David Seymour and James Baldwin: The fire this time
THE FACTS
Act Party leader David Seymour was guest of honour at a party held by his party recently, to celebrate his becoming Deputy Prime Minister.
In his speech, Seymour quoted the American founding father and Boston Tea Party revolutionary Samuel Adams: 'It does not take a majority to prevail
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
3 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
3 hours ago
- Scoop
It's No Longer Illegal To Be A Proudly Violent Proud Boy
New Zealand has lifted the terrorist group designation from the extremist group the Proud Boys, sparking fears their members may resurface. It started as a fringe movement in the United States - a group of self-described "Western chauvinists" known as the Proud Boys. A bunch of them were jailed after the 6 January US election riots, and they have now been pardoned by President Trump. Their legacy of far-right extremism, violent rhetoric, and polarising influence has raised questions not just in American courtrooms but on Kiwi shores too. "They have been organising in New Zealand, although they deny that is the case," Stuff investigative journalist Paula Penfold tells The Detail. "Now, the terrorist designation that they were given [in New Zealand] in 2022 has been allowed to expire, and we don't yet know the reasons for that to have been allowed to happen, we don't yet know whether the Proud Boys are still active in New Zealand, but we think it's pretty important that our authorities should find out." Founded in 2016 by Gavin McInnes, the Proud Boys quickly gained notoriety for their involvement in violent street clashes, their role in the 6 January Capitol riots, and their unwavering embrace of conspiracy theories. While their presence in New Zealand has remained relatively low-key, Penfold - who has been investigating the group for several years - says their ideology has crossed borders with concerning implications. "We had been working with a researcher of the Far Right who had been compiling a dossier of people he believed had been sympathising and identifying with the Proud Boys for several years by then, going back to around 2019. "They had been making posts on social media, which were anti-Muslim, and racist, and misogynistic, and were promoting gun culture. "They had come up with their own New Zealand Proud Boys insignia. They would attend anti-immigration rallies, wearing the distinctive black and yellow polo shirts of the Proud Boys that they wear in America. "And they would post on social media, in New Zealand, quite openly at that stage, using the term 'uhuru', which is a Swahili word for freedom that they had co-opted, the Proud Boys, and they would photograph themselves doing the 'okay white power' symbol. And they were reasonably open about it." She says the 15 March terrorist used that same "okay white power" symbol in court, before he was convicted of killing 51 people in two mosques in Christchurch in 2019. But when Penfold questioned the Kiwi men online about their ties to the Proud Boys, she was met with quick denials. "They were dismissive. They said they were just a group of friends. Although they did admit at their height, a leader had been in contact with the founder Gavin McInnes in the States, but they denied they were doing anything other than going drinking, and shooting, and hanging out, just as a bunch of mates, a fraternity." Then, in 2022, the New Zealand government took a bold stance, listing the Proud Boys as a terrorist entity, a move that made global headlines and was praised by anti-extremism campaigners. "It was big news... and what it would mean in practice was that anyone who supported or funded or participated in Proud Boys actions here was committing a criminal act, imprisonable by up to seven years, so it was a big deal," Penfold says. But then last month, without any fanfare, the group slipped off the list of designated terrorist entities. The only statement on the move was released on the website of the New Zealand Gazette - the newspaper of the government. Penfold describes it as bland and brief. "The designation had been made under the Terrorism Suppression Act... and every three years that designation will expire unless the prime minister seeks to extend it." When asked why he didn't extend it, a response to Penfold from the prime minister's office "didn't specifically answer that", but she was told "the Proud Boys remain on the radar... and if any new information comes to hand, they will consider it." "Those who monitor terrorist organisations and far-right extremist groups... are really concerned at this step that the designation has been allowed to lapse", Penfold says. So as New Zealand grapples with the rise of conspiracy-fuelled protests and declining trust in democratic institutions, the Proud Boys' shadow, although faint, may still be felt. Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here.
NZ Herald
6 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Regulatory Standards Bill: Group of prominent Kiwis – including former Prime Minister – issue open letter against David Seymour legislation
A group of prominent New Zealanders, including well-known academics and a former Prime Minister, have written an open letter calling for the Government to drop the controversial Regulatory Standards Bill being advanced by Act's David Seymour. The authors – including Dame Anne Salmond, Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Professor Jane Kelsey
