Regulatory Standards Bill could cost up to $60 million a year
And even the most conservative estimates of $18 million a year from Treasury misses the mark i.e. Treasury says most costs are yet to be accounted for
ACT’s “dangerous” Regulatory Standards Bill could cost taxpayers up to $60 million a year upfront, according to Treasury advice released to The Post, under OIA.
Even at the most conservative estimate, $18 million a year, Treasury acknowledges there are significant ongoing costs that are still unaccounted for.
In other words, it’ll be more expensive than you can imagine.
And remember this is just for administration.
But that’s not all -
Government wants governments to find these “savings” from existing budget - which means more job cuts and reduced services.
Andrea Vance reports:
The new Regulatory Standards Board would also cost up to $1.17m a year. Treasury questions the value for money noting that the minister already has power to trigger reviews.
In other words, this is an artificially contrived issue that serves no obvious function or requirement.
And it will cost us a lot.
Coming back to the $60 million -
Dr
1 once showed us what $6 million represents, so let’s look at it ten-fold:What we can do with $60 million a year
In Education
Fund 900 additional teachers, helping to ease workload pressures and reduce class sizes.
Provide 120,000 Chromebooks to close digital access gaps.
Covered 7,500 full first-year teaching scholarships, addressing a growing teacher shortage.
In Health
Enable 300,000 free GP visits, supporting those who currently defer care due to cost.
Deliver 40,000 counselling or therapy packages for young people in crisis.
Pay for 30,000 ADHD or neurodiversity diagnostic assessments (at approx. $2,000 each)—giving clarity and support to families stuck on long public waitlists or priced out of private diagnosis altogether.
In Housing
Built 200 new state homes, offering secure shelter in the middle of a worsening housing crisis.
Repair and insulat hundreds of damp homes, reducing preventable hospital admissions.
Dementia
Fully fund and implement the Dementia Mate Action Plan 2020 - 20252
Provide almost half of the support requested by Dementia NZ and Alzheimers NZ to extend their support and services to another 30,000 dementia patients,
Provide more than 171,400 respite bed nights at $350 per person per night for dementia-level care to give unpaid family carers a necessary break
Even David Seymour’s Ministry of Regulation says the RSB is a waste of space, and isn’t needed, and that there are more efficient and effective mechanisms to address any other aspects.
So why is ACT so desperately driving it, supported by National and NZ First?
Today I saw news that Anna Mowbray and Ali William’s Auckland helipad was approved despite widespread community uproar. The pair were so confident they didn’t even bother turning up to the hearing last month.
But the real point is this -
The Regulatory Standards Bill will mean that no pesky involvement from the community should ever occur again under such a scenario in a RSB regime.
Peter Thiel will be able to build bunkers wherever he wants, and McDonalds will be able to plant its flag wherever it deems it will make the most money. The community won’t even be consulted, let alone have a chance to speak up or be heard.
Kiwis can suck it for all they care - and these scenarios will never end.
The Regulatory Standards Bill is a retrospective bill, which means it’s a smoking gun over NZ taxpayers and politicians for a long time.
“Dangerous” doesn’t even come close, in my view.
But it will please some people a little too much.
PS Official advice also confirms the warnings we’ve heard to date from legal, environmental and health experts.
The bill would have a “chilling effect” on useful legislation. It would expose taxpayers and ratepayers to pay polluters. It would undermine any efforts to protect the environment or heed community concerns. It would adversely impact infrastructure programs and a growth agenda etc.
Related Reading:
Why Silicon Valley billionaires are prepping for the apocalypse in New Zealand
Source: Paul Singh
It's easy to blame David Seymour for doing this, fair too as it's his agenda, but the real villains are the National Party, Christopher Luxon, who enabled him.
Does this seem (RSB) familiar?
"And the real point of DOGE is not to save American taxpayers money. It’s a fundamental re-writing of the social contract, the relationship of US citizens to the state, and the state to private enterprise."
https://broligarchy.substack.com/p/the-dark-lord-of-silicon-valley?
When reading about the RSB, I was thinking a lot about the Australian movie "The Castle": A feel-good story about a hard-working family close to loosing their cherished home via Compulsory Acquisition to make space for an airport extension (Melbourne). In the happy end they win at the Supreme Court in Canberra because their lawyer successfully argued that "you can buy a house, but not a home"; A home has additional values than just a monetary value (property). The "dickheads" - expensive lawyers for the airport - lost.
For people like David Seymour it is a horror movie and everything must be done that the "little man" will never win against "big corporations" - his (overseas) sponsors - ever again.
For NZ, as a country, the RSB is designed to ensure only "property", I prefer the term "capital", is considered. No additional values, like society, education, healthcare, environment, art, culture... all those great achievements of civilisation meaningless to the heartless and soulless people like David Seymour and his minions. What a sad place to live in.