Echo Chamber: So, who's to blame for the cost of living?
Echo Chamber is The Spinoff's dispatch from the press gallery, recapping sessions in the House. Columns are written by politics reporter Lyric Waiwiri-Smith and Wellington editor Joel MacManus.
No one can shut up about the cost of living. And fair enough – butter is, like, a million dollars, and tens of thousands of people who are essential to our health system are walking off the job today because they're still not paid enough for the work we applauded them for doing through the worst years of our lives. With all of this going on, the pro-growth (of the good kind, not the bad kind) government has been very keen to remind the nation of all the great work they've done to improve our lives. But, they're definitely not panicking or anything – they're just setting the record straight, of course.
Which is why Monday's post-cabinet press conference began with ten minutes of prime minister Christopher Luxon and finance minister Nicola Willis rattling off a list of their pro-growth achievements this term. And why the minister kicked off Tuesday's question time session with patsies from National backbencher Suze Redmayne, reminding the House of the government's efforts in tax relief and Family Boost.
But there was this annoying little voice that kept popping up (amid all the other heckling). Was it Karl Marx himself, risen from the dead to personally punish Willis? No, it was just Greens' co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick, on a mission to set her version of the record straight. 'Road user charges!' Swarbrick reminded the minister. How about putting a price-tag back on prescriptions? Or the price of butter? There was a distinct look of disgust from Swarbrick when Willis wrapped up.
Up next was Labour leader Chris Hipkins, who questioned Luxon over – you guessed it – the cost of living crisis and nurses, but when he began a supplementary by using the word 'so', a smart aleck on the front bench thought they'd pull a fast one. 'Point of order, Mr Speaker,' said Act leader David Seymour. 'Speakers have ruled that you cannot begin with a word like 'so' … Usually a question must begin with a question word.'
Well, Gerry Brownlee replied, the member used 'so does', and I've overlooked the 'so', so it does go – and haven't there been occasions when the minister himself has done the same thing? 'I got away with it,' Seymour quipped. 'Yeah, well, guess what's happening here,' Brownlee replied.
Armed with a pile of notes, Luxon rejected Hipkins' characterisations and claims – but he seemed to lose his cool after so much back and forth. 'If you're really serious about the cost of living, will you support a rate cap on councils? Yes or no?' Luxon challenged his counterpart in red, but that earned him a cuff around the ear from the speaker.
The prime minister cannot ask questions, Brownlee reminded him. 'It's a rhetorical one,' Luxon replied. 'Rhetorical or not, it's a question,' Brownlee countered. 'It was just a rhetorical answer,' Luxon grumbled. Not much achieved thus far.
There were fisticuffs again when Labour's finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds questioned Willis over whether the country was truly 'back on course' – kinda like 'back on track', but just a bit different. And again the minister rattled off a list of figures of where inflation was at in 2022 and 2023 under the Labour government to prove a point that the current state of inflation is simply all inherited and not really her fault, until Brownlee cut her off with 'that's enough'.
'Ruth Richardson would be proud,' Hipkins cried.
Later, famed orator Shane Jones, minister for resources, struggled through his sentences despite NZ First MP Jamie Arbuckle giving him a wide open pass to boast about his portfolio, ahead of the final reading of the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill on Thursday. Though he did find his flow while trashing the 'unicorn-kissing, shallow green ideas' that led to 'the perfidy of the cancellation of the oil and gas industry by Jacinda Ardern' that he is trying to repeal (despite being a cabinet minister in the government which enforced the ban).
But Labour MP Kieran McAnulty wasn't having a bar of it: point of order – but aren't these remarks a clear example of the very thing you've warned this government about multiple times, using questions to express their thoughts on previous policies? McAnulty kept going, but Brownlee cut him off by saying that while he agreed, it was fine to talk about 'factual matters', just as long as they're not attacking the opposition.
'Point of order,' Jones rose again. 'I'm very happy that you used the word 'factual'. It is a fact that the oil and gas industry was chilled, halted, as a consequence of a decision announced by so said woman' (aka his former colleague, Jacinda Ardern).
A groan rippled through the House after that one. Jones is a minister who likes to bark out words like 'fiction!' when his opponents across the aisle are speaking about climate change, and 'mining!' at random intervals to remind the House of his dedication to the kaupapa. So Swarbrick gave Jones a taste of his own medicine when he came to boast about his plans to travel to Taupō – 'the heart of geothermal potential' – today to begin consultations to identify what 'red tape' might be 'blighting' the acceleration of the industry.
'Are you talking about the lobbyists?' she called. 'Tell us about your fossil fuel lobbyist mates.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
11 hours ago
- 1News
Government forges ahead with foreshore and seabed law
The Government is forging ahead with plans to change the law governing New Zealand's foreshore and seabed, despite a Supreme Court ruling last year that appeared to undercut the rationale for the change. The proposed legislation stems from a clause in National's coalition deal with NZ First, which promised to revisit the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. That commitment was driven by fears that a 2023 Court of Appeal decision could have made it significantly easier for Māori groups to win recognition of customary rights over parts of the coastline. The Government introduced a bill to Parliament last year to prevent that, but it hit pause in December after the Supreme Court effectively overturned the earlier ruling. At the time, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith welcomed the development and said ministers would take time to reassess their plans. ADVERTISEMENT On Tuesday, Goldsmith confirmed to RNZ that Cabinet had agreed to press ahead with the law change regardless and to pass it before October. "Everybody in New Zealand has an interest in what goes on in the coastline, and we're trying our best to get that balance right." Goldsmith said he was not convinced that last year's Supreme Court ruling had set a high enough test for judging whether customary rights should be granted. "We've had a couple of cases that have been decided since then - which have shown almost 100% of the coastline and those areas being granted customary marine title - which confirmed to us that the Supreme Court test still didn't achieve the balance that we think the legislation set out to achieve." Asked whether he expected an upswell of protest, Goldsmith said that had been an earlier concern but: "time will tell". "There's been a wide variety of views, some in favour, some against, but we think this is the right thing to do." The legislation was one of the key objections raised by Ngāpuhi leaders last year when they walked out on a meeting with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon in protest. ADVERTISEMENT More than 200 applications for customary marine title are making their way through the courts. Under the amendment bill, any court decisions issued after 25 July 2024, will need to be reconsidered. That would appear to cover seven cases, involving various iwi from around the country. "I understand their frustration over that," Goldsmith said. "But we believe it is very important to get this right, because it affects the whole of New Zealand." Goldsmith said the government had set aside about $15 million to cover the additional legal costs. The Marine and Coastal Area Act was originally passed by the National-led government in 2011, replacing the controversial Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, which had extinguished Māori customary rights in favour of Crown ownership. The 2004 law, introduced by Helen Clark's Labour government, provoked widespread protest and led to the creation of the Māori Party, now known as Te Pāti Māori. National's 2011 replacement declared that no one owned the foreshore and seabed but allowed Māori groups to seek recognition of their rights - or "Customary Marine Title" - through the courts or in direct negotiations with the Crown. ADVERTISEMENT Customary title recognises exclusive Māori rights to parts of the foreshore and seabed, provided certain legal tests are met, including proving continuous and "exclusive" use of the area since 1840 without substantial interruption. The 2023 Court of Appeal ruling, however, declared that groups only needed to show they had enough control over the area that they could keep others from using it, and that situations where the law itself had prevented them from doing so could be ignored. The Supreme Court subsequently overturned that and said the Court of Appeal had taken an unduly narrow approach in its interpretation.
Scoop
12 hours ago
- Scoop
Government Forges Ahead With Foreshore And Seabed Law
The government is forging ahead with plans to change the law governing New Zealand's foreshore and seabed, despite a Supreme Court ruling last year that appeared to undercut the rationale for the change. The proposed legislation stems from a clause in National's coalition deal with NZ First, which promised to revisit the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. That commitment was driven by fears that a 2023 Court of Appeal decision could have made it significantly easier for Māori groups to win recognition of customary rights over parts of the coastline. The government introduced a bill to Parliament last year to prevent that, but it hit pause in December after the Supreme Court effectively overturned the earlier ruling. At the time, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith welcomed the development and said ministers would take time to reassess their plans. On Tuesday, Goldsmith confirmed to RNZ that Cabinet had agreed to press ahead with the law change regardless and to pass it before October. "Everybody in New Zealand has an interest in what goes on in the coastline, and we're trying our best to get that balance right." Goldsmith said he was not convinced that last year's Supreme Court ruling had set a high enough test for judging whether customary rights should be granted. "We've had a couple of cases that have been decided since then - which have shown almost 100 percent of the coastline and those areas being granted customary marine title - which confirmed to us that the Supreme Court test still didn't achieve the balance that we think the legislation set out to achieve." Asked whether he expected an upswell of protest, Goldsmith said that had been an earlier concern but: "time will tell". "There's been a wide variety of views, some in favour, some against, but we think this is the right thing to do." The legislation was one of the key objections raised by Ngāpuhi leaders last year when they walked out on a meeting with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon in protest. More than 200 applications for customary marine title are making their way through the courts. Under the amendment bill, any court decisions issued after 25 July 2024, will need to be reconsidered. That would appear to cover seven cases, involving various iwi from around the country. "I understand their frustration over that," Goldsmith said. "But we believe it is very important to get this right, because it affects the whole of New Zealand." Goldsmith said the government had set aside about $15 million to cover the additional legal costs. The Marine and Coastal Area Act was originally passed by the National-led government in 2011, replacing the controversial Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, which had extinguished Māori customary rights in favour of Crown ownership. The 2004 law - introduced by Helen Clark's Labour government - provoked widespread protest and led to the creation of the Māori Party, now known as Te Pāti Māori. National's 2011 replacement declared that no one owned the foreshore and seabed but allowed Māori groups to seek recognition of their rights - or "Customary Marine Title" - through the courts or in direct negotiations with the Crown. Customary title recognises exclusive Māori rights to parts of the foreshore and seabed, provided certain legal tests are met, including proving continuous and "exclusive" use of the area since 1840 without substantial interruption. The 2023 Court of Appeal ruling, however, declared that groups only needed to show they had enough control over the area that they could keep others from using it, and that situations where the law itself had prevented them from doing so could be ignored. The Supreme Court subsequently overturned that and said the Court of Appeal had taken an unduly narrow approach in its interpretation.
Newsroom
13 hours ago
- Newsroom
Government forges ahead with foreshore and seabed law
This story first appeared on RNZ and is republished with permission The government is forging ahead with plans to change the law governing New Zealand's foreshore and seabed, despite a Supreme Court ruling last year that appeared to undercut the rationale for the change. The proposed legislation stems from a clause in National's coalition deal with NZ First, which promised to revisit the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. That commitment was driven by fears that a 2023 Court of Appeal decision could have made it significantly easier for Māori groups to win recognition of customary rights over parts of the coastline. The government introduced a bill to Parliament last year to prevent that, but it hit pause in December after the Supreme Court effectively overturned the earlier ruling. At the time, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith welcomed the development and said ministers would take time to reassess their plans. On Tuesday, Goldsmith confirmed to RNZ that Cabinet had agreed to press ahead with the law change regardless and to pass it before October. 'Everybody in New Zealand has an interest in what goes on in the coastline, and we're trying our best to get that balance right.' Goldsmith said he was not convinced that last year's Supreme Court ruling had set a high enough test for judging whether customary rights should be granted. 'We've had a couple of cases that have been decided since then – which have shown almost 100 percent of the coastline and those areas being granted customary marine title – which confirmed to us that the Supreme Court test still didn't achieve the balance that we think the legislation set out to achieve.' Asked whether he expected an upswell of protest, Goldsmith said that had been an earlier concern but: 'time will tell'. 'There's been a wide variety of views, some in favour, some against, but we think this is the right thing to do.' The legislation was one of the key objections raised by Ngāpuhi leaders last year when they walked out on a meeting with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon in protest. More than 200 applications for customary marine title are making their way through the courts. Under the amendment bill, any court decisions issued after 25 July 2024, will need to be reconsidered. That would appear to cover seven cases, involving various iwi from around the country. 'I understand their frustration over that,' Goldsmith said. 'But we believe it is very important to get this right, because it affects the whole of New Zealand.' Goldsmith said the government had set aside about $15 million to cover the additional legal costs. The Marine and Coastal Area Act was originally passed by the National-led government in 2011, replacing the controversial Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, which had extinguished Māori customary rights in favour of Crown ownership. The 2004 law – introduced by Helen Clark's Labour government – provoked widespread protest and led to the creation of the Māori Party, now known as Te Pāti Māori. National's 2011 replacement declared that no one owned the foreshore and seabed but allowed Māori groups to seek recognition of their rights – or 'Customary Marine Title' – through the courts or in direct negotiations with the Crown. Customary title recognises exclusive Māori rights to parts of the foreshore and seabed, provided certain legal tests are met, including proving continuous and 'exclusive' use of the area since 1840 without substantial interruption. The 2023 Court of Appeal ruling, however, declared that groups only needed to show they had enough control over the area that they could keep others from using it, and that situations where the law itself had prevented them from doing so could be ignored. The Supreme Court subsequently overturned that and said the Court of Appeal had taken an unduly narrow approach in its interpretation.
