Business Gives Clear Backing To RSB
Regulation Minister David Seymour is welcoming BusinessNZ's strong support for the Regulatory Standards Bill as a means to deal with red tape and regulation.
'After all the misinformed opposition we've heard, the people who get up in the morning to make an honest buck and deliver goods and services to New Zealanders want red tape and regulation dealt to and believe this Bill will help them do that.
'Submitting on the Bill at select committee today, BusinessNZ said it was an important step towards improving the quality of regulation and reducing the compliance burden on businesses by putting more scrutiny on politicians when law is made.
'The academics who have been so loud about this Bill are so far removed from reality partly because many of Parliament's damaging laws don't frustrate their ability to make a living. If they were held back by red tape and regulation on a daily basis, like many businesses are, they would support this Bill.
'Too often, politicians find regulating politically rewarding, and we need to make it less rewarding by putting more sunlight on their activities.
'The Bill doesn't stop politicians or their officials making bad laws, but it makes it transparent that they're doing it. It makes it easier for voters to identify those responsible for making bad rules. Over time, it will improve the quality of rules we all have to live under by changing how politicians behave.
'In a high-cost economy, regulation isn't neutral – it's a tax on growth. This Government is committed to clearing the path of needless regulations by improving how laws are made.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
20 minutes ago
- Scoop
Compensation Rules In Regulatory Standards Bill Deemed Unclear
ACT's much-maligned Regulatory Standards Bill could be the answer to Coasters' grievances over limits to the use and development of private land. That's the view of West Coast Regional Council deputy chair, Brett Cummings who cautions at the same time that the Bill has serious fish-hooks that could catch the council out. The Bill could become law later this year if it sustains support from coalition partner National. It proposes that no other law could take, use or impair the use of private property without consent, good justification or fair compensation. That has been welcomed by farmers and others as a way to limit restrictions placed on land by the Council for environmental reasons or compensate the land owners. But Te Uru Kahika, a network of specialist staff from the country's 16 regional and unitary Councils, says it is unclear if the Bill will apply to councils' regulation making, and if so, it has concerns about its workability. 'Parliament and councils would face unquantified costs each time they sought to regulate, rendering the legislative process unworkable,' Te Uru Kahika says in its submission on the Bill. The WCRC's Resource Management Committee chaired by Cr Cummings scrutinised the submission at its meeting this month. Chief executive Darryl Lew confirmed the proposed law was about Government directives such as National Policy Statements that require councils to identify SNAs and other overlays on people's properties. 'What they're saying as a principle, perhaps there should be a compensation package. That's as far as it goes and it's not very definitive from a whole of local government perspective because what does that mean for us and how does that work?' Mr Lew said. WCRC chair Peter Haddock said the Bill aimed to improved legislation and proposed compensating businesses for any potential lost revenue as a result of regulation, which was is a good thing. Cr Cummings said he approved of compensation in principle but was concerned that might backfire on the Council. 'When people are seeking consent to develop land, we start doing ecological reports and so on and while we go through this process, they're losing income from the farm.' The West Coast would be potentially more affected than other regions and the council needed a lot more information, on how the rule would work, Cr Cummings said. 'Say a farmer up the valley wants to clear a bit of bush, and we hold him up (through regulation). Do we have to pay his costs for not having that paddock, and he couldn't graze 15 cows that year? If someone got the right lawyer under the new rules it could get quite embarrassing and quite expensive for us as a council.' Mr Cummings told LDR his concerns were based on a recent case, when a farmer clearing scrub was initially given the green light after a site inspection by experienced WCRC staff. But the decision was over-ruled by the council's senior resource consenting officer who lived in Dunedin. 'He spots a couple of puddles in the photos, decides it could be wetland and calls for an ecological report, and that's now costing the farmer $20,000. Who would pay for that under this new rule? ' The Regulatory Standards Bill has been strongly criticised for its focus on libertarian principles and property rights and Te Uru Kahika's submission echoes some of those concerns. It appears that any 'impairment' of property in the public interest would attract compensation, however well-justified, it says. '..the Bill risks setting an expectation that polluters may be due compensation for any environmental or public health intervention that impacted upon their bottom line. This would, in our view, be perverse. ' Where national regulations were not fit for purpose, the result was often costs for councils charged with implementing them and frustration for local ratepayers, businesses and communities, Te Uru Kahika said. And frequent, rushed changes to legislation meant councils were having to redo work, at the ratepayers' expense. 'The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, for example, has been amended roughly every three years since it was introduced in 2011. It is under review once again. 'Amendments to the Resource Management Act are frequent — it was repealed, and then the replacement legislation was itself repealed for the RMA to be amended again while new replacement legislation is drafted.' The Bill also failed to provide a cohesive and balanced approach to the public interest, Te Uru Kahika said. 'Public interest should encompass both collective value, for instance waterways that are suitable for swimming and intrinsic value, such as biodiversity … 'While individual property and freedoms are fundamental, they are not the only things that communities value.' Te Uru Kahika is also unhappy at the absence of a Treaty clause in the Bill. The WCRC has asked staff to investigate if a representative could speak in support of the Te Uru Kahika submission at the Select Committee hearings on the Bill, now underway at Parliament.
NZ Herald
33 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
Listen to The Country online: Acting PM David Seymour co-hosts with Jamie Mackay
Today on The Country radio show, Acting Prime Minister David Seymour popped into the studio in Dunedin to co-host with Jamie Mackay. On with the show: David Seymour: The Act Leader and Acting Prime Minister, 'Deputy Dave', joins us in the studio. We talk about the 2025 FMG
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
Greater Wellington Recommends Withdrawal Of Regulatory Standards Bill
Greater Wellington's submission to the Finance & Expenditure Committee on the Regulatory Standards Bill recommends the immediate withdrawal of the Bill. Deputy Chair of Greater Wellington and Councillor for Wairarapa Adrienne Staples and Chief Executive Nigel Corry, speaking to its submission to the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee said the Bill raised a cluster of red flags. 'It constrains government and regulators from acting in society's collective interest, it undermines Te Tiriti o Waitangi and constitutes executive government overreach, it attempts to solve a problem that doesn't exist, it creates legal risks, inefficiency, complexity and increased costs for local government, its partners and communities. On top of all that it will lead to worse social, environmental and economic outcomes,' said Mr Corry. 'Parliament has already voted down the flawed and inflammatory Te Tiriti o Waitangi Principles Bill. Surely it did not intend that a second Trojan horse would be injected into the Parliamentary Chamber. New Zealanders deserve better political discourse frankly,' said Cr Staples. In its submission, Greater Wellington highlighted the many, varied and adverse effects the Bill would have in the region and across New Zealand, specifically outlining the risks to core council functions: Environment - conservation, biodiversity and pest control The Bill's focus on short-term measurable benefit may impact Greater Wellington's ability to invest in innovative or long-term initiatives like predator control, replanting programmes, mātauranga Māori and mātauranga-ā-iwi driven conservation practices, or protection of taonga species with no immediate economic value. Māori approaches to conservation including their right to exercise kaitiakitanga could be challenged by the Bill's focus on individual rights over collective obligations. The restrictions on new regulatory powers could slow Greater Wellington's responses to unforeseen or emerging threats to biodiversity. Environmental Regulation The Bill's push for nationally consistent, minimal rules could constrain councils' discretion to use precautionary limits or adopt stricter standards in sensitive areas. Efforts to regulate (e.g. high-emitting industries) might be challenged or require compensation for lost profits. Modern environmental law and policy is based on the 'polluter pays' principle - those causing pollution or environmental harm bearing the costs of remediation or prevention. The Bill's regulatory takings clause, however, reverses this principle. As an example, if a future government were to enact regulations to protect rivers, requiring a dairy corporation to reduce its pollution or stocking rates, and this action was deemed to impair the corporation's property, the Bill implies some form of compensation may be payable. This creates a perverse incentive structure where the public, through taxpayer funds, would effectively subsidise the costs of environmental protection, rather than the polluters. Water Greater Wellington could be constrained in restricting water use to restore the health of the waterways, or during drought or pollution events if such measures are judged as unfairly impacting certain users. Attempts to uphold Te Mana o Te Wai or incorporate tikanga into freshwater regulation could be undermined by a framework that prioritises uniformity and individual rights. Any efforts to address long-standing inequitable rights to water access for example, for Māori landowners or under-serviced rural communities, could be stopped, as inconsistent with the Bill's emphasis on formal equality, or identical treatment for all. In the same way, the following could be challenged: partnerships with communities, iwi and hapū to govern and manage water, and Māori and public input into water planning if they are not considered 'materially affected'. Climate change and infrastructure for resilience In elevating a narrow economic reading of regulation with efficiency and cost-limitation tests, the Bill could put broad constraints on Greater Wellington's ability to invest in: long term resilience infrastructure upgrades, Māori-led climate initiatives, equity-based adaptation initiatives, low-emissions public transport, and progressive social procurement policies e.g. hiring locally, involving Māori suppliers and paying the living wage. Transport The Bill could curtail New Zealand's ability to expand public transport for the public good, including but not limited to: supporting community-led transport initiatives e.g. connecting to marae and papakāinga; cross-subsidising services in less profitable areas or where there is a higher need e.g. rural areas, disability access upgrades; and initiatives to reduce transport emissions. These initiatives could be challenged as being 'unequal treatment', and/or inconsistent with centralised efficiency metrics or cost-benefit assessments. Greater Wellington's free, frank and robust submission can be found here: Greater Wellington — Regulatory Standards Bill – Greater Wellington Regional Council Submission
