Early reports indicate that the temporary Israel/Hamas ceasefire deal (due to take effect on Sunday) will allow for the gradual release of groups of Israeli hostages, the release of an unspecified number of Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails (likely only a fraction of the total incarcerated population), and the withdrawal of the IDF to a one kilometre wide buffer zone situated inside the Gaza Strip. Gazans will be allowed to return to their homes, if any of those homes are still standing.
Everything else beyond the six week initial phase of the temporary ceasefire remains unclear. Such as for instance, how many of the Israeli hostages are still alive, what the future status will be of the 100 metre wide “Philadelphi corridor” along the Gaza/Egypt border, and what the future administrative body tasked with running Gaza will look like. There are suggestions that UAE forces will be involved in policing the Gaza strip, and with fulfilling the administrative tasks formerly carried out by the political wing of Hamas.
There are few signs of progress towards a lasting ceasefire. US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has been talking vaguely today only about a ‘memo of understanding’ on how and when talks on a lasting ceasefire might conceivably commence. Meaning: once all the Israeli hostages have been released, there seems to be nothing in the temporary ceasefire agreement to stop Israel from re-commencing its genocide.
Has Israel made any commitments not to create settlements in Gaza? It doesn’t seem so. And just who, exactly, is going to fund the rebuilding of Gaza? It is hard to imagine that a United States led by Donald Trump would provide significant funds to repair the colossal damage its henchmen have done to Gaza’s infrastructure.
Overall, the current ceasefire deal seems to contain no commitments on any of the medium-to-long term issues crucial to a lasting peace. For that reason, Western politicians should be refraining from depicting this temporary ceasefire deal as a step towards achieving a two state solution, given that Israel continues to reject that very idea, on principle.
Rites to enhance property rights
The Treaty Principles Bill is not the only wolfish piece of legislation decked out in sheep’s clothing by the ACT Party. The Treaty Principles Bill uses “equality” as its cover to downgrade the constitutional status of the Treaty of Waitangi, and to rule out any and all forms of affirmative action to address the effects of systemic racism.
The proposed Regulatory Standards Bill is another vehicle for constitutional change that’s being launched under the guise of sensible, garden-variety law-making – hey, who doesn’t want to cut or reduce unnecessary government red tape?
In reality, we already have mechanisms in place for reviewing red tape and improving regulation (see below.) Regardless, ACT is proposing to set up, staff and fund a whole new meta-Ministry, one that will be endowed with powers to review and reduce what other ministries are doing to achieve what central government is expected to do.
Meaning : this Bill is not merely creating a new tier of costly bureaucracy, allegedly to reduce the extent of bureaucracy. The proposed legislation is a tool for advancing an ideological mission to reduce the role of government. Normally, constitutional change of the scope envisaged by this Bill should not be sneaked through the House as an ordinary Bill that requires only a simple parliamentary majority to become the law of the land.
Besides all of the above, red tape often exists for a good reason. As the Council for Civil Liberties says in its submission on the proposed Bill:
….Many liberties enjoyed by people individually cannot be secured except by well-designed regulation that may limit the rights of one segment of the population for the benefit of many others. Good regulation should involve an accurate assessment of the benefits of regulation against the costs, but (a) this is best done by the domain experts in the relevant ministries, not a Ministry of Regulation, and (b) by considering social and environmental issues, not just property rights.
The enhancement of property rights however, seems to be the core purpose of the proposed Bill. The definition of the“ liberties” to be protected makes it clear that the Bill not talking merely about the liberties of human beings, but of companies as legal entities – and it intends to endow corporates with the same status and rights under the law, as humans:
Legislation should not unduly diminish a person’s liberty, personal security, freedom of choice or action, or rights to own, use, and dispose of property, except as is necessary to provide for, or protect, any such liberty, freedom, or right of another person.
A “person” in this formulation could readily be construed to be a business as well – and thereby entitled to the compensation process outlined in the Bill, should government laws and regulations impair its enjoyment of those liberties. Quite deliberately, the proposed Bill elevates the property rights held by companies to the same level as the rights enjoyed by citizens – such that, if government regulation on health safety, or environmental grounds happens to impair the profitability of the company, they would be entitled to similar compensation as a citizen may be for instance, if their property gets confiscated for roading purposes.
This new avenue of compensation could become available – as the Council for Civil Liberties submission points out – to a building company forbidden to use the kind of cladding associated with the UK Grenfell fire, or to a tobacco company if its products are regulated on public health grounds, in ways that limit its profits. Given that some New Zealanders regard taxation as theft, taxation itself could be open to challenge as a form of property confiscation under this very ideological blueprint.
To help pull off this constitutional coup, an alarming extent of the official consultation papers, impact reports and Crown Law advice around this proposed Bill have been redacted. The consultation papers also make it crystal clear that the Bill is deliberately aiming to circumvent the Treaty of Waitangi:
“It is not proposed that the Bill would include a principle relating to the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi”
The Bill is also attempting – almost certainly in vain – to shut out the judiciary from the process. Instead, the Bill is proposing to entirely entrust the roles of (a) hearing and evaluating complaints (b) balancing the competing rights and benefits and (c) recommending the appropriate compensation to a panel called the Regulatory Standards Board that will be answerable only to the Minister of Regulations who appointed them.
The potential for capture of this Board – either by lobbyists or by their political masters – is obvious. As the Council for Civil Liberties submission concludes:
…By privileging property rights and seeking to protect the ‘liberties’ of companies, it will result in poor quality law-making that undermines people’s rights in order to benefit the wealthy. Environmental and health and safety regulation will be particularly at risk under these proposals. The attempt to circumvent judicial scrutiny will be futile and expensive, and the proposed Regulatory Standards Board is a glaring nexus for corruption and lobbying by vested interests. The proposals are fundamentally undemocratic, and should not be taken any further.
Unfortunately, there is every indication that this Bill will not be opposed by the coalition partners to even the limited extent that the Treaty Principles Bill has been. You might think that a political party that calls itself New Zealand First should be objecting to this attempt to put corporations and foreign multinationals on the same legal footing as flesh and blood New Zealanders, and provide them with the same legal protections. So far though, there has been nary a peep of protest from Winston Peters.
In the meantime, an ACT Party whose radical ideology is supported by less than 10% of New Zealand voters, is trying to enact significant constitutional change via a simple majority in Parliament. Along the way, the people who used to depict the Ardern administration as a jackbooted tyranny and who referred to Jacinda Ardern as “Comrade Ardern” have been conspicuously silent on the threats to democracy that David Seymour has been promoting. To all intents, political power and the legislative machinery is being concentrated in the hands of a party capable of winning only 8.6% of the party vote at the last election.
Footnote One: There’s more information here on the Regulatory Standards Bill consultation.
Footnote Two: As mentioned above, safeguards already exist against the needless proliferation of red tape. These include the Legislation Design Advisory Committee (LDAC) Guidelines, the Regulations Review Committee, and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act reviews. Therefore, Seymour’s meta-Ministry of very highly paid bureaucrats and consultants will be redundant in one sense, but – more dangerously – will be empowered to second guess what other ministries and agencies have been tasked with doing. It’s a recipe for conflict, and delay.
Given that it has sought to exempt itself from Treaty obligations, the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill also needs to be read in tandem with its Treaty Principles Bill sibling, as a combined attempt to undermine the Treaty of Waitangi. To be consistent, National and NZF should be pledging to kill this proposed Bill as well, should it attempt to proceed as advertised.
Electronic dreams
After Covid hit, the Colombian electro-dance musician/producer Ela Minus released two tracks – “El cielo no es de nadie” and “dominique” – that for me, captured the time dissociation of that period perfectly: “Today I woke up at 7pm”…. Both of those tracks kick off this brief but terrific live performance:
In the years since then, she’s been issuing a stream of tracks of similar quality sometimes alone, and sometimes in collaboration with DJ Python. This week sees the release of her album Dia. Of all the singles so far from that album, this slow burner from mid-2024 has stayed the course: