Experts Warn Regulatory Standards Bill Threatens Future Public Health Laws

Scoop

18 hours ago

Public health experts are worried the government's proposed Regulatory Standards Bill will act as a disincentive for future law-makers to limit harmful industries.
A group of scholars in health and policy have worked together on a briefing, titled "Regulatory Standards Bill threatens the public interest, public health and Māori rights". It's authors are Jonathan Boston, Michael Baker, Andrew Geddis, Carwyn Jones and Geoffrey Palmer.
The Regulatory Standards Bill was introduced to Parliament in May, and is now being considered by the finance and expenditure committee.
It would set up a Regulatory Standards Board to consider how legislation measures up to the principles.
It was part of ACT's coalition agreement, and in putting the bill forward, party leader David Seymour said: "In a high-cost economy, regulation isn't neutral - it's a tax on growth. This government is committed to clearing the path of needless regulations by improving how laws are made."
The bill wants politicians to show their workings, he said.
"This bill turns the explanation from politicians' 'because we said so' into 'because here is the justification according to a set of principles'."
But Baker said the bill had prompted a large number of concerns, not least from a public health perspective.
He said it was problematic that the bill failed to mention public harm in its ethical framework, which was needed to balance out private benefits.
Another issue was the "takings or impairment principle".
The bill in its current form would allow commercial interests, such as the tobacco or alcohol industries, to seek compensation - paid with public money - if any future legislation caused them to lose money.
Baker explained this would have a "chilling effect" on public health measures. He said it would make it less appealing for governments to create any new legislation aimed at protecting public health which could negatively impact harmful industries, which might then seek compensation.
This could include the denicotinisation of cigarettes, alcohol restrictions like sponsorship bans, controls on unhealthy food and drink such as limiting marketing to children, and clean air provisions such as mandating emissions reductions by industry.
This bill would mean taxpayers paid to compensate these businesses for the money lost because of moves to protect public health.
"And that's going to make it very difficult for any groups - even governments - promoting new public health laws and regulations, that are intended to protect the public interest."
The briefing notes that, rather than this being a by-product of the legislation's overall goal, it "appears to be the Bill's intention".
Seymour response
Seymour accused Baker of "alarmism".
"What the bill actually says is that if a politician or government department wants to pass a regulation that infringes on your private property rights, they'll need to justify why. Inconsistency with the principles does not prevent any new legislation from being passed. All it requires is transparency to the taxpayer. That's not radical, it's democratic accountability. If a policy is justified, it will stand up to scrutiny."
"The Regulatory Standards Bill will help New Zealand get its mojo back. It requires politicians and officials to ask and answer certain questions before they place restrictions on citizens' freedoms. What problem are we trying to solve?" Seymour asked.
"What are the costs and benefits? Who pays the costs and gets the benefits? What restrictions are being placed on the use and exchange of private property?"
"This Bill turns 'because we said so' into 'because here's the evidence'."