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
NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
Facing prospect of election defeat, Government tries to change the rules
There's no good reason to remove election-day enrolment, which has been in place since 2020. And there's certainly no reason to remove the ability to enrol during the advance voting period. You've been able to enrol up to the day before election day since 1993. The idea that election-day enrolment was delaying the official results is also nonsense. Whether people update their enrolment details two weeks before the election or on election day, that form still has to be processed and their information updated. It's the same amount of workers' time, either way. The Government can just hire more people to do it after election day, rather than before, and the job will get done on time. Don't give me the 'well, they should sort out their enrolment details earlier' line. I thought National and Act were against bureaucracy? And now they're saying you should lose your right to vote unless you know about the bureaucracy of voter enrolment and tick the state's forms well ahead of time? We should be making it as easy as possible for people to exercise their right to vote. Aotearoa New Zealand has a good record in that regard. We were world leaders in votes for Māori, votes for women, removing the property-ownership test. We don't have people queuing for hours like in the United States. But now the Government wants to use bureaucracy to trip people up and stop them voting. Even Judith Collins has said it is wrong: 'The proposal for a 13-day registration deadline appears to constitute an unjustified limit on s12 of the NZBORA [the right to vote]. The accepted starting point is the fundamental importance of the right to vote within a liberal democracy. A compelling justification is required to limit that right.' The Deputy Prime Minister says you're a 'dropkick' if you don't get your registration sorted well before the election. But why shouldn't a person be able to come along on election day or in the early voting period, cast their vote, and, if their enrolment details need updating, do it at the same time? Why force us to use an inefficient, two-step process? Since when has the supposedly libertarian Act Party loved bureaucracy? Truth is, we know why the Government is doing this. It's a Government that's failing to deliver and fading in the polls. In most recent polls, Labour has been ahead of National. Forty-eight per cent of voters say it's time for a new Government. Only 38% want to give this Government a second chance. So they're trying to screw the scrum in their favour. David Seymour let it slip with his 'dropkicks' comment. Act MP Todd Stephenson put it even more bluntly: 'It's outrageous that someone completely disengaged and lazy can rock up to the voting booth, get registered there and then, and then vote to tax other people's money away.' Trying to make sure only the 'right' people are voting is dangerous, anti-democratic thinking. We all know this change is about setting up barriers for people who are young, Māori, disengaged or alienated from the structures of power and wealth in this country – because those people are unlikely to vote for a Government that works in the interests of the wealthy and powerful. The Government knows full well that these New Zealanders, who have the same right to vote as anyone else, are less likely to be familiar with the rules around registration. The Government also knows there will be many people, Kiwis not as politically engaged as you and me, dear reader, but no less worthy of the vote, who will turn up to a polling place on election day or during the advance voting period thinking that they can update their registration at the same time as they vote – because that's how it has been and they haven't heard about the change – and be turned away under this new law. Democracy is meant to be a contest of ideas. And it is fundamental to democracy that the voters choose the Government, not the other way around. If the Government wants to be re-elected, it should give people a reason to vote for it, not try to exclude voters it doesn't like.
Otago Daily Times
a day ago
- Otago Daily Times
Leary dignified as sun sets on her Bill — and gains unlikely fan
Ingrid Leary. Photo: RNZ Taieri Labour MP Ingrid Leary is proud of her Dutch heritage. On Wednesday she must have had a feeling akin to that which the Netherlands rugby team might have if it were ever to line up against the All Blacks ... knowing that you have to run out on the field but that you are going to get absolutely pummelled. At which point, you either fold up or fight your darndest — and Leary opted for the latter. Back on July 16, during the most recent Members' Day, the House managed to sneak in the first couple of speeches on Leary's Property Law (Sunset Clauses) Amendment Bill. This Bill, if passed (spoiler alert ... things did not go well for Leary) would have amended the Property Law Act so that house buyers would have to give their consent if vendors wanted to rescind their sale and purchase agreement under a sunset clause. Despite it being a well-intentioned and arguably sensible layer of added protection for people buying homes off the plans, it become all too apparent that all three governing parties were going to vote against it. But things were not all doom and gloom for Leary. As well as the sunset clauses Bill, Leary also has the Retirement Villages (Fairer Repayments) Amendment Bill in the Members' Bill ballot, which — if drawn and enacted — would require retirement villages to greatly accelerate the timeframe to repay residents or their families any money owed to them if the resident moved to higher care levels or died. This proposed law change is not a million miles away from what the government is eventually going to do in this space anyway ... and the reason why we know that the government is likely to enact a law like Leary's in the future is because last week someone leaked One News a recording of Tauranga National MP Sam Uffindell speaking at an unspecified time and place in a manner which seemed to endorse Leary's endeavours in this space. "Ingrid Leary ... has quite cunningly put forward a members' Bill which would address some of this. And she's savvy enough to have garnered up a lot of attention around retirement villages," Uffindell said. "And so that's in the pipeline as well. We need to arrest or take the key parts out of that [which] are workable and make sure we build that into something." Uffindell then revealed — over pizza and Pepsi Max — that Prime Minister Christopher Luxon had raised issues concerning retirement villages with a group of backbench MPs, including himself. He further offered some electoral spice to the mix by adding: "Importantly, it needs to go through the House before the end of this term, because if it hasn't, we're going to have a whole bunch of disgruntled people and retirement villages who all vote and all talk to each other about it. Who will go, 'oh, National hasn't actually delivered and Labour was going to do this'." Oh dear. And just to add hot sauce to an already piquant piece of audio, One News asked Uffindell, and the PM, about his backbencher's reckons the other Thursday, while Luxon was on a visit to Tauranga. Back to this Wednesday, when a somewhat embarrassed government made little effort to defend itself for not backing Leary's sunset clauses Bill, National sending out first-term backbenchers Rima Nakhle and Hamish Campbell to take up 10 minutes of our lives that no-one is ever getting back in speaking on the Bill. Nakhle did at least say that she understood that Leary was trying to protect consumers from bad-faith developers, before taking a wide tangent to extol the natural beauties of her Takanini electorate; but who knows what Campbell was on about in a, frankly, incoherent offering which had very little to do with Leary's Bill — or anything else. Labour, knowing it was beat, opted to make the most of it and have some fun with the government's discomfiture on the subject of Leary's other Members' Bill. "This Bill introduced by Ingrid Leary, who I want to actually acknowledge — she's doing tremendous work in this area," Labour Housing spokesman Kieran McAnulty extolled. "She's doing tremendous work in the area of retirement villages. Sam Uffindell is a fan. Sam Uffindell recognises that Ingrid Leary is doing tremendous work. "I think deep down, Sam Uffindell recognises that Ingrid Leary is doing tremendous work in the area of sunset causes. I have a suspicion that there are a few of them over there that deep down would actually quite like to support this Bill, but they've been whipped. They've been whipped and told that they cannot support this Bill." When the fall is all that's left it matters a great deal how one falls, and in her concluding speech Leary's buried her Bill with dignity. "It's been a real privilege to be able to have this reading on my Bill, and I want to acknowledge my late mother for her Leary luck in getting my Bill drawn. It's continuing even after her departure, so thanks very much, Mum," she said. "I can feel the sun setting on my sunset clauses Bill ... it's such a shame that the government members won't support it in its first reading, because if they had, I think they would find, actually, there would be many property developers who would support this Bill because they do not want to be tarnished by the reputation of a few bad apples. That's certainly been the experience in Australia, where their equivalent Bill was overwhelmingly supported ... That's, I'm sure, what would have happened here, but, sadly, we won't get that chance." Leary then put in a plug for her other Bill, stressing that yet again she was trying to protect the little guy or gal against the big players. "I note that this legislation has worked very well in Australia. I am going to let the sun set on it now — it's the last gasp — but don't worry, we've got the Retirement Villages (Fairer Repayments) Amendment Bill and you still have a chance to support that, National Party members." Well, at least Leary knows that she has one likely backer.
NZ Herald
2 days ago
- NZ Herald
Use of urgency to upend pay equity scheme decided after PM's meeting with senior ministers
Listening to articles is free for open-access content—explore other articles or learn more about text-to-speech. Use of urgency to upend pay equity scheme decided after PM's meeting with senior ministers Pay equity protesters rally outside Minister Brooke van Velden's electorate office in Auckland in May. Photo / Jason Dorday New documents reveal the Government's use of urgency to rush through controversial changes to the country's pay equity scheme wasn't decided until after a high-powered meeting between the Prime Minister and senior ministers. A document dump yesterday from several government agencies provides an insight into the Government's shock decision in May to amend the Equal Pay Act, which ministers claimed created a fiscally unsustainable pay equity scheme as changes saved almost $13 billion over the next four years. The changes, which stopped 33 live pay equity claims, raised the threshold for claims to be made and limited the job types workforces could use as comparators when arguing inequity. The amendments announced by Workplace Relations Minister Brooke van Velden had not been publicly forecast, and the Government used urgency to pass the bill through the House, meaning no public consultation was done. Now, documents released yesterday showed urgency hadn't been raised by officials in the months of preparation through 2024 before potential reform.
