David Seymour says his Regulatory Standards Act will force lawmakers to be more honest about the impacts of new laws – but has batted away questions over whether his own lawmaking meets the standard.
Questioned on Q+A on Sunday, the deputy PM dismissed the volume of submissions opposed to the Regulatory Standards Bill as a “red herring” and claimed they were part of a “weaponised” campaign.
MPs received 159,000 written submissions on the legislation at the select committee stage — almost all universally opposed to the bill.
Seymour told Q+A submissions had “kind of been weaponised by a campaign”, saying he paid “attention to some of the arguments, but not just to the numbers”.
The ACT leader argued the law’s purpose was to ensure legislators “have to actually be honest about the impacts on others”, citing Canterbury earthquake regulations.
“I know people who have been financially ruined because they were part of an apartment building that had to put earthquake standard strengthening in, which wasn’t necessary because it was in Auckland,” Seymour said.
‘Why have you repeatedly violated your own principles of good law-making?’ – Watch Jack Tame’s interview with David Seymour on TVNZ+
Seymour was challenged on whether his own legislation had followed the act’s first principle of good lawmaking — the importance of consultation.
Q+A host Jack Tame pointed to regulatory impact statements for charter schools legislation, noting “a condensed legislative process with limited time to engage with impacted people”, three strikes laws that identified “a lack of broader consultation”, and gun club law changes passed using an order in council with no public consultation.
On the Treaty Principles Bill, Tame noted Seymour’s own Regulation Ministry had said consultation was “not sufficient” given the constitutional significance of the proposal.
Seymour defended his approach, arguing charter schools and three strikes had “previously been in place, had gone through the whole process, had been consulted on” before being removed by the previous government.
On the Treaty Principles Bill consultation, he said: “We did adequate consultation. They had a subjective view. They thought it was more important than required.”
Could governments simply ignore new advice?
When questioned about whether the regulatory standards board – established under the new legislation – could be ignored by lawmakers, Seymour compared it to the Bill of Rights Act, acknowledging the Government had breached it with the gang patch ban.
“We judged that, overall, the right of New Zealanders not to feel intimidated in their local park was more important than what the Bill of Rights said,” he said.
But Seymour argued such warnings carried weight in Cabinet discussions.
“When I’m in Cabinet or I’m in a discussion with ministers, if it comes up, ‘oh, we might be in breach of the Bill of Rights’, it stops everyone in their tracks,” he said.
“I’m not saying that we never go over it… and that’s what regulatory standards will do, but it’ll be with things like the rule of law, liberties, property rights and so on.”
His Q+A interview also touched on charter schools, which his party has championed. Seymour – as Associate Education Minister – acknowledged no state schools have yet converted but said at least three schools are “on the verge of signing”.
For the full interview, watch the video above
Q+A with Jack Tame is made with the support of New Zealand On Air
