A just-released summary of that feedback found 88% of submitters opposed the bill, with just 0.33% supporting or partially supporting it. The rest didn’t have a clear position.
Seymour, the Regulation Minister, told the Herald the feedback process was impacted by political social media campaigns that led to “totally off-topic” submissions.
“If you believe that we should have a democracy, where getting a social media campaign to send in what are pretty spurious, frankly, emails, most of which didn’t relate to the bill, that should decide how we go ahead, that would be an interesting way to have a democracy,” he said.
“If you look at the serious and substantial submissions and the real debate here, red tape’s a problem. This is a very robust solution. It will make it easier for New Zealanders to use and develop their property, whether it is their house, their business, their farm or perhaps just run a daycare.”
David Seymour wants greater transparency over regulations. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Seymour on Wednesday announced a detailed proposal on his Regulatory Standards Bill has now progressed through Cabinet, with the bill being developed to be taken for ministers’ approval on May 19. After going through Parliament, it’s intended to come into effect at the start of next year.
“In a nutshell: If red tape is holding us back, because politicians find regulating politically rewarding, then we need to make regulating less rewarding for politicians, with more sunlight on their activities,” the Act leader said.
“That is how the Regulatory Standards Bill will help New Zealand get its mojo back. It will finally ensure regulatory decisions are based on principles of good law-making and economic efficiency.”
The legislation would introduce principles for responsible regulation, require agencies to assess the consistency of bills with those principles, make government departments review their regulatory systems and establish a board that can make findings and non-binding recommendations on whether laws are well-made.
The principles would cover the likes of the rule of law, liberties, the taking of property, taxes, fees and levies, the role of the courts and good law-making.
“It seeks to bring the same level of discipline to regulation that the Public Finance Act brings to public spending, with the Ministry for Regulation playing a role akin to that of the Treasury,” Seymour said.
Agencies would have to assess new legislation against these principles, with the responsible law-maker then issuing a statement explaining the reasons for any inconsistencies. There will also be periodic reporting on existing legislation, with ministers also having to address any issues with these.
A regulatory standards board would also be established by the legislation. It would assess complaints about legislation’s consistency with the principles, either from individual complainants, on the direction of the minister or on its own accord. The board would be made up of people with experience in regulatory economics.
“That board will be able to make non-binding recommendations on whether the law was made well, turning up the heat on bad law-making. The findings, reasons for any inconsistency and relevant documents will be made publicly available to ensure transparency,” Seymour said.
“If we raise the political cost of making bad laws by allowing New Zealanders to hold regulators accountable, the outcome will be better law-making, higher productivity, and higher wages.“
Government agencies would have duties to review their own regulatory systems, while the Ministry for Regulation would gain new powers to improve the quality of legislation. That includes requiring ministries to produce reports assessing their systems.
“The law doesn’t stop politicians or their officials making bad laws, but it makes it transparent that they’re doing it. It makes it easier for voters to identify those responsible for making bad rules. Over time, it will improve the quality of rules we all have to live under by changing how politicians behave,” Seymour said.
Passing the Regulatory Standards Bill is part of the Act-National coalition agreement and is the latest in a years-long attempt by the Act Party to introduce this type of legislation.
A detailed proposal has been progressed through Cabinet. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Public feedback
The Ministry for Regulation this month produced a report summarising feedback from the public to a discussion document on the proposal.
This is different to the public feedback process that will happen if the bill goes to a select committee. At that stage, New Zealanders will be able to see and submit on the actual legislation, as has recently happened on the Treaty Principles Bill.
The report shows that approximately 23,000 submissions were received, with analysis finding around 88% of people opposed the proposed bill, 0.33% supported or partially supported it and nearly 12% didn’t have a clear position.
It said common reasons for opposition were that the bill was attempting to solve a problem that didn’t exist, resulted in duplication and increased complexity, undermined democracy, lacked recognition of Te Tiriti, prioritised individual property rights over collective and would lead to worse social, environmental and economic outcomes.
Those in favour believed it would reduce the likelihood of unjustified regulations and overregulation, improve certainty for businesses and investors, and improve the quality of regulation over time by increasing transparency.
At a press conference on Wednesday, Seymour repeatedly made the point that the process had been affected by social media campaigns. Te Pāti Māori was among those sharing posts in January about the bill.
The Herald put to Seymour that not even a single percentage point of submitters supported the proposal.
“If you believe that that’s the most important threshold, that you’ve just invented for yourself, and that somehow is more important than the pretty significant regulatory issues in the 20 years that has gone into this, then maybe those board changes at NZME are a good idea.”
Minister for Regulation David Seymour suggested submissions on the bill had been affected by social media campaigns. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Seymour said people submitted because social media campaigns had connected it with the Treaty Principles Bill, which he said was “totally unrelated”. He also said a very small number of people submitted relative to the entire population.
The minister said changes had been made following the feedback, but again said many submissions were “totally off-topic”.
A number of government departments raised some issues with the proposal. For example, the Ministry of Justice said the principles differed somewhat from existing law and guidance, while the Ministry for the Environment suggested the proposals conflict with principles of environmental and climate systems.
Seymour said the process had “shown me how poor the level of policy think is in some government departments”.
He acknowledged the legislation would “put extra costs on people that want to make bad laws inconsistent with the principles”.
“It will put costs of administration. It will put a political embarrassment. It will potentially lead to people challenging, through the Regulatory Standards Board, and getting declarations that bad laws have been made. All of that is true.
“However, it is also going to replace some of the policy work that government already has to do, so that’s a saving. It will also mean, if we have fewer bad laws that the public service has to go out and enforce, not only does that save money for all the people who would have to follow the laws at great expense, but it also saves money for [the] Government.”
Green Party MP Francisco Hernandez said the Regulatory Standards Bill trampled over Te Tiriti and “opens the door for communities to be consumed by corporate greed”.
He said Te Tiriti should be a principle as it was “central to good lawmaking” and was a “constitutional document that must be honoured”.
Seymour said he hadn’t heard a “compelling reason” for why Te Tiriti should be included in regulating “or what that would actually mean”.
“What we’re doing is ensuring that if we’re going to make rules in Government that they’re respectful of the people who are affected, now that would be really useful for everybody, including Māori, obviously.”
The Waitangi Tribunal will hold a hearing in June to consider claims about the proposal.
Hernandez said the public feedback showed Seymour’s proposal was “unpopular and out of touch”.
“We basically think that the Government, ignoring the overwhelming public opposition, to push forward with this bill, is a disgrace.”
Jamie Ensor is a political reporter in the NZ Herald Press Gallery team based at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub Press Gallery office.
