Editorial: Watch out for the number of regulations

Every so often the country seems to suffer a regulatory itch. By the end of last week it looked like a case of eczema.

Friday's Herald alone brought news of tougher taxi regulations, a call for compulsory vaccination against meningococcal disease and more stringent licensing of pawnbrokers.

All of them may be perfectly sensible rules but experience recommends careful scrutiny of all such restrictions to be satisfied they are strictly necessary.

For regulations are always an infringement of somebody's rights and may confer a commercial advantage on those who call for them.

They are also contrary to the national interest when they unduly influence investment and the use of economic resources.

That was one of the lessons learned 20 years ago this month when the Treasury's analysis of the economy's problems was made available to the public.

Regulations were one of the main ways that successive governments, probably unwittingly, had skewed the pattern of national investment.

Taxi regulation is very problematic. Taxi driving is one of the most accessible occupations available to the unemployed and new immigrants, as is evident to anyone who hails a taxi in Auckland. It is common to hear tales of drivers who could not speak much English or who barely knew their way around the city.

Both concerns are reflected in the Land Transport Amendment Bill tabled in Parliament last week. It would tighten the monitoring of taxi drivers' English language ability and require them to obtain "area knowledge" certificates, among other things.

Are either of those restrictions strictly necessary? Certainly it is desirable that people can hire a taxi in reasonable confidence that the driver can use and understand English clearly and knows the quickest way to get the customer to the desired destination.

But how much harm is really done if the driver is temporarily deficient in both skills?

It is important to ask that question because the proposed restrictions will make it harder for newcomers to work in that industry.

It will infringe on their rights and society will bear the cost if they cannot as readily find another job.

Weigh that harm against the harm suffered by customers who might have to speak more simply to a driver with little English and show him where to go.

Compulsory meningococcal vaccine seems a much simpler issue. New Zealand is suffering a long epidemic of a disease that is easily transmitted.

Many people carry the meningococcal bacterium in their throat without being susceptible to its infection. They can, however, pass the disease to those susceptible, particularly young children, and it is often fatal.

Herald readers have been following the terrible agony of the parents of a seven-month-old baby stricken with the disease last month. Last week they gave permission for her limbs to be amputated in an attempt to save her life.

Weigh their ordeal against the rights of those who might not wish to be vaccinated and it seems no contest. Yet the Minister of Health rejected the call last week from Waikato District Health Board chairman Dr Tony Haycock for compulsory vaccination.

"That is not the way it's done in New Zealand," said Annette King.

Perhaps the easiest to endorse of the regulations is that which aims to keep a closer watch on the pawnbroking business. Legislation passed last week should make it more difficult for thieves to dispose of stolen goods.

Pawnbrokers and second-hand dealers will now have to ask sellers for an identification document and record the signature and details of anyone selling goods to them. It is hard to see any harm done by that to anybody's legitimate interests.

Two out of three ain't a bad ratio of justifiable regulations. And even the questionable one, taxis, might turn out to be not too restrictive if the language and local knowledge tests are reasonable.

As always when regulations are adopted, it will pay to watch them critically in practice.