Standards

Some hypothetical questions.

If media won’t report negative information for fear of reprisal, is that propaganda by omission?

Instead of speaking truth to power - is it repeating talking points verbatim without context, challenge or critique?

Fast forward to elections - does that approach only bode well for those with privilege?

As of today this is the only reporting I can see on the number of submissions on the Regulatory Standards Bill - 131,000.

With the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill standing at 100,000 as the record holder prior to 2025, submissions on the RSB are second only to the Treaty Principles Bill.

As an example of the level of public opposition - in the same year - to legislation David Seymour has proposed, this is newsworthy.

Why the silence?

While keeping pressure on politicians to prevent it happening, do we also need to plan for the fact the RSB will pass?

They’ve just made it harder for people to strike, they’re not reporting the huge number of submissions, Labour is talking up repeal as though progression through our checks and balances despite widespread, demonstrable alarm is a fait accompli - there’s a lot pointing to it passing, including that the “public will get just 30 hours to voice their views on the Regulatory Standards Bill, a fraction of the time given to other major legislations.”

If you missed that last piece of information, don’t feel bad - it hasn’t been widely reported either.

A thing that deliberate, constant chaos is designed to do is ensure we miss major news stories.

The other thing it is designed to do is ensure it’s difficult to pick up on it when news stories are not reported.

With limited reporting on both the vast numbers of written submissions on the RSB, and on the significant decrease in public submission time allocated, is the silence starting to become telling?

This Bill is unconstitutional, not fit for purpose. The public recognise this - does our media?

It’s also concerning to me that the alarm raised about discrediting and targeting of experts as part of this process has been framed as coming from one or two sources, as a “tit for tat” exercise, when concern has come from multiple avenues.

It’s concerning that the framing is not about whether an abuse of power has occurred, but whether it’s “just a bit playful”.

We have an election coming up in about 18 months.

Experts will be called upon to scrutinise policy proposals and provide advice to the public.

Are we normalising both the dismissal of expert testimony verbatim from politicians as judge and jury (without context or critique) - and the targeting of experts?

In 18 months or so, will our lens on policy be guided by those who benefit from it - instead of those impacted by it?

Will our sense of balance be so diminished that constant change in favour of privilege, erosion and dismantling will become our status quo?

Whose voices will be lost? Who will go unheard while we’re all just being “a bit playful”?

Is it “just a joke” that the leaders we desperately need are being deliberately burnt out, harassed, targeted, and dismissed?

Is it “a bit of a laugh” that the platforms they need to be heard may not be offered, soon - and that silencing may be a conscious decision?

Are we choosing complicity through inaction or capitulation?

Will the leaders who are clearly saying “we have enough for everyone”, that “we can be brave enough to do this another way” be shut down by those who benefit from a middle road that always seems to veer to the right, never quite reaching the destination they were elected to drive us to?

Are recent events are a symptom of a much larger issue?

What are we succumbing to?

Are our connection, our resilience, our voices part of the cure, guiding forces to a new destination?

Or, with a deeply changed landscape in the last 18 months - have we become so used to the view we can’t find our way back home?

“Once an autocrat gets into office, it is very hard to get them out. They will disregard term limits, they will purge the agencies that enforce accountability, they will rewrite the law so that they are no longer breaking it. They will take your money, they will steal your freedom, and if they are clever, they will eliminate any structural protections you had before the majority realizes the extent of the damage.”

- Sarah Kendzior