Latest news with #affront
Scoop
5 days ago
- Business
- Scoop
On Why The Regulatory Standards Bill Should Be Dumped
If you blinked on a recent Friday afternoon, you might have missed the passing under urgency of the first reading of the Regulatory Standards Bill. The Bill purports to be a kind of legislative WOF test that all of us should welcome, right? If you blinked on a recent Friday afternoon, you might have missed the passing under urgency of the first reading of the Regulatory Standards Bill. The Bill purports to be a kind of legislative WOF test that all of us should welcome, right? Not really. Instead, shouldn't we all be feeling a bit worried by the fact that – if this Bill gets passed – then nearly all of our existing laws and nearly everything that future governments might want to do will henceforth need to be vetted by ACT Party leader Davd Seymour and the members of his hand-picked, un-elected Regulatory Standards Board? Meaning: the aims and the effects of this Bill seem to be fundamentally un-democratic. That concern, however, was only one of the points raised by submitters during a two month consultation period timed by the government to coincide with the Christmas/New Year holidays, when people were otherwise occupied. Even so, 23,000 submissions were received and reportedly, 88% of them were opposed to the Bill. Besides the affront to democracy, the other objections cited by submitters were that the Bill is a solution to a non-existent problem, that it will duplicate existing review mechanisms and will make law-making more complex, more costly, less timely and less efficient by adding a needless extra layer of bureaucracy. Submitters were particularly concerned about the lack of recognition of any Treaty of Waitangi rights and interests, or of human rights concerns, or of the competing social, environmental and economic interests that should also (surely) be considered fundamental to the process of making good law. If it gets passed, the Bill will come into effect on 1 January next year. Courting trouble One of the prime concerns with this Bill is that it seems to bestow on corporations (whose 'property 'has been taken or suffered 'impairment' as a result of government law or regulation) the power to sue for compensation. Problem being, the word ' property' in this context means not simply the taking of land or buildings, but 'impairment' of profit expectations as well. Alarmingly, this compensation would be sought first from the prime beneficiaries of the relevant laws or regulations. Inevitably, this possibility would have a chilling effect on the activities of, for example, iwi or environmental groups. Ultimately, the aggrieved 'owner' could also sue the government for compensation. The text of the Regulatory Standards Bill can be found here. The section to do with 'owners' and 'impairment' and the right to compensation is set out at Part 2, Subpart 1, clauses 8c (i) (ii )and (iii). As background: the justification for treating corporates as having the same legal rights as human beings is recognised by the Companies Act 1993, and is based on something called the Salomon Principle. This yardstick was derived from an 1897 case that's widely regarded as the foundation stone of modern company law. So keep all that in mind when you read those 8c clauses that essentially seek to prohibit legislation that takes or impairs 'property' without the owner's consent unless 'fair compensation for the taking or impairment is provided to the owner; and compensation is provided, to the extent practicable, by or on behalf of the persons who obtain the benefit of the taking or impairment.' So to repeat: if say, the law or regulation primarily benefits an iwi, or Greenpeace or a local community group, the disgruntled investor can go after them first – and since the Bill is spectacularly silent on Treaty obligations, the iwi in question would be in the firing line without a leg to stand on. Especially since the Bill is vocal about an 'equality' that takes no account of privilege, historical injustice or any other socio- environmental factors. Only private property, widely defined, is treated as sacrosanct. True, the same section of the Bill does say there has to be 'good justification' for the taking or the impairment – but ultimately, who will get to decide whether regulatory actions are 'good' and /or are 'justified' ? Why… that would be the handpicked, un-elected Regulatory Standards Board. Not for the first time, justice will be a flat circle. Thankfully, plenty of people are becoming aware of this risk. Last week, Waikato University academic Ryan Ward published on Newsroom a concise, well argued account of the risks posed by the 'takings' aspect of the Bill. Ward's article is entitled 'How the Regulatory Standards Bill Could Leave Taxpayers On The Hook.' Exactly. Back to the MAI This is not a fresh concern. The ACT Party has tried (and failed) to get much the same legislation across the line in 2006, 2011, and 2021. Before, ACT had tried to give the courts the power to declare legislation to be out of sync with its own regulatory preferences, but the new version hands these same powers to the appointed Board. In fact, the history of this gambit dates back even further than 2006. The attempt to provide foreign investors with the ability to sue, intimidate and restrict sovereign governments goes back at least as far as 1997. That was when a draft version of the Multilateral Agreement On Investment (MAI) being secretly negotiated by the OECD got leaked to the public. The subsequent global protest movement ended in the defeat and withdrawal of the MAI. A few years later, the same toxic MAI provisions re-surfaced in the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP, now CPTPP), and again, these provisions sparked widespread protests. Nearly 30 years ago, I wrote two articles outlining the threat to sovereign goverments posed by the similar MAI provisions now being enshrined in the Regulatory Standards Bill: …The MAI gives foreign investors one important advantage. They will be able, under stated procedures, to sue governments for compensation if the government enacts policies that the foreign investor feels will affect it unfairly. Under almost all international treaties – the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is the other exception – only states can sue each other. Under the MAI, however, multinationals can bring actions against governments. Even the threat of litigation from a multinational with deep pockets, as the British Columbia submission points out, may be enough to deter some governments or local bodies. Such disputes then go to a panel of unelected experts, for binding arbitration. Footnote: Interestingly in the light of the current government's willingness to roll back the Crown's Treaty of Waitangi obligations, I had written in the same 1997 article how the 'stand-still' and 'rollback' provisions of the MAI ( ie. no new laws and regulations, and a phased reduction in current investment restrictions over time) might enable future governments to amend the Treaty of Waitangi. On the reservation for the Treaty of Waitangi…, for instance, [then MFAT chief Richard ]Nottage says, it is 'just about inconceivable' that we would roll this back. Inconceivable? Well, could a future Act/National government conceivably desire to limit some rights currently enjoyed under the Treaty of Waitangi? If so, the MAI rollback proviso gives an excellent rationale – because it amounts to a promise to the world that we will do so. Footnote Two: In the late 2000s, I also recall arguing with then-ACT leader Rodney Hide about the Colorado precedents that Hide was seeking to implement here – like, for example, his attempt to try and impose a sinking lid on local government spending. This legal stratagem would have involved imposing a spending cap on local councils, largely based on their previous year's expenditure, and with any excess revenue having to be returned to ratepayers as an annual rebate. This Colorado-style spending cap-and-rebate scheme that ACT tried – and failed – to get accepted into law here 20 years ago would have essentially stopped councils from addressing extra social needs, fixing core infrastructure or diverting more than 1% of their annual revenue to meet emergencies. This isn't (entirely) ancient history. It forms a key part of the whakapapa of the same political party pushing the Regulatory Standards Bill, and is entirely consistent with it. Famously, these Colorado libertarian experiments in fiscal self-starvation came to a climax in the deeply conservative city of Colorado Springs, which the Politico website wrote about in 2017, in an article called 'The Short Unhappy Life of a Libertarian Paradise.' In that case, the city's local government spending was cut back so harshly that citizens eventually had to club together to adopt and fund the street lights in their neighbourhoods, were forced to cut the grass in public parks themselves, and had to go out and hire sufficient police and firefighters. After three years of this, Colorado Springs saw the errors of its libertarian ways, and the public voted to increase taxes. Point being: the same ACT Party that thought the above disaster was an experiment worth repeating here is now trying to impose on us the Regulatory Standards Bill – which, on the face of it, would give investors the power to sue for compensation if their profit margins are affected when we exercise our right to make laws that primarily benefit us, and not them. Muddled messages True, the Bill does claim ( Subpart 5, clause 24 (1) that it 'does not confer a legal right or impose a legal obligation on any person that is enforceable in a court of law.' Yet the 'Principles' section of the Bill says ' Most of the Bill does not confer or impose any legal right or obligation on any person that is enforceable in a court of law.' [My emphasis.] There is – for starters – a legally enforceable duty on state agencies to supply information on request to Seymour's Regulatory Standards Ministry. Meaning: under this Bill, 'commercial sensitivity' seems to be a one way street by which aggrieved investors who have the ear of the Regulations Ministry can hope to gain access to information relevant to their commercial activities. Hopefully, the select committee hearings will clarify the terms of disclosure for the commercially valuable information that liable state agencies will -apparently – be legally required to hand over to Seymour's Ministry. If we're very lucky, the select committee hearings will also clarify whether the Regulatory Standards reports will be enforceable. Or will it be possible for Parliament to blithely ignore them, just as Parliament does when it ignores reports on the incompatibility of some of its laws with the Bill of Rights. (Denying prisoners the right to vote breaches their human rights. So what? Parliament says.) Currently, that's the main muddled message being conveyed by the Regulatory Standards Bill. If it is enforceable, the Bill poses a serious threat to democracy. If it isn't, and is mere virtue signalling by the ACT Party to its corporate masters, then it is an expensive and redundant waste of taxpayer time and money. What sort of beast is it? Retrospective, Much? Finally, the Bill isn't supposed to be a retrospective piece of legislation. Yet plainly it is. Part 3 (2c) (i) empowers the Regulatory Standards Board to: …Inquire into whether existing [my emphasis] legislation is consistent with the principles of responsible regulation; Likewise, Part 2 (b) (ii) provides for — the review of the consistency of proposed and existing legislation with the principles of responsible regulation; and (ii) the disclosure of the reasons for any identified inconsistencies; What to do? On the evidence to date, the Regulatory Standards Bill should be rejected outright. Fat chance. National seems committed to this Bill, unlike its prior stance on the Treaty Principles Bill. It is also probably too much to hope that the fish-hooks in this dangerous piece of ideological dogma will be remedied at select committee. It would be an uphill fight. In the name of a bogus ' equality' before the law, the coalition government continues to act as if Māori have no special rights as indigenous people, and that the Crown has no special duties towards them. The Treaty, and customary law, say otherwise. Even the Regulations Ministry itself (at clause seven in its heavily-redacted impact report on the Bill) baulks at this glaring omission: Of significance is that the proposals do not include a principle related to the Treaty/te Tiriti and its role as part of good law-making, meaning that the Bill is effectively silent about how the Crown will meet its duties under the Treaty/te Tiriti in this space. While this does not prohibit the Crown from complying with the Bill in a manner consistent with the Treaty/te Tiriti, we anticipate that the absence of this explicit reference may be seen as politically significant for Māori and could be perceived as an attempt by the Crown to limit the established role of the Treaty/te Tiriti as part of law-making.
Business Recorder
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Ukraine's allies must be ‘determined' after latest Russian strikes: Berlin
BERLIN: Germany said Sunday that Kyiv's allies 'must react with determination' after Russia launched a record number of drones on Ukraine, killing 12 people. 'We cannot accept this,' Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul told the ARD broadcaster. Russian President Vladimir Putin 'is trampling on human rights, this is an affront – also against US President Donald Trump, who has tried so hard to get Putin to the negotiating table', he added. Ukraine says Russia attacking its troops, despite ceasefire Wadephul said the latest developments in Ukraine showed that 'Putin does not want peace, he wants to carry on the war and we shouldn't allow him to do this'. 'For this reason we will approve further sanctions at a European level,' he added. The EU formally adopted a 17th round of sanctions on Tuesday blacklisting some 200 tankers in the 'shadow fleet' used by Moscow to circumvent restrictions on oil exports. New sanctions would bring 'serious consequences for the Russian economy, the energy sector will be affected, other sectors too', said Wadephul. 'It will be financially painful for Russia,' he added. 'Our hand remains outstretched; Ukraine is ready to negotiate. Putin should come to the table.'
Zawya
10-04-2025
- Business
- Zawya
Staggered by Trump tariff blow, Switzerland leans closer to Europe
U.S. President Donald Trump's decision to hit Switzerland with steeper tariffs than most of Europe was a major shock to the export-oriented country, pushing it towards the European Union as it scrambled to contain the fallout. While there was relief that Trump temporarily lowered his tariffs on Wednesday, for advocates of stronger ties the episode confirmed their argument: that a more unpredictable world means Switzerland must increase engagement with its EU neighbours. Switzerland took an initial step toward closer economic integration in December when it reached a political deal with Brussels to overhaul their joint trading relationship. That EU deal faces a long approval process, but Swiss President and Finance Minister Karin Keller-Sutter pointed to it in a Wednesday newspaper interview as she took stock of Switzerland's options following the U.S. trade broadside. "We want to stabilize, deepen relations with the EU," she told the Neue Zuercher Zeitung daily. Neutral Switzerland has combined a low-tax business model with direct democracy to create a stable, open economy which is wealthier than nearly all EU member states. That has fed both national pride and resistance to being absorbed by the bloc. After Trump imposed tariffs, Keller-Sutter said she quickly spoke to EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and agreed to stay in close touch on how they should proceed. On Friday, Keller-Sutter will become the first Swiss finance minister to participate in a regular meeting of her counterparts from the EU, which Trump last week hit with a 20% tariff, well below the 31% he put on Switzerland. Both now face 10% duties. Keller Sutter's invitation to the informal ECOFIN meeting in Warsaw predates Trump's re-election, but her attendance comes as Switzerland is stepping up cooperation with the EU in strategic areas in response to geopolitical upheaval, including Russia's war in Ukraine and the U.S. shift towards protectionism. Jean-Philippe Kohl, deputy director of industry association Swissmem, said the U.S. policy shock made it even more urgent for Switzerland to approve the new Brussels deal and cement the future foundations of ties with its biggest market, the EU. "Maybe a few more percent of people will grasp that we must at least be good with the EU and can't create additional problems with China if the U.S. falls away," he said. Yet with major economies such as Germany struggling, Switzerland will need to expand its business footprint outside Europe, Kohl said, pointing to India and Southeast Asia. The Swiss foreign ministry did not immediately reply to a request for comment for this article. NEW WORLD ORDER The EU accord faces a tough ratification process in Switzerland, where the bloc is seen by critics as a bureaucratic hindrance and undemocratic affront to Swiss sovereignty. Franziska Roth, a lawmaker for the centre-left Social Democrats (SP), said if the deal clears parliament it will face a struggle in any referendum unless it ensures that Swiss living standards like higher wages are protected. But she pointed to a parliamentary resolution backed last month with strong cross-party support that urged the government to seek a stronger security role in Europe and to explore scope for more Swiss security cooperation with the EU. That showed most parties now believed Switzerland only had a secure future in partnership with the EU, Roth said. The country's biggest party, the right-wing Swiss People's Party (SVP), remains a powerful holdout, vigorously opposing closer EU ties. But it was not pleased by the U.S. tariffs, with longtime SVP leader Christoph Blocher calling them "absurd." Daniel Woker, a former Swiss ambassador, said that with old certainties crumbling, getting closer to Europe was vital. "Trump is destroying the existing order. And he wants a completely different world order, not just on trade," he said. "This can only hurt Switzerland, which has unquestionably benefited greatly from the current world order." (Reporting by Dave Graham; Editing by Toby Chopra)
Shafaq News
31-03-2025
- Politics
- Shafaq News
Iran warns: US threats will trigger firm action
Shafaq News/ Iran's Foreign Ministry sent a strong message to the United States on Monday, delivering an official warning to the Swiss chargé d'affaires, who represents US interests in Tehran. In a statement carried by Mehr News Agency, the ministry stressed that Iran would respond 'immediately and firmly' to any threat, citing 'continuing malicious actions' by Israeli forces in the region and recent threats from US President Donald Trump. It also condemned the rhetoric of a head of state calling for military action against Iran, labeling it a "shocking affront to the very essence of International Peace and Security." Such actions, the ministry warned, violate the United Nations Charter and the safeguards under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 'Violence breeds violence, peace begets peace. The US can choose the course...; and concede to CONSEQUENCES…,' it wrote on X. An open threat of «bombing» by a Head of State against Iran is a shocking _affront_ to the very essence of International Peace and violates the United Nations Charter and betrays the Safeguards under the IAEA. Violence breeds violence, peace begets peace. The US… — Esmaeil Baqaei (@IRIMFA_SPOX) March 31, 2025 In a significant escalation of rhetoric, Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had warned that the United States would face a "strong reciprocal blow" if it acts on Trump's recent threat to bomb Iran unless a new nuclear deal is agreed upon. This warning follows Trump's ultimatum, giving Iran a two-month window to negotiate a new agreement. The US has positioned B-2 bombers on Diego Garcia island, indicating a potential military option. In response, Iran has readied missiles in underground facilities, showcasing some of its most powerful weapons. Tehran has rejected Trump's offer for direct negotiations, citing distrust after the US previously withdrew from the nuclear deal. President Masoud Pezeshkian emphasized that while indirect negotiations remain possible, direct talks are off the table.
Yahoo
19-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump administration says ‘many' Venezuelans deported to El Salvador prison have no criminal record
Donald Trump's administration admits that 'many' of the dozens of Venezuelan men deported to El Salvador's notorious mega prison have no criminal record whatsoever. But a lack of a criminal record 'does not indicate they pose a limited threat,' according to a sworn statement from an Immigration and Customs Enforcement official submitted in court filings. A 'lack of specific information about each individual actually highlights the risk they pose,' according to ICE official Robert Cerna. 'It demonstrates that they are terrorists with regard to whom we lack a complete profile,' he wrote. The extraordinary statement was included in court filings from the Trump administration calling on a judge to reverse his order that temporarily blocks deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, a move that government lawyers called 'an affront to the President's broad constitutional and statutory authority to protect the United States from dangerous aliens who pose grave threats to the American people.' District Judge James Boasberg has ordered government attorneys to respond to several questions — about the timing of the flights, when the planes left U.S. airspace, and who was on them — to determine whether officials intentionally defied his court order. The Trump administration has appealed the injunction, and Department of Justice attorneys have argued that 'there is no justification to order the provision of additional information, and that doing so would be inappropriate.' Those answers would 'disclose sensitive information bearing on national security and foreign relations,' according to a court filing from Justice Department lawyers. Three flights allegedly containing members of Venezuela's Tren de Agua gang left the United States for El Salvador on Friday night despite the judge's verbal — and written — orders that expressly blocked them from taking off. A timeline is crucial to determine whether the administration openly defied the order, citing Trump's unprecedented claim of executive authority — what critics fear is a threshold that shreds critical checks and balances. 'The implications of the government's position are staggering,' attorneys for deported Venezuelan immigrants wrote to an appeals court Tuesday. 'If the President can designate any group as enemy aliens under the Act, and that designation is unreviewable, then there is no limit on who can be sent to a Salvadoran prison, or any limit on how long they will remain there,' they added. 'At present, the Salvadoran President is saying these men will be there at least a year and that this imprisonment is 'renewable.'' Trump, meanwhile, has demanded the judge's impeachment, drawing a rare rebuke from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Tuesday. 'For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,' he said in a statement to reporters. 'The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.' The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers has also criticized the administration's arguments and condemned the president's attacks. 'Accusations without evidence, the denial of access to legal counsel, and the apparent defiance of court orders not to deport accused individuals without a hearing represent a dangerous departure from these principles,' association president Christopher A. Wellborn said in a statement.
