Minnows, pike and parliamentary sovereignty
So said 20th century philosopher Isaiah Berlin. He was warning us to be wary of occasions when the rich and powerful argue for greater freedom. They already have a great deal of freedom, usually a lot more than the rest of us.
Act New Zealand's proposed Regulatory Standards Bill appears to be one of these occasions.
The Bill states that any proposed legislation will have to be held up to certain principles. However, they are a very limited number of principles, mostly based on individual rights and property.
Why just the principles important to Act? Why not hold legislation accountable to how it will affect child poverty? How it will impact on rights to education and health? Whether it will lead to increases in crime or unemployment?
There are any number of principles they could align legislation to, and yet individual and property rights is where they are focused.
Why have principles that primarily benefit the rich and powerful? Why not have principles that benefit the majority, especially those in these unending crises we have had since the Global Financial Crash in 2008?
One of the main objections to the Regulations Standards Bill is that it puts limitations on Parliament's sovereignty and it is beyond ironic that one of Act's objections to the way that the Treaty of Waitangi was being applied was that it encroached on Parliament's sovereignty.
We have a system that has created a lot of wealth for certain individuals, and some of those who have accumulated that wealth want to ensure that they keep it and are also able to accumulate it at an even faster rate.
This month the NBR announced that the total valuation of New Zealand's rich list had risen from $95.55 billion last year to $102.1b this year. Their wealth has gone up by 6.8% and is not an outlier. In 2023 the valuation of the rich list was $72.79b, meaning that their combined wealth had gone up 50% in the two years that included a recession and a cost of living crisis.
The annual inflation rate is currently 2.5%. The New Zealand cash rate is 3.25%, Kiwi Bonds are around 3.5%, and one-year term deposits are less than 4%. So the very wealthy are accumulating wealth at a much faster pace than the rest of society.
Some of the money the very rich make is ploughed back into their businesses to make them more efficient and productive, and some is used to look for further business opportunities. Sometimes these are very risky opportunities, and sometimes that riskiness is a surprise such as earthquakes, cyclones and their close cousin, presidentially declared tariffs.
However, a lot of their wealth appears to go into buying assets.
United Kingdom economist Gary Stevenson claims that the super wealthy live in an economic black hole that sucks in wealth. If you have $100million and your wealth conservatively goes up 6% that is $6m a year. That is a lot of money to try to spend on holidays, food and clothes.
They can't spend that much and so what they do, according to Stephenson, is buy assets. They are always ahead of inflation so their money just grows and the value of the assets they have, and the assets they buy, goes up.
It is his explanation as to why it is so much tougher to buy a house than 20 years ago and why real estate, gold and the stock market continually trend upwards.
Structurally, if it is true that our current system is tailor-made to shift wealth from one part of society to a very small minority of society, it is no wonder they want to lock it all in place before the rest of us find out.
At the same time as our small population of very wealthy are growing wealthier, the number of homeless people is skyrocketing. Statistics New Zealand claimed at the 2023 census over 112,000 New Zealanders were "severely housing deprived", including 61% living in "uninhabitable housing".
This did not include any of the 396,000 people they had no information on.
Change needs to come, but not in legislation that locks in the gains of the top 5% and locks in the losses of the majority. We don't have to worry about the rich, they will be OK. Even if they lose their fortunes, they have the skills and networks to bounce back up again.
We need an economy that rewards risk and innovation but at the same time provides affordable housing and health, education and social services.
Parliament is perfectly able to do all this without passing the Regulatory Standards Bill.
Submissions on the Regulatory Standards Bill close on June 23.
• Dr Anaru Eketone is an associate professor in the University of Otago's social and community work programme.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
2 hours ago
- Newsroom
Attorney-General rules her own Govt's voting crackdown breaches human rights
Electoral law restrictions announced last week are in breach of the Bill of Rights Act, Attorney-General Judith Collins KC says in a report belatedly disclosed to Parliament. She indicates more than 100,000 people may be directly or indirectly disenfranchised by rules banning enrolment in the final 13 days before an elections. Young people, and areas with larger Māori, Asian and Pasifika communities, are likely to be worst affected. Denying voters the political franchise is a heavy price to pay, she says, when there are alternative, less restrictive measures that could have addressed the same problem of speeding up the vote count. But Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith has hit back. 'Allowing late enrolments, however well intentioned, has placed too much strain on the system,' he tells Newsroom. 'I don't accept that we are disenfranchising people by requiring that they are first enrolled. Many countries do this, such as Australia.' Professor Andrew Geddis, at the University of Otago, says the Bill of Rights notice ought to have been attached to the bill when it was presented, according to the wording of section 7 of the Bill of Rights Act. This would have allowed ministers to be asked about it, when the proposal first came out. 'However, it doesn't seem to have been,' he says. 'Instead, it quietly went up on the Ministry of Justice website just in time for the weekend.' 'Heavy price' for administrative convenience In its Regulatory Impact Statement, the Ministry of Justice did not recommend the option of closing enrolment earlier. 'Its impact on reducing special votes is uncertain, while its impact on democratic participation could be significant,' officials said. The Attorney-General's Bill of Rights inconsistency notice goes further, concluding the proposal for a 13-day registration deadline appears to constitute an unjustified limit on section 12 of the Bill of Rights Act, which says every New Zealand citizen aged 18-plus has the right to vote in Parliamentary elections. 'The accepted starting-point is the fundamental importance of the right to vote within a liberal democracy,' she says. 'A compelling justification is required to limit that right.' Citing Electoral Commission and Ministry of Justice data, she says about 3400 people would have their eligibility to vote directly affected by the law change. These include people returning from overseas after being away for an extended time, and people who become New Zealand residents or are released from prison during the registration period. But many more will have their right to vote indirectly affected, by being in effect excluded from the franchise by the practicalities of the operation of a 13-day pre-election registration deadline. There has been an expectation, since 1993, that electors can register as late as the day before polling day, or more recently, on polling day. Indeed, the trend (with accompanying publicity campaigns) has been towards greater flexibility as to when people may register to vote. In the 2023 general election, the special votes included more than 97,000 people who registered for the first time during the voting period, and nearly 134,000 people who changed electoral districts during the voting period. 'This gives some indication of the number of people who may be affected, and the farther out the registration deadline from polling day, the greater the disenfranchising impact is likely to be.' There were other options the Government could have embraced, Collins says, that would impose 'less onerous limits on the right to vote'. For instance, it could have reverted to a deadline of the day before election day (which was the rule from 1993 to 2020) or a deadline of three, five or seven days before polling day. The notice to Parliament also finds the announced law changes breach the rights of sentenced prisoners, by reinstating a ban on them voting. For most of New Zealand's history, sentenced prisoners have been denied the right to vote. In 1975, the Rowling Labour government gave them the vote but that enfranchisement was brief – the National government repealed it two years later. The Electoral Act 1993 allowed for a limited prisoner franchise, though those serving a a sentence of three or more years were excluded. That was repealed in 2010. Then in 2020, the Ardern Labour Government restored prisoners' ability to vote, after jailhouse lawyer Arthur Taylor took a successful case to the Supreme Court. Like the Attorney-General, the court said the ban was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act. Goldsmith has now announced it will (again) be repealed. And he isn't wavering, in the face of the Attorney-General's notice. 'Citizenship brings rights and responsibilities,' he says. He rejects the inclusion of prisoners' rights in the Bill of Rights Act. 'People who breach those responsibilities to the extent that they are sentenced to jail temporarily lose some of their rights, including the right to vote.' Speeding up the vote count On the wider matter of when people are allowed to enrol, the law says an eligible voter can enrol right up to and including election day, at any voting place in New Zealand. According to public advice from the Electoral Commission, if people enrol early, then voting will be faster. The commission says that those who enrol before Writ Day (about a month before election day) will have their names on the printed electoral roll at the voting place. They'll also be mailed an EasyVote card, making it faster for the person issuing voting papers to find them on the roll. 'You can still enrol after Writ Day – but you may need to fill in an extra form when you go to vote.' Goldsmith justifies barring people from voting if they don't enrol more than 13 days out from election day, saying it should enable votes to be counted faster. 'The final vote count used to take two weeks – last election it took three,' he says. 'If we leave things as they are, it could likely take even longer. 'If you want to vote, you need to be enrolled. People have a whole year to get organised. I have every confidence New Zealanders can manage.' Ockers and 'drop kicks' Goldsmith says many countries require people to be enrolled before voting. Australia required people to be enrolled 26 days before the last election, and before 2020, New Zealanders were not able to enrol on election day. 'Those people were not disenfranchised, they were simply required to be enrolled. It is not difficult.' However, the Attorney-General points out the High Court of Australia has ruled on a voter registration deadline that departed from previous settings. She endorses that court's comments, that restricting the impact on the franchise of restricting the voter registration period is a 'heavy price'. Delivering a 2010 judgment on behalf of a seven-member panel of the High Court, Chief Justice Robert French had said the heavy price imposed on the constitutional mandate was disproportionate to the benefits of a smoother and more efficient electoral system, to which the amendments were directed. Last week, Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour said only 'drop kicks' enrolled late to vote. Goldsmith reiterates his unhappiness with the Act leader's comment. 'I said last week, Mr Seymour's comment was unhelpful. The purpose of the change, and a large number of other changes, is to take pressure off the system, so that the Electoral Commission can do its job effectively and efficiently.'
NZ Herald
7 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Labour's Chris Hipkins questions MMP system, seeks balance in power
'But, I differ a bit from the current Government in the sense that while I respect the important constituencies the smaller parties represent, and I also respect that we compete with them for votes too, I don't think under MMP the smaller parties should call all of the shots. 'I still think the bigger parties have a mandate to reflect the view of a much larger section of the electorate, and so I do think under MMP you need to keep proportionality in mind. 'Yes, there should be some concessions and some trade-offs to the other parties to form a government. But that doesn't mean that you should be doing things that you specifically told the electorate before the election that you weren't going to do. 'The Treaty Principles Bill is a good example. The Regulatory Standards Bill. Some of these things that no one knew they were voting for at the last election, and now they're being inflicted on them. I don't think that's the spirit of MMP or democracy,' he said. Talk of introducing a Capital Gains Tax has been the bugbear of successive governments. In the 2010s, Sir John Key ruled out a CGT while the then-Labour leader Phil Goff made it the centrepiece of his party's tax policy. Fast-forward to Dame Jacinda Ardern ruling out ever implementing one while she was Prime Minister. Enter, Hipkins, who carried the message through the 2023 election. Luxon's then the one to 'rule it out' while he's in rule. When it comes to Election 2026, Hipkins said Labour will have a 'different tax policy' to the one they had at the last election. He stopped short of confirming whether that means the reintroduction of a CGT, but did say he'll announce it by the end of the year. 'Because I think it is important, that is a big policy area. People want to know where they stand. 'In New Zealand, I think we've placed far too much emphasis on buying and selling houses amongst ourselves, pushing up the price so that potentially a whole generation of homeowners is being shut out of the housing market,' he said. Chris Hipkins and Christopher Luxon during a leaders' debate in 2023 and they will already be planning for another battle in 2026. Photo / TVNZ The Labour Party is yet to release any policy announcements for next year's election, but Hipkins said that's for good reason. He wants to make sure they'll be able to deliver on promises made. 'I think one of the valid criticisms of us last time we were in opposition was that we had some really good ideas, but we hadn't worked through the details of exactly how would we do that. Then, when we got into government, we found that some of the things that we'd said we were going to do, very well intentioned, we didn't have a clear plan for how we would do it. 'I think the same thing has happened to this Government. They've made promises with no plan on how they're actually going to do it, and I don't want to be in that position,' he said. In May, Act Party leader and Deputy Prime Minister, David Seymour, referred to Hipkins as 'poo Midas'. It was after NZ First leader Winston Peters 'permanently' ruled out working with Hipkins in any future government coalition. 'This guy's got the opposite of the Midas touch. I think they call him a 'poo Midas',' Seymour said. Hipkins said he's all for a bit of humour in politics, a 'little bit of a sledge' now and then, where it's funny. But the latest jabs from those at the top don't have him laughing. 'They're not very funny, and they're also not very good at it. So, I think they should just stick to actually doing what people ask them to do, you know, New Zealanders wanted them to fix the cost of living crisis,' he said. Listen to the full episode to hear more from Chris Hipkins about the possibility of free dental and whether we should 'tax the rich'. The Front Page is a daily news podcast from the New Zealand Herald, available to listen to every weekday from 5am. The podcast is presented by Chelsea Daniels, an Auckland-based journalist with a background in world news and crime/justice reporting who joined NZME in 2016. You can follow the podcast at iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Otago Daily Times
9 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Business case flawed: Brooking
The release of a "flawed" business case means more information is needed before Labour decides whether it would dump the planned Waikato Medical School, a Dunedin MP says. Last Monday, Health Minister Simeon Brown announced Cabinet had approved $82.85 million in government funding to build the country's third medical school at the University of Waikato — the institution was expected to contribute more than $150m to the project. Dunedin MP Rachel Brooking, of Labour, said she was "very sceptical" about figures used by the government to make its decision. The project's detailed business case was made public on Friday evening, part of a document dump which revealed the cost of producing GPs at the graduate-entry Waikato medical school would be $50 million a year cheaper than at the existing medical schools at Otago and Auckland universities. "The business case has really been written with an outcome in mind and not traversed all of the options, and that's just bad decision-making," Ms Brooking said. "It's bad way to make use of taxpayers' money, and it seems that in general, this all will cost more." She said the "flawed" business case would have consequences for the Otago Medical School: "those are difficult to predict exactly". However, Labour had "no plans at the moment" to dump the medical school, Ms Brooking said. "The issue is that we don't think the business case is credible. "So we'll keep asking questions about that and try and make any assessments on good information when we're in a position to do so." Taieri MP Ingrid Leary said "the so-called business case is really just a public relations document, given the outlandish assumptions and comparators". In a statement last Monday, Mr Brown said the project was an innovative model "that supports our focus on strengthening primary care, making it easier for people to see their doctor — helping Kiwis stay well and out of hospital". Waikato University would begin construction on new teaching facilities later this year. A full cost-benefit analysis was presented to Cabinet before any proposal was finalised, as part of the National-Act New Zealand coalition agreement, he said. Green MP Francisco Hernandez said the government's cost-benefit analysis used to "ram through" the Waikato Medical School made assumptions revealing the "lack of objectivity". Mr Hernandez said the document "falsely assumed" Otago and Auckland universities could not have negotiated a four-year rural graduate programme similar to Waikato University's proposal. "This assumption enables the government to claim that Waikato University will train medical students 'cheaper' because Waikato is assumed to have a four-year programme," he said. The government had also assumed Waikato University was more likely to produce GPs "even though Otago and Auckland could have also done a rural graduate programme". "Fundamentally, these flawed assumptions stem from the government's failure to run a transparent tender process from the start," Mr Hernandez said. "Rather than putting out an open tender to every university in New Zealand, they gave Waikato University a sweetheart deal." He called for the government to "be up front and honest about the actual costs" of the project and release the full agreement with Waikato University with all relevant advice. "The government's failure to rule out further handouts or to release the actual agreement raises questions on whether there were further sweetheart deals negotiated behind closed doors in the agreement that might end up with the taxpayer bailing out Waikato University."
