You are welcome, Peter - if sharing my submission nudges even just a couple more people along to make a submission on this bill then I will be very happy!
I think it's quite likely that the real reasoning behind the RSB is to try to prevent tax on assets. Governments are in debt and prices are rising leading to unsustainable inequality. It's kind of inevitable that the tax system will have to change. So this is what ACT really are trying to get ahead of - stop a tax on wealth by saying that there is a legal right to profit from property.
Thank you Catherine for sharing. This explains perfectly why this horrendous piece of legislation should be consigned to the scrap heap. Another blatant attempt at extracting wealth for the minority at the expense of the majority. Not only now but for future generations. If this does get passed, it is incumbent on labour to repeal it as a priority when they next take the reins.
I object to this Bill too, but please can you explain how 8(c)(i) enables polluters to seek compensation for reducing the harmful effects of their activities, on the grounds that it diminishes their property rights
Thanks for the query Myles. It is 8(c)(ii) that requires "fair compensation for the taking or impairment is provided to the owner" even if it is justified under 8(c)(i). It rests on the "and" following the 8(c)(i). For a really good explanation of the implications of this clause I highly recommend listening to Melanie Nelson's interview with economist Geoff Bertram https://melanienelson.substack.com/p/geoff-bertram-what-the-regulatory
And actually to be honest, I don't think my draft submission goes far enough - I use the word 'seek' but the wording of the sub-clause suggests that the compensation would be more automatic. Do you have thoughts on this?
Sorry but I find your criticisms reading something into the Bill that simply isn't there. Not dissimilar to that which has been read into the Treaty of Waitangi, co-governance etc that also simply isn't there. For sure the Bill's principles of regulation shouldn't be required if legislation standards were being properly applied when creating rules and regulations, which sadly they aren't, hence the need. Having said that in my view the Bill itself isn't a great example of sound legislation, as it has no "teeth" yet could require much expensive compliance effort to provide the information being mandated. So in that sense could well be just another layer of red tape, when it should surely require that parliament properly addresses those situations where a lack of appropriate standards is called out. Another problem with the Bill is a lack of adequate definitions. Ironic really when the other recent Bill that attempted to legislate for missing definitions was also an ACT one, the TPB. Why oh why, apart from proper formal definitions of key terminology, doesn't NZ legislation make more use of examples to avoid misinterpretation.
Thanks for your comment Ron. For clarity, can you give me an example of reading something into the bill that isn't there? Yes, I agree, it will create onerous layers of compliance - for government officials attempting to develop regulations or legislation to manage resources for the public good.
As an example Catherine, right from the outset you say: " .. its actual purpose, which is to constrain the government from acting in our collective interests as citizens .."
also
"the Bill aims to limit the state’s ability to act to protect our natural environment from further harm from corporates and individuals who profit from the exploitation of our shared inheritance"
So your turn for examples from the Bill itself of where those purposes are stated or implied.
Rather than just a reference to the Bill Catherine, on which I've already submitted, my genuine interest was more in your reasoning on specific details in the Bill that led to your interpretation. Or even alternative principles against which NZ legislation should be tested.
As said my main criticisms include that key concepts are far too open to interpretation. For example "impair property" and "fair compensation" to property owners could mean almost anything. However perhaps unlike yourself I don't read into this nefarious intent, but just that ironically it is itself a terrible example of loose law making in a Bill that should be a model of rigour, clarity and with minimal room for interpretation, the latter preferably achieved by providing example use cases.
Wonderfully put , thank you
Thank you Catherine.
You are welcome, Peter - if sharing my submission nudges even just a couple more people along to make a submission on this bill then I will be very happy!
I think it's quite likely that the real reasoning behind the RSB is to try to prevent tax on assets. Governments are in debt and prices are rising leading to unsustainable inequality. It's kind of inevitable that the tax system will have to change. So this is what ACT really are trying to get ahead of - stop a tax on wealth by saying that there is a legal right to profit from property.
Thank you for sharing your submission - I certainly hope that there is going to be a flood of submissions against the RSB!
Thanks Susann, so do I!
Thank you Catherine for sharing. This explains perfectly why this horrendous piece of legislation should be consigned to the scrap heap. Another blatant attempt at extracting wealth for the minority at the expense of the majority. Not only now but for future generations. If this does get passed, it is incumbent on labour to repeal it as a priority when they next take the reins.
Clear, concise and to the point. An excellent model. Ngā mihi
Great work Catherine.
I object to this Bill too, but please can you explain how 8(c)(i) enables polluters to seek compensation for reducing the harmful effects of their activities, on the grounds that it diminishes their property rights
Thanks for the query Myles. It is 8(c)(ii) that requires "fair compensation for the taking or impairment is provided to the owner" even if it is justified under 8(c)(i). It rests on the "and" following the 8(c)(i). For a really good explanation of the implications of this clause I highly recommend listening to Melanie Nelson's interview with economist Geoff Bertram https://melanienelson.substack.com/p/geoff-bertram-what-the-regulatory
And actually to be honest, I don't think my draft submission goes far enough - I use the word 'seek' but the wording of the sub-clause suggests that the compensation would be more automatic. Do you have thoughts on this?
Sorry but I find your criticisms reading something into the Bill that simply isn't there. Not dissimilar to that which has been read into the Treaty of Waitangi, co-governance etc that also simply isn't there. For sure the Bill's principles of regulation shouldn't be required if legislation standards were being properly applied when creating rules and regulations, which sadly they aren't, hence the need. Having said that in my view the Bill itself isn't a great example of sound legislation, as it has no "teeth" yet could require much expensive compliance effort to provide the information being mandated. So in that sense could well be just another layer of red tape, when it should surely require that parliament properly addresses those situations where a lack of appropriate standards is called out. Another problem with the Bill is a lack of adequate definitions. Ironic really when the other recent Bill that attempted to legislate for missing definitions was also an ACT one, the TPB. Why oh why, apart from proper formal definitions of key terminology, doesn't NZ legislation make more use of examples to avoid misinterpretation.
Thanks for your comment Ron. For clarity, can you give me an example of reading something into the bill that isn't there? Yes, I agree, it will create onerous layers of compliance - for government officials attempting to develop regulations or legislation to manage resources for the public good.
As an example Catherine, right from the outset you say: " .. its actual purpose, which is to constrain the government from acting in our collective interests as citizens .."
also
"the Bill aims to limit the state’s ability to act to protect our natural environment from further harm from corporates and individuals who profit from the exploitation of our shared inheritance"
So your turn for examples from the Bill itself of where those purposes are stated or implied.
Sure! - here you go: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2025/0155/latest/whole.html#LMS1016794
Rather than just a reference to the Bill Catherine, on which I've already submitted, my genuine interest was more in your reasoning on specific details in the Bill that led to your interpretation. Or even alternative principles against which NZ legislation should be tested.
As said my main criticisms include that key concepts are far too open to interpretation. For example "impair property" and "fair compensation" to property owners could mean almost anything. However perhaps unlike yourself I don't read into this nefarious intent, but just that ironically it is itself a terrible example of loose law making in a Bill that should be a model of rigour, clarity and with minimal room for interpretation, the latter preferably achieved by providing example use cases.