Ministry for Regulation
This week I’m still thinking about the incoming government’s promises this week. When I first heard we would get a Ministry of Regulation, I thought it was a joke. Aren’t all ministries about regulation? Government passes regulations which are drafted by the ministries who then have to enact the regulations through policy and rules.
A Ministry of Regulation sounded so Orwellian that I had to go look up the Ministries in ‘1984’. They were:
· Ministry of Truth – regulating media, entertainment and arts in order to control thoughts.
· Ministry of Peace – presiding over war.
· Ministry of Love – in charge of the judicial system (and torturing people).
· Ministry of Plenty – governing economic affairs (in such a way that plenty never occurred).
A Ministry for Regulation was one of David Seymour/ACT’s campaign promises. Funnily enough, it actually has an Orwellian name – the intent of the Ministry is to reduce, rather than increase, regulations. That’s a relief, although it’s a puzzle why David Seymour wouldn’t come up with a more appealing ministry title. Does he like the title of ‘Minister for Regulation’ better than ‘Minister for Freedom’, perhaps? The purpose of the Ministry is to “… police the rules and regulations Ministers are constantly foisting on unsuspecting Kiwis just trying to get ahead.” Put another way, the purpose is to:
· evaluate and recommend on new regulatory proposals; and
· review existing regulations in specific sectors with a view to providing omnibus bills to Parliament that remove surplus rules and regulations.
ACT’s proposal was that officials responsible for assessing the impact of regulations who are currently in Treasury and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) would be housed inside the Ministry for Regulation and report to a new minister (him). It would be funded from the Treasury and MBIE baselines. There is already a Minister responsible for assessing the impact of regulations – the Minister of Finance. So this adds a ministerial portfolio and increased the likelihood David would get a portfolio if he was part of a coalition (the Minister for Finance probably wasn’t heartbroken about giving up regulation).
I wonder why we needed a new Ministry. We already had officials responsible for assessing the impact of regulations as above and the Productivity Commission had a complementary overarching role of assessing the synergy and practicality of specific regulations, when asked to report on them by government. In fact, they produced a report for government in 2014 on the very question of management of regulations. This report had a very long list of recommendations based on a review of the New Zealand systems and international best practice. They definitely thought there was a lot of room for improvement. In general, they said that:
· Parliamentary processes for testing proposals for new regulation needs to be tightened.
· Public service departments should concentrate their review and evaluation efforts on the regulations where there are the largest likely benefits.
· New Zealand needs a more professionalised regulatory workforce, with better training and career pathways.
· Ministers need to provide clearer strategies and stronger leadership for the regulatory system as a whole.
The Productivity Commission recommendations did not include a new minister. Recommendation 16.04 proposed that Treasury should have an expanded team overseeing regulatory management. The Productivity Commission did not think it was necessary for such a team to have a separate identity.
The government (MBIE Minister Stephen Joyce) responded that it would focus on improving some areas. Government did not consider the Treasury team needed a separate identity or to increase in size. Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Regulatory Reform David Seymour would be responsible for overseeing publication of an overarching strategy for the regulatory management system. This strategy was published in 2017 with Goldsmith on the cover, who had taken over as Minister for Regulatory Reform from Stephen Joyce. The strategy didn't include a new Ministry or Minister, either. However, it looks like Seymour was influenced by what he found out in the process – he didn't like the Productivity Commission. Disestablishment of the Productivity Commission it will be one of the upcoming undoings by the coalition government.
One could ask why a government whose goal is to reduce government is creating a new Ministry. A Ministry that wasn’t recommended in the last big review on the subject area. The bigger question, however, is whether a new Ministry and Minister will result in more efficiency, or less. Will the Ministry reduce enough regulations to be worth the cost of its existence? And will the Ministry and Minister report on their achievements so we know if they were successful? Best ask David Seymour when the next election comes around. In the meantime I will look for insights through re-reading 1984.
Get new content delivered
directly to your inbox.
Latest Posts
