While political noise swirls around co-governance and fast-track laws, another bill — quieter but arguably more powerful — is making its way through Parliament: the Regulatory Standards Bill, spearheaded by ACT leader and Minister for Regulation David Seymour. And despite the predictable outrage from the usual suspects, this legislation could finally force our lawmakers to do something revolutionary: justify their decisions.
What’s the Bill About?
In short, the bill lays out “principles of responsible regulation” — things like respecting property rights, not arbitrarily interfering in contracts, and making sure laws actually solve the problems they claim to. It would require ministers to explain whether their new policies align with these principles. If they don’t? They’d have to publicly say why.
That’s not tyranny. That’s transparency.
Who’s Backing It?
It turns out, quite a few people in the legal and regulatory world support the idea of holding ministers accountable:
Bryce Wilkinson from the New Zealand Initiative says it promotes good lawmaking and economic efficiency — long-overdue in a country with a growing web of red tape.
Regulatory law experts and policy commentators note the bill reinforces the rule of law and encourages sound, evidence-based policy, rather than rushed ideological pet projects.
Even those critical of the bill's execution concede it has a “toothless tiger” quality — meaning it’s not draconian, but rather a framework to lift the standard of New Zealand’s law-making.
And David Seymour himself puts it bluntly: “It’s about making politicians stop and think before they bulldoze rights and freedoms with regulation they can’t explain.”
Why the Backlash?
Opponents argue the bill might “undermine Parliament’s sovereignty” or that it excludes Treaty obligations. But let’s be honest these are the same complaints raised whenever transparency threatens the opaque machinery of bureaucracy.
The truth? The bill doesn’t prevent Parliament from passing laws. It asks politicians to think, explain, and own their decisions. That’s hardly radical unless you’re used to hiding behind the fog of urgency motions and ideologically driven shortcuts.
Let’s Be Real
New Zealand’s regulatory system has ballooned into a bloated mess. Vague goals, rushed bills, and inconsistent enforcement are becoming the norm. The Regulatory Standards Bill doesn’t solve everything but it forces a moment of clarity. A pause. A reason. A check.
And if a minister can’t explain why a law is needed, or how it stacks up with basic principles like fairness, non-discrimination, and cost-effectiveness maybe that law shouldn’t exist.
Final Word
Love him or hate him, David Seymour might be onto something. The Regulatory Standards Bill isn't about slowing down government it's about cleaning it up.
Accountability isn’t authoritarian. It’s democratic. And it’s long overdue.
Let the ministers read the fine print because the public finally will.
In short, the bill lays out “principles of responsible regulation” — things like respecting property rights, not arbitrarily interfering in contracts, and making sure laws actually solve the problems they claim to. It would require ministers to explain whether their new policies align with these principles. If they don’t? They’d have to publicly say why.
That’s not tyranny. That’s transparency.
Who’s Backing It?
It turns out, quite a few people in the legal and regulatory world support the idea of holding ministers accountable:
Bryce Wilkinson from the New Zealand Initiative says it promotes good lawmaking and economic efficiency — long-overdue in a country with a growing web of red tape.
Regulatory law experts and policy commentators note the bill reinforces the rule of law and encourages sound, evidence-based policy, rather than rushed ideological pet projects.
Even those critical of the bill's execution concede it has a “toothless tiger” quality — meaning it’s not draconian, but rather a framework to lift the standard of New Zealand’s law-making.
And David Seymour himself puts it bluntly: “It’s about making politicians stop and think before they bulldoze rights and freedoms with regulation they can’t explain.”
Why the Backlash?
Opponents argue the bill might “undermine Parliament’s sovereignty” or that it excludes Treaty obligations. But let’s be honest these are the same complaints raised whenever transparency threatens the opaque machinery of bureaucracy.
The truth? The bill doesn’t prevent Parliament from passing laws. It asks politicians to think, explain, and own their decisions. That’s hardly radical unless you’re used to hiding behind the fog of urgency motions and ideologically driven shortcuts.
Let’s Be Real
New Zealand’s regulatory system has ballooned into a bloated mess. Vague goals, rushed bills, and inconsistent enforcement are becoming the norm. The Regulatory Standards Bill doesn’t solve everything but it forces a moment of clarity. A pause. A reason. A check.
And if a minister can’t explain why a law is needed, or how it stacks up with basic principles like fairness, non-discrimination, and cost-effectiveness maybe that law shouldn’t exist.
Final Word
Love him or hate him, David Seymour might be onto something. The Regulatory Standards Bill isn't about slowing down government it's about cleaning it up.
Accountability isn’t authoritarian. It’s democratic. And it’s long overdue.
Let the ministers read the fine print because the public finally will.
Source: Facebook
************************
Let the People Speak (Finally): The Māori Ward Referenda They Never Wanted You to Have - Steven Mark Gaskell
After years of being told "you just wouldn't understand," ratepayers across New Zealand are finally being allowed a say in whether their local councils should divide representation based on race.
Thanks to new legislation from the coalition government, any Māori ward introduced without public approval since 2020 must now face a binding referendum this October.
Democracy — that old relic — is back in fashion, and suddenly some local elites are panicking at the idea of ordinary citizens making decisions again.
These referenda matter because they strike at the heart of a simple principle: equality before the law.
For too long, councils have been slipping in Māori wards without public debate, hiding behind “consultation” processes that were anything but inclusive. Now the same people who celebrated “diverse voices” being heard seem oddly quiet when it’s the majority's voice on the ballot.
Source: Facebook
1 comment:
There’s no way I would ever support a Maori ward. I’m looking forward to the outcomes of the elections in the areas that hold them. I strongly suspect that most people won’t support them either.
Post a Comment