Jones explained to RNZ <\/a>that at the time of coalition negotiations, the RSB was intended to be subject to a referendum, saying, \u201cWe could have argued incessantly \u2026 on the question of what bill did we think we were agreeing to?\u201d<\/p>\n Meanwhile, Newsroom reported <\/a>\u00a0that although Act has made some concessions \u2013 understood to not alter the overall fabric of the bill \u2013 NZ First and National had not secured all the changes they sought.\u00a0<\/p>\n A curse for NZ First?<\/p>\n Whether the RSB\u2019s core principles have been changed remains unclear. As drafted, they would entrench Act Party values as the benchmark against which all government legislation is measured.<\/p>\n Although parliament would remain free to legislate outside these principles, the bill creates multiple layers of soft power that would pressure governments to increasingly conform to them.<\/p>\n Jones made no secret of his distaste for the RSB, warning, \u201cIt has the capacity to be meddled with by the judiciary and turned into something in the future that will be akin to a curse.\u201d<\/p>\n That remark may prove prophetic \u2013 but not in the way he meant. The RSB is likely to become a curse for NZ First, not in some distant courtroom battle, but as early as next year, when David Seymour and the Regulatory Standards Board begin wielding the powers it would grant them.<\/p>\n The bill hands Act the stage, spotlight and script, empowering it to formally judge policy against its own values and mount taxpayer-funded critiques that undercut coalition ministers and other parties\u2019 policies. If National and NZ First have a different vision, it seems odd to let Act set the regulatory standard \u2013 leaving others constantly defending their divergence.<\/p>\n From anti-neoliberal roots to neoliberal complicity?<\/p>\n New Zealand First was founded on a platform opposing the neoliberal reforms of the 1980s and early 1990s. Peters\u2019 public address at the party\u2019s recent convention began with a clip from its launch, declaring, \u201cLadies and gentlemen, we are going to take our country and our democracy back.\u201d<\/p>\n The RSB began as a project of the Business Roundtable \u2013 a key advocate of neoliberal reforms \u2013 and recent OIA releases reveal<\/a> the current version was influenced by a senior fellow of its successor organisation, the New Zealand Initiative, including lobbying informed by overseas libertarian ideals.<\/p>\n The documents show that Bryce Wilkinson \u2013 the author of the original bill for the Business Roundtable in 2001 \u2013 lobbied the Ministry for Regulation extensively with the work of Richard A Epstein, a fringe American legal scholar and libertarian thinker associated with multiple right-wing think-tanks.<\/p>\n The Business Roundtable had previously acknowledged that the bill was grounded in Epstein\u2019s doctrine of \u201cregulatory takings\u201d. If the RSB is passed in its current form, we would be the first country in the world to embed this radical doctrine<\/a> into domestic law.\u00a0<\/p>\n Despite its strong property rights, New Zealand was seen by Epstein as lacking formal constitutional protections for property and placing all legal power in the hands of the sovereign, thus providing an opportunity to implement his theory without navigating constitutional hurdles.<\/p>\nShane Jones isn\u2019t listening to the haters. (Image: The Spinoff)<\/p>\n
Winston Peters, Christopher Luxon and David Seymour. (Image Tina Tiller)<\/p>\n