Luxon is beginning to be quite unbelievable in his responses to really important matters. They show that either 1) he's quite thick and doesn't actually understand the implications, or 2) he really doesn't care. Either is pretty worrying.
Yeah. He seems to be using the John Key device (Yeah nah nothing to see here, etc). Which I guess may work some of the time. However, quite a few of the issues where he is pulling this out have been pretty shocking, and the trick also relies on folks' trust that he is someone to be depended on. Overall, it seems now to be conveying that he doesn't know how to manage the conduct of either his cabinet or his government. Which I'd say is pretty much on the dot.
So Nicola Willis and Chris Bishop also admitted to using their personal emails for government business - meaning several ministers doing this makes it all right and objectors are just being pedantic? At the very least it makes them all look like a bunch of amateurs. Bryce, your thorough analysis makes it clear that their actions create a barrier to transparency and accountability and are a very real potential threat to democracy.
If there’s to be an inquiry then it should be into all MPs use of gmail. And texts and conversations. Or perhaps accept that this is much ado about nothing. She used gmail to access a printer. She’s not the Defence, SIS or Foreign minister.
Do you understand that it is ministers who are subject to the Official Information Act and the Public Records Act which is why any inquiry should be on ministerial use of private emails.
Indeed I do understand, Andrew. If that’s your only problem then investigate away. None of us will be any the wiser but your bureaucratic requirements will have been met. And if the investigation shows that Sandford sent stuff to her printer?
We already know she did way more than sending stuff to the printer. But I recognise you feel an obligation to act as apologist for everything this coalition government does.
Very little of what this Coalition does appeals to me but at the very least it’s a lot better than the previous incompetents. You’d be hard pressed to prove your accusation. My point is not that Sandford broke the rules - it’s more that it’s of little consequence but the media (and you) are grasping at anything that shows her in a bad light. There are much more important things to worry about.
If any government ministers, or MPs on government business, use a personal account they should be required to at least copy the emails back to their work account. They can print them off if they must but there will be a record. If they don't they should get the chop - just like would happen to an employee in any other organisation.
To guard against authoritarian tyranny government is supposed to be transparent, recorded and able to be held to account.
Any off the reservation stuff is no laughing matter.
A quick morning chat with ChatGPT re the Statutory Regulation Bill presently being discussed in Parliament:
Will the statutory regulation bill being discussed in the New Zealand Parliament reduce the checks and balances of Parliament designed to prevent authoritarian rule, especially given that the select committee process as a check is already so weak because how many members each political party gets to contribute to a select committee matches the percentage of power they have in the house of representatives?
ChatGPT said:
The Regulatory Standards Bill currently under discussion in New Zealand Parliament has raised significant concerns regarding its potential impact on the checks and balances designed to prevent authoritarian governance. Critics argue that the bill could erode democratic safeguards, particularly in relation to the select committee process.Otago Daily Times Online News
Concerns Over the Select Committee Process
The select committee system is a cornerstone of New Zealand's legislative scrutiny, allowing for detailed examination of bills and public input. However, the current composition of select committees—where each political party's representation mirrors its proportion in the House of Representatives—has been criticized for potentially undermining the independence and effectiveness of this scrutiny. This structure may lead to partisan dynamics that compromise the committees' ability to impartially assess legislation.
Moreover, the government's increasing use of urgency to pass legislation has further weakened the select committee's role. In recent years, there has been a notable rise in the number of bills passed without select committee scrutiny, with 19 bills being fast-tracked through all stages in a single day, bypassing public consultation and detailed examination . This trend raises concerns about the diminishing effectiveness of parliamentary oversight.Newsroom+1New Zealand Law Society+1
Potential Implications of the Regulatory Standards Bill
The Regulatory Standards Bill, a key component of the coalition agreement between the National Party and ACT, seeks to establish a framework for evaluating regulations based on principles of good law-making and economic efficiency. While the bill aims to streamline regulatory processes, it has been criticized for potentially prioritizing individual and property rights over collective interests, environmental protections, and obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi .Newsroom+4Wikipedia+4Otago Daily Times Online News+4Otago Daily Times Online News
One of the most contentious aspects of the bill is the proposal to create a regulatory standards board that would assume roles traditionally held by the judiciary, such as considering public complaints about existing regulations. This shift could undermine judicial oversight and reduce avenues for public accountability .Otago Daily Times Online News
Calls for Reform
In response to these concerns, the New Zealand Law Society has recommended reforms to enhance legislative scrutiny. These include establishing post-legislative review processes and setting "trigger points" for scrutiny, such as legislation passed under urgency or containing sunset clauses . Such measures aim to ensure that laws remain effective and aligned with democratic principles over time.New Zealand Law Society+1Newsroom+1
Conclusion
The Regulatory Standards Bill, in conjunction with the current state of select committee scrutiny and the government's use of urgency, poses significant risks to New Zealand's democratic safeguards. Without reforms to strengthen parliamentary oversight and ensure independent scrutiny, there is a danger that the legislative process could become more susceptible to authoritarian tendencies. Ongoing public debate and institutional reforms will be crucial in safeguarding the integrity of New Zealand's democratic institutions.
As the Nats have a spineless fool in charge it's not surprising that they think that they can get away with flouting the rules , when they hear luxon spout, I'm super comfortable with that....
Bryce, does this article go to the parties you think should be very much aware of the consequences of the breach and other similar breaches? Such as Luxon, whips, ombudsman, auditor general, public records office, archives NZ, etc.? If not, why not? (I do know you can lead a horse to water but ….)
Luxon is beginning to be quite unbelievable in his responses to really important matters. They show that either 1) he's quite thick and doesn't actually understand the implications, or 2) he really doesn't care. Either is pretty worrying.
Both
Yeah. He seems to be using the John Key device (Yeah nah nothing to see here, etc). Which I guess may work some of the time. However, quite a few of the issues where he is pulling this out have been pretty shocking, and the trick also relies on folks' trust that he is someone to be depended on. Overall, it seems now to be conveying that he doesn't know how to manage the conduct of either his cabinet or his government. Which I'd say is pretty much on the dot.
So Nicola Willis and Chris Bishop also admitted to using their personal emails for government business - meaning several ministers doing this makes it all right and objectors are just being pedantic? At the very least it makes them all look like a bunch of amateurs. Bryce, your thorough analysis makes it clear that their actions create a barrier to transparency and accountability and are a very real potential threat to democracy.
If there’s to be an inquiry then it should be into all MPs use of gmail. And texts and conversations. Or perhaps accept that this is much ado about nothing. She used gmail to access a printer. She’s not the Defence, SIS or Foreign minister.
Do you understand that it is ministers who are subject to the Official Information Act and the Public Records Act which is why any inquiry should be on ministerial use of private emails.
Indeed I do understand, Andrew. If that’s your only problem then investigate away. None of us will be any the wiser but your bureaucratic requirements will have been met. And if the investigation shows that Sandford sent stuff to her printer?
We already know she did way more than sending stuff to the printer. But I recognise you feel an obligation to act as apologist for everything this coalition government does.
Very little of what this Coalition does appeals to me but at the very least it’s a lot better than the previous incompetents. You’d be hard pressed to prove your accusation. My point is not that Sandford broke the rules - it’s more that it’s of little consequence but the media (and you) are grasping at anything that shows her in a bad light. There are much more important things to worry about.
If any government ministers, or MPs on government business, use a personal account they should be required to at least copy the emails back to their work account. They can print them off if they must but there will be a record. If they don't they should get the chop - just like would happen to an employee in any other organisation.
Turn over all personal gmails to officialdom, get it fixed. Don't do it again.
To guard against authoritarian tyranny government is supposed to be transparent, recorded and able to be held to account.
Any off the reservation stuff is no laughing matter.
A quick morning chat with ChatGPT re the Statutory Regulation Bill presently being discussed in Parliament:
Will the statutory regulation bill being discussed in the New Zealand Parliament reduce the checks and balances of Parliament designed to prevent authoritarian rule, especially given that the select committee process as a check is already so weak because how many members each political party gets to contribute to a select committee matches the percentage of power they have in the house of representatives?
ChatGPT said:
The Regulatory Standards Bill currently under discussion in New Zealand Parliament has raised significant concerns regarding its potential impact on the checks and balances designed to prevent authoritarian governance. Critics argue that the bill could erode democratic safeguards, particularly in relation to the select committee process.Otago Daily Times Online News
Concerns Over the Select Committee Process
The select committee system is a cornerstone of New Zealand's legislative scrutiny, allowing for detailed examination of bills and public input. However, the current composition of select committees—where each political party's representation mirrors its proportion in the House of Representatives—has been criticized for potentially undermining the independence and effectiveness of this scrutiny. This structure may lead to partisan dynamics that compromise the committees' ability to impartially assess legislation.
Moreover, the government's increasing use of urgency to pass legislation has further weakened the select committee's role. In recent years, there has been a notable rise in the number of bills passed without select committee scrutiny, with 19 bills being fast-tracked through all stages in a single day, bypassing public consultation and detailed examination . This trend raises concerns about the diminishing effectiveness of parliamentary oversight.Newsroom+1New Zealand Law Society+1
Potential Implications of the Regulatory Standards Bill
The Regulatory Standards Bill, a key component of the coalition agreement between the National Party and ACT, seeks to establish a framework for evaluating regulations based on principles of good law-making and economic efficiency. While the bill aims to streamline regulatory processes, it has been criticized for potentially prioritizing individual and property rights over collective interests, environmental protections, and obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi .Newsroom+4Wikipedia+4Otago Daily Times Online News+4Otago Daily Times Online News
One of the most contentious aspects of the bill is the proposal to create a regulatory standards board that would assume roles traditionally held by the judiciary, such as considering public complaints about existing regulations. This shift could undermine judicial oversight and reduce avenues for public accountability .Otago Daily Times Online News
Calls for Reform
In response to these concerns, the New Zealand Law Society has recommended reforms to enhance legislative scrutiny. These include establishing post-legislative review processes and setting "trigger points" for scrutiny, such as legislation passed under urgency or containing sunset clauses . Such measures aim to ensure that laws remain effective and aligned with democratic principles over time.New Zealand Law Society+1Newsroom+1
Conclusion
The Regulatory Standards Bill, in conjunction with the current state of select committee scrutiny and the government's use of urgency, poses significant risks to New Zealand's democratic safeguards. Without reforms to strengthen parliamentary oversight and ensure independent scrutiny, there is a danger that the legislative process could become more susceptible to authoritarian tendencies. Ongoing public debate and institutional reforms will be crucial in safeguarding the integrity of New Zealand's democratic institutions.
I appreciate your sensible suggestions for suitable response by Government, but wish I could feel confident of their being taken up!
As the Nats have a spineless fool in charge it's not surprising that they think that they can get away with flouting the rules , when they hear luxon spout, I'm super comfortable with that....
Bryce, does this article go to the parties you think should be very much aware of the consequences of the breach and other similar breaches? Such as Luxon, whips, ombudsman, auditor general, public records office, archives NZ, etc.? If not, why not? (I do know you can lead a horse to water but ….)