Vocal critics claim that the Bill improperly elevates selected legal and constitutional principles. The subjects of their ire include the principles of the rule of law, equality before the law, personal liberty and property rights.
One misunderstanding is that this elevation undermines the scope for collective action. To the contrary, these principles accept that Parliamentary law is sovereign. Parliament can over-ride any of guiding principles at will. But it should make it clear that it is doing so.
The Bill itself is a mild transparency measure. It aims to make departures from these principles more visible to Parliament and the public. As before, Parliament does not have to take any notice.
Some opponents disparage the principles as ‘novel’. Actually, they form the bedrock of our common law heritage.
This is not a partisan view. Cabinet’s Legislation Guidelines since 2001 have stressed their fundamental nature.
Hansard 2011 provides another example. It records Labour MP Charles Chauval’s speech on the first reading of an earlier version of the current Bill. His overall assessment was that these principles were "incontrovertible" and "the basis on which the legal system rests."
The Bill itself is a mild transparency measure. It aims to make departures from these principles more visible to Parliament and the public. As before, Parliament does not have to take any notice.
Some opponents disparage the principles as ‘novel’. Actually, they form the bedrock of our common law heritage.
This is not a partisan view. Cabinet’s Legislation Guidelines since 2001 have stressed their fundamental nature.
Hansard 2011 provides another example. It records Labour MP Charles Chauval’s speech on the first reading of an earlier version of the current Bill. His overall assessment was that these principles were "incontrovertible" and "the basis on which the legal system rests."
- On the particulars, the legally-qualified Chauval said that:
- "obviously, legislation should be consistent with the rule of law”;
- it “should not adversely affect rights and liberties or impose obligations retrospectively”;
- “every person should be equal before the law”; and,
- with respect to the Bill’s compensation principle ─ when property rights are taken or impaired ─ “[a]gain no one who has studied our constitution would find that surprising”.
Most people would agree that Parliamentary law should accord with sound legal and constitutional principles, where possible. Each law passed should plausibly make or allow New Zealanders to be better off overall.
Existing Cabinet instructions have long imposed these tests for new laws and regulations. This structure is not novel.
The problem is inadequate compliance. The government of the day always has a temptation to conceal information about a measure that might be a bit embarrassing. Passing bills under urgency is a red flag in this respect.
The Regulatory Standards Bill’s modest aim is to make wilful lack of disclosure harder. It gives Parliament and the public more clout.
It should not be needed, but it is needed.
Dr Bryce Wilkinson is a Senior Fellow at The New Zealand Initiative, Director of Capital Economics, and former Director of the New Zealand Treasury. His articles can be seen HERE. - where this article was sourced.
1 comment:
I salute the ideas behind the Regulatory Standards Bill. I liked the fiscal responsibility legislation too, but it seems to have been sidelined if not ignored. For example we now have the spurious obegalX (a disappointing, Robertson-style sleight of hand measure) while debt continues to grow and the likes of RNZ’s taxpayer funding for bias is merely tickled with a wet bus ticket. Do Regulatory Standards really stand any chance of making a difference? Hoping for better is beginning to feel like the definition of insanity.
Post a Comment