Key Takeaways:
- The Regulatory Standards Bill has become a point of contention between Act and NZ First, with Act leader David Seymour warning that his party will not support any watering down of the bill.
- The bill sets out principles of "good" regulation and requires ministers to assess legislative proposals against those principles, but does not bind their hands in any way.
- Critics of the bill fall into two main camps: those who think it is a waste of time and resource, and those who believe it will entrench far-right political views and lead to fascism.
- The bill has been subject to intense scrutiny and criticism, with some submitters making factually incorrect claims about its effects.
- The select committee process has become increasingly theatrical, with submitters using their appearances as a platform for content creation rather than engaging with the bill in a substantive way.
Introduction to the Regulatory Standards Bill
The Regulatory Standards Bill has become a flashpoint in the current New Zealand government, with Act leader David Seymour warning that his party will not support any watering down of the bill. The bill, which sets out principles of "good" regulation and requires ministers to assess legislative proposals against those principles, has been a key part of Act’s agenda since the party entered government. However, NZ First leader Winston Peters has suggested that his party may be willing to make changes to the bill, which has prompted Seymour to go public with his concerns.
The Criticisms of the Bill
The bill has been subject to intense scrutiny and criticism, with some submitters making factually incorrect claims about its effects. Critics of the bill fall into two main camps: those who think it is a waste of time and resource, and those who believe it will entrench far-right political views and lead to fascism. The first camp, which includes academics and lawyers such as Jonathan Boston and Sir Geoffrey Palmer, argue that the bill duplicates existing regulatory processes and will create unnecessary paperwork. They also argue that the principles of good regulation set out in the bill are not universally accepted and may not be effective in practice.
The Theatrical Nature of the Select Committee Process
The select committee process has become increasingly theatrical, with submitters using their appearances as a platform for content creation rather than engaging with the bill in a substantive way. This has led to a situation where factually incorrect claims about the bill are being spread and amplified, often through social media. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the committees are now streamed online, allowing submitters to clip up their appearances and use them in campaign videos. This has created a situation where the committees are more focused on political theater than on serious discussion and analysis of the bill.
The Challenges Facing Parliament
The challenges facing Parliament in dealing with the Regulatory Standards Bill are significant. The bill has become a lightning rod for criticism and controversy, with some submitters making factually incorrect claims about its effects. The select committee process has become increasingly theatrical, with submitters using their appearances as a platform for content creation rather than engaging with the bill in a substantive way. Furthermore, the sheer number of submissions has become overwhelming, making it difficult for MPs to properly consider and respond to the concerns of submitters. The challenge for Parliament is to find a way to balance the need for public participation and engagement with the need for serious and substantive discussion of the bill.
The Implications of the Bill
The implications of the Regulatory Standards Bill are significant, and will be felt for years to come. If the bill is passed in its current form, it will create a new framework for regulatory decision-making in New Zealand, one that will require ministers to assess legislative proposals against a set of principles of good regulation. While the bill does not bind the hands of ministers, it will create a new level of transparency and accountability in the regulatory process. However, if the bill is watered down or defeated, it will be a significant setback for Act and the government’s regulatory reform agenda. The outcome of the bill will have significant implications for the future of regulatory decision-making in New Zealand, and will be closely watched by businesses, NGOs, and other stakeholders.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Regulatory Standards Bill has become a significant point of contention in the current New Zealand government, with Act leader David Seymour warning that his party will not support any watering down of the bill. The bill has been subject to intense scrutiny and criticism, with some submitters making factually incorrect claims about its effects. The select committee process has become increasingly theatrical, with submitters using their appearances as a platform for content creation rather than engaging with the bill in a substantive way. The challenges facing Parliament in dealing with the bill are significant, and will require careful consideration and management to ensure that the bill is properly debated and considered. Ultimately, the outcome of the bill will have significant implications for the future of regulatory decision-making in New Zealand, and will be closely watched by businesses, NGOs, and other stakeholders.