David Seymour. Photo: RNZ/Reece Baker
David Seymour is defending the estimated $18 million a year cost of his Regulatory Standards Bill.
Recommendations from the board the bill would create would not be binding, aiming to provide transparency in lawmaking.
A regulatory impact statement (RIS) prepared by the Ministry for Regulation provides a broad $18 million estimate of costs across the public service under the minister's preferred approach - a minimum figure.
It compares this against the benefits - including more transparency about whether New Zealand's legislation meets the standards proposed in the bill - but notes "delivery of these benefits will depend heavily on the impact of competing incentives and the effectiveness of implementation".
"The size of the benefits of all options presented in the RIS are challenging to assess, given the focus of the proposal on influencing decision-making of agencies and ministers - rather than directly changing a piece of legislation or regulatory system".
Minister for Regulation David Seymour said the cost of policy work across the government was $870m a year, so the cost of the bill was about 2 percent of that.
"I actually think 2 percent of our policy work on improving the regulations we put on everyone else is a pretty good deal. The other way you could look at it, is... if it costs $20m just to check the regulations, imagine the cost to all the poor buggers out there who have to comply with all this crap."
Questioned about the cost-benefit analysis, he said the bill was trying to change the government's behaviour, and the benefits of that were hard to estimate.
"If you're passing a law that is designed to change the way government behaves in the coming decades, then you are going to find the costs or the benefits that you envisage are entirely dependent on the hypothetical propositions that are put forward. Now, if you don't know what laws are going to be proposed and stopped by the Regulatory Standards Bill in the next 20 years, it's hard to say what the benefits of it will be.
"To make up a number and say 'I've done cost-benefit analysis' would be dishonest."
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Minister for Regulation David Seymour. Photo: RNZ / Angus Dreaver
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said it was designed to ensure there was quality regulation, so it needed to be looked at in the context of cost-benefit analysis.
"Let's see, we need to make sure that we're getting really good value out of that... this bill's got a wee way to go, it's very complex, it's a bit like the fast-track legislation."
He said the legislation could also be "improved along the way" through the Parliamentary process.
Finance Minister Nicola Willis said government agencies were resourced to ensure regulations were sound. Asked about the cost, she said that could not be known yet.
"But it's my expectation that all government agencies who are resourced to provide policy advice will be able to integrate this."
Huge opposition
About 88 percent of the 23,000 public submissions responding to a discussion document about the bill were opposed, and 0.33 percent were in support or partial support, with the remaining 12 percent having no clear position.
An assessment by Treasury found the RIS "partially meets" the quality assurance criteria, noting alternatives were not explored in detail having been limited by the coalition and ministerial direction.
"The information in the RIS suggests that the specific legislative changes sought in this Cabinet paper are unlikely to be the most efficient approach to pursuing the stated objectives. It highlights that, if the recommendations are agreed, regulating in the public interest may be more costly, with an uncertain impact on the underlying behavioural incentives and on the information problems that drive poor regulatory outcomes."
The assessment suggested more consideration should be given to implementation difficulties, funding and risks identified in the RIS.
What the bill does
The bill's stated purpose is to reduce unnecessary and poor quality regulation by making it clear where legislation does not meet the standards the bill proposes.
This would include requiring ministries to review new legislation in line with principles including personal equality, no unjustified taking of or impairment of property, that goods and services fees should be relative to the cost of the good or service, consulting where reasonably practical, and that the benefits of legislation should exceed the costs to the public.
It would also set up a Regulatory Standards Board, appointed by the regulatory standards minister, to perform inquiries into whether current legislation meets the standards and review the statements provided by the ministries.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
