Latest news with #ACTParty
RNZ News
11 hours ago
- Politics
- RNZ News
Sentencing reforms introduced cap potential discounts and bring new aggravating factors
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says the sentencing reforms were about restoring real consequences for crime. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii Sentencing reforms which will cap discounts judges can give to an offender and introduce aggravating factors at sentencing, have come into effect as the government targets tougher crime consequences. The Labour Party says the move will only exacerbate an already clogged court system, add huge costs to the taxpayer by increasing the prison population, and will not reduce crime or the number of victims. But Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said the sentencing reforms, which came into effect on Sunday, were about restoring real consequences for crime. Communities and hardworking New Zealanders should not be made to live and work in fear of criminals who had a "flagrant disregard for the law, corrections officers and the general public", he said. "We know that undue leniency has resulted in a loss of public confidence in sentencing, and our justice system as a whole. We had developed a culture of excuses." The tougher stance was part of the government's plan to "restore law and order, which we know is working", he said. "It signals to victims that they deserve justice, and that they are our priority." The changes include: ACT MP Nicole McKee welcomed the new rules saying there had been a steady erosion of public confidence in the justice system. "Offenders faced fewer and shorter prison sentences, while communities paid the price." ACT MP Nicole McKee welcomed the new rules. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone She said police data showed a 134 percent increase in serious assault leading to injury from 2017 to 2023 under "Labour's failed experiment of being kind to criminals". "We've restored Three Strikes , and from today additional measures are coming into force to make the message even clearer." She said the vulnerability of people who worked alone or in a business attached to their home would be "recognised in law" thanks to ACT's coalition agreement to crack down on retail crime with the introduction of the aggravating factors. Labour's spokesperson for Justice Duncan Webb, however, said tough on crime sounded good but did not actually have the effect of reducing crime. "We've got to be smart on crime as well. We've got to address the causes of crime which we know are poverty, family violence, mental illness and addiction, and until we address those, there'll continue to be crime and there'll continue to be victims." Tougher sentences were just one option, he said. "If we're gonna be serious about reducing crime and reducing harm, we've got to address those causes of crime." Labour spokesperson for Justice Duncan Webb said tougher sentences were just one option. Photo: RNZ / Angus Dreaver Evidence showed tough on crime initiatives such as the Three Strikes law, which the government had reinstated, did not reduce victims, Webb said. "Victims are absolutely central to the approach and the best thing we could ever have is avoiding someone becoming a victim and that means addressing the causes of crime before crime occurs. "And absolutely I understand that when people are victims of crime they want to see the perpetrator punished and that's the right thing to happen, but I'd rather see the appropriate amount of resources put into mental health, reducing poverty, [and] eliminating homelessness, because those are things that create crime and we've seen them all increase under this government." The fact white collar crime such as fraud - which was one of the few crimes that responded to deterrents - was not captured by Three Strikes was inconsistent, Webb said. Webb said he had sought feedback from those in the social services, intervention, and criminal justice sectors. "They're all frustrated with the fact the direction that's being taken is going to clog up the courts, it's going to create more offenders, it's going to create more victims and it's not actually going to address what we really want to address which is the things that cause crime." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
1News
4 days ago
- Politics
- 1News
David Seymour's posts raise questions about what's OK to say online
Deputy Prime Minister and ACT Party leader David Seymour says he is being "playful" and having "fun" with his "Victim of the Day" social media posts, targeting opponents of his Regulatory Standards Bill. Massey University lecturer Kevin Veale takes a look at when a joke isn't a joke. But the posts – which have singled out academics and MPs who have criticised or made select committee submissions against the bill, accusing them of suffering from "Regulatory Standards Derangement Syndrome" – have now led to at least two official complaints to Cabinet. Wellington City mayor Tory Whanau has alleged they amounted to "online harassment and intimidation" against academics and were in breach of the Cabinet Manual rules for ministers. According to the manual, ministers should behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical and behavioural standards. This includes exercising a professional approach and good judgement in their interactions with the public, staff, and officials, and in all their communications, personal and professional. Academic Anne Salmond, one of those targeted by the posts, has also alleged Seymour breached the behaviour standards set out by the manual. According to Salmond: ADVERTISEMENT This "Victim of the Day" campaign does not match this description. It is unethical, unprofessional and potentially dangerous to those targeted. Debate is fine, online incitements are not. When is a joke not a joke? Seymour's claim he was being "playful" while using his platform to criticise individuals follows a pattern of targeting critics while deflecting criticism of his own behaviour. For example, in 2022 Seymour demanded an apology from Māori Party co-leader Rawiri Waititi, after Waititi earlier joked about poisoning Seymour with karaka berries. At the time, Seymour said: "I'm genuinely concerned that the next step is that some slightly more radical person doesn't think it's a joke." Te Pāti Māori co-leaders Rawiri Waititi and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer. (Source: 1News) But the same year, Seymour defended Tauranga by-election candidate Cameron Luxton's joke that the city's commission chair Anne Tolley was like Marie Antoinette and should be beheaded. ADVERTISEMENT In 2023, Seymour joked about abolishing the Ministry of Pacific Peoples: In my fantasy, we'd send a guy called Guy Fawkes in there and it'd be all over, but we'll probably have to have a more formal approach than that. Māori researcher and advocate Tina Ngata criticised Seymour's argument that he was joking: Calling it a joke does not make it any less white-supremacist. What it does is point to the fact that in David Seymour's mind, violence against Pacific peoples is so normalised, that he can make a joke out of it […] but he's not any person is he? He is a politician, a leader of a political party, with a significant platform and the means and opportunities to advance that normalised violence into policy and legislation. Designed to silence An analysis of Seymour's recent social media posts by researcher Sanjana Hattotuwa at the Disinformation Project has argued they have the potential to lead to online harassment, saying they are: "Designed to silence opposition to the controversial Regulatory Standards Bill whilst maintaining plausible deniability about the resulting harassment, harms and hate." The "Victims of the Day" posts about Anne Salmond and former Green leader Metiria Turei were textbook examples of "technology-facilitated gender-based violence and online misogyny", Hattotuwa argued. And the use of the term "derangement" framed academic criticism as a mental disorder – undermining expertise. As my own research shows, online harassment and violent rhetoric can raise the chances of real-world violence. ADVERTISEMENT Since the early 2000s, researchers have used the term "stochastic terrorism" to describe a way of indirectly threatening people. Nobody is specifically told "harm these people", so the person putting them at risk has plausible deniability. Seymour is already aware of these dynamics, as shown by his demand for an apology from Waititi over the karaka berry poisoning "joke". Free speech for who? Seymour and ACT have long presented themselves as champions of free speech: Freedom of expression is one of the most important values our society has. We can only solve our most pressing problems in an open society in which free thought and open enquiry are encouraged. By going after critics of the Regulatory Standards Bill, Seymour may only be ridiculing speech he does not like. But he has taken things further in the past. In 2023, he criticised poet Tusiata Avia for her poem "Savage Coloniser Pantoum", which Seymour said was racist and would incite racially motivated violence. He made demands that the government withdraw NZ$107,280 in taxpayer money from the 2023 Auckland Arts Festival in response. ADVERTISEMENT ACT list MP Todd Stephenson also threatened to remove Creative NZ funding after Avia received a Prime Minister's Award for Literary Achievement. Avia said she received death threats after ACT's criticism of her work. ACT MP Todd Stephenson. (Source: Q and A) The more serious purpose of saying something contentious is "just a joke" is to portray those who disagree as humourless and not deserving to be taken seriously. ACT's "Victim of the Day" campaign does something similar in attempting to discredit serious critics of the Regulatory Standards Bill by mocking them. But in the end, we have to be alert to the potential political double standard: harmless jokes for me, but not for you. Dangerous threats from you, but not from me. Author: Kevin Veale is a Senior Lecturer in Media Studies, part of the Digital Cultures Laboratory in the School of Humanities, Media, and Creative Communication at Massey University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. ADVERTISEMENT
RNZ News
4 days ago
- Politics
- RNZ News
Regulatory Standards Bill: 30 hours allocated for public submissions on Act Party leader's bill
David Seymour also hit out at online campaigns denouncing the bill. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii ACT Party Leader David Seymour is defending the Regulatory Standards Bill getting only 30 hours of public submissions allocated. Te Ao Māori News has reported the Finance and Expenditure Committee made the decision to allocated a maximum of 30 hours for public submissions on the Regulatory Standards Bill. Submission on the bill closed on Monday, which has been introduced to Parliament in various forms on three separate occasions; first in 2006, then 2011 and 2021. Speaking to media, Seymour said the bill was "probably the most consulted on bill this century" given it would be the bill's fourth time through the house. But, Labour's Regulation spokesperson Duncan Webb said it was the "most rejected bill we've ever seen" and Seymour wanted to "slip it through under the radar". Seymour said the point of select committee was to get information to the committee so they could write better a bill, not a "referendum". "There's never been a bill that has had more consultation, more study, more debates, more deliberation this century than the Regulatory Standards Bill," Seymour said. "If people really believe that 30 hours is not enough time to hear all valid views about it, then I don't think they're taking it seriously." The ACT leader also hit out at online campaigns denouncing the bill and providing guides on how to make a submission - particularly from Greenpeace. "Let's be honest, most of these people who have submitted have gone and clicked on a series of false statements put out by the likes of Greenpeace, and that's all they've done," Seymour said. "These are not people that have read the bill or have something to say about it. So, if the idea is that because basically, Greenpeace ran an email recruitment campaign, there should be more listening, I don't think that's true." In response, Greenpeace spokesperson Gen Toop said Seymour comments were a "pathetic attempt" to "delegitimise" opposition to the bill. "Seymour has gone from calling people bots to smearing academics , and now he's trying to sideline people who have turned to trusted civil society organisations like Greenpeace to assist them in having their voices heard," Toop said. Toop said it was a "travesty" that there would only be 30 hours for people to be heard in by Select Committee and the bill would insert "far-right ideology" into the law making process. "Everyone deserves to have their voices heard on this bill, whether they had help with their submission or not," Toop said. Opponents could be summed up as "never have so many, been riled up, by so few, over so little substance," Seymour said. "I don't believe there's ever been a bill in this Parliament where every single written submission has been heard. A lot of people make written submissions and they ask not to be heard. That's normal." Seymour said. Duncan Webb. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Labour's Duncan Webb said the bill had so far been "rejected every time" and Seymour did not want the bill to go through a full process. "He wants to slip it through under the radar. It's ridiculous. He's got a truncated select committee process. It should be heard fully. There are thousands of people who want to be heard," Webb said. "I like to think we live in a democracy where we give as many people as much voice as we can." Webb said there would be too many submission to go through the process "indefinitely" but 30 hours was "derisory" and "insulting". "It's undermining of people having a decent voice." Asked how long public submission should go for, Webb said 100 hours for the Fast Track Bill and 80 for the Treaty Principles Bill was an "indication". Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
5 days ago
- Politics
- RNZ News
Playful or harmful? David Seymour's posts raise questions about what's OK to say online
By Kevin Veale* of David Seymour's claim he was being "playful" while using his platform to criticise individuals follows a pattern of targeting critics while deflecting criticism of his own behaviour. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii Deputy Prime Minister and ACT Party leader David Seymour says he is being "playful" and having "fun" with his "Victim of the Day" social media posts, targeting opponents of his Regulatory Standards Bill . But the posts - which have singled out academics and MPs who have criticised or made select committee submissions against the bill, accusing them of suffering from "Regulatory Standards Derangement Syndrome" - have now led to at least two official complaints to Cabinet. Wellington City mayor Tory Whanau has alleged they amounted to "online harassment and intimidation" against academics and were in breach of the Cabinet Manual rules for ministers. According to the manual, ministers should "behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical and behavioural standards. This includes exercising a professional approach and good judgement in their interactions with the public, staff, and officials, and in all their communications, personal and professional". Academic Anne Salmond, one of those targeted by the posts, has also alleged Seymour breached the behaviour standards set out by the manual. According to Salmond: "This "Victim of the Day" campaign does not match this description. It is unethical, unprofessional and potentially dangerous to those targeted. Debate is fine, online incitements are not". Dame Anne Salmond says the posts are unethical, unprofessional and potentially dangerous to those targeted. Photo: Claire Concannon / RNZ Seymour's claim he was being "playful" while using his platform to criticise individuals follows a pattern of targeting critics while deflecting criticism of his own behaviour. For example, in 2022 Seymour demanded an apology from Māori Party co-leader Rawiri Waititi, after Waititi earlier joked about poisoning Seymour with karaka berries. At the time, Seymour said: "I'm genuinely concerned that the next step is that some slightly more radical person doesn't think it's a joke." But the same year, Seymour defended Tauranga by-election candidate Cameron Luxton's joke that the city's commission chair Anne Tolley was like Marie Antoinette and should be beheaded. In 2023, Seymour joked about abolishing the Ministry of Pacific Peoples: "In my fantasy, we'd send a guy called Guy Fawkes in there and it'd be all over, but we'll probably have to have a more formal approach than that." Māori researcher and advocate Tina Ngata criticised Seymour's argument that he was joking: "Calling it a joke does not make it any less white-supremacist. What it does is point to the fact that in David Seymour's mind, violence against Pacific peoples is so normalised, that he can make a joke out of it but he's not any person is he? He is a politician, a leader of a political party, with a significant platform and the means and opportunities to advance that normalised violence into policy and legislation." An analysis of Seymour's recent social media posts by researcher Sanjana Hattotuwa at the Disinformation Project has argued they have the potential to lead to online harassment, saying they are: "designed to silence opposition to the controversial Regulatory Standards Bill whilst maintaining plausible deniability about the resulting harassment, harms and hate. The "Victims of the Day" posts about Anne Salmond and former Green leader Metiria Turei were textbook examples of "technology-facilitated gender-based violence and online misogyny", Hattotuwa argued. And the use of the term "derangement" framed academic criticism as a mental disorder - undermining expertise. As my own research shows, online harassment and violent rhetoric can raise the chances of real-world violence. Since the early 2000s, researchers have used the term "stochastic terrorism" to describe a way of indirectly threatening people. Nobody is specifically told "harm these people", so the person putting them at risk has plausible deniability. Seymour is already aware of these dynamics, as shown by his demand for an apology from Waititi over the karaka berry poisoning "joke". Tusiata Avia Photo: The Arts Foundation Te Tumu Toi Seymour and ACT have long presented themselves as champions of free speech: "Freedom of expression is one of the most important values our society has. We can only solve our most pressing problems in an open society in which free thought and open enquiry are encouraged." By going after critics of the Regulatory Standards Bill, Seymour may only be ridiculing speech he does not like. But he has taken things further in the past. In 2023, he criticised poet Tusiata Avia for her poem Savage Coloniser Pantoum , which Seymour said was racist and would incite racially motivated violence. He made demands that the government withdraw NZ$107,280 in taxpayer money from the 2023 Auckland Arts Festival in response. ACT list MP Todd Stephenson also threatened to remove Creative NZ funding after Avia received a Prime Minister's Award for Literary Achievement. Avia said she received death threats after ACT's criticism of her work. The more serious purpose of saying something contentious is "just a joke" is to portray those who disagree as humourless and not deserving to be taken seriously. ACT's "Victim of the Day" campaign does something similar in attempting to discredit serious critics of the Regulatory Standards Bill by mocking them. But in the end, we have to be alert to the potential political double standard: harmless jokes for me, but not for you. Dangerous threats from you, but not from me. * Kevin Veale is Senior Lecturer in Media Studies, part of the Digital Cultures Laboratory in the School of Humanities, Media, and Creative Communication, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa - Massey University.
RNZ News
5 days ago
- Politics
- RNZ News
David Seymour rejects claim Regulatory Standards Bill 'set up for his mates'
Labour MP Willie Jackson believed the bill would invite "big business" into the country and take away "community input". Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Labour MP Willie Jackson says he does not "acknowledge", "believe" or "trust" that the Regulatory Standards Bill won't give corporations more power, despite a clause saying it would not impose legal obligations. But ACT Leader David Seymour said Jackson was wrong and "muddying" the waters. In recent days, Seymour HAS made a series of social media posts singling out prominent opponents of the Bill, and accusing them of suffering from "Regulatory Standards Derangement Syndrome ." His targets included Jackson along with academics such as Dame Anne Salmond, Dr George Laking, and Metiria Turei. Wellington mayor Tory Whanau accused Seymour of setting a "dangerous precedent" for how dissenting voices were treated, and laid a formal complaint with the Prime Minister. On Monday, standing in for Christopher Luxon at a post-Cabinet press conference, Seymour dismissed the criticism, and accused the opponents of the bill of making incorrect statements. Speaking to media, Jackson said the bill was set up for "David Seymour's mates" and would invite "big business" into New Zealand while taking away "community input". "It's shocking, the way that he's just incorporated ACT values, libertarian values, at the expense of community values, Māaori values, New Zealand values, it's a shocking bill," Jackson said. Clause 24 of the bill stated that the Act "does not confer a legal right or impose a legal obligation on any person that is enforceable in a court of law". Asked if he acknowledged the bill would not impose legal obligations on people, Jackson said he still did not believe the bill nor Seymour, its architect. "You can tell me what you think. I'll tell you what I think, and that he wants to bring in Act libertarian values. He wants to bring in corporations on boards. He wants to ignore communities. He wants to ignore Māori. He wants to ignore your average New Zealander. "No, don't acknowledge it. Don't believe it. Don't trust it." Jackson said. Speaking to reporters, Seymour said the bill was very clear. David Seymour introduced the Regulatory Standards Bill. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii "It requires makers of laws to be transparent to Parliament what their law does and who it affects." "But it is also explicit that the regulatory standards bill... says that it does not give anybody any additional legal rights." Seymour said people "muddying the water" with misinformation were either not capable of understanding the law or deliberately making mischief. "It's not up to Willie Jackson to interpret the law. It's up to the courts, and I suspect that when they see in black and white, there are no additional legal rights." "The purpose of this law is to increase transparency to Parliament.... the good news is, I don't think Willie Jackson is going to become a judge anytime soon." Seymour said. Seymour said he had taken advice about the "likely" interpretation by the courts and was satisfied there would be a strong guide for lawmakers. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
