1[Mediawatch] Big broadcasters under pressure: tide turning for local media? For years the most comprehensive annual survey of Kiwis’ media habits has shown local media losing ground to offshore invaders like YouTube, Netflix and Spotify. But has the tide turned this year? Also: TVNZ’s news boss and RNZ’s CEO on why they went public this week to address the public trust problem. [Radio New Zealand, Sunday 01 September 2024, 09:08]

2[The House] Stop the questions: a coach steps in to end the fight Parliament's Question Time is a slow-moving boxing match with many rounds. This week one boxer's second stepped into the ring to help. They didn't throw in the towel, but they did try to stop the bout. Parliament’s Question Time is a lot like a boxing ring that sits at the centre of our system of responsible government. Every sitting day in the debating chamber, pugilists from a variety of weight classes face up against one another. In the blue corner is a government minister, in the red corner is an opposition MP seeking to bring them down, or at least keep them chastened. The metaphor might sound brutal, but that’s Parliamentary democracy; keeping governments honest and in hand. Not letting them step outside the ring of influence that Parliament, as their master, has allowed them. It’s never an easy fight and in many ways Parliament’s rules and precedents favour government ministers. There are so many rules about what can be asked and how; so many ways to slip away, to fend, or to counterpunch. These bouts might be daily, but there are many rounds, lasting months. But as each match develops, opposition MPs who can find the right jabbing questions, can sometimes release a slow trickle of information that forces a minister against the ropes. And when that happens sometimes a boxer’s second gets involved. They might help set up a few counterpunches from their own corner, or start complaining to the referee that the match is unfair. On Tuesday, that was Shane Jones, who is a boxer from a heavier weight class. He is Deputy Leader of New Zealand First and a long time MP and political brawler. His intervention was the Parliamentary equivalent of complaining about the other guy’s gloves, the size of the ring, the lights and the presence of camera flashes. The intervention was evident prior to Question Time, when the Speaker rose to give a ruling. “Members, I've had a question raised to me today about the admissibility of question No. 10, which I want to take the opportunity to clarify. Speaker's ruling 230/4 by Speakers Wall and Smith: once a member has made a complaint to the Speaker about a matter of privilege, it is not appropriate to raise that complaint in the House by way of notice of motion, nor should the member seek to litigate the veracity through House proceedings. It is not inappropriate to ask questions in the House on the general subject of the complaint, to prohibit that would unreasonably constrain Parliament's privilege of free speech. The question is in order.” Question 10 was from Labour’s Health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall to the Associate Minister for Health, Casey Costello. It seems that a ‘matter of privilege’ has been raised with the Speaker regarding New Zealand First MP Casey Costello. She is a government minister who has been facing increasingly punchy questions regarding her changes to tobacco regulation; changes spookily similar to the stated ambitions of a tobacco company. Raising a matter of privilege with the Speaker is Parliamentary language for making a formal complaint; that an MP (in this case a minister), has broken one of Parliament’s more serious rules. Once the complaint is made, and the complainee has had a chance to respond, the Speaker decides whether a ‘question of privilege’ exists. In plain language, whether there is a case to answer. If the Speaker judges it worthy of further inquiry he will refer it to the Privileges Committee, which is chaired by the Attorney General Judith Collins. Usually, only at that point is the existence of a privilege complaint announced to the House. If a matter of privilege is not referred, it is not made public. A drastic attempt at a rescue On Tuesday, Shane Jones was outing his own MP. Apparently in an unsuccessful effort to protect her from further questions, or possibly to impede continued questioning from Labour’s Ayesha Verrall, who has been in this particular fight all year, and seems to be getting into the swing of it, so to speak. Verrall’s primary question was: “Does she stand by her response to written question No. 405 (2024), ‘There was no specific document written. A range of information was provided to officials, including material like Hansard reports, the Coalition Agreement and previous NZ First policy positions’; if so, how is this consistent with her having now released the document in question under the Official Information Act?”. While the Speaker did not agree with Shane Jones’ attempts to prevent questions he did note that there were bounds to what could be said or asked. “If there was a speech made about this matter, a general debate comment made about this matter, or a motion made on this matter, they would all be out of order. But a question doesn't necessarily make any allegation. A question is a question. If it transgresses into that area, then clearly we have a problem and it will be stopped.” Jones intervened again once Question 10 and its follow-ups began, both with suggested answers and with a point of order. This may have been an attempt to close down a line of questioning, or it may have been to give Costello more time to construct an answer. It was an ironic exchange – see below. Ayesha Verrall: Does she stand by her response to an OIA request from Radio New Zealand that the document was delivered to her office as hard copy on 6 December 2023? Shane Jones: Point of order. Sir, you undertook to ensure that the line of questioning did not violate Speaker's ruling 230/4. We now have this member repeating falsehoods and using question time as an echo chamber to undermine natural justice. Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to the point of order. Well, sir, there's no possible grounds to make the claim that the member is asking falsehoods when she's simply asking the minister to stand by a statement she has previously made. This question is entirely in line with the primary, which you yourself have ruled to be appropriate. Speaker: That is right, and if I listen to the answers that have been given so far, they are fairly clear. So, without penalty, ask the question again. ---- It has been a long slow bout, nearly as long as the current government, but fascinating all the way. It may have many rounds yet to go. Whether the ‘matter of privilege’ becomes a ‘question of privilege’ and confirmation of what its specifics might be, are yet to be seen. If you want more background on this story we recommend this recent piece from Guyon Espiner (https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/525810/leaked-tobacco-lobbying-plan-for-political-pressure-shows-tobacco-giant-got-its-tax-cut-wish). [Radio New Zealand, Tuesday 27 August 2024, 20:00]

3[The House] Petitioner reveals NZ First's original fast track bill, with hidden projects Petitions often touch on very human stories, or on tricky philosophical issues. This week, one threw explosive new information into an already contentious debate. This week at Parliament, a petitioner revealed to the Petitions Committee the existence of a draft fast track bill, which predates government formation. The petition was calling for the government to reveal which projects were to be included in the government's fast track legislation. The evidence of a pre-coalition bill, that it originated with Shane Jones, and that it already contained projects threatened to overshadow the petition's focus on the actual bill. The petitioner, Richard Capie representing Forest and Bird, gained the evidence via an Official Information Act response from National MP Chris Bishop. Bishop's OIA response included a draft fast track bill that he had received from New Zealand First's Shane Jones during the coalition negotiations at the end of last year. In section 14 of the draft bill given to Bishop, titled the 'Nationally and Regionally Significant Projects and Other Matters Bill', there is reference to an 'expert consenting panel' which 'considers listed projects'. These listed projects, section 14 says, are described in Schedule 1 of the bill. After flicking over the pages of the draft bill to the bit with Schedule 1 on it, you're met with a large grey box, covering up half the page. In other words, in the copy that Capie received, the list of projects in Schedule 1 had been redacted. The redaction was explained by the legal privilege held by the Parliamentary Counsel Office (which presumably did not draft the Shane Jones bill). The OIA revelation suggests a number of things. That a list of possible fast track projects has existed since late last year. That the list was created by New Zealand First before they were part of the government, and possibly prior to the election. Consequently, it's possible that the inclusion of potential projects could have been part of New Zealand First's coalition negotiations with National and ACT. Reporting from The Newsroom suggests that this list includes two gold mines and two coal mines. Comparing the redacted project list from Shane Jones's bill to the list that Chris Bishop has declined to add to the Fast Track Approval Bill would be interesting (if those lists were public). Capie suggested to the Petitions Committee that Parliament should be investigating this. "I think the New Zealand Parliament should see that list of projects, should be able to see the list of projects that were put forward in this draft bill, and see what overlap there is; and ask good questions about probity involving that." The Petitions Committee presides over Parliament's petitions process, and following deliberations about the petition in question, it can make recommendations to Parliament. Capie's petition is unusual in that it asks the Petitions Committee to ask another committee to do something; well actually to not do something. Specifically, it requests that the Environment Committee taihoa in their consideration of the controversial Fast Track Approvals Bill, because it currently omits the schedule listing projects given immediate entry into the Fast Track Process. The government has said that list will be added to the bill once the committee has reported back to the House. Citing the need for transparency, Capie told Petitions Committee members on Thursday that the public should be given the chance to have their say on the list of projects prior to the bill being reported back to the House. "On Monday, the minister reconfirmed the government's intention to provide the list of projects for Schedule 2 after the select committee has finished its deliberations," Capie told the committee. "This will effectively deprive the New Zealand public, you and your parliamentary colleagues, the opportunity to properly scrutinise those projects, which you will then be asked to vote on." Jones' draft bill seems to take inspiration from Labour's Covid-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020, which was used by the previous government in an attempt to bolster economic recovery during the height of the pandemic. It's important to note however, that unlike the government's current Fast Track Approvals Bill, Labour's 2020 bill included a list of projects from the very start of its legislative journey. The petitions process If you've ever had a browse on Parliament's petitions page, you would have noticed there are a heck of a lot of them on there. Regardless of how many signatures they get, what the subject matter is, and what they want Parliament to do, they're given the same prescription of consideration by the committee. Naturally, these petitions come from a colourful range of New Zealanders, all with a pet issue. Joe Bloggs in Timaru may want Parliament to change the speed limit on the main street, the union of cobblers may want Parliament to give fairer pay to shoemakers - you get the idea. Ultimately, petitions are another instrument for democratic participation, just like voting or submitting to a select committee. Richard Capie is advocating for more transparency in parliamentary scrutiny and public engagement. "I think New Zealanders deserve to know what is being considered in their backyards." [Radio New Zealand, Friday 30 August 2024, 16:00]

4[The House] Rising costs and rising seas: Parliament’s climate adaptation inquiry The Climate Change Commission told members this week that climate adaptation is the "most difficult challenge this country faces over the next century." When New Zealand's colonial founders built our cities and towns, they clearly lacked flooding and coastal erosion modelling in their town planning. It is true that coastal and river-based settlements are inherently desirable in the way of accessibility for trade, fertile soil, and mahinga kai. Moreover, there probably wasn't a large pool of climate scientists and environmental engineers to consult at the time. But still, our early settlers' addiction to building on flood plains and swamps has made our country's effort to adapt to a changing climate a monumental one. Climate change is a pretty ubiquitous topic in Parliament. It's the subject of so many debates and conversations in the House, which tend to get pretty heated at the best of times. Two decades or so ago, those debates may have contained arguments like "climate change exists and we need to stop it." That's definitely still the underlying utterance or default position for so many of our MPs, but for a while now, there's been a noticeable shift in dialogue from how we can stop the climate from changing, to how on earth we can adapt to it changing. Recent extreme weather events like Cyclone Gabrielle, and the Auckland Anniversary floods are jarring reminders that inaction would be chaotic, and adaptation is critical. Invariably, this is an issue that transcends generations, and indeed governments. Hence the need for bi-partisan collaboration and consensus on lawmaking in this area. Parliament's Finance and Expenditure Select Committee (FEC) is currently leading the charge on this, with an inquiry into climate adaptation. This picks up on the Environment Committee's inquiry on the same subject last Parliament (the term finished before the committee had the chance to report back), and is intended to be a key consideration in the development of adaptation legislation. Accordingly, submissions are being sought from far and wide. Among them are insurance companies, regional councils, advisory bodies, and individual New Zealanders who are experiencing adaptation as an immediate issue rather than a future one. One of those individuals is 83 year old submitter Donald Brown, who resides at the edge of Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere. He told the committee in his submission that "we don't want to be climate change victims when we could be 'leaders helping show other communities that face the same problems that there can be good solutions if we work together." Brown's submission highlights another facet of consideration for adaptation. Much of the land used by Māori for tikanga purposes (ie. urupa - burial grounds, mahinga kai, archeological sites) is threatened. The prospect of a climate-induced managed retreat would risk severing centuries old cultural attachments to the whenua (land). "I dearly want to see out my days at the lake, continuing my mahinga kai practises and building the mātauranga to rejuvenate this lake and also build its resilience so the lake can also respond to the climate challenge." Time to build an ark? As you'd expect, the committee has been hearing from relevant officials from Crown entities and ministries. On Wednesday, one of them told the FEC that adaptation "is likely to be the most difficult challenge that this country faces over the next century." The job of the Climate Change Commission, says Chair Dr. Rodd Carr, is to "monitor progress and adaptation to help all New Zealanders understand whether we are best dressed for the future." Carr and his colleagues stressed to the committee the importance of widespread public understanding regarding adaptation plans. "If it is not clear to households where costs and losses lie, then they will not make the optimum choices about where to live, and what to produce, and what risks to avoid." Stephen Walter, who works in the Commission's emissions budgets and adaptation division commended the collaborative nature of the inquiry. "We're very grateful that the Parliament has formed this cross-party committee inquiry into an adaptation framework. It's really important that this cross-party support is not just on the outcome that we achieve but also on the actions and measures we take in support of that outcome." Climate adaptation: a finance issue? One would think that Parliament was barking up the right tree last year in allocating a climate adaptation inquiry to the Environment Committee. So why is this one being led by Finance and Expenditure? The Committee's Chair, National MP for Kaikōura Stuart Smith, explained to The House that this wasn't a case of mixed up in-trays. "Ultimately, it's a finance question," says Smith. "These things will cost money, and the question often will come down to, where the costs fall, and who pays for them." Partisan tiffs and spats are omnipresent at Parliament. Ask a child about what they think Question Time is, and I'd bet money on them answering something like "the person from the blue party and the person from the red party were both shouting at each other." This perception is of course perpetuated by the fact that Question Time is perhaps the most widely televised and publicly visible function of Parliament. Digression aside, select committees are a bastion of collaboration and collegiality in an environment that is otherwise pretty adversarial. Smith reckons that this inquiry has been an example that cross-party kaupapa is in fact effective, and more importantly - productive. "All the parties are collaborating and actually, it's working really well. Ultimately, even in the adaptation space, there will be things that we disagree on, along party lines, but the thing is to find the maximum amount of things we agree on, so that we can make progress. Governments come and go, and this is a long term issue, a very long term issue, so it's something we have to do." What's an inquiry again? Inquiries, and their less formal variations - briefings, are a form of non-legislative business under the remit of select committees. They are either self-initiated, or the House will refer a specific issue to a committee to conduct an inquiry. The inquiry into climate adaptation is an example of the latter, with Minister for Climate Change, Simon Watts, proposing the motion of its initiation in the House. Unlike briefings, inquiries report back to the House regarding their findings, the parameters of which are more defined in a written Terms of Reference. In this instance, these were articulated by Watts when he made the motion in the House. This inquiry is but the tip of the proverbial (melting) iceberg in terms of the legislative and regulatory work that needs to be done in the area of climate adaptation. The scale of the challenge, as the Climate Commission candidly told the committee this week, is enormous. It's not just beachside baches (or cribs if you're down south), and riverside cottages that this issue affects. Findings by both academics, and NIWA, estimate that the cost to replace dwellings in flood hazard areas would be $218 billion. The words 'managed retreat' may seem pretty far-fetched for some New Zealanders, and possibly scary for others. The FEC will no doubt be wary of this. "We built most of our towns and cities on river deltas and swamps. But the question is, do we actually mitigate that now and try and stop the flooding, or do we at some point say, well - we have to retreat from that area. So we're looking at how you come up with a framework to make those decisions. [Such as] who makes those decisions? Then [we have to] come up with a framework about who pays for those decisions," mused Chair Stuart Smith. [Radio New Zealand, Sunday 01 September 2024, 07:00]