Watch live: Submitters speak at Regulatory Standards Bill hearing day 3
Among the prominent submitters are the Parliamentary Commmissioner for the Environment, the Deputy Clerk of the House of Representatives, the Rail and Maritime and PSA unions, and former MPs Jan Logie and Marian Hobbs.
ACT leader and Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour says the bill aims to improve lawmaking and regulation, but its critics - who make up the majority of submitters - argue it does the opposite, and ignores Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
The process concludes on Thursday, with the select committee public hearings packed into a single week during recess, when Parliament is not sitting and most politicians return to their electorates.
Watch today's submissions in the livestream above at the top of this page.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
15 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Defence spending is like insurance – how will NZ pay the higher premiums?
By Stephen Hickson* of NZ Army Bushmaster 5.5 armoured vehicles. Photo: Supplied/ NZ Defence Force Analysis : Defence spending is like insurance - you have to pay for it but you hope you never have to use it. And the higher the risk you face, the higher your premium will be. New Zealand has now committed to paying those higher defence insurance premiums. The government's 2025 Defence Capability Plan , released in April, includes NZ$9 billion in extra funding over the next four years. That's a sizable increase on a current annual budget of just under $5 billion. Read more: The multibillion-dollar boost for New Zealand's military: What you need to know New Zealand is not alone, of course. Driven by geopolitical tensions and US President Donald Trump's demand that other countries spend a higher proportion of their GDP on defence, global military spending rose for the tenth year in a row to US$2718 billion (NZ$4530b) in 2024, with huge increases in Europe and the Middle East. How much "insurance" a country should buy in the form of defence spending will vary. Too little, and it cannot respond when it needs to; too much, and resources are needlessly wasted. For New Zealand, it is a matter of finding the right balance. The country needs to find the right balance for its spending on defence. Photo: Supplied/ NZ Defence Force Economically, however, defence spending is more complicated than simply buying weapons and recruiting more personnel. There can be benefits beyond basic security considerations. One involves what economists call "technology spillovers". Past innovations developed for military use - such as jet engines, GPS and the internet - often found important civilian applications. The challenge is to design defence investments to deliberately build skills and technologies with wider economic benefit: advanced manufacturing, cybersecurity or clean tech. New Zealand's defence plan includes this kind of spending, including between $100 million and $300m on cybersecurity. On the other hand, promises of new jobs from large projects are often overstated, with New Zealand's best known example being the "Think Big" policy of the 1970s. Rather, there can be job substitution as people move from civilian roles into military ones. A NZ Defence Force Vector Scorpion drone. Photo: You Tube / NZ Defence Force In the end, of course, increased defence spending must be funded - through higher taxes, more debt or reduced spending on other items. Higher GDP growth would make the expenditure more affordable, but even then we face the same tradeoffs. It's not possible to have lower taxes and debt as well as higher government spending. Most of the expenditure set out in the defence plan will be on equipment. But any increase in the output of the defence industry will likely crowd out other consumer and investment goods. While clearly an extreme example, one only has to look at how defence spending rose during WWII. The increase in military output came at the expense of other goods, leading to shortages and rationing. New Zealand doesn't face that scale of change, but there is still likely to be some shift in production from "butter to guns". We might also see a shift in how businesses spend their research and development money, towards military and away from civilian applications. New Zealand does not have a large defence industry and will need to import much of the new equipment. This implies a need for higher exports to pay for those imports, meaning fewer goods for New Zealanders to consume. A New Zealand Defence Force plane arrives in the Middle East earlier this year during the Iran-Israel conflict. Photo: Supplied / New Zealand Defence Force Most countries are understandably reluctant to cut spending on health, education and other things voters care about in order to boost defence. Hence, governments can be tempted to label new expenditures as "defence" when it could otherwise be classified as "updated infrastructure". Spending on dual-purpose capital works is likely to increase, therefore, with projects earmarked for defence more likely to be funded. The New Zealand defence plan already allows for housing, airfield and port facilities that can all have multiple uses. There are also ethical considerations. Many consumers prefer not to invest in the arms trade, but components used in weapons manufacture often have non-military uses as well. Similarly, many consumer items, such as phones, vehicles and food, can be purchased by the military but clearly have non-military uses. We may see more of the output of companies that also produce non-military items directed into defence. All of this can make it difficult to classify a company as a defence contractor, and may be challenging for large investors (such as superannuation funds) with ethical investment policies. At the same time, the cost of not investing in defence firms might also rise as demand for their products or services increases and they become better investments. Like people in general, countries prefer lower insurance premiums. But when risks increase, so too does the price of insurance. Voters will disagree on how much should be spent on defence, but that is largely a political question. What economics teaches us, however, is that if you want to reduce your insurance premium, then reduce your risk. And that is something easier said than done. *Stephen Hickson is a Lecturer in Economics and Director, Business Taught Masters Programme, University of Canterbury. This article was originally published by The Conversation .
RNZ News
17 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Watch live: Submitters speak at Regulatory Standards Bill hearing day 4
Māori and health representatives are making submissions at Thursday's Regulatory Standards Bill hearing. The is up for its fourth day of hearings at select committee. Among the submitters are Eru Kapa-Kingi Toitū Te Tiriti and Tania Rangiheuea from the Manukau Urban Māori Authority. Public health experts will speak to the committee later in the day. ACT leader and Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour says the bill aims to improve lawmaking and regulation, but its critics - who make up the majority of submitters - argue it does the opposite, and ignores Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
The Spinoff
41 minutes ago
- The Spinoff
What went wrong with MethaneSat – and who should answer for it?
New Zealand's first publicly funded space mission has ended with a lost satellite and a debate about how we spend our money in space, writes Catherine McGregor in today's extract from The Bulletin. A sudden silence in orbit When MethaneSat lost contact last month, it marked an abrupt end to New Zealand's first publicly funded space mission – and a major setback for local climate science. The satellite, part of an international effort led by the US Environmental Defense Fund, was designed to 'name and shame' major methane polluters. As The Guardian's Veronika Meduna explains, MethaneSat's main focus was on detecting methane leaks from oil and gas production worldwide; the New Zealand-led side project tracked methane release from agriculture, which accounts for almost half of our greenhouse gas emissions. Meduna reports that in total New Zealand contributed NZ$32 million to the mission – $3m more than the figure widely quoted in last week's headlines. Apportioning blame The questions now are less about whether MethaneSat was a good idea and more about whether its problems should have been spotted sooner. Soon after launch, the satellite faced repeated technical issues, including difficulties with its thrusters and unexpected shutdowns caused by solar activity. Nicholas Rattenbury, Auckland University associate professor of physics, points out that 'the principle of caveat emptor is true for spacecraft as much as it is for purchasing a car'. While NZ was not involved in the design and testing, 'we were certainly entitled to relevant information to make a fully informed decision on whether or not to invest'. His colleague, astrophysicist Richard Easther, suggests NZ needs to shoulder some of the blame. Speaking to the Sunday Star Times' Jonathan Killick (paywalled), Easther argues local checks on the satellite's design and readiness were too light, especially given the 'major problems' that became clear long before contact was lost. All experts seem to agree that New Zealand may have relied too much on assurances from overseas partners instead of independent reviews. It's one of the main questions that the postmortem, when it comes, will have to answer. Space agency under scrutiny The MethaneSat failure has turned the spotlight on how New Zealand runs its space activities. The New Zealand Space Agency, formed in 2016 and now with Judith Collins as its minister, acts both as regulator and supporter of the sector. Simon Hunt, writing for BERL, describes it as a 'one-stop shop' for space policy and business support, noting its advantage in being 'not burdened down with outdated policies and processes'. But some researchers argue this dual role can be a conflict. As UoA's Priyanka Dhopade and Catherine Qualtrough write in The Conversation, the set-up of the agency risks 'a conflict of interest between promoting sustainability and fostering economic growth'. Sustainability in space is a growing international concern, Dhopade and Qualtrough write. As the amount of debris in space continues to skyrocket (sorry), scientists are also turning their attention to emerging issues like 'ozone depletion from rocket launches and the accumulation of alumina and soot particles in Earth's atmosphere as re-entering objects burn up'. The rise of Rocket Lab While MethaneSat drifts in silence, New Zealand's biggest space player is enjoying a record run. Rocket Lab – officially a US company – is now valued at over NZ$30 billion, with the share price hitting a record high of around US$38 (NZ$63). The Herald's Chris Keall reports (paywalled) that two factors are fuelling Rocket Lab's rise: fallout from SpaceX founder Elon Musk's feud with Donald Trump, and the upcoming first test launch of Rocket Lab's 'much larger, crew-capable rocket, the Neutron – which will put it toe to toe with SpaceX for the first time'. But the company's success has also attracted protest, reports The Spinoff's Gabi Lardies. Critics have accused Rocket Lab of enabling military surveillance, including through launches of BlackSky satellites allegedly used by Israel's defence forces. Last Friday Rocket Lab sites were picketed, while Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa has referred CEO Peter Beck, Judith Collins and others to the office of the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. Beck has dismissed the claims, insisting the company abides by New Zealand law and doesn't launch weapons. Still, the sight of picket lines outside a NZ success story is a reminder that space, like politics, is never free from earthbound controversies.
