Submit Your Proposal

Coming Up: New Threats in Draft

Bad bills don’t rest. And neither will we. The next round is already brewing — be ready to challenge, reject, and rewrite the future.

Overseas Adoptions Legislation Bill – Child Protection or Expanded State Control Over Families?

Children must be protected from trafficking, exploitation, and abuse. But protection must not become a pathway for expanding State control over the recognition of families, parenthood, and citizenship.

This bill creates a new long-term framework for overseas adoptions in New Zealand. While presented as safeguarding children and aligning with international obligations, it also centralises significant power within Government ministries and executive decision-making.

The bill would allow the Governor-General, on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice, to designate which foreign countries are considered acceptable for overseas adoption arrangements. That means unelected officials may effectively determine which overseas family relationships New Zealand recognises and which it does not.

The bill also links overseas adoption recognition to immigration, visas, and citizenship pathways. This risks shifting adoption away from being primarily about family and child wellbeing and toward being treated as an immigration-control mechanism.

The legislation relies heavily on broad concepts such as the “best interests” of the child and whether foreign systems contain “sufficient safeguards”. While these phrases sound reasonable, they are highly subjective and may grant wide discretionary power to courts, ministries, and officials without strong independent oversight.

International adoption is already emotionally and legally complex. Greater bureaucracy, ministerial discretion, and administrative barriers may create uncertainty for genuine families while increasing dependence on State approval processes.

The bill also raises deeper cultural and ethical concerns. International adoptions can involve questions of identity, whakapapa, language, culture, poverty pressure, and separation from extended family networks. These matters require humility and caution, not merely administrative management.

A child should never become a transactional object caught between immigration systems, international agreements, and political discretion.

Family relationships should not exist only by permission of the State.

Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 23 June 2026 – 11:59 pm

Bills Open for Public Submission – Core Issues

Local Government (Port Companies Accountability) Amendment Bill – Accountability or Political Interference in Strategic Infrastructure?

Ports are not ordinary council offices. They are strategic infrastructure, commercial gateways, employment centres, and essential parts of New Zealand’s supply chain. Accountability matters, but it must not be imposed in a way that weakens commercial strength, operational security, or national resilience.

This bill would remove existing exemptions for port companies and make them subject to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987. It would also apply wider Local Government Act requirements, including obligations to act as a good employer and to show social and environmental responsibility toward the communities in which ports operate.

On the surface, this sounds reasonable. Publicly owned port companies should not operate without scrutiny. But the danger lies in applying council-style transparency rules to entities that operate in competitive, commercially sensitive, and strategically important environments.

Ports deal with freight contracts, infrastructure planning, shipping arrangements, procurement, employment matters, trade flows, security risks, and commercial negotiations. Broad disclosure obligations may expose sensitive information, slow decision-making, increase compliance costs, and give competitors access to information that should remain protected.

The bill also risks increasing political pressure over operational decisions. Ports require long-term discipline, commercial judgement, and infrastructure certainty. They should not be turned into another arena for short-term political management, ideological demands, or bureaucratic interference.

The phrase “social and environmental responsibility” may sound positive, but without clear limits it can become an expandable legal and political tool. It may shift port companies away from their core purpose and place them under vague obligations that are difficult to measure, challenge, or contain.

Strong accountability does not require exposing strategic infrastructure to unnecessary risk. Any reform must protect commercial confidentiality, supply chain security, employment stability, and operational efficiency. Public oversight should be precise, proportionate, and clearly justified.

Strategic infrastructure needs accountability, not political capture disguised as transparency.

Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 02 July 2026 – 11:59 pm

Public Finance (Prohibition on Providing Public Funds to Gangs) Amendment Bill – Stopping Crime or Expanding Punishment by Association?

Public money should not knowingly fund organised criminal activity. But laws written in fear and political pressure can easily become broader than the public first realises.

This bill would require the Crown and public agencies to ensure that funding does not directly or indirectly reach organisations that are “run, administered, or associated with gangs”. It would also create criminal liability for making funds available to gangs without a “reasonable excuse”.

The central concern is the wording “associated with gangs”. That phrase is broad, subjective, and open to political interpretation. Many rehabilitation programmes, addiction services, youth organisations, Māori community initiatives, and violence reduction groups work with gang-affected individuals precisely to reduce crime and help people leave gang environments.

Under this framework, organisations may face investigation, funding cuts, or reputational damage simply because they engage with high-risk communities. Agencies may avoid funding effective social programmes altogether out of fear of legal or political consequences.

The bill also risks normalising punishment based on identity, appearance, family connection, or alleged association rather than proven criminal conduct. A free society should punish crimes, not categories of people.

The proposed “due diligence” requirements may also expand surveillance, compliance monitoring, background investigations, and bureaucratic control over charities, iwi organisations, and community groups. Smaller organisations may struggle to survive under increased compliance pressure.

Existing laws already address organised crime, money laundering, fraud, criminal proceeds, and corruption. The question is whether this bill genuinely improves public safety, or mainly creates a broad symbolic enforcement framework with weak safeguards and undefined limits.

Laws created to target unpopular groups often become precedents for wider State powers later. Once governments establish punishment by association as a principle, the definition of who is considered undesirable can continually expand.

Justice must target criminal conduct precisely. When association becomes the offence, freedom and fairness begin to erode.

Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 02 July 2026 – 11:59 pm

Conservation Amendment Bill – Protection of Nature or Development by Another Name?

Conservation land belongs to the public and must be protected for future generations. It should not be quietly reframed as land available for development, commercial concessions, visitor infrastructure, disposal, or exchange.

This bill would amend the Conservation Act 1987 by changing its purpose to enable more development on conservation land while still claiming to protect conservation values. That change is not minor. It risks shifting conservation law from protection-first to development-compatible management.

The bill also proposes a single National Conservation Policy Statement, streamlined concession processes, new visitor amenities areas, and looser rules for exchanging or disposing of Crown-owned conservation land. Together, these changes could make it easier for future governments, agencies, and commercial interests to reshape public conservation land without sufficient public scrutiny.

Once conservation land is opened to expanded infrastructure, concessions, land swaps, and disposal, the damage may be permanent. Public land can be lost piece by piece while still being described as “modernisation”, “access”, or “visitor enjoyment”.

Conservation must mean protection. It must not become a legal pathway for commercial development on land that should remain held in trust for the public, for ecosystems, and for future generations.

Conservation land is not spare land waiting for a business case.

Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 02 July 2026 – 11:59 pm

Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill – Legal Certainty or State-Imposed Identity Control?

Law should protect people with precision, fairness, and restraint. It should not use one rigid definition to override complex human realities across the entire statute book.

This bill would amend the Legislation Act 2019 by defining “woman” as “an adult human biological female” and “man” as “an adult human biological male”. It would also define “female” and “male” in biological terms. These definitions would apply wherever those words appear in law, unless another Act expressly says otherwise.

That is an extremely wide legal intervention. It may affect health, education, employment, sport, prisons, identity documents, public services, anti-discrimination law, and the rights of transgender, intersex, and gender-diverse people. A single universal definition may create more conflict, not less.

The bill is presented as protecting sex-based rights and legal certainty. But legal certainty must not be achieved by erasing people from recognition, dignity, or protection. Biological sex may matter in some legal contexts. That does not justify forcing one definition into every legal context.

The bill also risks conflict with the Human Rights Act 1993, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and existing public-sector obligations around equality, dignity, and non-discrimination. It may invite litigation, administrative confusion, and social division.

Parliament should not turn the Legislation Act into a culture-war instrument. If sex-based protections need careful legal clarification, that should be done through targeted law reform, proper safeguards, and context-specific wording. It should not be done through a sweeping definition imposed across all legislation.

Law must protect rights without turning human identity into administrative exclusion.

Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 02 July 2026 – 11:59 pm

Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill – Public Safety or Criminalising Poverty and Public Presence?

Public safety matters. Genuine violence, intimidation, and harassment should be addressed. But public order laws must not become tools for removing vulnerable people from sight or expanding discretionary police power without strong safeguards.

This bill gives Police the power to issue “move-on orders” requiring people to leave public areas and stay away for a period of time. It also creates new detention powers and criminal offences for failing to comply or refusing to provide personal details.

The bill explicitly includes begging, rough sleeping, and even “indicating an intent to inhabit a public place” within the behaviours that may trigger enforcement. That raises serious concerns about criminalising homelessness, poverty, and visible hardship rather than addressing their underlying causes.

New Zealand is already facing housing pressure, rising living costs, mental health strain, and growing social inequality. Expanding police powers over people sleeping or existing in public spaces risks turning social hardship into a criminal justice issue.

The wording of the bill is also broad and subjective. Terms such as “disruptive behaviour”, “breaching the peace”, and “indicating intent” may allow inconsistent enforcement and excessive discretion. Laws written too broadly can disproportionately affect homeless people, young people, Māori, Pasifika communities, protesters, and vulnerable individuals.

The bill further allows temporary detention for obtaining biographical details. Failure to remain during detention or failure to provide details becomes a criminal offence punishable by fines or imprisonment. That represents a significant expansion of coercive state power over low-level conduct.

Public spaces in a democracy should remain genuinely public. People should not risk criminalisation merely for existing in visible poverty or being considered socially undesirable.

A fair society addresses hardship with support before enforcement. Public discomfort must not become a justification for expanding state power over vulnerable people.

Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 02 July 2026 – 11:59 pm

#MoveOnOrdersBill #NZPol #HumanRights #Homelessness #CivilLiberties #PublicSpaces #PolicePowers #BillOfRights #SocialJustice #UkesBaha

Read about our Democratic Crisis

My Previous Submissions:

Deepfake Digital Harm and Exploitation Bill – Protecting Victims or Criminalising Appearances?

Introduced by Laura McClure · Member's Bill 213–1 · Deepfake Digital Harm and Exploitation Bill

Synthetic sexual imagery can cause real harm and victims deserve protection. However, this Bill extends criminal liability to images that merely "appear" to depict a person.

It expands the definition of an intimate visual recording to include images that are created, synthesised, or altered and that appear to show someone in intimate circumstances, even where no recording, event, or intimate act occurred.

This raises concerns about legal certainty, evidential standards, freedom of expression, satire, journalism, artistic works, and future regulatory expansion. Who decides what "appears" to depict a person? How much resemblance is enough? What if AI unintentionally generates a similar face?

New Zealand already has laws covering harmful digital communications, harassment, privacy breaches, intimidation, and image-based abuse. Parliament should establish a genuine legal gap before extending criminal liability to synthetic representations and subjective appearances.

Any legislation should require clear definitions, malicious intent, strong evidence, protections for legitimate expression, and safeguards against misuse.

The deeper issue is not deepfakes. It is whether Parliament should treat appearances as equivalent to reality.

Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 19 June 2026 – 11:59 pm

Ngā Hapū o Te Iwi o Whanganui Claims Settlement Bill – Redress Without Resolution?

Introduced by Paul Goldsmith · Minister for Treaty Negotiations · Government Bill 308–1

Historical grievances deserve acknowledgement and redress. However, this bill raises significant constitutional and democratic concerns.

Most significantly, it permanently extinguishes historical claims and removes future jurisdiction from both the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal. Future generations will have little ability to revisit these matters, even if substantial new evidence emerges.

The bill also leaves unresolved fundamental questions concerning sovereignty, self-determination, and the relationship between Māori authority and Crown authority, while the Crown retains sole authority to define, legislate, and close the settlement process.

While providing compensation and recognition, the bill does little to address the constitutional and institutional structures that enabled many of the historical harms it records. As a result, it risks delivering closure without fully resolving the deeper issues that gave rise to the claims.

Justice should acknowledge historical wrongs without permanently closing future avenues for truth-seeking, review, and constitutional examination.

Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 11 June 2026 – 11:59 pm

Disability Support Services Bill – Support Framework or Withdrawal of Responsibility?

Introduced by Louise Upston · Minister for Social Development and Employment · Government Bill 312–1

Disability support should protect dignity, independence, and access to assistance when needed. However, this bill raises significant concerns regarding access to justice, governmental accountability, and the future direction of disability support in New Zealand.

Most significantly, the bill extinguishes certain unresolved legal claims, retrospectively validates existing arrangements, and limits some avenues through which disabled persons and carers may seek legal remedies. These provisions raise rule-of-law concerns and appear designed, in part, to reduce the legal and financial consequences of adverse court decisions.

The bill also shifts greater responsibility towards families, whānau, community support, and personal resources before public support is provided. Many disabled people do not have access to stable or capable support networks, raising concerns that responsibility may be transferred without corresponding authority or resources.

In addition, significant decisions regarding eligibility, funding, and service delivery may be determined through secondary legislation and ministerial direction rather than primary legislation, reducing parliamentary scrutiny. At the same time, key safeguards, appeals processes, and accountability mechanisms are deferred to a future legislative phase, creating uncertainty for disabled persons, carers, and service providers.

A disability support system should strengthen rights, accountability, and independence, not reduce legal protections while shifting responsibility away from the State.

Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 12 June 2026 – 1:00 pm

Social Security Amendment Bill – Welfare Reform or State Control of Family Support?

Government Bill · Introduced by Louise Upston · Minister for Social Development and Employment

Key concerns include parental income testing for unemployed 18 and 19 year olds, expanded MSD powers to assess family relationships and financial dependence, and barriers to accessing support for young adults whose parents may be unwilling, unable, or unsafe sources of assistance.

The bill may require vulnerable young people to disclose abuse, neglect, estrangement, or family breakdown in order to qualify for support, while shifting responsibility for welfare from the State to families. Critics argue this risks increasing hardship, homelessness, and inequality while reducing access to assistance for those most in need.

A legal adult should not have to prove family breakdown before receiving basic support.

Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 10 June 2026 – 11:59 pm

Corrections (Management of Prisoners, and Prisoners’ Property) Amendment Bill – Security Without Accountability Is Not Justice

Key concerns include the creation of a designated-management prisoner regime, expanded powers over prisoner movement, communications, associations, finances, property, and living conditions, and the ability to impose restrictive measures based on anticipated future risk rather than proven misconduct.

The bill concentrates significant authority within Corrections through administrative decision-making, broad discretionary powers, and extensive reliance on regulations and internal rules. Critics argue this reduces judicial oversight, weakens accountability, and increases the risk of restrictive conditions being imposed without sufficient independent review.

The true measure of a justice system is not how firmly it controls those in its custody, but how carefully it limits its own power over them.

Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 10 June 2026 – 11:59 pm

Serious Fraud Office Amendment Bill – Efficiency or Expanded Power?

Key concerns include the expansion of Serious Fraud Office investigative powers without equivalent strengthening of oversight, safeguards, or accountability mechanisms. While presented as improving effectiveness and efficiency, the bill may further shift the balance toward enforcement authority at the expense of individual rights and procedural protections.

Critics argue that increasing investigative powers without proportionate independent scrutiny risks reducing transparency, weakening public confidence, and concentrating greater authority within enforcement agencies.

Strong enforcement requires equally strong restraint.

Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 08 June 2026 – 11:59 pm

NZ–Singapore Essential Supplies Treaty – Safeguarding Supply Chains or Surrendering Emergency Powers?

Key concerns include the treaty's restriction on New Zealand's ability to use recognised international trade safeguards during critical shortages of essential goods, including fuel, medicines, medical equipment, construction materials, and other strategic supplies.

By committing not to use a World Trade Organization emergency exception for designated essential supplies, the treaty may reduce New Zealand's flexibility to respond independently during future pandemics, conflicts, natural disasters, cyber incidents, or major supply disruptions. Critics argue that emergency powers derive their value from being available when circumstances become extraordinary, and that surrendering such options may weaken national resilience and sovereign decision-making during a crisis.

Emergency powers exist for emergencies. Once surrendered, they may not be available when they are needed most.

Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 29 May 2026 – 11:59 pm

Modern Slavery Bill – Administrative Expansion Framed as Moral Reform

Key concerns include the expansion of reporting, disclosure, monitoring, and due diligence obligations across supply chains, creating substantial compliance burdens while leaving important legal boundaries and liabilities unclear.

The bill emphasises administrative oversight and procedural compliance rather than direct enforcement against proven exploitation. Critics argue it may increase costs for businesses, expand procurement exclusion powers, create uncertain indirect liability, and encourage ongoing compliance systems without demonstrating that such measures will meaningfully reduce modern slavery or improve protection for vulnerable workers.

Recording exploitation is not the same as preventing it.

Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 28 May 2026 – 11:59 pm

Trespass (Specified Retail Premises and Other Matters) Amendment Bill – Control or Fair Process?

Key concerns include expanded powers to exclude individuals from retail premises, the ability to impose bans without proven wrongdoing, broader application of exclusion across multiple locations, and increased reliance on decisions made by private actors rather than independent authorities.

Critics argue the bill weakens procedural fairness by allowing significant restrictions to be imposed on the basis of suspicion or discretionary assessments, creating risks of inconsistency, overreach, and limited avenues for review or challenge.

When exclusion becomes easy, fairness becomes optional.

Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 05 May 2026 – 11:59 pm

Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill – Clarity or Reduced Protection?

Key concerns include the narrowing of health and safety responsibilities, reduced obligations for some PCBUs, and a shift away from universal prevention toward more limited compliance requirements. Critics argue the bill may weaken protections that were designed to prevent workplace injury and illness before harm occurs.

While presented as improving clarity and reducing compliance costs, the bill may transfer risk from businesses to workers by reducing the scope of preventative duties and increasing the potential for avoidable workplace harm.

Safety standards are usually written in response to harm. Weakening them risks repetition.

Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 18 March 2026 – 11:59 pm

Environment (Disestablishment of Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill – Reform or Institutional Retreat?

Key concerns include the disestablishment of the Ministry for the Environment, potential fragmentation of environmental oversight functions, reduced institutional independence, and weaker long-term accountability for environmental stewardship. Critics argue the bill may diminish coordinated environmental governance without demonstrating that equivalent protections and oversight mechanisms will be maintained.

“When oversight is weakened, consequences do not disappear. They are delayed.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 11 March 2026 – 11:59 pm

Inquiry into the 2025 Local Elections – Structural Repair or Narrative Control?

Key concerns include a focus on administrative processes and election delivery mechanisms without sufficient examination of deeper issues affecting public trust, participation, accountability, and confidence in local democracy. Critics argue the inquiry may prioritise procedural improvements while overlooking structural factors that contribute to voter disengagement.

Concerns have also been raised that low participation may reflect broader questions of legitimacy, transparency, responsiveness, and public influence over decision-making, issues that may not be resolved through technical or operational reforms alone.

“Democracy weakens when participation becomes ritual rather than influence.” – Ukes Baha

This inquiry must examine whether administrative design has drifted away from civic standing. Otherwise, it becomes an exercise in procedural reassurance.

Submission deadline: 27 February 2026 – 11:59 pm

Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill – Growth Today, Burden Tomorrow?

Key concerns include expanded levy powers, infrastructure debt recovery through water charges, repayment periods of up to 50 years, reduced affordability safeguards, and the transfer of long-term financial obligations to landowners, ratepayers, and future homeowners.

Critics argue the bill may increase household costs, weaken protections such as remission and postponement mechanisms, permit significant penalty charges, and expand debt recovery powers, including the potential forced sale of undeveloped land. Concerns have also been raised about long-term transparency, affordability, and intergenerational debt burdens.

“Infrastructure must serve communities — not bind them to hidden debt.” – Ukes Baha

Public submissions close: 20 February 2026 – 11:59 pm

Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill – Clarification or Retrospective Validation?

Key concerns include the retrospective validation of decisions that may previously have been unlawful, the overriding of recent court rulings, and the reallocation of backdated ACC payments to earlier periods for benefit calculation purposes. Critics argue the bill reduces legal certainty and weakens accountability by altering the consequences of past administrative decisions after the fact.

Concerns have also been raised that the legislation shifts the effects of administrative delays onto injured and vulnerable people, potentially affecting historical entitlements and supplementary assistance through retrospective recalculation.

“When the State corrects its own errors by rewriting the past, accountability weakens.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 20 February 2026 – 11:59 pm

Arms Bill – Public Safety or Expansion of Executive Control?

Key concerns include expanded regulatory powers for the Arms Regulator, broader suspension and revocation powers, increased data collection and sharing through the national arms registry, wider infringement and enforcement powers, and the ability to redefine key classifications through secondary legislation.

Critics argue the bill increases compliance obligations and penalties for licensed firearms owners while concentrating greater authority within the executive branch. Concerns have also been raised that significant regulatory expansion may occur without clear evidence that it will effectively reduce organised crime, illicit firearms trafficking, or the underlying causes of violent offending.

“When regulation becomes perpetual oversight, trust erodes faster than risk declines.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 16 February 2026 – 11:59 pm

Crimes Amendment Bill – Protection or Overreach?

Key concerns include the expansion of criminal liability through broader offence definitions, increased penalties, wider trafficking provisions, and greater reliance on subjective legal thresholds. Critics argue that terms such as “abuse of vulnerability” and “limited opportunity to defend” may reduce legal certainty and increase discretionary enforcement.

Concerns have also been raised about restrictions on proceedings against undercover officers, including requirements for Attorney-General approval and reliance on conclusive police certification. Critics argue these provisions may weaken accountability and raise separation-of-powers concerns.

“Criminal law must be precise, proportionate, and exceptional — not elastic.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 16 February 2026 – 11:59 pm

Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill – Regulatory Rollback in the Name of Proportionality?

Narrows the scope of earthquake-prone buildings, removes low seismic zones from designation, and allows compliance deadlines stretching decades. Public risk remains while obligations are deferred.

“When safety is stretched across decades, the risk does not disappear — it settles.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 16 February 2026 – 11:59 pm

Emergency Management Bill (No 2) – Preparedness or Permanent Powers?

This Bill replaces the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 and reshapes New Zealand’s emergency governance framework following the North Island severe weather events inquiry.

While presented as resilience reform, it expands Ministerial rule-making powers, compliance orders with strict liability offences, and civil immunities. The risk is not preparedness — it is permanence.

“Emergency powers should expire — not settle in.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 15 February 2026 – 11:59 pm

Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill – Reform or Reset Without Consent?

These bills centralise planning authority while diluting local democracy and iwi partnership. Environmental protection is reframed as a negotiable balance rather than a duty.

“Nature does not negotiate with economic targets.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 13 February 2026 – 11:59 pm

Budget Policy Statement 2026 – Discipline or Austerity?

The statement prioritises fiscal restraint and debt metrics over prevention, social resilience, and long-term wellbeing. Structural harm and inequality are deferred in favour of short-term balance-sheet discipline.

“Budgets reveal values more clearly than promises ever do.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 04 February 2026 – 11:59 pm

Commerce (Promoting Competition and Other Matters) Amendment Bill – Reform or Permission?

Despite pro-competition framing, the bill enables permission-by-silence, long exemptions, and expanded secrecy. Entrenched market power is managed rather than dismantled.

“Competition that avoids power is not competition at all.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 04 February 2026 – 11:59 pm

Public Works Amendment Bill – Efficiency at the Cost of Rights

This bill expands compulsory acquisition powers while narrowing objection rights, weakening judicial oversight, and diluting protections for Māori land. Administrative speed and infrastructure delivery are prioritised over consent, proportionality, and Te Tiriti obligations.

“Public works must not become a vehicle for dispossession.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 27 January 2026 – 11:59 pm

Agreement to Establish the Pacific Resilience Facility – Solidarity or Financialisation?

While framed as climate resilience, the agreement lacks enforceable community safeguards. It risks debt-driven responses that undermine Pacific sovereignty and indigenous leadership.

“Resilience must be built with communities, not on them.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 21 January 2026 – 11:59 pm

Telecommunications Amendment Bill – Connectivity or Control?

This bill expands regulatory and ministerial power over telecommunications infrastructure with insufficient privacy, proportionality, and civil liberties safeguards. It risks normalising surveillance-capable systems through infrastructure law rather than democratic mandate.

“Infrastructure power is political power.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 14 January 2026 – 11:59 pm

Telecommunications and Other Matters Amendment Bill – Technical Fixes, Hidden Reach?

Framed as technical alignment, this omnibus bill bundles unrelated provisions in ways that reduce parliamentary and public scrutiny. Executive enforcement powers are expanded through legal and technical complexity rather than transparent policy debate.

“Complexity is often where accountability disappears.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 14 January 2026 – 11:59 pm

Meteorological Services (Acquisition and Policies) Legislation Amendment Bill – Public Science for Sale?

This bill risks commercial and ministerial capture of publicly funded weather and climate data. Public safety, scientific openness, and long-term resilience are subordinated to pricing discretion and executive control.

“Weather data is public safety infrastructure.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 14 January 2026 – 11:59 pm

Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill – Streamlining or Standardising Children?

The language of system reform masks a shift toward centralisation, compliance, and market-style governance. Local decision-making, professional judgment, and relational education are displaced by metrics, contracts, and executive control, weakening genuine Te Tiriti partnership.

“Education is a relationship, not a production line.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 14 January 2026 – 11:59 pm

Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill – Ethics Without Transition?

Although addressing animal welfare, the bill lacks binding, funded guarantees for the long-term care of displaced animals and affected workers. It relies on administrative assurances rather than enforceable protections.

“Ending harm requires responsibility, not abandonment.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 09 January 2026 – 11:59 pm

Land Transport (Revenue) Amendment Bill – User Pays or Public Burden?

Framed as funding reform, this bill shifts transport costs onto users while failing to ring-fence revenue for equitable public transport outcomes. It risks regressive impacts on low-income and rural communities and entrenches road-user charging without transparent accountability.

“Revenue mechanisms shape behaviour — and inequality.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 08 January 2026 – 11:59 pm

Building and Construction Sector (Strengthening Occupational Licensing Regimes) Amendment Bill – Safety or Gatekeeping?

While presented as consumer protection, this bill raises barriers to entry, centralises control, and favours large operators over small, Māori, and regional tradespeople. It risks credential inflation without addressing systemic construction failures.

“Licensing should protect skill — not entrench power.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 08 January 2026 – 11:59 pm

Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill – Trust or Conflict of Interest?

This bill expands self-certification without adequate independent oversight, creating conflicts of interest and weakening consumer protection. Liability risks are shifted onto homeowners rather than addressed through robust inspection regimes.

“Self-certification without scrutiny is deregulation by stealth.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 08 January 2026 – 11:59 pm

Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill – Safety or Overreach?

Presented as a “simple safety measure,” this bill in fact duplicates existing Maritime Rules, removes parental and skipper discretion, and imposes a one-size-fits-all national mandate on families already practising safe behaviour. It replaces local authority, judgement, and Te Tiriti-based decision-making with centralised regulation that adds no proven safety benefit.

“Good safety law supports families and communities — it does not replace them.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 11 December 2025 – 11:59 pm

Why this Bill is unnecessary and overrides family and community authority | Read the full submission

Financial Markets Conduct Amendment Bill – Transparency or Concealment?

Presented as a “simplification” of climate reporting, Amendment Paper No. 446 in fact legalises unsubstantiated climate statements, removes independent verification, and exempts most major companies from disclosure entirely. These changes weaken financial-market integrity and enable high-pollution and extraction industries to operate without scrutiny.

“A disclosure system that permits concealment is not transparency — it is corruption by design.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 4 December 2025 – 11:59 pm

Why this Amendment enables concealment and weakens accountability | About Scott Simpson | Read the full submission

Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill – Redress or Restriction?

Presented as a framework for justice, this Bill in fact creates exclusions that deny redress to many survivors, protects the Crown through legally hollow apologies, and contradicts the Royal Commission’s survivor-centred recommendations. Those most harmed by State care — especially Māori and care-experienced survivors who later offended due to trauma — face new barriers instead of recognition.

“Redress cannot heal when it begins by excluding the very people the State harmed.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 26 November 2025 – 11:59 pm

Why this Bill restricts redress and protects the Crown | About Erica Stanford | Read the full submission

Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill – Fast-track or Fast-bypass?

Marketed as a fix for supermarket prices, this Bill in fact weakens environmental safeguards, reduces public and Māori participation, and expands ministerial influence over project approvals. It speeds up development by slowing down scrutiny — and hides systemic restructuring behind a popular issue.

“Fast-track should never mean bypassing the safeguards that protect people and place.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 17 November 2025 – 2:00 pm

Why this Bill expands power and weakens safeguards | About Chris Bishop | Read the full submission

Local Government (Auckland Council) (Transport Governance) Amendment Bill – Democracy or Direction from Wellington?

Presented as “greater accountability”, this Bill in fact recentralises Auckland’s transport under ministerial control, gives ministers voting power over local plans, and allows vetoes on Auckland’s own road and funding decisions. It replaces one unaccountable body with another — and calls it reform. While it promises efficiency, it mainly entrenches political control and silences local democracy.

“Localism without power is illusion.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 09 November 2025 – 11:59 pm

Why this Bill centralises power and weakens Auckland’s voice | About Chris Bishop | Read the full submission

Inquiry into Performance Reporting and Public Accountability – Accountability or Illusion?

Framed as a “review of reporting frameworks”, this inquiry exposes how New Zealand’s performance system has become fragmented, opaque, and short-term. Instead of connecting public money to public value, it produces thousands of pages that few can interpret. True reform requires a Performance and Accountability Act, independent outcome verification, and Treaty-centred reporting that makes government results visible and fair.

“Accountability without clarity is illusion.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 29 October 2025 – 11:59 pm

Why reform is essential to restore trust | Read the full submission

Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill – Validation or Violation?

Presented as a “transition for farmers”, this Bill quietly legalises practices a court already ruled unlawful, delays welfare reform until 2035, and removes independent checks from animal-welfare law. It uses legal wording to hide a political act — rewriting history instead of fixing cruelty. While it claims to “support welfare”, it mainly protects industry interests and weakens the rule of law.

“You cannot make justice by declaring illegality valid.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 23 October 2025 – 5:00 pm

Why this Bill rewrites the law and delays change | About Andrew Hoggard | Read the full submission

Taxation (Annual Rates for 2025–26, Compliance Simplification, and Remedial Measures) Bill – Simplification or Favouritism?

Sold as “simplification”, this Bill quietly hands more control to Inland Revenue, lets Ministers share taxpayer data across agencies, and changes tax rules after the fact. It’s full of technical wording that hides big shifts in power — away from Parliament and toward unelected officials. While the name suggests help for taxpayers, most of the real benefits go to large companies and government departments, not ordinary New Zealanders.

“Simplification must not become a cover for privilege.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 23 October 2025 – 11:59 pm

Why this Bill expands control and weakens privacy | About Simon Watts | Read the full submission

Retail Payment System (Ban on Merchant Surcharges) Amendment Bill – Hiding Costs, Hurting Small Businesses

Framed as “consumer protection”, this Bill bans visible surcharges — forcing all consumers to pay blended prices that hide real costs and disadvantage small merchants. It rests on contested data, grants sweeping delegated powers, and risks eroding transparency, fairness, and competition in New Zealand’s payment system. What appears as fairness is, in reality, a quiet shift from visibility to concealment — from open pricing to hidden burden.

“When truth in price disappears, fairness soon follows.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 12 October 2025, 11:59pm

Why this Bill hides costs and harms fairness | About Scott Simpson | Read the full submission

Summary Offences (Demonstrations Near Residential Premises) Amendment Bill – Criminalising Dissent Under the Mask of Privacy

This Bill is presented as a balance between privacy and protest, but it creates a new criminal offence for “unreasonable disruption” — a vague, subjective test that can be used to silence peaceful protest. It duplicates existing offences, introduces imprisonment for lawful assembly, and was drafted with no public or Māori consultation. What is framed as protection of privacy is, in truth, a quiet erosion of the right to dissent.

“When expression is filtered through comfort, democracy forgets its pulse.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 06 October 2025, 2:00 pm

Why this Bill threatens the right to protest | About Paul Goldsmith | Read the full submission

Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill – Power Concentration Under the Guise of Efficiency

This Bill is presented as an “administrative clarification” for Defence workforce management, but in reality it centralises power in one Minister, weakens parliamentary oversight, and allows armed forces to replace civilian staff during lawful strike action. It erodes labour rights, blurs the boundary between military and civilian authority, and sets a dangerous precedent for executive overreach — all while omitting Te Tiriti and equity impact analysis. What is framed as flexibility is in fact a shift toward secrecy and militarisation of civilian functions.

“Democracy falters when power hides behind uniforms and silence.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 05 October 2025, 11:59 pm

Why this Bill erodes democracy and rights | About Judith Collins | Read the full submission

Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill – Omnibus Overreach Disguised as Tidying

This Bill claims to deliver small “regulatory fixes,” but in fact it bundles changes across land transport, maritime, and aviation law, masks substantive reforms as minor edits, expands closure and investigatory powers without safeguards, and shifts compliance to electronic-only in ways that risk exclusion. Oversight and consultation are weak, Treaty and equity impacts are ignored, and the result is erosion of clarity, accountability, and public trust.

“A tidy-up that hides real change isn’t tidy — it’s erosion.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 02 October 2025, 11:59pm

Why this Bill erodes transparency and accountability | About James Meager | Read the full submission

Carter Trust Amendment Bill – Rewriting a Will by Statute

This Private Bill overrides Charles Rooking Carter’s will to force a six-month wind-up, earmarks $50,000 to a single parish, hands the balance to the Carter Society without purpose lock-ups, and limits Public Trust’s liability to dishonesty/gross negligence while deducting undefined “reasonable expenses.” Oversight is after the fact, not before; the normal cy-près court pathway is bypassed; and ministerial checks on the Society’s rule changes are stripped away. This is not stewardship — it is legislative overreach that erodes donor intent, transparency, and public confidence in charitable bequests.

“When Parliament rewrites a will without independent guardrails, charity is the first casualty — and trust is the next.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 02 October 2025, 11:59pm

Why this Bill erodes donor intent and accountability | About Mike Butterick | Read the full submission

Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill – Punishment Disguised as Safety

This Bill claims to deter dangerous behaviour, but instead it embeds mandatory vehicle forfeiture and destruction, expands pre-conviction seizure powers, compels registered owners to disclose identifying information under threat of forfeiture, and gives Police wide closure powers that can penalise residents and bystanders. What looks like safety reform is actually overreach that erodes rights, chills assembly, and disproportionately harms Māori, Pasifika, youth, and low-income communities.

“A law that punishes beyond its target ceases to protect — it erodes trust.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 30 September 2025, 1.00pm

Why this Bill erodes rights and fairness | About Chris Bishop | Read the full submission

Clean Vehicle Standard Amendment Bill (No 2) – Climate Loopholes Disguised as Flexibility

The Clean Vehicle Standard was meant to drive down emissions. This Bill instead extends carbon credit lifespans, removes barriers between new and used import credits, lets polluters borrow against the future, grants ministerial power to weaken standards by regulation, and even manipulates credits so one credit can equal two or half depending on transfer. What looks like technical adjustments is actually a rollback that delays action, hides emissions, and locks New Zealand into a dirtier transport future.

“A true standard drives real change. A loophole only changes the numbers.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 26 September 2025, 11:59 pm

Why this Bill erodes climate action | About Chris Bishop | Read the full submission

Review of Standing Orders 2026 – Constitution Eroded by Procedure

Presented as efficiency and modernisation, this review entrenches Executive dominance, weakens select committee scrutiny, sidelines Te Tiriti o Waitangi, enables abuse of urgency, and silences public voice. What appears to be procedural housekeeping is in fact constitutional erosion — reshaping the very rules that decide whether Parliament serves the people or the Government of the day.

“Standing Orders are the constitution at work. When they privilege speed over scrutiny, the public pays the price.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 25 September 2025

Why this review erodes scrutiny and voice | About Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand | Read our full submission

Kororipo Pā Vesting Bill – Return in Form, Erosion in Mechanism

Returning Kororipo Pā to Ngāti Rēhia as kaitiaki is right in principle. But this Bill achieves it by ousting court review, making an amendable deed effectively supreme over Parliament, disapplying conservation and planning safeguards, preserving Crown-era concessions and bylaws, and even allowing transfer of the fee simple away from Ngāti Rēhia. What looks like a simple return risks fragmenting Ngāpuhi’s settlement and constraining hapū authority from day one.

“A true return empowers guardianship. A legal shortcut only changes the lock.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 25 September 2025, 11:59 pm

Why this Bill erodes safeguards | About Paul Goldsmith | Read the full submission

Regulatory Systems (Internal Affairs) Amendment Bill – Erosion Disguised as Housekeeping

Framed as a “regulatory tidy-up,” this omnibus bill bundles sweeping changes across births, deaths, marriages, charities, gambling, censorship, identity, fire levies, inquiries, and archives. It extends executive discretion, weakens privacy, enables the sale or amendment of public records, and breaches Te Tiriti protections. What looks like administrative efficiency is in fact the quiet dismantling of safeguards that protect rights, taonga, and public trust.

“Archives are the spine of a free society – when governments can sell, amend, or conceal them, truth itself is put up for auction.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 24 September 2025, 11:59 pm

Why this bill erodes trust and taonga | About Brooke van Velden | Read our full submission

Constitution Amendment Bill – Altering the Rules of the Game

Framed as “tidy-up” continuity, this bill extends ministerial and under-secretarial power beyond parliamentary mandate, relies on weak caretaker conventions, and incentivises election delays. It makes foundational constitutional changes without full public mandate, bypassing the robust democratic process required for reform. The result: concentrated power, loopholes for unelected office-holders, and weakened public trust.

“A constitution is the people’s contract – it must not be rewritten in the backroom.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 15 September 2025, 1:00 pm

Why this bill erodes accountability | About Paul Goldsmith | Read our full submission

Electoral Amendment Bill – Democracy Narrowed by Design

Marketed as “efficiency,” the bill instead disenfranchises all sentenced prisoners, authorises roll changes without consent, validates irregularities by executive order, and politicises polling operations. It suppresses participation — especially Māori — and risks skewing outcomes against fair representation.

“Election law should protect the vote, not those in power.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 11 September 2025

Why this bill erodes democratic rights | About Paul Goldsmith | Read our full submission

Patents Amendment Bill – Corporate Lock on Innovation

Marketed as “technical harmonisation,” the bill instead rewrites rules retrospectively and embeds higher hurdles that favour large patent holders. It risks stifling small inventors, universities, and community innovators while narrowing public access to knowledge and essential technologies.

“Patents must serve fairness and innovation — not hindsight.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 4 September 2025

Why this bill undermines fairness and innovation | About Scott Simpson | Read our full submission

Education and Training (Early Childhood Education Reform) Amendment Bill – Market Before Children

Marketed as improving “effectiveness” and “reducing burden,” the bill instead centralises power in a Director of Regulation and reframes early childhood education as labour-market support. It expands intrusive data powers, permits delegation of core regulatory functions to private actors, and favours large commercial providers while eroding community-led, kaupapa Māori, Pasifika, and rural services.

“Education must serve children and communities — not markets.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 1 September 2025

Why this bill undermines child-centred education | About David Seymour | Read our full submission

Public Service Amendment Bill – Centralised Control Disguised as Reform

Marketed as improving “performance,” the bill recentres power in the Public Service Commissioner and Prime Minister’s Department. It politicises hiring, weakens staff protections, embeds secrecy powers, and expands immunities — shifting the public service away from neutrality and into ministerial alignment.

“A politicised public service serves politics, not the public.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 31 August 2025

Why this bill erodes neutrality and accountability | About Judith Collins | Read my full submission

Legislation Amendment Bill – Omnibus Power Grab

Bundles multiple law changes into a single bill, bypassing proper scrutiny of each measure. It centralises legislative control in the Attorney-General, expands exemptions from oversight, absolves the PCO of liability, and introduces fees and levies for law-making functions. Behind the guise of “tidying up” statutes, it enables quiet erosion of rights and parliamentary accountability.

“When many doors are opened at once, watch what slips through.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 28 August 2025

Why this bill erodes parliamentary safeguards | About Judith Collins | Read my full submission

Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill – Central Government Takeover of Councils

This bill hands Ministers and officials direct control over council rules and reporting, narrows the purpose of local government to “core services” and economic growth, and allows developers to shift infrastructure costs onto ratepayers. It erodes transparency, overrides local priorities, and converts councils into centrally directed delivery arms.

“Local government is not a branch office of central power — it is the community’s voice.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 27 August 2025

Why this bill takes over councils | About Simon Watts | Read my full submission

Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill – Centralising Control, Expanding Intrusion

This bill replaces multi‑agency oversight with a single supervisor under the Prime Minister’s authority, enables sweeping rule‑by‑notice changes, authorises entry into dwellinghouses, and introduces an industry levy steered by ministerial strategy. It weakens parliamentary control and civil safeguards.

“Efficiency without safeguards is a shortcut to abuse.” – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 21 August 2025

Why this bill centralises and intrudes | About Nicole McKee | Read my full submission

Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill – Centralising Control, Weakening Partnership

This bill rewires our health system — removing sector principles, diluting Te Tiriti mechanisms, embedding private providers, and centralising ministerial control. It weakens independent oversight and shifts focus from equity and partnership to political direction and target-chasing.

"Public health must be guided by equity, transparency, and genuine partnership — not centralised control and target-chasing." – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 18 August 2025

Why this bill threatens public health | About Simeon Brown | Read my submission

#ProtectPublicHealth #DefendTeTiriti #HealthEquityNow #StopHealthErosion

Online Casino Gambling Bill – Normalising Harmful Gambling

This bill legitimises and expands one of the most harmful forms of gambling by creating a licensing regime for online casinos, permitting advertising, and allowing offshore operators into New Zealand’s market. It risks increasing addiction, debt, and social harm while making the government financially dependent on gambling revenue.

"Access to health and wellbeing is not served by legitimising harmful gambling products." – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 17 August 2025

Why this bill threatens public health | About Brooke van Velden | Read my submission

#StopGamblingHarm #ProtectCommunities #GamblingReformNZ #PublicHealthFirst

Legal Services (Distribution of Special Fund) Amendment Bill – Diluting Justice Access

This bill weakens the Special Fund’s purpose by expanding ministerial discretion and allowing funds to be spent on vague “support” activities instead of guaranteed front-line community law services. It risks diversion of money away from those most in need, with no added transparency or Te Tiriti safeguards.

"Access to justice is not served by vague funding powers." – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 14 August 2025

Why this bill threatens community legal services | About Paul Goldsmith | Read my submission

#ProtectLegalAid #DefendCommunityLaw #JusticeForAll #StopFundDiversion

Employment Relations Amendment Bill – Competitiveness at the Cost of Fairness

This bill dismantles core employment protections, removes grievance rights for higher-income earners, expands contractor loopholes, and weakens procedural fairness. It shifts New Zealand toward a “fire-at-will” culture that undermines job security for all.

"Employment law exists to prevent arbitrary power — not enable it." – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 13 August 2025

Why this bill erodes worker rights | About Brooke van Velden | Read my submission

#ProtectWorkerRights #FairnessNotFireAtWill #StopMisclassification #DefendDueProcess

Online Harm Inquiry – Safety Framed, Freedom Endangered

This inquiry repackages digital censorship, state-corporate alliance, and vague threat narratives as “protection for youth.” It risks entrenching surveillance culture, silencing dissent, and outsourcing public policy to unaccountable tech actors.

"If the power to define harm isn’t shared — it will always be abused." – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 30 July 2025

Why this inquiry threatens digital freedom | Read my submission

#FreedomNotFilters #ProtectSpeech #StopDigitalCensorship #YouthDeserveTruth

Immigration System Integrity Bill – Control Expanded, Rights Eroded

This bill disguises power centralisation, migrant surveillance, and fiscal extraction as “sustainability.” It turns immigration into a system of monitoring, monetisation, and ministerial override — not fairness or integrity.

"When the law sees you as a cost — you’re no longer protected by it." – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 28 July 2025

Why this bill erodes rights and due process | About Erica Stanford | Read my submission

#NoSurveillanceState #RightsNotTags #StopThePowerGrab #TreatyAppliesToAll

Overseas Investment Amendment Bill – Sovereignty Sold, Scrutiny Silenced

This bill fast-tracks foreign acquisitions, merges protective tests, and hands unchecked power to Cabinet — all while ignoring Te Tiriti and public interest. It’s not oversight — it’s surrender.

"You don’t protect national interest by making it easier to sell the nation." – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 23 July 2025

Why this bill endangers public assets | About David Seymour | Read my submission

#ProtectOurAssets #NoFastTrackSales #TreatyNotTrade #SeymourSellsUsOut

Game Animal Council Amendment Bill – Conservation Compromised

This bill rewrites the National Parks Act to protect invasive species, centralises decision-making in a single Minister, and opens our most sensitive public lands to political and recreational manipulation. It’s not conservation — it’s concession.

"You don’t preserve the wild by protecting the invaders." – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 24 July 2025

Why this bill threatens biodiversity and law | About James Meager | Read my submission

#ProtectTheParks #NoTrophyZones #NatureNotNegotiable #GameOverMeager

Ports and Maritime Inquiry – Control Framed as Coordination

This inquiry positions ports as productivity assets while ignoring Treaty rights, community voice, and environmental integrity. It opens the door to privatisation, centralised control, and worker displacement — under the guise of “sector performance.”

"You don’t protect a nation by selling off its gateways." – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 13 July 2025

Why this inquiry threatens public ownership | Read my submission

#PortsForPeople #ProtectPublicAssets #TreatyWaters #StopPortPrivatisation

Climate Change Response Bill – Forests Restricted, Pollution Protected

This bill caps climate-positive land use while shielding high-emissions agriculture. It imposes ballots, bureaucratic filters, and mapping hurdles — turning carbon sequestration into a privilege, not a right.

"You don’t fight climate change by handcuffing carbon sinks." – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 07 July 2025

Why this bill undermines climate justice | About Simon Watts | Read my submission

#LetForestsGrow #StopLandControl #ClimateTruth #TreatyLandRights

Public Finance Amendment Bill – Nicola Willis’s Model: Wellbeing Out, Power In

This bill removes wellbeing obligations from fiscal policy, expands secrecy around risks, and centralises control over public funds — turning the Budget into a tool of numbers without people.

"A healthy balance sheet must include the health of its people." – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 07 July 2025

Why this bill endangers fiscal justice | About Nicola Willis | Read my submission

#ProtectWellbeing #FiscalTransparency #TreatyMatters #StopMinisterialOverreach

Financial Markets Amendment Bill – Criminalising Ethical Banking

This bill forces financial institutions to serve all customers regardless of ESG or climate concerns — or face jail time. It punishes banks for refusing harmful industries and undermines responsible lending.

"You can’t legislate ethics out of finance without opening the door to corruption." – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 04 July 2025

Why this bill enables harmful industries | Read my submission

#StopForcedFinance #EthicalBankingMatters #ClimateIntegrity #RejectBadBills

Valuers Bill – Restructuring Behind Closed Doors

Amendment 286 quietly rewrites the rules of land valuation — expanding board control, removing experience thresholds, and risking the politicisation of a crucial public-interest profession.

"A fair valuation system needs independence — not silent rewrites that serve hidden agendas." – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 27 June 2025

Why this bill undermines valuation integrity | About the Minister | Read my submission

#DefendProfessionalIntegrity #ValuationMatters #StopRegulatoryOverreach #TreatyImpactsIgnored

Judicature (Timeliness) Legislation Amendment Bill – Efficiency Over Justice

Restricts access to civil claims, weakens appeal rights, and permits the quiet closure of coroners’ inquiries — all in the name of “timeliness.”

"Justice must be timely — but even more, it must be true, transparent, and accessible." – Ukes Baha

Submission deadline: 25 June 2025

Why this bill erodes public justice | About the Minister | Read my submission

#AccessToJustice #StopSilentShutdowns #ProtectAppealRights #JusticeNotControl

Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill – Deregulation Disguised as Housing Help

Removes building consent for small dwellings without defining the rules — opening the door to unsafe builds, council bypass, and silent regulatory creep.

"Consent can't be removed without clarity. Transparency is not optional — especially in law." – Ukes Baha