Damien Grant: ‘Regulatory Standards Bill’s a missed chance at real reform’

Why do we pass laws? Presumably, we do so to achieve some outcome. To change what people are doing outside the refined atmosphere of the debating chamber. For the better, one assumes.

Not all laws do that. We once had a law that made homosexual relationships between men illegal and punishable with imprisonment. We currently have laws making it a crime to burn the dried leaves of certain plants and inhale the smoke and recently parliament passed a ridiculous law that banned wearing the image of a British bulldog in some settings.

Unfortunately, bad laws have negative impacts; where the cost imposed by the legislation outweigh the proposed benefit. Think of the law banning cannabis. What are we trying to achieve; and once we define that, what are the costs of prohibition?

Readers will have different subjective views on the wisdom of this policy, but shouldn’t our MPs consider both the costs of a law as well as the advantages? We banned the sale of pseudoephedrine because someone was worried that kids were getting high after criminal gangs were buying the stuff in bulk and manufacturing methamphetamine.

Eventually the state (or more accurately, Act) realised that criminal gangs worked out a substitution and the only effect was the general public was denied the only effective medication for hay fever and nasal congestion.

Now. Maybe the cost was worth the benefit, but there was little consideration of the negative impact when the law was changed back in 2011.

David Seymour at a stand up speaking on the Regulatory Standards Bill.

Which brings me to today’s topic de jour: The Regulatory Standards Bill that is generating some controversy. So much so that, reluctantly, I decided to read it.

I was disappointed. Accordingly to Dame Anne Salmond, the bill “...seeks to put in place a set of principles, largely inspired by libertarian ideals, that would serve as a benchmark against which most new and existing legislation must be tested”

Labour icon Willie Jackson has be so trenchant in his condemnation that I assumed that bill would finally allow for child labour laws to be scrapped and the advertising of tobacco would be reinstated.

Sadly. No. The bill is much more mundane than critics maintain and achieves less than its proponents may wish for it.

The origins of this bill can be found in the Key government, who, prompted by Rodney Hide, commissioned Treasury to look into a mechanism for improving both legislation and regulation; to see if there was some bi-partisan approach to improving the quality of laws.

Treasury came up with a set of principles, almost identical to those in Seymour’s bill. Laws and regulations would be assessed by these principles and, if found wanting, a report would be written.

That’s about it. Parliament can still pass any law it wants. Regulations requiring the compulsory acquisition of land without compensation could still be enforced. But now there would be paperwork outlining where these laws and regulations deviated from the principles.

And the principles are mostly unexceptional. Almost banal. Things like “legislation should be expected to produce benefits that exceed the costs of the legislation to the public or persons” and “The law should be clear and accessible.”

“Labour icon Willie Jackson has be so trenchant in his condemnation that I assumed that bill would finally allow for child labour laws to be scrapped and the advertising of tobacco would be reinstated.”ROBERT KITCHIN / THE POST

There are, however, a few that have created heartburn; such as the requirement that legislation should not impair a person's property without good justification and fair compensation, and another that states, “Legislation should not unduly diminish a person's liberty, personal security, freedom of choice...”. You get the idea.

The bill also sets up a Regulatory Standards Board to review existing regulations against the principles with the intention of making recommendations to improve the existing regulatory burden. Unfortunately, this initiative, unlike other Act achievements such as the Super City and voluntary euthanasia, will not survive a change in political fortunes.

This is a shame and a missed opportunity. During the recent NZ Initiative junket to the Netherlands, if readers will excuse me mining this trip again for column ideas with the same regularity that American Pie scriptwriters reached for Band Camp, we heard from the head of the Dutch Advisory Board.

This is an uncontroversial quango that looks at existing and proposed laws and regulations through a simple metric; what does this cost against what does it benefit? They are not political and their advice can be rejected, and sometimes is, but the effect is a change in mindset.

The Regulatory Standards Bill has become captured by politics. Act has to shoulder the responsibility for this by including provisions that allow their opponents to deliberately misinterpret the intent and impact of the legislation and mark it down for repeal rather than become part of the constitutional architecture, such as the Fiscal Responsibility Act and the Reserve Bank’s independence.

This government has some outstanding ministers who wish to leave office having made a permanent difference. Achieving this requires more than changing laws. It involves changing the cultural outlook of the bureaucracy and the electorate and doing so in the face of a hostile academic and intellectual class often supported by the fourth estate.....The full article is published HERE

Damien Grant is an Auckland business owner, a member of the Taxpayers’ Union and a regular opinion contributor for Stuff, writing from a libertarian perspective