That is roughly what happened when New Zealand’s Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) was asked about new transparency requirements.
The story begins with the Government’s Regulatory Standards Bill – a coalition agreement measure. MBIE, the department responsible for regulatory policy, was asked to brief its Minister.
The Bill proposes something straightforward: when ministers introduce new laws, they should tell Parliament whether those laws comply with well-established legal principles – like clarity, rationality, respect for property rights – and explain any departures.
This approach is not revolutionary. These principles are already embedded in Cabinet guidelines and regulatory impact frameworks. The Bill's aim is to ensure some of the most fundamental of those principles are not quietly ignored.
MBIE’s response was extraordinary. Internal documents released under the Official Information Act this week show officials claimed implementing the Bill would require up to 285 new staff costing $34 million. Radio New Zealand reported MBIE warning of “continuing embarrassment for Ministers” – essentially admitting many future laws would fail basic standards.
The cost estimates are also absurd. MBIE’s workforce doubled from 3,300 to over 6,600 between 2017 and 2023. Yet when asked to explain whether regulations comply with fundamental legal principles – which should be routine – MBIE’s response was not redeployment, efficiency, or streamlining. It was to bid for hundreds more staff.
Worse, when MBIE’s advice was requested through the Official Information Act, the department blacked out nearly everything – not just recommendations, but headings and summaries. A department warning about the dangers of transparency could not even be transparent about its own advice.
The real issue with the Regulatory Standards Bill is not that ministers might be embarrassed. It is that MBIE sees the Bill as a problem rather than progress. But if proposed laws regularly fail to meet basic standards, surely we should know about it?
Good regulation requires more than rules on paper. It requires a culture that values openness. When the department meant to champion these values treats accountability as an existential threat, it is not the transparency requirements that need rethinking – it is the culture itself.
Roger Partridge is chairman and a co-founder of The New Zealand Initiative and is a senior member of its research team. He led law firm Bell Gully as executive chairman from 2007 to 2014. This article was first published HERE
The Bill proposes something straightforward: when ministers introduce new laws, they should tell Parliament whether those laws comply with well-established legal principles – like clarity, rationality, respect for property rights – and explain any departures.
This approach is not revolutionary. These principles are already embedded in Cabinet guidelines and regulatory impact frameworks. The Bill's aim is to ensure some of the most fundamental of those principles are not quietly ignored.
MBIE’s response was extraordinary. Internal documents released under the Official Information Act this week show officials claimed implementing the Bill would require up to 285 new staff costing $34 million. Radio New Zealand reported MBIE warning of “continuing embarrassment for Ministers” – essentially admitting many future laws would fail basic standards.
The cost estimates are also absurd. MBIE’s workforce doubled from 3,300 to over 6,600 between 2017 and 2023. Yet when asked to explain whether regulations comply with fundamental legal principles – which should be routine – MBIE’s response was not redeployment, efficiency, or streamlining. It was to bid for hundreds more staff.
Worse, when MBIE’s advice was requested through the Official Information Act, the department blacked out nearly everything – not just recommendations, but headings and summaries. A department warning about the dangers of transparency could not even be transparent about its own advice.
The real issue with the Regulatory Standards Bill is not that ministers might be embarrassed. It is that MBIE sees the Bill as a problem rather than progress. But if proposed laws regularly fail to meet basic standards, surely we should know about it?
Good regulation requires more than rules on paper. It requires a culture that values openness. When the department meant to champion these values treats accountability as an existential threat, it is not the transparency requirements that need rethinking – it is the culture itself.
Roger Partridge is chairman and a co-founder of The New Zealand Initiative and is a senior member of its research team. He led law firm Bell Gully as executive chairman from 2007 to 2014. This article was first published HERE
5 comments:
Qualities like clarity, rationality, respect for property rights are the very things that the bureaucrats, the msm and Labour, the Greens and TPM hate. If everything was clear and rational it would show up their incompetence and the wasting of taxpayers' money. If Luxon had any spine, he would have cut MBIE back down to its 2017 numbers and then demand that they perform.
Wow! If ever a swamp needed draining!
News Flash . MBIE to be disbanded by end of August 2025 . Food parcels will be available for those who survive reality.
My understanding is that MBIE has such a wide remit that it isn't responsible to anyone minister, but several depending on which part of its empire you are talking about. So, in reality, it is actually responsible to none.
This whole department has become and evil octopus, with tentacles ranging throughout the public service. The simplist answer would be to shut it down. Return the responsibilities to the departments they were originally usurped from, then can the more than 6000 staff.
Hard not to concur with all the above comments or what Roger has imparted here. A quick look at wiki shows that the Ministry 'serves' 21 portfolios, 19 ministers and 2 parliamentary under-secretaries. CXH above is 100% correct, Sir Humphrey of "Yes Minister" fame would have been proud to have been involved with such a melee of diverse, obfuscatory responsibilities. Far from expansion to 'cope with the Reg Stds Bill' ramifications, it needs an immediate rationalisation - aka mass sacking event and an immediate refocus on core requirements - such as those laid out in David Seymour's Bill.
Post a Comment