Regulations Minister David Seymour Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii
The Ministry of Housing and Urban Development has warned that the Regulatory Standards Bill could stymie progress in enabling papakāinga, or Māori housing, documents show.
A ministry official also flagged concerns the legislation could make it harder for ministers to do their jobs, and warned the reach of the proposed law - and the minister-appointed board - seemed "disproportionate to the authority of Parliament".
Regulations Minister David Seymour rejected the criticism, saying the ministry should be "leading the charge to cut through this bureaucracy so more homes can be built".
The Regulatory Standards Bill is non-binding on Parliament but proposes a set of principles MPs and officials would have to consider when designing regulation.
It also would set up a board, appointed by the minister, to examine current and future laws' consistency with those principles, as well as requiring regular reviews of all regulations.
In its feedback, the housing ministry raised concern about the potential for individual property rights to be elevated over and above collective rights.
"...the lack of provision for collective rights/rangatiratanga and the indicated shift towards Individual rights, in a way that is not currently in New Zealand's constitution, could impact the way we can develop policy and legislation with significant negative impacts on Māori housing outcomes," it said.
The ministry said one of the proposed principles - dealing with taxes, fees, and levies - could hinder progress on Māori-led housing projects.
"If this principle is imposed over regulation, we are concerned it could be misaligned with the current approaches to whenua Māori, lead to greater fragmentation of land/whenua Maōri, be a barrier to pooling resources for collective good and further entrench the negative housing outcomes that currently exist."
The government in May announced plans to make it easier to consent papakāinga. However, funding for the Whai Kāinga, Whai Oranga housing fund has also been cut.
In a statement to RNZ, a spokesperson for Seymour said if the Regulation Standards Bill had been in place years ago, it could have prevented "much of the pointless red tape" that slows down building and consenting.
"New Zealand faces a serious housing crisis. Anyone who has tried to build a home knows the delays and costs caused by red tape," the spokesperson said.
"I'd have thought the Ministry for Housing would be leading the charge to cut through this bureaucracy so more homes can be built."
An FAQ document prepared by Seymour's office also rejected the idea that the bill would favour individual rights over collective ones, saying it preserved the status quo "that collective Parliamentary law can trump all individual rights to personal autonomy and possessions".
The document did not specify, however, how individual property rights would be considered compared to collective property rights by officials operating under the new regime.
The housing ministry also warned that requiring reviews of all secondary legislation in reviews - without exemption - would add to the government's workload.
To that, Seymour was unapologetic: "We're aware the public service doesn't like this law. Yes, it makes more work for them, justifying laws that interfere in people's lives. Here's the thing: If the public service think being required to justify their laws is a faff, imagine what it's like for the public they have to serve who are obliged to follow them."
The ministry also made the case that the Treaty of Waitangi "should be featured as a relevant consideration" among the principles.
But the FAQ, from Seymour's office, said the Treaty was excluded because the bill was focused on the quality of regulations, not Treaty obligations.
"As with compliance with international obligations, legal obligations under Treaty settlements are a given. A central part of the RSB is to protect existing legal rights from unprincipled appropriation," it said.
The ministry also said the ability for the proposed Regulatory Standards Board - appointed by the Regulations Minister, currently Seymour - to carry out reviews of regulations ahead of agencies' own regular reviews of legislation "would not be the most effective use of the board's time".
Seymour has previously defended the extra cost and workload, saying the cost was about 2 percent of the policy work currently done across the government.
"If it costs $20 million just to check the regulations, imagine the cost to all the poor buggers out there who have to comply with all this crap," he said.
Concerns raised by official over 'disproportionate' powers
In preparation for providing feedback on the Cabinet paper in October, an MHUD official warned that giving the Regulation Minister power to set the terms of regulatory reviews could interfere with the work of other ministers.
"The power of the Minister of Regulation to initiate regulatory review and set terms of reference gives considerable power and will affect the ability of a portfolio minister to advance their work," the official said.
"There should be elements of mutual agreement, or consultation required, or some detail about the threshold for the Minister to initiate a review (eg requiring an Order in Council)."
The official also questioned whether a board chosen by the minister should have so much influence, saying it seemed "disproportionate compared to the authority of Parliament".
They pointed out there was already a process - through the Regulatory Review Committee and the Legislation Act - that allowed MPs to examine regulations if concerns were raised.
In response, Seymour's spokesperson said the bureaucrats "may want to familiarise themselves" with a set of rules, known as Legislative Guidelines, which departments are already required to follow, including the principles of property rights, individual liberty, and the rule of law.
"The only difference is that under the Regulatory Standards Bill, these principles would become Parliamentary law, not just Cabinet guidance that some departments clearly ignore."
