It also sets up a Regulatory Standards Board which would assess current laws for their adherence to the principles.<\/p>\n
Its critics say the principles are ideological, could favour big corporations, and would add delays and cost to lawmaking.<\/p>\n
Changes were made to the bill after the select committee process \u2013 but constitutional experts have warned the changes do little to address the bill\u2019s failings and the ideological way it\u2019s written mean it\u2019s unlikely to have lasting impact.<\/p>\n
Act leader David Seymour on the bill<\/p>\n
The bill\u2019s primary champion, David Seymour, argued in his speech in the final reading in Parliament the legislation was about avoiding putting the costs of law changes on regular people.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf you want to pursue some cause, then you need to be open about whether it is going to impact people\u2019s value that they get from their property and the value they get from their time,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe costs of the restrictions are immense and they are felt throughout our society,\u201d he said \u2013 giving the examples of teachers who he said complained they only ended up filling out forms and complying with bureaucracy, or builders who complained it took longer to get permission to build something than to actually build it.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhere this bill leads us is a more respectful and more civilised society.\u201d<\/p>\n
He said the bill\u2019s critics \u201chave been many, but in my view poorly informed\u201d, arguing principles missing from the bill could still be pursued \u201cthrough collective action\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe point of the Regulatory Standards Act and its principles is to identify the costs of those laws and those collective projects on individuals.\u201d<\/p>\n
Repeal guaranteed – Labour<\/p>\n
Labour\u2019s justice spokesperson Duncan Webb promised Labour would repeal it within 100 days if it won the next election.<\/p>\n
He said the bill\u2019s critics were \u201coverwhelming\u201d rather than \u201cmany\u201d, and the bill was wasteful and unnecessarily duplicated existing processes.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt seeks to put in place a set of far-right values that come out of a theory of economics which basically says the most important right is the right to private property \u2013 it throws aside every other right we hold dear.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat it amounts to is baking in a libertarian set of values into our lawmaking process … yes, we can do it better \u2013 we can do better regulatory impact statements, we can do better departmental disclosure statements \u2013 but what we don\u2019t need is another piece of paper … that public servants have to go and undertake.\u201d<\/p>\n
He argued the bill would mean hand-picked public servants second-guessing the work of Parliament.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is the place for deliberation, this is the place for scrutiny, this is the place for examination \u2013 and to say that there is another group of people who you have no control over, unelected people, it\u2019s fundamentally undemocratic.\u201d<\/p>\n
The final irony of the bill, he said, was that it did not follow the proper rules for lawmaking, with \u201cdeeply flawed and skewed\u201d public consultation, a failure to consult M\u0101ori and had a regulatory impact statement that fell short of Treasury\u2019s requirements.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe idea that he stands up and says \u2018I\u2019ve got this great piece of legislation about regulatory quality\u2019 when he doesn\u2019t follow his own rules about regulatory quality is outrageous.\u201d<\/p>\n
The party\u2019s MP Deborah Russell said it was \u201codious\u201d and again promised to repeal it within 100 days of the next Labour government.<\/p>\n
Cockroaches and rats – Greens<\/p>\n
Green MP Tamatha Paul said the bill was like a cockroach \u2013 \u201cwe keep stamping it out but it just won\u2019t die\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cThey tried this three times before … and every single time it failed. They tried it again with the Treaty Principles Bill and what happened with that … it got chucked in the bin.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe danger in this bill is not actually in how damaging it will be … the danger of this bill is how eyewateringly boring and technical it is so that most of the general public aren\u2019t necessarily paying attention to the consequences.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat\u2019s how a cockroach lives, isn\u2019t it \u2013 in the dark, in the night, not in broad daylight being clear about the intentions of what they hope to achieve.<\/p>\n
\u201cOr maybe it\u2019s like a rat … you see one, you think that\u2019s it, there\u2019s 20 more where that came from.\u201d<\/p>\n
She said the bill\u2019s intention was erasing the Treaty of Waitangi, ransacking the environment and putting corporate greed over the public good.<\/p>\n
Paul harked back to a time in New Zealand when everyone could get good healthcare, a public education was available to all, university-level training was free, and parents could stay home and raise their children.<\/p>\n
M\u0101ori Development Minister \u2018didn\u2019t know it was happening today\u2019<\/p>\n
Heading into the debating chamber, M\u0101ori Development Minister Tama Potaka said he was unaware the bill\u2019s third reading was set down for later in the day.<\/p>\n
\u201cDidn\u2019t know it was happening today but it was foreshadowed through a coalition agreement, it\u2019s happening today and I\u2019m sure minister Seymour will carry it through.\u201d<\/p>\n
He acknowledged it was a big deal to M\u0101ori, but it was among \u201ca lot of confronting challenges in front of us right now, and the most important of which is the cost of living and the economic challenges\u201d.<\/p>\n
He said he hoped the passing of the bill would lead to improved regulatory oversight without being overbearing \u2013 but asked if he expected that would be the case said he did and that\u2019s what it had been set up to do.<\/p>\n
\u201cAnd if it isn\u2019t, well, we\u2019re going to have to look at it again.\u201d<\/p>\n
Asked if he welcomed the bill, he said, \u201coh, no, I support the coalition agreement and this has come out of the coalition agreement and I stand by minister Seymour and others as a result of that\u201d.<\/p>\n
Pushed on whether that meant he supported it, he only said: \u201cI\u2019m willing to say that this is a bill the coalition agrees to, I\u2019m part of the coalition, I\u2019m part of the National Party, and we support this agreement.\u201d<\/p>\n
– RNZ<\/p>\n