Garry writes 17 June - Regulatory Standards Bill

This week we are considering the Regulatory Standards Bill. We want to encourage as many people as possible to turn their minds to the ramifications of this Bill.

Reminder to come to our Tuesday Club meet up this Tuesday ON ZOOM 5pm for catch up, 5.30 to start to discuss Regulatory Standards Bill – more on the event and how to submit here

Zoom Link Here

Anne Salmond

In my reading on the topic Dame Anne Salmond has summarised the Bill more accurately than most, as is her normal style, in this article in Newsroom Anne Salmond: What’s wrong with the Regulatory Standards Bill – Newsroom. Anne Salmond’s article starts off with this statement:

The Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB) is a dangerous piece of legislation, inspired by libertarian ideas that seek to free the flow of capital from democratic constraints. In a number of respects, it expresses a contempt for collective rights and responsibilities, public goals and values, and liberal democracy.

Anne Salmond lists several criticisms:

First, it lacks a strong democratic mandate.

At the last election, Act was the only party to put forward such a proposal, and it won only 8.6 percent of the vote; 91.4 percent of voters did not support that party. This bill cannot remotely be taken to express ‘the will of the people.’

Second, the majority party, National, agreed behind doors – despite its prior opposition for almost two decades – to support this proposal from a fringe party during coalition negotiations. [we are realising how pathetic Luxon was as a negotiator, essentially he desired power at any price]

Third, the bill seeks to put in place a set of principles, largely inspired by libertarian ideals, that would serve as a benchmark against which most new and existing legislation must be tested.

These principles focus on individual rights and private property while ignoring collective rights and responsibilities and values such as minimising harm to human beings and the wider environment.

Fourth, this legislation is to be applied retrospectively, applying to all existing laws as well as most new laws and regulations. Rather than upholding sound law-making processes in New Zealand, it radically undermines them.

Fifth, the structures and processes this bill seeks to put in place are profoundly undemocratic.

It aims to establish a ‘Regulatory Standards Board’ selected by the Minister for Regulation, the Act leader, and accountable to him, with the legal right to initiate inquiries into all laws and regulations, past and present, that offend against Act’s libertarian ideas.

This attempt to gain ideological oversight over the legislative and regulatory activities of all other ministers and government agencies constitutes a naked power grab. Such an arrangement is repugnant to democracy and must not be allowed to proceed.

Sixth, as the minister’s own officials and many others have pointed out, this bill is unnecessary.

Structures and processes to monitor and enhance the quality of laws and regulations already exist. These are accountable to Parliament, not to a particular minister, as is right and proper. They may be strengthened, as required, and must remain rigorously independent from any political party.

Seventh, there is little reason to trust the integrity of Act’s professed intentions in relation to this bill.

Although it is claimed the Regulatory Standards Bill is designed to promote robust debate, rigorous scrutiny and sound democratic processes in law making in New Zealand, in practice, Act ignores these at will. The retrospective changes to pay equity legislation it promoted is a recent case in point.

Eighth, New Zealand already has too few checks and balances on executive power. The fact this bill, with its anti-democratic aspects and lack of an electoral mandate, is in front of a select committee demonstrates why constitutional reform to protect citizens from executive overreach is urgently needed.

Ninth, and perhaps worst, the practical effect of this bill attempts to tie the hands of the state in regulating private activities or initiatives that create public harm, by requiring those who benefit from laws or regulations to compensate others for the losses of profit that may arise.

As many experts have pointed out, under such an arrangement, taxpayers may be required to compensate tobacco companies for regulations that reduce their profits by seeking to minimise the negative health and economic impacts of smoking; mining, industrial forestry and other extractive industries for regulations that seek to minimise environmental harm and damage to communities; and many other activities in which capital seeks to profit at the expense of others.

The accumulation of wealth and power by the few at the expense of the many is precisely what is undermining other democracies around the world.

Here’s two more articles on the Bill.

I read recently that the word “democracy” is a verb. It ties in with the Voltaire saying that the price of democracy is eternal vigilance. These ideas call on us to exercise our minds and to think hard about this legislation and respond to what appears to be an imposition on our society by a Party which represents 8% of the vote.

Here’s the sort of chants we hear from the likes of David Seymour: