Act Party leader David Seymour is so unpopular with some parts of New Zealand that everything he touches immediately combusts into controversy.
If he has proposed a law, then it must contain a secret backdoor to free-market facism.
This is largely his own fault. The lame duck Treaty Principles Bill stirred up such enormous opposition that activists can now rally an army of protestors at the slightest provocation.
And the Regulatory Standards Bill is no slight provocation. It is a fairly significant reform which would force governments to check their lawmaking against classical liberal values.
But it has been blown a little out of proportion. It is not a Trojan Horse hiding an elite squad of corporate mercenaries ready to perform a coup d'état the day it is passed into law.
The defining characteristics of the bill are its impotence and transience. It does not create any legal rights or obligations, and would be repealed the day after Act departs the Beehive.
But like the gadfly, which lives as an adult for only a few hours, it has the potential to make some contribution to the ecosystem during its short life.
Lawmakers have been known to pass unwieldy regulations that create as many costs as benefits. The Regulatory Standards Bill would impose a political price on politicians who put forward these poorly designed laws.
The bill defines a set of principles for good regulation, requires departments to assess proposed laws against those principles, and establishes an independent Regulatory Standards Board to review and comment on those assessments.
If a proposed law doesn’t match the regulatory principles, the responsible Minister just has to publish a statement explaining why they believe it is justified anyway. That's all.
Any laws or regulations which do not comply with the principles remain legally valid and cannot be challenged in court. The principles are merely guidelines and can be ignored.
This is already a big compromise for the Act Party. Previous versions of the bill gave the public a right to challenge uncompliant regulations in court.
Today’s version does nothing more than add extra scrutiny and bureaucracy to the process of writing regulatory laws — it ties some red tape around the red tape machine.
It is true the principles proposed are classical liberalism and will be naturally adversarial to regulation, but this doesn’t strike me as being obviously a bad thing.
Journalism is also naturally adversarial to governments and I still think it contributes to the standards of democracy (even if David Seymour doesn’t agree).
Plus, New Zealand’s political economy is already shaped by classical liberal ideas. These principles have been the foundation for a lot of modern democratic and economic thought.
Sure, these ideas have needed much improvement. They’ve been modified, built upon, and developed but they’re still there in the bedrock even if the political centre is a sort of social liberalism these days.
Lawmakers are free to layer additional perspectives on whatever the Regulatory Standards Board comes up with. Other regulatory principles, such as equality, collective wellbeing, and Treaty partnership, might trump individual property rights in some cases.
Ministers can make that judgement, or even write those other principles into the law.
A glaring problem with the bill is that it lacks any cross-party support. Not even National and New Zealand First truly support it, let alone the opposition parties.
The Deputy Clerk of the House, who oversees parliamentary procedure, even made a rare submission on the bill. She argued the principles needed to be developed to secure broader support across Parliament, among other technical changes.
Just adding recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi and Māori collective ownership to the text would help soften some of the opposition, if the Act Party cared at all…
It does make me wonder, what is the game plan here? This law will only ever apply to the National–Act coalition as the opposition parties will repeal it at the first chance they get.
Does David Seymour not trust himself to make good regulations? Is the bill aimed at restraining his colleagues in the National Party? Does he think Labour will continue to pay $20 million a year to receive lectures on classical liberalism once back in government?
A lot of time and energy has been spent on this gadfly.
33 Comments
$20 million a year to administer it?
I wonder if that has had a cost benefit analysis applied?
What about the newish existing department filled with legal beagles DS created. I don't remember the absolute numbers. Number of staff from budget to actual at least double. Cost to run at least three times. Imagine if this new regulatory bill goes through as is how many staff it'll require.
Hopefully between the Nats and NZ first they either they reject it out right and let the coalition fail. Evidently this Bill is an Act bottom line. Somewhere in between is a heavily watered down Bill that it becomes unusable or delay it for as long as possible so even if the coalition is brought down by DS it's close enough to the election that it doesn't matter.
Not sure how Winston first, SJ and his cohorts will jump. He's seems particularly quiet on this. Maybe keeping his powder dry on this.
Classical liberalism doesn't just 'need much improvement' - it is based on a lie. A falsehood.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQ6P3g9OZO0 (short version)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzg_Ed1nLaA&t=5s (watch it, Dan).
We are running down the EROEI - hence the squeeze, hence the triage. Try investigating the link?
Edit - Kate; watch it too. :)
Will have a watch.
I'd recommend this very short book, Classical Liberalism - A Primer by Eamonn Butler. There is much to agree with in it. It's not based on a lie - it's a philosophy.
I haven't read the DS Bill but I think it's mainly a limit-regulation regulatory bill (see 5. below) and primarily uses CBA as a means to measure that compliance;
Here are the basic tenets of classical liberalism;
1. The presumption of freedom
People should be free as much as possible to pursue goals of their own choosing – while not infringing on the like freedoms of others
2. The primacy of the individual
Sovereignty lies in the individual, not in a collective or the state.
3. Minimising coercion
There should be a presumption against the use of force to limit individual action.
4. Toleration
Toleration and mutual respect are essential for a peaceful co-operative well-functioning society.
5. Limited and representative government
Government force is necessary and desirable, but it should be used to enhance and protect freedom. A political majority should not oppress a minority.
6. The rule of law
The law should be known in advance, predictable, non-capricious, and treat everyone equally--regardless of gender, race, religion, language, family or any other irrelevant characteristic.
7. Spontaneous order
Civil society and its accompanying social institutions are not “made by government”. They arise instead from human action, not human design. Our language illustrates a system of spontaneous order.
8. Property, trade and markets
Prosperity comes through free individuals inventing, creating, saving, investing and exchanging goods and services voluntarily, for mutual gain. Prices are discovered that reveal scarcity and opportunity. People change their plans spontaneously in response.
9. Civil society
People are social. We spontaneously create the institutions of civil society: churches, sports clubs, learning groups, charities, professional associations and interest groups. Groups help protect the individual from despotic government.
10. Common human values
Security in one’s person, liberty and property is the foundation for a thriving, spontaneous social order based on mutual respect, toleration, non-aggression, cooperation and voluntary exchange.
ACT is Newstalk ZB 'small man syndrome' in the form of a political party. Petty and irrelevant policy that has eroded the quality and quantity of spending and investment by the government into the NZ economy across nearly every sector.
But especially construction - how many 'tradies' and 'real men' generally have reconsidered their vote against 'the woke and wasteful' Labour government. At least they had work.
The economic outcomes have been record numbers of business liquidations and the collapse of the labor market. In addition 180,000 working age - skilled and educated NZers - have left since the coalition came to power.
John Key agrees with you on the point that a political party's policies and direction must be centered on tradies, or as he coins it, 'Waitākeri Man' - see the heading in the article "It's the Tradies, Stupid"
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/sir-john-key-urges-100-basis-point-…
It is also really interesting, as in the article he also admits he's a land banker;
As he called for lower rates, Key acknowledged he had skin in the game.
“My son’s a developer, so I’m talking a bit from personal experience,” Key said.
“I’m just telling you, we have got so much stuff on hold. We own land all over the show, and we’re just sitting there not doing anything.
“He [Max Key] goes, ‘Mate, my tradies’ – he’s got a bunch of these guys on the payroll in different places – ‘none of them had Christmas holidays. There’s no work’.”
So more trickle down economics.
Let us make more speculative money or your all gonna starve.
Tradies have a strange habit of voting against their own economic interest in order to pay less tax. Overlooking the fact that you don't pay any tax when you're unemployed.
Voting for cuts to government spending for a small tax cut makes little difference if you end up unemployed or your business collapses.
Yes, and I think they also believe the right of politics will sort out the RMA and the Building Act, but I have my doubts. We'll see.
I don't think changing regulations will make much difference. You just need the government create new money and build stuff all the time not when the economy is up or down - houses, roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, training, portside infrastructure, airports, electricity generation etc. - all the time. Continuity and stability.
But that isn't what we want in NZ - we want tax cuts and fewer public services. We consciously choose it at the voting booth. We want to pay more ourselves for rates, health, transport, insurance, roads, electricity, communication - we vote explicitly for the government to reduce taxes and make us pay for services ourselves and, on top of that, to ensure those services deliver incredible returns to investors while we're at it.
And to do it all in a dysfunctional economy. Strange bunch NZ voters.
You seem not to listen.
Need?
Create?
Please check out the link I provided above and see if you can work out how it applies to your comments.
Kate,
Why would anyone pay attention to John Key any longer. Remember that pre-election he said that Trump would be good for the US and good for the world. How is that working out?
In today's paper he is quoted as saying; "But, seriously, there might be a little bit of food inflation". I would like to drag him to a few foodbanks and have him find out just what 'a little bit of food inflation' means for ever increasing numbers of Kiwis.
This is the man who decided that the country wasn't grown up enough to have its own honours list and must stick with the Colonial system-knowing very well that he would be in line for one.
What were his two big ideas? A new flag -total expensive failure- and cycleways for which I congratulate him.
I wouldn't argue with any of that. And, yes I remember him well saying Trump would be good for the US. What a turkey, eh?
I'd only mention that he also repealed the Foreshore & Seabed Act - and his government's replacement one has turned into a nightmare.
Our economy is losing productive capacity at an alarming rate and is now heading back towards its 3rd recession in 2 years.
And just to make sure we reduce spending and investment into the economy further, the government are now pressuring councils to cut-back.
This means more direct layoffs and an increase in unemployment. Less work for builders and other business in the private sector that work for councils. Makes perfect economic sense if you want to deepen the recession.
Yes, it's crazy dumb.
What they should do is consider beefing up their involvement as a central government in shared-equity home ownership. Get FHBs the deposit as their 'share' in the equity, provided the ability to pay the balance of the mortgage is there. So little risk from a taxpayer pov - and such major benefits to the building sector.
So much of our lawmaking appears an endless "oops, we didn't think of that" cyclical kludgeing of laws, regulations and amendments. So, some kind of regulatory process review, where those proposing new laws have to actually justify them and show their working to the public, must surely be a good idea.
The problem is the standards being applied and how the data gets massaged by interested parties to justify things.
The laws and regulations are not a big problem and don't make a major difference either way to the economy. Good regulation leads to good outcomes and in NZ we, generally speaking, have a high standard of living because of it. Go and visit a country that has few regulations or a weakly regulated economy and see how it compares to a country like NZ with building codes and housing constraints.
The idea that 'getting rid of regulations' is some liberating act of freedom is the thought process of a 12 year old. It isn't logical or reasoned out into real world scenarios.
What a load of rubbish.
A responsible central government with its citizens interests at heart would abolish local govts "powers of general competence" enacted by Helen Clark ~2023, that's when the rot really started. This would then ensure LGs could only do work they were legally empowered to do instead of their current scoping increase agenda funded by other people's money.
https://www.taxpayers.org.nz/2025_rates_dashboard_exposes_rates_burden
What section of the LGA 2002 grants this 'power of general competence'?
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0084/latest/resultsin.a…
I searched the word 'competence' and found only one instance of it appearing in the Act. Is this what you are referring to as needing to be repealed?
Google is your friend, AI: "In New Zealand, local government's "power of general competence" allows councils to undertake a wide range of activities to promote the well-being of their communities, as outlined in the Local Government Act 2002. This power isn't unlimited, as it's subject to public consultation and other legal frameworks. Essentially, councils can choose what activities they engage in and how they carry them out, provided they are lawful and promote community well-being. "
Prior to the law change councils had much more restricted powers & responsibilities.
cf. "The Local Government Act 2002 : the unclear scope of the new general competence power and its limitations in regard to economic undertakings and the interference with central government's responsibilities"
https://ir.wgtn.ac.nz/items/9c6826d0-586e-4be4-ac84-799271871c34
Oh, the sustainable development/well-beings clause. But then JK's government repealed that clause in the Act's purpose and replaced it with;
(d) provides for local authorities to play a broad role in meeting the current and future needs of their communities for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions.
And for the three terms of his National government - nothing changed.
And that's because central government wants local government to do "non-core services" stuff. Take the Dunedin covered stadium for example - the city simply couldn't fund it on their own - and central government under JK coughed up $15 million to get it over the line.
There are many other examples of CG part-subsidising 'well-being' project builds that have nothing to do with core services.
I take it you're not much of an overseas traveler? The examples of do-it-yourself building (e.g., Brazil's favelas); do-it-yourself electricity connections (e.g., Bangkok's neighbourhoods); do-it-yourself sanitation (e.g., India's food businesses/'Delhi belly'). Not critical of these places - all wonderful people and great places to visit, but sadly lacking in the kind of safety and sanitary standards we are used to as a result of a high standard of regulation.
Are they better or worse than living in a car or caravan or illegal shack because our current regulations make legal housing far to expensive?
They want art ear rower to be nirvana, but ignore the growing casualty list
What is ‘art ear rower’?
.
What?
I had seen previous comment that you were originally from the USA Kate ? my understanding is that in many states the councils responsibility ends at the municipal boundary. Beyond that people create their own lifestyle housing, cabins etc & accept their own risk. Some of the "building off the grid" type shows illustrate what can be achieved with innovation, family effort & a very modest budget.
NZ used to build baches / cribs similarly
Yep, but all my working career is here in NZ. Their local v state v national governance structures are wildly different than ours. Local police and local schools, for example, are locally (municipality) funded, for example. Planning is wildly different in terms of rules/regulations in every different municipality.
But I very much agree with you that NZ has gone way away from ingenuity/innovation where housing is concerned. A lot of that has to do with private covenants that sub-division developers put on their lots/builds - other issues that city planners put in plan overlays (far, far too many of those) to protect views shafts and all manner of other things.
Then there's the Building Act which pretty much REQUIRES an LBP to build a house - even if an individual homeowner has the skills set to DIY it. My brother, an engineering geologist, built his own home in Pennsylvania, for example. Our first home here was built by two architecture students. That was the 1970s. I just don't think you'd make it past laying a foundation yourself in NZ these days without hiring an LBP. And that's kind of crazy. But, I'm guessing it's much the same in the US these days.
You can build your own house in NZ but you cannot pay anyone to do anything and need to have individual sections of the house signed off. Means you have friends providing the requisite LBP areas for free. Still subject to Council inspection. You can project manage your own build contracting the various trades so long as they are an LBP. So design is one class of LBP, foundation work is another class of LBP, wall and roof framing another, invariably an LBP carpenter, roof cladding, plumbing and electrics another.
New Zealand is very heavily regulated and, from years of working in industry, a portion of those make no real sense, are designed to limit public sector liability, and impose a lot of drag on activity to no gain.
Journalism Dan. This is a fine piece of journalism. It does challenge and it also informs and gives me something to think about.
There has also been academics and journalists who have done unintelligible rants. I really get they don't like the bill, it's the one clear thing. But beyond that I searched for content in their pieces, but it's not there.
Academics in particular have lost it. Pretty much they go mad dog if questioned. Unable to build their arguments. Anne Salmond's rants did indeed fit the criteria of "that" syndrome.
So many content free rants that I have blocked her.
You rise above that s**t Dan.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.