Category: Politics

Source: Radio New Zealand

Explainer – How will firearms proposals change access to guns in New Zealand? Here’s what you need to know.

New Zealand is planning its biggest overhaul of gun regulations in more than 40 years.

The proposal announced last week would repeal and replace the 1983 Arms Act in legislation Associate Justice Minister (Firearms) Nicole McKee said would be “written in plain English, structured logically and with public safety at its core.”

Among the changes are a new firearms regulator removing police from oversight duties, tough restrictions for gang members and a host of new penalties and offences being introduced.

Here’s a round-up of the changes being proposed.

What changes are being made to gun laws?

A new specialist firearms regulatory agency will be created, replacing the current Firearms Safety Authority now operated by police. It’ll be headed by an independent chief executive appointed by the governor-general. That chief executive would report solely to the firearms minister, currently McKee. The new regulator will sit within police but without sworn police officers involved.

“There will be no blue shirts in the Firearms Safety Authority,” McKee said, referring to police uniforms.

A new Firearms Licensing Review Committee will also be created, which McKee called “essential for ensuring there is trust in the licencing system, improving compliance, and ensuring applicants or firearms owners renewing their licence are treated fairly.”

Being a gang member will now automatically disqualify anyone from holding a firearms licence.

A new ‘red flag’ system will be established to clarify information sharing so police and other agencies can review whether a legal firearms owner “remains a fit and proper person”.

There will be more flexibility around gun storage, which currently is allowed only at a firearms owner’s “primary place of residence”, but now will be allowed at any premises approved by the regulator.

There will also be multiple new penalties and new firearms offences introduced.

So what are the new firearms offences?

Penalties for more than 60 Arms Act offences will be increased, McKee said, and eight new offences will be created.

It would become an offence for failure to notify the regulator of a lost or stolen licence, unsafe storage of firearms, possession of firearms with intentionally removed serial numbers, possession of files or blueprints with the intent to unlawfully manufacture arms items, intentional diversion of firearms, manufacturing ammunition without a licence, not providing locations of a restricted firearm for pest controllers with multi-user agreements, or a business licence holder failing to provide information to the arms regulator about changes of staff.

The “files and blueprints” offence is aimed to plug a gap in the rise of 3D-printed “ghost guns” where people now have the ability to simply make their own weapons.

Why are these changes being made?

The Arms Act 1983 is more than 40 years old, and has been modified many times.

McKee has said it leaves “a complex, confusing and bureaucratic patchwork” and that the new law will make compliance easier for firearm owners “through sensible changes that reduce regulatory burdens.”

The new bill – which is still being drafted – will define gun laws in New Zealand.

Last year, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said, “We are going to rewrite the Arms Act because it’s an outdated piece of legislation, it’s an old piece of legislation.”

Luxon also said then there would be “no new guns added into New Zealand”.

Are semi-automatic weapons being brought back?

No.

After the 15 March 2019 terror attacks, a ban on semi-automatic weapons was introduced.

Regulations around those high-powered military-style firearms won’t be relaxed, despite fears that McKee would seek a change.

There are no changes to the limited number of people who can legally hold those guns – ‘endorsed’ pest controllers and collectors.

Collectors who own prohibited firearms will have the option of storing vital parts of a gun (that when removed, disables it) at the address of any licensed firearm owner, not just someone who has the same endorsement.

McKee’s ACT party, which also opposed the 2019 changes, invoked the “agree to disagree” clause in the coalition agreement with National and New Zealand First over ongoing restrictions on semi-automatic firearms.

McKee has also opposed the firearms registry implemented after the attacks, but it will remain. However, the reform proposal would tighten the amount of data allowed to be gathered for the register beyond what is explicitly required.

McKee said on social media that “ACT faced a choice on firearms: die in a ditch over the registry and semi autos and get no improvements at all – or take 95 percent of the win, fix a broken law, and lay the foundation for future change.”

Police Minster Mark Mitchell has told RNZ that National did not want to widen access to semi-automatic guns, even for competitive shooting.

“It is a public safety issue and we don’t see that there needs to be a wider or a broader availability around military-style semi-automatic weapons.”

Wasn’t Nicole McKee involved with the gun industry?

Yes. The firearms minister entered politics to advocate for firearms users and was a critic of the gun laws passed after the March 15 attacks.

“Five years ago, I put my hand up for Parliament because I was tired of seeing responsible, law-abiding New Zealanders treated as the problem,” McKee said in a statement on the ACT party website.

A New Zealand shooting champion, before politics she ran her own gun safety education business, was coordinator of the nation’s volunteer firearms safety instructors for the Mountain Safety Council and the spokesperson for the Council of Licenced Firearms Owners.

“ACT respects the vital role of licenced firearms owners, hunters, and shooting sports enthusiasts in New Zealand’s culture, economy, and conservation efforts,” McKee has said. “Hunting and shooting are legitimate pastimes, essential pest-control tools, and part of our rural way of life – and we’ll always back you.”

What do gun control advocates think?

Gun Control co-founder Philippa Yasbek earlier told RNZ that the effective ban on military-style semi-automatic firearms wasn’t being touched was a relief.

“McKee has built her entire political career on wanting to get rid of the registry and bring back semi-automatic firearms and she’s basically failed on both of those goals.

“So this is quite a big relief and I don’t think there’s any chance of her ever managing to change it again. Souffles don’t rise twice.”

What about gun users?

Council of Licenced Firearms Owners spokesperson Hugh Devereux-Mack said it was disappointing the effective ban on semi-automatics remained intact, though he backed the minister’s efforts.

“When it comes to semi-automatics, we can understand that there’s no need for the wider New Zealand firearms community to have those but some exceptions for competitive sport shooters or individuals who use firearms for pest control but are not professionals…would be very helpful.”

Fish & Game New Zealand called the changes “pragmatic and sensible.”

“We’re pleased to see the government taking a balanced approach to firearms regulation that recognises the long-standing traditions around hunting and food gathering that many New Zealanders undertake,” said Fish & Game Chief Executive Corina Jordan.

What’s next?

The draft bill could be introduced by year’s end. Once submitted, the bill will go through a six-month select committee process where the public will be allowed to have their say about the changes.

After that process and possible revisions it would be considered by Parliament.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

Public ratings of government performance have reached another new low in the latest IPSOS Issues Monitor survey.

The government rating of 3.9 out of 10 is the lowest since the survey began in September 2017, and reflects about 45 percent of respondents giving between 0 and 3.

Another 31 percent gave a rating of 4-6, while 23 percent gave 7-10, and 2 percent said they didn’t know.

The government previously dipped to 4.2 in the February survey, hovering around the same level in May and August.

Read the full report: here

The Ipsos New Zealand survey released to RNZ was carried out between 21 to 30 October, although the rating of government performance was taken separately from 5 to 10 November.

The survey asked 1004 New Zealanders what they thought were the top three most important issues facing the country today, and which party was best able to manage them.

Labour was rated best able to handle 15 of the top 20 concerns. National was rated best able on two: Crime/Law and order (5th equal), and Defence/Foreign affairs (20th).

Labour continued to increase its lead over National as the party considered most able to handle inflation/cost of living, which remains the top-rated issue at 61 percent, a 1 percentage point increase over the previous survey in August.

Healthcare decreased two points but remains the second-highest concern, with Labour also increasing its lead over National on that issue – 40 percent of New Zealanders rating it most able, compared to National’s 21 percent. Healthcare remained the top concern for those aged 65 and up.

Labour also overtook National (33 percent vs 29 percent) on the economy, which remains the third-placed concern, rising two points to 32 percent.

Housing dropped four points as a concern, from 26 to 22 percent, Labour again increasing its lead over National (32 percent vs 21 percent).

Three issues took out the fifth-equal rated concern, with crime/law and order dropping 3 points to 19 percent, putting it in line with unemployment and poverty/inequality (both steady at 19 percent).

Labour was rated best able to handle unemployment (39 percent vs 22 percent) and poverty/inequality (41 percent vs 16 percent), while National retained pole position on crime/law and order (30 percent vs 25 percent).

Labour gained 2 percentage points in handling unemployment and 6 points in handling poverty, while National dropped 1 point in handling crime.

The Greens rated best on climate change (6th-highest rated issue) and environmental/pollution/water (10th), while Te Pāti Māori rated best on issues facing Māori (9th).

The gap between those who think the country on the wrong track (63 percent) versus the right track (37 percent) narrowed by two percentage points.

Results for the survey are weighted by age, gender and region, and the survey has a maximum margin of error of +/-3.1% at a 95 percent confidence level.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

The political party founded by businessman Gareth Morgan almost 10 years ago has unveiled a new leader and new look.

Touted as a builder of sustainable businesses, Aucklander Qiulae Wong will lead Opportunity – formerly The Opportunities Party – into the 2026 election.

The party has been leaderless since 2023 and the announcement follows a nationwide search for the role.

To date, it is yet to reach the five percent threshold to enter parliament.

In 2023, it scooped 2.2 percent of the vote – 0.2 percent shy of its best election result of 2.4 percent in 2017 – under Morgan.

The party says Wong has founded and supported several start-ups in the fashion sector in London, “working to build ethical and sustainable practices into global brands like Vivienne Westwood and Stella McCartney”.

She returned to New Zealand in 2022 and has most recently worked at financial consultancy firm KPMG.

Wong said the party stands for transformative system change and would break the gridlock of left-right bloc politics.

Opportunity has also revealed its “tax reset” policy, which includes a Citizen’s Income, a Land Value Tax and Flat Income tax.

Wong said New Zealand needed a tax reset.

“We can’t keep patching and tinkering with the foundations that hold up this country,” Wong said.

“Our addiction to high house prices is robbing young Kiwis of security, and locking capital away from the innovators and community champions, who are building our future.

“It’s time to modernise tax.”

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

Palau’s leader says the world needs to be working toward reducing emissions and “not dropping targets”, in response to New Zealand slashing its methane reduction goals.

Last month, the New Zealand government announced it would cut biogenic methane reduction targets to 14-24 percent below 2017 levels by 2050. The previous target was a reduction of 24-47 percent.

Palauan President Surangel Whipps Jr, who is in Brazil for the annual United Nations climate change conference, COP30, said more work needed to go into finding solutions.

“[It’s] unfortunate because we all need to be working toward reduction, not dropping targets,” Whipps said.

“Countries struggle because it’s about making sure that their people have their jobs and maintain their industry. I can see the reason why maybe those targets were dropped, but that means we just need to work harder.”

Whipps said it probably meant the government needed to “step up” and help farmers reduce emissions.

Read more:

• Climate change minister defends weakened methane emissions target ahead of COP30
• COP30: NZ must commit to buying offshore credits to meet Paris target, climate experts say
• Pacific leaders to push 100% renewable energy plan at COP30 in Belém

Tuvalu’s climate minister also told RNZ Pacific he was disheartened by the new goal.

New Zealand Climate Minister Simon Watts previously told RNZ Pacific in a statement that methane reduction was limited by technology and the only alternative would have been to cut agriculture production.

“New Zealand has some of the most emissions-efficient farmers in the world, and we export to meet global demand,” Watts said.

“If we cut production to meet targets, we risk shifting production to countries who are not as emissions-efficient, which would add to global warming and have a greater impact on the Pacific.”

NZ ‘don’t care about the Pacific’ – campaigner

Pacific Islands Climate Action Network campaigner Sindra Sharma said she wanted to know what scientists Watts spoke with.

“I’d like to see what the data is behind New Zealand having the most emissions-efficient farmers. It blows my mind that that is something he would say.”

Sharma said it’s especially disappointing given New Zealand is a member of the Pacific Islands Forum.

“I think the signal that sends is extremely harmful. It shows we don’t care about the Pacific.”

Speaking to Morning Report on Thursday, Watts said the country had not weakened its ambitions on climate change.

“We’ve actually delivered upon what has been asked of us. We’ve submitted our NDC (Nationally Determined Contributions) plan for 2035 on time,” he said.

“We’ve done what we believe is possible in the context of our unique circumstances.

“We’ve taken a position around ensuring that we are ambitious with balancing that with economic challenges.”

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

Last week, much of the political focus was on the ongoing tensions within Te Pāti Māori. This week has been much the same, with the addition of the release of a report by the Independent Police Conduct Authority.

While these sagas dominated headlines Parliament continued to consider legislation, with four government bills completing their legislative journeys this week. Two of the four enjoyed relative consensus across the House – the other two not so much.

Third readings this week

A third reading is the last stage of debate that a bill undergoes in the House before it heads off to be confirmed as law.

The Medicines Amendment Bill passed its third reading on Wednesday morning during an extended sitting. It seeks to increase the accessibility of medicines to New Zealanders by (among other changes) employing “the rule of two”, whereby if a medication is approved for use in two recognised overseas jurisdictions it can be fast-tracked for approval here.

In charge of the bill was Associate Minister of Health David Seymour, who in giving the bill a sort of farewell to the House, noted that it was a rare instance in which parties were in agreement.

“This has been a collaborative effort,” the ACT leader said. “I note that the rule of two was campaigned on by all three coalition parties and so far has had support from every party in this Parliament. It’s a very good example of how politicians can actually hear people’s concerns in the community, formulate a solution, stay the course, implement it confidently, and make New Zealand a better place to live, one step at a time.”

Another third reading this week was the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill, which may be better known as the congestion charging bill. Like the Medicines Amendment Bill, it enjoyed relatively smooth sailing through the House, with Labour calling it a “very good bill”.

Differences emerge

That sense of legislative kumbaya wasn’t to last though as the House got to another two third readings, which this time made for fiery debate between government and Opposition.

The first of those two bills was the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No. 2) which gives effect to new government education policy in the form of putting educational achievement at the centre of decision-making. It was the amendments added in the committee stage though that had the Opposition riled up.

In that committee stage, Minister of Education Erica Stanford tabled Amendment Paper 428, which made further changes to section 127 of the bill, which pertained to schools upholding the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Stanford had her Cabinet colleague Minister for Vocational Education Penny Simmonds filling in for her during the third reading.

“This government considers that it is unreasonable to expect elected parents, who volunteer their time, to discharge the Crown’s legal responsibilities in respect of the Treaty. Instead, the government believes that it is the Crown’s responsibility to support Māori educational success,” Simmonds explained.

Amendments are put forward during the committee stage, which is a bill’s penultimate hurdle in the House before royal assent (when it is signed into law). Labour’s Willow Jean-Prime argued that making these further changes after the time for engagement with the public (select committee submissions) had been and gone was “a travesty”.

“The two amendment papers tabled by the minister last week in the committee of the whole House stage of this bill did not go through a select committee process, so the public did not have an opportunity to make submissions on the proposed changes to remove the section regarding Te Tiriti o Waitangi for boards or the changes to the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand,” Prime said.

“Now this is a travesty, because what we have here are two really significant changes which, as I just said, have had no consultation, no select committee process, and, actually, very little debate.”

The last third reading of the week was David Seymour’s Regulatory Standards Bill, which is probably the most contentious of the four bills to finish up their legislative journey this week.

It seeks to limit future lawmakers from introducing what Seymour considers unnecessary red tape into legislation, prioritising private property rights.

A version of the Regulatory Standards Bill has been something ACT had been keen on for over a decade, so when getting up to speak on it, Seymour may have been pinching himself at finally seeing shepherding it through its last hurdle in Parliament.

“The Regulatory Standards Act means that politicians need to at least be open and honest about the impacts that they have on individuals when they pursue their goals,” Seymour declared.

“That is what we need to be doing in this Parliament. It is a movement towards a more civilised society where adults treat each other respectfully. That is something that I look forward to implementing over the next six months as this bill comes into force. I am very proud to stand behind it.”

While Seymour celebrated its inevitable passage into law, The Greens’ Tamatha Paul lamented it, comparing the bill to a cockroach.

“The danger of this bill is how eye-wateringly boring and technical it is, so that most of the general public aren’t necessarily paying attention to the consequences of this bill,” Paul told the House on Thursday.

“They’d be forgiven for thinking that it was just a boring old bill, because the ACT Party can’t get it by standing on what they really want, so they couch it in legal and technical and constitutional terms to try and get their foot in the door-just like a cockroach. That’s how a cockroach lives, isn’t it? In the dark, in the night-not in broad daylight, being clear about the intentions of what they hope to achieve.”

The Regulatory Standards Bill now just awaits royal assent, which is the process whereby the governor-general signs a bill into law. This is likely to happen next week.

To listen to the audio version of this story, click the link near the top of the page.

RNZ’s The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament’s Office of the Clerk.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

An advocate supporting people with complaints about police misconduct says bringing in an Inspector-General is a knee-jerk reaction that may not make much difference.

The government revealed on Tuesday it plans to set up an Inspector-General of Police as part of the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA), which will be expanded to become an Inspectorate, with additional resourcing and powers.

The National Integrity Unit in Police has also been bolstered with six additional investigators, and a lawyer has been tasked with investigating current police employees involved.

The moves are a response to the damning IPCA report into the failures of police leadership to investigate or follow up complaints of sexual offending by McSkimming.

The complaints are thought to have been made by a woman 20 years younger than McSkimming, who he had an affair with.

The founder of the Police Conduct Association, Shannon Parker, told Nine to Noon host Kathryn Ryan she set up the NGO after her own difficulties making a complaint about police.

“I found the process very difficult, and basically didn’t know what I was doing, and I felt that many people would have the same problem,” she said.

She said the move to bring in an Inspector-General was a knee-jerk reaction and several avenues for investigating police conduct already existed: the IPCA; the Police Professional Conduct Group inside police; and the National Integrity Unit also within police.

“In my mind, all [were] set up for the purpose of protecting the police reputation as opposed to protecting victims of police conduct … I can’t see how an Inspector-General of Police is going to make any difference if you put that person sitting at the IPCA.”

She said the IPCA had admitted there were times it could have stepped in sooner or done more to prevent the McSkimming scandal, and an Inspector-General would only know what they had been notified of.

“If someone’s instructed not to forward an email on, not to notify someone, how is it going to have made any difference? … he only knows what he knows. He only knows what he’s notified of.

“What’s the difference between that and any other avenue they already have for communicating anonymously?

“I think it’s another thing that’s going to cost a lot of money that is not going to offer the victims or complainants of police misconduct any value.”

She said the internal groups like the Professional Conduct Group sometimes referred complaints back to the police district the complaint originated from – and whether they were acted on often depended on “how much that person is willing to do”.

The problem with the McSkimming case was the correct processes were not followed, and Parker questioned whether having an Inspector-General would affect that.

The same was true of the idea of setting up an anonymous portal for complaints.

“We’ve got whistleblowers process, anyone can set up an anonymous email … they could have gone to CrimeStoppers, again that’s anonymous.

“I’m not saying that they should have to, or that that should be what they should have done – but I’m saying there’s already ways and means of doing that.”

More resources for IPCA a ‘great next step’

Parker said the IPCA only investigated a small portion of the complaints they received, with many instead being sent back for police to investigate themselves.

More detailed investigations by the IPCA were typically only undertaken for very serious cases like police shootings, fatal pursuits, and sexual offending, she said.

“Other than that, they are usually left with the police.”

She said some complaints were only successfully raised because the complainants had “pushed and pushed” and asked further questions.

“The bulk of those, if I’m honest, have actually only been taken seriously or relooked at after we have gone to the media and it’s got – or about to get – public attention. And that concerns me. That shouldn’t have to happen.

“It makes me wonder how many people just give up at the starting gate … because it’s too stressful, it’s too hard, or they just don’t know what to do next.”

Another difficulty with the IPCA was any complaint made would automatically be notified to the police.

Greater powers for the IPCA would be “a great idea and would be a great next step”, she said, but the priority was more resourcing.

“They are very limited in what they can do, and I do understand that … but I think they definitely need greater resourcing.

“In some cases I know that they would like to take things further and they just can’t – but not having the time and the resources to be able to go through these with a finer-toothed comb definitely has a big impact.”

She said complainants sometimes filed “incredibly long” complaints with irrelevant details that could take up police and IPCA time, and which may be exacerbating problems with ignored or lost complaints.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

It will be difficult for the government to justify some of its changes to road tolling, lobby group Transporting New Zealand says.

The government this week introduced a bill to expand charges for road users, including allowing Corridor Tolling; tolling on parts of an existing road to fund a new project in the same corridor.

The bill will also introduce new payment options for road user charges (RUCs), moving from a system of matching odometer readings to paper labels on the windscreen to subscriptions through private companies.

Freight group Transporting New Zealand’s policy and advocacy advisor Mark Stockdale told Morning Report that moving RUCs towards a digital system had been “well signalled” and they supported it.

But he said tolling existing roads in an area where there was a new toll road would be “tougher for road users to swallow”.

“Existing roads have already been paid for and maintained by petrol tax and diesel road user charges. So if they were also to be tolled, you’re basically getting two slices of the pie.”

He said Transporting NZ supported alternative ways of funding roads, but they needed to be rational.

“There is a funding shortfall looming for our road transport network, so we do need to look at other options. Tolling is certainly an option for new roads and also other options like public-private partnerships.”

He said they also disagreed with stopping heavy vehicles from using alternative routes to toll roads if the government deemed it unsuitable.

“That’s prohibiting freedom of choice. There may be reasons why those heavy vehicles need to use the old road, and to force them not to and fine them if they don’t use the toll road, that just seems wrong.”

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

MP Tākuta Ferris, who was expelled from Te Pāti Māori this week alongside Mariameno Kapa-Kingi, says the pair never tried to take over as co-leaders.

Ferris said, in the eyes of Te Tai Tonga, he was still apart of Te Pāti Māori and wanted a meeting with the National Council to put forward his case to the membership.

Party president John Tamihere has accused the ousted pair of plotting a leadership coup.

Ferris told Morning Report, they wrote to the national council last week asking for a meeting, but the letter had been ignored despite being signed by half the caucus.

Both Te Pāti Māori co-leaders were unavailable for an interview on Friday.

In an interview with RNZ on Thursday, Ferris described the expulsion process as a “joke” and underhanded.

He said, in his view, Te Pāti Māori MPs Oriini Kaipara and Hana-Rawhiti Maipi Clarke were now “trapped” in the party which was behaving “way below the line”.

“Our mates, they weren’t told we were getting expelled. They were told by the press release. This is the degree of the conduct, right? It’s way below the line.”

More to come…

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

Expelled Te Pāti Māori MP Tākuta Ferris says he’s had no response from the party’s National Council over his calls for an urgent meeting.

Ferris and Mariameno Kapa-Kingi were kicked out of the party earlier this week.

He told Morning Report, they wrote to the national council last week asking for a meeting, but the letter had been ignored despite being signed by half the caucus.

Both Te Pāti Māori co-leaders were unavailable for an interview this morning.

In an interview with RNZ on Thursday, Ferris described the expulsion process as a “joke” and underhanded.

He said, in his view, Te Pāti Māori MPs Oriini Kaipara and Hana-Rawhiti Maipi Clarke were now “trapped” in the party which was behaving “way below the line”.

“Our mates, they weren’t told we were getting expelled. They were told by the press release. This is the degree of the conduct, right? It’s way below the line.”

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

The Regulatory Standards Bill has passed with the backing of the coalition parties.

National and New Zealand First agreed to pass the bill into law as part of their coalition agreements with ACT.

The bill has faced fierce pushback from the public, with more than 98 percent of public submissions opposed.

The legislation sets down principles for lawmaking which would not be enforceable in court but – if a piece of law would breach them – politicians would need to explain.

It also sets up a Regulatory Standards Board which would assess current laws for their adherence to the principles, and

Its critics say the principles are ideological, could favour big corporations, and would add delays and cost to lawmaking.

Changes were made to the bill after the select committee – but constitutional experts have warned the changes do little to address the bill’s failings and the ideological way it’s written mean it’s unlikely to have lasting impact.

ACT leader David Seymour

The bill’s primary champion, David Seymour, argued in his speech in the final reading in Parliament the legislation was about avoiding putting the costs of law changes on regular people.

“If you want to pursue some cause, then you need to be open about whether it is going to impact people’s value that they get from their property and the value they get from their time,” he said.

“The costs of the restrictions are immense and they are felt throughout our society,” he said – giving the examples of teachers who he said complained they only ended up filling out forms and complying with bureaucracy, or builders who complained it took longer to get permission to build something than to actually build it.

“Where this bill leads us is a more respectful and more civilised society.”

He said the bill’s critics “have been many, but in my view poorly informed”, arguing principles missing from the bill could still be pursued “through collective action”.

“The point of the Regulatory Standards Act and its principles is to identify the costs of those laws and those collective projects on individuals.”

Repeal guaranteed – Labour

Labour’s Justice spokesperson Duncan Webb promised Labour would repeal it within 100 days if it won the next election.

He said the bill’s critics were “overwhelming” rather than “many”, and the bill was wasteful and unnecessarily duplicated existing processes.

“It seeks to put in place a set of far-right values that come out of a theory of economics which basically says the most important right is the right to private property – it throws aside every other right we hold dear.

“What it amounts to is baking in a libertarian set of values into our lawmaking process …. yes, we can do it better – we can do better regulatory impact statements, we can do better departmental disclosure statements – but what we don’t need is another piece of paper … that public servants have to go and undertake.”

He argued the bill would mean hand-picked public servants second-guessing the work of Parliament.

“This is the place for deliberation, this is the place for scrutiny, this is the place for examination – and to say that there is another group of people who you have no control over, unelected people, it’s fundamentally undemocratic.”

The final irony of the bill, he said, was that it did not follow the proper rules for lawmaking, with “deeply flawed and skewed” public consultation, a failure to consult Māori, and had a regulatory impact statement that fell short of Treasury’s requirements.

“The idea that he stands up and says ‘I’ve got this great piece of legislation about regulatory quality’ when he doesn’t follow his own rules about regulatory quality is outrageous.”

The party’s Deborah Russell said it was “odious” and again promised to repeal it within 100 days of the next Labour government.

Cockroaches and rats – Greens

Green MP Tamatha Paul said the bill was like a cockroach – “we keep stamping it out but it just won’t die”.

“They tried this three times before … and every single time it failed. They tried it again with the Treaty Principles Bill and what happened with that … it got chucked in the bin.

“The danger in this bill is not actually in how damaging it will be … the danger of this bill is how eyewateringly boring and technical it is so that most of the general public aren’t necessarily paying attention to the consequences.

“That’s how a cockroach lives, isn’t it – in the dark, in the night, not in broad daylight being clear about the intentions of what they hope to achieve.

“Or maybe it’s like a rat … you see one, you think that’s it, there’s 20 more where that came from.”

She said the bill’s intention was erasing the Treaty of Waitangi, ransacking the environment, and putting corporate greed over the public good.

Paul harked back to a time in New Zealand when everyone could get good healthcare, a public education was available to all, university-level training was free, and parents could stay home and raise their children.

Māori Development Minister ‘didn’t know it was happening today’

Heading into the debating chamber, Māori Development Minister Tama Potaka said he was unaware the bill’s third reading was set down for later in the day.

“Didn’t know it was happening today but it was foreshadowed through a coalition agreement, it’s happening today and I’m sure Minister Seymour will carry it through.”

He acknowledged it was a big deal to Māori, but it was among “a lot of confronting challenges in front of us right now, and the most important of which is the cost of living and the economic challenges”.

He said he hoped the passing of the bill would lead to improved regulatory oversight without being overbearing – but asked if he expected that would be the case said he did and that’s what it had been set up to do.

“And if it isn’t, well, we’re going to have to look at it again.”

Asked if he welcomed the bill, he said “oh, no, I support the coalition agreement and this has come out of the coalition agreement and I stand by Minister Seymour and others as a result of that”.

Pushed on whether that meant he supported it, he only said “I’m willing to say that this is a bill the coalition agrees to, I’m part of the coalition, I’m part of the National Party, and we support this agreement.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand