Your chosen title - The Integrity Institute - implies objective and unbiased writing with views from both perspectives presented. You chose only to highlight three problems, which were not due to lack of regulation , but no examples of the problems caused by NIMBYs, Maori and naysayers against certain projects, which have cost jobs and growth.
Poor effort.
Next time, for the sake of Integrity, present both sides view points equally
The Regulatory Standards Bill will turn capitalism into a protection racket, pure and simple. "You must pay us not to do you harm" is the new cry of the "property owners" aka the capitalists. That inverts the already problematic basic principle of neo-liberalism "You can do whatever you like so long as you do no harm to others" and makes a farce of the whole neo-liberal ideology.
The proposed bill could indeed in theory entitle property and business owners to unreasonable compensation for various common good laws, e.g. where toxic pollution that previously enabled a business to do very nicely thank you, was finally outlawed, but real potential for such clearly undesirable impacts depends on the details of how the bill is framed.
Similarly a capital gains tax could tax the nominal value of all assets, or it could tax only realised income from a capital gain, which in theory could be fair for all or entirely unfair depending on the definition and specific criteria, the tests used to identify realised income and gain.
If the Government comes up with climate change legislation that significantly impacts farmers' incomes and their property values that cannot reasonably be proven will make an iota of difference to NZ climate, then surely it makes sense that those farmers are compensated for the stupidity of a Government committing the nation to international virtue signalling.
Generally I believe this bill could make sense to dampen unnecessary legislation and red tape, forcing careful consideration of whether it is really required and worth a potential compensation bill. If the legislation really is needed then that risk shouldn't be a problem.
More generally, this country is now in such dire economic straits, in such real trouble that we have to abandon for the time being some of the previous niceties, such as the notion of a pristine environment with no mining .. and personally I'm now quite prepared to accept into my back yard that which would have been unthinkable a short time ago, providing it genuinely helps to kick start this nation being able to make a decent living again.
Perhaps the rich getting relatively richer is simply a necessary side effect of doing the kind of business that enables a democratic nation to thrive, rather than just barely surviving as we are doing now, and is surely acceptable providing it drags the entire nation upwards.
Regulations which do not impose a financial cost on business in some way, shape or form would be unnecessary. Therefore the Regulatory Standards Bill can be kept short and sweet: "Thou shalt not regulate".
Thanks, it is certainly always a concern that if you take away protections, people will take advantage (and sadly many do, but that transcends your bank balance) but I believe we need to do things differently and somewhere there has to be a simple solution that still offers fair outcomes for all.....I do not believe that is more regulation. Improved corporate laws, holding people/companies to account with real penalties in a timely manner is needed for a start.
I believe the leaky homes were approved by a government agency which Helen Clarke then quickly shut down leaving councils and builders holding the liability....happy to hear different if I am wrong.
Pike River as far as I can tell failed to meet the regulations for H & S....so it wasn't an issue with the regulations being onerous or unwieldy, rather the failure to apply them. I doubt anyone would be stupid enough to remove the H & S protections enshrined in law today.
There is safety designed to protect people and then there is safety for profit........H & S is not immune to people designing things to improve their profits over a practical safe solution. When I see thousands of road cones littering our streets and noone working around them and no visual hazards, it does beg the question whether they are there for practical reasons, profit reasons, or disorganisational reasons.
Your chosen title - The Integrity Institute - implies objective and unbiased writing with views from both perspectives presented. You chose only to highlight three problems, which were not due to lack of regulation , but no examples of the problems caused by NIMBYs, Maori and naysayers against certain projects, which have cost jobs and growth.
Poor effort.
Next time, for the sake of Integrity, present both sides view points equally
The Regulatory Standards Bill will turn capitalism into a protection racket, pure and simple. "You must pay us not to do you harm" is the new cry of the "property owners" aka the capitalists. That inverts the already problematic basic principle of neo-liberalism "You can do whatever you like so long as you do no harm to others" and makes a farce of the whole neo-liberal ideology.
The proposed bill could indeed in theory entitle property and business owners to unreasonable compensation for various common good laws, e.g. where toxic pollution that previously enabled a business to do very nicely thank you, was finally outlawed, but real potential for such clearly undesirable impacts depends on the details of how the bill is framed.
Similarly a capital gains tax could tax the nominal value of all assets, or it could tax only realised income from a capital gain, which in theory could be fair for all or entirely unfair depending on the definition and specific criteria, the tests used to identify realised income and gain.
If the Government comes up with climate change legislation that significantly impacts farmers' incomes and their property values that cannot reasonably be proven will make an iota of difference to NZ climate, then surely it makes sense that those farmers are compensated for the stupidity of a Government committing the nation to international virtue signalling.
Generally I believe this bill could make sense to dampen unnecessary legislation and red tape, forcing careful consideration of whether it is really required and worth a potential compensation bill. If the legislation really is needed then that risk shouldn't be a problem.
More generally, this country is now in such dire economic straits, in such real trouble that we have to abandon for the time being some of the previous niceties, such as the notion of a pristine environment with no mining .. and personally I'm now quite prepared to accept into my back yard that which would have been unthinkable a short time ago, providing it genuinely helps to kick start this nation being able to make a decent living again.
Perhaps the rich getting relatively richer is simply a necessary side effect of doing the kind of business that enables a democratic nation to thrive, rather than just barely surviving as we are doing now, and is surely acceptable providing it drags the entire nation upwards.
Regulations which do not impose a financial cost on business in some way, shape or form would be unnecessary. Therefore the Regulatory Standards Bill can be kept short and sweet: "Thou shalt not regulate".
Thanks, it is certainly always a concern that if you take away protections, people will take advantage (and sadly many do, but that transcends your bank balance) but I believe we need to do things differently and somewhere there has to be a simple solution that still offers fair outcomes for all.....I do not believe that is more regulation. Improved corporate laws, holding people/companies to account with real penalties in a timely manner is needed for a start.
I believe the leaky homes were approved by a government agency which Helen Clarke then quickly shut down leaving councils and builders holding the liability....happy to hear different if I am wrong.
Pike River as far as I can tell failed to meet the regulations for H & S....so it wasn't an issue with the regulations being onerous or unwieldy, rather the failure to apply them. I doubt anyone would be stupid enough to remove the H & S protections enshrined in law today.
Your last sentence: indeed there are people who would like to see them significantly watered down: orange road cones, scaffolding for a start.
There is safety designed to protect people and then there is safety for profit........H & S is not immune to people designing things to improve their profits over a practical safe solution. When I see thousands of road cones littering our streets and noone working around them and no visual hazards, it does beg the question whether they are there for practical reasons, profit reasons, or disorganisational reasons.