8% ACT Party Creates One Ring To Rule Them All
A Quick Read
In August, I wrote an article about David Seymour1 with a video of his testimony, to warn that there were grave dangers to his Ministry of Regulation:
David Seymour's Ministry of Slush Hides Far Greater Risks
Why Seymour's exorbitant waste of taxpayers' money could be the least of concern
The money for Seymour (~$230mn) is a rub, but there’s something more jarring hidden in the Ministry of Regulation remit
Seymour —
“In some ways, this (Ministry) is a giant exercise in allowing voters to identify bad regulation so we can stop making it, so we can delete it, so we can get rid of it, so people can spend more time doing transformational activity.”
I wasn’t far off with the warnings.
Melanie Nelson recently wrote an excellent summation about the rather boringly named “Regulatory Standards Bill” (RSB)2 - a piece of legislation invoked by Seymour as the partner to the Treaty Principles Bill.
She warns that while the pre-law bill has largely flown under the radar, its implications - and risks - are profound.
Jane Kelsey, Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Auckland has also highlighted its history, meaning and risks.
To summarise the impact of the RSB in my very simplistic layman terms:
It basically gives the Minister of Regulation extraordinary powers to decide which laws are “good”, which bills (laws) should be killed off or re-shaped before they even get off the ground, what principles all laws need to adhere to, and it also opens up our law-making process to significant manipulation and public pressure campaigns - the ones that ACT affiliates like multi-million dollar cashed up Taxpayers Union and Hobsons Pledge are most adept at.
In her article, Nelson highlights the creation of an effective “legal strait jacket” around our lawmakers and courts:
One made in the image of Atlas Network ideals - which are to my simplistic mind - free market is king, trickle down economics works and corporations & the wealthiest are supreme ideals - consistently hidden under the guise of “personal freedom”, “property rights” and “equality”.
Melanie already covered most of it in her article, but I want to highlight 4 significant points:
The Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB) will establish a regulatory standards board to keep the courts out of law-making3 That goes against the way our democratic systems are set up to balance power between our three branches of government: the Courts (Judiciary), the Executive, and the legislature (MPs) i.e. it’s a power grab that tears at our constitutional framework.
His law will allow libertarian ideals to be entrenched into law e.g. free market, pro-property, and those demonstrated by this Coalition government in practice i.e. anti-environmentalism, anti-Te-Tiriti, pro-property rights, pro-ownership rights, laws can not impose obligations retrospectively4 etc.
The power he gives himself is extraordinary in its scope and potential. For example, the Minister can direct a Board to investigate regulations (laws) that do not comply with Seymour’s defined criteria. Alternatively, the public - and pressure groups such as Taxpayers Union - can lobby for it.
The “regulation” he’s talking about is not simply second-tier regulations; the bill would impose its discipline on the drafting of statutes by ministers and MPs.5 i.e. drafting of bills to become law
Newsroom’s Jonathan Milne reported last month that a prior version of the Bill provided a role for the Courts.
That no longer exists.
This speaks to the brazenness of this government - as well as how weak we as the public are in the absence of significant public interest journalism6 and mouthpieces.
In Wellington last month, Seymour made the farcical, non-evidentiary claim that:
“New Zealand’s low wages can be blamed on low productivity, and low productivity can be blamed on poor regulation.”
No mention of how productivity genuinely improves - science, investment, technology, education, happiness, infrastructure, environment.
Finally, Seymour’s bill and his success relies on the opaque nature of the concepts he uses, an intellectually weak and morally vacuous PM and government Cabinet, and a weak and complicit media.
Seymour will be betting that through couching his legislation with positive words and claims, he can win the public relations battle on it e.g. Seymour claims his RSB will help promote “higher productivity, and higher wages” in NZ. Non-evidence and fact based claims are Seymour’s forte.
Without resources, money and mouthpieces, it’s hard to battle:
One ring to rule them all; Lord of the Rings.
One law to rule them all; Aotearoa New Zealand.
Written submissions on the Treaty Principles Bill close on 7 January, with consultation on the Regulatory Standards Bill ending on 13 January. No special expertise is required to make a simple submission on either Bill.
Related Articles:
No-one ever said David Seymour isn’t effective at meeting his goals with the significant resources at his disposal.
Pre-election, it was primarily donors like Atlas Network Alan Gibbs and Debbi Gibbs, operatives such as Jordan Williams’ Taxpayers Union, Wright Family funded Sean Plunkett, plus a home grown base of voters.
Post-election, it’s the above plus the government’s money i.e. taxpayers’ money and entire departments of public servants.
In case you’re wondering most bills (that metamorphise into laws with enough votes) do have boring sounding names.
For example, the offshore gas and mining repeal bill that this government rushed through with a 4 day submission period was called Crown Minerals Amendment Bill.
Newsroom Jonathan Milne: Powered-up Regulatory Standards Bill removes role of courts
Milne’s report in footnote 3 notes: “[Principles include] laws should be clear and accessible; they should not adversely affect rights and liberties, or impose obligations, retrospectively; there should be an independent, impartial judiciary – and Seymour’s regular refrain, every person is equal before the law.
The principles uphold the protection of personal liberty, security and property rights.”
Newsroom Jonathan Milne: Powered-up Regulatory Standards Bill removes role of courts
Stuff, NZME NZ Herald, Newstalk ZB, The Wright Family’s Sean Plunkett - none of these offer public interest journalism.
While the Bill itself makes me shiver, I am further chilled by how there seems to be a deliberate attempt to keep it under the radar. It does not appear in the list of Bills open for submissions on parliament's website, but needs to be accessed via the Ministry for Regulation (https://consultation.regulation.govt.nz/rsb/have-your-say-on-regulatory-standards-bill/consultation/intro/). The media, for the most part are silent on the matter. If anyone has any influence on MSM journalists, please ask them to report on whether National and NZ First support the Bill, how they voted at the last reading, what, if anything they would want changed in the current version, and whether they condone the absence of any values other than the dollar underpinning the Bill?
Thanks for this excellent summary. Although I know it's not exactly the same, I can't help but feel this might be our equivalent of what the "Citizens United" case was for the US. I'm sure a bill to, say, restrict the magnitude and influence of political donations would be considered an infringement of "liberty". And therefore bad for "productivity" somehow.
"Productivity", like a lot of economic concepts, is something I only vaguely understand. It, like GDP debt/tax limits, seems rather arbitrarily defined. I'm unsure why there's so much obsession with these and so little with *actual* biophysical planetary limits. The latter are, perhaps, less convenient. When many NACT voters think of productivity I expect they are just having their prejudices confirmed that other people don't work as hard as they do.