‘Just let them do it' an ideological attack on regulations

Otago Daily Times

a day ago

For a Bill set to transform New Zealand into a libertarian nightmare, it has an extremely boring name.
The Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB) sounds like one of those pieces of legislation debated on a dreary Thursday afternoon in an almost empty House of Representatives. Not because anyone in particular wants it, but because those whose job it is to monitor the efficacy or otherwise of government regulations declares it to be necessary.
MPs protesting to their respective party whips that they know absolutely nothing about this sort of Bill's content are told that participation in such debates is good for them. Speaking for 10 minutes about something one knows absolutely nothing about is key political skill. Without it, no politician should expect to do more than shepherd boring Bills through a nearly empty House for the rest of their (short) political career.
The RSB may sound like one of those Bills, but it is anything but. According to one critic, the Bill will "neuter the ability of lawmakers to consider anything outside of individual liberty and property rights".
That this proposed piece of legislative dynamite is the product of the Act New Zealand party is entirely unsurprising.
David Seymour and his caucus are the most disciplined band of ideologically driven politicians in our Parliament. Liberty and property are their twin lodestars, and by them they navigate the choppy seas of New Zealand's resolutely non-ideological politics.
Knowing exactly where they want to go has made it much easier for Act to determine, often with alarming and near-revolutionary clarity, what they ought to do. Boiled down to its essence, Act's political mission is captured in the French expression laissez-faire — loosely translated as "let them do it".
If the actions of individuals cause no harm to others — let them do it.
If those actions involve only their own property — let them do it.
Contrariwise, if some individuals seek to compel other individuals for any reason other than preventing them from causing harm to others, then don't let them do it.
And if that compulsion involves regulating the use of other individuals' private property, then definitely don't let them do it.
Understandably, socialists are not (and never have been) great fans of laissez-faire. The collective welfare is (or used to be) their lodestar.
Individuals determined to put themselves, and their property, ahead of measures designed to serve the common good should not be allowed to do it.
Obviously, a great deal rests on how "harm" is defined.
If your dairy farm is polluting the streams and rivers that others are accustomed to fishing and swimming in, does that constitute harm?
If it does, then, surely, the state is entitled to regulate your farming practices? To restrict the ways in which you can legally use your private property.
Alternatively, if a friend undertakes to sell you a few grams of cannabis, what business is it of the state's? Why should smoking weed, which most medical scientists have determined to be essentially harmless, be punishable by law?
Why aren't individuals, if they're old enough to assess and accept the consequences of using cannabis, and it causes others no harm, allowed to do it?
If pressed, Act will always put the rights of individual New Zealanders, and the sanctity of their private property, well ahead of the nation's collective welfare. These twin principles are what, with National's and New Zealand First's backing, Act intends to enshrine in the RSB.
If it becomes law, then all regulatory legislation will be weighed carefully by an appointed board against the rights of liberty and property.
If Parliament, in its wisdom, elects to override those rights, then the citizens required to surrender them must be fairly compensated.
Naturally, environmental groups, iwi, trade unionists and the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of NGO-land regard the RSB with horror and dismay. They no doubt believed that, having been soundly defeated several times already, such libertarian legislative forays were things of the past.
The Left, generally, is flabbergasted and outraged that the coalition remains committed to the RSB's passage.
Boy, are they making a fuss. To hear them talk, the Bill might have been co-sponsored by Sauron and Voldemort.
But, don't be alarmed. One parliament cannot bind another. If the RSB looks like transforming Aotearoa-New Zealand into Mordor, then the next government can simply repeal it.
■Chris Trotter is an Auckland writer and commentator.