Thanks to all of you who put in submissions on this
My name is Garry Anthony Moore of Christchurch, New Zealand.
I wish to be heard for my objection to the Regulatory Service Bill.
- I served as Mayor of Christchurch for 9 years, and a City Councillor for 6 years before that.
- A good proportion of the role of a mayor is to protect and enhance the collective wellbeing of local, residents, infrastructure, and shared assets of the ratepayers.
- It was impossible to perform this civic role by only measuring decision-making against the impact on individual residents. All our decisions reinforced collective impacts, with individual benefits as a by-product.
In my opinion in its Principles this Bill:
- Places significant emphasis on economic efficiency, and the protection of individual rights.
- Fails to give equal weight to other legitimate public policy objectives, such as advancing equity, protecting collective wellbeing, and enabling long-term environmental sustainability.
- Anything promoting the public good is not emphasised.
This Bill:
- Reduces NZ’ers ability to be consulted.
- Promotes private interests against collective interests.
Commentary:
When I read the Constitution of the ACT party, the promoters of this Bill, there is no section which hands power to one party member on any issue, as this Bill does with the enormous power given to the Minister, nor does it have a powerful non-elected panel, which can arbitrate on party matters, such as the Regulatory Standards Board promoted in this legislation. ACT’s constitution does not propose the sort of framework enshrined in this Bill, yet it desires to impose on all NZ’ers a totally undemocratic structure on us.
Our Parliament should never grant the power envisaged by this Bill to one Minister. A Minister who has the power to handpick a Regulatory Standards Board. More able legal brains could explain this better than me but this level of power to one Minister is just wrong.
I found it objectional when our local authority, having debated and voted to make a submission to this Bill, was called names by Minister Seymour, possibly before he had even read the submission. The very behaviour demonstrated by Mr Seymour, who will be the Minister responsible for implementing this legislation if passed, proves my concerns about existing legislative checks and balances being by-passed, and enormous power being placed in the hands of somebody who prefers name calling to sensible serious debate.
The collective greater good was demonstrated by NZ First over the inter-island ferry issues. The Party rose above party interests and reflected the essential importance of this service to the South Island. I urge NZ First to step in and remove this poorly thought-through libertarian nonsense.
I recommend that this Bill be defeated in Parliament.
Garry Moore CNZM, FCA
Leave a Reply