The bill that's left people dazed, confused and angry
David Seymour.
Photo:
RNZ / Mark Papalii
The Regulatory Standards Bill is in its fourth iteration.
There have been three previous attempts - and three failures - in getting a bill that aims to improve law making over the line.
But this time, the ACT party's baby is part of the coalition agreement, and David Seymour can see the finishing tape.
The bill has passed its first reading and will shortly hear submissions, but everything about its path has been controversial, including the short timeframe to hear those submissions.
The Detail talks to
Newsroom political editor Laura Walters
about what the bill aims to do, and why so many people hate it.
Critics include former Attorney-General and Labour Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer, who really is an expert in writing laws, and who has reviewed a previous iteration of the bill when he was president of the Law Commission.
He calls it
"one of the oddest bills I've ever seen".
When asked what the new law will actually do, Walters says: "We don't know."
"I just don't know what the impact is going to be. I'm kind of constantly like... storm in a teacup? Or constitutional nightmare? It's kind of somewhere in the middle."
Some commentators - including another former Attorney-General Chris Finlayson - have said the bill is unnecessary. Others say it will not have a big impact because, like the Bill of Rights, it can be ignored by Parliament when forming legislation. Seymour's own regulation ministry and the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee have advised that it is not needed.
"Despite what people say, it is constitutionally important, this piece of legislation. People care deeply about this... this is going to impact our future and current laws," says Walters.
"It is hard to unpick, it is hard to interpret. But it's worth having the debate over."
Some of the sideshows around the bill have distracted from what it is about. They include a spat between Seymour and one of the country's top academics Dame Anne Salmond; Seymour's social media attacks on those who disagree with it; some "unparliamentary language" during Seymour's monologue at the Finance and Expenditure Committee; uproar over the mere 30 hours allocated to hearing submissions; and Seymour making comments that he later had to walk back about most of the submissions coming from bots.
Walters prefers to refer to this bill as the "good law-making bill", which is what Seymour has billed it as.
"It would essentially set up some foundational principles for what constitutes good law-making," she says.
"All past and all future laws would essentially be tested against these principles. So we kind of refer to them as a set of core principles. They are quite complex but the shortened version of these principles are - the rule of law; liberties; taking of property; taxes, fees and levies; the role of courts; and good law making.
"The idea, David Seymour says, is to ensure that all future laws are better; that legislation is of a good quality; that will ensure that poor laws aren't made, that we don't have issues with redundant or excessive legislation and regulation."
But "when we're talking about the principles of good law making... it's really hard, because those principles are so contested. The idea is that this law should make for better law-making, but everyone has to agree that this law is the right mechanism for it and has those principles right in the first place. And it seems New Zealand just cannot agree on that."
Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail
here
.
You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on
Facebook
or following us on
Twitter
.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Youth MPs accuse government of censoring them
politics youth about 1 hour ago Youth MPs are accusing the government of censoring them over changes to their speeches in Parliament. The 11th Youth Parliament is underway, drawing young people from all over the country to Wellington to debate and speak about what matters most to them. Some rangatahi say they were told to avoid criticising the current government, and feel let down by the process. But organisers insist the changes are just recommendations and suggestions. Giles Dexter reports.
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Mayoral aspirant wants council apology over pōhutukawa wrangle
Councillor and mayoral aspirant Max Brough draws a line between two survey pegs he says indicate the pōhutukawa is on council land. Photo: Robin Martin A New Plymouth mayoral aspirant wants council to apologise for the treatment of his daughter who has been caught up in a wrangle over who is responsible for a 100-year-old pōhutukawa tree. Alana Brough owns a property on Ballance Street where contractors have reduced a 15-metre pōhutukawa to an ugly stump to protect the electricity network. She called in McKinlay Surveyors to peer review an earlier survey of the property to confirm the tree was on council property and therefore its responsibility to maintain and keep out of the power lines. Alana Brough said it was a matter of principle. "I just want to make it 100 percent clear where the boundary line is and that the tree is on their land." Council Manager Parks and Open Spaces Conrad Pattison has been adamant this week that council was not responsible for the tree. "We didn't plant the tree, nor did we seek its removal. As it is primarily on private land and is not protected, the landowner can have it removed at their own cost." Pattison said council used GIS mapping to determine that the tree trunk was located and the peer-reviewed survey would not change its position. Alana Brough. Photo: RNZ / Robin Martin The McKinlay Surveyors peer-review was unequivocal. "I certify that the position of the boundary splay for Lot 1 Deposited Plan 8306, being 50 Ballance Street, Lower Vogeltown, New Plymouth, was surveyed and confirmed under my direction on 1 July 2025, and that the base of the pōhutukawa tree close to that boundary is located wholly outside the boundary of Lot 1 DP 8306." First-term councillor and mayoral aspirant, Max Brough, who had an interest in the property via family trust, now wanted an apology from council. "The survey very clearly shows that the tree is on council land and has always been on council land. I feel that council have behaved in a manner that is unbefitting of a large organisation. It's caused a lot of hate in the community, a lot of anger has come out. "What's gone on here is wrong. The tree not straddling the boundary, it's not on our property. It is not the responsibility of myself or my daughter. Real simple." Pattison said the Broughs' peer-reviewed survey made no difference. "It is her right as a private landowner to get a survey done at any time. We didn't do a survey but used GIS mapping to determine that the tree trunk was located on a shared boundary with the road reserve. Pattison said council's primary consideration from the start was that the tree posed no safety issue that would require council to remove it, which was why Alana Brough was advised she could remove the tree, but at her own cost. "The updated survey information has no bearing on the decision made." Max Brough said he was preparing a letter for council with his lawyers. Council said it had not received anything official from councillor Brough to respond to as yet. A sign warning an emergency protection order has been made for the tree. Photo: Robin Martin "We stand by our decision and used the tools available to us to inform that decision, and the advice provided to Ms Brough." A sign has also appeared on the tree warning an application for an emergency tree protection order has been made and no further work could be done to remove the trunk pending a decision from council. The NPDC said it was not aware of the sign and the council did not place it. Meanwhile, a pōhutukawa specialists and director of Thrive Spaces and Places, Geoff Canham, questioned whether putting the power lines on Ballance Street underground had been considered. "Typically in this situation what used to happen was power companies would underground their power lines and have a programme that meant this didn't become a problem for residents and councils. "Once upon a time there was a programme for our most beautiful streets and communities, which are revered, to not have utilities and services that look ugly anyway, affecting the very nature and human habitat where we live." Canham, who had four decades' experience in the parks and recreation sector, said prior to regulatory changes in the 90s power companies would invest more heavily back in the network. "One of their main roles was to ensure that their network was resilient and we used to use resilience language around making sure that some streets that were heavily tree-lined were undergrounded and that power went underground both for aesthetic reasons and resilience, but mainly so the power company wouldn't have issues when the wind blew." Canham said that changed when power companies became shareholder-owned businesses. A prophetic banner that has appeared on the tree in recent days. Photo: Robin Martin "Once you're on the stock market those imperatives change. It's all about profit. It's not about what's good for the system or for communities. And that was a dramatic change, and I worked for councils then, and everything completely turned around in terms of the role of a power company in your community." Lines company Powerco, who's contractors removed the Ballance Street pōhutukawa's limbs, said moving power lines underground was an expensive exercise. "With more than 29,000km of electricity lines and cables connecting homes and businesses, including rural areas, placing all existing overhead electricity supply underground would be very costly - a cost that would need to be shared by all our electricity customers through their power bills." The company said underground power lines could also be more challenging and expensive to maintain and repair compared to overhead lines. "When issues arise, it is often easier and quicker to access and fix overhead lines." The process of undergrounding power lines also involved significant logistical challenges and certain terrain and environments were not suitable for underground cables. Powerco said power supplies at all new subdivisions in its network area were, however, placed underground. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
ACT Party Tried To Get Treaty Of Waitangi Clause Removed From Education Legislation
The ACT Party fought to have a Treaty of Waitangi clause stripped out of amended education legislation - but was overruled. ACT leader David Seymour says not removing it entirely has "certainly created some controversy", but it was "simply political". The prime minister is defending the decision because the government wants clarity around these clauses, and wants to deal with it in a "comprehensive and coordinated way" as part of a wider review. The Education and Training Amendment Bill tweaks Section 127 of the Act from 2020 - which outlines how schools operate in the country - to update what the "paramount objective", or highest priority objective, is for boards governing schools. It was part of the ACT and National coalition agreement which sets out to "amend the Education and Training Act 2020 to enshrine educational attainment as the paramount objective for state schools". The Education and Training Act currently outlines a board's primary objectives in governing a school was to ensure every student can "attain their highest possible standard in educational achievement"; the school is "physically and emotionally" safe; that it includes and caters for students with differing needs; and "gives effect to Te Tiriti of Waitangi". It specified it must do that by: (i) working to ensure that its plans, policies, and local curriculum reflect local tikanga Māori, mātauranga Māori, and te ao Māori; and (ii) taking all reasonable steps to make instruction available in tikanga Māori and te reo Māori; and (iii) achieving equitable outcomes for Māori students. The Amendment Bill changes Section 127 so the "paramount objective" is first and foremost to "ensure that every student at the school is able to attain their highest possible standard in educational achievement". To meet that objective, the board must also meet "supporting objectives" such as those outlined in the original legislation, including the clause to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and other objectives around school attendance and evaluating students' progress and achievement. The order of the Tiriti o Waitangi clause was also slightly changed, so the "achieving equitable outcomes" came first. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said "it might sound odd to have to say this" but it was necessary for boards to have a "number one priority on advancing academic achievement". "So that's job number one." Seymour agreed, saying the ACT Party campaigned on putting academic achievement "front and centre." He said these changes will ensure that academic achievement is the paramount objective. "The Act Party has long felt that we have not had an adequate emphasis on just simply making sure that valuable academic knowledge is transferred from one generation to the next." He said there had been "a lot of disquiet" the requirement to uphold the Treaty had not been removed. He claimed parents "frequently complain" their children were spending time on subjects and activities that have no value to them, but "appear to be part of a wider political project to change the culture of New Zealand". He said that was a source of "enormous anger" and parents wanted their children focused on "reading, writing and arithmetic". He rejected the notion the removal of that clause was itself a political project, saying "there's no political project in wanting children to learn only things that are valuable to them". Seymour said he would not reveal any kind of "cabinet or other private discussion", but that people can "probably guess" the ACT Party would want to remove a clause like that. The reason for not removing it was "simply political" he said, "not all political parties agree with the removal". "Perhaps other parties were less eager to hence, it remains, but will be reviewed as part of the government's wider treaty clauses reviewed." When asked about the differences between National and ACT, Seymour said the National Party would always explain itself as a "broad church". Luxon refused to say who pushed back on ACT's proposal, saying it was simply a "series of conversations that happen in cabinet and cabinet committees". Luxon said there was a set of questions around treaty obligations and the implications within legislation. He explained the government had a broader piece of work to outline specific treaty clauses rather than "general, open ended" ones so "everyone has maximum clarity about how a piece of legislation is to be operationalised". As a result he said the clause would be considered as part of that review. He said the most important thing was to make sure boards understand the priority was getting kids to school, teaching them maths and teaching them to read. Education Minister Erica Stanford told RNZ "legitimate questions" were raised regarding the existing Treaty clause in section 127 of the Education Act during the Cabinet process in August last year. She said Cabinet agreed to include the section 127 treaty clause, along with many other references to the treaty in the Education Act, in the wider review the Justice Minister was undertaking. "This process of reviewing the whole Education Act at once was seen as a more coherent approach to ensure consistency of decision making rather than considering Treaty clauses on an ad hoc basis." The Amendment Bill is currently at select committee stage. Submissions close on 12 June and a report is due back in September.
