Regulatory Standards Derangement Syndrome

The Haps

It’s your last chance to get your tickets for ACT’s 2025 Rally. Please join ACT’s MPs, guest speaker James Lindsay, and David Seymour, promoting freedom and equality for everyone in our country.

The Government is cracking down on crime with a rolling maul of real change. Increased penalties for those caught, higher chances of being caught. Violent crime is already down by around one sixth year-on-year, the last week’s new polices should add more momentum. Are we there yet? No. Can we point to the Government making real progress? We think so.

But wait, there’s more. Today the newly revamped COVID Inquiry is holding public hearings. It’s going to hear from people affected by the Government’s response, such as business, health, education providers. Thankfully, COVID is in the past, but more pandemics are in the future, just as sure as they have been throughout human history. We literally cannot afford to repeat the COVID response, so recording the true unbiased lessons from last time is essential.

Meanwhile, a live media bias experiment is underway. Te Pāti Māori’s Rawiri Waititi says Burkina Faso’s dictator is his personal hero. Only one journalist has written one half-hearted story about it. David Farrar, meanwhile, has written a brilliant parody in which David Seymour says Augusto Pinochet is his personal hero: “Seymour’s social media post led all media channels for 72 hours.” Every journalist except one at RNZ (credit where it’s due) should be asking themselves, why didn’t I report this? Imagine how different New Zealand politics would be with objective and balanced reporting.

Regulatory Standards Derangement Syndrome

It’s difficult to explain the response to the Regulatory Standards Bill without using the word derangement. A horde of left wing academics and lobby groups have worked themselves into a frenzy, claiming that the Bill is an ‘attack on the Treaty,’ ‘undermining democracy,’ will ‘allow corporations to sue the Government,’ and is being ‘rushed through undemocratically.’

All these claims are not just untrue. They’re obviously untrue. When called deranged (because what else can you call their behaviour), the activists have gone berserk. They seem to think their feelings are much more important than the truth. That is a shame, especially for academics, but it shouldn’t stop the rest of us having a proper policy debate.

This week Free Press debunks their claims. We show how the Regulatory Standards Bill will improve New Zealand. We start with what the Bill says, in its own words.

The Purpose Statement says that the Bill is designed to “promote the accountability of the Executive to Parliament…” and “support Parliament’s ability to scrutinise Bills; and “support Parliament in overseeing and controlling the use of delegated powers to make legislation.” rawiri

Not exactly an affront to democracy… It goes on to say:

“The purposes of this Act are given effect to only by… setting out principles of responsible regulation; and… providing for the review of the consistency of proposed and existing legislation with the principles….”

It requires those making new laws (normally Ministers and Government department heads) to publish a Consistency Accountability Statement in Parliament.

The Statements show whether the proposed law is consistent with widely accepted (we’ll get to that) principles of good law making. Of course, a Minister or official could fudge the statement, hiding problems with a law.

In that case, a citizen can appeal to the Regulatory Standards Board, a group of senior people expert in regulatory economics. They would issue their judgement on whether the Statement properly described the effect of the law, or had been somehow fudged.

If you’ve read this far you might be wondering what all the fuss is about. It’s hardly scintillating stuff. Well, it gets more boring from here, but please stay with us.

The law does not actually stop anyone making bad laws. If a Minister or Official wants to make a law, and the Consistency Accountability Statement says its bad, and the Regulatory Standards Board says the law is even worse than the statement lets on… The law still gets made.

That’s right, people still have to follow it. As the Bill itself says, ‘This Act does not confer a legal right or impose a legal obligation on any person that is enforceable in a court of law.’ You might be wondering why the deranged responses to this bill, and yet ACT says it matters so much.

The Bill matters, and the political left are going nuts about it, because it will change lawmaking. Laws that get a bad grade by their own admission, or under scrutiny from the Regulatory Standards Board, will embarrass their ‘makers.’ Voters will hear when a bad law is being made badly, and perhaps that the makers tried to hide it, leaving them with lots of explaining to do.

It will also change the culture in Wellington. The bureaucracy will be forced to think about the principles in the Bill, it will change their thinking so that interfering in people’s lives is not a default option but something in need of justification.

How will it change? The answer is in the Principles. They are remarkably similar to those that already exist in the little-known Legislative Advisory Committee guidelines. Governments are already supposed to follow them, but few people know that. The net effect of the Regulatory Standards Bill will be to make these principles part of everyday politics.

The Principles are:

The Rule of Law: E.g. ‘every person is equal before the law’ and ‘the law should be clear and accessible’

Liberties: ‘legislation should not unduly diminish a person’s liberty… …except as is necessary to provide for, or protect, any such liberty, freedom, or right of another person’. That means you can ban pollution if two neighbours benefit from the restriction. Environmental groups saying you can’t really ought to think about how environmental law works.

Taking of Property: ‘legislation should not take or impair, or authorise the taking or impairment of, property without the consent of the owner unless…. compensation is given…’ You shouldn’t go around taking or ruining people’s property against their will, and neither should the Government. If you want to put a new restriction on what someone can do, you should pay them for it, not force the cost of your desires on them.

Taxes, Fees, and Levies: ‘legislation should impose, or authorise the imposition of, a fee for goods or services only if the amount of the fee bears a proper relation to the cost of providing the good or service to which it relates…’ We think that’s self-explanatory.

Good Lawmaking: E.g. ‘legislation should be expected to produce benefits that exceed the costs of the legislation to the public or persons… and… should be the most effective, efficient, and proportionate response to the issue concerned that is available.’ Who could be against that?

The Bill doesn’t include a ‘Treaty Clause.’ People mindlessly insist there should be one ‘because it’s our founding document…’ But the Bill is designed to uphold all people’s rights. Of course that includes Māori rights. Not one person who complains about the Treaty Clause can give an example of a thing they’d like to do that the Regulatory Standards Bill would deem inconsistent.

What of the leftists’ crazy claims? They say the Bill is undemocratic, when it’s whole purpose is enhancing democracy. They say it’s being somehow snuck through Parliament, when it’s going through the normal process. They say its principles are unusual, when nearly identical ones are already in Cabinet guidance. They say it excludes the Treaty, but they can’t explain how including the Treaty would help.

In summary, the Regulatory Standards Bill is being made through the unusual Parliamentary Process, to enhance democracy, uphold property rights, and make New Zealand a happier, healthier, wealthier country with less red tape. The claims it’s some sort of crazy conspiracy against democracy are… deranged.