David Seymour Lashes Officials After LINZ Becomes Latest Agency Raising Concerns About His Regulatory Standards Bill
Documents show Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) officials issued the warning to the Ministry of Regulation in March after it asked for feedback.
Regulation Minister David Seymour has hit back at the criticisms, blasting officials for not prioritising New Zealanders' rights, saying it's proof the bill is needed.
Earlier, RNZ revealed Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment officials raised fears the bill could be much more expensive than previous estimates, and could lead to business uncertainty, slowing economic growth.
LINZ, which has a key role in managing Crown land, land title systems and regulatory frameworks that govern land use and access, said the "overly rigid emphasis" on property interests could affect the government's ability to acquire land for infrastructure or public good projects. It also worried it would create "legal barriers for returning land to iwi" under Treaty of Waitangi settlements, according to feedback obtained by environmental activist group Greenpeace under the Official Information Act.
"While strong property rights are important, an overly rigid emphasis on property rights may conflict with broader regulatory objectives, including the Government's ability to acquire land for infrastructure or public good projects," officials wrote.
"The potential cost and resource implications to comply with the new requirements could be significant, depending on the guidance issued by the Minister," it told the ministry.
LINZ also warned the bill could limit the ability to respond quickly to emergencies, such as natural or climate-related disasters.
The agency declined to be interviewed or answer further questions about the concerns it raised. It did not give any details about the extra costs it might face.
Officials 'see rights as an inconvenience' - Seymour
Regulation Minister David Seymour said LINZ's comments were "worrying."
"LINZ do important work, including administering the Public Works Act, which they well know already requires compensation for taking people's land. That makes their comments surprising, and worrying," Seymour said in a statement to RNZ.
"At their heart, they see New Zealanders' rights as an inconvenience, when they are supposed to be public servants.
"The comments they have made further prove the need for the Regulatory Standards Bill. Public Servants should not see respecting people's rights as an inconvenience, it is one of their duties."
Seymour said ministers could "ignore the bill" in a crisis or emergency situation, while Treaty Settlement Bills were also exempt from consideration under the bill.
Officials criticisms of the bill were proof it was needed, he said.
"One thing that is becoming clear from some government departments' criticisms of the bill is that they don't take New Zealanders' rights seriously, seeming to see them as a nuisance that stops them making rules and going home early. Public servant attitudes to our basic rights, as shown in some of their comments, are another good reason why we need the Regulatory Standards Bill."
'Stark warning' about a 'dangerous bill'
Greenpeace said LINZ's comments were a "stark warning", especially as flood-hit Tasman faces a huge clean up after three storm events in recent weeks.
Infrastructure was urgently needed to prepare for, and recover from climate disasters, said spokesperson Gen Toop.
"Things like flood protection, transport and communication links, and renewable energy," she said.
"The Regulatory Standards Bill is dangerous. It would tie the Government's hands at the very moment when urgent climate action and disaster preparation are needed most.
"This new warning is yet another nail in the coffin for this doomed bill. It has attracted blistering criticism from the United Nations, legal experts, health professionals, Māori leaders, environmental groups, and the public service itself," said Toop.
Several government agencies have sounded warnings about the bill, including the Treasury which predicted the it could "adversely impact the cost and speed of government infrastructure projects and public works in the future."
According to the Ministry for Regulation, the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB) seeks to "establish a benchmark for good legislation" by introducing a set of principles of "responsible regulation". Essentially, the bill creates a set of rules that all lawmakers must consider in regulation design.
The law would also set up a Regulatory Standards Board, which would respond to concerns raised around the consistency of regulation. Appointed by the Regulation Minister, the board would be able to make non-binding recommendations, much like the Waitangi Tribunal.
The bill is currently with the finance and expenditure committee, which is expected to report back in November. If it passed into law, it would likely take effect at the start of next year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
26 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
Letters: The rights and wrongs of David Seymour's UN letter
Paul Kenny, Ponsonby. It needed to be said David Seymour is to be congratulated for taking the proverbial bull by the horns and replying immediately and strongly to the UN letter to the New Zealand Government. He may have been technically out of line from a protocol point of view, but quite frankly, what he said in his letter needed to be said. I have a lot of time for Winston Peters and am confident that his official reply will not sell us out, even though he has said that his reply will be different to that of Seymour's. We, the public, can only hope that the official letters will be published unredacted in due course, possibly even accompanied by Seymour's withdrawn letter. At the very least, although withdrawn officially, Seymour's letter will have pointed out to the UN where it simply got it wrong. Steve Clerk, Meadowbank. Health system fears Simeon Brown is not quite right to suggest New Zealanders do not care who does their operations, as long as they get done. It is not in New Zealanders' interest to take surgeons out of public hospitals and for them to be employed at greater cost by private hospitals. It is not in New Zealand's interest to promote an American-style private health system which will mean many will not be able to afford services. The day that we see such a system will be a very sad one indeed. Marie Kaire, Whangārei. Sad state of housing I found the article by Simon Wilson (July 16) disgraceful. Not so much in the content as the fact it needed to be written at all. We were promised pre-election that this Government would build warm, dry, liveable homes for all those who were not able to afford them. So far, all that has happened is that plan after plan has been abandoned or delayed because of 'rigour and fiscal responsibility' requirements. 'Writing down' $220 million and halting hundreds of housing developments hardly seems very fiscally responsible, does it? Maybe they can recoup the deficit by selling multimillion-dollar homes for investors from overseas rather than address the problems at home? Meanwhile, when it comes to what has happened to people who have been removed from emergency accommodation, Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka says it is 'not our responsibility'. Whose responsibility is it, then? I would remind Housing Minister Chris Bishop and Potaka that as part of a Government that promised to take every New Zealander's needs into consideration, they are very much responsible. For every single one. It's beyond time they realised they are servants of this country, not board members of an elite real estate group selling to the highest bidder. Or are they? Jeremy Coleman, Hillpark. A community problem The first day of the inquest into the death of Malachi Subecz reveals some horrific facts about a little boy whose mother describes as 'a very, very special kid'. The inquest is serving as yet another report on the shortcomings of the so-called child protection system. A 2022 review by Dame Karen Poutasi following the death of 5-year-old Malachi made 14 recommendations, which Aroturuki Tamariki/Independent Children's Monitor was tasked with reviewing. Among the key points raised in the review process was the apparent lack of urgency to implement change but more important was the finding that Oranga Tamariki was not sufficiently focused on the safety of the child. This is a community problem in which we all need to be involved. Glennys Adams, Oneroa. Classroom changes I'm not surprised open-plan classrooms have not worked. Learning needs to be focused, teachers need to be able to monitor their students and ensure all are catered to. Open plan was way too new age, some might consider a bit woke even. As long as students get tailored education that maximises their potential, everyone wins. John Ford, Taradale.
RNZ News
26 minutes ago
- RNZ News
'Councils have lacked fiscal discipline' Local Government Minister says
Local Government Minister Simon Watts says the bill is all about reining in costs. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Legislation making changes for councils has passed its first reading overnight, coinciding with this year's local government conference in Christchurch. The Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill was introduced this week, and passed its first reading on Thursday evening. It removes the 'four wellbeings' - social, economic, environmental and cultural - from councils' purpose and imposes a series of mandatory requirements. Councils will need to prioritise core services in spending, carry out extra financial reporting and transparency and accountability reporting, and disclose all contractor and consultant spending. It also makes some minor regulatory tweaks, like allowing acting or interim chief executives to sign compliance certificates and extending council chief executives' second term from two years to five. Local Government Minister Simon Watts said the bill is all about reining in costs . "Councils have lacked fiscal discipline and spent far too much on the things that most people do not consider core activities of local government," he said in his first reading speech. However, it seems somewhat at odds with the government's view of the main source of rates rises, laid out in the bill's explanatory note. "Rates rises are being driven primarily by rising council costs , particularly for critical infrastructure. However, the government is concerned that rates rises are being exacerbated by a lack of fiscal discipline among councils," it said. The coaliton partners were both offering full-throated support. ACT's Cameron Luxton said the bill sent a clear message. "Councils are not mini-parliaments; they are service delivery agencies. Their job is to manage infrastructure and keep communities running, and doing it while delivering value for money. When they deviate from that, and waste ratepayers' money, they increase the cost of living on all of us," he said. ACT MP Cameron Luxton. Photo: Parliament TV After arguing that transparency needed to be improved, he concluded that "democracy matters". "If you want a say in how local money is spent, you should get elected, and this bill is working to fix that direction in New Zealand." Former Wellington mayor Andy Foster - now an NZ First MP - said ratepayers' priorities have changed in the last three years. "I had 30 years on a council. Generally speaking, what we heard from is people saying 'we want more services, more services, more services'. "For the last three years we've started to hear people say in increasing numbers 'we are concerned about our rates, we are really hurting' - and people are really now afraid. They're finding it difficult to actually pay the rates and they're concerned they may not be able to stay in their own homes." Opposition parties were all opposed. Labour's Camilla Belich highlighted the "deep irony" of National championing a bill she said would end up "snatching control off democratically elected councils". "What this bill says is: Wellington knows best, Wellington knows your community better than you, and the government is going to step in and tell your council what to do. It's a degradation of the rights of democratically elected councils," she said. The irony, she said, was because National was "the same party that railed against Three Waters and the decisions that the Labour government was making in order to save ratepayers hundreds of millions of dollars". Labour MP Camilla Belich. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Watts' speech had laid out that the bill would enable a code of conduct and rules for councils to be "set centrally rather than on an ad hoc individual council basis". "This will provide greater certainty and greater consistency about behavioural standards across local government, reduce costs for councils, and ensure councillors are fully informed to make decisions," he said. The rhetoric did seem a departure from his 2022 approach to Three Waters in opposition, where he said "the challenge is: is a top-down or centralised approach ... the right model? We don't believe it is". However, Watts told RNZ the feedback on the bill from mayors had been positive. "Quite a lot of positive feedback from mayors," he said. "In one way, by defining exactly what they must do means they can now have a conversation about the activities that aren't on that list, and at the moment they can't because pretty much everything fits into the wellbeing [provisions]. Overall, pretty positive. The regulatory and the relief changes in the bill take work off them and that takes cost away from them as well, so that's positive. "Look, it's a challenging time in local government, we get that - there's a lot of reform underway, Local Water Done Well's well in train - but overall, I enjoyed my yesterday." The previous day, Watts had been in Christchurch at the annual Local Government New Zealand conference. Mayors at the conference had a range of views on the wellbeing provisions and whether the bill would be effective. Far North mayor Moko Tepania pointed to the one wellbeing initiative on the council's books - a $300,000 fund for its three community boards that enabled community groups, businesses, school groups and the like to "do cool stuff in our rohe". "That's 0.001 percent of the total operating revenue that we're putting into wellbeing initiatives. I actually think it's probably not enough money." He said the legislation was unlikely to change much, saying councils were already spending their money on core services and the government was simply rebranding "wellbeing" as "infrastructure". Moko Tepania (Ngāpuhi), Far North mayor. Photo: Layla Bailey-McDowell / RNZ Central Otago mayor Tamah Alley agreed, saying their rates rise this year was 18.4 percent, 95 percent of which was for core services. "We're having our communities tell us what they think are core services ... they've said museums are core services, community halls are core services, libraries are core services, they want to see some of the arts things that happen in our communities. "I'm not sure where they think this 'over and above' spending is going. In Central Otago we don't have a lot of nice to haves ... and most of them, people are saying that's what makes living here so great." South Waikato mayor Hamish Daine said the wellbeings had led to rates rises, but "those wellbeing are actually what's lifted the community and actually built what our community's all about". Clutha's mayor Bryan Cadogan was confident the wellbeings had not led to rates rises. "No. It's actually the wellbeings are just bread and butter. They're the strings that tie a community together and it's just inconceivable to me as leaders how we take that out of our community. Yeah, sure we've got a responsibility for the bricks and mortar - I get that - and at the moment we have absolutely no choice. "We're ticking over 90 percent roads, water, and rubbish, over 90 percent. So the very little that's left is meant to hold the community together ... for years our facilities were allowed to get old, and society paid. The connection of the community and the spirit and the wanting to live there and seeing a future in the town. People turned their back and left, so you turn your back on the four wellbeings at your peril, long term." Labour leader Chris Hipkins says "flip-flopping" is not good for councils. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii Labour's leader Chris Hipkins supported the wellbeing provisions but not enough to bring them back if Labour wins power. "We did return them to government previously, I guess the one hesitation I would say there is the flip-flopping's not good for councils ... so I do think we need to have a broader conversation as a country about what we want our local councils to do." The bill will now face public scrutiny at select committee, which reports back in November. Meanwhile, Minister Watts wants a cap on rates rises in place by Christmas - although the other coalition parties have cast doubt on the idea . Councils have long complained about their inability to raise revenue that doesn't rely on rates - like a bed tax, or fees for tourists using toilets - but the government is not open to making changes which could allow that. Ministers have previously said it's not a priority, and Watts this week said he had made clear the government will not support new taxes and revenue tools. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Scoop
10 hours ago
- Scoop
Ministry Feared Costs Of $60m A Year To Review Laws Under Regulatory Standards Bill
Officials have warned David Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill could be much more expensive than previous estimates suggested, and could lead to business uncertainty, slowing economic growth. Seymour is playing down the concerns, saying AI will solve some of those problems and the officials have not accounted for some aspects of the bill he expects will speed up government processes. The documents released under the Official Information Act show Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) officials feared $50 million to $60m a year in costs to government departments would be on the low end of estimates. They also believed the bill would slow the passage of legislation by two to four weeks, and make the business environment more uncertain, slowing economic growth. Like other departments and in line with the Regulatory Impact Statement prepared by the Ministry for Regulation, MBIE also expressed "concerns about the proposals outlined and their ability to support genuine improvement in regulatory quality", and said there were other, better options for achieving the bill's aims. MBIE estimates of costs to review legislation In feedback ahead of last week's select committee hearings, MBIE officials particularly expressed concern over the additional costs the bill would impose, saying up to three full-time staff would be needed for each of the 95 laws the ministry is responsible for, costing the ministry up to $34.2m over multiple years. "This translates to 95 - 285 FTE in total ($11.4 to $34.2 million). The range in estimates reflects the differences in size and complexity between different pieces of legislation - larger Acts such as the Building Act 2004 would take significantly more resources to review than smaller legislation." As an example, the Building Act includes 680 sections and has 34 pieces of secondary legislation. "It is very roughly estimated that a dedicated team of 6-8 FTE (full time employees) with a manager may be required in order to undertake the consistency reviews and provide advice to the Minister on whether departures are justified." This figure does not include new legislation and regulations, which are covered by the RSB. MBIE estimated an additional full-time employee would be needed for each new bill the government asks the ministry to write, with the requirements of the Regulatory Standards Bill adding "an additional 2-4 weeks into the legislative process". "As an indication, MBIE has supported the passage of 6 Acts so far in 2024/25," the advice stated. "It is highly unlikely that we could meet these additional costs within baseline as suggested within the Cabinet paper without significant impacts on MBIE's ability to deliver Ministers' policy priorities." The figures also do not include the estimated 450 to 550 pieces of existing secondary legislation (regulations) the ministry also oversees - which had originally been included in the RSB's scope and could still be added at a later date. Questioned about the figures, MBIE said they were high-level estimates and could yet change. "The advice provided high level estimates with a range of costs and timeframes based on the work that might be required as a result of the Bill. We would need to revise and update these estimates when the Bill is passed." Estimated $50m to $60m annual cost to departments a 'lower bound' MBIE's advice also quoted from the Regulatory Impact Statement prepared by Seymour's Regulations Ministry an estimated annual cost to departments of "$50m-$60m per year", saying this was likely on the lower end. "As per previous MBIE advice, MBIE considers that the assumptions made by the Ministry for Regulation in developing that estimate make it a lower bound. In regulatory-heavy portfolios, MBIE estimates that up to 15 percent of the policy resource will need to be engaged in this work." The documents show MBIE offered to help the Regulations Ministry come up with a more accurate accounting. "We offered to work with the Ministry to better cost the work that would be involved in undertaking consistency reviews. In the 48 hour timeframe for comment, it was not possible to complete robust analysis on agency impact but our assessment is this [is] substantial for agencies with a significant volume of regulatory stock such as MBIE". However, the publicly available Regulatory Impact Statement predicted the bill would cost $18m annually across the whole of government. RNZ has sought clarification from MBIE about where the $50m to $60m figure came from, and whether it was still current. Seymour expects AI will bring department costs down Questioned about the costs, Seymour said the officials did not seem to be accounting for the fact the range of considerations in the RSB were narrower than already required under the Cabinet Manual, nor that it would replace most of the work done to produce Regulatory Impact Statements. "It's disappointing that MBIE officials think it's too hard to consider the impacts of their regulations on Kiwis," he said. "It says more about their productivity and attitude towards Kiwis than the Bill. Businesses who have to comply with their rules and regulations are constantly innovating and improving their processes, why can't these officials? "This isn't a zero-sum game. Kiwis all over the country are faced with endless costs caused by overzealous bureaucrats who aren't accountable. By preventing more bad regulations, and getting rid of pointless old ones, we'll save the country far more money than these bureaucrats could ever spend." He suggested AI could also help. "Look at the pace of development of AI, the cost estimates were based on a human reading through every piece of legislation, I suspect that actually we'll be able to do it much faster than we expected because of AI," he said. "Could it change the way that a government department scans the legislation it's responsible for to pick out things that might be consistent or inconsistent with a peer to principles? That's already here." He pushed back when asked if AI could be trusted to do that work. "I don't think the issue is that you're going to trust it. I think the issue is that you're going to use it to speed up the work that humans are ultimately trusted for." Victoria University senior lecturer in Artificial Intelligence Andrew Lensen warned artificial intelligence is not the silver bullet David Seymour has suggested it will be for reducing the cost of the Regulatory Standards Bill. "There are some benefits we've seen in the public sector with the use of AI to help public servants do some stuff, but I think what the minister is proposing is very optimistic and not at all what I'd suggest as a reasonable solution," Lensen told Midday Report. He said human oversight would be needed if AI was used to make sure there were no mistakes or inaccuracies. "If you need someone to baby-sit a model, or baby-sit that system, then it's sort of limited how much efficiency you can gain from that process," Lensen said. He added the return investment in AI is not clear because there is a big risk of legal costs if AI makes a mistake. Concerns over opposition to RSB affecting business confidence The advice shows MBIE was also concerned about the effect of the RSB on business confidence, because the principles in it were likely to change under a future government. "Because some of the principles in the Bill are viewed as novel or contentious, as opposed to widely accepted, there is a risk to the durability of the principles, and potentially the Bill as a whole. "Future legislation, designed to be consistent with novel principles, may also take on characteristics that are seen as unorthodox, and eventually be subject to regulatory churn." Emails between officials show the ministry raised with Immigration Minister Erica Stanford that the bill would make the regulatory environment less predictable, "which can constrain business' commitment to investment and growth". RNZ has sought comment from Seymour about the effect on business confidence. Cost estimates 'highly concerning' - Greens The Green Party's regulations spokesperson Francisco Hernandez said the ministry's cost estimates were highly concerning, saying officials would be focused on "doing make-work jobs just to comply with the extremist provisions of the Regulatory Standards Bill". He was also concerned the bill would have a chilling effect on regulations "that protect people and planet". "Instead of the money going to frontline public services, it's just going to be wasted on the cost of basically pursuing one person's ideological vanity project." He said Seymour's explanations sounded like "total BS", saying it was "desperation". He pointed to a study from the United Kingdom which suggested AI could save public servants two weeks in a 52-week year, less than 5 percent. "AI is quite good for doing the sort of low-level administrative tasks and simplifying those things, but the level of nuanced work of interpreting secondary legislation and how it applies to a principles framework that, again, is like created by human beings - it's not really the sort of thing that could easily be automated," Hernandez said. "Seymour is spinning." He said he agreed with the analysis on the bill impacting business confidence, and pushed back on suggestions the current opposition repealing the bill could be partly to blame for it - saying it was not just the opposition showing signs of not supporting it. "The coalition itself is showing cracks around the seams around that, so if Seymour can't even get the full unequivocal support of his colleagues in cabinet, then that goes to show how extreme this bill is." Cabinet removed requirement to review every 10 years after every ministry complained The documents also showed significant concern from MBIE about an earlier version of the RSB the ministries were asked to provide feedback on, which would have required all legislation and regulations to be reviewed at least once every decade. This requirement was removed by Cabinet before the bill was introduced to Parliament. An email in the documents showed concerns about the 10-yearly reviews was widespread. "David will address the resourcing issue in the meeting, as it has been raised by every agency and several ministers," the email said. Questioned about the prospect of changes to the bill following the select committee process, Seymour used the matter as an example of changes already made. "People said 'oh, that'll be too much work for the department', we said 'well, if it's too much work for the government to read all of its laws in 10 years, imagine the poor buggers who have to follow these laws out there anyway'. We said 'okay, we'll take the 10 year thing out, take pressure off that'. That's the kind of change they've already made."
