The real purpose of the Ministry for Regulation

Written By: - Date published: 5:54 pm, December 14th, 2024 - 31 comments
Categories: act, roger douglas - Tags: , , ,

I naively thought that the newly established Ministry was to repeal and deregulate, reminiscent of the ‘regulations bonfire’ sloganeering by the National Party. Indeed, the way the coalition government has bulldozed its way through NZ laws confirms my early views.

It has taken on big job, which might explain the bloated size of over 90 new staff on gloated salaries. The Minister in charge, David Seymour, has also established a charter school agency where staff also appear to be paid more. This makes me wonder whether there is more than meets the eye and they have a plan in place but finding out might be difficult as undoubtedly, all staff would have signed non-disclosure agreements that seem to be this government’s gold-standard for public transparency and accountability.

Those staff appear to be scraping the bottom of the barrel with ‘reviews’ of obscure rules and regulations. However, this is all smoke and mirrors aimed to detract from the much more serious and sinister agenda of this Ministry. Quite possibly, staff are not even aware of the full picture and genuinely believe that their jobs are for the good of NZ – I do not extend this benefit of doubt to the CEO Gráinne Moss.

While all eyes where on the Treaty Principles Bill and the hīkoi, the same day the consultation on the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill opened, which will close 13 January 2025. My eyes glaze over, especially in this warm weather this time of the year, but this Bill is Kryptonite for NZ.

Others, particularly Melanie Nelson, have done an excellent job at analysing these two Bills and how they work together to wreak havoc on NZ.

The Regulatory Standards Bill and the Treaty Principles Bill, individually or together, would fundamentally reshape New Zealand’s economic, social, environmental, and political landscapes.

Three earlier versions of Regulatory Standards Bill have failed; the first was introduced in 2006 by none other than Roger Douglas. But here is the real kicker, arguably, this Bill is the missing piece of the radical reforms that were started in the 1980s also known as Rogernomics and the completion of the ‘Silent Revolution’.

This is the real purpose of the Ministry for Regulation, to finish the longitudinal ACT Project. It is all there for everyone to read and see but few will see through it and realise what it is really happening, something bigger even than the Treaty.

Addendum 15 Dec 2024: Here’s another solid and informative interview with Melanie Nelson by Bryan Bruce for those who like to listen rather than read; the advantage is that you can do both with Closed Captions/Subtitles (and Transcript) at higher playback speed.

https://open.substack.com/pub/bryanbruce/p/episode-29-head-2-head-with-melanie?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Melanie oft refers to Jane Kelsey, so here’s the link to Kelsey’s article on the RNZ website that first appeared in The Conversation: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/on-the-inside/505478/act-s-attempt-at-regulatory-reform-in-nz-has-failed-3-times-already-what-s-different-now

31 comments on “The real purpose of the Ministry for Regulation ”

  1. georgecom 1
    14 December 2024 at 7:24 pm

    glad you picked up on the bloated size of seymours ideological bureaucracies and bloated pay packets for his staff. Avergage salary $159,000 for his charter school bueaucracy v average Min of Ed salary of $112,000 and the $101,000 average public service salary. On top of that contractors getting $126 per hour. His bloated red tape bureaucracy paid average of $150,000 x 91 staff.

    I dislike his politics, I detest his hypocrisy. Next centre-left government, cut both those bloated bureaucracies and save hundreds of millions of dollars.

    Reply
    • thinker 1.1
      16 December 2024 at 5:45 pm

      Next left government chopping charter schools would make charter schools a martyr for the right.

      Best to keep them (tightly control their expected achievement), highlight the gravy train they've (by then) been riding and keep everything as it is, dollarswise, until the state schools catch up.

      Then watch while they shut themselves down, faced with the same costs/expectations as the state schools.

      That will prove many of them just want an easy ride compared to the mainstream.

      Reply
  2. adam 2
    15 December 2024 at 12:24 am

    Open class warfare – who would have thought.

    Wreak the economy, blame the brown people, divide and rule.

    OPEN CLASS WARFARE

    The state now got working people by the balls and the purists want it their way.

    What did Fred say again

    "If you dare to struggle, you dare to win. If you dare not struggle, then damn it, you don't deserve to win." ~ Fred Hampton

    Reply
  3. feijoa 3
    15 December 2024 at 12:31 am

    Thank you for putting this up. This is a scary piece of shit.

    It's a pure libertarian template for all our legislation.

    Property rights…. freedom for markets to operate…. free flow of foreign capital……individual autonomy. It's all there. No law may interfere with the libertarian sacred cows.

    Nothing in there to preserve public property / the commons, the right to organise collectively, environmental protection etc, of course.

    Submissions close 13 January.

    Gives you a week after the Treaty Principles bill submissions close. Bastards

    Reply
  4. Joe90 4
    15 December 2024 at 1:26 am

    The dishonesty is a feature.

    /

    @Duncan_Webb_

    The irony that the regulatory impact statement for the Regulatory Standards Bill does not meet the quality assurance standards set by the Ministry of Regulation . Kafka would be proud

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GeTivpgaMAAh9ER?format=jpg&name=small

    https://x.com/Duncan_Webb_/status/1865865463667855805

    Reply
  5. gsays 5
    15 December 2024 at 6:30 am

    I am assuming National will vote for it along with Act.

    Does anyone know what Peters view of it is?

    Heaven forbid he proves to be the stumbling block again for this coalition.

    Reply
    • Mike the Lefty 5.1
      15 December 2024 at 10:31 am

      I doubt Peters would give a continental.

      The whole business would be supremely boring to him, he is only concerned with exciting things like fast tracking as many environmentally risky ventures as possible and raising everyone's (ultimately) false hopes about the Cook Strait ferries.

      Reply
  6. Kay 6
    15 December 2024 at 9:29 am

    Do libertarians genuinely believe their ideology, or is it just an excuse for nasty people to enrich themselves and beat up on everyone else because they like to think they're better than the plebs? Or perhaps they're on the sociopathic spectrum? Clearly there's 5-10% on NZers (depending on polls/election results) who are more than happy to go along with this, but I assume they're in the top 10% and life is cushy for them anyway.

    Some really interesting- and intelligent- comments on the matter:

    https://www.quora.com/Are-libertarians-more-likely-to-believe-in-their-ideology-begrudgingly-due-to-its-unpopularity-and-the-frequent-mischaracterization-of-its-principles-by-the-majority

    Reply
    • Incognito 6.1
      15 December 2024 at 10:50 am

      Do libertarians genuinely believe their ideology, or is it just an excuse for nasty people to enrich themselves and beat up on everyone else because they like to think they’re better than the plebs?

      I assume that was rhetorical because crudely, that is their ideology, for all intents and purposes. IMHO.

      Reply
      • Kay 6.1.1
        15 December 2024 at 2:39 pm

        Semi-rhetorical. I'm interested in their mindset and if they embrace being just generally nasty because they're just nasty people, or if most adherants would score positively on a screening test for sociopathy, meaning they're incapable of empathy so just don't give a shit about harming a lot of people.

        For obvious reasons, I'm not going out of my way to meet one of these people to discuss it.

        Reply
        • tWig 6.1.1.1
          15 December 2024 at 3:23 pm

          I was thinking about this recently. Seymour only worked in engineering for a little while before switching to a Canadian rw pro oil libertarian think tank. Big change of career: either company work or becoming a businessman didn't suit him. Which leaves family interests and/or a strong belief in Thatcherism/rogernomics.

          Some of his views must be from milieu, you work with gonks, and come to think like them. But the career veer suggests more fundamental beliefs.

          Reply
          • Obtrectator 6.1.1.1.1
            16 December 2024 at 7:47 am

            In other words, a professional politician who's never really done anything else. I don't trust the type (especially when they haven't experienced a deep personal relationship either).

            Reply
        • Incognito 6.1.1.2
          15 December 2024 at 3:39 pm

          I understand what you’re saying. I’d say that ignorance, wilful or deliberate, and plausible deniability are powerful tricks to fool others and/or oneself; propaganda relies and feeds on it. I see it as an extension, albeit a far-stretch, from ‘the banality of evil’ and excuses such as ‘Wir haben es nicht gewußt’.

          Reply
    • thinker 6.2
      16 December 2024 at 5:55 pm

      I've often wondered the same thing.

      Decided those at the top probably don't believe it for a minute, but they pick the kind of people to help them who believe life runs to a textbook precision and everyone can be relied on to play with a straight bat.

      Think of poor Neville Chamberlain, who took for granted the infamous piece of paper signed by Herr Hitler. Then think of all the corporates and bankers who made fortunes from the war.

      IMHO

      Reply
  7. Joe90 7
    15 December 2024 at 9:51 am

    Paul Krugman on the fraud, waste and abuse clown show.

    .

    The Fraudulence of “Waste, Fraud and Abuse”

    […]

    Once upon a time a Republican president, sure that large parts of federal spending were worthless, appointed a commission led by a wealthy businessman to bring a business sensibility to the budget, going through it line by line to identify inefficiency and waste. The commission initially made a big splash, and there were desperate attempts to spin its work as a success. But in the end few people were fooled. Ronald Reagan’s venture, the President's Private Sector Survey on Cost Control — the so-called “Grace commission,” headed by J. Peter Grace — was a flop, making no visible dent in spending.

    Why was it a flop? There is, of course, inefficiency and waste in the federal government, as there is in any large organization. But most government spending happens because it delivers something people want, and you can’t make significant cuts without hard choices.

    Furthermore, the notion that businessmen have skills that readily translate into managing the government is all wrong. Business and government serve different purposes and require different mindsets.

    In any case, the Grace commission’s failure taught everyone serious about the budget, liberal or conservative, an important lesson: Anyone who proposes saving lots of taxpayer money by eliminating “waste, fraud and abuse” should be ignored, because the very use of the phrase shows that they have no idea what they’re talking about.

    https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/the-fraudulence-of-waste-fraud-and

    Reply
  8. Incognito 8
    15 December 2024 at 1:09 pm

    FYI, I added an addendum to the OP.

    Reply
  9. AB 9
    16 December 2024 at 10:20 am

    Standard right-wing MO. Disguise a highly ideological and anti-social intention as a neutral and desirable quality such as 'quality' or 'efficiency', or even 'getting things done'.

    The ability of the Right to turn its self-seeking machinations into a substance as natural and inevitable as the air we breathe has to be admired. And maybe emulated.

    Labour, if it hasn't already, has to commit itself to abolishing the Ministry within 30 days of becoming the next Government and reviewing every decision it has made in its (with luck) short life and overturning these as well.

    Reply
    • tWig 9.1
      16 December 2024 at 2:43 pm

      Rather than RW, libertarian is a better descriptor of this move. RW actions can increase power of the state at the expense of citizens. Libertarianism increases the power of of plutocrats and kleptocrats (corporate backroom boys and corporations that steal from citizens).

      Reply
      • AB 9.1.1
        16 December 2024 at 4:23 pm

        Yes – although when push comes to shove, libertarians will happily deploy the coercive powers of the state to keep their desired order of things in place. They are really closet authoritarians touting a very limited conception of liberty.

        Reply
  10. Res Publica 10
    16 December 2024 at 11:55 am

    I don’t necessarily disagree with the idea of establishing standards or centralized oversight for the government’s regulatory powers. After all, our history of designing good, robust, and effective regulations is, frankly, pretty lackluster.

    From my experience, one of the primary reasons for this is a fundamental lack of data and policy analysis expertise within the public sector. This problem has been compounded by the gradual erosion of the principle of “no surprises” into something far more insidious: a culture of avoiding any negative political risks for the government of the day, at all costs.

    When public sector agencies are either unable to provide frank advice or simply lack the capability to do so, we are left vulnerable to arbitrary decision-making. This allows the government of the day to cherry-pick data and policy approaches that suit their immediate political goals, rather than serving the long-term public interest.

    The challenge with creating any kind of oversight for regulation lies in ensuring that it is protected from ideological capture. It must be rooted in clear, evidence-based principles that are widely agreed upon by all New Zealanders. Not just by narrow interest groups like libertarians, Hobson’s Pledge, or the Atlas Foundation.

    For oversight to be effective, it must be grounded in empirical analysis, focused on ensuring that policies are:

    Effective – achieving their intended goals.
    Efficient – minimizing unnecessary costs or burdens.
    Equitable – promoting fairness and inclusivity.

    One potential solution might be the establishment of a truly independent body with broad oversight powers, akin to the Ombudsman. That way, we could still have impartial assessments of regulatory quality and ensure that regulations align with these shared principles. Independence would be key to safeguarding against ideological manipulation and ensuring that oversight serves the public good, not political or partisan interests.

    Reply
    • Ad 10.1
      17 December 2024 at 5:07 pm

      Agree.

      Worth reflecting this country was built, successfully, by rank amateurs. Very few qualified people.

      And most elites self-formed and self-policed for a century.

      Reply
      • Res Publica 10.1.1
        18 December 2024 at 11:12 pm

        Worth reflecting this country was built, successfully, by rank amateurs. Very few qualified people.

        I think while that's true, making and measuring public policy is several orders of magnitude more complex and difficult than it was even 30 years ago. And requires a bunch of skills, across multiple domains that often take years of experience to build competence in.

        For example, I've spent nearly 10 years working my way up to a senior developer/solutions engineer role in local government. To do that I've not just had to wrap my head around the art (or science – depends on who you ask cheeky) of software engineering, but have also had to have a deep understanding of some of the more esoteric processes that keep the sector running.

        Things like standards for reporting consent data to MfE. How the barely documented API for our financial system "works" and exactly how much throughput we can get out of it before it crashes. And which one of the hundreds of arbitrarily named IoT devices at our city water treatment plant means one of the pumps have caught fire.

        I don't think any amateur, no matter how keen or incorruptible, could replicate that knowledge easily. And ye gods, do I hate it when people complain about council "wasting" money on IT at almost every BBQ I go to.

        So, while we should absolutely have robust, transparent, oversight over the exercise of the government's regulatory powers, there also needs to be room to listen to highly paid experts we hire to run the nuts and bolts of government.

        Something that this government has signally, categorically, and catastrophically failed to do.

        Reply
  11. Ad 11
    16 December 2024 at 1:22 pm

    The Regulatory Standards Board findings will carry even less weight than Waitangi Tribunal findings.

    I don't think the hairdressers will mind.

    This lot doesn't give a Flying about legislative BORA reviews and regulatory drafting as it is.

    It'll make as much difference as the Infrastructure Commission and other bullshit bingo kingdoms.

    Reply
    • Incognito 11.1
      16 December 2024 at 9:55 pm

      The Regulatory Standards Board findings will carry even less weight than Waitangi Tribunal findings.

      You’re horribly wrong. This Board will oversee all, and I mean ALL, legislation in NZ. This is completely different from the Waitangi Tribunal, which doesn’t even come close to that.

      You’re spreading misinformation, at best, so please educate yourself before you comment.

      Reply
      • Ad 11.1.1
        17 December 2024 at 5:02 pm

        Show how it will be any stronger than the standard BORA rider and existing regulatory design structures.

        You don't understand legislative drafting.

        Reply
        • Incognito 11.1.1.1
          18 December 2024 at 3:45 pm

          You don't understand legislative drafting.

          That’s a brilliant point, excellently made, and so true. So, your point is?

          Instead of coming up with distracting and unsupported comparisons that you want me to support for you (or not, rather), you could educate yourself about the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill. You seem to be sleep-walking under the illusion that this Bill is only about new legislation (i.e. law-making), which is far from the truth.

          This regulatory board would have sweeping oversight over all proposed government regulations, with the ability to make non-binding recommendations.

          Furthermore, all proposed legislation or ministerial statutes (with a compliance review of all existing laws within 10 years) would fall under the purview of the new regulatory board, severely curtailing the ability of the government to regulate harmful business practices or corporate exploitation, even if such regulation is in the public interest.

          More seriously the current version of the bill has removed any role of the courts to provide regulatory oversight or interpretation; a move that seems to be explicitly targeted at blocking any incorporation of Te Tiriti into the regulatory discussion. [my italics]

          https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/12/18/the-long-neoliberal-con/

          Not only would this Bill, together with its evil twin the Treaty Principles Bill, nullify the Waitangi Tribunal, it would go much further than the Tribunal ever could and did.

          And before you take a swipe at another messenger, the author of the Newsroom opinion piece is not a lawyer and quite possibly doesn’t understand legislative drafting either.

          Reply
  12. tWig 12
    16 December 2024 at 2:45 pm

    The issue with the Act is not the power of the government, but the power of money-rich corporate litigators to tie up social investment decisions: an inversion of the RMA, where citizens and local government could tie up the corporates from stripping assets and leaving nasty messes for the taxpayer.

    Reply
  13. Ed1 13
    17 December 2024 at 3:55 pm

    I would like to hear about a few examples of what it could prohibit. Would private property rights prevent legislation restricting what you can build (eg housing standards)? Could it mean that a government could not require an owner not to pollute water downstream? (eg from Cattle in Canterbury?) Could it require income tax to be equal for all (ACT would doubtless like the same dollar amount, but may be prepared to have the same percentage of income . . .) . And do we need to worry if all a future government has to do is repeal it (although that may leave the ability for some to demand compensation as a result . . .). What are the horror stories about what is likely to happen if ACT get their way?

    [This is the third and last time, please stick to one e-mail address here, thanks – Incognito]

    Reply

Leave a Comment