Latest news with #TaniaWaikato
NZ Herald
08-07-2025
- Politics
- NZ Herald
Taxpayers' Union, Māori data scientist among Regulatory Standards Bill submitters
RNZ Lawyer Tania Waikato has slammed the Regulatory Standards Bill as a 'blatant and audacious attempt' by the Act Party to 'subvert our democratic processes for their own private gain'. She used her submission to raise the issue of safety following the
The Spinoff
08-07-2025
- Politics
- The Spinoff
Regulatory Standards Bill hearing, day two: ‘Just good law-making' or ‘Act's ideological fetish'?
Day two of select committee hearings into the Regulatory Standards Bill saw submissions from the Taxpayers' Union, Tania Waikato and the Greater Wellington Regional Council. It was another quiet morning in select committee room four on Tuesday, and for the second consecutive day, no committee members from NZ First showed up to hear oral submissions on the Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB). One of the first submitters of the day was former district judge David Harvey, who supported the bill, with the argument that every piece of legislation created comes with the 'erosion or some form of interference with the individual or corporate liberty' – the RSB would fix this. The bill is procedural rather than constitutional, Harvey said, meaning any changes made by the bill can be amended, or the bill itself could be repealed (as the Labour Party has already promised to do if it wins next year's election). When it came to questions, Harvey came into verbal blows with Labour MP Deborah Rusell, who informed him 'I have a PhD in political theory' when he asked her if she was familiar with Jean Rousseau. 'There's no need to patronise me,' Russell told him. 'Nothing like a bit of academic jousting on a Tuesday morning,' committee deputy chair Ryan Hamilton chirped. Up next was Rebekah Graham of Parents of Vision Impaired, who submitted against the bill with the concern that the RSB would slap more red tape onto laws which make a 'positive material difference' to the lives of her members. Such as the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008, which includes an exception which allows the creation of materials in accessible formats, like braille, without needing permission – as copyright is intellectual property, Graham worried the bill would prioritise the rights of copyright holders over the rights of blind New Zealanders. The Taxpayers' Union's executive director Jordan Williams and economist Ray Deacon submitted in favour of the bill, which Williams described as 'an encapsulation of what used to be seen as just good lawmaking'. The bill would not compel compliance with its principles nor does it favour a specific ideology, Deacon said – it just provides more transparency around the creation of laws. Asked by Hamilton why there was so much 'misalignment' in positions on the bill, Williams replied: 'Because it's Act. Because it's off the back of a very contentious bill, the Treaty principles bill. It's really that simple … it's been hijacked by a campaign that piggybacks off an early campaign.' Former Act Party MP Donna Huata began her submission against the bill by reflecting on being a founding member of the party, which she believed was formed with the goal to 'fix the gutting of the common good by Rogernomics and undo the social cruelty of Ruth Richardson's brutal austerity agenda', but 'I was deluded and misled, I was wrong'. Since then, New Zealand had become like 19th century Britain, she said, with the rights of polluters graded over the rights of the environment – and this bill would 'take the economic dogma that caused this harm and elevate it into constitutional doctrine'. Rawiri Wright from Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Ngā Mokopuna told the committee the bill was 'dismissive' of Māori aspirations. Tamariki in kura kaupapa 'outperform' their peers in mainstream schooling when it comes to NCEA, Wright said, yet the bill gives no consideration to the state-funded obligations to the Treaty nor to the notions of collective government, leaving a question mark over how kura kaupapa will operate in a RSB world. 'I cry at the thought of what could be lost, what could be denied to future generations of tamariki and mokpuna Māori,' Wright said. After the lunch break, BusinessNZ's chief economist John Pask told the committee he supported the bill as it would be 'another tool in the toolbox towards improving the quality of regulation'. Pask suggested the reviews published by the regulatory standards board should be reviewed in an annual select committee process, and that regulatory takings should be considered in property compensation. Lawyer Tania Waikato, who was counsel for the Waitangi Tribunal's urgent review into the bill, said the 'influence and control' the RSB would afford to the regulations minister – and the bill's architect – David Seymour would be 'dangerous'. The information gathering powers granted are 'unjustified', and 'raise significant red flags about the introduction of fascism to this country,' she said. Waikato described the 'escalating security risks' the bill has caused for opponents of the bill. She and another activist had their addresses doxxed by 'right-wing extremists' last week, which has led Waikato to hire a security escort – this, along with Seymour's 'victim of the day' social media posts, shows the minister has 'given implicit support to the actions of these extremists' to target experts speaking out against the bill. Legal scholar Eddie Clark argued that, given legislation should not be designed to interfere with our daily lives, and the ministry of regulation has already deemed it unnecessary, the RSB should not be passed. The bill in its current form will not achieve its purpose, Clark warned, and suggested changing the bill's wording from a 'libertarian understanding' to a 'more generally accepted one'. '$20m for the, funnily enough, enhanced bureaucratic process for something that's supposed to cut bureaucracy, [is instead] creating significant bureaucracy,' Clark said. 'So in terms of the bill's own cost-benefit standards, it's actually not clear that the bill itself meets those.' Academic Tina Ngata, who held a people's select committee on the parliament lawns prior to her submission, spoke against the bill in two submissions. As lead advisor for Maranga Mai Working Group, Ngata first spoke to the 'targeted intimidation' of opponents of the bill intended to 'dissuade the public from participating in democratic practice'. A minister 'willing to weaponise the privilege of his public platform' should not possess the political powers afforded by this bill, she said. In her individual submission, Ngata reflected on her hometown Te Araroa, and how 'Ruthanasia' and other 'neo-liberal reforms' had 'economically gutted' the community. She said given this is the third time the Act Party has tried to pass this bill, the government has an issue with 'denial of consent', which could be compared to 'procedural harassment'. Academic Jane Kelsey, one of the bill's most vocal critics, told the committee members in the coalition government they were 'pandering to Act's ideological fetish' by passing this bill. She was concerned about appointments Seymour will make to the regulatory standards board, and whether these will be 'fellow travellers of Act'. 'Are we really going to accept these unelected ideological partisans are those who should be passing judgement on proposed or existing legislation?' Kelsey asked. Greater Wellington Regional Council's Adrienne Staples, Nigel Corry and Thomas Nash told the committee they opposed the bill, as 'we're not sure what the problem is that you're trying to fix'. The bill will create 'legal risks, economic inefficiency, complexity, increased costs to ratepayers' and, at a time when the government is already 'emasculating' the council's ability to work, trying to introduce this bill is 'very frustrating', Staples said. The team of three said they also represented the interests of local iwi. 'I find that [the bill's] abandonment of [the Treaty] is abhorrent, and rather than working in partnership with our indigenous people, we seem to be trying to walk around them,' Staples said. The finance and expenditure committee will resume oral hearings into the bill today at 8.30am.
RNZ News
24-06-2025
- Entertainment
- RNZ News
Whānau Ora launches NZ's longest ever ad urging more Māori to join the Māori roll
The ad features artist and activist Tame Iti (Ngāi Tūhoe) reading a list of names. Photo: Supplied / Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency The Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency has launched the longest ad ever made in Aotearoa urging more Māori to sign up to the Māori Electoral Roll. The ad features artist and activist Tame Iti (Ngāi Tūhoe) alone in a cavernous space reading a 'Māori roll call' of New Zealanders who have recently joined the Māori electoral roll for 30 minutes. Whānau Ora said all people whose names have been read or listed throughout the campaign have explicitly given permission for their name to be publicised. The ad campaign will go out through TV, radio and billboards. Iti said young Māori need to get involved in politics to make change. "It's important for our young people to march, but they must join the call now. We need a political voice, parliament has its place. Now is a moment to call to all whanau, to the people from Te Tai Tokerau down to Te Wai Pounamu. The time is now." Iti's call to enroll was being supported on social media by many high profile Māori from Director Taika Waititi, to lawyer Tania Waikato and comedian Joe Daymond. A billboard that is part of the Whānau Ora campaign. Photo: Supplied / Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency The ad marks the 50th anniversary of the Māori Electoral Option, which allowed Māori to choose which roll they joined. The Electoral Amendment Act, passed in 1975, defined Māori as a person of New Zealand Māori descent. It means anyone who is Māori has the option of enrolling to vote on either the Māori or General roll. Before 1975, the electoral roll a person was on was determined by the percentage of Māori blood they were deemed to have. Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency chairperson Merepeka Raukawa-Tait (Te Arawa) said they wanted to capture the voice of the politically charged young Māori and give them a genuine seat at the table. Merepeka Raukawa-Tait (Te Arawa) says more Māori need to vote. Photo: Merepeka Raukawa Tait "When our people are engaged in the systems that shape their lives, we start to see real change not just politically, but in health, education, and the wellbeing of our whānau. "At the end of the day, this is about M.M.P.; More Māori in Parliament. But that's only going to happen if we can help drive Māori to vote." Tamariki Māori were expected to make up one in three children by the early 2040s, she said. "We must safeguard our rangatahi's future with an electoral roll that centres the political system in te ao Māori. "I believe the Māori roll is our most powerful manifestation of tino-rangatiratanga, or self determination, for people to have their voices heard." Iti said the timing was urgent, but there was a risk if Māori did not get involved. "The Hikoi was an amazing moment from where I came from 50 to 60 years ago, being able to see that personally. The vibration is there, and we need to capture that moment. "We need to believe in ourselves and maintain our mana. We're talking about our mana for the next 20 years, the next 40 years, the next 100 years. We'll be here forever." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Otago Daily Times
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
The Regulatory Standards Bill is an attack on all of us
It is that time again. We have another big parliamentary Bill to submit on, the Regulatory Standards Bill. It is a complicated beast. I know this because I submitted on the discussion document back in December. I was one of the 20,108 not-bot submitters who argued against its complex and contradictory proposals. You might be one of the 76 people who supported the proposals. Good on you for having your say. You and I both get to do it again. I do not know anyone other than Act New Zealand who is providing advice if you are one of the 76 but there is a lot of support if you want to join the 20,000. A major concern is the explicit exclusion of Te Tiriti o Waitangi from the Bill's narrow law-making principles. The Bill excludes Māori perspectives in the law-making process, erodes Māori rights to self-determination and threatens te reo Māori. It perpetuates systemic racism and colonial structures of power. Lawyer Tania Waikato argues the Bill will lead to even greater legal confusion and uncertainty, and undoubtedly more litigation because it discards decades of law on the application of te Tiriti in New Zealand policy and legislation. Even the Ministry of Justice has said the Bill fails to reflect the constitutional importance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The government wants to use the Bill to help it avoid having te Tiriti conversations, but it will only encourage and amplify them. There are other reasons too. The Bill will constrain the regulation and law-making of future governments. All laws and regulations will have to meet a set of principles that idolise individual freedoms and private property rights over everything else. That means, for example, over public services like a good, fit-for-purpose, future-proofed hospital for the South. You do not have to be a hardcore socialist to think public hospitals are a good idea. Or that it is good for governments, even ones we did not vote for, to be able to legislate for the public good over private interests. Academic Jane Kelsey describes this as "metaregulation", where the Bill will regulate the way governments can regulate. Because of this, the Bill has the potential to constrain parliamentary sovereignty, in practice if not in law. What about our environment? The environment has taken some big hits under this government and the Bill will make more of them more likely. Greenpeace is saying it will be harder for the government to address climate change and biodiversity loss. The Bill might require the government to compensate corporations for the impact of protective laws that affect their property. You do not get compensated when the law impacts your property: why should corporations? The Bill encourages deregulation which will compromise the health of the environment. It will encourage exploitation of natural areas and accelerate the loss of endangered species. It is very contradictory. On one hand the government is encouraging more tourists into New Zealand and on the other promoting legislation that puts our most valuable tourism asset, our natural environment, at even greater risk. Some are also arguing the Bill will disproportionately benefit wealthy people, widening the gap between them and everybody else. The Bill will prioritise individual's property rights over workers' rights to secure and safe employment or the rights of vulnerable communities. These are collective services, like social services and infrastructure. Collective services help to keep us working, support the elderly through superannuation, and provide the social safety net. As eroded as these services might be right now, it can still get much worse, for everyone. The Bill proposes having an unelected regulatory standards board appointed by the minister to oversee the regime. This is not a body representing the public. This is an elite group hand-picked by the minister to help put pressure on the government to follow the Bill's prescription. The board will be unelected lobbyists for the Bill's ideology and will not be accountable to voters. The submissions on the Bill close on June 23, so you have 10 more days. There is a good portal on the parliamentary website to make your submission through, so it is easy to do. You do not have to say much and you do not have to know all about the Bill's trickier details. ODT columnist Chris Trotter is right that no Parliament can bind a future one. A future government could, of course, repeal the Bill if it becomes law — but that is not a reason not to fight it. Putting your faith in the good judgement of a future government is, well, not good judgement. We have to keep up our side of our democracy and have our say, even more so as democracy comes under intense attack. Because that is what this Bill represents. It is not just an attack on Māori and te Tiriti. Or just on conservationists. Or just on the social safety net. It is an attack on everyone. ■Metiria Stanton Turei is a senior law lecturer at the University of Otago and a former Green Party MP and co-leader.
RNZ News
26-05-2025
- Business
- RNZ News
Fourth time lucky? ACT's regulatory standards law may finally pass, despite Treaty and legal doubts
By Carwyn Jones of A similar law has been proposed by the ACT Party four times, but this time the party's regulatory wishes may finally come true. Photo: RNZ / REECE BAKER With the ACT Party's Regulatory Standards Bill now before the Finance and Expenditure Committee, having passed its first reading in parliament last week, parallels with the now abandoned Treaty Principles Bill have already been drawn. Lawyer Tania Waikato, who led an urgent Waitangi Tribunal claim before the Bill was introduced, has dubbed it "the Treaty Principles Bill 2.0". The tribunal itself recommended the government "immediately halt [its] advancement". The reasons for the concern lie in the Bill's constitutional implications - which in turn would affect the place of te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi in the nation's legislative framework. Legal experts have warned of the consequences of the bill's broad reach, one arguing it aims to create a "regulatory constitution". Others have suggested the regulatory criteria set out in the bill are highly selective, reflecting a libertarian ideology rather than universally accepted standards of good lawmaking. Perhaps most strikingly, the Ministry for Regulation - itself an ACT Party initiative under the coalition agreement - views the bill as unnecessary because there are more efficient and effective ways of improving the quality of lawmaking. The primary impact of the bill would be to make it harder to enact laws that do not conform with its prescribed criteria. While not binding, in practice those criteria are intended to act as a legislative filter. The fact te Tiriti or its principles are missing from those criteria explains the Waitangi Tribunal's alarm. This is the fourth time since 2006 a similar law has been proposed by the ACT party during different governments. Each version has failed to progress once before parliament. This time, however, a commitment in the coalition agreement between ACT, National and NZ First suggests the Bill could eventually become law - although NZ First leader Winston Peters has signalled his party wants changes to what he calls a "work in progress". The bill in its current form sets out criteria for assessing legislation under the following categories: the rule of law; liberties; taxes, fees and levies; role of the courts; and good lawmaking. All government Bills would include a statement of consistency with the prescribed criteria, with reasons given for any inconsistencies. Government agencies would need to undertake regular reviews for consistency of the legislation they administer. A regulatory standards board would be established to inquire into the consistency of existing legislation and legislation before parliament. The criteria themselves prioritise some rights while overlooking others completely. As well as te Tiriti o Waitangi being conspicuously absent, so are rights recognised in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Currently, both the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and the Bill of Rights Act feature prominently in the existing legislative design guidelines administered by parliament's Legislation Design and Advisory Committee. Those guidelines also cover most of the other criteria selected for the Regulatory Standards Bill. But the Bill's emphasis on the protection of property rights has been criticised for potentially circumventing those existing guidelines. For example, Greenpeace has argued this could interfere with implementing effective environmental protections. Some of these issues were raised in the urgently convened Waitangi Tribunal hearing on 14 May. Claimants were concerned about the lack of consultation with Māori and that the bill's criteria would be used to override te Tiriti rights and block measures designed to promote equity. The tribunal's interim report on 16 May found the Crown had breached the Treaty principles of partnership and active protection of Māori in its development of the bill. Proceeding without meaningful consultation with Māori would be a further breach of those principles, according to the tribunal. However, a full draft of the Bill was not available at the time of the hearing. The tribunal noted, in the absence of a draft Bill, that it was unable to determine the precise prejudice Māori would suffer if the Bill became law. The tribunal also saw the Bill as constitutionally significant. While the Bill's effects may be uncertain, the tribunal found, they "will undoubtedly be felt in the law-making and policy space, are constitutional in nature, and inherently relevant to Māori". According to the tribunal, the Crown had an obligation to engage in targeted consultation with Māori, but it did not do so. That obligation was heightened by the "reasonable concerns" raised by Māori about how the bill might affect the Crown's ability to uphold its Treaty obligations. These concerns also featured heavily in submissions responding to the initial discussion document during the consultation process - although questions remain about how many submissions were actually read and assessed. Despite the tribunal's recommendation that the bill's progress be stopped to allow for meaningful engagement with Māori, Cabinet approved it on 19 May, it was introduced to parliament the same day and debated under urgency on May 23. Submissions to the select committee close on June 23, and many of these concerns will inevitably be aired again. But depending on the committee's recommendations, and if NZ First supports a revised draft, ACT's regulatory wishes may finally come true. * Carwyn Jones is a Honorary Adjunct Professor, Te Kawa a Māui - School of Māori Studies, Te Herenga Waka - Victoria University of Wellington This story was originally published on The Conversation .
