NZ (Commonwealth)_ The National Party-led coalition government in New Zealand, alongside the libertarian ACT Party, is drafting a controversial Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB) aimed at embedding far-right principles into governance. The bill seeks to restrict government regulations that could potentially impact private property rights, productivity, and profitability. Critics argue that the proposed legislation prioritizes corporate interests over societal and environmental well-being.
The ACT Party, despite securing only 8.6% of the vote in the 2023 election, has taken a significant role in shaping the government’s agenda. This includes advancing tax cuts for the wealthy, substantial reductions in public services, and undermining workers’ rights. Workplace Relations Minister Brooke Van Velden has already introduced anti-strike legislation and announced reductions to the minimum wage. The establishment of the Ministry for Regulation, under ACT leader David Seymour, underscores this agenda. The RSB’s principles will guide the ministry’s work in identifying and removing regulatory “red tape.”
Speaking to the Wellington Chamber of Commerce, Seymour criticized the costs of regulatory compliance, estimated at $5 billion in 2015, or 1.3% of GDP. He advocated for a return to the deregulation of the 1990s, a period marked by corporate tax reductions, privatization of state-owned enterprises, and significant cuts to social welfare and public education. The RSB aligns with longstanding demands from the business community, particularly the New Zealand Initiative, formerly known as the Business Roundtable.
Central to the RSB is the principle that legislation should not unduly diminish individual liberties, including property rights, unless necessary to safeguard others’ rights. Critics, including academics and environmental groups, contend that this principle disregards collective societal and environmental interests. For instance, regulations to curb deforestation or pollution might be deemed unnecessary if they do not directly infringe on individual liberties. Similarly, public health measures targeting junk food, alcohol, or tobacco could be seen as impinging on personal freedoms, despite their potential to improve societal health outcomes.
Another contentious aspect of the RSB is its approach to property rights. The draft principles mandate the justification of any property rights impairment and the provision of compensation to the affected owners. This could shift the burden of compensating businesses impacted by environmental or public safety regulations onto taxpayers. Public policy professor Jonathan Boston has criticized this approach, likening it to compensating slave owners for lost property rather than addressing the injustices endured by the enslaved.
The RSB also proposes stringent limitations on taxation and levies. Under its framework, levies would only be permissible if they directly benefit the payers or mitigate risks attributable to them. This could undermine existing levies, such as those funding the Accident Compensation Corporation, which supports individuals injured at work. Businesses might argue they derive no benefit from compensating injured workers, thereby challenging the validity of such levies.
Moreover, the bill introduces mechanisms for businesses to contest regulations deemed inconsistent with its principles. A Regulatory Standards Board would assess these complaints, and if a regulation is found lacking, the responsible minister would be required to justify any deviation from the RSB’s principles. This streamlined process could facilitate challenges to a wide array of regulations, further empowering corporate interests.
The RSB’s implications mirror a wider trend of social counter-revolution, systematically dismantling hard-won protections and rights. This shift parallels similar developments in other countries, where governments prioritize corporate and elite interests over public welfare. While the ACT Party’s Treaty Principles Bill has garnered significant media attention, critics argue this focus diverts attention from the far-reaching consequences of the RSB.
Opposition to the RSB has emerged, with Labour MP Duncan Webb labeling it a “power grab” that undermines the government’s ability to act in the public interest, particularly in addressing climate change and inequality. However, critics note the hypocrisy in such opposition, given Labour’s own history of promoting deregulation and neoliberal policies. From the 1980s onwards, successive Labour and National governments have facilitated the erosion of regulations, leading to disasters such as the 2011 CTV building collapse and the 2010 Pike River mine tragedy.
