The bill that's left people dazed, confused
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 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 won't 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 it's 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's 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.
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
Watch: Acting Prime Minister David Seymour on changes to anti-money laundering act
The acting prime minister and associate minister of justice are holding a press conference at the Beehive this afternoon. David Seymour and Nicole McKee are expected to make an announcment on the government's anti-money laundering policy. Seymour will also be available for questions on other topics, as the first day of hearings into his Regulatory Standards Bill begins . Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
1News
3 hours ago
- 1News
Proposed changes to make it easier to open a bank account for kids
The Government is set to reveal proposed "common sense" changes to anti-money laundering laws to slash paperwork for small businesses and to make it easier for children to open bank accounts, the Acting Prime Minister says. David Seymour said the soon-to-be-announced changes to anti-money laundering laws would "remove a lot of the insanity so that ordinary people, including parents who want their children to bank, can actually have a bit of relief". "We want young people to learn about the benefits of saving and investing and planning for the future," he said to Breakfast this morning. The ACT leader said families were being discouraged from opening accounts for young people because the paperwork was too cumbersome, calling it "the most un-Kiwi thing" that needed fixing. Under current anti-money laundering rules introduced in 2011, parents must provide documentation including photo IDs, birth certificates, proof of address, and evidence of their financial relationship with their child when opening accounts. ADVERTISEMENT His party had previously campaigned on reducing business compliance costs with anti-money laundering and terrorism financing laws. At the last election, ACT said small businesses needed a more "risk-based approach" that was "less punitive." GST was very effective as a tool for the government to readily raise a large amount of money. (Source: Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee announced reform of the laws last October. Seymour said this week's announcement would include "a whole lot for business". "If you're, for example, engaged in property transactions, or you're a lawyer, or whatever. We're going to be simplifying the amount of customer due diligence there. We're going to be moving to just a single supervisor," he said. "We have to show that we're doing our bit to fight money laundering and terrorism. We've got our own problems with organised crime in New Zealand — we have to keep on them. "But we also need to remove a lot of the insanity so that ordinary people … can actually have a bit of relief." ADVERTISEMENT Seymour said the reforms would help benefit small businesses and professional services, allowing New Zealanders to spend "less time dealing with red tape". "It's going to be small business. It's going to be people in the professional services who have to do a lot of this stuff, because they manage transactions, lawyers, accountants and so on." The morning's headlines in 90 seconds, including deadly Texas floods, Australian woman attacked by a lion, and Elon Musk's new political party. (Source: 1News) McKee said in her announcement last year that the changes would make complying with the law more "user-friendly for small businesses". "I have heard from countless New Zealanders that the current regulations are unnecessarily risk-averse, resulting in complicated, repetitive processes. Simple tasks shouldn't be made confusing and difficult to complete," she said. "I'm taking a pragmatic approach to this work, by prioritising changes that will deliver significant regulatory relief to businesses while also reducing the harm caused by money laundering in our communities. "In fact, these reforms will deliver the most significant regulatory relief since the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act came into force in 2013."
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
Treaty Principles 2.0? Hearings begin into Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill
The bill - championed David Seymour - sets out "principles of responsible regulation". Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly 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. The bill lists principles that Seymour believes should guide all law-making. These include: 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. 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 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. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
