Latest news with #NikDirga
Scoop
16-06-2025
- Business
- Scoop
Disposable Vape Ban And Strict Advertising Rules Begin - What You Need To Know
Nik Dirga, Digital Explainer Editor Explainer - Disposable vape fans will see their habit go up in smoke from Tuesday, as tough new vape rules kick in. Here's what you need to know about changes to vape sales and advertising. What's being banned? The distribution, manufacture, sale and supply of disposable vapes is being banned from Tuesday. "We are getting rid of vapes that are most popular among young people, and that can only be positive," Associate Health Minister Casey Costello said in announcing the changes last year. The 2023/24 NZ Health Survey found 10.5 percent of people aged 15 to 17 vaped daily. However, pod-style vaping devices will still be sold. They contain pre-filled pods which are swapped out to refill the vape. Also as of Tuesday, vaping devices, products and packaging can no longer be displayed at general retailers. Specialist vape stores must not display products in any way that makes them visible from outside their place of business - that includes advertising, display in online stores and in vending machines. There are also many new restrictions on advertising to promote or encourage the use of vaping products, including to existing customers. The new raft of advertising restrictions mean businesses could face a $2000 infringement fine. For instance, the government says it would violate the new regulations if a shop is advertising or posting about vaping products on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitteror Google business listings. "From the 17th June we will no longer be able to show images of the products," one online vape retailer says on its website. There's quite a lot of detail in the new advertising rules and a full breakdown can be found on Health New Zealand's website. Also as of Tuesday, vaping specialist retailers can no longer use various promotional techniques such as giving away free vaping products, discounts, offering rewards, cash rebates or gifts for the purchase of vaping products, or offer lotteries or games to people who buy vaping products. Haven't there already been some restrictions on vapes? Yes, as part of the series of changes to the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act 1990 last year. The new changes are the second line of alterations which began coming into effect in December. As of December, fines for selling to minors and publishing prohibited advertisements were increased, and new vape speciality stores were forbidden from opening within 100 metres of early childhood education centres. There were already location restrictions saying speciality vape stores had to be at least 300 metres from schools or marae. In introducing the amendments to smoking regulations last year, Associate Health Minister Casey Costello said, "New Zealand was too slow to effectively regulate vaping, and youth vaping rates are too high". "We have collectively agreed that, we have recognised that, and we know that we can do better. We have to stop young people from taking it up as a habit." The ban on disposable vapes was put off for six months to allow retailers to prepare for the changes. Jonathan Devery, chair of the Vaping Industry Association of New Zealand, said the group does support the disposable vapes ban, with a few caveats. He said while VIANZ "supports the intent behind the policy - to reduce youth access and address the environmental impact of single-use products - the association is urging caution about the potential unintended consequences". University of Otago public health professor Janet Hoek, a leading researcher into vaping, said whether or not the ban will make a difference will depend on enforcement and product innovation by the industry. Will people just switch from disposable vapes to refillable pods? "I would expect [the ban] to reduce youth vaping given young people are very price sensitive," Hoek said. "However, if the industry responds, as I think it is likely to do, by introducing cheaper pod vapes, the impact will be much less limited than we might hope." "They're not a straightforward replacement," Devery said. "There's a real risk that removing the most convenient smoking cessation option could drive consumers back to cigarettes." Hoek said many manufacturers may look for loopholes they can exploit with bans. "Disposable vapes are typically inexpensive [i.e., may cost less than $10 a device], so the vaping industry may respond by introducing new lower priced reusable vapes," Hoek said, saying she had seen pod starter kits - without pods, which cost extra - being advertised for under $10. "We saw this behaviour among tobacco companies as they tried to undermine the impact of increased tobacco excise taxes [they 'shifted' the tax to higher priced brands, away from lower priced brands and introduced entirely new brands to create a new 'super value' partition within the market]." Devery of VIANZ said it's possible some vape sales may just go underground. "There are also serious concerns about enforcement," he said. "Early warnings from the UK, where a disposable vape ban came into effect on 1 June, suggest black market sales are likely to increase." Hoek said there is a lot of concern that manufacturers may find ways around disposable bans - she pointed to 'Big Puff' high-capacity throwaway vapes that have drawn concern in the UK with their own disposables ban. What does this mean for the vaping industry? "We have consistently called for a full ban on disposable vapes, rather than incremental technical fixes, and we welcome the environmental benefits it will bring," Devery said. "But the transition must be managed carefully to avoid driving consumers back to smoking or into unregulated markets." The industry group feels that some of the advertising restrictions may ultimately harm consumers and make it harder for retailers to interact with them. "Many retailers, especially online, have relied on clear product information and guidance to help adults make informed choices," Devery said. "New restrictions will limit what can be communicated, making it harder for consumers to understand available options or find support to switch." "Retailers are still recovering from last year's rushed regulations that left them with unsellable stock and high compliance costs - from updating websites to in-store signage," he said. Many retailers have discounted their products heavily before the bans take effect. But should more be done to control vaping? Hoek said she thought the new measures would help cut youth vaping, but more strategy was needed. "There are many omissions from the measures (e.g., the high concentration of vape stores in lower income communities; the location of vape stores right next to schools). I would favour a more proactive strategy that reduced the appeal, availability, addictiveness and affordability of vaping products." One of the key complaints about disposable vapes have been the waste they generate, Devery said. "Removing disposables will help cut vape-related e-waste by over 80 percent according to our industry estimates, but more must be done," he said. "VIANZ recommends expanded take-back schemes like VapeCycle, producer-responsibility regulations, and better consumer education on safe disposal." "I would favour a 'polluter pays' model, where vape companies are responsible for the costs their products create," Hoek said. "Vape companies have been given clear rules to follow, and yet some are already looking for loopholes," Asthma and Respiratory Foundation chief executive Letitia Harding said in a statement. Will this help New Zealand meet its Smokefree 2025 goals? Back in 2011, New Zealand's government set the goal of a Smokefree New Zealand by 2025. There have been concerns that goal is falling short, with particular worries about Māori and Pasifika smoking rates. Costello has maintained the government's changes will continue work toward the target. "We do not want our young people vaping," Costello said in Parliament. "We do not want them taking up this habit. We do not want them to be nicotine addicted. We also don't want anybody taking up tobacco and smoking." The current smokefree goal aims to have less than 5 percent of the population smoking by December, but the latest data reveals there are still about 300,000 daily smokers - 6.9 percent of adults - across the country. "VIANZ urges the government to closely monitor the ban's impact on smoking rates, particularly among priority groups, and ensure regulations don't inadvertently harm those most vulnerable," Deverey said. "Vaping regulation must be viewed in the context of the devastating harm caused by smoking, which kills two out of every three users." "Strong rules and environmental responsibility are essential, but the broader goal must remain to reduce smoking and improve public health outcomes." Hoek said it's important vaping retailers were brought along on that goal. "People who sell vaping products should be able to help people switch successfully from smoking to vaping," she said. "Early work we did with general retailers (dairy owners) showed they knew next to nothing about the products they sold (and some offered completely incorrect advice). Ignorance among retailers creates a risk that people who could benefit by switching to vaping will buy a product that isn't well suited to their needs." "We also need to let people know that, once they have switched completely to vaping and no longer think there's a risk they would return to smoking, they should stop vaping. "That latter message isn't [for obvious reasons] communicated by vaping companies or retailers."
Otago Daily Times
16-06-2025
- Business
- Otago Daily Times
Tough new vape rules set to kick in
By Nik Dirga of RNZ Explainer - Disposable vape fans will see their habit go up in smoke from Tuesday as tough new vape rules kick in. Here's what you need to know about changes to vape sales and advertising. What's being banned? The distribution, manufacture, sale and supply of disposable vapes is being banned from Tuesday. "We are getting rid of vapes that are most popular among young people, and that can only be positive," Associate Health Minister Casey Costello said in announcing the changes last year. The 2023/24 NZ Health Survey found 10.5 percent of people aged 15 to 17 vaped daily. However, pod-style vaping devices will still be sold. They contain pre-filled pods which are swapped out to refill the vape. Also as of Tuesday, vaping devices, products and packaging can no longer be displayed at general retailers. Specialist vape stores must not display products in any way that makes them visible from outside their place of business - that includes advertising, display in online stores and in vending machines. There are also many new restrictions on advertising to promote or encourage the use of vaping products, including to existing customers. The new raft of advertising restrictions mean businesses could face a $2000 infringement fine. For instance, the government says it would violate the new regulations if a shop is advertising or posting about vaping products on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter or Google business listings. "From the 17th June we will no longer be able to show images of the products," one online vape retailer says on its website. There's quite a lot of detail in the new advertising rules and a full breakdown can be found on Health New Zealand's website. Also as of Tuesday, vaping specialist retailers can no longer use various promotional techniques such as giving away free vaping products, discounts, offering rewards, cash rebates or gifts for the purchase of vaping products, or offer lotteries or games to people who buy vaping products. Haven't there already been some restrictions on vapes? Yes, as part of the series of changes to the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act 1990 last year. The new changes are the second line of alterations which began coming into effect in December. As of December, fines for selling to minors and publishing prohibited advertisements were increased, and new vape speciality stores were forbidden from opening within 100 metres of early childhood education centres. There were already location restrictions saying speciality vape stores had to be at least 300 metres from schools or marae. In introducing the amendments to smoking regulations last year, Associate Health Minister Casey Costello said, "New Zealand was too slow to effectively regulate vaping, and youth vaping rates are too high". "We have collectively agreed that, we have recognised that, and we know that we can do better. We have to stop young people from taking it up as a habit." The ban on disposable vapes was put off for six months to allow retailers to prepare for the changes. Jonathan Devery, chair of the Vaping Industry Association of New Zealand, said the group does support the disposable vapes ban, with a few caveats. He said while VIANZ "supports the intent behind the policy - to reduce youth access and address the environmental impact of single-use products - the association is urging caution about the potential unintended consequences". University of Otago public health professor Janet Hoek, a leading researcher into vaping, said whether or not the ban will make a difference will depend on enforcement and product innovation by the industry. Will people just switch from disposable vapes to refillable pods? "I would expect [the ban] to reduce youth vaping given young people are very price sensitive," Hoek said. "However, if the industry responds, as I think it is likely to do, by introducing cheaper pod vapes, the impact will be much less limited than we might hope." "They're not a straightforward replacement," Devery said. "There's a real risk that removing the most convenient smoking cessation option could drive consumers back to cigarettes." Hoek said many manufacturers may look for loopholes they can exploit with bans. "Disposable vapes are typically inexpensive [i.e., may cost less than $10 a device], so the vaping industry may respond by introducing new lower priced reusable vapes," Hoek said, saying she had seen pod starter kits - without pods, which cost extra - being advertised for under $10. "We saw this behaviour among tobacco companies as they tried to undermine the impact of increased tobacco excise taxes [they 'shifted' the tax to higher priced brands, away from lower priced brands and introduced entirely new brands to create a new 'super value' partition within the market]." Devery of VIANZ said it's possible some vape sales may just go underground. "There are also serious concerns about enforcement," he said. "Early warnings from the UK, where a disposable vape ban came into effect on 1 June, suggest black market sales are likely to increase." Hoek said there is a lot of concern that manufacturers may find ways around disposable bans - she pointed to 'Big Puff' high-capacity throwaway vapes that have drawn concern in the UK with their own disposables ban. What does this mean for the vaping industry? "We have consistently called for a full ban on disposable vapes, rather than incremental technical fixes, and we welcome the environmental benefits it will bring," Devery said. "But the transition must be managed carefully to avoid driving consumers back to smoking or into unregulated markets." The industry group feels that some of the advertising restrictions may ultimately harm consumers and make it harder for retailers to interact with them. "Many retailers, especially online, have relied on clear product information and guidance to help adults make informed choices," Devery said. "New restrictions will limit what can be communicated, making it harder for consumers to understand available options or find support to switch." "Retailers are still recovering from last year's rushed regulations that left them with unsellable stock and high compliance costs - from updating websites to in-store signage," he said. Many retailers have discounted their products heavily before the bans take effect. But should more be done to control vaping? Hoek said she thought the new measures would help cut youth vaping, but more strategy was needed. "There are many omissions from the measures (e.g., the high concentration of vape stores in lower income communities; the location of vape stores right next to schools). I would favour a more proactive strategy that reduced the appeal, availability, addictiveness and affordability of vaping products." One of the key complaints about disposable vapes have been the waste they generate, Devery said. "Removing disposables will help cut vape-related e-waste by over 80 percent according to our industry estimates, but more must be done," he said. "VIANZ recommends expanded take-back schemes like VapeCycle, producer-responsibility regulations, and better consumer education on safe disposal." "I would favour a 'polluter pays' model, where vape companies are responsible for the costs their products create," Hoek said. "Vape companies have been given clear rules to follow, and yet some are already looking for loopholes," Asthma and Respiratory Foundation chief executive Letitia Harding said in a statement. Will this help New Zealand meet its Smokefree 2025 goals? Back in 2011, New Zealand's government set the goal of a Smokefree New Zealand by 2025. There have been concerns that goal is falling short, with particular worries about Māori and Pasifika smoking rates. Costello has maintained the government's changes will continue work toward the target. "We do not want our young people vaping," Costello said in Parliament. "We do not want them taking up this habit. We do not want them to be nicotine addicted. We also don't want anybody taking up tobacco and smoking." The current smokefree goal aims to have less than 5 percent of the population smoking by December, but the latest data reveals there are still about 300,000 daily smokers - 6.9 percent of adults - across the country. "VIANZ urges the government to closely monitor the ban's impact on smoking rates, particularly among priority groups, and ensure regulations don't inadvertently harm those most vulnerable," Deverey said. "Vaping regulation must be viewed in the context of the devastating harm caused by smoking, which kills two out of every three users." "Strong rules and environmental responsibility are essential, but the broader goal must remain to reduce smoking and improve public health outcomes." Hoek said it's important vaping retailers were brought along on that goal. "People who sell vaping products should be able to help people switch successfully from smoking to vaping," she said. "We also need to let people know that, once they have switched completely to vaping and no longer think there's a risk they would return to smoking, they should stop vaping. "That latter message isn't [for obvious reasons] communicated by vaping companies or retailers."
Otago Daily Times
16-06-2025
- Business
- Otago Daily Times
Why disposable vapes will vanish from stores this week
By Nik Dirga of RNZ Explainer - Disposable vape fans will see their habit go up in smoke from Tuesday, as tough new vape rules kick in. Here's what you need to know about changes to vape sales and advertising. What's being banned? The distribution, manufacture, sale and supply of disposable vapes is being banned from Tuesday. "We are getting rid of vapes that are most popular among young people, and that can only be positive," Associate Health Minister Casey Costello said in announcing the changes last year. The 2023/24 NZ Health Survey found 10.5 percent of people aged 15 to 17 vaped daily. However, pod-style vaping devices will still be sold. They contain pre-filled pods which are swapped out to refill the vape. Also as of Tuesday, vaping devices, products and packaging can no longer be displayed at general retailers. Specialist vape stores must not display products in any way that makes them visible from outside their place of business - that includes advertising, display in online stores and in vending machines. There are also many new restrictions on advertising to promote or encourage the use of vaping products, including to existing customers. The new raft of advertising restrictions mean businesses could face a $2000 infringement fine. For instance, the government says it would violate the new regulations if a shop is advertising or posting about vaping products on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter or Google business listings. "From the 17th June we will no longer be able to show images of the products," one online vape retailer says on its website. There's quite a lot of detail in the new advertising rules and a full breakdown can be found on Health New Zealand's website. Also as of Tuesday, vaping specialist retailers can no longer use various promotional techniques such as giving away free vaping products, discounts, offering rewards, cash rebates or gifts for the purchase of vaping products, or offer lotteries or games to people who buy vaping products. Haven't there already been some restrictions on vapes? Yes, as part of the series of changes to the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act 1990 last year. The new changes are the second line of alterations which began coming into effect in December. As of December, fines for selling to minors and publishing prohibited advertisements were increased, and new vape speciality stores were forbidden from opening within 100 metres of early childhood education centres. There were already location restrictions saying speciality vape stores had to be at least 300 metres from schools or marae. In introducing the amendments to smoking regulations last year, Associate Health Minister Casey Costello said, "New Zealand was too slow to effectively regulate vaping, and youth vaping rates are too high". "We have collectively agreed that, we have recognised that, and we know that we can do better. We have to stop young people from taking it up as a habit." The ban on disposable vapes was put off for six months to allow retailers to prepare for the changes. Jonathan Devery, chair of the Vaping Industry Association of New Zealand, said the group does support the disposable vapes ban, with a few caveats. He said while VIANZ "supports the intent behind the policy - to reduce youth access and address the environmental impact of single-use products - the association is urging caution about the potential unintended consequences". University of Otago public health professor Janet Hoek, a leading researcher into vaping, said whether or not the ban will make a difference will depend on enforcement and product innovation by the industry. Will people just switch from disposable vapes to refillable pods? "I would expect [the ban] to reduce youth vaping given young people are very price sensitive," Hoek said. "However, if the industry responds, as I think it is likely to do, by introducing cheaper pod vapes, the impact will be much less limited than we might hope." "They're not a straightforward replacement," Devery said. "There's a real risk that removing the most convenient smoking cessation option could drive consumers back to cigarettes." Hoek said many manufacturers may look for loopholes they can exploit with bans. "Disposable vapes are typically inexpensive [i.e., may cost less than $10 a device], so the vaping industry may respond by introducing new lower priced reusable vapes," Hoek said, saying she had seen pod starter kits - without pods, which cost extra - being advertised for under $10. "We saw this behaviour among tobacco companies as they tried to undermine the impact of increased tobacco excise taxes [they 'shifted' the tax to higher priced brands, away from lower priced brands and introduced entirely new brands to create a new 'super value' partition within the market]." Devery of VIANZ said it's possible some vape sales may just go underground. "There are also serious concerns about enforcement," he said. "Early warnings from the UK, where a disposable vape ban came into effect on 1 June, suggest black market sales are likely to increase." Hoek said there is a lot of concern that manufacturers may find ways around disposable bans - she pointed to 'Big Puff' high-capacity throwaway vapes that have drawn concern in the UK with their own disposables ban. What does this mean for the vaping industry? "We have consistently called for a full ban on disposable vapes, rather than incremental technical fixes, and we welcome the environmental benefits it will bring," Devery said. "But the transition must be managed carefully to avoid driving consumers back to smoking or into unregulated markets." The industry group feels that some of the advertising restrictions may ultimately harm consumers and make it harder for retailers to interact with them. "Many retailers, especially online, have relied on clear product information and guidance to help adults make informed choices," Devery said. "New restrictions will limit what can be communicated, making it harder for consumers to understand available options or find support to switch." "Retailers are still recovering from last year's rushed regulations that left them with unsellable stock and high compliance costs - from updating websites to in-store signage," he said. Many retailers have discounted their products heavily before the bans take effect. But should more be done to control vaping? Hoek said she thought the new measures would help cut youth vaping, but more strategy was needed. "There are many omissions from the measures (e.g., the high concentration of vape stores in lower income communities; the location of vape stores right next to schools). I would favour a more proactive strategy that reduced the appeal, availability, addictiveness and affordability of vaping products." One of the key complaints about disposable vapes have been the waste they generate, Devery said. "Removing disposables will help cut vape-related e-waste by over 80 percent according to our industry estimates, but more must be done," he said. "VIANZ recommends expanded take-back schemes like VapeCycle, producer-responsibility regulations, and better consumer education on safe disposal." "I would favour a 'polluter pays' model, where vape companies are responsible for the costs their products create," Hoek said. "Vape companies have been given clear rules to follow, and yet some are already looking for loopholes," Asthma and Respiratory Foundation chief executive Letitia Harding said in a statement. Will this help New Zealand meet its Smokefree 2025 goals? Back in 2011, New Zealand's government set the goal of a Smokefree New Zealand by 2025. There have been concerns that goal is falling short, with particular worries about Māori and Pasifika smoking rates. Costello has maintained the government's changes will continue work toward the target. "We do not want our young people vaping," Costello said in Parliament. "We do not want them taking up this habit. We do not want them to be nicotine addicted. We also don't want anybody taking up tobacco and smoking." The current smokefree goal aims to have less than 5 percent of the population smoking by December, but the latest data reveals there are still about 300,000 daily smokers - 6.9 percent of adults - across the country. "VIANZ urges the government to closely monitor the ban's impact on smoking rates, particularly among priority groups, and ensure regulations don't inadvertently harm those most vulnerable," Deverey said. "Vaping regulation must be viewed in the context of the devastating harm caused by smoking, which kills two out of every three users." "Strong rules and environmental responsibility are essential, but the broader goal must remain to reduce smoking and improve public health outcomes." Hoek said it's important vaping retailers were brought along on that goal. "People who sell vaping products should be able to help people switch successfully from smoking to vaping," she said. "We also need to let people know that, once they have switched completely to vaping and no longer think there's a risk they would return to smoking, they should stop vaping. "That latter message isn't [for obvious reasons] communicated by vaping companies or retailers."
Otago Daily Times
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
The Regulatory Standards Bill: What is it and why the controversy?
By Nik Dirga of RNZ Explainer - A new bill would make big changes to how legislation is drafted in New Zealand, but has also drawn considerable criticism as it works its way through Parliament. The Regulatory Standards Bill presented by ACT Party leader David Seymour is complex, but the heart of the matter is about how the rules and regulations that we all live by are put together, and whether that can or should be done better. It's now out for public comment through submissions to the select committee, due by 23 June. The bill has been called everything from a libertarian power grab to a common-sense solution to cutting red tape. But what's it all about, really? RNZ is here to tell you what you need to know. What is the bill? The bill proposes a set of regulatory principles that lawmakers, agencies and ministries would have to consider in regulation design. Those principles cover the rule of law, personal liberties, taking of property, taxes, fees and levies and the role of courts. Makers of legislation would be required to assess proposed and existing legislation against those principles. The definitions in the legislation as drafted set out Seymour's ideal for what makes good law, but are contested. (See end of article for a complete summary of the principles.) Seymour called the principles "focused on the effect of legislation on existing interests and liberties," while Victoria University of Wellington law professor Dean Knight said they are "strongly libertarian in character". The bill would set up a Regulatory Standards Board to consider how legislation measures up to the principles. Members of the board would be appointed by the Minister for Regulation, currently Seymour. In putting the bill forward, 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'." The bill was part of the coalition agreements National, ACT and New Zealand First agreed to in 2023 which included a pledge to improve the quality of regulation and pass a "Regulatory Standards Act as soon as practicable" (page 4). The bill passed its first reading in Parliament on 23 May. It is now before the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee and open for public feedback. You can read the complete text of the bill right here: Read the Regulatory Standards Bill 2025. The government's departmental disclosure statement also gives further information regarding the scrutiny of the bill. Okay, but what is regulation, anyway? The Ministry of Regulation, which was formed just last year with Seymour named as the minister in charge, says that "regulation is all around us in our daily lives". "It's in the workplace, the sports field, the home, the shopping mall - in our cities and the great outdoors. Regulation protects our rights and safety, our property and the environment." But what does that actually mean? "Fundamentally, it's a law, something that tells you you have to do something or something that tells you you can't do something," said constitutional law expert Graeme Edgeler. Aren't there already legislative guidelines for Parliament? Yes, such as the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee (LDAC), which produce legislative guidelines and advises on legislative design. "There already are a range of 'best practice' lawmaking guides and practices within government, such as the LDAC's 'Legislation Guidelines', Regulatory Impact Statements, and departmental disclosure statements under the Legislation Act," University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said. Seymour has said the bill is about adding transparency, not enforcement. In an FAQ on the bill, the Ministry for Regulation says the bill "does not require new legislation to be consistent with the principles". "It requires that legislation is assessed for any inconsistency with the principles, and that this assessment is made available to the public. Agencies and ministers are required to be transparent about any identified inconsistencies, but this would not stop new legislation from progressing." Geddis said while the bill was intended to operate in the executive branch of government only, it may have implications for the courts. "Once the particular standards of 'good lawmaking' included in the RSB are written into our law by Parliament, the courts cannot but take notice of that fact," he said. "And so, these standards may become relevant to how the courts interpret and apply legislation, or how they review the way the executive government makes regulatory decisions." Haven't ACT tried to pass something like this bill before? That's right - similar legislation has been introduced to the House three times, and failed to become law three times. Previous tries saw the 2006 Regulatory Responsibility Bill Member's Bill by former ACT leader Rodney Hide; the Regulatory Standards Bill in 2011 also introduced by Hyde and produced by the Regulatory Responsibility Taskforce; and a 2021 Member's Bill by Seymour. Unlike previous versions of the bill, the 2025 iteration adds a regulatory standards board to consider issues, removing courts from the equation "in relation to a recourse mechanism for legislation inconsistent with the principles". The bill has been somewhat softened in this incarnation, Edgeler said. "This is the weakest form of the regulatory standards proposal that there has been." He also noted that future governments could repeal or amend the bill as well. And as the Ministry for Regulation says, "any recommendations made by the Regulatory Standards Board would be non-binding". "It won't stop any future government doing something it actually wants to do," Edgeler said. So what are some of the concerns about the bill? The bill has drawn considerable feedback, with earlier public submissions strongly negative. After the discussion document was launched on the bill in November, the Ministry of Regulation received about 23,000 submissions. Of those, 88 percent opposed the bill, 0.33 percent - or 76 submissions - supported or partially supported it, and about 12 percent did not have a clear position, the ministry reported. Seymour has since dismissed the negative submissions and alleged some of them were made by 'bots'. Among the top concerns the ministry's analysis of the feedback found were that the bill would "attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist"; "result in duplication and increase complexity in lawmaking" and "undermine future Parliaments and democracy". Bill opponent University of Auckland Emeritus Professor Jane Kelsey has said the bill is too in line with minority party ACT's ideology and will "bind governments forever to the neoliberal logic of economic freedom". Other government agencies have also weighed in. In a report on the bill after launching an urgent inquiry, the Waitangi Tribunal found that "if the Regulatory Standards Act were enacted without meaningful consultation with Māori, it would constitute a breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, specifically the principles of partnership and active protection". It called for an immediate halt to the bill's advancement to allow more engagement with Māori. In a submission received by Newsroom under the Official Information Act, the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee said it had "misgivings about the capacity of this bill to offer improvement" and it might have "significant unintended consequences". In terms of the financial impact, a regulatory impact statement by the Ministry for Regulation estimated the bill would cost a minimum of $18 million a year across the public service under the minister's preferred approach. Seymour said the cost of policy work across the government was $870m a year, and the bill was about 2 percent of that. And in an interim regulatory impact statement, the Ministry of Regulation itself expressed some ambivalence about the bill. The ministry said its preferred approach was to "build on the disclosure statement regime ... and create new legislative provisions". It said it supported the overall objectives of the bill but "that an enhanced disclosure statement regime with enhanced obligations, will achieve many of the same benefits" and also impose fewer costs. Does it remove the Treaty of Waitangi from governance? It does not say that, but the bill's silence on Māori representation in government has troubled opponents. "On the consultation point, Māori clearly weren't adequately engaged with before the RSB was created and introduced into the House," Geddis said. "The Waitangi Tribunal's report on the RSB is unequivocal on this issue." Geddis said in contrast, that LDAC guidelines contain an entire chapter of guidance on how Te Tiriti should be considered. "That very silence creates uncertainty as to how the principles in the RSB are meant to interact with these principles of the Treaty." Under principles of responsible legislation outlined at the start the bill, there is a statement that "every person is equal before the law," which some have said dismisses Māori concerns. Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer at the bill's first reading last month attacked the bill. "If you look through the whole 37 pages, which I encourage that you don't, the silence on the impact for Te Tiriti is on purpose. The bill promotes equal treatment before the law but it opens the door [for] government to attack every Māori equity initiative." Seymour has insisted Māori voices were heard through public consultation. "We had 144 Iwi-based groups who submitted... If that's not enough, then I don't know what is," he told RNZ's Guyon Espiner. What does the bill say about property rights? A section that has drawn attention says "legislation should not take or impair, or authorise the taking or impairment of, property without the consent of the owner unless there is a good justification for the taking or impairment; and fair compensation for the taking or impairment is provided to the owner; and the compensation is provided, to the extent practicable, by or on behalf of the persons who obtain the benefit of the taking or impairment". The question many opponents have raised is what "compensation" might mean and who might seek it. "Applied to the real world, this means that anything the government does that decreases corporate profits opens it up to possible legal action," bill opponent Ryan Ward wrote for E-Tangata. What do supporters say? Writing for the New Zealand Institute, Bryce Wilkinson said criticisms of the bill as "a 'dangerous ideological' drive towards limited government are arrant nonsense". "The bill itself is a mild transparency measure," Wilkinson has also written. "The Regulatory Standards Bill's modest aim is to make wilful lack of disclosure harder." "At the end of the day we are putting critical principles into lawmaking," Seymour told Newsroom. "We know bureaucrats don't like this law. For New Zealanders that's a good thing." So how can we have our say on it? Now is the time to do it. Public submissions to the Finance and Expenditure Committee will be accepted until 1pm Monday 23 June. Submissions are publicly released and will be published to the Parliament website. What happens after that? Does the bill look likely to pass? Here's what happens next. The select committee is due to report back on submissions by 22 November, although Seymour has asked that to be moved up to 23 September, Newsroom reported. After the select committee, the bill would proceed to a second reading, then a committee of the Whole House, and a final vote in the third reading, which would need support from more than half of Parliament to pass. If the bill passes, it would likely come into effect on 1 January 2026. While the Treaty Principles Bill, also championed by ACT, failed in Parliament in April and was voted down by every party but ACT, Edgeler said the path for this one was less shaky. "This one, of course, is more likely to pass because the promise in the coalition agreement is to pass it," Edgeler said. That agreement requires National to support the bill all the way through, which is different to the agreement's clause on the Treaty Principles Bill. By extension it also requires New Zealand First to support it all the way through because their agreement requires them to support the agreement with ACT. "Whether it passes in the exact form, who knows, whether New Zealand First continues its support or insists on changes which might drastically alter it, or even water it down further, is a different question." NZ First leader Winston Peters has described the bill as a "work in progress" and Geddis said: "It is possible that the changes NZ First want so alter the RSB's content that it ceases to deliver what ACT wants it to, creating a stand-off between the two coalition partners." Geddis agreed the coalition agreement makes it difficult for National to not support the bill. "Given that these agreements are treated as being something close to holy writ, and given how much political capital David Seymour is investing in this bill, it seems unlikely that National will feel able to withhold its support. That then leaves NZ First as being, in effect, the decider." One last question - what were those regulatory principles again? From the bill itself, in summary, the principles are: • the importance of maintaining consistency with various aspects of the rule of law; and • legislation should not unduly diminish a person's liberty, personal security, freedom of choice or action, or various property rights, except as is necessary to provide for, or protect, any such liberty, freedom, or right of another person; and • legislation should not take or impair property without the owner's consent unless certain requirements are met. The requirements include that there is a good justification for the taking or impairment and fair compensation is provided to the owner; and • the importance of maintaining consistency with section 22 of the Constitution Act 1986. Section 22 of that Act provides that it is not lawful for the Crown, except by or under an Act, to levy a tax, borrow money, or spend public money; and • legislation should impose a fee for goods or services only if the amount of the fee bears a proper relation to the cost of providing the good or service; and • legislation should impose a levy to fund an objective or a function only if the levy is reasonable in relation to: - the benefits that the payers are likely to derive or the risks attributable to them; and - the costs of efficiently achieving the objective or providing the function; and • legislation should preserve the courts' constitutional role of ascertaining the meaning of legislation; and • legislation should make rights and liberties, or obligations, dependent on administrative power only if the power is sufficiently defined and subject to appropriate review; and • the importance of consulting, to the extent that is reasonably practicable, the persons that the responsible agency considers will be directly and materially affected by the legislation; and • the importance of carefully evaluating various matters as part of a good law-making process. These include: - the issue concerned; and - the effectiveness of any relevant existing law; and - the public interest; and - any reasonably available options (including non-legislative options); and • who is likely to benefit and who is likely to suffer a detriment; and • legislation should be expected to produce benefits that exceed the costs of the legislation to the public or persons; and • legislation should be the most effective, efficient, and proportionate response to the issue concerned that is available.
Scoop
29-05-2025
- Business
- Scoop
King's Birthday: What's Open, What's Closed And How It's Decided Who Gets Honours
Explainer – King Charles' birthday is commemorated with a public holiday on Monday – what's open, how do those royal honours get chosen and should we still celebrate it, anyway? Nik Dirga, Digital Explainer Editor Explainer – King Charles' birthday is commemorated with a public holiday on Monday – what's open, how do those royal honours get chosen and should we still celebrate it, anyway? Here's everything you need to know about the holiday. What's open on Monday? Do I have to work? It is a public holiday, but some people may still have to work depending on their employer. Employees are paid time-and-a-half and entitled to a paid day off if a public holiday falls on a normal working day for them. However, if you are a contractor or working for yourself, you don't get those benefits. You can read more about public holiday rules for employers here. Trading restrictions don't apply on Monday as they do for Easter holidays, the morning of Anzac Day or Christmas. Shops, restaurants and cafes can be open as usual but it pays to check opening hours beforehand. I'm gonna want a latte, do I have to pay a surcharge? Because businesses have to pay employees more on a public holiday, it raises their costs. So some businesses choose to add a surcharge to their prices on holidays. The typical surcharge is 15 percent. However, businesses must be clear about announcing those charges to customers via signage, verbally or other methods. Customers can also complain to the Commerce Commission if they feel misled or a charge was excessive. King's Birthday is also about celebrating New Zealanders' achievements Dozens of New Zealanders will be given royal honours which will be announced on Monday for excellence in their fields. It's the second time each year honours are given out – they're also announced on New Year's Eve. Cool, can I get an honour? Who decides who gets them? Literally anyone can nominate someone living who they think deserves a Royal Honour. (Unless you try to nominate yourself, which is not allowed and also kind of weird.) The Honours Unit at the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet processes between 800 to 1000 nominations a year, Blair Teesdale-Moore, senior communications advisor with the department, said. 'The unit prepares a draft citation for each one based on the information in the nomination and letters of support,' she said. The Cabinet Appointments and Honours Committee then considers every nomination individually in a series of confidential meetings over several weeks. 'As chair of the APH committee and the King's primary advisor on honours matters, the prime minister advises the King on the final honours lists,' Teesdale-Moore said. 'By long-standing constitutional convention the King of New Zealand acts on the advice of the prime minister – this includes the formal approval of New Zealand Royal honours.' Once the draft list is set, it is then given informal approval by the governor-general, run by potential recipients first – 'a small number decline,' Teesdale-Moore said – and then it's off to the King, who is the head of our honours system. Hang on, the King was born in November. Why are we celebrating in June? King Charles III turns 77 on 14 November. So why are we wishing him a happy birthday now? Blame the weather. The tradition of celebrating the monarch's birthday in the northern summer dates back hundreds of years, and is tied in with the Trooping the Colour ceremonial event held every June in London. The ceremony of Trooping the Colour is believed to have been first performed during the reign of King Charles II from 1660 to 1685, the British Army says. In 1748, during the reign of King George II, the sovereign's birthday first became a celebrated holiday. Trooping the Colour became tied in to celebrate the monarch, no matter when their actual birthday was. Ever since then, the king or queen has basically had two birthdays – the real one, and the big old fancy military parade one. Trooping the Colour will be held in the UK on 14 June this year. Is the King's Birthday really something NZ should be marking in 2025? That's a matter of opinion and it all depends on who you ask. As part of the Commonwealth, King Charles is New Zealand's head of state. Of course, there have been calls to change that, which ramped up after the death of Queen Elizabeth II following her 70-year reign in 2022. Monarchy New Zealand organisation did not respond to requests for comment from RNZ by deadline, but on its website calls the monarchy 'something all Kiwis can be proud of'. 'It's a vital component of our government, a guarantee of our democracy, and a sign of our maturity and independence as a nation. 'The King is a completely apolitical head of state (who) represents all New Zealanders regardless of their political views. This cannot happen in a republic.' However, there are also calls to abandon the holiday celebrating a monarch on the other side of the world. Savage, the chair of the New Zealand Republic organisation, called King's Birthday an 'empty public holiday that celebrates nothing in particular. It is no one's birthday and even the Brits don't celebrate it as a public holiday'. 'It has already been surpassed by Matariki as a proper, meaningful public holiday. New Zealand Republic was one of the first groups to start campaigning for Matariki and we are campaigning to replace King's Birthday with a spring time public holiday in September.' NZ Republic suggests a replacement public holiday could be Citizenship Day, when New Zealand citizenship was officially established on 6 September 1948 by the passing of the New Zealand Citizenship Act, or Suffrage Day on 19 September, marking the day in 1893 that NZ signed into law allowing women to vote. But for now, your public holiday off is thanks to the King.
