Taxpayers' Union, Māori data scientist among Regulatory Standards Bill submitters
Lawyer Tania Waikato has slammed the Regulatory Standards Bill as a 'blatant and audacious attempt' by the Act Party to 'subvert our democratic processes for their own private gain'.
She used her submission to raise the issue of safety following the
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
20 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.
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
Outcry over 'morally bankrupt' call to end government flood buyouts
By Kate Newton of RNZ Phasing out government assistance for climate adaptation and property buy-outs would be "morally bankrupt", a climate policy expert says. An independent reference group set up by the Ministry for the Environment on Wednesday released a suite of recommendations to help the government shape climate adaptation legislation. Following a 20-year transition period, homeowners whose houses are flooded or damaged by weather events should not expect buy-outs, the group recommended. The group also recommended that funding for adaptation measures such as flood schemes, sea walls and blue-green infrastructure, should follow a 'beneficiary pays' approach in most cases. "This would mean those who benefit most from these investments contribute more." Central government should only invest in adaptation if it would protect Crown assets, "or where broader national benefits can be realised". "Central government investment or other financing strategies may be appropriate to help overcome challenges in particularly vulnerable areas, where there is less ability to pay." Victoria University emeritus professor Jonathan Boston, who was part of a previous expert working group on climate adaptation, said the message from the latest report to New Zealanders was clear: "You are on your own." The report rightly recognised the need for urgent action on climate adaptation, and to make consistent, reliable information about climate hazards available, Boston said. However, the recommendations to withdraw financial assistance for both property buy-outs and adaptation measures, and to leave decision-making up to individuals, were "fundamentally flawed". "One of the core responsibilities of any government is to protect its citizens and to deal with natural disasters and so on. That is above almost anything else." To put an end-date on that was "morally bankrupt and highly undesirable", he said. The report wrongly assumed that people would act rationally if they were properly informed of the risks, he said. "We know from vast amounts of literature that people suffer from all kinds of cognitive biases... and that these have a profound influence on whether people make sensible decisions or not. "And quite apart from cognitive bias, lots of people lack choices. They lack the [financial] resources to make good decisions." Boston also criticised the recommendation of a transitional period, saying the risks from climate change would continue to evolve well past 2045 or another hard end-date. He and others had previously warned against the 'moral hazard' of creating expectations of generous property buy-outs every time there was a severe weather event. "We certainly need to be ensuring that we don't create incentives for people to stay in risky areas or indeed to build in areas that are going to become risky because of climate change," he said. "But the idea that you can just sort of leave it to individuals to decide what's going to happen and have no oversight or involvement in helping people to make good decisions and helping people to move where they have to move, I just think it's bizarre." Managed or unmanaged retreat? Environmental Defense Society policy director Raewyn Peart said the report seemed to be moving away from the concept of "managed retreat", where communities moved out of harm's way in a coordinated fashion. "The approach seems to be unmanaged retreat, where we'll give people information and a transition period - they're on notice - and at that point, people can make their own decisions about whether to move or not." That would be unworkable, Peart said. "Some people will move, some won't, councils [will have] to provide services to a community that's gradually emptying out, people there who can't afford to move will be trapped into a risky situation - they may be facing regular floods of their properties. "I just don't think it's in the best interests of the country to essentially leave it to the market and people's individual decisions." The report recommended handing over responsibility for adaptation planning to local councils, but it was unclear whether central government would provide any financial or administrative support, she said. "Some councils are really on to it and are already doing it - they have the resources. It's the small councils who may only have one planner, who have no expertise in adaptation planning." The latest report echoes previous warnings that insurers could increase premiums to unaffordable levels, and even withdraw from some areas, as the risk from climate change hazards continued to increase. Insurance Council chief executive Kris Faafoi - whose organisation has long called for greater national direction from central government on climate adaptation - said it was good to see the report authors recommending urgent action. "There's still some very difficult issues to work through - but these extreme weather events are going to happen, and being able to protect communities and to keep insurance affordable and available is really important in the long-term." There was little appetite anywhere on the political spectrum for expensive buy-outs of properties to continue, he said. The question of who would actually pay for adaptation measures still needed to be answered, Faafoi said. "In the report itself, there was an expectation that councils will do a lot of the heavy lifting and where some communities might find it a challenge to be able to pay for some of the protections … then investment from the Crown might be necessary." But following a 'beneficiary pays' approach could see the costs of adaptation fall heavily on some communities. "I think reading between the lines, there could be the likes of targeted rates in some areas. "Again, that has to be floated with communities and as to whether or not people who benefit from that might be able to pay for that." The report noted the financial difficulties many councils faced. "Funding will be a challenging proposition if councils' ability to increase rates is constrained," the authors wrote. Climate Change Minister Simon Watts told RNZ the government welcomes the independent recommendations for how New Zealand can adapt to the impacts of climate change. "We will now take the time to review recommendations and announce decisions in due course," Watts said. "The report is not government policy, however the Government is considering the group's recommendations, alongside the findings of last year's cross-party climate adaptation inquiry and other advice, as it works to put in place the building blocks for a national adaptation framework."
The Spinoff
3 hours ago
- The Spinoff
Regulatory Standards Bill hearing, day three: ‘Pissing on people and telling them it's rain'
The finance and expenditure committee heard the Regulatory Standards Bill could impact animal welfare, the environment and the Woke Lesbo Symposium, and received advice from the Clerk. We're past the halfway point in the finance and expenditure committee's oral hearings into the Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB), and finally, NZ First showed up (but Act was missing in action). Committee chair and National MP Cameron Brewer had some fun, gleefully welcoming Helen Gilby and Penelope Ehrhardt of the Woke Lesbo Symposium, and telling them he had nominated them for oral submissions 'purely out of intrigue'. He was sure Labour MP Duncan Webb, who couldn't make it, would be 'winding back the tapes'. What he heard was their opposition to the bill and its 'fringe neo-liberal ideology' which will 'redefine rights to suit the agenda of large corporations and the very rich'. 'As the Woke Lesbo Symposium, we recommend that you tell parliament to ditch this monstrosity,' Erhardt said, and delivered the quote of the day, describing trickle down economics as 'pissing on people and telling them it's rain.' Earlier, the first submitters of the day were Aotearoa NZ Association of Social Workers' kaihautū Lisa King and senior policy analyst Bronwyn Larsen, who opposed the bill on the basis that their industry is informed by 'human rights, social justice, te Tiriti o Waitangi, and the dignity and worth of all people' – passing the RSB would 'threaten and undermine' this, King claimed. As an analyst, Larsen said it had been 'frustrating' seeing a number of bills being passed without evidence to support their necessity, which reflects 'ideology valued over evidence and lived experience'. She worried 'structurally inequitable' policies such as youth boot camps and the removal of section 7aa from the Oranga Tamariki Act would continue with the passing of the bill, and the emphasis on property would potentially 'erode tenant rights for low income whānau'. 'Surely we must see the devastating irony of this, given the long history of forced dispossession of iwi land and property?' Larsen said. Suze Jones, Deputy Clerk of the House, suggested amendments to the bill – an effort the Clerk only makes once or twice a year, when a bill has the potential to impinge on parliament's workings, or if it's 'drafted in a really unusual way', Jones said. Principles need to be developed on a cross party basis to ensure 'broad buy-in' across parliament, and Jones suggested the RSB be re-drafted in line with the tiered approach in part 4 of the Legislation Act 2019. It was also 'very strange' that the regulatory standards board would be given direct access to the select committee, she said, and more clarity was needed on the overlap of functions between the regulatory standards board and regulations review committee. Law professor Dean Knight submitted against the bill, as it is an 'instrument of politics, rather than a blueprint' to good law-making. He argued the RSB will fail to deliver on its 'constitutional mission' as many of the norms embedded in it are 'heavily contested and represent ideological dogma' – a more 'constructive regime' would draw on principles in the legislation guidelines. Knight also worried the regulatory standards board may breach separation of powers, and that it 'invests too much political power in the hands of the minister for regulation'. Seafood New Zealand chief executive Lisa Futschek and Mark Edwards from NZ Rock Lobster Industry Council submitted together, and told the committee that while the fishing industry does need improved regulations, they had reservations that the RSB would achieve this. Futschek recommended the principles in clause 8 be replaced with 'more comprehensive and broadly accepted' principles, and doubted that a regulatory standards board would be necessary – its proposed functions should rest with the regulatory review committee or Ministry of Regulation. They called on the committee to exclude secondary legislation made under Treaty settlements (such as the Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Act 2019) from the bill's scope, for fear that 'inconsistencies' could arise between the bill's principles of responsible regulation and Crown obligations. Edwards said that while the Crown should uphold its responsibilities to the Treaty, costs that would arise from property rights will continue to be imposed on third parties. Simon Upton, parliamentary commissioner for the environment, told the committee the bill's focus on individual and property rights and liberties meant the consequences for public resources such as air, water and soil are 'unclear'. He suggested that the bill should include a specific detail in clause 8 to 'make it clear there's no right or liberty to pollute, then we'd at least put one line in the sand'. The SPCA's Marie McAninch, who submitted against, spoke of how the bill could add a 'barrier to animal protection that we don't need'. McAninch gave the example of an animal welfare officer removing a neglected pet – the dog is property which is being taken, but is also a beneficiary of being taken. The bill's principle of the taking of property asks for a beneficiary (or those acting on behalf) to compensate the person who has had their property taken – in this scenario, 'arguably it is the SPCA that should be paying animal abusers'. Former Labour minister Marian Hobbs also submitted against the bill, which she labelled a 'lobbyist's dream'. She remembered working on air quality standards in Christchurch as the former minister for environment in the 2000s – 'up to 400 people a year died in Christchurch as a direct result of poor air quality, that's why you need regulations … [they've] got an awful lot to do with community and public health'. 'I would hang my head in shame if in order to be a nice member of your coalition, you actually put your name and your votes to this piece of poor legislation,' Hobbs said. Tom Pearce of People Against Prisoners Aotearoa submitted against the bill, with the concern that it would give wealthier New Zealanders a 'disproportionate ability to shape' laws through lobbying, pressure and donations – Pearce compared this to the criminal justice system, where eight times as many people are prosecuted for benefit fraud than tax fraud. Next, Auckland Action Against Poverty's Agnes Magele also submitted against, and told the committee those she works with likely won't see any benefit from the bill, as government policies such as benefit sanctions have made living in poverty 'absolutely worse' – 'it feels like we're being punished for struggling.' 'I don't know if that's something that yous will understand, if you've never actually lived in poverty before,' Magele said. Nuhisifa Seve-Williams from Niue Group also opposed the bill for undermining the Treaty and the possibility of 'meddling' in constitutional arrangements between Aotearoa and its Pacific neighbours 'made in faith by our ancestors'. She said Niueans had been 'appended' to Māori since migration, and life in New Zealand had shown them that 'the discourses that shape government directives and practices in respect of Māori will impact us'. 'We do not feel the trickle down effect of wealth to the poor, but we feel the trickle down effects of Māori gains and losses,' Seve-Williams said.
