Act’s Regulatory Standards Bill: protecting liberties – or tying the government’s hands?

Supporters and opponents of the bill face off

Summary:

• Supporters of Act’s proposed bill argue it is a mere “transparency” measure that will increase pressure on governments to draft better laws and respect liberties

• Opponents believe the threshold that new laws would have to meet is so high that a “chilling” effect would prevent social and environmental regulation in the public interest

• Until the actual text of the bill is published, significant uncertainty will persist over the key questions, including what counts as taking “property” and whether lawsuits will ensue

Enhancing transparency, or creating a chill?

While attention has been focused on Act’s Treaty Principles Bill, relatively little has been given to another of the party’s proposals that, according to its opponents, will have even more far-reaching – and negative – impacts.

This absence of debate was partially remedied by an event at St Peter’s Church in Wellington last week, in which proponents and opponents of the Regulatory Standards Bill faced off. While the text of the bill itself has not been published, a discussion document, issued over the summer, contains strong clues as to its likely contents.

The father of the bill speaks

Defending the proposals was the New Zealand Initiative’s Bryce Wilkinson, widely acknowledged (including in the discussion document) as the bill’s intellectual originator. He argued the bill would be “a simple transparency measure” with no coercive force. It would set out what he regarded as “long-recognised legal and economic principles” of good regulation-making, including that laws should protect the dignity of the individual, operate on a presumption of liberty, and protect people’s “peaceful enjoyment” of their own property.