Parliament Versus Executive: Regs Review And The Regulatory Standards Bill
Analysis - Parliament recently heard a single week of public submissions on David Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill. The submissions were seldom complimentary.
The Finance and Expenditure Committee is considering that bill, but this week a different select committee heard briefings of its own on issues that arise from the bill, because the bill's aims seem in conflict with the purpose of the Regulations Review Committee - even its existence.
The Regulatory Standards Bill's own description lists its aims as being to:
promote the accountability of the Executive to Parliament for developing high-quality legislation and exercising stewardship over regulatory systems; and
support Parliament's ability to scrutinise Bills; and
support Parliament in overseeing and controlling the use of delegated powers to make legislation.
That may sound good on paper, but the bill does not create or support parliamentary bodies to keep a check on the Executive. Instead, the bill creates an external board which works under the Executive.
Parliament already has a committee tasked with the express job of evaluating regulations, including hearing public complaints - the Regulations Review Committee.
Regs Review, as it is commonly described, is traditionally one of Parliament's most cross-party, collaborative committees. It is usually chaired by a senior opposition MP; currently that chair is Labour MP Arena Williams.
Among the committee's briefings on the bill this week was a public briefing from former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer. Because it was public, this article uses that discussion to help outline the reason the Regs Review Committee is concerned enough to ask for briefings on a bill being considered by a different committee.
Williams outlined one purpose to the former prime minister thus: "I would like to progress usefully for the Standing Orders Committee, what the role of the Regulations Review Committee is now."
Note: The Standing Orders Committee is the body that considers changes to Parliament's rules. If the Regulatory Standards Bill is passed, the Standing Orders Committee will likely need to adjust Parliament's rules to try and make it all fit.
Background to Regulations and Regs Review
It was Geoffrey Palmer's parliamentary reforms in the 1980s that created the Regulations Review Committee and gave it the job of fixing regulations, with the power to ask Parliament to disallow (ie. kill) bad regulation.
Earlier this year the current committee asked the House to do exactly that to a regulation regarding law school curricula - and the House agreed. More often though, the committee asks ministers to fix poor regulation, and is successful in doing so.
This role clashes with aspects of Seymour's new bill, which would empower its own non-parliamentary board to review regulations - a board appointed by the minister for regulation and working together with their Ministry for Regulation.
Sir Geoffrey provided background to the Regs Review Committee's creation in the 1980s. It was part of a response to a period of government under Robert Muldoon when New Zealand was often governed by executive decree, without much reference to Parliament, in spite of the fact that Parliaments - not governments - have supremacy. Sir Geoffrey listed a few former laws that gave ministers vast powers.
"The Economic Stabilisation Act, the Commerce Amendment Act of 1979, the National Development Act that allowed you to develop New Zealand by Order in Council, and not by Parliament. These were very grave exercises of executive power, and that led to the repeal of all those statutes. And it also led to the setting up of this committee."
The Economic Stabilisation Act from 1948 for example, was used by Robert Muldoon's National Party government in the 1970s and 1980s to freeze wages and prices across the entire country, and to determine interest rates. As one response to the 1970s oil shock, people were forced to choose a day they could not drive their cars. That was all done without reference to Parliament.
Despite his own government's repeal of such broad powers, Sir Geoffrey argued that regulation is not inherently bad, but is necessary.
"You cannot run a country on the basis of primary legislation alone. It is not possible. And the ministers have to be able to have the ability to have administrative arrangements that are within the competence of the enabling provisions in the primary act that allows detail to be dealt with."
Ministers need to be able to act without constant reference to the boss. Many powers are necessarily delegated to a minister or a ministry. That delegated authority is enabled by primary legislation (statute law), and is referred to as secondary legislation - mostly it is regulation.
Imagine if no authority was delegated. How would that look? Maybe you couldn't get a new passport until your name had been included in legislation, or your passport was approved by the governor-general. Every price change for a government service (eg. a DOC campsite), and every new-build classroom would need specific approval. That all sounds ridiculous, but power is delegated, and without delegation things must be confirmed at the centre of power..
"The enthusiasm for terrific deregulation makes me nervous," Sir Geoffrey told the committee. "I don't quite know where that desire comes from, because the evidence has not been put in front of this Parliament. It's asserted, but it's not generated as evidence anywhere that I have seen."
The double-up
Putting aside other criticism of the Regulatory Standards Bill, what exactly is the issue for the Regulations Review Committee? Sir Geoffrey noted one glaring issue:
"There was nothing said about the Regulations Review Committee in the legislation, or indeed, as far as I can see in any of the consideration that led to the drafting of this ill-considered bill."
That is a monumental oversight, or possibly a snub, because the job of the Regs Review Committee and that of the Board that the bill creates will, at best, overlap. They may clash terribly. It's like a second referee being sent onto the field during a game - a referee that answers to someone different, and one with a vested interest.
"The conduct of this Parliament," Sir Geoffrey said, "already pretty unsatisfactory in many points of view, is going to get a whole lot worse when you have these confusing areas of responsibility that don't fit."
Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan asked the former prime minister which group would have supremacy if they both tried to consider the same regulation - board or committee?
"The Regulatory Standards Board is a creature of the minister, and it is not a creature of Parliament. This committee is a creature of Parliament."
Only one of those creatures has the power to ask Parliament to strike out bad regulation. Sir Geoffrey indicated that was everything you needed to know. In other words, since Parliament has supremacy over the Executive, Parliament's Regulations Review Committee would have supremacy over the Executive's proposed Regulatory Standards Board.
Sir Geoffrey argued that the bill ought to be amended to have no role in secondary legislation at all. He also had advice for the committee and for its backbencher colleagues.
"If you are left alone, that would be good; but what you need to do is to be more muscular. …The bad habits of New Zealand legislation have been somewhat restricted by the activities of this committee, but not enough. The bipartisan thing that is necessary to make the committee work properly needs to extend to backbenchers from the governing parties feeling that they can exercise their judgement without fear or favour."
He suggests that non-executive MPs-regardless of their political affiliation-ought to do their jobs as parliamentarians, not as voting automatons without a role in keeping a check on governments.
* RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
44 minutes ago
- Otago Daily Times
Strike out power on Bill in Winston Peters' hands
Winston Peters, Christopher Luxon, David Seymour. PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES New Zealand First are polling better in government than they ever have. No longer encumbered by the optics of being too close to the baubles of office, its leader Winston Peters is free to control the script at a time when his coalition partners are looking tired. One can expect that the (grand)father of the House will spend the next 18 months oscillating between the seriousness of his job as Foreign Minister and the less serious but equally important job of trolling his political opponents. So far, he's winning. A million or more voters would have seen Mr Peters gleefully wave an A4 print of the Soviet flag while describing the Green Party's alternative budget; a tiny fraction would have read the 43-page manifesto. The modern Greens are not communists or socialists; some are barely even social democrats, but that's all beside the point. Mr Peters' best sales pitch is that his party is neither of the main parties (who he suggests can't be trusted) nor any of the others (who he suggests are bonkers). They are enormous claims for the man who appears to have successfully courted the Freedom movement on his way back to Parliament. The departure of Tanya Unkovich from the NZ First caucus comes at an opportune time for Mr Peters, who will be thinking about how to sensibly pivot his party back to the so-called political centre and by doing so claim an even bigger share of the electoral pie. Party insiders have suggested that new list MP David Wilson will help smooth the ride. A reliable member of the party faithful who shares Mr Peters' liberal underpinnings but frank distaste for the excess of market forces. How might Mr Peters use his clear air to grow support for his party further? The most obvious play is to double down on a position that his party is the only independent voice in town, with each of the major parties being dragged either left or right by the demands of smaller parties. The coalition agreement between National and Act commits to passing a Regulatory Standards Bill as soon as is practicable. Well, it won't be practicable if Mr Peters decides it isn't. It could be his next chance to show his credentials as the voice of the people by pulling up the legislative handbrake. For that to happen, Mr Peters needs someone from across the aisle to explain to the public, in a few sentences or less, why the Regulatory Standards Bill is not in their best interests. Most opposition MPs have been fixated on how the Bill enhances property rights by embedding quasi-libertarian ideology into various pieces of legislation. The obvious rejoinder is that we have been doing that already for the past 40-odd years, starting with the Fourth Labour Government. Submissions on the Bill have been notable for two reasons: how many there are and how many are vehemently opposed. Limiting the number of submitters allowed to give oral presentations and having others dismissed as bots, is neither respecting parliamentary processes, nor the people. Questions of fairness and responsible stewardship give New Zealand First further cause to adapt their position on the Bill. Indeed, it is reverence for our political institutions that differentiates Mr Peters from the less effective theatrical populists in other parts of the liberal world. Usually, legislation that risks upending constitutional norms would be something tested via a referendum, or at the very least, receive a clearer mandate on election night e.g. a National-Act New Zealand majority coalition. How might the coalition partners respond if Mr Peters says that the Regulatory Standards Bill must stay on the order paper until after the next election? In 2018, Prime Minister Ardern dismissed the failure to repeal the three strikes as "simply democracy and MMP". Prime Minister Luxon might be compelled to say something similar. For Act leader David Seymour? Probably just the first strike. — Dr Luke Oldfield is a lecturer of political science at Te Herenga Waka-Victoria University of Wellington.
Scoop
11 hours ago
- Scoop
Why Has A Bill To Relax Foreign Investment Rules Had So Little Scrutiny?
While public attention has been focused on the domestic fast-track consenting process for infrastructure and mining, Associate Minister of Finance David Seymour has been pushing through another fast-track process – this time for foreign investment in New Zealand. But it has had almost no public scrutiny. If the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill becomes law, it could have far-reaching consequences. Public submissions on the bill close on July 23. A product of the ACT-National coalition agreement, the bill commits to amend the Overseas Investment Act 2005 'to limit ministerial decision making to national security concerns and make such decision making more timely'. There are valid concerns that piecemeal reforms to the current act have made it complex and unwieldy. But the new bill is equally convoluted and would significantly reduce effective scrutiny of foreign investments – especially in forestry. A three-step test Step one of a three-step process set out in the bill gives the regulator – the Overseas Investment Office which sits within Land Information NZ – 15 days to decide whether a proposed investment would be a risk to New Zealand's 'national interest'. If they don't perceive a risk, or that initial assessment is not completed in time, the application is automatically approved. Transactions involving fisheries quotas and various land categories, or any other applications the regulator identifies, will require a 'national interest' assessment under stage two. These would be assessed against a 'ministerial letter' that sets out the government's general policy and preferred approach to conducting the assessment, including any conditions on approvals. Other mandatory factors to be considered in the second stage include the act's new 'purpose' to increase economic opportunity through 'timely consent' of less sensitive investments. The new test would allow scrutiny of the character and capability of the investor to be omitted altogether. If the regulator considers the national interest test is not met, or the transaction is 'contrary to the national interest', the minister of finance then makes a decision based on their assessment of those factors. Inadequate regulatory process Seymour has blamed the current screening regime for low volumes of foreign investment. But Treasury's 2024 regulatory impact statement on the proposed changes to international investment screening acknowledges many other factors that influence investor decisions. Moreover, the Treasury statement acknowledges public views that foreign investment rules should 'manage a wide range of risks' and 'that there is inherent non-economic value in retaining domestic ownership of certain assets'. Treasury officials also recognised a range of other public concerns, including profits going offshore, loss of jobs, and foreign control of iconic businesses. The regulatory impact statement did not cover these factors because it was required to consider only the coalition commitment. The Treasury panel reported 'notable limitations' on the bill's quality assurance process. A fuller review was 'infeasible' because it could not be completed in the time required, and would be broader than necessary to meet the coalition commitment to amend the act in the prescribed way. The requirement to implement the bill in this parliamentary term meant the options officials could consider, even within the scope of the coalition agreement, were further limited. Time constraints meant 'users and key stakeholders have not been consulted', according to the Treasury statement. Environmental and other risks would have to be managed through other regulations. There is no reference to te Tiriti o Waitangi or mana whenua engagement. No 'benefit to NZ' test While the bill largely retains a version of the current screening regime for residential and farm land, it removes existing forestry activities from that definition (but not new forestry on non-forest land). It also removes extraction of water for bottling, or other bulk extraction for human consumption, from special vetting. Where sensitive land (such as islands, coastal areas, conservation and wahi tapu land) is not residential or farm land, it would be removed from special screening rules currently applied for land. Repeal of the ' special forestry test ' – which in practice has seen most applications approved, albeit with conditions – means most forestry investments could be fast-tracked. There would no longer be a need to consider investors' track records or apply a 'benefit to New Zealand' test. Regulators may or may not be empowered to impose conditions such as replanting or cleaning up slash. The official documents don't explain the rationale for this. But it looks like a win for Regional Development Minister Shane Jones, and was perhaps the price of NZ First's support. It has potentially serious implications for forestry communities affected by climate-related disasters, however. Further weakening scrutiny and investment conditions risks intensifying the already devastating impacts of international forestry companies. Taxpayers and ratepayers pick up the costs while the companies can minimise their taxes and send profits offshore. Locked in forever? Finally, these changes could be locked in through New Zealand's free trade agreements. Several such agreements say New Zealand's investment regime cannot become more restrictive than the 2005 act and its regulations. A ' ratchet clause ' would lock in any further liberalisation through this bill, from which there is no going back. However, another annex in those free trade agreements could be interpreted as allowing some flexibility to alter the screening rules and criteria in the future. None of the official documents address this crucial question. As an academic expert in this area I am uncertain about the risk. But the lack of clarity underlines the problems exemplified in this bill. It is another example of coalition agreements bypassing democratic scrutiny and informed decision making. More public debate and broad analysis is needed on the bill and its implications.
RNZ News
16 hours ago
- RNZ News
Why has a bill to relax foreign investment rules had so little scrutiny?
By Jane Kelsey* of Photo: RNZ Analysis : While public attention has been focused on the domestic fast-track consenting process for infrastructure and mining, Associate Minister of Finance David Seymour has been pushing through another fast-track process - this time for foreign investment in New Zealand. But it has had almost no public scrutiny. If the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill becomes law, it could have far-reaching consequences. Public submissions on the bill close on 23 July. A product of the ACT-National coalition agreement , the bill commits to amend the Overseas Investment Act 2005 "to limit ministerial decision making to national security concerns and make such decision making more timely". There are valid concerns that piecemeal reforms to the current act have made it complex and unwieldy. But the new bill is equally convoluted and would significantly reduce effective scrutiny of foreign investments - especially in forestry. Step one of a three-step process set out in the bill gives the regulator - the Overseas Investment Office which sits within Land Information NZ - 15 days to decide whether a proposed investment would be a risk to New Zealand's "national interest". If they don't perceive a risk, or that initial assessment is not completed in time, the application is automatically approved. Transactions involving fisheries quotas and various land categories, or any other applications the regulator identifies, will require a "national interest" assessment under stage two. These would be assessed against a "ministerial letter" that sets out the government's general policy and preferred approach to conducting the assessment, including any conditions on approvals. Other mandatory factors to be considered in the second stage include the act's new "purpose" to increase economic opportunity through "timely consent" of less sensitive investments. The new test would allow scrutiny of the character and capability of the investor to be omitted altogether. If the regulator considers the national interest test is not met, or the transaction is "contrary to the national interest", the minister of finance then makes a decision based on their assessment of those factors. Seymour has blamed the current screening regime for low volumes of foreign investment. But Treasury's 2024 regulatory impact statement on the proposed changes to international investment screening acknowledges many other factors that influence investor decisions. Moreover, the Treasury statement acknowledges public views that foreign investment rules should "manage a wide range of risks" and "that there is inherent non-economic value in retaining domestic ownership of certain assets". Treasury officials also recognised a range of other public concerns, including profits going offshore, loss of jobs, and foreign control of iconic businesses. The regulatory impact statement did not cover these factors because it was required to consider only the coalition commitment. The Treasury panel reported "notable limitations" on the bill's quality assurance process. A fuller review was "infeasible" because it could not be completed in the time required, and would be broader than necessary to meet the coalition commitment to amend the act in the prescribed way. The requirement to implement the bill in this parliamentary term meant the options officials could consider, even within the scope of the coalition agreement, were further limited. Time constraints meant "users and key stakeholders have not been consulted", according to the Treasury statement. Environmental and other risks would have to be managed through other regulations. There is no reference to te Tiriti o Waitangi or mana whenua engagement. While the bill largely retains a version of the current screening regime for residential and farm land, it removes existing forestry activities from that definition (but not new forestry on non-forest land). It also removes extraction of water for bottling, or other bulk extraction for human consumption, from special vetting. Where sensitive land (such as islands, coastal areas, conservation and wahi tapu land) is not residential or farm land, it would be removed from special screening rules currently applied for land. Repeal of the " special forestry test " - which in practice has seen most applications approved , albeit with conditions - means most forestry investments could be fast-tracked. There would no longer be a need to consider investors' track records or apply a "benefit to New Zealand" test. Regulators may or may not be empowered to impose conditions such as replanting or cleaning up slash. The official documents don't explain the rationale for this. But it looks like a win for Regional Development Minister Shane Jones, and was perhaps the price of NZ First's support. It has potentially serious implications for forestry communities affected by climate-related disasters , however. Further weakening scrutiny and investment conditions risks intensifying the already devastating impacts of international forestry companies. Taxpayers and ratepayers pick up the costs while the companies can minimise their taxes and send profits offshore. Finally, these changes could be locked in through New Zealand's free trade agreements. Several such agreements say New Zealand's investment regime cannot become more restrictive than the 2005 act and its regulations. A " ratchet clause " would lock in any further liberalisation through this bill, from which there is no going back. However, another annex in those free trade agreements could be interpreted as allowing some flexibility to alter the screening rules and criteria in the future. None of the official documents address this crucial question. As an academic expert in this area I am uncertain about the risk. But the lack of clarity underlines the problems exemplified in this bill. It is another example of coalition agreements bypassing democratic scrutiny and informed decision making. More public debate and broad analysis is needed on the bill and its implications. *Jane Kelsey, Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau This story was originally published on The Conversation.
