Personal Submission in Opposition to the Regulatory Standards Bill

Not my best work at all, but still. Deliberately omitting Te Tiriti o Waitangi is egregious—as is opening the pathway to cronyism.

Personal Submission in Opposition to the Regulatory Standards Bill

From: Stu McGregor (NZCE, BMin, GradDipTh)

Date: Monday, 13 January 2025

Introduction

The Regulatory Standards Bill (the Bill) looks harmless enough on the surface and even seems like a good idea, however, upon closer reading of the Bill and it’s related Parliamentary resources, I believe it will seriously undermine my understanding of a Civil Society where all are treated equally not just through law, but with how we live together.

I remind you of these words from the big screen which were uttered in 1987 by fictional character Gordon Gecko, “Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed Works.” Ironically, this sentiment’s bluff was called when the stock market crashed in 1988.

I shall be clear, I have little issue with people accumulating wealth, but when it is at the expense of others well-being, I have serious concerns. As global inequity rapidly increases, those who are on the bottom tier of the workforce (minimum wage, gig economy, beneficiaries, people who have disabilities, and homeless to name a few) categorically do not find greed is good, or that it is right or that it works.

In fact it is precisely this thinking that enabled the unjust practices toward Māori and the massive breach of our duty to our treaty partners. It is clear that for Māori over the last nearly 200 years, greed did not work. In light of this, that the Bill actively ignores te Tiriti o Waitangi is appalling.

I appeal to your humanity to abandon the pure ideology on display in both the Bill and its accompanying discussion document, and consider that the interests of a corporation do not take absolute precedence over people—it’s not a binary but a both/and.

The role of regulations must be for the betterment of not just the economy, but of society as a whole.

Specifics of Concerns

1. The Bill actively ignores te Tiriti o Waitangi (te Tiriti)

2. The Bill’s ideological premise is wrong

3. The Bill’s aspirations might sound admirable, but they are unnecessary

4. The Bill opens regulatory-decision making to cronyism

1. The Bill actively ignores te Tiriti o Waitangi (te Tiriti)

The Bill, somewhat courageously in this current political climate, states:

In addition, it is not proposed that the Bill would include a principle relating to the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

This is egregious and unacceptable in this day and age (frankly it’s embarrassing). Good law making in Aotearoa New Zealand respects tangata whenua, our history and embraces the aspirations of a future where people are the priority. The Crown has a duty to uphold Te Tiriti. Of note from the Preliminary Treaty Impact Analysis (emphasis mine):

Of significance is that the proposals do not include a principle related to the Treaty/te Tiriti and its role as part of good law-making, meaning that the Bill is effectively silent about how the Crown will meet its duties under the Treaty/te Tiriti in this space.

To omit te Tiriti neglects duty to a fifth of our citizens and cannot possibly make good law.

2. The Bill’s ideological premise is wrong

In the Minister’s foreword, the Hon David Seymour writes in the first paragraph:

Most of New Zealand's problems can be traced to poor productivity, and poor productivity can be traced to poor regulations.

This is just an extraordinary claim without any discussion to support it—anywhere. At no other point does the Bill directly tie back to this claim except in his conclusion. I don’t disagree that productivity is important, but to say most of the problems are caused by poor productivity is disingenuous fear-mongering. In fact in the discussion document we find that while we have dropped between 2018 and 2024, I note in point 30 of the Interim Regulatory Impact Statement:

New Zealand ranks above the OECD average across its Product Market Regulation Indicators (PMRI) questionnaire. With lower scores representing better performance, New Zealand scored 1.32 compared to the OECD average of 1.34 in the 2024 survey, and at 1.24 compared to the OECD average of 1.38 in the 2018 survey. Areas of strength identified by the PMRI include New Zealand’s administrative requirements for new firms, barriers to entry and trade and investment.

Given the challenges of COVID-19 in that period I question how indicative of a change that is going into the future. We are not in a crisis and while accept the Minister is wording it that way, it is heavily implied.

I suggest there are other factors that contribute to Aotearoa New Zealand’s problems. The minimum wage being well-under a non-living wage which keeps people struggling, disempowering Unions which takes way their voice, reducing funding on arts and culture which give joy and cohesion to people just to name some. A productive employee is one who feels valued.

As far as I can see, the main problem with the Bill and it regulations is the lack of accountability for any Bill to be read that hasn’t met the Regulatory Impact Statements and Quality Assurance processes that are already in place.

3. The Bill’s aspirations might sound admirable, but they are unnecessary

The irony of this is not lost on me. In its claims for how poor our regulation processes are we see this statement:

Unneeded or poor-quality legislation can arise through deficiencies in the policy development process, including a failure to fully consider the impacts of regulatory proposals on regulated parties and regulators. This is often exacerbated by a truncated or rushed legislative process.

However, the Bill ignores its own Regulatory Impact Statement prepared by its own Ministry which says:

…the Ministry considers that an enhanced disclosure statement regime with enhanced obligations, will achieve many of the same benefits…

The Ministry for Regulation has expressed a preference in the interim RIS for an alternative option building on the existing Disclosure Statement regime (through Part 4 of the Legislation Act 2019 coming into force)…

To further support this, the Bill itself shoots itself in the foot through its own principles:

Good law-making…

(j) produce benefits that outweigh the costs of the legislation to the public or persons:

(k) be the most effective, efficient, and proportionate response to the issue concerned that is available.

Now at its fourth attempt to be read as part of the Coalition Agreement, it’s difficult to understand why the Member is still pushing ahead by ignoring the criticism it has received in the last 25 years. Also, given its own ministry is recommending not pursuing the Bill, then the legislative cost will outweigh benefits when it gets rejected (point j above), and if it does go through then it will fail to be a proportionate response (point k above) to an already established as fictitious problem.

4. The Bill opens regulatory-decision making to cronyism

By establishing a Regulatory Standards Board (the Board), it’s vitally important to maintain democratic non-partisan contributions. Therefore the Board needs to endure through changes of Government and ensure laws, as best as possible, can survive the transitions. I believe a slower process producing more robust law will serve our nation much better than endless repeals when governments change. There are no provisions for who can be appointed, what accountability there is, what checks and balances are in place to avoid cronyism and potential for corruption.

I’m alarmed that the Minister for Regulation appoints Board Members and there’s no constraint on who qualifies as a Board member other than they“have a range of skills including legal and economic expertise”. It’s inevitable that those chosen will be partisan to an incumbent Government’s Minister for Regulation. For such an important and influential role, we open ourselves up to (using current situation) a party with 8% of the vote regulating our laws. I cannot see how this is acceptable in a democratic society.

Recommendations

I suggest you just drop the Bill and invest Taxpayer money into making the current process more robust and accountable. If in 5 years we’re still sliding down the productivity index, perhaps revisit it—but I am pretty sure it’s not because of bad regulatory process, rather it’s unenforced regulatory process that needs addressing. Having submitted on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill, I was sideswiped at how the Hon David Seymour just ignored the RIS and RIA papers that did both indicated it was poorly done. A whole lot of time and Taxpayer money could have been saved by existing checks and balances not being adhered to or enforced.

If it does go through to another reading then:

1. Ensure it includes commitment to Te Tiriti

2. Include processes whereby the welfare of people is prioritised

3. Ensure the Regulatory Board is democratically appointed and includes representatives across all party alignment.

Conclusion

Thank you for reading this submission. I trust it will assist in our democratic process.

Stu McGregor