Latest news with #DavidHarvey
RNZ News
08-07-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
Watch live: Taxpayers Union, Māori data scientist among Regulatory Standards Bill submitters
Day two of hearings for the Regulatory Standards Bill is underway at Parliament, with MPs from the Finance and Expenditure committee hearing arguments in opposition and support of what has been dubbed by some the Treaty Principles Bill 2.0 . Some have called it a "procedural" Bill that looks to introduce the concept of good lawmaking. Others have raised concerns around the failure to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi. A former ACT MP has given a scathing rebuke of the "economic dogma" it represents. Submissions continue on Tuesday afternoon and over the following two days. A small group has gathered outside parliament calling themselves 'The Peoples Committee' to provide a space for those who haven't received formal speaking slots to make their case. Retired judge David Harvey spoke in support of the bill, because it introduces the concept of "good lawmaking". Harvey said every piece of legislation involved some form of erosion or interference with "individual or corporate liberty." He argued that it wasn't a "constitutional" bill, an argument he claimed had been reported or published, and that it was in fact "procedural." "It can be amended. It can be repealed by subsequent governments, and it can, like the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 be ignored in the legislative process. Jordan Williams of the Taxpayers Union was one of the submitters on Tuesday. Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly "The only thing is that, if it is going to be ignored, those who are responsible for ignoring it are going to have to stand up and say, why." Harvey also said the bill should reference Te Tiriti o Waitangi because it involved elements of governance and of "equal application of the law." He didn't know how that should be done within the scope of the bill, but said there should be "some recognition of the Treaty." A leading Māori data scientist argued the bill "fundamentally fails to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi". Te Kahui Raraunga's Kirikowhai Mikaere told the committee it disregarded the collective rights and aspirations of iwi Māori and prioritised private property and corporate interests over public good, environmental protection and the wellbeing of iwi Māori. She said the privileging of individual and corporate rights would have a "negative and long term impact" when it came to the data landscape of the country. She also said it would risk the "very delicate social license" of trust the country had of its own data system. "Data is not only a strategic asset, and what we know to be probably the biggest commercial asset in the world, it is a national asset for New Zealand, and what we recognise is this bill puts at jeopardy that national asset." Mikaere argued the Bill had also failed to honour Te Tiriti principles of partnership and participation in its creation. "Even the way that the bill was crafted, was in isolation of Te Tiriti partners. "Going forward, it reflects the values of and priorities of a very small number of New Zealanders." The Taxpayers Union argued New Zealand's poor quality regulations was one thing holding back the country's economy. Executive director Jordan Williams said the Bill was a "litmus test" for whether the government was serious about getting New Zealand back into the "status of the first world economy and with first world living standards." Williams said the bill was primarily about transparency. "The bill is, in effect, an information disclosure regime. "It does not obviously tie the hands of Parliament, other than forcing lawmakers to turn their minds to cost trade offs and regulatory takings, among other things." Williams said it was an "encapsulation" of what used to be seen as "just good law making." He challenged the MPs listening, saying one of their key roles as an MP was to uphold the rule of law. "Frankly, if you vote against a bill that requires disclosure of the rule of law implications of proposed legislation, I'd put to you that that is a failing of what is traditionally a duty of being a public representative in Parliament." Ray Deacon, an economist for the group who also submitted, added the "economic cost of poor legislation is enormous." "There has been no plan to assess the quality of legislation. There has been no plan to improve the quality of legislation. Therefore, there has been no plan to reduce the economic cost of redundant, ineffective or poorly implemented regulation." He argued there had been an ad hoc approach to reviewing and amending legislation and only when it was impossible to ignore. "This bill provides the legal structure for assessing the quality of existing legislation. This has to be worth something." A former member of Parliament for the ACT party gave a scathing rebuke of historical legislation she said had ripped apart New Zealand's collective strength. In opposing the bill, Donna Awatere Huata referenced the State Sector Act which "turned our public service into a business." She said the Reserve Bank Act legislated that "inflation matters more than jobs, more than housing, more than food on the table, more than anything." Huata said the Public Finance Act "made our children invisible unless they could be turned into an output." She told the committee the Fiscal Responsibility Act "made caring a liability." "These laws have got to go. They are not neutral. They slash jobs without a single thought of the devastation to families pushed us into unsafe homes, or worse, into cars or the streets. "They gouged fairness and equality, tore the spirit from our public life, recreating the misery and hatred of the poor of 19th century Britain." Huata argued the Regulatory Standards Bill would take "the economic dogma that caused this harm" and elevate it into "constitutional doctrine." "It would make it almost impossible to rebuild, to fix the broken systems, to honor Te Tiriti o Waitangi, to re-weave tikanga into public life. "It would allow courts to override our voices, your voice, my voice, the voice of community, of collective care." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
NZ Herald
10-06-2025
- Business
- NZ Herald
Law & Society: Retroactive laws, real-time consequences
David Harvey: "Citizens lose confidence in the fairness and integrity of the legal system when laws can be changed after the fact to alter rights and obligations." Photo / Getty Images The courts and judges have come in for criticism of late. Roger Partridge of the New Zealand Initiative was critical late last year of recent decisions of the Supreme Court in a lengthy paper entitled 'Who makes the law?' – the obvious answer being Parliament. New Zealand First MP Shane Jones, likewise was personally critical of a High Court judge last year and 'had words' with the Attorney-General Judith Collins about his comments. Last month at a Law Association lunch, Jones criticised what he called the 'Americanisation' of the judiciary and of judicial activism, arguing it is Parliament that is sovereign. But what happens when Parliament itself travels outside its lane? What remedies are there for legislative overreach when Parliament is sovereign? An amendment to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act has been introduced. The act prescribes a number of circumstances where financiers have a duty of disclosure to customers. If disclosure rules are breached, the lender forfeits interest rates and fees on the transaction. Two banks, ANZ and ASB, failed to make proper disclosure and are subject to claims on behalf of 173,000 customers – a sizable cohort. Court proceedings are well under way. The amendment is retrospective in that it is designed to minimise the liability of the banks for actions that were unlawful at the time. So Parliament retrospectively cures their unlawful acts and the 173,000 potential claimants lose out. Parliament can do anything it likes, according to Jones. The only problem is there are rules about retrospective legislation. Section 12 of the Legislation Act 2019 states very simply: 'Legislation does not have retrospective effect.' The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 also makes it clear there should be no retroactive penalties, though that rule is more applicable to criminal cases. The issue of whether laws have provided retroactive penalties have troubled judges, academics and law students in examinations for some years. One of the core principles of the rule of law is that individuals must be able to know in advance what conduct is legal or illegal. Retrospective laws can punish people for actions that were legal when committed, which violates this predictability. In the case of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance's Act, the retrospective law deprives 173,000 people of a remedy they would have had. Similarly, the retrospective changes to the pay equity process have halted 33 pay equity claims affecting many thousands of workers. Citizens lose confidence in the fairness and integrity of the legal system when laws can be changed after the fact to alter rights and obligations. This can foster fear and uncertainty. Some argue retrospective laws violate fundamental human rights and democratic principles, as they remove the ability of individuals to make informed choices based on existing laws. Although retrospective laws are generally discouraged, there are rare cases where they are justified – such as when correcting legal loopholes or addressing past injustices. However, they remain controversial and should be used with extreme caution. Is there a remedy for this overreach? No, other than by way of the ballot box. We have no overriding constitution. We have no court that can say Parliament is in breach of the rules and challenging a fundamental premise of the rule of law and that changes such as those to the credit act and pay equity regime are 'unconstitutional'. But perhaps the problem is deeper. Perhaps we rely on Parliament too much to solve our problems. When a problem comes up it seems the government is the first port of call. Perhaps if there was less reliance on Parliament 'fixing' things, the risk of retrospective laws would be much smaller.
National Business Review
24-05-2025
- Politics
- National Business Review
Defending democracy: First define your target
The state of democracy in the West remains a hot topic. Undoubtedly, the election of President Donald Trump in the United States and rising support for conservative nationalist parties in Europe have upset many. But the malaise goes much deeper. The other end of the political spectrum also rallies around causes that undermine the liberal democratic tradition. Accusations of authoritarian tendencies resemble a mirror game, with both sides being guilty of each other's actions. Publishers have responded with volumes on everything from the loss of trust and tolerance to polarisation and outright rejection. Even the judicial system is under attack. The Chief Justice, Dame Helen Winkelmann, raised the alarm against critics. Some supported her, implying these were personal attacks. Retired District Court Judge David Harvey. Retired Judge David Harvey has brought legal commentary and dispute to the wider public through his columns and blogs. He defends the rights of critics who oppose the judiciary's introduction of elements such as tikanga into the law. 'Criticism of a decision is quite a distance from personal criticism of a judge. It is perfectly legitimate for a judicial decision to be critiqued,' Harvey wrote. Personal attacks To clarify, he names those critics, who were not identified in one article on personal attacks. They will be familiar to NBR subscribers. Roger Partridge, chairman and co-founder of the New Zealand Initiative; Auckland lawyer Gary Judd KC; and Auckland barrister Warren Pyke. These debates are likely to be more common. Harvey has touched a nerve with his views that rulings from the bench, compared with earlier decades, are less in touch with public opinion. The term 'judicial activism' is used to describe how the courts, once upholders of liberal establishment values, have evolved into enforcers of concepts such as 'social justice' and 'human rights'. In other words, majoritarian democracies were being overruled by unelected graduates of law schools that taught radical ideas on the environment, identity politics, and human rights. When former Otago University law professor James Allan, a Canadian, first aired these concerns in Democracy in Decline (2014), he was considered a fringe conservative. Now, they are a core belief in efforts to redefine democratic principles as those made in Parliament, not in the courts. Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Sir Kenneth Keith. Two leading jurists, Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Sir Kenneth Keith, both had books published this year espousing what Allan, now at the University of Queensland, would consider a constitutional coup to overthrow parliamentary sovereignty. The pushback on the 'judicialisation of politics' has been expressed at the local level by an Otago graduate, Natasha Hamilton-Hart, who is director of the NZ Asia Institute at the University of Auckland. She says it's been a 30-year mission to bring back parliamentary control and accountability to tribunals, courts and quasi-judicial panels of experts. Clear voice One clear voice on these issues is Lord Jonathan Sumption, a former Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and a non-permanent judge of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, from which he resigned last year. In his pre-legal career, Sumption was a medieval historian (his multi-volume history of the 100 Years' War is still in progress after starting in 1990). In the 1970s, before joining the Supreme Court, he was a founder with Margaret Thatcher of the Centre for Policy Studies, the think tank that propounded the neoliberalism that once dominated Western politics. His latest book, The Challenges of Democracy: And the Rule of Law, is a collection of lectures. Its remarkable feature, and one that explodes the myth of New Zealand's exceptionality, is that it could easily be just about this country. The insights remove much of the 'noise' about political discourse, and instead focus on how a democracy functions, and ways to protect it. The threats are real enough. The Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index is at its lowest in decades. One reason is the appeal of authoritarianism, which is reflected in what Sumption calls the moral absolutism of the 'new Roundheads' in the universities, public service and the media. Several reasons He then addresses the causes of disillusionment with democracy. One is the role of representation, which is less about the quality of politicians than that they become part of a professional class. They then become less truly representative of their electors. 'Success in government requires high levels of intelligence, judgment and application. These qualities are uncommon, which means that democracies are in reality removable aristocracies of knowledge.' This elitism is never popular and is a scourge of democratic politics. A second problem is the unrealistically high expectations of voters. Increasingly, they expect the state to solve every problem. While it can do many more things than in the past, it can't do everything. 'Governments can create the conditions for prosperity and remove artificial barriers to prosperity, but they cannot create prosperity.' Worse, politicians are expected to promise the undeliverable and are then damned for failing to deliver it. Lord Jonathan Sumption. 'The result is to undermine the trust in institutions that is indispensable in any state not founded on mere force,' Sumption continues. In the UK, this applies to the National Health Service, the housing shortage and controlling crime. Ditto for New Zealand. Major problems A third reason for the declining appeal of democracies is their inability to tackle major problems, precisely because they are democracies. Here, Sumption cites perennially high house prices due to voters favouring planning restrictions and environmental regulation. Democracies also face the inability to finance welfare payments such as pensions when populations are ageing and the proportion of taxpayers to pay for them is decreasing. 'Any solution to the problem will be electorally unpopular, especially among older voters who are assiduous voters …' Climate change is yet another insolvable problem. 'Dealing with climate change will almost certainly involve reducing consumption, which will be hard to sell in a democracy.' Sumption then adds: 'The electoral kickback has already begun.' None of this is news to New Zealanders; nor are other issues such as student loan repayments, immigration restrictions, racial tensions, transgender rights, or foreign affairs. 'Democracy has a natural tendency to create interest groups for whom the preservation of their current advantages or the acquisition of new ones are the dominant factors in their political choices.' Main threats The main threats to democracy are economic insecurity, fear and intolerance. Sumption rejects inequality as inhibiting economic progress. In his think-tank years, Sumption co-authored Equality (1979) with Thatcher's economic minister, Sir Keith Joseph, and hasn't changed his mind that 'tax the rich' policies reduce capitalism's growth dynamics and therefore limit income-generation. While extremes can be socially disruptive, they are more likely when economic growth falters. Fear arises when people think an authoritarian regime offers more security. Sumption, as an appeal court judge in Hong Kong, witnessed how easily democratic norms can be undermined without criminal or illegal conduct. He cites Venezuela and Hungary as other examples where determined groups have harassed potential opponents, seized control of the media, exploited constitutional gaps, and run roughshod over political convention. Sumption also suggests complacency and risk-aversion are underlying contributors to fear. Demands that the state protects against all risks inherent in life are more likely to encourage despotic power. 'If we hold governments responsible for everything that goes wrong, they will take away our autonomy so that nothing can go wrong.' Sumption provides insights on the handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, elements of which are still being felt today. Alexis de Tocqueville warned against too much state power. He cites the warning of French political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville from two centuries ago of allowing security as the price of coercive state: 'Such a power … stupefies a people until each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.' Deliberate campaigns Finally, Sumption discusses intolerance, or polarisation. He calls out deliberate campaigns of suppression against politically unfashionable or 'incorrect' opinions, attempts to impose a new vocabulary that favours the campaigners, and generally the 'narrowing of our intellectual world'. This dive into the cultural wars reminds us why the lawyer Philip Crump chose religious martyr Thomas Cranmer as a pseudonym before his identity was outed after a series of columns that eviscerated the Labour Government's Three Waters. Direct action, to Sumption, is an invitation to authoritarian government, because it implicitly rejects the diversity of opinion. 'Those who engage in direct action instinctively feel … the end justifies the means, but they rarely confront the implications of their acts.' The essence of democracy is not consensus, but a common respect for a way to resolve differences. 'The task of a political community is to accommodate them so that we can live together in peace without systematic coercion.' This kind of language, which permeates all the lectures, is a refreshing alternative to the many suggestions of replacing the existing system. Although Aristotle warned that political classes endangered democracy, and many like a system that gets things done, Sumption comes down on the side of leaving decisions to those engaged in compromise and mediation. Even so, his conclusion is pessimistic. He expects the democracy that has existed over the past 200 years will eventually succumb to the human instincts for security, the decline of political tolerance and the rise of moral absolutism. The Challenges of Democracy: And the Rule of Law, by Jonathan Sumption (Profile Books) Nevil Gibson is a former editor-at-large for NBR. He has contributed film and book reviews to various publications. This is supplied content and not commissioned or paid for by NBR.
Time Out
24-04-2025
- Business
- Time Out
Cape winery scoops global award
Cape wine lovers, raise a glass! Hasher Family Wines in the scenic Hemel-en-Aarde Valley has been crowned Winery of the Year at the 2025 London Wine Competition. The boutique estate from the Upper Hemel-en-Aarde Valley near Hermanus wowed an international panel of sommeliers, wine buyers and judges with its Ernest Pinot Noir winning plaudits and the top trophy at the eighth outing for this international wine award. Unlike many other wine shows that focus purely on what's in the glass, the judging at the London Wine Competition also factors in quality, value and packaging. A little bit like we all do when deciding which bottle off the shelf is going to deliver bang for our buck. Hasher's Ernest Pinot Noir impressed the judges with its peppery spice, chewy tannins, and sleek modern design. "Very 'now' modern expressive packaging," noted UK importer David Harvey, while fellow judge Francesco Fronzo praised its complexity and elegant label design. The win is a proud moment for co-owners Frederik and Céline Haspeslagh. The Ernest Pinot Noir – named after their eldest son – reflects the winery's ethos of blending traditional techniques with contemporary flair. "This recognition from the London Wine Competition is a meaningful moment for us," says Celine, co-owner of Hasher Family Wines. "It inspires us to keep sharing our passion with wine lovers across the world. We look forward to welcoming you to the farm and raising a glass of Ernest together." Can't make it to the Hemel-en-Aarde Valley just yet? The estate's Wine Club offers early access to the wines on release, plus free delivery, complimentary estate tastings and invitations to special events on the farm.
Axios
11-02-2025
- Health
- Axios
Trump health info blackout shocks providers
Thousands of webpages containing federal health guidelines and data went dark last week, only for some to reappear over the weekend without clarity on what had been changed or removed — and with disclaimers noting that the pages could be further modified. Why it matters: The removed sites, primarily maintained by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, covered issues like contraception, transgender health and climate change that President Trump and Republicans have repeatedly targeted. The blackout shook health researchers and providers and raised the specter of the Trump administration limiting what public health information Americans can see. The information affected included CDC guidelines for treating sexually transmitted infections, used to know what tests to run and lay out treatment plans, said David Harvey, executive director of the National Coalition of STD Directors. Without access, "people will get sick. And, especially in cases like congenital syphilis where you cannot lose a day to treat, babies will die," he said in a statement. The information has since reappeared. Another affected website is used by clinicians to select birth control after a recent pregnancy. It helps rule out risky options if a patient has a heart condition or even is breastfeeding, physician and public health researcher Jeremy Faust wrote on Substack. State of play: A New York Times analysis found that more than 8,000 webpages across federal websites, including 3,000 from CDC, had been removed since Friday afternoon. Data sets also disappeared: More than 2,200 data sets came offline between President Trump's inauguration and Friday afternoon, according to tallies compiled from a repository of publicly available federal data, and the Internet Archive. Some had been restored as of Sunday. The CDC's website for the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which hosts vaccine recommendations for kids and adults, went down on Friday evening but was back online by Saturday. But references to COVID-19 vaccine and pneumococcal vaccine recommendations approved during ACIP's October meeting that appeared on a version of the recommendations page captured before Trump's inauguration appear to have been removed. CDC webpages now have a banner noting that the website is being modified to comply with new executive orders. The CDC said in a statement that all changes to the Health and Human Services websites are in accordance with President Trump's executive orders that called for an end to federal diversity, equity and inclusion programs and that declared the government will only recognize two sexes, male and female. "The Office of Personnel Management has provided initial guidance on both Executive Orders and HHS and divisions are acting accordingly to execute," CDC said. Scientists, journalists and others who rely on HHS data sets rushed to save data last week, anticipating some of it would disappear. The pace accelerated when word began circulating that the administration would take down government websites not in compliance at the close of business on Friday. The Arizona Public Health Association urged its members to download key information from federal websites. "If you use these resources, don't assume they'll still be there next week or that some archive website will have captured and preserved them — download and save them now before it's too late," the association wrote in a memo released Wednesday. Members of a top advisory board to the CDC also sent a letter to the agency's acting director asking for an explanation of the removal of public health data, Stat reported. Nine out of 12 public health researchers and scientists on the board signed the letter, and they expect to be fired for doing so, they told Stat. The data blackout came after Trump ordered the U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization, signed executive orders targeting transgender health care, and halted many external communications from HHS. A freeze on grants and other federal funding also paralyzed state Medicaid agencies and some health providers until a federal judge halted it. 💭 Our thought bubble: The full extent of changes to federal health information and data may not be know for some time. If the Trump administration removes gender, race or other demographic categories from data sets, it could fundamentally change the data. April Rubin contributed
