Bill For Transparent Principled Lawmaking To Be Read In The House
In a high-cost economy, regulation isnt neutral – its a tax on growth. This Government is committed to clearing the path of needless regulations by improving how laws are made.
Minister for Regulation
Regulation Minister David Seymour has today announced that the Regulatory Standards Bill will be read in the House.
'New Zealand's low wages can be blamed on low productivity, and low productivity can be blamed on poor regulation. To raise productivity, we must allow people to spend more time on productive activities and less time on compliance,' says Mr Seymour.
'To lift productivity and wages, the ACT-National Coalition Agreement includes a commitment to pass a Regulatory Standards Act. Today is another significant step towards that as Cabinet has given approval to introduce the Bill to the house, with the target being enactment by the start of next year.
The Regulatory Standards Bill:
• provides a benchmark for good legislation through a set of principles of responsible regulation
• enables transparent assessment of the consistency of proposed and existing legislation with the principles
• establishes a Regulatory Standards Board to independently consider the consistency of proposed and existing legislation, and
• strengthens regulatory quality by supporting the Ministry for Regulation in its regulatory oversight role.
'In a nutshell: If red tape is holding us back, because politicians find regulating politically rewarding, then we need to make regulating less rewarding for politicians with more sunlight on their activities. That is how the Regulatory Standards Bill will help New Zealand get its mojo back. It will finally ensure regulatory decisions are based on principles of good law-making and economic efficiency,' Mr Seymour says.
'Ultimately, this Bill will help the Government achieve its goal of improving New Zealand's productivity by ensuring that regulated parties are regulated by a system which is transparent, has a mechanism for recourse, and holds regulators accountable to the people.
'The law doesn't stop politicians or their officials making bad laws, but it makes it transparent that they're doing it. It makes it easier for voters to identify those responsible for making bad rules. Over time, it will improve the quality of rules we all have to live under by changing how politicians behave.
'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.'
Particular acknowledgements go to Dr Bryce Wilkinson, whose book 'Constraining Government Regulation' laid important groundwork for this Bill. Special thanks also go to Dr Graham Scott, Jack Hodder KC, and other members of the Regulatory Responsibility Taskforce, who refined the Bill in 2009.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
10 hours ago
- Scoop
Time For Labour To Back Down On Disastrous Oil And Gas Stance
ACT is celebrating ahead of the expected passage of the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill, and calling on Chris Hipkins to put to rest Labour's opposition to oil and gas exploration. 'Repealing the oil and gas ban is a crucial step toward energy security, lower power bills, and more high-paying jobs for Kiwis trying to keep the lights on and the heaters running," says ACT Leader David Seymour. 'Labour's 2018 ban – backed by New Zealand First and the Greens – was some of the most reckless economic vandalism this country has ever seen. It sent a message to the world that New Zealand is a politically volatile place where investment isn't safe. New Zealand First has since changed its stance, and it's time for Labour to follow suit. "In introducing the ban, Labour didn't consult the public, they didn't ask the experts, they didn't even take it to Cabinet. They simply stood at a podium, banned offshore oil and gas exploration, and declared victory. 'As I said at the time,' The intention is we lead the world in environmental policy. The outcome is the world thinks we're foolish idiots in a kind of banana republic that can't make laws in a predictable, principled, or stable way '. "And it did send a clear message to the world: New Zealand is a risky, politically volatile place to invest. Investors who had already committed to our country were blindsided. And for those considering long-term, billion-dollar investments, Labour's reckless ban would certainly make them think twice. Meanwhile, Labour was happy for power companies to import dirty coal for our energy needs. 'Labour made the announcement to get international headlines. But they never stopped to think about the real-world consequences for New Zealanders' livelihood. 'Unlike wind, solar or hydro, gas is there when you need it, not just when the sun shines or the rain falls. It's a critical part of a reliable, affordable energy mix. Most importantly, reliable gas keeps our bills down. It powers the factories, heats the homes, and fuels the economy. "Kiwis can rejoice that we've shrugged off the legacy of Jacinda Ardern and are replacing ideology with a practical approach to reliable, affordable energy. "Now, Chris Hipkins needs to prove Labour has matured under his leadership. Regardless of how his party votes today, he ought to confirm Labour backs stable, pro-investment settings – not see-saw changes that would only serve to further damage New Zealand's attractiveness as a place to invest and be productive."
Scoop
18 hours ago
- Scoop
Pay Equity Law Breaches CEDAW, Women's Rights Party Says
Women were shocked to hear the news that the Government had introduced far-reaching changes to the Equal Pay Act under urgency using their Parliamentary majority to pass the Bill the following day. Even Coalition Government MPs were not told of Cabinet's decision until the last minute. Dame Marilyn Waring, with nine other women, all former MPs, set up a People's Select Committee to consider evidence around the changes because organisations and individuals were denied the opportunity to have a say through the usual Select Committee process. Submissions to the People's Select Committee on Pay Equity close today [Thursday, 31 July]. In its submission to the People's Select Committee, the Women's Rights Party said: 'The unbridled power of the Cabinet has impacted on an estimated 180,000 women workers whose pay equity claims have been extinguished and are now in limbo. Many of these claims will not be able to restart under the new pay equity regime.' The Women's Rights Party said the government was in breach of New Zealand's commitments to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) by denying women the right: ' To participate in the formulation of government policy and the implementation.' [1] Countries that have signed up to CEDAW are also required to take 'appropriate measures, including legislation, to ensure the full development and advancement of women, for the purpose of guaranteeing them the exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms on the basis of equality with men.' In addition, CEDAW reinforces ' the right to equal remuneration, including benefits, and to equal treatment in respect of work of equal value as well as equality of treatment in the evaluation of the quality of work'. [2] Any changes to the law which reduced or removed the protections in relation to pay equity would be in breach of CEDAW, the Women's Rights Party said in its submission. The main determinant of the pay gap between men and women is 'occupational segregation' which relates to the undervaluing of work typically performed by women and influenced by sex-based stereotypes that regard work associated with caring, for example, as 'women's work'. The Women's Rights Party said the destruction of avenues for pay equity claims for women workers will have a life-long effect on women well into their retirement. A major source of the disadvantage women face in retirement is inequity in retirement savings because women earn less than men on average over their working life (this is called the 'pay gap penalty'). NZ Super provides crucial support to those aged over 65, but is especially important for women, who are more likely to work part-time and to have periods of time out of paid work. This, and the unequal division of unpaid work, particularly care work, is called the 'mothering penalty'.[3] Women continue to predominate in the caring professions such as nursing and teaching, that are undervalued by society and consequently underpaid. Men in those same occupational groups often rise to leadership and managerial roles that attract higher pay in greater numbers and more rapidly than women. Women also predominate in precarious and low-paid work such as aged care and disability support where they face a daily struggle in the face of cost of living increases in the basics of life – rent, food, petrol. The cancellation of the existing pay equity claims, and the tightening up of requirements to raise new claims, means that work typically done by women will continue to be undervalued. 'This will contribute to the on-going sex-based pay gap, and to the increasing level of 'in-work poverty' with its impact on family incomes and child poverty. It will exacerbate future income inequality for women in retirement as a result of a lifetime of lower wages than their male counterparts,' the Women's Rights Party said.
NZ Herald
21 hours ago
- NZ Herald
David Seymour resurrects idea of migrants signing NZ ‘values statement'
'These sorts of things are values that we need to stress. If you don't subscribe to that, don't come here,' he said. Asked about immigration concerns on Newstalk ZB this week, Seymour noted that in 2016 he had made the point that 'we should actually have a New Zealand values statement'. 'That's not the Government's policy. But I suspect it should be,' the Act leader said. He said that 'if you want to be part of New Zealand', people should 'sign up to' ideas such as 'men and women are equal', 'someone's sexuality or religion is a private matter', 'we have certain rights before the law' and 'we have free speech'. The Act Party's constitution makes mention of this idea as an example of a policy that reflects its principles. 'Any person seeking New Zealand citizenship or permanent residency should be required to affirm that they subscribe to the democratic and civil rights enunciated in sections 12-18 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.' These sections of the Bill of Rights Act relate to the likes of freedom of peaceful assembly, expression and association. Act's David Seymour has again raised the idea of a New Zealand values statement. Photo / Michael Craig A spokesman for Immigration Minister Erica Stanford said a values statement is not something the minister has raised with officials or been advised on. 'The minister's work programme has been focused on restoring stability and predictability to the immigration system – getting net migration under control, prioritising higher skilled migrants, reducing migrant exploitation, speeding up visa processing, supporting additional foreign investment for New Zealand, and fit for purpose settings across work, study and visitor visas.' Unlike New Zealand, Australia does have a values statement that most temporary, provisional or permanent visa applicants must sign or accept. This includes confirming they understand 'Australian society values', like 'respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual', 'freedom of religion (including the freedom not to follow a particular religion), freedom of speech, and freedom of association', and 'commitment to the rule of law'. The Australian Home Affairs Department says by accepting the statement, migrants are 'undertaking to conduct yourself in accordance with Australian values and to obey Australian laws during your stay in Australia'. In 2016, Peters, who is now in a coalition Government with Seymour, suggested the Act leader was stealing NZ First's policy. 'Being a secretive admirer of New Zealand First is no excuse for plagiarising that party's leader's statements,' the Herald reported Peters as saying at the time. He also described Seymour as a 'toy MP'. Peters said at the time that migrants should be interviewed at the border to ensure they respect New Zealand 'views'. Two years later, then-NZ First MP Clayton Mitchell proposed the Respecting New Zealand Values Bill, which would have required refugees and migrants to sign up to New Zealand values. These were identified as including respect for gender equality, religious freedom and New Zealand law. NZ First leader Winston Peters also believes migrants should subscribe to New Zealand values. Photo / Mark Mitchell While speaking with Newstalk ZB, Seymour also said there were some people who say, 'immigration is terrible, vote for me [and] I will get rid of it'. 'But they don't actually stop immigration when they get into power,' he said. Seymour said he believed the reason for that was because business owners know 'you can't succeed when you only have 5 million people to pick from when your competitors around the world are operating in labour markets of half a billion'. Peters last week told the Herald he was concerned with the number of migrants entering New Zealand and said it remained NZ First's view that immigration shouldn't be 'an excuse for our failure to train, skill and employ our own people'. His comments about the 'alarming development' overseas of 'careless immigration policies transforming cities' received criticism from Opposition parties. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon on Monday said Peters was entitled to have his own views. 'What I am focused on is making sure I advance New Zealand's national interests, economic and security. Immigration will always be on our terms and in the interest of New Zealand,' Luxon said. 'He is entitled as a political party leader to make comments about his observations of other countries. My job as Prime Minister of New Zealand is to say I am focused on making sure we have the right immigration settings for ourselves in order for us to grow our economy.' Jamie Ensor is a political reporter in the NZ Herald press gallery team based at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub press gallery office. In 2025, he was a finalist for Political Journalist of the Year at the Voyager Media Awards.
