2 days ago
Watch live: Taxpayers Union, Māori data scientist among Regulatory Standards Bill submitters
Day two of hearings for the
Regulatory Standards Bill
is underway at Parliament, with MPs from the Finance and Expenditure committee hearing arguments in opposition and support of what has been
dubbed by some the Treaty Principles Bill 2.0
.
Some have called it a "procedural" Bill that looks to introduce the concept of good lawmaking. Others have raised concerns around the failure to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi. A former ACT MP has given a scathing rebuke of the "economic dogma" it represents.
Submissions continue on Tuesday afternoon and over the following two days. A small group has gathered outside parliament calling themselves 'The Peoples Committee' to provide a space for those who haven't received formal speaking slots to make their case.
Retired judge David Harvey spoke in support of the bill, because it introduces the concept of "good lawmaking".
Harvey said every piece of legislation involved some form of erosion or interference with "individual or corporate liberty."
He argued that it wasn't a "constitutional" bill, an argument he claimed had been reported or published, and that it was in fact "procedural."
"It can be amended. It can be repealed by subsequent governments, and it can, like the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 be ignored in the legislative process.
Jordan Williams of the Taxpayers Union was one of the submitters on Tuesday.
Photo:
RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly
"The only thing is that, if it is going to be ignored, those who are responsible for ignoring it are going to have to stand up and say, why."
Harvey also said the bill should reference Te Tiriti o Waitangi because it involved elements of governance and of "equal application of the law."
He didn't know how that should be done within the scope of the bill, but said there should be "some recognition of the Treaty."
A leading Māori data scientist argued the bill "fundamentally fails to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi".
Te Kahui Raraunga's Kirikowhai Mikaere told the committee it disregarded the collective rights and aspirations of iwi Māori and prioritised private property and corporate interests over public good, environmental protection and the wellbeing of iwi Māori.
She said the privileging of individual and corporate rights would have a "negative and long term impact" when it came to the data landscape of the country. She also said it would risk the "very delicate social license" of trust the country had of its own data system.
"Data is not only a strategic asset, and what we know to be probably the biggest commercial asset in the world, it is a national asset for New Zealand, and what we recognise is this bill puts at jeopardy that national asset."
Mikaere argued the Bill had also failed to honour Te Tiriti principles of partnership and participation in its creation.
"Even the way that the bill was crafted, was in isolation of Te Tiriti partners.
"Going forward, it reflects the values of and priorities of a very small number of New Zealanders."
The Taxpayers Union argued New Zealand's poor quality regulations was one thing holding back the country's economy.
Executive director Jordan Williams said the Bill was a "litmus test" for whether the government was serious about getting New Zealand back into the "status of the first world economy and with first world living standards."
Williams said the bill was primarily about transparency.
"The bill is, in effect, an information disclosure regime.
"It does not obviously tie the hands of Parliament, other than forcing lawmakers to turn their minds to cost trade offs and regulatory takings, among other things."
Williams said it was an "encapsulation" of what used to be seen as "just good law making."
He challenged the MPs listening, saying one of their key roles as an MP was to uphold the rule of law.
"Frankly, if you vote against a bill that requires disclosure of the rule of law implications of proposed legislation, I'd put to you that that is a failing of what is traditionally a duty of being a public representative in Parliament."
Ray Deacon, an economist for the group who also submitted, added the "economic cost of poor legislation is enormous."
"There has been no plan to assess the quality of legislation. There has been no plan to improve the quality of legislation. Therefore, there has been no plan to reduce the economic cost of redundant, ineffective or poorly implemented regulation."
He argued there had been an ad hoc approach to reviewing and amending legislation and only when it was impossible to ignore.
"This bill provides the legal structure for assessing the quality of existing legislation. This has to be worth something."
A former member of Parliament for the ACT party gave a scathing rebuke of historical legislation she said had ripped apart New Zealand's collective strength.
In opposing the bill, Donna Awatere Huata referenced the State Sector Act which "turned our public service into a business."
She said the Reserve Bank Act legislated that "inflation matters more than jobs, more than housing, more than food on the table, more than anything."
Huata said the Public Finance Act "made our children invisible unless they could be turned into an output."
She told the committee the Fiscal Responsibility Act "made caring a liability."
"These laws have got to go. They are not neutral. They slash jobs without a single thought of the devastation to families pushed us into unsafe homes, or worse, into cars or the streets.
"They gouged fairness and equality, tore the spirit from our public life, recreating the misery and hatred of the poor of 19th century Britain."
Huata argued the Regulatory Standards Bill would take "the economic dogma that caused this harm" and elevate it into "constitutional doctrine."
"It would make it almost impossible to rebuild, to fix the broken systems, to honor Te Tiriti o Waitangi, to re-weave tikanga into public life.
"It would allow courts to override our voices, your voice, my voice, the voice of community, of collective care."
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
