The proposed changes will set clear expectations on how universities should approach freedom of speech issues.

Each university will then have to adopt a “freedom of speech statement” consistent with the central government’s expectations.

The changes will also prohibit tertiary institutions from adopting positions on issues that do not relate to their core functions.

Associate Education Minister David Seymour said fostering students’ ability to debate ideas is an essential part of universities’ educational mission.

“Despite being required by the Education Act and the Bill of Rights Act to uphold academic freedom and freedom of expression, there is a growing trend of universities deplatforming speakers and cancelling events where they might be perceived as controversial or offensive,” he said.

“That’s why the National/ACT coalition agreement committed to introduce protections for academic freedom and freedom of speech to ensure universities perform their role as the critic and conscience of society.”

Minister for Tertiary Education and Skills Penny Simmonds said freedom of speech was fundamental to the concept of academic freedom.

“Universities should promote diversity of opinion and encourage students to explore new ideas and perspectives. This includes enabling them to hear from invited speakers with a range of viewpoints.”

It is expected the changes will take effect by the end of next year, after which universities will have six months to develop a statement and get it approved.

Aside from the fact that the free speech legislation for universities is a waste of time (and seemingly ideologically inconsistent with the anti-regulation stance of the government), this line from the RNZ article is both hilarious and worrying pic.twitter.com/aOoPa0ZPc5

— Quintin Jane (@RealQuintinJane) December 19, 2024

Te Herenga Waka-Victoria University of Wellington said the important issue of free speech had been a dominant topic throughout the year.

It believed a policy it had come up with would align with the intent of the criteria laid out by the government today.

However, the Greens are among critics, saying the government’s changes will add fuel to the political fires of disinformation, and put teachers and students in the firing line.

Labour says universities should be left to make decisions on free speech themselves.

‘A heavy-handed approach’
The Tertiary Education Union (TEU) said proposed rules could do more harm than good.

They have been been welcomed by the Free Speech Union, which said academic freedom was “under threat”, but the TEU said there was no problem to solve.

TEU president Sandra Grey said the move seemed to be aimed at ensuring people could spread disinformation on university campuses.

“I think one of the major concerns is that you might get universities opening up the space that is for academic and rigorous debate and saying it’s okay we can have climate deniers, we can have people who believe in creationism coming into our campuses and speaking about it as though it were scientific, as though it was rigorously defendable when in fact we know some of these questions . . .  have been settled,” she said.

Grey said academics who expressed views on campus could expect them to be debated, but that was part and parcel of working at a university and not an attack on their freedom of speech.

“There isn’t actually a problem. I do think universities, all the staff who work there, the students, understand that they’re covered by all of their requirements for freedom of speech that other citizens are.

“So it feels like we’ve got a heavy-handed approach from a government that apparently is anti-regulation but is now going to put in place the whole lot of requirements on a community that just doesn’t need it.”

Some topics ‘suppressed’

Free Speech Union chief executive Jonathan Ayling said freedom of speech was under threat in universities.

“We’ve supported academics . . .  where they feel that they have been unfairly disadvantaged simply for holding a different opinion to some of their peers. Of course, that is also an addition to the explicit calls for people to be cancelled, to be unemployed,” he said.

Ayling said some academics were afraid to express their views and there was also a problem with “compelled speech”.

“Forcing certain references on particularly ideological issues. There’s questions around race, gender, international conflicts, covid-19, these are all questions that we’ve found have been suppressed and also there’s the aspect of self-censorship,” he said.

“As we have and alongside partners looked into this more and more, it seems that many people in the academy exist in a culture of fear.”

University committed to differing viewpoints
Te Herenga Waka-Victoria University of Wellington is committed to hearing a range of different viewpoints on its campuses, vice-chancellor Professor Nic Smith says.

Free speech had been an important issue during 2024, and the university had arrived at a policy that covered both freedom of speech and academic freedom.

By consulting widely, there was now a shared understanding of “foundational principles”, and its policy would be in place early in the new year.

“We believe this policy aligns with the intent of the criteria [from the government] as we understand them. It recognises the strength of our diverse university community and affirms that this diversity makes us stronger,” Professor Smith said.

“At the same time, it acknowledges that within any diverse community, individuals will inevitably encounter ideas they disagree with-sometimes strongly.

“Finding value in these disagreements is something universities are very good at: listening to different points of view in the spirit of advancing understanding and learning that can ultimately help us live and work better together.”

The university believed in hearing a range of views from staff, rather than adopting a single institutional position.

“The only exception to this principle is on matters that directly affect our core functions as a university.”

‘Stoking fear and division’

Green Party’s spokesperson for Tertiary Education, Francisco Hernadez, said the new policy had nothing to do with free speech.

“This is about polluting our public discourse for political gain.”

Universities played a critical role, providing a platform for informed and reasoned debate.

“Our universities should be able to decide who is given a platform on their campuses, not David Seymour. These changes risk turning our universities into hostile environments unsafe for marginalised communities.

“Misinformation, disinformation, and rhetoric that inflames hatred towards certain groups has no place in our society, let alone our universities. Freedom of speech is fundamental, but it is not a licence to harm.”

Hernandez said universities should be trusted to ensure the balance was struck between academic freedom and a duty of care.

“Today’s announcement has also come with a high dose of unintended irony.

“David Seymour is speaking out of both sides of his mouth by on the one hand claiming to support freedom of speech, but on the other looking to limit the ability universities have to take stances on issues, like the war in Gaza for example.

“This is an Orwellian attempt to limit discourse to the confines of the government’s agenda. This is about stoking fear and division for political gain.”

Labour’s Associate Education (Tertiary) spokesperson Deborah Russell responded: “One of the core legislated functions of universities in this country is to be a critic and conscience of society. That means continuing to speak truth to power, even if those in power don’t like it.”

“Nowhere should be a platform for hate speech. I am certain universities can make these decisions themselves.”

‘Expectations clarified’ – university
The University of Auckland said in a statement the announcement of planned legislation changes would help “to clarify government expectations in this area”.

“The university has a longstanding commitment to maintaining freedom of expression and academic freedom on our campuses, and in recent years has worked closely with [the university’s] senate and council to review, revise and consult on an updated Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom Policy.

“This is expected to return to senate and council for further discussion in early 2025 and will take into account the proposed new legislation.”

The university described the nature of the work as “complex”.

“While New Zealand universities have obligations under law to protect freedom of expression, academic freedom and their role as ‘critic and conscience of society’, as the proposed legislation appreciates, this is balanced against other important policies and codes.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Foreign investors could be sent to jail in Fiji for breaking a new investment law, says the prominent Suva law firm Munro Leys.

The company said the “vague and unsatisfactory” new Investment Act could create greater uncertainty for foreign investors.

In a legal alert to its clients, Munro Leys lawyers also said aspects of the new law could do “more harm than help” and “poor legal drafting leaves us more confused and slightly alarmed”.

It said serious investors relied on the laws of their target country to give them certainty and transparency.

“The Investment Act, unfortunately, does the opposite. In place of transparency, there is significant potential for confusion and frustration,” the legal firm said.

Munro Leys criticises some of the wording of the new law as “vague and almost impossible to legally pin down”.

“If we don’t know who a ‘foreign investor’ is and when they are investing, it is impossible to know which rules apply,” the legal alert said.

New regulations criticised
The firm’s alert also criticised new regulations which required foreign investors to bring into Fiji their total investment amount within three months of “incorporation” and said an investor could be prosecuted for failing to do so.

“The penalty for the offence, for an individual, is a fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or both. Bodies corporate can be fined up to $50,000.

“To make matters worse, it’s not clear to whom this three-month rule applies. From a plain reading of the regulations, it applies only to those foreign investors investing in restrictive activities,” the legal advice said.

“However, the authorities appear to have expressed the view that it applies to all foreign investors.

“It is difficult to see the government prosecuting a foreign investor which does not bring in its money on time. But criminalising delay may create other issues for investors going to the legality of their investment and double down on the uncertainty that has already been created.”

Criticising Section 7 of the Act, Munro Leys said that an investor was required to send an investment proposal to the government for consent to invest in certain “critical sectors” but it was not clear what those sectors were.

“No one knows what the proposal should say, what criteria the minister will apply in his/her decision and how long the minister will take to approve it.

Other problems
“It seems that the government intends for regulations to be made to decide what sectors need ministerial approval. [But] with about a month to go before the new law comes into effect, there are no regulations.

“The problems are not confined to new investors.

“Existing investors, including those who complied with the old Foreign Investment Act, are not immune.

“They may now need to apply for permission to make new investments. Some companies who were not previous “foreign investors” may find they are now in that category (and vice versa).”

The Act will come into effect from August.

Questions sent to Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, Fiji Commerce and Employers Federation (FCEF) and Fiji Chamber of Commerce and Industry remained unanswered.

Luke Nacei is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Police Commissioner and Controller of the PNG National Pandemic Response David Manning has authorised the release of new measures to address the covid-19 pandemic in the country on the eve of the 46th Independence Day.

Manning said these new measures, which came into effect yesterday, September 15, 2021, had been made in response to the continued threat of covid-19 while “ensuring continuity and normalcy” in life.

The ban on alcohol sales on Friday, Saturday or Sunday nationwide still remains in force.

The key changes are to international and domestic travel as well as social and business.

For international travel, the new measures are:

• New Quarantine periods: Seven days quarantine for incoming persons who are fully vaccinated and 14 days quarantine for partially vaccinated persons. PNG citizens and permanent residents who are unvaccinated are to be quarantined for 21 days. Any foreign national who is unvaccinated will not be allowed entry into PNG. Children under the age of 18 years who travel with a parent or guardian will be quarantined for the same period as their parent or guardian. Children under the age of 18 who are unaccompanied will be assessed and quarantined on a case-by-case basis. Children under five years are exempted.
• These new quarantine periods do not apply to all persons currently in quarantine – unless provided an exception which will continue to apply.
• Approvals to arrive in PNG are valid for 60 days rather than the previous 90 days;
• Approvals to enter PNG shall not be provided to persons travelling to PNG for the principal purpose of holidaying, vacationing or similar activity.
• All persons travelling to PNG must have a valid covid-19 test 72 hours prior to their original port of departure, rather than 7-days prior to departing for Port Moresby. For clarity and as an example, if a person initiated their travel in the United States of America and their flight transited through Singapore to Port Moresby, they would need to be tested 72 hours prior to their flight departing the United States of America, not the flight departing from Singapore. Children aged five years and under are exempted from being tested.
• All people arriving into PNG must be tested upon arrival and while in quarantine. This is the responsibility of the facility hosting quarantined persons. The cost may be passed onto the individual by the facility, but it is the responsibility of the quarantine facility to organise the tests and pass the test results onto the NCC.
• If an individual refuses to be tested, they will be quarantined for an additional 14 days.
• There is no restriction on which medical providers may conduct these tests, except that the medical providers and their staff must be properly licensed. The NCC will accept results from all such medical testing provider.
• Tracking of individuals for the purposes of quarantine is now only for home quarantine. Persons quarantining in scheduled quarantine facilities are not required to be tracked.
• All Charter Flights must – in addition to the normal approvals – have the Controller’s written approval. This power has not been delegated.

Domestic travel and social measures have been merged into Measure No. 3 “Domestic Measures”.

Other domestic restrictions continue to apply, including:

• No person may fly if they are symptomatic for COVID-19; and
• All travellers must have their temperature checked by airline staff and no person may travel if their temperature registers at or over 37.5C (except for medivac and emergency flights).

Grace Auka Salmang is a PNG Post-Courier reporter.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The supermarket sector is finally about to receive some serious government intervention. Following a scathing report from the Commerce Commission, it’s now almost inevitable that the Labour Government is going to have to introduce some major changes to this vital but uncompetitive retail sector. And these moves are likely to be popular.

The report, released on Thursday, met with almost universal praise and celebration. And it surprised everyone with just how scathing it was about the supermarkets, and how radical its early recommendations are.

The first key point the supermarket sector report makes, is that the current groceries sector is utterly broken. It paints a picture of a Foodstuffs and Woolworths duopoly making super-profits – in excess of 20 per cent return on their capital – by ripping off both food suppliers and customers. The report found that food prices are the sixth highest in the OECD. Staff, too, are heavily exploited to help make billions of dollars in profits.

The second key point is the possible suite of reforms that will be necessary to fix the sector. These range from encouraging supermarkets to reform themselves, through to serious state intervention to break up the mega-entities that control the market, or even the state setting up a third supermarket chain (in the way that KiwiBank was introduced).

One of the first media articles on the report on Thursday explained that expectations for the announcement were quite low, and some were ready to be disappointed – see Hamish Rutherford’s The Commerce Commission heaps pressure on Government to deliver supermarket changes (paywalled). He says that “The supermarkets appeared shocked by the report.”

Rutherford summed up the reform options: “The Commerce Commission’s recommendations for measures to improve wholesale competition are a spectrum, ranging from modest changes on a voluntary basis, to creating a new wholesaler or even forcing the break-up of the groups into retail and wholesale. Aimed at attracting a new major retailer into the New Zealand market, it could be accompanied by forcing the supermarket to sell off certain sites to a new player.”

The mood for a more interventionist state in broken markets

In the above article, Rutherford also explains that such a scathing and radical report really puts pressure on the Labour Government and the Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister David Clark to actually carry out some substantial reforms. Rutherford concludes: “with such a clear verdict of a duopoly exercising market power in such a mammoth sector, the Government will quickly need to find a suitable response.”

Stuff newspapers political editor Luke Malpass also emphasised how the report squarely puts the ball into the Government’s court, making it almost impossible for them to avoid doing something big. He says that normally these types of reports take the pressure off governments: “Market studies are great for governments. If nothing else, a Commerce Commission probe creates the appearance of government action long before the action happens”, but given the tenor of this particular report, “the Government will have to actually do something this time around” – see: Labour’s $22 billion supermarket problem — and opportunity.

According to Malpass, David Clark is a good fit for this role (better than the ill-fated Health portfolio), and he’s inclined towards proper reform: “His view is simple: Labour campaigned on doing this, he thinks that there is a mood for real change, and now it will be up to the Government to get on with it.”

Government intervention is also likely to be substantial, Malpass points out, because there’s now a strong public philosophical mood for the state to act: “This political landscape has changed massively from five years ago. There seems to be a pretty good public appetite for the Government to sort some of these things out. If anything, Labour’s only downside risk here is not doing enough. And if Covid has taught us anything, it’s that – rightly or wrongly – Kiwis are quite happy for governments to intervene in the right circumstances. In the coming cost-of-living political war, the party that convinces voters it is the one on their side will be rewarded.”

This mood for a bigger and more interventionist state, especially in regard to the broken supermarket sector, is very well examined by Max Rashbrooke in his column, Supermarket prices: Politicians have dropped the ball, which begins like this: “The forensic evisceration on Thursday of our uncompetitive supermarket duopoly is a landmark moment, a sign of shifting attitudes towards capitalism – and a massive test for Commerce Minister David Clark.”

According to Rashbrooke, Clark has a big job ahead, and will have to resist “a determined lobbying campaign by the supermarket duo”, but ultimately will achieve his own redemption if he can create a legacy as the Minister “who broke up the big two”. And the fact that he even has this task is a sign that the “laissez-faire thinking” of the past that allowed the market to evolve into a duopoly is out of fashion.

Rashbrooke points to other broken sectors that will also need reform, including electricity, building supplies (where “Fletchers utterly dominates”), petrol, and banking. And he suggests that in the new environment, National is likely to be onboard with radical reform, “because conservatives need capitalism to work properly and retain the public’s support.”

Economist Cameron Bagrie also thinks the Government has a strong incentive to go hard on supermarkets, and that the construction sector and banking should be next – see: Supermarkets are sitting ducks for pro-competition regulation (paywalled). He notes the Government is building up the Commerce Commission’s capacity, budgeting “$30.4 million extra for the commission over three years, and $13.9m per year thereafter.”

Bagrie believes that reform of the grocery sector will be favoured by Government because rising inflation is “not likely to be economically or voter-friendly”, and “Moving on supermarkets could help around the edges to contain inflation.”

Media commentators are also keen for the Government to deal to the supermarkets. Heather du Plessis-Allan says she’s hoping for big reforms to increase supermarket competition but is not sure this will happen, especially given that promised reforms in the petrol market don’t appear to have worked – see: We pay too much for groceries.

She says reform will be difficult, but electorally rewarding: “The easy option is to force the supermarket chains to supply a third player with wholesale groceries at reasonable prices so they can compete. The hard option is force the supermarket chains to sell off some of their stores or brands. Either way, this will kick up a storm in the sector. The Government will buy itself a fight. Does it have the courage? I’d like to see it go hard. I think there’s public support from frustrated shoppers.”

Similarly, Kerre McIvor is sceptical of reform eventuating, but says it would be popular: “waving a stick at big international companies and millionaire supermarket owners is good for votes from families doing it tough, and if this Government knows anything, it’s how to capitalise on populist causes. The big two would be sensible to take this report, and its recommendations, very seriously” – see: The supermarkets should take ComCom report seriously (paywalled).

Newspaper editorials are also favourable to reform. The New Zealand Herald’s editorial said the report findings “are unsurprising”, but “What’s important is what happens next” – see: Smashing the supermarket duopoly is a safe bet for Labour (paywalled). The newspaper says “with inflation on the way voters are sure to be supportive of any measures to increase competition.”

The Otago Daily Times argues that the reforms must be radical: “consumers, suppliers, and potential new retailers will be expecting the Government to do something more than tinker” – see: Supermarket changes unknown.

Although a lot of reform conversation is about helping assist a third supermarket chain into the market, the ODT says greater regulation of current grocery store pricing is also required: “Questions are already being raised about whether an extra big player or two would necessarily make the improvement sought without some sort of control of the margins on grocery items.”

Marketing lecturer Robert Hamlin, from the University of Otago, is also being reported as advocating regulation above what is required to get a third grocery chain into the market – see RNZ’s Strong regulation needed to counter supermarket price gouging – marketing expert.

He also believes that government price controls must be introduced, arguing supermarkets are “like a power company, they’re essential to modern living, and it’s important that they should be regulated to make sure that they actually do deliver”. Hamlin argues there’s a need for a dedicated senior Minister in charge of supermarkets, rather than just an independent regulator: “I would imagine there will be a call for an independent regulatory authority… that would be a very poor idea because I doubt if it would stay independent for very long – that it would be captured by the people it’s supposed to be being regulated by.”

Calls for a Telecom-style breakup of the supermarket duopoly

Many commentators are drawing parallels between the state of the supermarkets and how the Telecom monopoly was broken up in the mid-2000s. For the best argument in this regard, see Ernie Newman’s column, Supermarkets – the Telecom parallel (paywalled).

Newman, who was once the head of the Technology Users Association of NZ, and now advises the Food and Grocery Council, is emphatic about the need for a break-up being forced on the supermarkets, starting his column like this: “Like cracking open an egg and finding it rotten, the Commerce Commission has exposed in one dramatic report the ugly reality of market power abuse in our supermarket sector.”

He argues that the split up of Telecom and major reforms to the telecommunications market quickly brought about huge benefits for the consumer, and the same can happen with groceries: “So can consumers, and grocery suppliers, expect a similar outcome from this action against supermarkets? Emphatically yes. The core problem is the same – blatant abuse of extreme market power. The detail is different, but arguably less challenging in the distribution sector which is about trucks and real estate, unlike the technology sector grappling with massive and continual technological changes.”

However, business journalist Bernard Hickey is much less sure. He says the Commerce Commission report is “a detailed, meticulous and cracking read” but dissents from the growing chorus who suggest big structural reforms could be easily implemented – see: Don’t bet on a breakup.

Here’s Hickey’s main point: “Unlike Telecom, which was a locally-listed and a former state-owned network monopoly that could be relatively easily broken in two with legislation, a share split and a couple of minor regulatory tweaks, the two supermarket chains’ ownership structures (two cooperatives with individually owned supermarkets and an Australian-owned corporate) mean they would both be fiendishly complicated to unravel and replicate with legislation and simple corporate action.”

Land reform to help new supermarket rivals

One of Hickey’s preferred fixes involves helping foreign chains enter the market with “accelerated RMA help for [property] sites or overseas investment exemptions, which should be expedited.”

This is because the Commerce Commission report shines a light on the problem for new supermarket companies face acquiring property for stores. Suitable land is hard to get, and this is partly due to a lot of council and resource management rules and processes, but also because of strategic actions by the existing grocery companies in blocking site availability. This is all explored in Dileepa Fonseka’s Pulling out all the stops to get a new supermarket player into the market.

For more on this, see Eric Crampton’s Why it’s hard to open a supermarket in NZ. He explains that a lot of suitable sites for new supermarkets have contracts that prevent them being used for this purpose: “Existing supermarkets either own those sites already, or previously owned them and sold them off with encumbrances on the title restricting any future owner against using the site as a supermarket, or the site is part of an existing shopping centre where the supermarket has an exclusivity restriction.”

See also, Crampton’s column, KiwiGrocer is a classic Catch-22.

KiwiShop: “Where everyone is at the front of the queue”

Probably the most contentious and interesting reform option put forward by the Commerce Commission is the government establishment of a supermarket chain. Max Rashbrooke comments on this, saying “Though I can’t see the state running a supermarket well in the long term, this could be the short-term circuit breaker we need. The risks would require careful assessment, but the benefits to consumers and suppliers would probably be substantial.”

For a much more enthusiastic embrace of this idea, see Martyn Bradbury’s Why we urgently need a State owned supermarket.

The way that such a “KiwiShop” would operate is sketched out further today by marketing specialist Associate Professor Mike Lee of the University of Auckland, who says that such an idea could be as successful as KiwiBank, but operating more as a not-for-profit public service – see: Subsidies not soft drinks: The brave new world of Kiwishop (paywalled).

He argues that when the market fails, the government needs to enter: “Governments need to step in when systems fail, or when the profit incentive of the major players result in poor levels of wellbeing for the population. That’s why governments get involved in public housing, public transport, public education, and public health. So why not try public retailing?”

Lee envisages a KiwiShop that employs welfare beneficiaries, trains them up, prioritises the sale of New Zealand goods, and doesn’t sell harmful products (such as cigarettes and soft drinks).

In contrast, Herald business commentator Kate MacNamara says the KiwiShop-type idea is “risible”: “For one thing, it conjures alarming visions of the Prime Minister’s chiding hand on your supermarket trolley steering it firmly away from the biscuit aisle (renamed ‘occasional treats’ and cordoned off before mid-afternoon)” – see: The problem of supermarkets’ power and Government’s attitude to competition (paywalled).

Chris Trotter says it’s not going to happen anyhow. He says that David Clark and his colleagues are allergic to such “democratic socialist” ideas, which would be seen as too much of a threat to capitalism – see: The Sin of cheapness.

Finally, not everyone is convinced that the supermarket sector is even broken and in need of reform. Mike Hosking says that the “report found fault for no other reason than all reports find fault”, and the problems of the current market are because: “It’s not easy doing business at the bottom of the world with a small population and a weird geography” – see: Nothing will change from the supermarket inquiry.

Groundswell NZ organised the “Howl of a Protest” in more than 40 towns and cities across New Zealand over recent environmental regulations, the “ute tax” and a Pacific seasonal worker shortage.

Co-founder Laurie Paterson said the “ute tax” was the issue people pointed the finger at, but farmers were also unhappy with the bureaucratic approach to the national policy statement for fresh water management.

From July this year, people buying new electric vehicles (EVs) could get as much as $8625 back from the government. The scheme will be funded through levies on high-emission vehicles from 1 January 2022.

About 100 tractors made their way into central Auckland, along the motorway to Queen Street and the Ellerslie race course.

Some farmers heading into Auckland missed the turnoff to the city and took the scenic route, driving their tractors over the Harbour Bridge.

Hundreds joined the convoy with a lap of the downtown area before gathering at Ellerslie Events Centre.

Traffic crawled through central Dunedin as dozens of vehicles taking part moved through the city from midday.

5km ute and tractor convoy
Utes and tractors stretched for more than 5km on Dunedin’s Southern Motorway.

The Otago Regional Council said five bus routes, which operate throughout large parts of the city, were delayed due to congestion.

Opposition National Party leader Judith Collins attended the protest along with a cohort of party MPs.

The National Party is among the most ardent critics of the government’s electric car rebate scheme and has said it will immediately reverse the policy if returned to power.

Collins addressed a large crowd of protesters in Blenheim during the protest.

She said she thought it was important to show her support for farmers.

Collins called on the government to listen to the concerns of those in the primary industries.

‘No farmers, no food’. Video: RNZ

Climate crisis ‘demands urgent action’
The Green Party acknowledged farmers have been asked to accept significant change, but said the climate crisis demands urgent action.

Greens environment spokesperson Eugenie Sage said she would like to hear some solutions from the protesters, rather than complaints.

She said the government had provided huge support to help farmers make changes.

Act Party leader David Seymour said farmers were fighting an uphill battle against regulation.

Seymour said the Labour government was doing some things well, but in other respects their approach, such as bringing in national-level rules for winter cropping, should be localised.

Seymour said many farmers also disagree with Significant Natural Areas, or SNAs, which are designed to protect remnants of native habitats.

Labour MP for Wairarapa Kieran McAnulty told RNZ that most of the farmers he had heard from told him the protest did not represent their views.

Farmers doing their bit
He said most farmers had been doing their bit for a long time, and he worried the protest would paint all farmers as climate deniers who did not care about the environment.

“I know that’s not true but I would hate for that to be the image of farmers as a result of today … there are legitimate concerns but obviously those concerns have always been heard and discussed with government,” he said.

“If we are going to get the best value for our products we need to show that we are environmentally sustainable, that we are climate friendly, and that we have ethical products.”

McAnulty said there was a very strong economic argument for the proposed changes, the farming leadership bodies and the majority of farmers were on board with them, and the protest would undermine the good consensus work done in the past four years.

“That’s what the farming leadership bodies are saying, they’re on board with this — Federated Farmers is on board with this. Unfortunately that message is being lost with today’s protest.”

One of the farmers’ demands is that the government scrap its national policy statement on freshwater which came into effect last September.

The reform introduced regulation on fencing off waterways, reporting nitrogen use and changes to winter grazing practices to protect animal welfare. Groundswell NZ says that should be down to individual catchment groups and regional councils.

Concessions already made
But Forest & Bird freshwater advocate Tom Kay said the government has already made concessions for farmers in the reforms.

“The current situation is unworkable, we have a massive freshwater crisis, we have a climate change crisis, we have a biodiversity crisis.”

He says the system up to now, with very lax rules on freshwater, doesn’t work.

For farmers leading the way and taking action like planting along waterways, the policy statement won’t be a problem at all.

“This is to bring up those laggards at the bottom end.”

A lot of farmers’ demands have been listened to by the government, he said.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

My last article, announcing that I intend to make a submission to the National Executive Council (NEC) to amend the Public Service regulation to no longer require the Commissioner of Police to hold a tertiary degree, prompted a number of readers to suggest this would be an act nepotism, corruption and self-interest.

While I found these claims rather amusing, they are also disturbing as it shows some people are either genuinely ignorant of the issues, or just plain stupid.

What is the regulation that stipulates a person must obtain a tertiary degree to qualify for the appointment of Departmental Head (Secretary of Department)?

In 2003, the NEC approved a regulation called the Public Service (Management) Minimum Person Specification and Competence & Regulations for Selection and Appointment of Departmental Heads and Provincial Administrators.

This regulation provided that any person applying for a position of Departmental Head or Provincial Administrator must meet a number of minimum requirements to be considered for the appointment. These requirements number more than 18 and include everything from minimim tertiary education, over age of 35, management experience and skills to health and fitness.

So there is no confusion, this regulation was proposed by the Department of Personnel Management as the agency responsible for Public Service through the Minister of Public Service for NEC’s approval.

While Acts of Parliament (laws) are subject to approval by Parliament, regulations are approved by NEC.

Regulations like bylaws
Regulations are like bylaws to an Act of Parliament and are intended to provide more detailed processes and procedures when implementing provisions or sections of an Act (law).

When NEC introduced the regulation specifying the minimum requirements for persons to be appointed to be Departmental Head and Provincial Administrators, did it intend the regulation to apply to the Commissioner of Police?

Short answer, in my respectful view, is No.

My evidence to support this view is that NEC appoints the Commissioner of Police and, if it intended the Commissioner of Police to be subject to the regulation, then it would have applied it to every Commissioner of Police appointed since 2003.

The same can be said about the Department of Personnel Management which proposed the regulation in the first place and would have otherwise applied it in the shortlisting of candidates for the position.

Since the introduction of the regulation, how many Commissioners of Police have had a tertiary qualification?

Short answer is none.

Six post-regulation appointments
Since the introduction of the regulation by NEC there have been six appointments to Commissioner of Police. Not one has possessed a tertiary degree.

In fact, since 1945 more than 23 people have served as Commissioner of Police and only one of them possessed a tertiary education – Peter Aigolo, 1997-1999.

It is the role of Members of Parliament to pass legislation, NEC to pass regulation and the court to interpret and uphold law consistent with its intended meaning, purpose and Constitutional law.

The Supreme Court has held in numerous of its judgements over the years that, when interpreting laws passed by Parliament, it is important to understand and consider the intent of the legislature when they introduced the law.

In this case, the question is did the NEC intend the regulation to be applied to the appointment of Commissioner of Police?

Based on the above evidence, my respectful view is No.

I don’t believe this evidence or argument was raised before the National Court to assist the Court in arriving at its decision. Perhaps it was the case of those drafting the regulation failing to make it clear.

The decision of the National Court is not final, as the Commissioner of Police may exercise his right to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court for a three-man bench to review the decision.

NEC may also exercise its Constitutional powers to correct any confusion in the application of the regulation to make it consistent with its intended purpose.

The decision to introduce regulation, rescind, amend or correct it, including in the appointment of the Commissioner of Police, lies with NEC.

Republished from Police Minister Bryan Kramer’s personal blog. The original headline on this article was: “Where did minimum requirements for Chief of Police come from?” Asia Pacific Report often republishes Minister Kramer’s articles.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz