The second day of hearings on the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill has begun at Parliament.
The first day saw a wave of opposition to the bill, but the Regulation Minister was dismissing concerns.
While he had not watched all of the submissions from the first day, David Seymour said finding constructive criticism of the bill was like searching "for a needle in a haystack".
Groups submitting on the second day of hearings will include Toitū te Tiriti, the Taxpayers' Union, the Council of Trade Unions, Business NZ and the Law Society.
ACT leader and Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
Individuals include former ACT MP Donna Awatere Huata, former Green MPs Kevin Hague and Eugenie Sage, lawyer Tania Waikato and retired judge David Harvey.
Much of the criticism on the first day was on the principles in the bill, which critics said elevated ACT ideology above health or environmental concerns.
The bill lists principles that Seymour believes should guide all law-making. These include:
- Respect for the rule of law
- Protection of individual freedom and property rights
- Keeping taxes and fees fair and reasonable
- Proper consultation and clear cost-benefit analysis
Ministers introducing new laws would have to declare whether they meet these standards, and justify those that do not.
A new Regulatory Standards Board, appointed by the Minister for Regulation, could also review older laws and make non-binding recommendations.
"This Regulatory Standards Bill does not prevent a government or a Parliament from making a law or regulation. What it does do is create transparency so that the people can actually watch and understand what their representatives are doing," Seymour said.
But Sophie Bond, associate professor of geography from the University of Otago, said the principles would embed "libertarian ideology" at a constitutional level.
"The bill would not withstand an evaluation under even its own narrow terms. It's ill conceived, poorly drafted and undemocratic," she said.
Similarly, Kirsty Fong from Asians Supporting Tino Rangatiratanga said it would "embed the ACT Party values and principles that are rooted in libertarian ideology that elevates individualism and profit at the expense of wellbeing".
Criticism was also directed at what was not in the bill: there is no mention of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
This led Rahui Papa from Pou Tangata National Iwi Chairs Forum to compare it to the Treaty Principles Bill, which was voted down at its second reading earlier this year.
"We think this is a relitigation of the Treaty Principles Bill under another korowai, under another cover. So we say the attacks keep on coming."
Unlike the Treaty Principles Bill, the Regulatory Standards Bill has more chance of success. National's coalition agreement with ACT contains a commitment to pass the bill through into law.
Natalie Coates from the Māori Law Society said Te Tiriti could not be "unstitched" from lawmaking.
"Its absence isn't, of course, a drafting oversight, but a deliberate omission that bucks a clear break from constitutional best practice and our treaty obligations."
She doubted, however, whether adding a treaty clause would fix the rest of the "fundamental problems" she saw in the bill.
Seymour said he was yet to hear an argument about why Te Tiriti should be included.
"If you can find any person that would give me a practical example of how putting the Treaty into Regulatory Standards Bill would change the outcome in a way that's better for all New Zealanders, then I'm open minded. I have been the whole time," he said.
"But so far, not a single person who's mindlessly said 'oh but it's our founding document, it should be there' can practically explain how it makes the boat go faster."
He acknowledged there were existing tools like Regulatory Impact Statements and the Regulations Review Committee, but questioned whether they were effective.
"What we're doing is taking things that the government already does in different ways, and we're putting them together in one black letter law that governments must follow so New Zealanders have some rights. There's nothing really new here," he said.
While the majority of submitters were opposed to the legislation, Ananish Chaudhuri, professor of Experimental Economics at the University of Auckland spoke in favour.
"It puts ideas of effiency and a careful weighing of the costs and benefits of proposed regulation at the heart of the legislative process," he said.
Former Prime Minister and constitutional lawyer Sir Geoffrey Palmer was among the first speakers on Monday - arguing it's a bizarre and strange piece of legislation.
"It is absolutely the most curious bill I've ever seen, but it's got a long history, you have to remember that this is the fourth occasion that this bill has been before Parliament," he told Morning Report.
"I first encountered it in 2010 when I was president of the Law Commission and chair of the Legislation Advisory Committee.
"We opposed it then and it didn't go any further then ... the thing about it is it is very divisive, the number of submissions against it is extraordinary, it challenges the numbers that came out against the minister's Treaty Principles Bill."
Palmer said the Regulatory Standards Bill is just as unsound as that was.
He said the bill upsets the way Parliament currently operates and that is based on the ability to interfere with the present legislative process "by putting a supremo minister over the top of it".
The bill takes away the capacity of portfolio ministers to be responsible for the regulatory features of bills that they design, introduce and administer, Palmer said.
"That in turn, reduces the accountability of those ministers and splits it between them and this other supremo minister and it is going to be a complete shambles.
"It is going to make the job of the Parliament much more difficult than it is now."
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
