Bill For Transparent Principled Lawmaking To Be Read In The House
Press Release – New Zealand Government
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
Otago Daily Times
11 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Bill could create global ‘ripple effect'
EV advocates warn of Chinese dominance as a result of cuts to credits in the United States, writes Grant Schwab. The cuts to Biden-era tax credits in the budget passed by the Republican-controlled US House of Representatives could stunt the growth of the nation's still-fledgling electric vehicle industry and create ripple effects throughout the global vehicle market, clean energy advocates warn. "Anybody who claims to be concerned about Chinese dominance in battery minerals and supportive of US competitiveness in that sector needs to know: This bill is absolutely devastating to that goal," Zero Emission Transportation Association executive director Albert Gore said. The credits are meant to stoke both the domestic supply of critical minerals and advanced battery technologies and the demand for products that use those materials, namely next-gen, zero-emission vehicles. Environment-minded conservatives argue that broader tax breaks — which would be less targeted towards EVs and critical minerals — and regulatory rollbacks are instead best for growing those industries, and that Democrats are wrong to catastrophise over the changes. But with significant policy whiplash looming, advocates said multibillion-dollar investments in key sectors could shrivel thanks to the harsh realities of competing with the United States' chief economic rival. They also predicted political consequences for Republicans if the Senate follows suit and President Donald Trump, who has been critical of non-Tesla electric vehicles, signs a rollback into law. "The plan passed by House leadership will make it harder to produce the energy America needs, while simultaneously putting hundreds of projects, thousands of jobs and billions in investments at risk — mostly in Republican states that elected them," Bob Keefe, executive director of E2, a nonpartisan business group focused on energy and the environment, said in a statement. Even with those risks, House Republicans voted to pull back on EV-related credits in their tax and spending mega bill that passed along party lines on May 22 after all-night negotiations. The final version of the package seeks to eliminate four tax credits for EVs by the end of 2025 and modify another on manufacturing that industry leaders have said is crucial to building domestic battery prowess. The EV credits include offering $7500 on the purchase of qualifying new light-duty models, $4000 for used models, providing up to $40,000 for commercial vehicles and giving $1000 to individuals to install EV chargers. A manufacturing credit targets battery producers and upstream industries. Battery cells are each eligible for a credit of $35 per kilowatt-hour of energy they can store. Critical mineral miners, processors, purifiers and recyclers can claim a credit equal to 10% of their production costs. The bill proposes phasing out that credit a year earlier than initially planned and adding new requirements against the use of materials from certain foreign nations. "The production credit is critical for our industry, and it will be a significant impact for our industry if it goes away," Ford chief executive Jim Farley said at the Detroit Auto Show in January. "Many of our plants in the Midwest that have converted to EVs depend on the production credit". — TNS
Otago Daily Times
11 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Scraping the bottom of the barrel
Just when you think things can't get any worse, they often do. That is precisely what we have seen politically this week when it comes to the behaviour of our politicians. As if Leader of the House Chris Bishop's ill-conceived and poorly controlled ramblings at the Aotearoa Music Awards about a Stan Walker performance featuring Toitū Te Tiriti banners and people waving tino rangatiratanga flags weren't enough, the country had to endure even ghastlier behaviour in Parliament on Thursday. The debate about whether to endorse the recommendation to suspend three Te Pāti Māori MPs really showed New Zealanders the worst of Parliament. Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, and Rawiri Waititi have now been barred from the House for seven days, 21 days and 21 days respectively for performing a haka in Parliament during debate last November about the waste of time, energy and money that was the Act party's contentious Treaty Principles Bill. Their intimidatory behaviour towards Act MPs then was at the core of the complaints considered by the Privileges Committee. Despite efforts by Opposition parties to reduce the length of the recommended suspensions, the government on Thursday ratified the committee's recommendations for punishments which, in the case of Ms Ngarewa-Packer and Mr Waititi, are the most severe ever handed down to MPs. While there can be little doubt that the behaviour of the three MPs last November was threatening and failed to meet the standards of Parliament, the severity seems unnecessarily vindictive. Interestingly, an RNZ poll of just over 1000 people, with a margin of error of 3.1 %, now shows that most respondents – 37% – think the punishment is 'about right" while 36.2% consider it too harsh. It is 'too lenient" in the minds of 17.2% of those surveyed. Of Labour Party supporters, 8% believe it should have been tougher, as do 3.8% of Green Party followers and, surprisingly, 9% of Te Pāti Māori supporters. The poll shows 54.2% of respondents either support the penalties or think they were too weak, a reflection of the government's view. While the impromptu haka by the three was seen by some as unacceptable and a breach of parliamentary protocol, it was Ms Ngarewa-Packer's foolish mimicry of shooting Act MPs which was the worst and most intimidatory action that day. The second she put her two fingers together, made the pretend gun and pointed it at Act leader David Seymour and colleagues marked the start of this whole sorry saga – though of course it can also be argued the real start came with the introduction of Mr Seymour's divisive Bill, allowed to happen by a prime minister too focused on stitching up a coalition deal with him at the top. The inciting incidents, the response and the reactions this week leave a stain on the reputation of Parliament. Some of the grandiloquence in the House on Thursday was vituperative and unwarranted. NZ First leader Winston Peters went way too far when he likened Mr Waititi's moko to scribbles, though he did apologise after the Speaker's intervention. Mr Waititi also stepped over the line by bringing a noose into the House. It was a bit rich for Mr Peters to tell RNZ it was a sad day in Parliament when he played a significant role in making it that. Parliament is no place for shrinking violets. We have seen that time and time again. It has had more than its share of biffo and nastiness over the years, which never led to suspensions anywhere near the length of those rubberstamped this week. Let us hope we don't see the like of this miserable drama again. Saw that coming It was always going to be a case of 'this town ain't big enough for the both of us". The implosion in recent days of United States President Donald Trump's simpering friendship with Elon Musk, the world's richest man, has been both highly predictable and highly amusing. Mr Musk has become increasingly caustic and is now calling for Mr Trump to be impeached. In turn, the president wants all Mr Musk's government contracts to be cancelled. When two such massive egos meet, there can only be one winner. Who that will ultimately be remains to be seen. In the meantime, let's be honest, the feud provides some much-needed light relief.
1News
18 hours ago
- 1News
David Seymour defends role in Oxford Union 'stolen land' debate
Newly minted Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour says his self-funded trip to participate in the Oxford Union is worth doing despite his growing workload back home, because the world can learn from New Zealand's experience. Seymour has followed in the footsteps of some of the world's most prominent people, speaking at an Oxford Union event in England. Oxford Union claims to be the "most prestigious debating society in the world'', on its website. Established in 1823 with a commitment to freedom of speech and expression, the union's members largely remain University of Oxford students. The Deputy Prime Minister has followed in the footsteps of some of the world's most prominent people, speaking at an Oxford Union event in England. (Source: 1News) ADVERTISEMENT Seymour was opposing the moot "This House Believes No One Can Be Illegal on Stolen Land" alongside United States immigration reform advocates RJ Hauman and Art Arthur. The proposing side are historian Aviva Chomsky, Palestinian peace activist Nivine Sandouka and Australian Senator and Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens Mehreen Faruqi. Both sides will also include a student speaker. "I believe we're one of the most successful societies that there are in a world that is very troubled in many ways," Seymour told 1News. "A country like New Zealand that does practise the rule of law, that has sought through treaty settlements to right the wrongs of the past, that does welcome migrants." Seymour said he thought the invite was a prank until he saw that Labour MP Willie Jackson had participated in a debate at the union last year. He is opposing the moot "This House Believes No One Can Be Illegal on Stolen Land" alongside United States immigration reform advocates. (Source: Breakfast) On now being linked to the group of distinguished people that have spoken at Oxford Union events, Seymour said humour was his best chance for standing out. ADVERTISEMENT "Albert Einstein's been here, so I'm not the smartest.,They've had people like Elton John, so I'm not the most famous and I don't know if I'll be the funniest, but that's probably the best area to compete," he said. Toitū Te Tiriti spokesperson critical of moot Toitū Te Tiriti spokesperson Eru Kapa-Kingi has criticised Oxford Union's debate topic of "This House Believes No One Can Be Illegal on Stolen Land," saying discussing topics like this under the principle of freedom of expression is "ultimately dangerous". Toitū Te Tiriti spokesperson Eru Kapa-Kingi. He says this principle creates "opportunity for more embedded stereotypes which will damage not only current generations but also future generations of indigenous communities who are in the process right now of reclaiming and reviving their own identity, culture and political authority". Kapa-Kingi helped lead the hīkoi to Parliament opposing the Treaty Principles Bill, which failed at the second reading in Parliament. He's also been critical of Seymour participating in the debate, saying it's problematic. ADVERTISEMENT "He has neither the qualification nor the lived experience to talk either about illegal immigration or the colonisation of indigenous cultures, particularly through the theft of land… "Also, given David Seymour's most recent track record in terms of the Treaty Principles Bill and most recently the Regulatory Standards Bill, direct attacks on indigenous rights, tangata whenua (Māori) rights in Aotearoa, this is a provocative move inviting him to partake in this debate concerning those exact rights.' Kapa-Kingi said he questions the integrity and credibility of the debate, perceiving the event as a "deliberate attempt to incite what will inevitably be hateful rhetoric, damaging rhetoric to indigenous communities". Parliament punishment, free money?, getting wicked again (Source: 1News) Kapa-Kingi said Māori with formal qualifications and lived experience would be a better pick to take part and 'carry the kōrero with respect, honour and in a way that's genuinely productive and genuinely thought-provoking". Seymour has rejected the comments, saying everyone is allowed to share their perspective on an issue. "I think that they need to start respecting each person's dignity and right to have views and share them, instead of trying to say that some people are less able to express a view which seems to be exactly what they believe.' ADVERTISEMENT Seymour claimed the protest group divides society "into victims and villains and we should each know our place". "Well actually I think that we all get a time on earth and should be able to make the most of it, share the ideas that are important for us, throw away the ones that we don't like." A long history of distinguished guests As well as debates, the Union has a long history of hearing from distinguished people from around the world. This has included Albert Einstein, Mother Teresa and Malcolm X. Controversial speakers have also been invited over the years, sparking dramatic protests. New Zealand's most famous Oxford Union debate moment came in 1985 when former Prime Minister David Lange responded to a student speaker that he would answer his question, "if you hold your breath just for a moment... I can smell the uranium on it as you lean towards me!" David Lange at the Oxford Union event in 1985. (Source: TVNZ) Lange won the debate, arguing that "nuclear weapons are morally indefensible" and drawing international attention to New Zealand's anti-nuclear stance.
