Here we go again.
When it was the Treaty Principles Referendum, every academic, expert, Iwi and critic were all wrong and only David Seymour was right.
Now it’s the Regulatory Standards Bill and lo and behold, every academic, expert, Iwi and critic are all again wrong and only David is right.
Here are the smartest people in New Zealand…
Open Letter Calls For Halt To The Undemocratic Regulatory Standards Bill – Jane Kelsey
As some of the country’s senior lawyers and researchers in a range of disciplines (law, economics, Tiriti o Waitangi, public policy, environment), including a former Prime Minister and two New Zealanders of the Year, we cannot stand by as the Regulatory Standards Bill is rushed through a parliamentary select committee next week.
Each of us has written extensively and spoken out against this Bill from our respective areas of expertise. Many of us have done so for the three previous iterations of this Bill when it was promoted unsuccessfully by the Act Party and the Business Round Roundtable (later, the New Zealand Institute).
On each of those occasions Parliament has rejected the Bill as philosophically and legally unsound, profoundly undemocratic, and contrary to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
This time the Act Party has sought to bypass rigorous parliamentary scrutiny by securing commitments from the National and New Zealand First parties to legislate the Bill into law. There was an opportunity for public submissions on the proposal late last year, where it secured the support of only 0.33% of the over 23,000 New Zealanders who expressed their views on the consultation document. It is evident that the advice in virtually all the submissions was ignored by the government.
The Bill could have profound constitutional consequences. It establishes a set of principles as a benchmark for good legislation/regulation, many of which are highly questionable and designed to establish a presumption in favour of a libertarian view of the role of the state – one that ceased to have any currency globally more than a century ago. Te Tiriti o Waitangi has been excluded altogether. The power vested in the Minister for Regulation and a ministerial-appointed board is not subject to the normal accountabilities of Crown entities, conferring significant yet largely unaccountable authority on the executive.
Dr Jim Salinger, 2024 New Zealander of the Year, further notes the chilling effect the Bill will have on any future policy on climate change and adaptation following the almost $4 billion cost of the 2023 Auckland Anniversary weekend floods and Cyclone Gabrielle, the highest in our history.
While there is a select committee review of the Bill, it is truncated and circumscribed. The Coalition government has decided to submit the Bill to the Finance and Expenditure Committee rather than the Justice Committee, limiting the time to hear many tens of thousands of oral submissions to just 30 hours – at most 360 submissions – with 5 minutes per submitter, and truncating the period for those hearings and the committee’s report, further exposes the hypocrisy that this Bill is about good governance, better laws, improved regulation, greater transparency and enhanced governmental accountability. We are gravely concerned that the National Party and New Zealand First appear to be complicit in this undemocratic process.
We have each thought long and hard about whether to say we want to challenge this Bill before the select committee, lest it give some credibility to a process that is devoid of legitimacy. Some of us, such as Professor Dame Anne Salmond, 2013 New Zealander of the Year, and Professor Andrew Geddis, made written submissions, but feel there is no point in participating such a harmful process.
Professor Emeritus Jonathan Boston, Dr Geoffrey Bertram, Dr Bill Rosenberg and Dr Max Harris have indicated they want to address the committee to reinforce their submissions. In Professor Boston’s view: “The current Bill is destined to have a very short and ignominious life as an Act of Parliament: it enjoys virtually no public support; it lacks cross-party backing; it is opposed by the very Ministry that will be responsible for its implementation; and it endorses principles that have been found wanting by multiple generations of people throughout the world”.
In similar vein, long-standing academic critic of the Bill Professor Emeritus Jane Kelsey feels a responsibility “to speak truth to power” – in this case the abuse of proper process and the Act Party’s ongoing contempt for Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
For a time it appeared the Sir Geoffrey Palmer, former Prime Minister and Minister of Justice, Professor of Law at Te Herenga Waka/ Victoria University of Wellington, author of numerous books on parliamentary constitutinalism, and staunch critic of the Bill, was originally not invited to address the select committee, despite saying but he wanted to be heard. He was subsequently offered an opportunity.
All of us appeal to the National and New Zealand First parties to find their democratic voice and prevent this Bill from proceeding past the select committee.
Equally importantly, they are calling on Speaker of the House Gerry Brownlee, as the Chair of the forthcoming review of Standing Orders, to conduct a first principles review of the select committee processes to find an appropriate balance for democratic participation in the digital era, and an effective way to reinstate some degree of integrity and rigorous review to law-making in Aotearoa New Zealand.
Dame Anne Salmond
Sir Geoffrey Palmer
Professor Emeritus Jonathan Boston
Professor Andrew Geddis
Dr Jim Salinger
Dr Geoff Bertram
Dr Bill Rosenberg
Dr Max Harris
Professor Emeritus Jane Kelsey
…and yet David is right?
Is it fair that David Seymour has so much self esteem when the people his policies hurt have so little ego?
The Regulatory Standards Bill is a neoliberal trojan horse that will allow corporations to vet all legislation to ensure property rights are put above human rights – why would we effectively allow a Taxpayers’ Union on meth to be given a $20million dollar per year budget to run policy interference for corporations?
Why are you allowing the Political Right to empower corporations at your own expense Kiwis?
We need to be kinder to individuals and far crueller to Corporations.
Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice – please donate here.
And as with Rump’s Musk election result, we’ll miraculously find that not one single vote, or minister, or whatever it is that decides these things, was submitted against it and therefore he will win.
Not one official objection will have been received, lodged or recorded and therefore Mr. Always Right, will win.
Also, very strange how Luxon has almost disappeared off the face of the Earth so that Seymour can play ACTING PRIME MINISTER permanently.
Has there been a quiet coup? Does anyone have any info?
Did Winston agree? Did Luxon agree? Was Luxon asked?
Also note that it was not Seymour who spoke to the nation about the bombing in Iran, it was Winston Peters and Judith Collins. He was not taking on the responsibility of the role of deputy PM then, despite it being his term
These types of Bill where thousands submit and there are strong preferences either way should go to referendum.
I spend hours crafting my response to both of Seymours Bills and get an automated email thanking me for submitting. I know no one is going to take any notice or invite me to submit in person. Because I am a no one.
In a referendum all of us make up a someone.
Gotta love Seymour, he is claiming the CoC are responsible for lowering mortgage repayments but claims no responsibility for the skyrocketing unemployment rate. I suppose just over 8 % of the country are gullible enough to swallow his crap.
Seymour has to be the most vain, arrogant and pig-headed politician that NZ has ever had [def. pig-headed = someone who is stubborn and unreasonable, refusing to change their mind or consider other opinions, even when it’s clear they should]. His over confidence shows an unwarranted belief in his own abilities or knowledge. He bullies people and rams his opinions down everyone’s throat. He is desperate to please his God, Atlas. Whatever did NZ do to deserve this? Way past time for him to show some humility and and understanding of how things work in a democracy if you want a fair and even society, but no hope here – just more despair!
He will eventually be gone along with the CoC, unfortunately we have to put up with this abysmal situation until the next election.
Well put.
Some pundits try to say he is intelligent and amusing–rather, I would suggest–wily, scheming, disingenuous and a bullshitter. Calls the hundreds of thousands of NZers that have submitted against some of his agenda “bots” (which we are provably not due to Parliamentary ID requirements) then gets caught recruiting bots on social media himself.
Basically a well schooled neo liberal twat in league with some of the most poisonous think tanks and billionaires imaginable.
Any pundit who thinks Seymour is intelligent hasn’t met enough intelligent people.
What did NZ do to get S. We voted him in. It is such awful medicine to swallow that we want to pass it to somebody else rather than accept even a tiny bit of the tincture!
My dad who was sorted through his hard work and attention to detail, also finding a good 2ic to assist him, was always sending out ACT big-noting tripe. He had it made, and couldn’t think in any other way. I think NZAO always attracted gold rush miners, and materialists or get-rich quick sharpies who used the country as a platform. Now it is a rocket base! Make your own don’t be left out. YOLO.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/283740/Kerbal_Space_Program_Making_History_Expansion/
Nail right on the head with every point. .
Of course the vanity, the arrogance, the lack of knowledge, the ignorance and so on, are all a form of stupidity.
Seymour is , at the most basic level , fundamentally stupid.
I know he thinks he’s clever by coming up with nonsensical retorts and answers to very justified questions that would shine a light on his foolish, warped , naive, deluded beliefs….but…self praise is no
recommendation.
He can kid himself till the cows
come home , but paying staff to try and endlessly promote him as if he is the great messiah
combined with railing against any challenge that might interrupt one his wet dreams is only going to end badly for him.
A 40 year old virgin with no job…
Oh well…you get what you set!
Mister Seymour is a very good politician – probably one of the top five in New Zealand at the moment.
But he does seem to be having trouble in transitioning into government. Political skills, no matter how good, are no substitute for capability in governance and administration.
And of course governance and administration are the be-all and end-all of a successful career in government. Sad, really. Here’s hoping he can successfully make the transition – the national interest requires it.
Attempting to define greatness of politicians are you Filth. You have dirtied your reputation for acumen beyond repair in your choice.
It is clear Seymour is a very bad politician, look at his history. With Atlas as his backers, he is a scourge on NZ politics. Because of John Key he was given a political lifeline, if this had not occurred where would he be now? Most certainly not NZ.
He’s not a good politician. He had to be seriously helped into parliament by trickery and manipulation. He did not get there by his own efforts.
He depends on a stupid, shallow, self-important electorate to keep him there. Nobody is impressed with the small-minded dolts of Epsom.
Netemghtu fuck the fucked up spell, him patron thanks for those busters . Here our Israil, nominating to the care of humanity, as a door step peace keeper, 60 days, eh! you both smuks.
The precedent was already set with the TPPA.
Corporations uber alles.
Don’t get too distracted by the clown Seemore.
The content of the bill as well as the process is the real horror story here.
Maybe it will be a case of, third times the charm.
After his Treaty Principals and Regulatory Standards Bill’s fail, will his next brainwave be a law forcing children to inherit their parents debt? It would be true to form for his Atlas billionaire backers, who fight redistribution of wealth in favour of increasing debt slavery. Instead of using tax dollars to forgive debt,
the average debt of bottomfeeders will for ever increase, hastened by job displacements caused by AI.
So by not recinding debts to govt, when someone passes away, but transferring it to any children they may have, could be the third Bill that Seymour tries to introduce, to much fanfare under the guise of some strange logic, that he is only trying to help.
Seymour is an irksome annoying product of mmp, that Labour and traditional Nats have to put up with.
Why not our police wearing body cameras, care what. GEE THEM GUNS, BOTH. LOOK our edit.
Why both, other would in circumstance, question.
The only people to blame for this coalition debacle is the greedy New Zealand voter who thought they were being stuffed by the Labour government little did they know. The lazy public servants teachers,police ,nurses and doctors little did they know what they have done to themselves lost their jobs no pay rises etc.etc.
This coalition has almost gone beyond the point of no return with the most dangerous disappearing PM who is being lead by Seymour et.al
1/ Is this bill the kind of transparent legislation that Seymour claims his bill will enable? Hell no. As in he cites examples of what may be exempt legislation such as The Treaty of Waitangi (for one), but does not say it is exempt, only that it might be an example of what might be exempt, but on a quick read it sounds like it is exempt, but nowhere does it say it actually will be exempt, which means it is not exempt. Not transparent at all. Nor is the bill about what it claims to be about which it claims is just administrative tweaking about the form of legislation, it really is a covert attempt to put ACT’s interests into every piece of past and future legislation.
2/ Is it any different from what was submitted last time and has Seymour communicated those changes? Apart from being more obscurely written, it has not changed in substance from last time. The bill was rejected last time partly because there was existing legislation and legislation that was in the act of being drawn up that already covered consistency of new legislation being drawn up and giving them greater transparency. The re-submitted bill has not changed in its attempt to portray itself as a bill that seeks consistency in legislation being drawn up and seeks transparency in the process. Seymour has not explained how it differs from the last presentation and how the existing legislation (some being drawn up at the time by the last government in 2021 when Seymour last presented his bill so little time since to test it) was inadequate (if it was) and how his proposed bill addresses those shortfalls. The reason it has not changed is because it never was about consistency nor transparency in legislation, it was about a covert attempt to insert ACT/Big Business and coincidentally also stated Atlas group principles into all future legislation and also to give the power to change all previously enacted legislation to bring it in line with those ACT/Big Business (note especially foreign big business) principles.
3/ Is it democratic? NO. ACT have only 8% of the vote, if they were not in coalition with the current government and listed it as part of their agreement to form the government, it would not have had any chance of being passed. It has not clearly been put in front of New Zealanders, most of whom don’t understand the bill and a lot don’t even try to understand the bill, under the belief that unlike the Principles of the Treaty Bill which most New Zealanders had some understanding of and opposed, they believe this is just a bill about legislative form, boring. And the bill is very boring to read. I think it is intended to be. What many do not understand is that this bill would attempt to give David Seymour the right as Minister in charge of the Ministry he has set up, unbridled power and the power to dismantle the Treaty of Waitangi if if conflicted with ACT’s inserted principles as part of retrospectively adapting the legislation to support Big Business’s principles. It will also take out of NZer’s hands any real power over government. It will put international big business interests who have bought land here or the right to operate mines or any other business a dominant right over the community’s rights to not just unpolluted water ways or not have pollution that negatively affects other businesses like fisheries, farming, tourism but it will also give them rights to assert even greater anti-competitory behaviour that can work against the local NZ economies ability to thrive or for us to be independent of monopolies. Basically our country gets run by big business, not us.
Comments are closed.