago, notes Swendsen. The average WSI for this date is about 91. The snow depth across Koochiching County is about 15-18 inches. VNP offers full moon hike Voyageurs National Park invites people to join them for a full moon hike at Voyageurs National Park Sunday. Park naturalist, Kim Reich, will lead a program on the moon phases. After the program, Reich will lead the group on a full moon snowshoe trek along the Oberholtzer Trail. The program will conclude with a gathering around a campfire. Snowshoes will be provided. Participants should meet inside the Rainy Lake Visitor Center Sunday. The program runs from 6-7:30 p.m. This program is sponsored by the Friends of Voyageurs National Park. No fee or registration is required to attend. DNR releases deer harvest numbers A strategy to achieve deer population goals by allowing hunters to harvest fewer deer succeeded in 2009, according to final deer harvest numbers the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has released. Hunters harvested 194,178 deer during the 2009 season. The decline reflects the fact that fewer permits were available to hunters to harvest antlerless deer because the deer population has been reduced to desired levels in many permit areas. 'We regulate deer populations by allocating antlerless deer harvest,' said Lou Cornicelli, DNR Big Game Program coordinator. 'In 2008, one-third of deer permit areas were lottery. In 2009, half the deer permit areas were either lottery or bucks-only, so hunters could only take one deer and many did not receive an either-sex permit. Consequently, total harvest declined because thousands of antlerless deer were not included.' Firearm hunters harvested 165,428 deer while archery and muzzleloader hunters harvested 20,659 and 8,091 deer, respectively. Overall, the statewide firearm harvest was down 13 percent from 2008. Archery was down 9 percent. The muzzleloader harvest decreased 15 percent. However buck harvest in 2009 was only 1 percent lower than in 2008 and archery and muzzleloader hunters actually took 6 percent and 11 percent more bucks in 2009, respectively. Final population estimates will be completed after the winter ends. DNR staff re-evaluates populations relative to established goals. In many areas, hunters should expect similar bag limits and possible placement of their hunting area into the lottery designation, requiring them to apply for lottery permit. The final deer harvest number is calculated using information provided by hunters when they register their deer. A final report, which includes more detailed harvest information, is available online at Hunters should pay close attention to the hunting synopsis, which comes out in early August, to see if they need to apply for a lottery either-sex permit. For the 2010 season, the deadline for the either-sex permit application is Thursday, Sept. 9. Archery deer hunting will begin Saturday, Sept. 18. The statewide firearms deer-hunting season opens Saturday, Nov. 6.. The muzzleloader season opens Saturday, Nov. 27.
