Legislating For Liberty
The Regulatory Standards Bill sounds like one of those pieces of legislation debated on a dreary Thursday afternoon in an almost empty House of Representatives - it is anything but.
FOR A BILL set to transform New Zealand into a libertarian nightmare, it has an extremely boring name. The Regulatory Standards Bill 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 ten 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, 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 alleged legislative dynamite is the product of the Act 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? And, if it does, then, surely, the state is entitled to regulate your farming practices? That is to say, 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 shouldn’t individuals, if they’re old enough to assess and accept the consequences of using cannabis, and it causes others no harm, be allowed to do it?
If pressed, Act will always put the liberty of individual New Zealanders and the sanctity of their private property, well ahead of the nation’s collective welfare. With National and NZ First’s backing, Act’s leader hopes to enshrine his party’s guiding principles in the RSB.
If it becomes law, then all regulatory legislation will be weighed carefully by an appointed board against the claims of Liberty and Property. And, if Parliament, in its wisdom, elects to override the Board’s advice, then, as is already the case with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, it will be required to do so in the basilisk glare of public scrutiny.
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. And, 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.
It seems to me that Chris’s description of those against the bill being socialists, and those for it being liberals is a bit black and white for me. All of us just want good law. Yes the socialists want the state to look after us because we can’t look after ourselves. They want government laws for everything because those who Can think for themselves can’t be trusted. What we have is a country with way too much legislation for it’s size, much of it outdated and over reaching. ln simple terms the government doesn’t want to risk being held liable for anything. The result is sometimes stupidity. A small recent example of that is Act sorting out requirements for parents opening a bank account for their kids. Previously needing excessive documentation, passports proof of address and more. For many it was just too time consuming and onerous so they didn’t bother. They are the ones putting money into these accounts and if they did withdraw it again so what. Until the kid is of age that would be the parents right wouldn’t it.
Chris talks of the definition of harm when referring to Dairy farmers possibly polluting their land. I believe the Board monitoring the legislation would know what harm was. There would be plenty of watchdogs out there ready to kick up a fuss if pollution was happening. Admittedly the small print in the bill could provide loopholes but to me the general intent of the bill is fine.
“If pressed, Act will always put the liberty of individual New Zealanders and the sanctity of their private property, well ahead of the nation’s collective welfare"
. A harsh and unfair opinion of Act in my opinion Chris. Giving individuals a voice against oppressive lawmaking is a good thing in my mind. It’s democratic.
Balance is the important thing here. Like much in ideological politics we tend to swing too much one way and then the other. We need good regulation not outdated over regulation. I would want the “Board “ that would be monitoring new legislation to be representative of our social, business and environmental standards, not just biased politicians who will oppose new law just for their own agendas. Yes the bill could be undone by the next Labour coalition, but they would need to give it a chance or they would be seen to be a small minded spiteful government.
I don’t understand the difficulty with private property. It doesn’t seem an unreasonable concept.
Private property is a common thing to be noted in constitutions. Australia has it in theirs. It is explicit in Canada, Spain, Italy, the US , Spain and France. I could go on. We in NZ are more of an outlier.