My Response to the Regulatory Standards Bill

 New Zealand has traditionally been considered an egalitarian society, where the emphasis is on equality in social, political, and economic affairs.  Democracy is thought of as "power of the people", a way of governing which depends on the will of the people.

The Regulatory Standards Bill is not compatible with an egalitarian society or democracy, and therefore I oppose it.

Prof Jane Kelsey has described this proposed Bill as being a straight jacket on what governments could do.  It limits how parliament can make laws, putting constraints and rules around what laws Parliament could make.  It requires all laws to be viewed and presented with a libertarian lens, when not all parties who make up the current or future governments are libertarian.

This Bill has already failed to be passed by Parliament three or four times since 2006, because it is a bad piece of law making.  The Treasury has panned this law previously.  The new Ministry of Regulation even calls it a bad piece of law.  None of the laws passed since this coalition came into government have actually even used this proposed law on the legislation they have passed.

I looked into the ACT 2023 Manifesto to see if this proposed Bill had been campaigned on.  It has, and here is the text from the Manifesto:

ACT is proposing a higher standard for new laws and regulation through the introduction of the Regulatory Standards Bill. The Bill, if enacted, would lift the standard of lawmaking by requiring the government of the day to ensure all new laws and regulations are consistent with core principles of good lawmaking. It would require politicians and civil servants ask and answer the right questions when making a law or regulation.

Questions like:

• What is this law for?

• Does another law already address the problem?

• Have the relevant people been consulted?

• Do the benefits of the law outweigh the costs?

• Who pays the costs, and who gets the benefits?

• Are private property rights impaired, and, if so, what is the justification?

What happens if lawmakers don’t comply?

If any group or individual feels a law or regulation has been made without adhering to these principles, they can get a declaration in court that the law was made in a way that’s inconsistent with good lawmaking. That doesn’t cancel the law, but it changes the incentives for politicians and bureaucrats. It says, if you want to make knee-jerk, populist laws without regard for the rights of people they effect, you’re going to rack up a lot of hostile declarations.

How will the Bill be passed?

The Bill as it is written won’t just be passed by a majority of Parliament. The Bill is about improving lawmaking for all New Zealanders so it is important that they have their say to pass it. Like the End of Life Choice Act, it will only become law if the majority of voters vote for it to become law in a referendum. It is the people demanding better standards of lawmaking. It is quasi-constitutional reform designed to honour the inherent dignity of each person, to allow people to do business, and build their farms and their firms to provide for the families and their friends.

ACT’s rationale is this will enable good law making.  Yet, as already stated earlier, the questions ACT uses in their manifesto were not applied to any law making since the coalition was formed, and existing expectations, such as advice from Ministry officials, Treasury, the Attorney General, the Bill of Rights, the Waitangi Tribunal, scientific and academic research, etc also were ignored when drafting and putting through most if not all of the legislation since November 2023.

The sentence in the manifesto about this Bill being a disincentive for politicians making knee-jerk and populist laws is hilarious considering much of this legislation already passed and proposed falls into this definition.

In ACT’s manifesto, it states the Regulatory Standards Bills will only become law if they majority of voters vote for it to become law in a referendum.  Yet when I went to the National - ACT Coalition Agreement, a referendum for the Regulatory Standards Bill is not mentioned.  In the Agreement it says: Legislate to improve the quality of regulation, ensuring that regulatory decisions are based on principles of good law-making and economic efficiency, by passing the Regulatory Standards Act as soon as practicable.  The Coalition Agreement fails to mention a referendum.

ACT is proposing to completely change the way this government and future governments of New Zealand based on the fact they got 8.64% of the votes in the 2023 General Election.  That means 91.36% of the votes did not vote for this change of how our government makes laws.  As New Zealand’s Parliament is a representative institution, this is bad law making to pass a law based on one of the smallest party’s manifestos.

This Bill favours property rights and individual rights, based on libertarian ideology, ignoring society and the collective responsibilities it has.  It neuters Te Tiriti o Waitangi and mutes the Bill of Rights.  Indigenous rights and environmental protections would be bulldozed by the Regulatory Standards Bill.

It would bring power to the Ministry of Regulation over all other Ministries and their Ministers and work, making the Minister of Regulation, currently David Seymour, the most powerful person in New Zealand’s government.  It nullifies the role of parliamentarians in being able to debate and make good law.  This is completely at odds with New Zealand’s egalitarian values and opens up the possibility of corruption.

I am alarmed by the goal of the Regulatory Standards Bill to negate many hard fought for and valid laws and regulations made over many decades.  We have health and safety laws, for example, so that people can be safe in their homes, work places, places of recreation, places of education and more.  

Simple regulations like monitoring what a small child eats at a daycare centre are there in case of allergies or choking.  We have regulations in mining and forestry because of the high toll of injury and death in those sectors.  We have the regulations we have for building products because the last time our government loosened those regulations we ended up with thousands of homes, schools, hospitals and places of work with leaky building syndrome, because we have seen the dire consequences of a fire ripping through a department store, home or guest house, because we have lived the results of a number of earthquakes and floods.  

We need our government to be free to make good, sensible laws to protect people and to ensure they are enabled to lead good lives, because ultimately governments are about people, people who elect governments, who make our economy grow, who pay taxes, who politicians are ultimately answerable to.

I oppose this law in any form.  There are other pieces of legislation and Parliamentary process that could improve how law making is done.

Silence in the face of injustice is complicity with the oppressor.

The ink is not yet dry on the near three week old coalition agreement between the National, ACT and New Zealand First, yet this new government has been beset with protest action across the country.  On the day Parliament resumed, Tuesday 5 December, and all the MPs would be sworn in, iwi with support from Te Pāti Māori, had mobilised thousands of New Zealanders to protest in many towns and cities across the motu.

What was the new Prime Minister Christoper Mark Luxon's response?

"I think it's pretty unfair to be honest, I think the reality is we're in government for a week, we are going to get things going - and for Māori and for non-Māori - and that's what our focus is going to be."

Yet when one looks at the new coalition government's coalition agreement, it appears to be a laundry list of taking things away from Māori as well as repealing everything the former Labour government put in place - including legislation passed when New Zealand First was in coalition with Labour between 2017 and 2020.

So what in the coalition agreement sparked this protest?

• the Māori Health Authority to be abolished.
• co-governance to be removed from the delivery of public services.
• government agency names will be required to be primarily in English.
• a Treaty Principles Bill, based on existing ACT policy, to be introduced.
• rewriting existing legislation to make mentions of the principles of the Treaty more specific.

And that is just the tip of the ice berg.

To boot, it emerged on Wednesday the Minister of Finance, Nicola Willis, was seeking advice on how to disestablish bonuses (which are actually negotiated allowances in Individual and Collective Agreements) for public servants who are proficient in te reo Māori.  These public servant provide something extra to their agency colleagues may not be able to provide, which is why they receive the allowance - so it really does look like a blatant attack on te reo speakers by the new government when they say such things.

On that Tuesday, ACT party leader (and Deputy Prime Minister in waiting for 18 months) David Seymour claimed that the protest focus was unclear, which demonstrated Mr Seymour truly can not read the room, because there was a clear message from the protest:

"This national protest is in direct response to the government changes that seek to rapidly dismantle three generations worth of work under an agenda that blatantly disregards the place of Māori in Aotearoa and looks to marginalise us as Tangata Whenua," the pānui said.

It was not just Māori New Zealanders who attended the protests on that Tuesday.  A cross section of New Zealand society who value Te Tiriti o Waitangi and te reo Māori also joined those protests on Tuesday 5 December.  I even heard an RNZ reporter say they had met someone visiting from Ireland who came to the protest out at Hobsonville in West Auckland to tautoko the kaupapa.

This week there have also been protests against the repealing of the Smokefree Act and the Fair Pay Agreements Act, as well as two large marches on Sunday calling for the government to call for a ceasefire in Gaza.

And this brings me to why I have called this post "Silence in the face of injustice is complicity with the oppressor".

I have not made a post for nearly three years.  Have I always been happy in the last three years with events or government actions?  Hell no, and I supported the previous government.  However, I did not feel the absolute disgust and abhorrence I feel towards the actions of this new government.  I can not "give them a chance" because I can see they are undoing everything that evidence shows we need.  

So I can not be silent in the face of injustice.  I will not be complicit with the oppressor.

This quote, "The oppressor would not be so strong if he did not have accomplices among the oppressed" also speaks to me because I see Māori in the new government become complicit, being accomplices to the detriment of all Māori.

Dr Shane Reti, a medical doctor, a GP, the new Minister of Health, is complicit in his silence over the repeal of the Smokefree Act, considering the huge percentage of Māori, especially in Northland, who smoke and the opposition of his fellow health professionals to repealing the Smokefree Act.  He has earned the moniker of Dr Ciggareti.  Dr Reti will be an accomplice in the demolition ot the Māori Health Authority - explicitly set up to redress the fact that Māori are not on the right side of any health statistic.

Tama Potaka, the new Minister for Māori Crown Relations, Māori Development, Whānau Ora and for Conservation as well as Associate Minister for Housing with Social Housing being his delegation, is also complicit in his silence against the diminishment of te reo Māori by this new government, the attacks on Te Tiriti o Waitangi, disposal of co-governance, and more. 

Matua Winston Peters and Shane Jones have not covered themselves in glory at all during Question Time since the House resumed.

There are other Māori members of the government scattered through ACT and New Zealand First.  New Associate Health Minister Casey Costello is a founding member of the group Hobson's Pledge who oppose pretty much everything Māori and part of the Tax Payers Union (not a union) who are sponsored by British American Tabacco.  None of them are standing up against these measures.  They too are complicit.  They too are accomplices.

A former MP recently posted on X (formerly known as Twitter): Two of these words wasn't used today Kaupapa, Kukupa and Kupapa. #Reo  My response was there are a few kupapa within this government.  To be a kupapa is to be complicit, to be an accomplice.

This quote, "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression" explains the new government.

Back when Pākehā first came to New Zealand, the Māori were the owners of the land, the economic powerhouse, the most educated.  But then colonialism happened, pushing Māori of their land, destroying their economic base, pushing them to the land that was not so prosperous and healthy, forcing urbanisation alongside punishing children who used te reo and alienating generations of Māori from their hāpu and marae.

Fifty-one years ago, on September 14 1972, a group of Māori stood on the steps of Parliament to reclaim their right to te reo Māori.  The land march by the great Dame Whina Cooper followed in 1975, the establishment of the Waitangi Tribunal, then Bastian Point.  Kohanga Reo and Kura Kaupapa were established by iwi.  Te reo Māori was made an offical language of New Zealand in 1987.  The first Treaty settlement happened with Tainui in 1992.  And so much more has happened since then to advance the growth of te reo Māori and address breaches to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and more.

But all these advances threaten some sectors of society.  It threatens those who currently hold the land, who currently have the economic power.  In 2023 they spoke with their cheque books and funded the National, ACT and New Zealand First parties, as well as the astroturf groups associated with the Tax Payers Union (not an actual union).  And enough New Zealanders believed and voted.

Now we are stuck with the Circus Coalition and the three clowns at the top.

Christopher Mark Luxon* claims he will unite New Zealand.  But the ink is not even dry on his coalition deal, it hasn't quite been three weeks and protestors are not willing to be complicit with his government's oppression.

References:

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/503955/prime-minister-christopher-luxon-says-maori-protests-against-government-pretty-unfair

https://newsroom.co.nz/2023/11/24/luxon-coalition-national-act-nz-first-peters/

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/504003/te-reo-maori-govt-seeks-to-halt-extra-pay-for-public-servants-fluent-in-the-language

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/503892/te-pati-maori-calls-for-nationwide-protest-against-government-s-co-governance-policies#:~:text=%22This%20national%20protest%20is%20in,Whenua%2C%22%20the%20p%C4%81nui%20said.

https://newsroom.co.nz/2023/11/14/the-nz-first-mp-picked-for-a-big-future/

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/in-depth/496933/astroturf-accusations-over-we-belong-website-run-by-anti-co-governance-group

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/439960/ex-act-staffer-grant-mclachlan-says-party-created-fake-grassroots-groups

Notes:

* I will be using Christopher Mark Luxon's full name because he is a naughty child in my eyes.

I am back and I have more to say.
 

David Seymour - wet behind the ears, but a worthy opponent

Yesterday I listened to the Prime Minister's Statement for the opening day of Parliament.  I also listened to most of the responses.  Here is a quick overview:

 

Can you tell if he dyes his hair or not?

John Key:  shouty John demonstrated everything that is wrong about the debating chamber with his kindergarten like behaviour and loose version of the facts.  His name calling of Andrew Little was pathetic at best, but to claim that National is the best manager of the economy was a joke considering Bill English has not posted one surplus and our overseas debt has ballooned since National occupied the Treasury Benches in November 2008.  He did go on to outline his intended work for 2015, specifically mentioning the RMA, ISIS, housing, social welfare and education.

 



This guy is not going to let John Key off anything
this year!  It will be death by a thousand cuts by
the time the 2017 election wheels around for Mr
Key - do you think he will last?

Andrew Little: some critics like to call him "Angry Andy", but I saw passion yesterday afternoon.  His use of repetition to drive home points was was evident, especially continually referring to Mr Key and Steven Joyce as the "Masters of the Universe" due to their negotiations of the Sky City Convention Centre.  His attack over the Sabin issue was marred by the interruptions of David Carter, the most inept Speaker ever, who kept warning parliament of his ruling despite Andrew sticking to the ruling.  When this issue came up with other MPs speaking, the stand in Speakers were not so jumpy.  Andrew spoke of the difficulties first home buyers face, that small business needs to be focused on and the fact that many of middle NZ do not find themselves better off under this government.

 

Russel Norman: he spoke in even tones.  His speech was sensible and stacked with statistics, focused firstly on climate change and then inequity and child poverty.  I'm disappointed he has decided to leave parliament during this term. He has added to the texture of the place that made it a better place.

 



He may be 70, but you can't count Winston out yet.

Winston Peters: the newspapers focused on Winston accusing Mr Key of losing and dying his hair, but failed to mention all the other points of his speech in regards to ISIS, the RMA, or the really funny taunting of Gerry Brownlee.  Can anyone explain what's going on between Winston and Gerry currently?

 

Marama Fox: as Te Ururoa Flavell was paying his respects to Ngati Porou elder and scholar Apirana Mahuika, the job fell to Marama, the new co-leader.  While the Maori Party is a part of the Key led government, Marama was not above pointing out where the government was failing in regards to social policy, housing, child poverty and health for low socioeconomic families, Maori and Pacific Islanders in particular.

 

Peter Dunne: this was interesting because there were three key issues that this member of the Key led government also differed greatly with his Prime Minister.  The RMA, approach towards dealing with ISIS and the review of our security departments (GCSB/SIS) all were shown to be issues where they will differ.  Then later in the night he went onto vote in favour of the disastrous Education Act amendments (which blotted his copy book in my opinion).

 



So young.  What will parliament do to him?

Despite David Seymour speaking before Dunne, I've saved him for last because he is the subject of my ire today.

 

Firstly he made a few digs about Winston Peters' age and attempted to rebutt Winston-Salem question "Is the country heading in the right direction? "  Then David explained why ACT would be supporting the government's plans to change the RMA.  He warbled on about how it should all be based on science - physics, biology and chemistry to be precise.  I think he was inferring that taniwha, history and spiritual connections to the land should be ignored.

 

Now let's get some perspective about David and the RMA.  David was born in 1983, the RMA came into service in 1991, so David was 8 years old.  Just to put it in perspective as far as I fit in, I was in 7th form.  I know David is an educated man because he has a Bachelor of Engineering (Electrical and Electronic) and a Bachelor of Arts (Philosophy) which are not easy degrees to get, so he is rather a smart cookie, and David has worked in policy analysis before becoming John Bank's right hand man to get charter schools (aka partnership schools) installed in New Zealand. 

 

But my point here is, all the theory in the world means diddly squat when you put that up against people's real lives and the impact of these RMA changes.  David doesn't get the history, the ethos behind Simon Upton's original philosophy behind the RMA and what it was like trying to build or develop prior to 1991.  He doesn't get how this legislation has protected many aspects of our society and environment in the last 23 years.

 

While I was still at school myself at the time, my dad has stories about how easy it was to do things in one county council, but impossible to do in the next, a mere few kilometres away.  One thing the RMA did was level things out no matter where you were.

 

David thinks that by focusing on science the RMA will open up land for development to build houses.  What he fails to realize is one of the biggest issues blocking houses being built is land banking and I believe any changes to the RMA will increase that issue.

 

But let's move on to what really got my goat - David's comments on education.

 

First he started talking about the establishment of charter - sorry - partnership schools.  He claimed that they were performing off the charts (what about that one outside of Whangarei David?) and that student numbers were up (I'm picking that's only because more schools opened this year).  He then went onto bash the PPTA for their opposition along with Tracey Martin from New Zealand First.  He claimed that there was a momentum building for these schools, that it is diverse.  And then David said that the ACT party was doing what Labour wasn't, carrying on Peter Fraser's vision from 1949 - but I'm pretty sure his vision was about quality public education, not a separatist system!

 

Now yesterday I accused David of dissing teachers, of saying that we were not innovative or risk takers in order to get the best from our students.  He refuted me naturally.  So I've gone back to listen again.  I'm going to try and transcribe the part that offended me most:

 

David: "...if the member really cares about delivering the promise that every the child will be developed to the full extent of their powers of our education system then we must be able to let in new methods.  And I actually agree with one of the things that Eleanor Catton said.  She said that when you have success too many people are there to beat up on you unless they can collectivise it for themselves.  Imagine a world in which the approach of the teacher unions, in which the approach of the opposition, in which the approach of even Tracey Martin, was such that we admired people who have taken risks, gone out on a limb, been creative, enrolled their kids in order to find ways to adrdress one of New Zealand's most urgent problems.  Wouldn't it be nice, wouldn't it be nice to live in a country where Eleanor Catton's concern of tall poppy syndrome was addressed and we could actually try new things to make kids lives better without such negative wailing from all over the chamber."

 

I did find this on the ACT website, and I'm assuming these are the notes which David was speaking from and which have been released on their site:

 

Imagine a world where the education establishment and political opposition are focused on what is best for our kids and actually welcome this policy as an opportunity for New Zealand’s children.  They have every right to question the details of the policy in a constructive way.  But imagine them celebrating the schools’ successes, admiring the men and woman going out on a limb to operate the schools, and respecting the choices of the families and children who enrol at them. Sad that we have to imagine it.

 

So this was the interaction between David and myself yesterday:

 

 

I concede that he didn't actually say that teachers are not innovative, that we don't take risks, that we don't care. 

 

But I stand by the insinuations I could hear made as he attacked the motives of the teacher unions, NZEI and PPTA, because these organisation's are member driven, so when you out attack them, you attack teachers and principals of all the sectors and support staff too.  This was something Dr Nick Smith found to his detriment at the 1999 NZEI Annual Meeting when he insulted the then NZEI President, Daryl Ward, in front of the whole meeting.  Anne Tolley and Hekia Parata a have also found the same (Hekia hasn't attended the last two years).

And nothing screams more that he as an ACT MP, as well as all those National party MPs, voted later that night (along with Peter Dunne) to pass the third reading of the Education Act amendments - the same amendments where more than 90% of submissions opposed the abolition of the Teachers Council to found EDUCANZ and the changes to the make up of governing bodies of universities.

 

So if you read the above tweets, you will see I put out a challenge to David Seymour.  I challenged him to repeat his statements in any school staff room in the country.  I told him I'd like to be there when he does it.  I would hope he would do it in a staff room for each education sector: ECE, primary, secondary and tertiary to see the response.  I also invited him to participate in and #edchatNZ session on Twitter.

I wonder what will happen.  I do quite enjoy the engagement of debate with him, but I know I should be wary because he is a smart cookie after all!

But I leave you with this in response David:

 

Meeting the candidates for election 2014

It's election year.  There are election hoardings competing for space on every fence and scrap of green grass facing a busy thoroughfare.  There are politicians up and down the country door knocking, pressing the flesh and kissing babies.  And the television debates have started.

Different groups are also holding meet the candidate breakfasts, lunches and evening meetings.

On Monday 4 August, Matamata NZEI Branch held a meet the candidates night at the Matamata Club.  In attendance were the following candidates and representatives:

• Susan Cullen - Maori Party candidate for Hauraki-Waikato electorate
• Tracy Martin - New Zealand First Deputy Leader and Education Spokesperson and current List MP
• Dr Ron Smith - ACT candidate for Hamilton East
• Lindsay Tisch - National candidate for Waikato and current MP for Waikato
• Catherine Delahunty - Green Party Education Spokesperson and candidate for Coromandel electorate and current List MP
• Christine Greer - Labour Party candidate for Waikato electorate

All the speakers were wonderful participants, and you can read the Storify below to see how the night went.

On Tuesday 19 August, the Waikato NZEI Branch held a meet the candidates night at the Methodist Hall in Hamilton.  In attendance were the following candidates and representatives:

• David Bennett - National candidate for Hamilton East and current MP
• Nanaia Mahuta - Labour candidate for Hauraki-Waikato and current MP
• Sue Moroney - Labour candidate for Hamilton West and current List MP
• Cliff Allen - Labour candidate for Hamilton East
• Mark Servian - Green Party candidate for Hamilton East
• Katrina Day - Conservatives candidate for Hamilton East
• Ray Calver - Internet Mana candidate for Hamilton East
• Carolyn McKenzie - Democrats for Social Credit candidate for Hamilton East

Sadly Tim McIndoe was not present and no representatives attended from New Zealand First, ACT or the Mäori Party.

Below is a Storify of the tweets I sent out and received that night and after reflection the next morning.  There is also some commentary I have put in to round out the night.

Meet the candidate nights are all very well to get a gage of the person who may well be representing you in parliament after the election, but it is also vital that you do the following:

• Read the policies of the parties different parties, including National (who has released stuff all policy so far) and ACT and the Conservatives (who have scary ideas about education!).
• Meet any and all of the candidates in your electorate
• Most NZEI branches are organising meet the candidates nights, so are many other groups.  So find one and go to it.
• Find out where/how you can meet your candidates. Follow them on fb and/or Twitter.  Read their blogs.
• Go to the party websites and read the policies.  Follow their blogs, fb pages and Twitter feeds.  Labour even has an Instagram account now.
• Don't rely on the media to tell you what each party stands for. All you'll get is John Key & co telling you that everyone else is wrong and the personality sideshow of Colin Craig & Dotcom.  So dig a little deeper.

I have published this blog much later than I intended.  This was due to a lot of events happening including a busy time at school and moving house.  Thanks for reading anyway, and I hope it was helpful.