By Bryce Wilkinson

If you believe some of its critics, the pending Regulatory Standards Bill is a demonic measure to end New Zealand society as we know it. This is beyond false; it is ridiculous.

In fact, it is a modest transparency measure. It will better inform the public about laws and regulations likely to make New Zealanders worse off. It will not otherwise stop anything.

The proposal has three aspects. First, it lists long-standing tests for new laws and regulations. Second it requires those responsible for proposing a law or regulation to certify whether it complies with those tests, and if not to explain why. Third it allows anyone to appeal to a Board if they think the statement is wrong.

Here is the crucial bit that some critics do not tell readers: any ruling by the Board is non-binding. Nothing changes unless Parliament wants to change something. Its law-making sovereignty is preserved.

So why do it? Hopefully, in some cases, the greater transparency will change public opinion and thereby Parliament’s decisions. To oppose that is surely to oppose democracy.

Are the proposed tests controversial? Not if you look at long established legal principles. For example, the long-standing Legislation Guidelines endorsed by successive government Cabinets inform all law-making in New Zealand. The 2021 edition states unequivocally that

“New legislation should respect property rights. People are entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of their property. … Government should not take a person’s property without good justification. A rigorously fair procedure is required and compensation should generally be paid. If compensation is not paid, there must be cogent policy justification (such as where the proceeds of crime or illegal goods are confiscated).”

Property is important, but so is liberty. You cannot enjoy your home if you are wrongfully locked up or shut out of New Zealand. The Guidelines staunchly assert:

The principle of legality—the dignity of the individual and the presumption in favour of liberty. Legislation should be consistent with the dignity of the individual and the presumption in favour of liberty.

By including such principles in its proposed tests, the Bill should make it harder for measures to grossly violate them without the Parliament and the public being aware of it.

Principles are not absolutes, they allow departures, but reasons should be given. The Public Works Act is a well-justified departure.

Yet some of the criticism seems to attack these very principles.

Some think property rights only protect big companies and wealthy landowners. They think capitalism is greedy, exploitative and evil.

But the history of the decline in global poverty associated with the industrial revolution tells a different story. Good, well-enforced laws should guard against fraudulent misrepresentation and much else.

Choice is critical to empowering consumers. Competition provides choice. It forces businesses to offer customers value for money. No one has to buy an iPhone or use Facebook.

As Adam Smith so shrewdly observed in 1776, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” Competition forces those who want repeat business to have regard to your interests. That is a crucial insight that the critics of capitalism seem to miss.

Customers need property. Without it you cannot buy or sell.

Imagine being told you couldn't keep the money you earned from your weekend job, or that someone could take away the phone you saved up to buy. Pretty unfair, right?

Another example: A teenager saves to buy equipment to start a small cake-baking business. Property rights mean no one is allowed to steal the mixer or the till.

The principle of liberty allows the same teenager to decide which cakes to make. Competition will force him or her to make quality cakes at competitive prices. If successful, the reinvested earnings will grow the business.

Giant corporations today may have started in someone’s garage.

Why do giant corporations pay high wages for skilled workers? Competition is the only plausible reason.

Far from benefiting just the rich, such well-enforced rights protect everyone – from the kid with a skateboard to a composer, artist, homeowner, small business, the consumer and the farmer to the factory worker.

When these fundamental protections are undermined, the poor and powerless may suffer most. Wealthy people can pay for their own protection.

The liberty principle also has an enduring moral basis – treat others as you would want them to treat you. To respect their property, dignity and liberty is to be neighbourly.

The critics’ hostility to such fundamental principles for civil society and material prosperity is a concern. More public debate and understanding is needed about the virtues of a well-designed system of voluntary exchange. The rules do matter. That at least is common ground.

Contrary to some of the critics, absolutely nothing in the Legislative Guidelines or in the mooted Bill represents a drive to a limited, ‘nightwatchman’ government.

Governments always have and always will take property and restrict individual liberty, hopefully for good public interest reasons.

This will not change. To repeat, the mooted Bill preserves Parliament sovereignty.

But governments can assert anything if not subject to sufficient scrutiny. The proposed Bill enhances such scrutiny.

Bryce is a Senior Fellow at The New Zealand Initiative. Originally published on NZInitiative.