Latest news with #RSB
Newsroom
14-06-2025
- Politics
- Newsroom
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.
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Cleveland health officials warn COVID spike is coming
[Watch in the player above: How to know whether you have COVID, flu, RSB or strep] CLEVELAND (WJW) — Cleveland Department of Public Health officials said a sharp uptick in COVID gene copies recently detected in city wastewater samples indicates a 'strong likelihood of increased community spread in the coming days or weeks.' Sampling last week of untreated wastewater from the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District's Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant shows a more than 250% increase in the SARS-CoV-2 viral levels between June 8 and June 10, according to a Friday news release from the health department. Massive egg recall hits Ohio Walmart stores The sampling also showed high levels of influenza that are still 'trending upward' as well as high levels of respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV. SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, can be shed through feces — even by people who aren't yet showing symptoms of infection — so wastewater sampling can help detect community spread early. 'Increasing viral concentrations in wastewater are often a leading indicator of future spikes in illness, hospitalizations and transmission throughout the community,' Cleveland Director of Public Health Dr. David Margoulis is quoted in the release. 'This data provides us with an early warning system, and we're encouraging residents and institutions to take preventive steps now.' The health department urges residents to get their shots or boosters for COVID-19 and the flu and urges people who are experiencing respiratory symptoms to stay home or wear a mask if they need to go out in public. Iran fires missiles at Israel in retaliation The World Health Organization is tracking a new COVID-19 variant called NB.1.8.1, or 'Nimbus' that is more transmissible than other variants, The Hill reported this week. Its symptoms appear to be similar to those caused by other COVID variants: cough, fever, fatigue, muscle aches and loss of smell or taste, according to the CDC. As of Wednesday, June 11, the Nimbus variant had been found in 13 states, including Ohio. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Scoop
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Kahungunu Submission Rejects The Regulatory Standards Bill In Its Entirety
The Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB), currently before the New Zealand Parliament, aims to improve the quality of regulation by establishing clear benchmarks for good law-making and increasing transparency. It seeks to reduce unnecessary and poor-quality regulation, promoting economic efficiency and accountability in the regulatory system. The bill introduces a set of "principles of responsible regulation" that all new and existing legislation must comply with. We do not agree! Immediate Rejection. This submission strongly recommends the immediate rejection of the RSB in its entirety. Te Tiriti Embedding: All regulation and policy should explicitly reference and operationalise Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This includes requiring co-governance arrangements and meaningful engagement with iwi and hapū at all stages of regulatory and policy development and implementation. The RSB represents a significant threat to Aotearoa New Zealand's constitutional framework, democratic processes, and the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The bill's numerous flaws and its potential for far-reaching negative consequences, as highlighted by extensive expert analysis, necessitate its withdrawal. Its potential to undermine Māori rights, weaken environmental protections, and exacerbate social and economic inequalities, as evidenced by the concerns raised by Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated and numerous experts, is deeply concerning. This submission urges the government to withdraw the RSB and initiate a genuine and inclusive process for building on existing and international best practice regulatory frameworks including 'Black, Indigenous, Peoples of Colour', 'United Nations Declaration Rights of Indigenous Peoples' and 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights', which reflects unique values and priorities of Aotearoa.
Otago Daily Times
05-06-2025
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
‘Just let them do it' an ideological attack on regulations
For a Bill set to transform New Zealand into a libertarian nightmare, it has an extremely boring name. The Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB) sounds like one of those pieces of legislation debated on a dreary Thursday afternoon in an almost empty House of Representatives. Not because anyone in particular wants it, but because those whose job it is to monitor the efficacy or otherwise of government regulations declares it to be necessary. MPs protesting to their respective party whips that they know absolutely nothing about this sort of Bill's content are told that participation in such debates is good for them. Speaking for 10 minutes about something one knows absolutely nothing about is key political skill. Without it, no politician should expect to do more than shepherd boring Bills through a nearly empty House for the rest of their (short) political career. The RSB may sound like one of those Bills, but it is anything but. According to one critic, the Bill will "neuter the ability of lawmakers to consider anything outside of individual liberty and property rights". That this proposed piece of legislative dynamite is the product of the Act New Zealand party is entirely unsurprising. David Seymour and his caucus are the most disciplined band of ideologically driven politicians in our Parliament. Liberty and property are their twin lodestars, and by them they navigate the choppy seas of New Zealand's resolutely non-ideological politics. Knowing exactly where they want to go has made it much easier for Act to determine, often with alarming and near-revolutionary clarity, what they ought to do. Boiled down to its essence, Act's political mission is captured in the French expression laissez-faire — loosely translated as "let them do it". If the actions of individuals cause no harm to others — let them do it. If those actions involve only their own property — let them do it. Contrariwise, if some individuals seek to compel other individuals for any reason other than preventing them from causing harm to others, then don't let them do it. And if that compulsion involves regulating the use of other individuals' private property, then definitely don't let them do it. Understandably, socialists are not (and never have been) great fans of laissez-faire. The collective welfare is (or used to be) their lodestar. Individuals determined to put themselves, and their property, ahead of measures designed to serve the common good should not be allowed to do it. Obviously, a great deal rests on how "harm" is defined. If your dairy farm is polluting the streams and rivers that others are accustomed to fishing and swimming in, does that constitute harm? If it does, then, surely, the state is entitled to regulate your farming practices? To restrict the ways in which you can legally use your private property. Alternatively, if a friend undertakes to sell you a few grams of cannabis, what business is it of the state's? Why should smoking weed, which most medical scientists have determined to be essentially harmless, be punishable by law? Why aren't individuals, if they're old enough to assess and accept the consequences of using cannabis, and it causes others no harm, allowed to do it? If pressed, Act will always put the rights of individual New Zealanders, and the sanctity of their private property, well ahead of the nation's collective welfare. These twin principles are what, with National's and New Zealand First's backing, Act intends to enshrine in the RSB. If it becomes law, then all regulatory legislation will be weighed carefully by an appointed board against the rights of liberty and property. If Parliament, in its wisdom, elects to override those rights, then the citizens required to surrender them must be fairly compensated. Naturally, environmental groups, iwi, trade unionists and the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of NGO-land regard the RSB with horror and dismay. They no doubt believed that, having been soundly defeated several times already, such libertarian legislative forays were things of the past. The Left, generally, is flabbergasted and outraged that the coalition remains committed to the RSB's passage. Boy, are they making a fuss. To hear them talk, the Bill might have been co-sponsored by Sauron and Voldemort. But, don't be alarmed. One parliament cannot bind another. If the RSB looks like transforming Aotearoa-New Zealand into Mordor, then the next government can simply repeal it. ■Chris Trotter is an Auckland writer and commentator.
Scoop
31-05-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
The Regulatory Standards Bill: Neoliberal Shackles Disguised As 'Good Law'
Press Release – Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement We argue that the bill is not about making regulation better or fairer, but about handcuffing future lawmakers to an ideology that privileges private property, contract law, and the capitalist right to profit. When the New Zealand Parliament debates 'better law-making,' most people yawn. It sounds procedural, technocratic — even boring. But beneath the jargon of 'clarity,' 'predictability,' and 'transparency,' lurks a political agenda. The Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB), first introduced in 2011 by ACT Party founder Roger Douglas's disciple Rodney Hide and continuously revived in various guises since, represents a stealth weapon in the arsenal of neoliberal capitalism. It is a Trojan horse for embedding pro-market ideology into the very machinery of the state — making it harder for any future government, let alone a radical movement, to challenge the dominance of capital. We argue that the bill is not about making regulation 'better' or 'fairer,' but about handcuffing future lawmakers to an ideology that privileges private property, contract law, and the capitalist 'right to profit.' Its passage would mark a dangerous deepening of bourgeois legalism, constraining any collective attempts to democratise the economy or dismantle capitalist structures through parliamentary reform — let alone revolutionary means. The Origins: ACT's Neoliberal Dream To understand the Regulatory Standards Bill, we must start with ACT. Founded in the 1990s as the ideological successor to Roger Douglas's Rogernomics project, the ACT Party exists to finish what the Fourth Labour Government started: the total commodification of public life. With its roots in Chicago School economics, ACT idolises the free market, loathes the state (except when protecting capital), and views regulation as an obstacle to 'freedom' — defined narrowly as consumer and investor liberty. In 2009, the National-ACT confidence and supply agreement commissioned a taskforce led by arch-neoliberal Graham Scott to look into 'regulatory responsibility.' Its conclusion: regulation should conform to a strict set of principles designed to prevent the state from interfering too much with market activity. This taskforce gave birth to the Regulatory Standards Bill. Rodney Hide introduced the first version in 2011. It was met with scepticism, even from centrist legal scholars, who warned that the bill would judicialise politics and constitutionalise neoliberalism. While the bill didn't pass, its zombie-like persistence over the years shows how committed the New Zealand right remains to embedding capitalist ideology in law. What the Bill Proposes: Rights for Capital, Not People At first glance, the RSB reads like a list of nice-sounding principles: laws should not be retrospective, should respect property rights, should avoid creating unnecessary costs, and should be clear and accessible. But a closer look reveals its insidiousness. 1. 'Property Rights' as Sacred One of the central tenets of the bill is that laws should not 'take or impair property' unless justified. This may sound reasonable, but in practice, it elevates private property above public interest. It would give courts — not the people — the power to decide whether environmental protections, housing controls, or land use laws unduly infringe on property rights. It shifts power from democratically accountable institutions to unelected judges, many of whom are steeped in commercial law and capitalist ideology. This is a direct threat to mana whenua struggles for land justice. Imagine if land reform legislation, urban rent controls, or even a future law to nationalise fossil fuel companies were struck down because they infringed on 'property rights.' The bill constitutionalises the most reactionary legal principle of all: that the right to own and profit from land or capital is inviolable. 2. 'No More Than Necessary' Another clause says that regulation should not impose 'obligations, costs, or risks' that are more than 'reasonably necessary.' But who decides what's 'necessary'? Under capitalism, this often means what's necessary for profit. Environmental laws, workplace protections, or rent freezes could all be challenged for being 'too costly' to business. The bill invites judicial activism — not in the progressive sense, but as a means of protecting capitalist interests from redistributive policies. 3. Parliamentary Veto in Disguise The bill would require that every new law be accompanied by a 'certification' that it complies with these principles. If it doesn't, it must be justified — and could be challenged in court. This sets up a system where legislation is no longer judged on its social merit, but on how well it conforms to market logic. In essence, it's a regulatory veto wrapped in legal procedure. The aim is to make it politically and legally risky for any future government to pass redistributive or transformative laws. Embedding Capitalist Ideology into Law What makes the RSB especially dangerous is not just its content, but its method. It doesn't ban socialism outright. Instead, it sets up legal roadblocks that make any move toward economic democracy more difficult, expensive, or outright unconstitutional. This is classic capitalist strategy: not just win political battles, but rig the rules. It's the same logic behind investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) clauses in trade agreements, which allow corporations to sue states for regulating in the public interest. It's the logic behind independent central banks, which remove monetary policy from democratic control. And it's the logic behind 'fiscal responsibility' laws that force governments to prioritise debt repayment over social investment. The RSB is part of this neoliberal constitutionalism. It transforms what should be political questions – Who owns the land? Should rent be controlled? Should fossil fuels be nationalised? – into legal technicalities. It makes revolution, or even reform, illegal by stealth. Aotearoa's Class War by Other Means The Regulatory Standards Bill must be understood in the context of Aotearoa's broader class structure. We live in a settler-colonial capitalist state where wealth is concentrated among a small elite – disproportionately Pākehā – while working-class, Māori, and Pasifika communities struggle under the weight of exploitation, housing precarity, and intergenerational poverty. In such a context, regulation is one of the few remaining tools communities have to fight back. Whether it's tenant protections, limits on corporate land use, environmental regulations, or worker rights, regulation is one of the few levers available within capitalist democracy to redistribute power and resources. The RSB seeks to destroy that lever. It cloaks itself in legal neutrality, but in reality, it is a ruling class weapon designed to foreclose collective action. It represents the judicialisation of class war. One where the capitalist class doesn't need tanks or cops to crush resistance, just well-written legislation and friendly judges. The Limits of Parliamentary Critique It's important to note that opposition to the RSB has come not just from the left, but from mainstream legal figures and centrists worried about the erosion of parliamentary sovereignty. The New Zealand Law Society, in a rare political statement, warned that the bill would shift power from Parliament to the judiciary, undermining democratic accountability. But for anarcho-communists, the issue goes deeper than defending Parliament. Parliamentary democracy in a capitalist state is already limited, corrupt, and structurally skewed toward the ruling class. Our concern is not that the RSB undermines Parliament per se, but that it further consolidates capitalist power within the state, making radical transformation through any legal means even harder. In this sense, the RSB is not an aberration but a logical outcome of a capitalist democracy reaching its authoritarian phase. As global inequality deepens and ecological collapse accelerates, capitalist states are preemptively locking in protections for the wealthy – insulating themselves from the possibility of revolt. A Vision Beyond the Bill Anarcho-communists reject the premise of the RSB because we reject the premise of capitalist law itself. We do not believe the protection of property is a neutral good. We do not believe 'regulatory efficiency' should be the measure of political action. And we do not accept a legal framework that privileges capital over collective well-being. Instead, we fight for a society based on direct democracy, collective ownership, and ecological harmony. We envision a world where land is returned to tangata whenua, where housing is a right not a commodity, and where communities make decisions together, without the distortions of profit or property law. In such a world, the RSB would be unthinkable — not just because it's unjust, but because its very logic would no longer apply. There would be no 'regulators' because there would be no corporations to regulate. No 'property rights' because the land would belong to all. No 'cost-benefit analyses' because human need, not market efficiency, would guide our choices. What Is to Be Done? The Regulatory Standards Bill has not yet passed — but it remains a live threat. ACT and National are eager to revive it, and a future coalition could easily slip it through under the radar. We must oppose it not just with legal submissions or op-eds, but with direct action and radical education. We must expose it for what it is: a blueprint for capitalist entrenchment, not a neutral law reform. And we must prepare ourselves intellectually, and organisationally for the broader authoritarian turn it signals. This means: Popular education in unions, hapū, and community groups about the bill's implications. Legal support for those resisting unjust property laws and regulations. Resisting co-optation by parliamentary parties who offer weak, technocratic opposition. The battle over the Regulatory Standards Bill is a battle over who controls the future: the people, or capital. Let's make sure it's us.
