Regulatory Standards Bill: Explanation & Submission [Updated]

You've done your Treaty Principles Bill submission, and that was a piece of cake eh. If that's what all Bill submissions are like then bring it on, the voice of the masses can be finally heard.

Hmmmm, seems it's different for each Bill, which sort of makes sense. The Treaty Principles Bill is something that's not going anywhere no matter what happens, so it's been made very much a, "Tell us what you think and what could be done", expecting a tsunami of, "It's crap, throw it away". The response is gonna be, "Ok, we asked and we're gonna throw it away, as we were gonna anyway."

There are Bills that have some substance to them, and the relevant Select Committee really do want to know what "we" think. In particular they want to know what the view of experts on that Bill's subject. This is the majority of normal Select Committee work, and tbh most of us just let that chug along coz, well, they know best and it's for the good of all.

Then there's this.

The Regulatory Standards Bill.

Before we get into the HOW and WHEN of making your submission ...

WHY

This is a Bill to change the very way Aotearoa New Zealand is allowed to make regulations (incl. actual laws), focussed on ensuring individual / ownership / corporate rights are held uppermost.

Some background:

The Regulatory Standards Bill is the brainchild of the Business Roundtable (now the New Zealand Initiative). The Act Party has tried three times, since 2006, to introduce a version of this bill — failing each time it was put under scrutiny, as its dangerous consequences became clear.

The Regulatory Standards Bill outlines how all new legislation and regulation — and after 10 years all existing legislation (excluding Treaty settlements) — should adhere to a specific set of libertarian principles.

These principles include selected elements of the rule of law, equality before the law, individual freedoms, property rights, restrictions on government, and constraints on taxes and charges.

In essence, it bakes in the Act libertarian / corporate view of the world not only into how NZ regulation AND law is made, but also how people can (dis)engage with past regulations AND laws.

It's me vs you, individual vs society, there is no such thing as collective agreement etc etc.

It is also, divide and conquer and the beneficiaries of this Bill are, of course, the corporations. You might feel you have more 'freedom' but wait until it's you vs corporation, you're not the reason for this bill or the focus of the Act party.

My view, there is already a country trying that, the US, if you want it, go live there. It is not how Kiwis do things.

More reading on the what and why:

• The Regulatory Standards Bill
• The ‘dangerous’ bill flying under the radar
• Who regulates the regulators? – Hon David Seymour follows in the footsteps of Cicero
• ACT's quest for regulatory reform
• Google search, "the regulatory standards bill"

WHAT

There's four sections called, "Discussion areas", to the Bill:

1. Setting standards for good regulation
2. Showing whether regulation meets standards
3. Enabling people to seek independent assessment of whether regulation meets standards
4. Supporting the Ministry for Regulation to have oversight of regulatory performance

Right, let's get onto ...

WHEN

• By: 13 January 2025

Interestingly this is ambiguous and so I would make sure you've done your submission by midnight on Sunday 12th January.

WHERE

• https://consultation.regulation.govt.nz/rsb/have-your-say-on-regulatory-standards-bill/

HOW

[Update 2-Jan-2024]

It's slowly dawned on me as I read other people's submissions on this and other Bills that you can write what you want, how you want, and absolutely do not need to focus on the questions any submission form has.

Treat any pre-defined questions as guidelines if that helps you, but also just have your say. Pop it all into a Word (or equivalent) document and upload it, job done, have a cup of tea and a biscuit.

----

I've left this to the last coz it's been designed to be way harder than the Treaty Principles Bill - remember, this is a Bill that Act & National actually want to pass and don't really want any hurdles, much less you oiks talking about it to the Select Committee.

You will answer the following, prepare yourself there are 22 actual questions, yup!

Opening 4 questions, easy:

1. What is your name?
2. Are you submitting in a personal capacity, or on behalf of an organisation, iwi, or hapū?
• If you are submitting on behalf of an organisation, iwi, or hapū what is the name of that organisation, iwi or hapū?
3. Where in New Zealand are you primarily based?
4. Please provide us with at least one method of contacting you, in case the Ministry needs to discuss your submission further.

Setting standards for good regulation, 7 questions

MIKE: Should we change, and is this the way to change?

Before we continue, they use the acronym "RIS", which means Regulatory Impact Statement (which are a thing already)

All regulatory proposals taken to Cabinet for approval must be accompanied by a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS), unless an exemption applies. A RIS is a document produced by the responsible government agency and provides a high-level summary of the problem being addressed, the options and their associated costs and benefits, the consultation undertaken, and the proposed arrangements for implementation and review.

1. What are your overall views on the quality of New Zealandʼs regulation?
2. What are your overall views on the current arrangements in place to promote high quality regulation?
3. Do you ever use RISs to find out information about proposed government regulation? If so, how helpful do you find RISs in helping you make an assessment about the quality of the proposed regulation?
4. Do you ever use disclosure statements to find out information about a Bill? If so, how helpful do you find disclosure statements in helping you make an assessment about the quality of the Bill?
5. What are your views about the effectiveness of the regulatory oversight arrangements currently in place?
6. What are your views on setting out requirements for regulatory quality in legislation?
7. Are there any alternatives that you think should be considered?

Showing whether regulation meets standards, 5 questions 

MIKE: Are the principles [as listed at the bottom of this post] good?

1. What are your views on setting principles out in primary legislation?
2. Do you have any views on how the principles relate to existing legal principles and concepts?
3. Do you agree with the focus of the principles on:
• rights and liberties?
• good law-making processes?
• good regulatory stewardship?
4. Do you have any comments on the proposed principles themselves?
5. In your view, are there additional principles that should be included?

Enabling people to seek independent assessment of whether regulation meets standards, 4 questions

MIKE: Should we let people challenge things because ...?

1. Do you agree that there are insufficient processes in place to assess the quality of new and existing regulation in New Zealand? If so, which parts of the process do you think need to be improved?
2. Do you think that the new consistency checks proposed by the Regulatory Standards Bill will improve the quality of regulation? Why or why not?
3. Do you have any suggested changes to the consistency mechanisms proposed in this discussion document?
4. Which types of regulation (if any) do you think should be exempt from the consistency requirements proposed by the Regulatory Standards Bill (for example, regulation that only has minor impacts on businesses, individuals, and not for-profit entities, legislation that corrects previous drafting errors, or legislation made under a declared state of emergency)?

Supporting the Ministry for Regulation to have oversight of regulatory performance, 6 questions

MIKE: Should David Seymour have ultimate say on all new regulations AND laws?

1. Have you used any of the existing mechanisms described above to raise issues or bring complaints about the quality of regulation to the Government? If so, did you find them effective?
2. Do you think that New Zealand needs a new structure or organisation to consider complaints about the quality of regulation? Why or why not?
3. If a new structure is created specifically to consider complaints about regulation:
• do you think a Regulatory Standards Board would be the best mechanism to do this?
• are there any alternatives that you think would be preferable to the proposed Board for investigating complaints about regulation?
4. Do you have any views on the detailed design of the proposed Board, including how it would operate and the proposed number of members?
5. In your view, what individual skills or experience should Board members have?

That's what you need to provide answers / view points to. Remember ...

... it doesn't have to be a thousand pages long: there will be any number of submissions from historical and legal experts for that. Just tell them you oppose (or support) it, one word answers are fine.

 Also, NO to:

racist material, particularly overt racism and characterising people as racist. 

Swearing.

 

The libertarian principles

The libertarian view is front and centre - I've added my initial thoughts with ✅ (sure), ❌ (not here mate), ❗(unworkable).

• Rule of law - The importance of maintaining consistency with the following aspects of the rule of law:

• the law should be clear and accessible ✅

• the law should not adversely affect rights and liberties, or impose obligations, retrospectively❗

• every person is equal before the law❗

• there should be an independent, impartial judiciary ✅

• issues of legal right and liability should be resolved by the application of law, rather than the exercise of administrative discretion. ❗

• Liberties - Legislation should not unduly diminish a personʼs liberty, personal security, freedom of choice or action, or rights to own, use, and dispose of property, except as is necessary to provide for, or protect, any such liberty, freedom, or right of another person. ❌

• Taking of property - Legislation should not take or impair, or authorise the taking or impairing of, property without the consent of the owner unless:

• there is good justification for the taking or impairment ✅ (like Treaty Reparations!)

• fair compensation for the taking or impairment is provided to the owner ✅

• compensation is provided to the extent practicable, by or on behalf of the persons who obtain the benefit of the taking or impairment.❗

• Taxes, fees and levies - The importance of maintaining consistency with section 22 of the Constitution Act 1986 (Parliamentary control of public finance).

• Legislation should impose, or authorise the imposition of, a fee for goods or services only if the amount of the fee bears a proper relation to the costs of efficiently providing the good or service to which it relates. ❌

• Legislation should impose, or authorise the imposition of, a levy to fund an objective or a function only if the amount of the levy is reasonable in relation to both: ❌

• the benefits that the class of payers are likely to derive, or the risks attributable to the class, in connection with the objective or function
• the costs of efficiently achieving the objective or providing the function.

• Role of courts
• Legislation should preserve the courtsʼ constitutional role of ascertaining the meaning of legislation. ✅

• Legislation should make rights and liberties, or obligations, dependent on administrative power only if the power is sufficiently defined and subject to appropriate review. ❗

• Good law-making - The importance of consulting, to the extent practicable, the persons or representatives of the persons that the Government considers will be substantially affected by the legislation.

• The importance of carefully evaluating:
• the issue concerned ✅
• the effectiveness of any relevant existing legislation and common law ❗
• whether the public interest requires that the issue be addressed ❗
• any options (including non-legislative options) that are reasonably available for addressing the issue ✅
• who is likely to benefit, and who is likely to suffer a detriment, from the legislation. ✅
• Legislation should be expected to produce benefits that exceed the costs of the legislation to the public or persons.❗

• Legislation should be the most effective, efficient, and proportionate response to the issue concerned that is available. ❗

• Regulatory stewardship
• Legislation should continue to be the most effective, efficient, and proportionate response to the issue concerned that is available. ✅

• The system should continue to be fit for purpose for the people, area, market, or other thing that is regulated. ✅

• Unnecessary regulatory burdens and undue compliance costs should be eliminated or minimised. ✅

• Any regulator should have the capacity and the capability to perform its functions effectively. ❗

• Any conflicts or adverse interactions with other regulatory systems should be eliminated or minimised. ❗

• The importance of monitoring, reviewing, and reporting on the performance of the system. ❌

So, that's what we're up for.

Submissions by midnight this coming Sunday, next I'm gonna go find some templates / public submission and share them ...

More:

• Submission Guidance & Assistance [Updated]
• What Is A "Person"

[Update: the submission closure date is actual 13 Jan, my bad]