The search for three missing climbers on Aoraki/Mt Cook remains on hold and Sevu Reece has been discharged without conviction following an incident at a Cup Day party last year.
Opinion by Richard Prebble
Richard Prebble is a former Labour Party minister and Act Party leader. He holds a number of directorships and is a member of the Waitangi Tribunal.
Economists believe one of the reasons for New Zealand’s poor productivity is red tape.
Minister of Regulation and Act Party leader David Seymour wants to cut red tape. Photo / Mark Mitchell
No small business can even know what the regulations are. Big businesses can employ lawyers. Red tape can protect a large business from competition from those that cannot afford to hire lawyers.
The cost of red tape is borne by the consumer.
The Act Party campaigned to cut red tape and to improve the quality of regulations.
If the new ministry can enforce an instruction that the benefits of new regulations must exceed the costs, I believe the number of new regulations could half.
When I was Transport Minister, I required that all proposed regulations be subject to a cost-benefit test. The cost of more than half of the proposed new regulations was greater than the benefit. When I stopped being the minister, officials dropped the cost-benefit test. The regulations I had refused to approve were issued.
To really halt the growth of red tape, Cabinet should follow President Trump’s lead when he required every government agency to repeal two regulations for every new regulation.
As his critics concede, Act leader David Seymour is tenacious.
In his campaign against red tape, Seymour has opened consultations on a Regulations Standards Bill. The purpose of the bill, to quote his press statement, is:
“The bill will codify principles of good regulatory practice for existing and future regulations”.
“It seeks to bring the same level of discipline to regulation that the Public Finance Act brings to public spending, with the Ministry for Regulation playing a role akin to that of Treasury.”
This is a long-standing Act policy. The party founding chair and former MP Rodney Hide introduced a similar bill. As part of the coalition agreement when National was last in office Seymour had his Regulatory Standards Bill referred to a select committee.
The MPs thought giving the courts the power to strike down regulations would politicise the judiciary. The committee recommended that the bill be referred to a taskforce.
The high-powered task force reported in favour of a Regulatory Standards Bill. The proposal went nowhere under Labour.
The new bill will be based on the task force’s recommendations. The key features are that legislation,
must be clear and not rely on administrative discretion;
should not reduce anyone’s liberty except if necessary to protect the liberty of others;
should not take property without compensation;
should not impose taxes or fees beyond the cost of a service;
And the courts should determine the meaning of any legislation.
The bill would require existing legislation to be reviewed to see if it was fit for purpose.
The minister says “the bill contains a recourse mechanism, by establishing a Regulatory Standards Board. The board will assess complaints and challenges to regulations, issuing non-binding recommendations and public reports.”
A future government could ignore the recommendations, but findings from an independent board would be difficult to ignore.
It is hard to exaggerate the impact a cost/benefit test combined with a Regulatory Standards Act would have.
“No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.” Chances are Parliament has taken away some of your property.
Everyone who was in a Super scheme in 2006 had their retirement savings reduced. The Government, against the advice of the Commerce Commission, forced Telecom to open its local loop. Telecom’s value fell $3 billion in three weeks. Virtually all super schemes would have had shares in Telecom.
Thousands of bureaucrats are employed creating and administering regulations. Fewer regulations mean fewer civil servants. I am sure Wellington will oppose the bill.
It will be claimed that the bill’s changes would hamper the Government’s ability to tackle issues like climate change. There are few issues where cost/benefit is more vital.
Seymour is going to need all the support he can muster.
Ironically, he should get support from Te Pāti Māori. Māori have suffered from legislation appropriating property without compensation.
If Act and Te Pāti Māori listened to each other they would be surprised to discover that there are many issues where they could agree.
