Note: submissions close Monday 13 January … thanks to Steve Snoopman for alerting me to this …
“Attempts to introduce the legislation in 2006, 2009 and 2011 failed. Commentators at the times recognised the intentions of the Business Roundtable to introduce a legal straitjacket. It is of huge concern that this legislation which has been rebuffed four times as being a dangerous constitutional shift is practically guaranteed passage.”
Noel O’Malley, Lawyer
Two articles on topic:
- From the Otago Daily Times … by lawyer Noel O’Malley:
Is anybody taking notice of the Regulatory Standards Bill?
A draft Bill put out for consultation late last year has Noel O’Malley somewhat concerned.
Such is the attention being paid to the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill, now before the justice select committee, it seems very little attention is being paid to the Regulatory Standards Bill now open for consultancy*.
Submissions on the Bill will close on January 13, one week after they close on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill.
Presumably, it will then be referred to the House for a first reading.
David Seymour, the sponsor of the Bill, claims the low wages experienced in New Zealand are caused by low productivity, which in turn is caused by “poor legislation”.
The answer, he claims, will be found in the Regulatory Standards Bill.
For those not familiar with the content of this Bill, a lot of backstory is required.
The Regulatory Standards Bill was conceived by the (then) Business Roundtable (now the New Zealand Initiative).
Act New Zealand has made four attempts to introduce a version of this Bill since 2006, failing each time, as under scrutiny, its dangerous consequences became clear.
Commentators at the times recognised the intentions of the Business Roundtable to introduce a legal straitjacket.
Attempts to introduce the legislation in 2006, 2009 and 2011 failed.
Likewise a Bill to this effect, introduced by Seymour in 2021, with the support of the National Party, was condemned as a dangerous constitutional shift undermining public and collective rights and threatening parliamentary sovereignty.
This recognises the ideology of Act in place of alternative principles embodied in Te Tiriti, international obligations, community wellbeing together with climate and environmental protections.
Passage of the Bill is contained in the Act Policy Programme, which, under the National-Act coalition agreement, National has agreed to support, unlike the Treaty Principles Bill.
It is of huge concern that this legislation which has been rebuffed four times as being a dangerous constitutional shift is practically guaranteed passage.
Preliminary advice on the Bill has been provided by the Ministry of Regulation, established by Seymour and of which he is the minister.
This advice highlights the proposals presented omit any mention of Te Tiriti and its role as part of good law-making, thus avoiding how the Crown will meet its obligations under the proposed legislation.
Even a cursory examination of the Bill leaves no doubt of the intent to promote individual and property rights over all others, constrain regulatory powers, and reduce the government’s ability to implement environmental protections, social safeguards and Te Tiriti-based initiatives.
The Bill goes further to establish a regulatory standards board, removing the role of the courts to consider complaints from the public about existing regulations which include legislation which is inconsistent with one or more of the Bill’s principles.
One can conceive complaints about recognition of collective Māori rights, environmental protections or social safeguards on the basis of inconsistency with individual rights, unrestricted property rights, equality before the law and imposition of taxes and levies.
As Melanie Nelson wrote in E Tangata (15.12.24), we are being asked to submit feedback on two sets of sweeping constitutional changes without fully grasping the impact of these extensive proposals on our lives and the country.
“Do we want a minor party’s libertarian ideology to shape the boundaries of legislation, government actions and judicial interpretations to significantly influence who we are as a nation, what we collectively stand for?”
* A draft version of the Regulatory Standards Bill is now out for consultation. A final version of the Bill has yet to be introduced to the House.
• Noel O’Malley is a Balclutha lawyer and past president of the Otago District Law Society.
2. From E-TANGATA by Melanie Nelson:
The ‘dangerous’ bill flying under the radar
New Zealand stands at a pivotal moment in its constitutional development. Not one but two key bills, both driven by the Act Party, signify a profound new direction for the country, writes Melanie Nelson.
Much has been said about the significant impacts of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill.
Meanwhile, its long-standing companion, the Regulatory Standards Bill, is advancing quietly through government processes, with limited public awareness, minimal media coverage, and little parliamentary debate.
Consultation on the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill opened on November 19, the day the hīkoi arrived at parliament. The consultation period ends the week after submissions close on the Treaty principles bill.
Both bills, if progressed, will result in significant constitutional reforms with profound implications for New Zealand.
They propose comprehensively changing the nation’s legislative and political environment by embedding rigid legal frameworks that prioritise individual and property rights, constrain regulatory powers, and reduce the government’s ability to implement environmental protections, social safeguards, and Tiriti-based initiatives.
Restricting legislative freedom: A legal straitjacket in the making?
The focus on the Treaty principles bill has overshadowed its dull but dangerous regulatory cousin.
The Regulatory Standards Bill is the brainchild of the Business Roundtable (now the New Zealand Initiative). The Act Party has tried three times, since 2006, to introduce a version of this bill — failing each time it was put under scrutiny, as its dangerous consequences became clear.
Yet, this latest attempt seems to be sailing through with little to no scrutiny so far.
READ AT THE LINK
Photo: Getty Images
