Anne Salmond: What's wrong with the Regulatory Standards Bill
Opinion: The Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB) is a dangerous piece of legislation, inspired by libertarian ideas that seek to free the flow of capital from democratic constraints.
In a number of respects, it expresses a contempt for collective rights and responsibilities, public goals and values, and liberal democracy.
First, it lacks a strong democratic mandate.
At the last election, Act was the only party to put forward such a proposal, and it won only 8.6 percent of the vote; 91.4 percent of voters did not support that party. This bill cannot remotely be taken to express 'the will of the people.'
Second, the majority party, National, agreed behind doors – despite its prior opposition for almost two decades – to support this proposal from a fringe party during coalition negotiations.
Like the Treaty Principles Bill, this undermines the principles of proportionality and accountability to the electorate on which the MMP electoral system is based. That, in turn, corrodes trust in democratic arrangements in New Zealand.
Third, the bill seeks to put in place a set of principles, largely inspired by libertarian ideals, that would serve as a benchmark against which most new and existing legislation must be tested.
These principles focus on individual rights and private property while ignoring collective rights and responsibilities and values such as minimising harm to human beings and the wider environment.
Fourth, this legislation is to be applied retrospectively, applying to all existing laws as well as most new laws and regulations. Rather than upholding sound law-making processes in New Zealand, it radically undermines them.
Fifth, the structures and processes this bill seeks to put in place are profoundly undemocratic.
It aims to establish a 'Regulatory Standards Board' selected by the Minister for Regulation, the Act leader, and accountable to him, with the legal right to initiate inquiries into all laws and regulations, past and present, that offend against Act's libertarian ideas.
This attempt to gain ideological oversight over the legislative and regulatory activities of all other ministers and government agencies constitutes a naked power grab. Such an arrangement is repugnant to democracy, and must not be allowed to proceed.
Sixth, as the minister's own officials and many others have pointed out, this bill is unnecessary.
Structures and processes to monitor and enhance the quality of laws and regulations already exist. These are accountable to Parliament, not to a particular minister, as is right and proper. They may be strengthened, as required, and must remain rigorously independent from any particular political party.
Seventh, there is little reason to trust the integrity of Act's professed intentions in relation to this bill.
Although it is claimed the Regulatory Standards Bill is designed to promote robust debate, rigorous scrutiny and sound democratic processes in law making in New Zealand, in practice, Act ignores these at will. The retrospective changes to pay equity legislation it promoted is a recent case in point.
Eighth, New Zealand already has too few checks and balances on executive power. The fact this bill, with its anti-democratic aspects and lack of an electoral mandate, is in front of a select committee demonstrates why constitutional reform to protect citizens from executive overreach is urgently needed.
Ninth, and perhaps worst, the practical effect of this bill attempts to tie the hands of the state in regulating private activities or initiatives that create public harm, by requiring those who benefit from laws or regulations to compensate others for the losses of profit that may arise.
As many experts have pointed out, under such an arrangement, taxpayers may be required to compensate tobacco companies for regulations that reduce their profits by seeking to minimise the negative health and economic impacts of smoking; mining, industrial forestry and other extractive industries for regulations that seek to minimise environmental harm and damage to communities; and many other activities in which capital seeks to profit at the expense of others.
The accumulation of wealth and power by the few at the expense of the many is precisely what is undermining other democracies around the world.
It is inimical to the very idea of democracy as government 'of the people, by the people, for the people,' in which governments are supposed to serve the interests of citizens, not of capital or corporations.
As social cohesion is undermined by radical inequality and an over-emphasis on private property and individual rights, the danger is that it tips over into anarchy; and by removing limits on the right to accumulate wealth and power at the expense of others, into oligarchy. We are seeing something like this in the United States at present.
Around the world, democracies that were once strong are collapsing. It is the responsibility of our Parliament to ensure that this does not happen here.
Act's attempt to paint this bill as an innocuous attempt to promote good law-making in the interests of citizens is disingenuous, and should be recognised as such.
Rather, this is a dangerous bill that attacks the fundamental rights of New Zealanders, and democratic principles. It must not be allowed to pass.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
a day ago
- Otago Daily Times
Arrest after woman found dead in Tūrangi
Labour has overtaken National as the party New Zealanders consider most able to handle the cost of living, according to the latest Ipsos Issues Monitor survey.
Otago Daily Times
a day ago
- Otago Daily Times
MPs scrutinise the cream cheese latte, among other things
Another Scrutiny Week is done and dusted, although some ministers and ministries came under more scrutiny than others. Take Associate Agriculture Minister Mark Patterson, for example. Under the benign and avuncular chairmanship of Waitaki National MP Miles Anderson, the biggest tension of Mr Patterson's appearance before the primary production select committee came even before proceedings began, from the revelation there was such a thing as a cream cheese latte. It would be fair to say this discovery divided MPs' opinions as much as the likes of the Treaty Principles Bill — and not down party lines either. The Taieri New Zealand First list MP's appearance was primarily with his Minister for Rural Communities hat on, although no appearance anywhere by Mr Patterson would be complete without a mention or two of wool. Of which, more shortly. Mr Patterson's opening remarks emphasised rural communities is not a Cinderella enterprise set up to keep a backbencher busy: last year it reviewed more than 120 Cabinet papers to advise how decisions might impact country folk, as well as engaging directly and regularly with 12 other ministries. Mr Patterson — a farmer himself — said the four main issues he had focused his team on were health, education, connectivity and law and order. Now, it can be argued they are almost everyone's four main areas, but not everyone lives up the road from a school, down the road from a medical centre, has ultra-fast broadband or is within minutes of a police station. "Rural communities is not all about agriculture, it is about the needs of about 860,000 people," Mr Patterson said. Wellbeing — in particular mental wellbeing — was a focus of Mr Patterson's presentation. In the recent Budget the Rural Wellbeing Fund received an extra $2 million to double its funding over the next four years, and the government also committed $3m to Rural Support Trusts. "They have proven their worth, not just during adverse events but also managing farmers facing mental health issues ... there is a real issue with isolation and the issues that come with that," Mr Patterson said. "The trusts have credibility and are well led, we have confidence in them ... a lot of this is driven by volunteers, it is genuine peer-to-peer, farmers talking to farmers. That's their secret sauce and it is us leaning into that and saying you have something here that works, what can we do to help it?" The previous week Mr Patterson, along with almost every MP, had been at the annual Field Days event in Hamilton. There he got to push many things, not the least of which was wool — he and Finance Minister Nicola Willis were there as the not at all coincidental announcement was made by Kainga Ora that it had signed a deal for wool carpets to be supplied to state houses. A week later, Mr Patterson was keen to stress this was likely to be only the start — which was music to the ears of committee members like Mr Anderson, who until entering politics was a sheep farmer. "There are 130 procurement arms in government so there is significant ability to be able to leverage government procurement to assist the wool industry," Mr Patterson said. Scrutiny Week is an innovation of this Parliament and in the run-up to last week's hearings each select committee released a report as to how members thought it was going. The primary production committee noted it had spent eight hours on estimates hearings in 2024-25, and under the previous regime it heard from the relevant ministers and officials for just four hours. Even more impressive was the amount of time spent on annual reviews — up from four hours to 13-14. "Our committee has enjoyed the opportunity Scrutiny Weeks provide to dedicate time to hearing from ministers or entities, with that being the only focus for the week," the report said. "It has meant that we get to drill down on particular matters of concern, current issues, and spending without having to squeeze this in around normal business. Being able to focus on scrutiny, and take our time with hearings, has made the process less challenging than the previous approach of scheduling scrutiny hearings within normal meeting times." So far so good, but not everyone was happy. Opposition MPs — some of whom seem to feel that scrutiny was invented just for them — have complained (and not just on primary production) that they are not getting enough time for supplementary questions. Although not endorsing the idea, the committee suggested consideration be given to having an Opposition MP become its chairperson for scrutiny hearings could help avoid that perception. The social services and community committee (chaired by National Southland MP Joseph Mooney) reported in a similar vein, saying it had also increased its time on scrutiny, but warning its workload was already considerable so it had not been feasible to double that allocation of time. The report also noted that while Mr Mooney had allocated the majority of questions to non-government MPs, "some of us consider that a culture shift is still needed to honour the Opposition's role in leading scrutiny of the executive". The committee resolved to "continue to reflect on this over the parliamentary term," although good luck coming up with a definitive answer. The general tenor of all the reports was in similar vein: great concept but needs some tweaking, which seems a fair call. Anything that obliges the government to fully explain what it is up, to to the people who put them there, is welcome accountability — but it only means something if the level of questioning actually makes someone accountable. In the meantime, cream cheese latte anyone?
Scoop
2 days ago
- Scoop
The Employment Relations Amendment Bill: A State-Sanctioned Assault On The Working Class
The National-ACT-New Zealand First coalition government's Employment Relations Amendment Bill (ERAB), will see a sweeping series of legislative changes that reshape the legal terrain of labour in Aotearoa. These changes, billed by the government as necessary for 'labour market flexibility' and 'economic growth,' represent a radical rollback of worker protections. Cloaked in technocratic language and presented as pragmatic reform, the bill in fact amounts to a systemic attack on organised labour, unionism, and the basic rights of working people. ERAB does not signal the failure of the state to protect workers, it reveals the true nature of the state itself. The bill should be understood not as a policy misstep, but as a calculated act of class warfare by a government acting as the political arm of capital. What the Bill Contains At the heart of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill lies a multi-pronged effort to deregulate labour protections and entrench power in the hands of employers. There are four major pillars to this legislative shift: The Introduction of a 'Contractor Gateway Test' The Limitation of Personal Grievance Remedies The Repeal of the 30-Day Rule for New Employees The Restoration of Employer Powers to Deduct Wages During Partial Strikes Each of these measures contributes to the erosion of worker autonomy and legal protections, and together they mark a sharp rightward shift in employment law—one that prioritises capital accumulation over dignity, security, or fairness. Institutionalising Insecurity: The Contractor Gateway Test Perhaps the most structurally damaging reform is the introduction of a 'contractor gateway test.' This test is intended to establish a legal presumption that certain workers are not employees, but independent contractors—thereby removing them from the protections afforded under the Employment Relations Act. If a worker meets a checklist of conditions (such as having a written contract stating they are a contractor, having the theoretical ability to work for others, and not being penalised for declining work), they can be categorised as contractors regardless of the actual nature of the work. This change is designed to exploit the legal fiction of contractor 'freedom.' In practice, it will increase precarity for thousands of workers who are functionally dependent on a single employer. Gig economy workers, cleaners, hospitality staff, care workers, and migrant labourers will be among the hardest hit – those least able to negotiate or contest exploitative arrangements. By facilitating this mass misclassification, the state legitimises a race to the bottom. Sick leave, minimum wages, overtime, and holiday pay become luxuries rather than rights. Workers will be rendered atomised economic agents, responsible for their own exploitation. Making Workers the Problem: Personal Grievance Restrictions The bill also proposes restricting workers' ability to raise personal grievances, especially in cases of dismissal. Under ERAB, employers may avoid paying compensation if the dismissed worker is deemed to have contributed to their dismissal through 'serious misconduct.' In other words, the government is offering employers legal leeway to terminate employment while avoiding financial consequences. The bill also excludes workers earning more than $180,000 from being able to raise personal grievances, creating a two-tier system in which legal recourse is determined not by the justice of one's case, but by the size of one's paycheque. These provisions are punitive and ideological. They send a clear message: if a worker is sacked, it is probably their own fault. This is not an attempt to resolve disputes fairly – it is a mechanism of discipline. A demoralised, fearful workforce is a compliant one. Attacking Unionism: Repealing the 30-Day Rule Another key component of ERAB is the repeal of the 30-day rule. Previously, when a worker started a job in a workplace with a collective agreement, they would automatically receive the terms of that agreement for their first 30 days. This protected workers from being picked off and offered worse contracts before they had a chance to join a union or understand their rights. Its repeal will allow employers to immediately undercut collective agreements by offering inferior individual contracts. The aim is not to promote fairness—it is to weaken union density, divide workers, and remove the incentive for employers to negotiate with unions at all. It is a classic tactic of divide and rule. Recriminalising Solidarity: Deductions for Partial Strikes Finally, the bill reintroduces employers' ability to deduct pay for 'partial strike' actions—where workers might refuse specific duties while continuing to perform others. Partial strikes are a form of limited industrial action that allow workers to escalate disputes strategically and carefully. Punishing them with pay cuts is intended to suppress this tactic and reassert managerial authority. This reform is aimed squarely at reasserting capital's power to punish resistance. It also represents a symbolic victory for employers: a return to the draconian provisions of the Employment Contracts Act era. A Longer History of Repression While these reforms are severe, they are not novel. Rather, they follow a decades-long trajectory of neoliberal labour market restructuring in Aotearoa. The 1991 Employment Contracts Act, spearheaded by National's Ruth Richardson, abolished compulsory unionism and national awards, deregulating industrial relations and shifting power dramatically towards employers. This was complemented by the broader economic reforms of the Fourth Labour Government, which introduced market logic into almost every facet of public life, including education, health, and welfare. Since then, no government has meaningfully reversed this trend. The Clark government (1999–2008) offered some mild reversals, and the Sixth Labour Government (2017–2023) introduced the Fair Pay Agreements (since repealed). But the fundamental structure of employer dominance has remained untouched. In this light, ERAB is not a betrayal of some progressive consensus. It is a continuation of the neoliberal project with renewed aggression. Its goal is to further erode the legal terrain on which workers might mount a defence. The State as the Manager of Capital Anarcho-communists have long argued that the state does not function as a neutral arbiter in labour relations. It is the executive committee of the ruling class, managing the conditions under which capital can reproduce itself. It may, at times, offer workers concessions such as welfare payments, labour protections, or health and safety laws, but these are always tactical, not moral. They can be revoked as easily as they are granted, and they are most often granted in the wake of unrest or threat. ERAB illustrates this logic perfectly. Rather than responding to a crisis of productivity or economic necessity, it seeks to pre-emptively disarm the working class in anticipation of future struggle. Its goal is to ensure that capital can extract more surplus value with fewer obstacles. In this sense, the bill is not simply anti-worker—it is anti-democratic, in the truest sense. It aims to suppress the ability of people to determine the conditions of their own labour, and thus their own lives. Resistance: Beyond Legalism, Beyond the State Faced with these developments, many liberal commentators and union leaders have called for legal challenges, electoral change, and lobbying. But anarcho-communists recognise that such strategies are insufficient. The state has already shown its allegiances. No matter which party holds office, workers' rights will be contingent on the approval of capital and its political servants. Instead, we must build resistance from below. That means rejecting the logic of legalism and instead fostering the conditions for direct action and solidarity. This includes: -Rebuilding radical, rank-and-file led unions that are accountable to workers, not party officials. -Organising mutual aid networks to provide material support for striking or sacked workers. -Occupying and collectivising workplaces under threat, with or without legal recognition. Conclusion: No Authority but Ourselves The Employment Relations Amendment Bill is not a detour from democratic principles – it is a confirmation that parliamentary democracy in a capitalist state is a dead end for the working class. It consolidates employer power, undermines unionism, and exposes the state's role as an instrument of class domination. But in this dark moment, there is also clarity. The illusions of social partnership, of progressive government, of justice through legislation are burning away. What remains is the possibility of something else: the possibility of worker self-organisation, of mutual aid, of a society based not on hierarchy or profit, but on solidarity and shared need. We must turn away from begging for better laws and begin building our own power. The road ahead is not easy, but it is ours. And as always, it begins not in Parliament but on the shop floor, in the streets, and in the hearts of those who still believe that another world is possible.
