logo
Treaty Principles 2.0? Hearings Begin Into Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill

Treaty Principles 2.0? Hearings Begin Into Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill

Scoopa day ago
Analysis: A week of political scrutiny lies ahead for one of the government's most polarising bills, dubbed by some critics as "Treaty Principles 2.0".
Starting Monday morning, the Finance and Expenditure select committee will reconvene for about 30 hours over four days to hear public submissions on the lightning rod Regulatory Standards Bill.
The bill - championed by ACT's David Seymour - sets out "principles of responsible regulation" and would require ministers to explain whether they are following them.
It would also set up a new board to assess legislation against those benchmarks.
But while it may sound dry and technical, the legislation has become a flashpoint in a wider debate about the country's constitution, te Tiriti o Waitangi, and competing ideologies.
Among the submitters on day one: former prime minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer, former Green MP Darleen Tana, Transpower, and the Royal Australian and NZ College of Psychiatrists.
What's in the bill?
The bill lists principles that Seymour believes should guide all law-making. These include:
Respect for the rule of law
Protection of individual freedom and property rights
Keeping taxes and fees fair and reasonable
Proper consultation and clear cost-benefit analysis
Ministers introducing new laws would have to declare whether they meet these standards, and justify those that do not.
The new Regulatory Standards Board - appointed by the Minister for Regulation - could also review older laws and make non-binding recommendations.
"We need to make regulating less rewarding for politicians by putting more sunlight on their activities," Seymour told Parliament in May.
Why are people so upset?
Opposition to the bill has been intense. An early round of consultation last year attracted about 23,000 submissions, with 88 percent in opposition and just 0.33 percent in support.
Seymour has dismissed that as "meaningless" and initially claimed many of the submissions had been created by "bots". He later walked that back, but maintained they were driven by non-representative online campaigns.
It is true campaign groups have provided templates for submissions or even offered to write them on people's behalf.
But the pushback has come from far and wide: lawyers, academics, advocacy groups and public servants. Even Seymour's own Ministry of Regulation has raised concerns.
Seymour has labelled much of the criticism "alarmist" and grounded in misinformation. He's also targetted some critics on social media, accusing them of having "derangement syndrome" and conspiracy thinking.
The most common criticisms are:
1. That it elevates ACT's values above all else
Critics argue the bill embeds ACT's political ideology into law, particularly its emphasis on individual rights and private property, while ignoring other considerations.
Notably, te Tiriti o Waitangi is not mentioned in the bill - an omission which critics fear could undermine the Treaty's legal status and influence.
Seymour says he has yet to hear a convincing reason why the Treaty should get special consideration when evaluating good law-making.
Critics also object to the principle of individual property rights being given prominence over, say, collective rights.
They fear the bill could dissuade governments from introducing rules that protect the environment, or restrictions on tobacco and alcohol, because that might be seen as breaching the listed principles.
Even though the government could still pass those laws, critics worry it would send a message that profits and property are more important than public health or environmental protections.
For his part, Seymour is unapologetic about the principles proposed and open that he wants to reset the culture of government.
"If you want to tax someone, take their property, and restrict their livelihood, you can, but you'll actually have to show why it's in the public interest," Seymour says.
2. That it's a solution in search of a problem
New Zealand already has a raft of systems in place to check laws are made properly.
For example, Cabinet's Legislation Guidelines require ministers to follow best practice principles - including the rule of law, human rights compliance and consultation.
The Legislation Design and Advisory Committee, made up of experts and officials, also provides detailed feedback on bills, and Treasury checks the impact of major policy decisions.
As well, Justice officials and Crown Law conduct Bill of Rights vetting of legislation, with the Attorney-General required to report any breaches.
Critics say this bill just adds another layer of process - increasing cost and workload for little benefit.
To that, Seymour says: "If the public service think being required to justify their laws is a faff, imagine what it's like for the public they have to serve who are obliged to follow them."
3. That it is a corporate power grab
A lingering concern has been whether the bill could open the government up to legal challenges or claims for compensation - especially from large corporations.
Among its principles, the bill does include the concept that property should not usually be taken without consent and "fair compensation".
But the legislation also clearly states that it does not create any new legal rights or obligation enforceable through the courts.
That means companies would not have a new avenue to sue the government if a law affected their property or profits.
Still, critics argue that simply embedding the principle in law could alter expectations over time. Businesses or lobby groups, for example, might point to it to put pressure on ministers to avoid certain policies.
As well, lawyers say the courts could take note of the new principles when interpreting legislation or reviewing regulatory decisions elsewhere.
The political debate
The National-ACT coalition agreement includes a firm commitment to pass the bill through into law - though not necessarily in its current form.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says the government will pay close attention to the select committee process and remains open to changes.
"The devil is in the detail," he told reporters on Friday.
New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has described the bill as "a work in progress" and has indicated his party wants changes. He has not specified which provisions in particular concern him.
The opposition parties, Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori, have already promised to repeal the bill if elected next year.
That means, for all the noise, the bill's practical impact may be limited, affecting only the parties introducing it - which presumably would adhere to these principles whether they were codified in law or not.
The select committee hearings will run from 8:30am till 5pm, Monday through Thursday.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Business Gives Clear Backing To RSB
Business Gives Clear Backing To RSB

Scoop

time13 hours ago

  • Scoop

Business Gives Clear Backing To RSB

Minister for Regulation 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.'

Port Chalmers pub licence opposed over ‘serious' concerns
Port Chalmers pub licence opposed over ‘serious' concerns

Otago Daily Times

time13 hours ago

  • Otago Daily Times

Port Chalmers pub licence opposed over ‘serious' concerns

An on-licence and off-licence renewal application for Mackies Hotel, in Port Chalmers, has been opposed by a licensing inspector and the medical officer of health delegate. PHOTO: GERARD O'BRIEN A Dunedin tavern has come under fire for "serious compliance concerns" after trying to sidestep alcohol laws by outsourcing food to nearby eateries. An on-licence and off-licence renewal application for Mackies Hotel, in Port Chalmers, has been opposed by a licensing inspector and the medical officer of health delegate. The applicant company, Sefton Holdings Ltd, had operated the tavern for about the past 40 years, a report to Dunedin's district licensing committee said. As well as a bar, accommodation and a separate gaming machine area, a small bottle store was located within the premises. In the completed renewal application form submitted to the Dunedin City Council, Mackies Hotel owner and operator Wayne Sefton said the premises were "surrounded by eating establishments". This was reiterated in another document submitted listing 10 Port Chalmers restaurants, supermarkets and cafes. "In order to comply with our liquor licence we must have food available at all times during our licensed hours," it read. "As we are surrounded by food outlets, here is a list and phone numbers for them all (within 75m). "You are welcome to ring and order from any of these and bring it back here to eat in comfort." Salt and pepper, serviettes, tomato sauce and knives and forks would be offered free of charge. Microwave food was also available from the freezer, Mr Sefton said. Medical officer of health delegate Aaron Whipp said he opposed the application due to "serious compliance concerns" that he and the inspector observed during a site inspection in mid-April. That included "no food ... available for purchase or consumption on the premises" and the tavern's duty manager not being present on-site during trading hours. Water, while available, was "not actively promoted". "These are clear breaches of licence conditions and raise significant concerns about the operation of the premises." The absence of a duty manager — who was legally required to always be on duty when alcohol was being sold or supplied — indicated a "serious failure of management and supervision" and increased the risk of alcohol sales to intoxicated people or minors, Mr Whipp said. In her report, council chief licensing inspector Tanya Morrison said a staff member present, when asked about the available food options, "could not locate a menu within the bar, nor could advise of three substantial food options available on-site". "Due to the lack of manager on-site and lack of advertised food options, this brings into question the suitability of the applicant and the object of the [Sale and Supply of Alcohol] Act." Fire and Emergency New Zealand also noted there had not been a trial evacuation completed at the premises in two years. Mr Sefton did not respond to a request for comment before deadline. But a lawyer who contacted the Otago Daily Times said the matters raised in opposition to the application would be addressed at an upcoming hearing. The application form also asked applicants to specify how staff were trained to ensure compliance with liquor laws. "Long-serving staff were trained years ago and only get better over the years," Mr Sefton answered. A hearing has been scheduled for Thursday.

Hipkins' Continues COVID-Era Attitude To Public
Hipkins' Continues COVID-Era Attitude To Public

Scoop

time13 hours ago

  • Scoop

Hipkins' Continues COVID-Era Attitude To Public

Responding to Chris Hipkins' assertion that the expanded COVID inquiry is a platform for conspiracy theorists, ACT Leader David Seymour says: "Chris Hipkins' ought to show some humility towards the COVID inquiry, because it's an inquiry into his own actions. As COVID-19 Response Minister, then Prime Minister, Hipkins called the shots in question, and people deserve a right of reply. 'Instead it sadly seems that he is continuing the very attitudes that people are concerned about. Too often the Government didn't listen, especially to concerns other than COVID. The inquiry is here in part to put that right, people don't serve to be shouted down before they have their say. "Whatever Chris Hipkins thinks of the submitters' opinions, he ought to recognise that the impacts of his policies on these New Zealanders were very real. Chris Hipkins himself was central to extended lockdowns, border closures, and vaccine mandates. His decisions saw businesses shuttered, livelihoods lost, families separated, and our social cohesion scarred. "Until now, New Zealanders have been denied real accountability for the COVID-19 response. In Labour's toothless version of the inquiry, there were no public hearings. Key decisionmakers were not questioned publicly. The narrow terms of the inquiry ignored the real pain of lockdowns and vaccine mandates. "It was a masterclass in dodging accountability, and that's why ACT expanded the inquiry's focus and opened hearings to the public. "Chris Hipkins needs to show respect for the Royal Commission, as he could well be asked to front up to it in public hearings. His willingness to answer difficult questions in good faith will be a measure of his respect for the people and the democratic process."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store