Winston Peters sent the letter in his capacity as Foreign Minister. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii
Foreign Minister Winston Peters' response to a UN official raising concerns about the government's approach is far milder than the one initially sent by ACT leader David Seymour.
Seymour was rebuked by Peters and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon after writing back to the Geneva-based UN Rapporteur on Indigenous Rights Dr Albert K Barume, who raised concerns about the Regulatory Standards Bill.
His letter, in his capacity as Regulations Minister, said Barume's views on the government's agenda were wrong and an affront to New Zealand's sovereignty, and Barume's letter itself was "presumptive, condescending and wholly misplaced".
Peters and Luxon at the time said the Foreign Minister - who the letter was addressed to - was the appropriate person to send New Zealand's official response. While Luxon said he "fully agreed" with the contents of Seymour's message, Peters rejected Seymour's suggestion his official response would "make the same points".
That official response, published on Monday night with a handful of redactions by the UN, said New Zealand "deeply regret this breakdown in protocol and appreciate the opportunity to put the record straight".
It said the Regulatory Standards Bill was "a result of a Coalition Agreement between two of the three political parties that currently comprise the New Zealand Government", and was "intended to reduce the amount of unnecessary and poor-quality legislation".
David Seymour was rebuked by Peters and Christopher Luxon. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii
The letter also pointed out the bill was being considered by a select committee.
"As a mature democracy, New Zealand has well established systems for developing legislation in a way that takes account of a wide range of interests."
It said New Zealand "honours the undertakings that the Crown has made through past Treaty of Waitangi settlements and continues to address historical Treaty grievance claims", pointing to 101 such claims having been signed by iwi, hapū and the Crown.
An appendix to the letter also provided further information about "relevant constitutional provisions", pointing out that "all legislative proposals that are submitted to the New Zealand Cabinet must consider the human rights and Treaty of Waitangi implications of the proposal".
A second appendix on the Regulatory Standards Bill set out the bill's purpose, and how it aimed to achieve that - providing a straightforward explanation of how the bill would work, with links to public consultation and other publicly available information, noting it would not constrain Parliament's ability to make laws.
It also noted "nothing in the bill will prevent any additional principles from being considered in the process of lawmaking, or in the review of existing law", and stated the absence of the Treaty of Waitangi from the bill "reflects a decision to focus on a discrete set of goals, including promoting the accountability of the Executive to Parliament".
'Gracious approach' - Seymour
Seymour told RNZ he believed Peters' letter did make the same points as his own, but "with a lot of grace and kindness towards the UN".
"It's a very kindly tone towards the United Nations, but the point remains that they were wrong about their impressions on the Regulatory Standards Bill... I think if you read the facts that he's presented, then the concerns they raised about the regulatory standards Bill don't really hold water.
"I have very little time for the UN but I admire his gracious approach to them."
He said it was largely a difference of style.
"It's futile to argue about style, what matters is substance - as that New Zealand is self-governing, the Regulatory Standards Bill does not do the things that it's being accused of, and whichever approach you take that message has been made clear."
He said people should not read too much into Peters' letter highlighting that the bill was the result of two of the three coalition partners, that it was going through the select committee, or listing some of the constitutional provisions New Zealand operates under.
"All three parties are compelled to support the coalition agreements of each other, so I wouldn't read too much into that... it describes the issues, and again the end effect of that is that you come away quite convinced that the various accusations made against the Regulatory Standards Bill were unfounded."
Asked if the media reaction to the different letters was overblown, he said most New Zealanders were concerned about paying the bills and getting the hospitals to work.
"The media obviously have a responsibility to work out what it is that the listeners really need to know about and are interested in. I wouldn't have thought that the style, rather than the substance of two letters that are substantially the same would have been of great interest."
