National Caves To ACT To Ram Through Regulatory Standards Bill
The Prime Minister failed to show leadership on the Treaty Principles Bill and hes failing again. Christopher Luxon is clearly too weak to stand up to David Seymour.
Once again National has caved to ACT by today agreeing to shorten the select committee process for the Regulatory Standards Bill.
'The Regulatory Standards Bill puts corporate interests ahead of our communities, environmental protections, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi,' Labour regulation spokesperson Duncan Webb said.
'The Prime Minister failed to show leadership on the Treaty Principles Bill – and he's failing again. Christopher Luxon is clearly too weak to stand up to David Seymour.
'For a Bill that claims to attempt to embed 'good law-making', it is staggering that National would agree to cut short the public's chance to have their say.
'Under the Regulatory Standards Bill, laws that would keep people healthy and safe, like requiring landlords to heat homes, or limiting the sale of vapes, would be at the whim of whether David Seymour thinks they're a good idea or not.
'It is unbelievable that the Government is cutting short the time the public will have to weigh in on such a consequential Bill.
'Today, the Government voted to shortcut the select committee process from six months to four months, all because David Seymour wants this wrapped up before the end of the year. They also cut short the public submission period from six weeks to four.
'Luxon needs to start standing up to the extreme voices in his Government, but instead he's bending over backwards to accommodate them,' Duncan Webb said.
Hashtags
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
Mediawatch: The politics of PayWave
Photo: 123RF "Can someone get the Beehive a press secretary who can understand a news cycle?" asked the host of Herald Now show Ryan Bridge, opening his show last Tuesday with a bit of a broadside at the government's political management. "Yesterday we had a 10-minute sermon - that's the opposition's words - from Nicola Willis and Christopher Luxon about the cost of living crisis," he said, referring to Monday's post-Cabinet press conference . That was timed for the first anniversary of their tax cuts - so why was that timing so bad? Bridge flourished The Herald 's own front page that day with a scoop about big boosts to the fees that Crown bodies can pay board members. "It's probably the worst headline you could have at a time like this," he spluttered. "Now I'm not saying they don't deserve it, but the timing... come on!" In bad economic times, stuff that looks bad can end up looking a lot worse no matter what day it goes public. The lead story on Herald Now that day also looked like it was timed with optics in mind - banning surcharges on in-store contactless transactions. "Those pesky surcharges on card payments are gone-skis," Bridge declared, echoing the government's own announcement. "Most customers will be very happy to see an end to the horrible little curled up handwritten coffee stain stickers on the EFTPOS machine," Consumer Affairs Minister Scott Simpson told Ryan Bridge. But Bridge was not distracted by the aesthetics of EFTPOS terminals. He wanted to know who would really reap the benefit of the estimated $150 million saved from the surcharges salami-sliced out at stores as things stand. "That will be absorbed into the retail system," the minister said. "Right. Higher prices, in other words?" Bridge asked. "It's not much over the entire New Zealand commercial marketplace," the minister countered. But if so, it would not really cut the cost of living very much at all - and was not really a strong lead story at a time with so much else going on. "We can only pray that Luxon and Willis understand that shifting $90 million from banks to consumers is irrelevant in the context of a $430 billion economy, including the $7.2 billion the banks made in profits last year," columnist Matthew Hooton said in The Herald on Friday. Consumer NZ was not stoked that credit card surcharges applied to online payments were not covered by the ban. "This is disappointing because your flight or accommodation booking or any other online purchases could still attract a surcharge," Consumer NZ said. "Those transactions are generally much more expensive to process because... they have to protect against online scams, online fraud," Nicola Willis told RNZ's First Up . "We've kept them out of the regime for now because part-passing on the charge to the consumer makes more sense there," she added. But banks also deal with that and their charges are regulated - and it is far from transparent now how those costs are covered for online credit card transactions. While the Prime Minister had said on Monday: "You will no longer be penalised for your choice of payment method," media scrutiny this week revealed that users of EFTPOS and cash payers might end up penalised by a ban. "Any transaction where someone pays by swiping or inserting, is free for a retailer. But as people move to contactless... a higher percentage of their transactions will incur a fee," Retail NZ's Carolyn Young told RNZ 's Morning Report . The Commerce Commission recently moved to cap the interchange fees banks charge each other. That was also meant to reduce the cost to retailers. More people now using PayWave could wipe out the other potential benefits. "I think it's really just performative. If we're paywaving everywhere and then the costs are shared across everyone," Dan Brunskill of told RNZ 's Nine to Noon on Tuesday when asked about the PayWave surcharge ban. The same day BusinessDesk pointed out that just 10 days earlier the Commerce Commission had claimed its interchange fee cap would save businesses $90 million a year in payment costs. The Commission [ also said it was already exploring what regulation may be needed to address excessive surcharging, which it estimated at about $45 million to $60 million a year. But Business Desk's headline Government beats Commerce Commission to card surcharge ban showed that in this case, the government might have got its PR timing right to take the credit for reduced credit card payment costs now. The media scrutiny also illuminated another duopolistic aspect of our economy: Visa and MasterCard dominating this payment trade. Alternatives do exist, BusinessDesk tech reporter Peter Griffin pointed out on Wednesday . But he said after the surcharge ban, PayWavers here will be less likely to seek out cheaper solutions if they cannot see they are cheaper. "We should now focus on reducing the underlying costs of payment processing, not simply regulating away the only mechanism for acknowledging those costs. In the world of payments, as in so much else, what's visible on the bill is only the start of the story." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
NZ Herald
4 hours ago
- NZ Herald
The NZ economy is still sick, doubts are growing about the Govt prescription
Are these the right antibiotics? Are the antibiotics making me feel sick? I do feel a little better I think. But it's taking longer than I expected. Maybe I should see the doctor again. Or am I just being impatient? Ugh, so much uncertainty. Hopefully, those who've tuned in for a fresh read on the state of the economy can see where this is going. Never let a metaphor go by, I say! Anyway, here's me and the New Zealand economy, both sick in the midst of a miserable wet winter and worrying about whether our recoveries have stalled. A run of negative data has knocked the wind out of the nation's sails. The bad vibes are being pushed along by a strong political current. Both the left and right are telling us that the Government has prescribed the wrong medicine. The left blames the Government for cutting spending into a downturn. The logic is pretty simple. Any good Keynesian will tell you, when demand in the private sector falls, that's the time for the Government to come to the party. Borrow a bit more, don't slash and burn civil service, hire more teachers and nurses, build more stuff ... it won't be inflationary because it won't be crowding out private sector competition, which is in recession. The trouble is, we're still in the aftermath of the last big spend-up, which went on too long. Labour's stimulus, once we got through the initial Covid shock, did clash with a private sector boom and exacerbated inflation. That muddied the political narrative. It made it inevitable that the incoming centre-right coalition would cut back despite the extra damage that would do to economic growth. In the context of using fiscal policy to drive economic prosperity, you can make a good case that successive governments have got things completely arse about face. You'd expect this argument from the left. But Christopher Luxon and Nicola Willis are being savaged even more aggressively from their right flank. The monetarists, the supply-side guys, the neo-liberals, (whatever you want to call them) are berating the Government for not dealing with the national debt and Crown deficit by administering a Rogernomics-style reboot of the whole economy. I doubt that would make the current downturn any more pleasant, but they argue it couldn't be much worse. And the payoff would be longer-term gains as the economy found a more productive and financially secure baseline. Both arguments can be compelling and, if nothing else, add to the concern that the current strategy of subtle market-oriented tweaks risks underdelivering on all sides. But through all of this gloom, one thing we need to remember is that most economists still believe the foundations of recovery are in place. Step back a bit from the mess of ugly recent economic data – the second quarter sucked, we get it! What are we actually experiencing? The labour market is tough. Unemployment is rising, and new job creation is almost non-existent. But this is not a surprise. In fact, while economists do get things wrong, they've been forecasting unemployment to be about where it is now for more than a year. We know it's one of the last pieces of data to turn in any recovery. Unfortunately, it is now overlapping with an unwanted and unexpected spike in inflation. Like a jump scare in the final scene of a horror movie, food prices (with rates and power, and insurance) have conspired to pause Reserve Bank rate cuts and rattled our faith in the recovery. Then there are tariffs and global unrest and all of that. It's not really surprising that it all feels bleak. So it's a bit ironic to be writing an optimistic take on the economy, especially given the rough week stuck at home that I've just had. My view wouldn't have been so upbeat if I hadn't been woken from my sick bed on Friday morning by a text from investment bank HSBC's Australian head of communications. He was asking how far away I was from my scheduled meeting with their global chief economist, Janet Henry and and Australia-New Zealand chief economist Paul Bloxham. Oops ... I was a long way away. But they kindly let me Zoom in later, and I'm very glad I did. As anyone with Australian cousins will know, sometimes it's healthy to be slapped in the face with a slightly condescending, external view of the New Zealand condition. Bloxham told me his forecasts currently make him one of the gloomiest economists on Australian growth. However, he's one of the most positive on New Zealand growth. Last year, New Zealand had the single largest contraction of any economy in the developed world, Bloxham points out. That inevitably comes with a hangover. But if you believe in the fundamentals of the New Zealand economy, which he does, there is no reason to assume the cycle won't turn. 'I suspect why I'm a little bit more upbeat than others is I sit in Sydney and watch it from the outside and go: hey, you've got two big forces at work that are set to continue to lift growth and give you a recovery.' No prizes for guessing those two forces – falling interest rates and booming agricultural commodity prices. The money flowing into the rural economy must eventually flow through to the cities and lift growth, Bloxham says. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen (my words, not his). We've had a big downswing, which means we're due a pretty big upswing to get back to trend, he says. And we've got monetary policy and the terms of trade in place to drive that cyclical upswing. 'All cycles look different. We always ask the same question going through: oh, it's not quite happening as quickly as we thought. 'The question you ask yourself is: is that because it's not working? Is it that interest rates aren't going to have the same effect? That a positive-terms-of-trade shock won't have the same effect? Or are things just a bit different this time around?' Great question. And look, the sun's finally out and I think my head's clearing. Time to go for a walk and ponder it all. Liam Dann is business editor-at-large for the New Zealand Herald. He is a senior writer and columnist, and also presents and produces videos and podcasts. He joined the Herald in 2003.
NZ Herald
4 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Facing prospect of election defeat, Government tries to change the rules
There's no good reason to remove election-day enrolment, which has been in place since 2020. And there's certainly no reason to remove the ability to enrol during the advance voting period. You've been able to enrol up to the day before election day since 1993. The idea that election-day enrolment was delaying the official results is also nonsense. Whether people update their enrolment details two weeks before the election or on election day, that form still has to be processed and their information updated. It's the same amount of workers' time, either way. The Government can just hire more people to do it after election day, rather than before, and the job will get done on time. Don't give me the 'well, they should sort out their enrolment details earlier' line. I thought National and Act were against bureaucracy? And now they're saying you should lose your right to vote unless you know about the bureaucracy of voter enrolment and tick the state's forms well ahead of time? We should be making it as easy as possible for people to exercise their right to vote. Aotearoa New Zealand has a good record in that regard. We were world leaders in votes for Māori, votes for women, removing the property-ownership test. We don't have people queuing for hours like in the United States. But now the Government wants to use bureaucracy to trip people up and stop them voting. Even Judith Collins has said it is wrong: 'The proposal for a 13-day registration deadline appears to constitute an unjustified limit on s12 of the NZBORA [the right to vote]. The accepted starting point is the fundamental importance of the right to vote within a liberal democracy. A compelling justification is required to limit that right.' The Deputy Prime Minister says you're a 'dropkick' if you don't get your registration sorted well before the election. But why shouldn't a person be able to come along on election day or in the early voting period, cast their vote, and, if their enrolment details need updating, do it at the same time? Why force us to use an inefficient, two-step process? Since when has the supposedly libertarian Act Party loved bureaucracy? Truth is, we know why the Government is doing this. It's a Government that's failing to deliver and fading in the polls. In most recent polls, Labour has been ahead of National. Forty-eight per cent of voters say it's time for a new Government. Only 38% want to give this Government a second chance. So they're trying to screw the scrum in their favour. David Seymour let it slip with his 'dropkicks' comment. Act MP Todd Stephenson put it even more bluntly: 'It's outrageous that someone completely disengaged and lazy can rock up to the voting booth, get registered there and then, and then vote to tax other people's money away.' Trying to make sure only the 'right' people are voting is dangerous, anti-democratic thinking. We all know this change is about setting up barriers for people who are young, Māori, disengaged or alienated from the structures of power and wealth in this country – because those people are unlikely to vote for a Government that works in the interests of the wealthy and powerful. The Government knows full well that these New Zealanders, who have the same right to vote as anyone else, are less likely to be familiar with the rules around registration. The Government also knows there will be many people, Kiwis not as politically engaged as you and me, dear reader, but no less worthy of the vote, who will turn up to a polling place on election day or during the advance voting period thinking that they can update their registration at the same time as they vote – because that's how it has been and they haven't heard about the change – and be turned away under this new law. Democracy is meant to be a contest of ideas. And it is fundamental to democracy that the voters choose the Government, not the other way around. If the Government wants to be re-elected, it should give people a reason to vote for it, not try to exclude voters it doesn't like.
