Greater Wellington’s submission to the Finance & Expenditure Committee on the Regulatory Standards Bill recommends the immediate withdrawal of the Bill.

Deputy Chair of Greater Wellington and Councillor for Wairarapa Adrienne Staples and Chief Executive Nigel Corry, speaking to its submission to the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee said the Bill raised a cluster of red flags.

“It constrains government and regulators from acting in society’s collective interest, it undermines Te Tiriti o Waitangi and constitutes executive government overreach, it attempts to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, it creates legal risks, inefficiency, complexity and increased costs for local government, its partners and communities. On top of all that it will lead to worse social, environmental and economic outcomes,” said Mr Corry.

“Parliament has already voted down the flawed and inflammatory Te Tiriti o Waitangi Principles Bill. Surely it did not intend that a second Trojan horse would be injected into the Parliamentary Chamber. New Zealanders deserve better political discourse frankly,” said Cr Staples.

In its submission, Greater Wellington highlighted the many, varied and adverse effects the Bill would have in the region and across New Zealand, specifically outlining the risks to core council functions:

Environment - conservation, biodiversity and pest control

• The Bill’s focus on short-term measurable benefit may impact Greater Wellington’s ability to invest in innovative or long-term initiatives like predator control, replanting programmes, mātauranga Māori and mātauranga-ā-iwi driven conservation practices, or protection of taonga species with no immediate economic value.
• Māori approaches to conservation including their right to exercise kaitiakitanga could be challenged by the Bill’s focus on individual rights over collective obligations.
• The restrictions on new regulatory powers could slow Greater Wellington’s responses to unforeseen or emerging threats to biodiversity.

Environmental Regulation

• The Bill’s push for nationally consistent, minimal rules could constrain councils’ discretion to use precautionary limits or adopt stricter standards in sensitive areas.
• Efforts to regulate (e.g. high-emitting industries) might be challenged or require compensation for lost profits. Modern environmental law and policy is based on the ‘polluter pays’ principle - those causing pollution or environmental harm bearing the costs of remediation or prevention. The Bill's regulatory takings clause, however, reverses this principle. As an example, if a future government were to enact regulations to protect rivers, requiring a dairy corporation to reduce its pollution or stocking rates, and this action was deemed to impair the corporation's property, the Bill implies some form of compensation may be payable. This creates a perverse incentive structure where the public, through taxpayer funds, would effectively subsidise the costs of environmental protection, rather than the polluters.

Water

• Greater Wellington could be constrained in restricting water use to restore the health of the waterways, or during drought or pollution events if such measures are judged as unfairly impacting certain users.
• Attempts to uphold Te Mana o Te Wai or incorporate tikanga into freshwater regulation could be undermined by a framework that prioritises uniformity and individual rights.
• Any efforts to address long-standing inequitable rights to water access for example, for Māori landowners or under-serviced rural communities, could be stopped, as inconsistent with the Bill’s emphasis on formal equality, or identical treatment for all.
• In the same way, the following could be challenged: partnerships with communities, iwi and hapū to govern and manage water, and Māori and public input into water planning if they are not considered ‘materially affected’.

Climate change and infrastructure for resilience

• In elevating a narrow economic reading of regulation with efficiency and cost-limitation tests, the Bill could put broad constraints on Greater Wellington’s ability to invest in: long term resilience infrastructure upgrades, Māori-led climate initiatives, equity-based adaptation initiatives, low-emissions public transport, and progressive social procurement policies e.g. hiring locally, involving Māori suppliers and paying the living wage.

Transport

• The Bill could curtail New Zealand’s ability to expand public transport for the public good, including but not limited to: supporting community-led transport initiatives e.g. connecting to marae and papakāinga; cross-subsidising services in less profitable areas or where there is a higher need e.g. rural areas, disability access upgrades; and initiatives to reduce transport emissions.
• These initiatives could be challenged as being ‘unequal treatment’, and/or inconsistent with centralised efficiency metrics or cost-benefit assessments.

Greater Wellington’s free, frank and robust submission can be found here: Greater Wellington — Regulatory Standards Bill – Greater Wellington Regional Council Submission

Home Page | Auckland | Previous Story | Next Story

Copyright (c) Scoop Media