Latest news with #MinistryforRegulation
Scoop
3 days ago
- Business
- Scoop
Consultation On ECE Licensing Criteria Open
Associate Minister of Education Associate Education Minister David Seymour says that the Ministry of Education are now consulting on changing, merging, or removing approximately three-quarters of the Early Childhood Education (ECE) licensing criteria. 'Earlier this year the ECE Sector Review instigated 15 changes to modernise and simplify regulations,' Mr Seymour says. 'The changes to the ECE regulations show the power of a sector review. The Ministry for Regulation went in and listened to the people who actually run, work at, and use early childhood education. They found people encircled by multiple regulators enforcing out of date rules, and proposed solutions. 'The biggest complaint arises from the calcified, high stakes licencing criteria - 98 of them - that can each have a centre shut down with little to no notice. We are consulting on changing, merging, or removing approximately three-quarters of them. 'Some of the proposals being consulted on include more digital information distribution, more clarity, and Removing duplication of regulations that are covered by other authorities. New licensing criteria will be gazetted by the end of September. Consultation on changes to these is open until 24 July. You can have your say here: Have your say - Ministry of Education. 'By the end of next year ECE providers will be governed by a regulatory system which ensures regulations are focused on what matters – providing safe, high-quality care and education as the changes are rolled out over the coming year,' Mr Seymour says. 'ECE providers will no longer be burdened with 98 separate licensing criteria, many of which were arbitrary or outdated. 'By mid next year, graduated enforcement tools will be used to respond to breaches of the remaining licensing criteria. The only enforcement tools previously available were too blunt a tool for managing minor breaches and allowing early intervention. There will no longer be high-stakes open-or-shut rules that create anxiety and strained relationships for regulators and centre operators alike.' Graduated enforcement will give the regulator a range of enforcement measures. They will be able to respond proportionately to breaches, changing the sector's culture from a punitive approach to promoting quality. 'The changes to the licensing criteria represents a major shakeup of the sector's outdated system. Consultation will make the new licensing criteria great for children, parents and ECE service providers,' Mr Seymour says. 'There is huge demand for ECEs from families across New Zealand, however numbers show supply isn't keeping up. That is why we are committed to making changes which will allow the industry to expand and provide more high-quality services for families and their children. 'In the meantime, recent amendments to the pay parity opt-in scheme aim to provide some relief to ECE services. 'In a high-cost economy, regulation isn't neutral. It's a tax on growth. Every completed review makes it easier to do business, access services, and innovate in New Zealand. The ECE review is the first of many examples of what smarter regulation looks like in action.'
Scoop
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
The David Seymour ‘Bots' Debate: Do Online Submission Tools Help Or Hurt Democracy?
, (Ngāpuhi, Te Māhurehure, Ngāti Manu) Longform Journalist, Te Ao Māori A discussion document on a Regulatory Standards Bill is not, on the face of it, the sort of thing that might have been expected to prompt 23,000 responses. But in an age of digital democracy, the Ministry for Regulation was probably expecting it. The bill, led by ACT Party leader David Seymour, is controversial. It sparked a response from activists, who used online tools to help people make their opposition known. Of the 23,000 submissions, 88 percent were opposed. Seymour this week told RNZ's 30 with Guyon Espiner, that figure reflected "bots" generating "fake" submissions. He did not provide evidence for the claim and later explained he wasn't referring to literal bots but to "online campaigns" that generate "non-representative samples" that don't reflect public opinion. Seymour has previous experience with this sort of thing. The Treaty Principles Bill got a record 300,000 submissions when it was considered by the Justice Committee earlier this year. Is Seymour right to have raised concerns about how these tools are affecting public debate? Or are they a boon for democracy? Submission tools used across the political spectrum Submission tools are commonly used by advocacy groups to mobilise public input during the select committee process. The online tools often offer a template for users to fill out or suggested wording that can be edited or submitted as is. Each submission is usually still sent by the individual. Taxpayers' Union spokesperson Jordan Williams said submitting to Parliament used to be "pretty difficult". "You'd have to write a letter and things like that. What the tools do allow is for people to very easily and quickly make their voice heard." The tools being used now are part of sophisticated marketing campaigns, Williams said. "You do get pressure groups that take particular interest, and it blows out the numbers, but that doesn't mean that officials should be ruling them out or refusing to engage or read submissions." The Taxpayers' Union has created submission tools in the past, but Williams said he isn't in favour of tools that don't allow the submitter to alter the submission. He has encouraged supporters to change the contents of the submission to ensure it is original. "The ones that we are pretty suspicious of is when it doesn't allow the end user to actually change the submission, and in effect, it just operates like a petition, which I don't think quite has the same democratic value." Clerk of the House of Representatives David Wilson said campaigns that see thousands of similar submissions on proposed legislation are not new, they've just taken a different form. "It's happened for many, many years. It used to be photocopied forms. Now, often it's things online that you can fill out. And there's nothing wrong with doing that. It's a legitimate submission." However, Wilson pointed out that identical responses would likely be grouped by the select committee and treated as one submission. "The purpose of the select committee calling for public submissions is so that the members of the committee can better inform themselves about the issues. They're looking at the bill, thinking about whether it needs to be amended or whether it should pass. So if they receive the same view from hundreds of people, they will know that." But that isn't to say those submissions are discredited, Wilson said. "For example, the committee staff would say, you've received 10,000 submissions that all look exactly like this. So members will know how many there were and what they said. But I don't know if there's any point in all of the members individually reading the same thing that many times." But Williams said there were risks in treating similar submissions created using 'tools' as one submission. "Treating those ones as if they are all identical is not just wrong, it's actually undemocratic," he said. "It's been really concerning that, under the current parliament, they are trying to carte blanche, reject people's submissions, because a lot of them are similar." AI should be used to analyse submissions and identify the unique points. "Because if people are going to take the time and make a submission to Parliament, at the very least, the officials should be reading them or having them summarised," Williams said. 'Every single case on its merits' Labour MP Duncan Webb is a member of the Justice Committee and sat in on oral submissions for the Treaty Principles Bill. He said he attempted to read as many submissions as possible. "When you get a stock submission, which is a body of text that is identical and it's just been clicked and dragged, then you don't have to read them all, because you just know that there are 500 people who think exactly the same thing," he said. "But when you get 500 postcards, which each have three handwritten sentences on them, they may all have the same theme, they may all be from a particular organisation, but the individual thoughts that have been individually expressed. So you can't kind of categorise it as just one size fits all. You've got to take every single case on its merits." Webb said he takes the select committee process very seriously. "The thing that struck me was, sure, you read a lot [of submissions] which are repetitive, but then all of a sudden you come across one which actually changes the way you think about the problem in front of you. "To kind of dismiss that as just one of a pile from this organisation is actually denying someone who's got an important point to make, their voice in the democratic process."
NZ Herald
03-06-2025
- General
- NZ Herald
Act leader David Seymour suggested ‘bots' drove ‘fake submissions' against his Regulatory Standards Bill
David Seymour claims 99.5% of submissions were created using bots. Photo / Mark Mitchell RNZ Act leader David Seymour has claimed 99.5% of the submissions received on the Regulatory Standards Bill were created using 'bots'. The Ministry for Regulation received approximately 23,000 submissions regarding a discussion document about the bill in January. In summarising the feedback,
Scoop
27-05-2025
- Business
- Scoop
Hairdressing And Barbering Regulations Given The Cut
Minister for Regulation Regulation Minister David Seymour says that from the end of July, barbers and hairdressers will be freed from costly, annoying, and pointless regulations. The Government is scrapping 80s-era rules so hairdressers can focus on cuts, instead of compliance. 'This review and the changes announced today show the power of a sector review,' Mr Seymour says. 'Much like the perm, hairdressing regulations from the 80s are outdated and costly. Freedom is back in style though, by the end of July this year existing regulations will be revoked.' Cabinet accepted all of the changes recommended by the Ministry for Regulation. 'Existing regulations aren't making a practical difference to safety, but the compliance is frustrating and costly. We anticipate that revoking all existing regulations will save the industry a minimum of about $1 million per year.' Mr Seymour says. 'The review found that existing regulations are either unnecessary, already managed by other rules, or applied inconsistently between local authorities. 'Local government is responsible for setting annual registration fees. These can range from anywhere between $140 to $495 depending on location. 'Examples of absurd rules include how far apart salon seats should be, how bright the lights in the business are, whether you can have a 'cuppa' with your cut, and whether dogs are allowed in salons. From the end of July now these decisions will be up to the business owner. 'Compliance with health and safety, building regulations, and general public health requirements is required already. There is no reason to also require compliance with hairdressing regulations from the 80s which aim to achieve the same thing – manage health risks. 'The Ministry for Regulation will work with the Ministry of Health on guidance for industry related to hygiene, disinfection and sanitation practices in salons and shops to manage public health risks. This will be given when existing regulations are revoked and will accompany Worksafe's existing guidance for the industry. 'The Ministry for Regulation will then monitor the new regulatory system and report back to me on its effectiveness in two years. Work is also underway with the Ministry of Justice to respond to the issues with alcohol licensing raised by submitters. 'In a high-cost economy, regulation isn't neutral. It's a tax on growth. Every completed review makes it easier to do business, access services, and innovate in New Zealand. The Hairdressers and Barbers Sector Review is another example of what smarter regulation looks like in action.'
Otago Daily Times
27-05-2025
- Business
- Otago Daily Times
Hairdressing regulations given 'serious trim'
Separate hairdressing regulations are set to be scrapped, with cabinet agreeing to all four recommendations from a regulatory review into the hairdressing and barbering industry. The review, carried out by the Ministry for Regulation along with the Ministry of Health, looked at the regulations the industry needed to follow and whether any of them were deemed to be unnecessary or holding the industry back. They included rules prohibiting dogs, other than guide-dogs, from being inside a barber shop and a ban on staff serving their clients refreshments. Minister for Regulation David Seymour said "pointless bureaucracy" was being cut back. "This is buzz cut season for red tape and regulation at salons up and down New Zealand. We are taking a serious trim to the amount of pointless bureaucracy, really shaving it back to the scalp where it's no longer needed because it's critical that people up and down this country who run small businesses can spend more time doing what they want to do and spend less time complying with pointless rules and regulations. "The savings ... are about $1 million a year. Some will say 'what's a million dollars in the context of the whole economy', I say how many times do you see a government actually removing rules that aren't needed, actually saving money year after year to make it easier to get on with our lives." The cost of the review had been about half a million dollars over six months, he said, "and give it 10 years' time it will have paid for itself 20 times over". Seymour said the changes being talked about would come into effect from July 1, but changes to the sale and supply of alcohol would need to go through legislation he hoped to convince his coalition partners to progress before the end of the year. He said hairdressing was a very competitive industry, and concerns about hygiene and sanitation would be "solved by customer vigilance and competition amongst salons, it doesn't actually require an inspector to come in". If he was wrong about that, the requirement for the rules to be reassessed after two years would see the rules reintroduced "but I don't think that will happen". Full replacement of regulations Announcing the review in December, Seymour said regulations were not making a practical difference to public health, but were frustrating business owners and customers. The review has now recommended a full revoke of the Health (Hairdressers) Regulations 1980. Seymour said compliance with health and safety, building regulations and general public health requirements was required already and there was no need for separate regulation from the 1980s. "Existing regulations aren't making a practical difference to safety, but the compliance is frustrating and costly. We anticipate that revoking all existing regulations will save the industry a minimum of about $1 million per year," he said. Seymour said the review also found that existing regulations were often applied inconsistently, with annual registration fees set by local government varying between $140 and $495, depending on location. "Examples of absurd rules include how far apart salon seats should be, how bright the lights in the business are, whether you can have a 'cuppa' with your cut and whether dogs are allowed in salons. From the end of July now these decisions will be up to the business owner," he said. The review put forward two options in revoking the existing regulations. One option was to rely on existing mechanisms in other legislation along with new industry guidance. The other was to replace the current regulations with risk-based regulations, focused on health and hygiene practices. Ultimately, it recommended the first option, with the possibility that more targeted regulations could be introduced at a later date. The Ministry for Regulation will work with the Ministry of Health on hygiene, disinfection, and sanitation guidance, accompanying WorkSafe's existing guidance. It will also work with the Ministry of Justice to respond to concerns raised by submitters over how alcohol licensing applies to the industry. Once the regulations are revoked, the Ministry for Regulation will be required to report back in two years to see whether the risks were being appropriately managed by the new regime or whether new risk-based regulations should be introduced. The review identified some instances of harm still occurring in the industry, such as ACC claims related to non-workers, complaints to the industry body and complaints to the Commerce Commission. But it said the harm was low-level and existing regulations were not proportionate to the risks. The review was the third sector-wide regulatory review carried out by the Ministry for Regulation, following reviews into early childhood education and agricultural and horticultural products.
