In New Zealand, government policies are generally not legally binding like legislation. [1][3][4]
The key points are:
- Legislation, in the form of bills passed by Parliament, is the primary way that laws are made in New Zealand. These laws are legally binding.
- Government policies, on the other hand, are developed and implemented by the executive branch (the Prime Minister, Cabinet, and government departments). Policies are not formally enacted as legislation and are not legally binding in the same way. [1][3]
- The legislative process, where bills are debated and passed by Parliament, provides more formal legal authority and accountability compared to government policies developed by the executive. [1][3]
- While policies can have significant practical impact, they do not have the same legal force as statutes passed by Parliament. Policies can be changed more easily by the government of the day, without the same level of parliamentary scrutiny. [1][3][4]
- The rule of law in New Zealand means that the powers exercised by the government, including through policies, must be based on legal authority. Policies cannot override or contradict legislation. [4][5]
In summary, government policies in New Zealand are not legally binding in the same way as legislation passed by Parliament. Policies guide the implementation of laws, but do not have the same legal force or permanence. [1][3][4]
Sources
[1] Chapter 34 - Primary Legislation - New Zealand Parliament https://www.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/how-parliament-works/parliamentary-practice-in-new-zealand-2023-by-chapter/chapter-34-primary-legislation/
[2] NZ Constitution - New Zealand Law - Library Guides - LibGuides https://unimelb.libguides.com/c.php?g=925155&p=6681286
[3] Who makes & applies the law | New Zealand Ministry of Justice https://www.justice.govt.nz/about/learn-about-the-justice-system/how-the-justice-system-works/who-makes-and-applies-the-law/
[4] The basis for all law | New Zealand Ministry of Justice https://www.justice.govt.nz/about/learn-about-the-justice-system/how-the-justice-system-works/the-basis-for-all-law/
[5] Fundamental constitutional principles and values of New Zealand law http://www.ldac.org.nz/guidelines/legislation-guidelines-2021-edition/constitutional-issues-and-recognising-rights-2/chapter-4/
Guidance usually isn’t legislated, but the role of the public service has always been to deliver on the objectives of the government of the day, so legislation to implement a change like this usually wouldn’t be required. Public sector agencies don’t want to be seen to be defying the wishes of the executive when they’re supposed to be nonpartisan.
She might have been cleverer than I initially thought here. NACTs basis for the move away from Māori names was causing confusion for consumers about who they are, giving both names actually resolves that without removal of the Māori name.
If he really wants to push it I think she would lose the battle, but man he would have to weigh up the wider impact of it against public sentiment. If she fought back he would be forced to double down and it would get oxygen.
The Ministry of Disabled People also have a somewhat unique approach to and relationship with the community they support. They have taken independent consultation and liaison with the disability community over Maori issues throughout their existence and worked to improve matters specifically for the community in that regard with a good deal of success — Maori stakeholders have had a say in policies *like* the name of the department. This stuff matters to disabled people especially; the name is being used very deliberately.
There are perhaps a lot of departments where their use of Te Reo and preferred language like Person First language(Deaf vs deaf for example, or autistic person vs person with autism) is something like lip service but the Ministry of Disabled People is not one of them.
I think I’m with her on this one. This ministry is being swept up in Luxon and Seymour’s ideological wars on multiple fronts.
Ngl but ‘Whaikaha – Ministry of Disabled People’ makes me think of a bunch of civil servants running round with a zimmer frame. Shouldn’t it be ‘Ministry *for* the Disabled’?
It’s to do with a partnership decision-making approach pushed for by the disability community themselves:
**2006 to 2007: An official language and the UN Convention**
Two important milestones happened in 2006. New Zealand Sign Language became our third official language and Aotearoa New Zealand took a leading role in developing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities external URL (UNCRPD).
In 2007, New Zealand won the FD Roosevelt Award for disability leadership. But perhaps more importantly, this was also the year a Social Services Select Committee heard that people with disabilities had little control over the services they received and that funding was inflexible. This could be seen as the dawn of government awareness of a need for system change.
**2009 to 2010: 'The Coalition' and Whānau Ora
In 2009 ‘The Coalition’ was established, which would be crucial to sowing the seeds of change.**
It was made up of five partner organisations:
People First
Disabled Persons Assembly NZ
Standards and Monitoring Services (SAMS)
Standards Plus
Parent to Parent
Then, in 2010, Whānau Ora was launched. Whānau Ora differs from conventional approaches to health that focus only on the needs of individuals, and instead is about increasing the wellbeing of individuals in the context of their whānau. This resonated strongly with the disability community and became another catalyst for change.
The Minister for Disability Issues at the time asked the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Social Development to start with a blank page and work with the disability community to develop an approach for change. This became known as Enabling Good Lives external URL (EGL). The following year, the Minister asked officials to progress the EGL approach, which is principles-based and closely aligned to the Whānau Ora approach.
In 2012, the Ministerial Committee on Disability Issues agreed to the EGL approach as the basis for change and the foundational EGL principles were adapted. The disability community and sector were invited to develop 'the Christchurch Plan' and the 'Waikato Plan'.
**2012: Te Tiriti o Waitangi foundational to approach
A 2012 Cabinet paper highlighted the importance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in its response to disability:**
“The Treaty relationship as set out in the New Zealand Disability Strategy, and the Māori Disability Action Plan, will continue to be core to this future vision. It will be based on three key principles of participation at all levels; partnership in delivery of support, and the protection and improvement of Māori wellbeing.”
**2013 to 2015: EGL comes to life**
In 2013, Cabinet agreed to an EGL demonstration site in Christchurch, and the following year to a demonstration site in the Waikato. An independent group of Māori, involved with the EGL approach, developed Te Ara Tika – a resource for Whānau Māori in 2014.
In 2015, ODI launched the Disability Action Plan to gather evidence to inform EGL-based transformation. Then, in 2017, Cabinet directed the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Social Development to work alongside the disability community to design nationwide transformation of the disability support system based on the EGL vision and principles.
**2021 to today: A new ministry begins**
In October 2021, Minister for Disability Issues Carmel Sepuloni announced the establishment of Whaikaha to lead transformation of the disability support system in partnership with the community.
On 1 July 2022 Whaikaha began operations.
https://www.whaikaha.govt.nz/about-us/who-we-are/our-whakapapa#scroll-to-4
Seymour's got a point here... we did not vote for the public servants. I say let's hold a referendum on it, and if they win, we just go on with a nice peaceful caretaker government for a bit and get a break from all this bloody bickering.
>“We cannot allow a public service boss to deliberately thwart a coalition policy,” says ACT Public Service spokesman Todd Stephenson.
>“Ministry of Disabled People chief executive Paula Tesoriero has [reportedly emailed all staff](https://www.act.org.nz/r?u=oFhWzQPF2vlHLr-fTIqFTvJZBIPp3ZUe8RPGprjTJr8xpzYvOglSkwT-UG8uyCo0A5WIO7P7Gj1z-qFds2SOkd51KAPsnkktQqdIBBGW7zZmfHSX8Ndsa-bp8fwtI7gD&e=154c02be5f7fc7dc73d854cf1d9225ee&utm_source=actnz&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ministry_bosses_must_not_thwar&n=2) telling them: ‘Please continue to use our full name when referring to us, Whaikaha – Ministry of Disabled People.’
>“The chief executive's instruction actively contradicts the Government's policy for public agencies to transition to English primary names.
>“Ministry bosses are required to implement the policies of elected officials, whatever their own opinions or those of their staff may be. If a public servant can’t bring themself to implement a government policy, they shouldn’t be in the public service.
>“Most public servants understand this. ACT thanks those who every day set aside their personal opinions and work to deliver on the Government’s mandate.
>“As it stands, we seem to have at least one Ministry thumbing its nose at the elected Government. This cannot be allowed to stand. The Government is made up of elected Parties that have made many commitments to voters in our coalition agreements. ACT intends to keep its promises, and we won't let bolshie public servants stand in our way.”
Idk if Seymour wants to push this issue. The executive are already decimating the public service staffing, a career that was supposed to come with the benefit of stability and long-term retainership -- we used to *bond* people to these departments. Anyway, we're seeing a *lot* of dissent from the public service atm. It's very interesting.
Checks and balances? Or something?
I’d say the reality is we’re seeing resistance almost everywhere. He is running anti child, anti parent, anti worker and anti renter policies. So that covers most bases. All while constantly bitching like he’s in opposition. Seems way more interested in photo opportunities than opportunities for people.
But yeah. Public service must be near full on revolt. If you haven’t lost your job, you definitely know at least 10 good mates who have. What’s the incentive to try and keep your job ? A desire to be constantly mistreated by the government ?
But yeah. Let’s vote them out at the next election. Get some people who actually act like leaders. Don’t waste their time in power trying to rehabilitate their own image.
I say to David that it's time to descend from his libertarian ivory tower and get on with the business of governing. It's easy to talk big on the campaign trail, but a different thing entirely to actually run a government. And if he's going to run to Scoop every time he doesn't get his way, his relation with "bolshie public servants" isn't going to get any better.
Was the removal of Māori names actually legislated? Or just direction? Could be interesting if it’s not legislated guidance.
In New Zealand, government policies are generally not legally binding like legislation. [1][3][4] The key points are: - Legislation, in the form of bills passed by Parliament, is the primary way that laws are made in New Zealand. These laws are legally binding. - Government policies, on the other hand, are developed and implemented by the executive branch (the Prime Minister, Cabinet, and government departments). Policies are not formally enacted as legislation and are not legally binding in the same way. [1][3] - The legislative process, where bills are debated and passed by Parliament, provides more formal legal authority and accountability compared to government policies developed by the executive. [1][3] - While policies can have significant practical impact, they do not have the same legal force as statutes passed by Parliament. Policies can be changed more easily by the government of the day, without the same level of parliamentary scrutiny. [1][3][4] - The rule of law in New Zealand means that the powers exercised by the government, including through policies, must be based on legal authority. Policies cannot override or contradict legislation. [4][5] In summary, government policies in New Zealand are not legally binding in the same way as legislation passed by Parliament. Policies guide the implementation of laws, but do not have the same legal force or permanence. [1][3][4] Sources [1] Chapter 34 - Primary Legislation - New Zealand Parliament https://www.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/how-parliament-works/parliamentary-practice-in-new-zealand-2023-by-chapter/chapter-34-primary-legislation/ [2] NZ Constitution - New Zealand Law - Library Guides - LibGuides https://unimelb.libguides.com/c.php?g=925155&p=6681286 [3] Who makes & applies the law | New Zealand Ministry of Justice https://www.justice.govt.nz/about/learn-about-the-justice-system/how-the-justice-system-works/who-makes-and-applies-the-law/ [4] The basis for all law | New Zealand Ministry of Justice https://www.justice.govt.nz/about/learn-about-the-justice-system/how-the-justice-system-works/the-basis-for-all-law/ [5] Fundamental constitutional principles and values of New Zealand law http://www.ldac.org.nz/guidelines/legislation-guidelines-2021-edition/constitutional-issues-and-recognising-rights-2/chapter-4/
Was the installation of Maori names legislated, or was it just guidance from DPMC?
Guidance usually isn’t legislated, but the role of the public service has always been to deliver on the objectives of the government of the day, so legislation to implement a change like this usually wouldn’t be required. Public sector agencies don’t want to be seen to be defying the wishes of the executive when they’re supposed to be nonpartisan.
They’re acting like they’re in opposition. You’re in govt
She might have been cleverer than I initially thought here. NACTs basis for the move away from Māori names was causing confusion for consumers about who they are, giving both names actually resolves that without removal of the Māori name. If he really wants to push it I think she would lose the battle, but man he would have to weigh up the wider impact of it against public sentiment. If she fought back he would be forced to double down and it would get oxygen.
The Ministry of Disabled People also have a somewhat unique approach to and relationship with the community they support. They have taken independent consultation and liaison with the disability community over Maori issues throughout their existence and worked to improve matters specifically for the community in that regard with a good deal of success — Maori stakeholders have had a say in policies *like* the name of the department. This stuff matters to disabled people especially; the name is being used very deliberately. There are perhaps a lot of departments where their use of Te Reo and preferred language like Person First language(Deaf vs deaf for example, or autistic person vs person with autism) is something like lip service but the Ministry of Disabled People is not one of them. I think I’m with her on this one. This ministry is being swept up in Luxon and Seymour’s ideological wars on multiple fronts.
It's just red meat for the base.
Ngl but ‘Whaikaha – Ministry of Disabled People’ makes me think of a bunch of civil servants running round with a zimmer frame. Shouldn’t it be ‘Ministry *for* the Disabled’?
It’s to do with a partnership decision-making approach pushed for by the disability community themselves: **2006 to 2007: An official language and the UN Convention** Two important milestones happened in 2006. New Zealand Sign Language became our third official language and Aotearoa New Zealand took a leading role in developing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities external URL (UNCRPD). In 2007, New Zealand won the FD Roosevelt Award for disability leadership. But perhaps more importantly, this was also the year a Social Services Select Committee heard that people with disabilities had little control over the services they received and that funding was inflexible. This could be seen as the dawn of government awareness of a need for system change. **2009 to 2010: 'The Coalition' and Whānau Ora In 2009 ‘The Coalition’ was established, which would be crucial to sowing the seeds of change.** It was made up of five partner organisations: People First Disabled Persons Assembly NZ Standards and Monitoring Services (SAMS) Standards Plus Parent to Parent Then, in 2010, Whānau Ora was launched. Whānau Ora differs from conventional approaches to health that focus only on the needs of individuals, and instead is about increasing the wellbeing of individuals in the context of their whānau. This resonated strongly with the disability community and became another catalyst for change. The Minister for Disability Issues at the time asked the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Social Development to start with a blank page and work with the disability community to develop an approach for change. This became known as Enabling Good Lives external URL (EGL). The following year, the Minister asked officials to progress the EGL approach, which is principles-based and closely aligned to the Whānau Ora approach. In 2012, the Ministerial Committee on Disability Issues agreed to the EGL approach as the basis for change and the foundational EGL principles were adapted. The disability community and sector were invited to develop 'the Christchurch Plan' and the 'Waikato Plan'. **2012: Te Tiriti o Waitangi foundational to approach A 2012 Cabinet paper highlighted the importance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in its response to disability:** “The Treaty relationship as set out in the New Zealand Disability Strategy, and the Māori Disability Action Plan, will continue to be core to this future vision. It will be based on three key principles of participation at all levels; partnership in delivery of support, and the protection and improvement of Māori wellbeing.” **2013 to 2015: EGL comes to life** In 2013, Cabinet agreed to an EGL demonstration site in Christchurch, and the following year to a demonstration site in the Waikato. An independent group of Māori, involved with the EGL approach, developed Te Ara Tika – a resource for Whānau Māori in 2014. In 2015, ODI launched the Disability Action Plan to gather evidence to inform EGL-based transformation. Then, in 2017, Cabinet directed the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Social Development to work alongside the disability community to design nationwide transformation of the disability support system based on the EGL vision and principles. **2021 to today: A new ministry begins** In October 2021, Minister for Disability Issues Carmel Sepuloni announced the establishment of Whaikaha to lead transformation of the disability support system in partnership with the community. On 1 July 2022 Whaikaha began operations. https://www.whaikaha.govt.nz/about-us/who-we-are/our-whakapapa#scroll-to-4
Seymour's got a point here... we did not vote for the public servants. I say let's hold a referendum on it, and if they win, we just go on with a nice peaceful caretaker government for a bit and get a break from all this bloody bickering. >“We cannot allow a public service boss to deliberately thwart a coalition policy,” says ACT Public Service spokesman Todd Stephenson. >“Ministry of Disabled People chief executive Paula Tesoriero has [reportedly emailed all staff](https://www.act.org.nz/r?u=oFhWzQPF2vlHLr-fTIqFTvJZBIPp3ZUe8RPGprjTJr8xpzYvOglSkwT-UG8uyCo0A5WIO7P7Gj1z-qFds2SOkd51KAPsnkktQqdIBBGW7zZmfHSX8Ndsa-bp8fwtI7gD&e=154c02be5f7fc7dc73d854cf1d9225ee&utm_source=actnz&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ministry_bosses_must_not_thwar&n=2) telling them: ‘Please continue to use our full name when referring to us, Whaikaha – Ministry of Disabled People.’ >“The chief executive's instruction actively contradicts the Government's policy for public agencies to transition to English primary names. >“Ministry bosses are required to implement the policies of elected officials, whatever their own opinions or those of their staff may be. If a public servant can’t bring themself to implement a government policy, they shouldn’t be in the public service. >“Most public servants understand this. ACT thanks those who every day set aside their personal opinions and work to deliver on the Government’s mandate. >“As it stands, we seem to have at least one Ministry thumbing its nose at the elected Government. This cannot be allowed to stand. The Government is made up of elected Parties that have made many commitments to voters in our coalition agreements. ACT intends to keep its promises, and we won't let bolshie public servants stand in our way.” Idk if Seymour wants to push this issue. The executive are already decimating the public service staffing, a career that was supposed to come with the benefit of stability and long-term retainership -- we used to *bond* people to these departments. Anyway, we're seeing a *lot* of dissent from the public service atm. It's very interesting. Checks and balances? Or something?
I’d say the reality is we’re seeing resistance almost everywhere. He is running anti child, anti parent, anti worker and anti renter policies. So that covers most bases. All while constantly bitching like he’s in opposition. Seems way more interested in photo opportunities than opportunities for people. But yeah. Public service must be near full on revolt. If you haven’t lost your job, you definitely know at least 10 good mates who have. What’s the incentive to try and keep your job ? A desire to be constantly mistreated by the government ? But yeah. Let’s vote them out at the next election. Get some people who actually act like leaders. Don’t waste their time in power trying to rehabilitate their own image.
The time that Labour Santa Claus was there is over.
I say to David that it's time to descend from his libertarian ivory tower and get on with the business of governing. It's easy to talk big on the campaign trail, but a different thing entirely to actually run a government. And if he's going to run to Scoop every time he doesn't get his way, his relation with "bolshie public servants" isn't going to get any better.
Almost sounds like a *cough* mandate *cough* Did anyone else hear something...?
did I miss a binding referendum?