ECan chair undecided as election looms
The chair of Canterbury's regional council is undecided about his future, as the local election looms.
Environment Canterbury chairperson Craig Pauling said he is contemplating a tilt at Parliament next year or stepping back from politics.
There has been speculation Mr Pauling could run for the Green Party in the Banks Peninsula electorate in next year's general election.
But he admits he still has unfinished business around the council table.
''There are things I want to do, so I'm still weighing it all up.
''Becoming an MP is certainly one of the options and I have talked about going to Parliament, but I haven't made my mind up.
''The chair role is an awesome honour. It has been rewarding and it has its challenges too.''
Mr Pauling has served two terms on the council.
He was elected chairperson in October, following Peter Scott's resignation the previous month, having served as deputy chair and acting chair.
The pair had contested the role in October 2022, with Mr Scott's name being drawn out of a container after an eight-eight split in the vote.
Nominations for election candidates open on July 1 and close on August 1, ahead of the October elections, so he doesn't have much time if he wants a seat at the council table.
Mr Pauling said if he was to stand for Parliament next year, the selection process would likely begin towards the end of this year.
A third option is to step away from politics and go back to his passion for environmental planning and policy making.
''There is always heaps to do, so it is about making the decision which is right for me and my family.''
Mr Pauling is of Ngāi Tahu, Ngāti Mutunga and European descent.
He has whakapapa to Taumutu, Rāpaki and Ngāi Tūāhuriri.
■ LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
7 hours ago
- Scoop
Regulatory Standards Bill Could Be Barrier For Māori Housing
The Ministry of Housing and Urban Development has warned that the Regulatory Standards Bill could stymie progress in enabling papakāinga, or Māori housing, documents show. A ministry official also flagged concerns the legislation could make it harder for ministers to do their jobs, and warned the reach of the proposed law - and the minister-appointed board - seemed "disproportionate to the authority of Parliament". Regulations Minister David Seymour rejected the criticism, saying the ministry should be "leading the charge to cut through this bureaucracy so more homes can be built". The Regulatory Standards Bill is non-binding on Parliament but proposes a set of principles MPs and officials would have to consider when designing regulation. It also would set up a board, appointed by the minister, to examine current and future laws' consistency with those principles, as well as requiring regular reviews of all regulations. In its feedback, the housing ministry raised concern about the potential for individual property rights to be elevated over and above collective rights. "...the lack of provision for collective rights/rangatiratanga and the indicated shift towards Individual rights, in a way that is not currently in New Zealand's constitution, could impact the way we can develop policy and legislation with significant negative impacts on Māori housing outcomes," it said. The ministry said one of the proposed principles - dealing with taxes, fees, and levies - could hinder progress on Māori-led housing projects. "If this principle is imposed over regulation, we are concerned it could be misaligned with the current approaches to whenua Māori, lead to greater fragmentation of land/whenua Maōri, be a barrier to pooling resources for collective good and further entrench the negative housing outcomes that currently exist." The government in May announced plans to make it easier to consent papakāinga. However, funding for the Whai Kāinga, Whai Oranga housing fund has also been cut. In a statement to RNZ, a spokesperson for Seymour said if the Regulation Standards Bill had been in place years ago, it could have prevented "much of the pointless red tape" that slows down building and consenting. "New Zealand faces a serious housing crisis. Anyone who has tried to build a home knows the delays and costs caused by red tape," the spokesperson said. "I'd have thought the Ministry for Housing would be leading the charge to cut through this bureaucracy so more homes can be built." An FAQ document prepared by Seymour's office also rejected the idea that the bill would favour individual rights over collective ones, saying it preserved the status quo "that collective Parliamentary law can trump all individual rights to personal autonomy and possessions". The document did not specify, however, how individual property rights would be considered compared to collective property rights by officials operating under the new regime. The housing ministry also warned that requiring reviews of all secondary legislation in reviews - without exemption - would add to the government's workload. To that, Seymour was unapologetic: "We're aware the public service doesn't like this law. Yes, it makes more work for them, justifying laws that interfere in people's lives. Here's the thing: If the public service think being required to justify their laws is a faff, imagine what it's like for the public they have to serve who are obliged to follow them." The ministry also made the case that the Treaty of Waitangi "should be featured as a relevant consideration" among the principles. But the FAQ, from Seymour's office, said the Treaty was excluded because the bill was focused on the quality of regulations, not Treaty obligations. "As with compliance with international obligations, legal obligations under Treaty settlements are a given. A central part of the RSB is to protect existing legal rights from unprincipled appropriation," it said. The ministry also said the ability for the proposed Regulatory Standards Board - appointed by the Regulations Minister, currently Seymour - to carry out reviews of regulations ahead of agencies' own regular reviews of legislation "would not be the most effective use of the board's time". Seymour has previously defended the extra cost and workload, saying the cost was about 2 percent of the policy work currently done across the government. "If it costs $20 million just to check the regulations, imagine the cost to all the poor buggers out there who have to comply with all this crap," he said. Concerns raised by official over 'disproportionate' powers In preparation for providing feedback on the Cabinet paper in October, an MHUD official warned that giving the Regulation Minister power to set the terms of regulatory reviews could interfere with the work of other ministers. "The power of the Minister of Regulation to initiate regulatory review and set terms of reference gives considerable power and will affect the ability of a portfolio minister to advance their work," the official said. "There should be elements of mutual agreement, or consultation required, or some detail about the threshold for the Minister to initiate a review (eg requiring an Order in Council)." The official also questioned whether a board chosen by the minister should have so much influence, saying it seemed "disproportionate compared to the authority of Parliament". They pointed out there was already a process - through the Regulatory Review Committee and the Legislation Act - that allowed MPs to examine regulations if concerns were raised. In response, Seymour's spokesperson said the bureaucrats "may want to familiarise themselves" with a set of rules, known as Legislative Guidelines, which departments are already required to follow, including the principles of property rights, individual liberty, and the rule of law. "The only difference is that under the Regulatory Standards Bill, these principles would become Parliamentary law, not just Cabinet guidance that some departments clearly ignore."
Scoop
7 hours ago
- Scoop
Proposed Changes To New Zealand Dawn Raid Laws Not Enough, Pacific Advocates Say
Pacific advocates in Aotearoa say a proposed law change for out-of-hours immigration visits - like dawn raids - doesn't go far enough. The contentious enforcement practice involves immigration officers searching homes for people they have reasonable grounds to believe are liable for deportation between 6pm and 8am. It has been criticised for targeting Pacific people, particularly in the wake of the dawn raids of the 1970s and 80s. In 2021, the then-government apologised for the Dawn Raids era. However, two years later, the plight of a Tongan man whose home was dawn raided while his children slept hit headlines. At the time, his lawyer Sione Foliaki described how police and immigration officers showed up at the family's South Auckland home at 5am. "The loud banging was heard first by the children. Of course they didn't know it was police. They were terrified ... and crying and very, very upset and scared," he told RNZ Pacific. "And the parents heard it from upstairs - it was that loud - and they looked out the window from upstairs and saw that it was police. So they ran downstairs to try and calm the children. The case prompted Immigration New Zealand to cease out-of-hours immigration searches, and an official review was ordered . Now, a bill has been brought before parliament seeking to incorporate the review's findings into law. If successful, it would result in extra checks being required before a raid is carried out, and sign-off from a district court judge. However, it does not go as far as banning dawn raids, something Pasifika advocates and leaders have long called for. No dawn raids have been carried out in the country for the past two years. Former National MP Anae Arthur Anae has said the practice was unnecessary. "They've now proved they can do it within the normal hours. They don't need to go and do what they were doing before." Anae has been a long-term advocate for visa-free travel between Pacific Island nations and Aotearoa. Of the 60 countries that have visa-free access, none are Pacific nations. Meanwhile, Australians, UK nationals, and European visitors all qualified for visa-free access. Anae said the double-standard against Pacific was part of the problem. "If you make it very difficult for people to come, when they come they're going to stay as long as they can because there's not guarantee they can come back tomorrow when they go back on time. "I think Immigration [NZ which] created all of this in my opinion should look at themselves and ask themselves these questions: 'Can we find a way of eliminating the need for people to overstay." 'Trying to find a better way of life' Tongan community leader Pakilau Manase Lua agreed with Mr Anae and said New Zealand must face up to the bias in its system. He pointed to trends in immigration enforcement that showed Pacific people, and people of colour are overrepresented. "Why is it justified to target people who are here trying to find a better way of life," Pakilau said. "They're here in the country. In fact, they're actually paying taxes, and some of them are paying PAYE, Even though they're unlawful, they pay taxes by the fact …they're working." Undocumented migrants also contributed via GST when they bought things like groceries and petrol, he said. Green Party Pacific Peoples spokesperson Teanau Tuiono said an amnesty for overstayers was the right thing to do, particularly in light of the 2021 Dawn Raids apology. He supported outlawing out-of-hours immigration enforcement visits. "If they [Immigration New Zealand] have found a way to better engage with our communities, then why is this going to be on the statute books? Why is this going to be part of the rules? It should be removed because we know of the trauma that it does create," Tuiono said. Immigration New Zealand said in a statement that any out-of-hours compliance activity was rare and a last resort. Prior to the 2023 review, the enforcement tactic made up three percent of compliance visits. "While we retain the option of an out of hours visit it has so far not been judged necessary in an individual case," department spokesperson Steve Watson said. "We have also focused on visiting employers and since the…review we have put into practice an immigration infringement regime which allows us to sanction non-compliant employers." Watson also said the department would implement any changes that resulted from the proposed law changes. These were part of the government's wide-ranging Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill. The bill was at select committee stage. RNZ Pacific also sought comment from Immigration Minister Erica Stanford, but she did not respond before publication.
Scoop
11 hours ago
- Scoop
Youth Organisations And Youth MPs Call For Change After Censorship At Youth Parliament 2025
Today, Youth MPs, youth organisations, and youth councils from across Aotearoa have released an open letter expressing deep concern about recent decisions made at Youth Parliament 2025 that they say restricted and censored rangatahi voices. The open letter highlights the cancellation of live-streaming, the removal of the mock bill and Lived Experience Groups, and the editing of Youth MP speeches as decisions that, while varied in form, all resulted in the same outcome: limiting the power and authenticity of youth voice in a space meant to uplift it. 'This kōrero was driven by Youth MPs,' says Lincoln, Make It 16 member and Youth MP, 'We've simply supported them to share what many were feeling. This is part of a wider systemic pattern of youth voices being filtered or dismissed in political spaces.' ' Young people are not a token presence. We deserve to be present where power is held not just for appearances, but because our lived experiences and insights matter,' says Youth MP Ruby Love-Smith, 'This is a moment to reflect and do better.' 'Even though the feedback on speeches was framed as optional, the way it was delivered didn't acknowledge the power imbalance,' says Sam, Make It 16 member and Youth MP. 'For many of us, especially for those new to this space, it felt like there was no real choice but to comply. That's not how you build confidence in young people, that's how you make them doubt themselves.' ' We want to work alongside MYD, Parliament, and others to ensure Youth Parliament truly lives up to its purpose, ' says Thomas Brocherie, Co-Director of Make It 16. 'This year's Youth MPs showed just how capable and committed young people are, delivering powerful speeches on issues like mental health, education, Te Tiriti, and climate change. But the decisions made around Youth Parliament left many rangatahi second-guessing themselves in a space that should have encouraged confidence rather than caution.' Make It 16 emphasises that this open letter is not an attack on any political party, public servant, or the Ministry of Youth Development, but a call for a commitment to genuine youth representation that reflects the real voices and aspirations of rangatahi across Aotearoa. In an email sharing the open letter to MYD, Make It 16 has said, 'We stand in solidarity with the Youth MPs who had the courage to speak up as their voices deserve to be heard. We hope this can be a turning point, and we hope this open letter is taken as an invitation to work together.' The open letter outlines four key calls to action for future Youth Parliaments: Restore live streaming and ensure public access to speeches. Reinstate Lived Experience Groups and the Mock Bill process to reflect diverse youth experiences. End pre-speech censorship, especially of real-world issues. Embed rangatahi-led design and accountability into all stages of Youth Parliament. 'This is a moment to reflect and improve,' says Thomas Brocherie. 'Because ultimately, this kōrero is bigger than just Youth Parliament. It's about how our democracy treats young people throughout these systems. We're inviting MYD and the government to work with us to create spaces like Youth Parliament that genuinely serve, support, and empower rangatahi to lead.'
