The Regulatory Standards Bill is an attack on all of us
It is that time again. We have another big parliamentary Bill to submit on, the Regulatory Standards Bill.
It is a complicated beast. I know this because I submitted on the discussion document back in December. I was one of the 20,108 not-bot submitters who argued against its complex and contradictory proposals.
You might be one of the 76 people who supported the proposals. Good on you for having your say. You and I both get to do it again.
I do not know anyone other than Act New Zealand who is providing advice if you are one of the 76 but there is a lot of support if you want to join the 20,000.
A major concern is the explicit exclusion of Te Tiriti o Waitangi from the Bill's narrow law-making principles.
The Bill excludes Māori perspectives in the law-making process, erodes Māori rights to self-determination and threatens te reo Māori. It perpetuates systemic racism and colonial structures of power.
Lawyer Tania Waikato argues the Bill will lead to even greater legal confusion and uncertainty, and undoubtedly more litigation because it discards decades of law on the application of te Tiriti in New Zealand policy and legislation.
Even the Ministry of Justice has said the Bill fails to reflect the constitutional importance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
The government wants to use the Bill to help it avoid having te Tiriti conversations, but it will only encourage and amplify them.
There are other reasons too.
The Bill will constrain the regulation and law-making of future governments. All laws and regulations will have to meet a set of principles that idolise individual freedoms and private property rights over everything else.
That means, for example, over public services like a good, fit-for-purpose, future-proofed hospital for the South.
You do not have to be a hardcore socialist to think public hospitals are a good idea. Or that it is good for governments, even ones we did not vote for, to be able to legislate for the public good over private interests.
Academic Jane Kelsey describes this as "metaregulation", where the Bill will regulate the way governments can regulate. Because of this, the Bill has the potential to constrain parliamentary sovereignty, in practice if not in law.
What about our environment? The environment has taken some big hits under this government and the Bill will make more of them more likely.
Greenpeace is saying it will be harder for the government to address climate change and biodiversity loss.
The Bill might require the government to compensate corporations for the impact of protective laws that affect their property. You do not get compensated when the law impacts your property: why should corporations?
The Bill encourages deregulation which will compromise the health of the environment. It will encourage exploitation of natural areas and accelerate the loss of endangered species.
It is very contradictory. On one hand the government is encouraging more tourists into New Zealand and on the other promoting legislation that puts our most valuable tourism asset, our natural environment, at even greater risk.
Some are also arguing the Bill will disproportionately benefit wealthy people, widening the gap between them and everybody else.
The Bill will prioritise individual's property rights over workers' rights to secure and safe employment or the rights of vulnerable communities. These are collective services, like social services and infrastructure.
Collective services help to keep us working, support the elderly through superannuation, and provide the social safety net. As eroded as these services might be right now, it can still get much worse, for everyone.
The Bill proposes having an unelected regulatory standards board appointed by the minister to oversee the regime.
This is not a body representing the public. This is an elite group hand-picked by the minister to help put pressure on the government to follow the Bill's prescription. The board will be unelected lobbyists for the Bill's ideology and will not be accountable to voters.
The submissions on the Bill close on June 23, so you have 10 more days.
There is a good portal on the parliamentary website to make your submission through, so it is easy to do. You do not have to say much and you do not have to know all about the Bill's trickier details.
ODT columnist Chris Trotter is right that no Parliament can bind a future one. A future government could, of course, repeal the Bill if it becomes law — but that is not a reason not to fight it.
Putting your faith in the good judgement of a future government is, well, not good judgement. We have to keep up our side of our democracy and have our say, even more so as democracy comes under intense attack.
Because that is what this Bill represents. It is not just an attack on Māori and te Tiriti. Or just on conservationists. Or just on the social safety net.
It is an attack on everyone.
■Metiria Stanton Turei is a senior law lecturer at the University of Otago and a former Green Party MP and co-leader.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
5 hours ago
- Scoop
Māori Tamariki And Rangatahi In The Oranga Tamariki System Are Still Being Failed
Press Release – Ihorangi Reweti Peters It is crucial that both Oranga Tamariki and the New Zealand Police invest in adequate partnerships with Iwi, Mori and community initiatives that support tamariki and rangatahi Mori that are in care of Oranga Tamariki and with care experience, Mr … The outcomes for tamariki and rangatahi Māori and their whānau in the Oranga Tamariki system report, found that tamariki and rangatahi Māori and their whānau are still over-represented and drastically let down within the system. The first report on the performance of the Oranga Tamariki system for Māori was published today by Aroturuki Tamariki the Independent Children's Monitor. State Care survivor and advocate, Ihorangi Reweti Peters, who grew up in the Oranga Tamariki system, says this report shines a light on the performance of the Oranga Tamariki system and that Māori tamariki and rangatahi are still being failed by the very system that is supposed to be caring for them. 'The Independent Children's Monitor found that Oranga Tamariki and NZ Police have strategies in place to address inequality and over-representation but there are barriers to making progress. It is crucial that both Oranga Tamariki and the New Zealand Police invest in adequate partnerships with Iwi, Māori and community initiatives that support tamariki and rangatahi Māori that are in care of Oranga Tamariki and with care experience,' Mr Reweti Peters says. 'These partnerships need to be increased so that our whānau, tamariki and rangatahi Māori have a safe and reliable organisation to raise concerns with. Oranga Tamariki is known to have multiple partnerships, sometimes these partnerships are not the best. 'The report also found that Oranga Tamariki is not always taking action to respond to reports of concern at the earliest opportunity. They found that almost half of the reports of concerns, resulted in a decision to take no further action. The reporting period 2023/24 showed that 52% of the reports of concerns received by Oranga Tamariki were for tamariki and rangatahi who identified as Māori. 'Early intervention is key to responding to reports of concern and supporting these whānau and making sure that our tamariki and rangatahi Māori remain out of Oranga Tamariki care. Ngā Maata Waka and Oranga Tamariki were working in partnership to provide community-led initiatives that responds to reports of concern. This successful initiative no longer operates due to a lack of funding and the roll-out of a new National Contact Centre localised response. 'This initiative was crucial for Māori whānau as it was a by Māori for Māori approach – where tamariki, rangatahi and whānau can engage in the ways that they want to respond to the report of concern. If this service is not reinstated our whānau will continue to fall through the cracks and not receive the right support that they are entitled too. 'I welcome the report today by the Independent Children's Monitor and I hope that Oranga Tamariki, in the interim, will improve the outcomes for tamariki and rangatahi Māori. However, Oranga Tamariki is still in no place to care for some of Aotearoa New Zealand's most vulnerable children and young people. I echo the calls from survivors, academics and whānau, that Oranga Tamariki needs to be dismantled and Iwi, Hāpū and Whānau need to take over the provisions of caring for our tamariki and rangatahi,' says Mr Reweti Peters
Scoop
7 hours ago
- Scoop
Experts Warn Regulatory Standards Bill Threatens Future Public Health Laws
Article – RNZ One of the experts said it would have a 'chilling effect' on public health measures. , Reporter 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'.'
Scoop
8 hours ago
- Scoop
Māori Tamariki And Rangatahi In The Oranga Tamariki System Are Still Being Failed
The outcomes for tamariki and rangatahi Māori and their whānau in the Oranga Tamariki system report, found that tamariki and rangatahi Māori and their whānau are still over-represented and drastically let down within the system. The first report on the performance of the Oranga Tamariki system for Māori was published today by Aroturuki Tamariki the Independent Children's Monitor. State Care survivor and advocate, Ihorangi Reweti Peters, who grew up in the Oranga Tamariki system, says this report shines a light on the performance of the Oranga Tamariki system and that Māori tamariki and rangatahi are still being failed by the very system that is supposed to be caring for them. 'The Independent Children's Monitor found that Oranga Tamariki and NZ Police have strategies in place to address inequality and over-representation but there are barriers to making progress. It is crucial that both Oranga Tamariki and the New Zealand Police invest in adequate partnerships with Iwi, Māori and community initiatives that support tamariki and rangatahi Māori that are in care of Oranga Tamariki and with care experience,' Mr Reweti Peters says. 'These partnerships need to be increased so that our whānau, tamariki and rangatahi Māori have a safe and reliable organisation to raise concerns with. Oranga Tamariki is known to have multiple partnerships, sometimes these partnerships are not the best. 'The report also found that Oranga Tamariki is not always taking action to respond to reports of concern at the earliest opportunity. They found that almost half of the reports of concerns, resulted in a decision to take no further action. The reporting period 2023/24 showed that 52% of the reports of concerns received by Oranga Tamariki were for tamariki and rangatahi who identified as Māori. 'Early intervention is key to responding to reports of concern and supporting these whānau and making sure that our tamariki and rangatahi Māori remain out of Oranga Tamariki care. Ngā Maata Waka and Oranga Tamariki were working in partnership to provide community-led initiatives that responds to reports of concern. This successful initiative no longer operates due to a lack of funding and the roll-out of a new National Contact Centre localised response. 'This initiative was crucial for Māori whānau as it was a by Māori for Māori approach – where tamariki, rangatahi and whānau can engage in the ways that they want to respond to the report of concern. If this service is not reinstated our whānau will continue to fall through the cracks and not receive the right support that they are entitled too. 'I welcome the report today by the Independent Children's Monitor and I hope that Oranga Tamariki, in the interim, will improve the outcomes for tamariki and rangatahi Māori. However, Oranga Tamariki is still in no place to care for some of Aotearoa New Zealand's most vulnerable children and young people. I echo the calls from survivors, academics and whānau, that Oranga Tamariki needs to be dismantled and Iwi, Hāpū and Whānau need to take over the provisions of caring for our tamariki and rangatahi,' says Mr Reweti Peters
