The controversial bill is back before parliament this week, with a few changes, as David Seymour endeavours to get it passed before the end of the year.
This week, a controversial bill championed by Act leader David Seymour that has attracted vocal opposition will get its second reading in parliament. No, not the Treaty principles bill, which was voted down in April, but the Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB).
With a select committee report recommending the bill pass with some minor amendments – despite nearly 99% of submissions opposing it – parliament will have the chance to debate the RSB before it’s expected to pass, thanks to Act’s coalition deal with National and the begrudging support of New Zealand First. How long it will remain in force and how much impact it has will partly depend on next year’s election – all three opposition parties have pledged to repeal it.
Feel like you’ve missed a few chapters? Here’s all the latest.
It’s been 84 years … Can you brush me up on what this is, exactly?
Sure – the Regulatory Standards Bill is a longtime Act Party passion project, which seeks to shake up our lawmaking processes. The RSB’s official line is that it will ensure good lawmaking by reducing red tape and assessing legislation against its “principles of responsible regulation”, which include stringent protection of property rights, and a requirement to recognise that “every person is equal before the law”.
Act leader David Seymour is the RSB’s biggest champion.
Though subpart 5 of the bill clarifies that the RSB does not legally require compliance, many of the bill’s opponents argue that, over time, our courts will refer more and more to the bill as a how-to guide. It was thrice thwarted in the past, and despite 156,000 public submissions (98.7% of the total) to the select committee opposing it, the bill is destined to pass its third and final reading, which could happen by the end of the year.
Nearly 99% opposition? Why are we still bothering with this?
Because it’s in the National-Act coalition agreement, and a select committee is a government-led committee, dummy. Like most, the finance and expenditure committee – which heard oral submissions on the bill in July – has one more government MP than it does opposition MPs. So even if all opposition MPs on the committee oppose the bill (which they do), they’re still overpowered by the voice of the government MPs.
The Labour Party and Green Party offered a differing view in the select committee report – released in early October – which largely highlighted their concerns with the “ideologically driven” bill’s exclusion of te Tiriti, its environmental risks and its narrow principles. Labour criticised the bill’s stance on equality, writing, “we have increasingly recognised that treating everyone the same does not address existing disadvantages or systemic inequalities”.
And government MPs aren’t progressing it purely out of loyalty or blind faith. The report recommends an amendment to the bill to allow the governor-general to make appointments to the regulatory standards board, on the advice of regulations minister Seymour, to ensure independence. As the bill is currently written, Seymour has full control over regulatory standards board appointments – according to Newsroom, New Zealand First was behind the request for the amendment.
Coalition partners haven’t quite been able to see eye-to-eye over the bill. (Photo: Marty MELVILLE / AFP).
Hold the line – so NZ First isn’t fully into it?
Not fully, and they’ll be the biggest thorn in the bill’s side. Party leader Winston Peters has described the bill as a “work in progress”, while deputy leader Shane Jones labelled it a “significant departure from how things are at the moment” in interviews with Newsroom. At a party conference, Jones told supporters the bill has the potential to turn into a “curse” if it is “meddled” with by the judiciary.
The party is bound to passing it under their coalition agreement – but Peters has also said he is confident the bill could be amended to their liking.
OK, so what else did the select committee report suggest?
The report outlines a number of recommended amendments to the bill, some of which Seymour has taken on – on Monday, prime minister Christopher Luxon told The Spinoff that changes will only be made public when the bill returns to the House, but Seymour has described the recommendations as a “win-win”. On the bill’s principle that legislation should not take or impair property without the owner’s consent unless given justification or “fair compensation”, the committee has suggested this should only apply to “severe impairment”, rather than any kind. Though what counts as “severe” is still being worked out.
And though the RSB will exempt any primary or secondary legislation that gives effect to a Treaty settlement, the report states that this exemption isn’t clear enough within the bill. An amendment to the bill’s definitions of Treaty settlement “act” and “bill” has been suggested to ensure interpretations of the bill don’t end up including mātaitai reserves. As Newsroom notes, this amendment could contribute to acknowledgement of the narrow nature of the bill’s principles, and whether they should count as responsible lawmaking.
Select committee suggestions included handing RS board appointment powers to the governor-general, and clarifying the bill’s definition of Treaty settlement acts and bills.
There are also smaller suggestions, such as establishing the regulatory standards board midway through next year, rather than earlier. The committee also suggested, alongside the governor-general having appointment powers over the board, that a provision be inserted on the length of time the board’s chairperson can serve and how they may be removed. As the bill is currently written, Seymour has the power to remove any board member at his discretion – another suggested change wants the governor-general to hold power over this.
What will happen at the second reading?
The debate will open with Seymour speaking about the bill’s purpose. Opposition members will then have their chance to debate the bill’s principles, before the House votes on the bill’s passing. If it succeeds, the bill then gets nitpicked clause by clause with suggested amendments in the committee of the whole House, before heading to its third reading. If it doesn’t pass (very unlikely in these circumstances), it’s dead in the water.
Seymour has previously signalled his desire to pass the bill before the end of the year, and it’s possible this could be done, especially if the government works under urgency. The Spinoff has no intel on any planned or spontaneous haka taking place in the public gallery.