Submission on the Regulatory Standards Bill (2)

aka, corporate power unleashed courtesy of Act

.

.

The following is my submission to the Regulatory Standards Bill , as introduced by Act Party leader, David Seymour.

For the record, I oppose this Bill.

Reasons being:

A. There appears to be no discernible problem for which this Bill is intended to address. Parliament and it’s Select Committees are already capable of scrutinising Bills and determining their worth and efficacy. In short, this Bill is in search of a problem that does not appear to exist.

B. According to page 12 from the Ministry for Regulation’s Regulatory Impact Statement - proposed Regulatory Standards Bill,

“The RIS notes that the scope of the options has been limited by the Coalition agreement and Ministerial direction and as a result, alternative approaches to the proposal have not been explored in detail.”

It appears that the Ministry has been constrained (muzzled?) by political dictates and have not been permitted to give transparent analysis of this Bill. This is troubling in that we, the public, have not been given full information regarding this Bill.

It also flies in the face of this Bill will purports to encourage transparency in law-making. It is difficult to reconcile this contradiction.

C. Te Tiriti/Treaty of Waitangi - this country’s founding document - has been ignored in this Bill. Except for references to Treaty settlement agreements, past, present, and upcoming, this Bill is silent on interaction between Treaty partners - Māori and the Crown.

It seems incongruent that a Bill which claims to encourage “high-quality legislation”, “providing a benchmark for good legislation”, and other noble-sounding objectives, has utterly over-looked our foundational document from which all right to govern flows.

The author of this Bill may not approve of Te Tiriti/Treaty of Waitangi, but ignoring it is hardly an option.

D. It is my contention that the Stated Purposes/Explanatory Note of this Bill are utterly misleading and hide it’s true purpose. The true intent is buried deep within dozens of paragraphs, sub-paragraphs, sentences, et al.

The Explanatory Note/Stated Purpose is:

Purposes of Bill

The Regulatory Standards Bill aims to reduce the amount of unnecessary and poor-quality regulation by increasing transparency and making it clearer where legislation does not meet standards. It intends to bring the same discipline to regulatory management that New Zealand has for fiscal management.

The Bill aims to -

- promote the accountability of the Executive to Parliament for developing high-quality legislation and exercising stewardship over regulatory systems; and

- support Parliament’s ability to scrutinise Bills; and

- support Parliament in overseeing and controlling the use of delegated powers to make legislation.

It goes on to state:

How Bill will achieve its purposes

The Regulatory Standards Bill will aim to achieve its purposes by—

- providing a benchmark for good legislation through a set of principles of responsible regulation (principles); and

- providing for the transparent assessment of the consistency of proposed and existing legislation with the principles (consistency accountability statements); and

etc.

All very noble, lofty goals which no reasonable person could find fault with.

Until one gets to Part 2, Section 8, Para ‘C’, sub-para ‘iii’:

8.Principles of responsible regulation

Taking of property

(c) (iii) the compensation is provided, to the extent practicable, by or on behalf of the persons who obtain the benefit of the taking or impairment:

As this is written, the interpretation is that any person; group of people; or organisation which objects to a proposed commercial activity, is liable to compensate the ‘property owner/developer’ - EVEN IF THEY HAVE WON A COURT CASE.

An example could be, for example, Forest & Bird opposing milling of a stand of native trees. F&B take the ‘property owner/developer’ to Court and win the case. Despite winning, F&B is then liable to compensate the ‘property owner/developer’ for lost profits.

It becomes clear that the entire Bill, while cloaked in grandiose niceties, is actually a ‘trojan horse’ to create a chilling effect on any person; group of people; or organisation, to stand in the way of commercial activity.

The notion that despite winning a case in Court against a proposed commercial enterprise, the successful litigant would then have to pay large sums of money in compensation for lost profits is not only counter to clearly established principles of justice - but I submit, verges on vindictiveness.

Instead of calling this the Regulatory Standards Bill, it would be more honest to re-name it as a ‘Corporate Bill of Rights’.

The Ministry of Regulation also questions this aspect of the Bill (see Para E below). It should be noted that the Ministry of Regulation is an entity created by Act Leader David Seymour.

E. [Further to Para ‘D’] The previously mentioned Regulatory Impact Statement on the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill, on page 74, of Annex 2, refers to compensation of property ‘taken’ by the State:

“Taking of property

Principle: (iii) the compensation is provided, to the extent practicable, by or on behalf of the persons who obtain the benefit of the taking or impairment

Analysis: the idea that compensation should be provided by those who obtain the benefit is a novel concept, does not appear in any overseas jurisdiction, and would be extremely difficult to apply in practice.”

The Ministry of Regulation appears to take a dim view of this aspect of the Bill. It’s criticism, whilst couched in passive terms, is nonetheless damning.

F. Communities and environmental groups would be stifled from pursuing legal action to seek legal redress from commercial activities that pollute and damage the environment and/or communities.

Further examples of how the Regulatory Standards Bill would impact on the environment:

(1) Ivon Watkins (later Ivon Watkins-Dow) made the herbicides 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D at Paritūtū, New Plymouth, between 1960 to 1987. Both chemicals are carcinogenic.

If a company wanted to re-open such a dangerous plant in Aotearoa New Zealand, but was knocked back in Court - those who initiated such a law-suit would still be liable to “compensate” for “taken” profits.

(2) In 2019, an old landfill by the Fox River on the West Coast, was eroded by flooding. A massive clean-up of exposed rubbish was undertaken by volunteers.

According to reports, there are many other old, buried rubbish dumps that are situated in unsafe, vulnerable areas.

Under the Regulatory Standards Bill, if a private company wanted to set up a rubbish dump in an unsafe area, and this was defeated in Court - those who initiated such a law-suit would still be liable to “compensate” for “taken” profits.

(3) In recent storms, ‘slash’ from forest plantations have been swept into rivers, clogging those waterways; threatening private properties; covering and smothering beaches, and in one case resulting in the death of a child.

Under the Regulatory Standards Bill, any attempt by local authorities; communities; Iwi; or environmental groups, to take remedial action in Court to stop slash from being deposited on the land - would still be liable to “compensate” forestry companies for “taken” profits, should they be successful.

These examples show the Bill to be skewed so far toward corporate ‘rights’ as to render it perhaps the most dangerous proposed legislation in recent history.

G. Whilst I do not hold out hope that National Party members of Parliament will vote down this repugnant Bill, I should point out to NZ First MPs that they will be tarred with the same brush. They may wish to question whether it is an electoral benefit to be viewed publicly as aiding what is essentially a neo-liberal ‘Corporate Bill of Rights’.

Act and National have already cornered the pro-business vote, so the question to be asked by NZ First is: “what do we have to gain from this?”

I. I would implore Labour, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori to repeal this odious Bill should it become law, in their first 100 days of becoming government.

.

Postscript1

For Mr Seymour;’s benefit, I can confirm I am not a ‘bot’.

Postscript2

As his neo-lib policies are scrutinised, dissected, criticised, and rejected one-by-one, David Seymour channels Rob Muldoon, becoming increasingly petulant and short-tempered with the media.

If I were a journo, I'd be putting a simple question to him:

“Mr Seymour, why aren’t the 246,409 NZers who voted for you in 2023 supporting you with submissions?”

Then watch him go... 😳

Postscript3

References have been included in the Submission, in-text, as full links, but removed for this blog-version. References in this blog-version are listed under ‘References’.

Postscripts 1 and 2 are not included in the Submission, and are here purely for the benefit of readers.

.

References

New Zealand Legislation: Regulatory Standards Bill (full Bill)

Ministry for Regulation: Regulatory Impact Statement - proposed Regulatory Standards Bill

New Zealand Legislation: Regulatory Standards Bill - Preliminary provisions

Stuff: ‘Lost’ report sheds light on contamination at controversial New Plymouth chemical plant

RNZ: Environmentalists despair at state of Gisborne river following cyclone

Stuff: Forestry debris dam threatens Puriri residents

Stuff: Tolaga Bay - A beach covered in forestry waste

RNZ: Forestry slash at beach - 'It is a terrible tragedy'

Additional

Electoral Commission: Official results for the 2023 General Election

Mountain Tui: An open letter to Prime Minister Luxon - Will he listen?

The Press: Supermarkets and bottle stores hit back at plans to curb alcohol sales

RNZ: The Regulatory Standards Bill - What is it, what does it propose and what's next?

Youtube: Mountain Tui - Comedy Gold With Brooke Van Velden - Pay Equity

NZ Herald: Regulatory Standards Bill under fire for limiting Parliament’s sovereignty

New Zealand Parliament: Regulatory Standards Bill - Submissions

Other Blogs

D List, The: Why the Regulatory Standards Bill is a threat to disability communities

Emily Writes: The David Seymour excuse generator

Dr Gary Payinda: Act's van Velden shifts Worksafe from ‘enforcement’ to ‘advice’

Free Market Moralism: Seymour feels his chance slipping away

Mountain Tui: Psst, Regulatory Standards Bill Is A Trojan Horse

Mountain Tui: Seymour's privatisation push

Mountain Tui: An open letter to Prime Minister Luxon - Will he listen?

Nick's Kōrero: The Regulatory Standards Bill: ACT’s Backdoor to Power

No Right Turn: Retreating into his far-right bubble

No Right Turn: Giving the finger to democracy

Previous related blogposts

Submission on Treaty Principles Bill

Submission on Regulatory Standards Bill

.

Acknowledgement: Sharon Murdoch

.

Liked what you read? Feel free to share.

Have your own thoughts? Leave a comment. (Trolls and conspiracists need not bother.)

.

= fs =