The National Party says it will cut back the layers of bureaucratic rules it says are thwarting business initiative.
Its leader Christopher Luxon says this is a key part of National's economic plan and is being unveiled ahead of the main announcement.
“Today we are announcing the first part of that plan – the actions National will take to cut red tape and complex regulations that are stifling our economy and making it too hard for New Zealanders to get things done," Luxon says.
Many of the aspects of this plan have already been foreshadowed. One of them is repeal of the Labour Government's reforms of the Resource Management Act (RMA): the Spatial Planning Act and the Natural and Built Environment Act.
The Labour Government said these bills would streamline the RMA but National says they would make it worse.
Also in National's sights are the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA) and the Conduct of Financial Institutions Act (CoFI).
The CCCFA famously took people's coffee drinking habits into account when assessing their creditworthiness. Although Labour wound back the extent of these rules, National plans to go further.
It also plans to repeal CoFI, which some in the finance industry said needlessly duplicates another law which requires practitioners to get a Financial Advice Provider (FAP) licence before they can work in the finance industry. CoFI followed probes into the conduct and culture of banks and life insurers in 2018 and 2019 by the Reserve Bank and Financial Markets Authority. The incoming regime aims to ensure financial institutions do what's best for their customers over the entire lifecycle of a financial product, and introduces a fair conduct principle through which financial institutions are required to treat customers fairly.
National also says it will restore 90-day trials for businesses with more than 20 staff so they can trial potential employees.
National has also repeated its earlier pledge to lift the effective ban on Gene Editing (GE) and Genetic Modification (GM) to enable farmers to reduce their emissions.
Also promised is elimination of the need for resource consents for electric vehicle (EV) chargers and the streamlining of building consents and code of compliance certificates.
“Kiwi businesses thrive when we have a dynamic, competitive economy and it’s the Government’s job to get the settings right so that businesses can step up and achieve that," Luxon says.
"That means a predictable and consistent regulatory environment, with less red tape."
Despite National's comment, not everyone believes New Zealand businesses are throttled by red tape. New Zealand was named the easiest country in the world to do business in a series of studies by the World Bank up till 2020, when the studies were discontinued.
A more recent report, done this year by the Economist Intelligence Unit, rated New Zealand lower, and far behind the leader Singapore, but still in the top 10 countries world wide.
Another survey, by a libertarian think tank from Canada, the Fraser Institute, put New Zealand at number three, after Singapore and Hong Kong, for its degree of economic freedom.
Comments like these have been seized on by the economist for the Council of Trade Unions, Craig Renney, who points out that people in New Zealand can start a company online in 15 minutes.
On the other hand, it is common to hear anecdotal accounts of would-be business people spending tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees before they get to sell a single item to a customer.
One rich-lister, Chris Meehan told the New Zealand Herald that this country was the “land of the long red tape”, especially when it came to denying land for building houses, which only made people pay more for shelter than they needed to. Meehan was at the time engaged in a huge row over a building development near Auckland.
Farmers and the real estate industry operatives have also complained about the burden of regulation that they face.
50 Comments
Comments like these have been seized on by the economist for the Council of Trade Unions, Craig Renney, who points out that people in New Zealand can start a company online in 15 minutes.
While this sounds like a good indicator of how "easy" it is to conduct business, in Singapore, if you had a drug addicted employee, you'd probably tell the cops.
In NZ, you're legally required to nurture them through their problems, whether they even want you to or not.
Much of our business environment has employers occupying a matriarchal role, and with regulations that has every business needing to operate a level of care in their day to day actions that assumes the worst possible thing might happen at every second.
While I agree this shouldn’t be the responsibility of the employer, where do these people go? After watching a few proposed solutions for the next term, there seems to be a lot of notion that these people should lose their jobs, lose their homes, lose their benefit and end up in prison. On the surface this seems to get rid of the “problem”, but at a huge financial burden which seems to be brushed under the mat. I wonder if anybody has done a cost analysis on better rehab facilities. I’m sure prison guards are cheaper but I hear even they are leaving for better pay elsewhere
Ultimately any drug addict will only sort themselves out when they want to, and not under anyone else's will.
Employer, friend or otherwise, the human thing to do is offer someone in trouble a hand. But on the flipside, if your drug problem is ruining your work performance/attendance, and you don't want help, there's nothing an employer can do.
90 day trial policy interests me.
Some time ago I was let go under a 90 day trial. In fact, I was booted out the door on the very last day of the trial at about 4.45pm (wasn't even given a chance to go back to my desk and collect my stuff or say goodbye). I was able to challenge this owing to the case law - reference escapes me now - that found a 90-day trial was invalid if the employment contract wasn't signed before work commenced. I was never asked to sign my contract until the morning I was let go. In writing and in the contract we had also agreed to monthly performance reviews, which never took place.
Some years later, the now-owner of the business (who was just a shareholding partner then - the previous management I was terminated under was booted out by him when he took over) admitted to me when I wound up sat next to him in the airport lounge that I was hired along with another person to pick up slack on some anticipated projects. These never materialised as expected so I had little work to do, and while the other employee actually resigned and went back to his old job I stayed on and they used the system to make me redundant easily as the company was very short on cash.
While I was "done over" by the 90-day trial system, as a business owner myself now who works with a lot of smaller businesses I can see the appeal and do think there is some merit. Rather shamelessly, I've done well as a 'hired gun', getting contracts where an employer simply can't afford to make the wrong hire, as they know that although I command a far higher rate they can sack me off whenever with no consequences. I know for a fact some of my clients would rather hire staff (even sometimes I advise this) but they are worried about hiring a wrong 'un who becomes hard to get rid of; the potential costs can be catastrophic.
I think a 90-day trial system needs to strike a balance. E.g. there needs to be an agreed process for performance reviews and if the employer doesn't follow this the trial is void, and there needs to be some system to prevent it being used as a way of acquiring short term labour (which is what happened to me).
If that can be done, I think there are merits in making it more comfortable for smaller businesses to take a punt on employees.
I too was a victim of the 90 day trial once. I left the company I am currently with to take a punt in another industry. Was advertised as a hybrid internal/external sales role. First day on the job where's my company vehicle? Oh you have to share with the other rep.....
Despite getting out there, cold calling over the phone, bringing in new sales opportunities etc the business model operated in a niche market segment so had limited market share against big box stores and I was let go. Not long after my previous and current employer reached out to see where I was at and offered my old job back in a heart beat.
Heard later on the company quite frequently does this, whether it's to cater for temporary demand or to "take a punt" for growth but it really does play with people's lives. Being sacked not on your merits but because their business model sucks.
I agree, the 90 day trial is far too discretionary. Something in contractual form that gives the employee certainty that if certain metrics are achieved that they will have a job by the end of it, and measurable progress milestones are discussed/logged. That document then becomes the central point if they're let go before 90 days is up and they want to dispute.
Sounds all too familiar!
I had the same issue - job sounded great on paper with lots of interesting work to do. Get there and within first week none of it materialised, an I spent the next ~3 months literally running random errands (e.g. one day I had to take the coffee machine in for repair, the next day I was chauffeuring the managers to and from the airport, or organising the Friday lunches).
Per your third para, exactly the same deal. It was all about trying to fill some temporary, anticipated demand.
I agree that the system needs some kind of 'mandated' approach e.g. MBIE (or whichever government department) provides a structured, templated process that must be used. E.g. there must be a monthly performance review with documented outcomes and any performance issues that might affect ongoing employment are to be listed and opportunity given to address them. If the process is not followed to the letter, then the trial is invalidated.
Until the 90 day trial becomes more formalized, I won't agree with it. Just like no cause tenancy evictions, puts far too much power in the hands of those who already have power. Otherwise what's next? No-cause arrests by the Police under the guise that we want to keep the community safe?
I do agree with the concept of 90 day trials, but needs to strike a balance. If a business is hiring someone under a 90 day trial, they should have sufficient cashflow to carry on employing past that 90 days. But someone hired for 90 days instantly loses their income through no fault of their own, and if they had the benefit of hindsight would have needed to start interviewing for jobs on day 1 of the trial period to minimize disruption.
So predictable from Nats.
Our economy is held back by the unequal tax treatment of capital gains.
The country pours capital into uselessly and totally unproductively bidding up land prices rather than putting it to productive use.
Nationals proposed brightline test changes and lack of tax changes continue down the same track.
You couldn’t be more wrong…..and to prove it. There are many countries that have CGT, and also have a massive wealth gap (USA for instance). The problem is not caused by tax policy, it is caused by a country being unproductive, and governments printing money. Cutting red tape will reduce costs of compliance which in turn will boost productivity. Great policy again. I’m still on the fence between national and act but think voting for the strongest Candidate out of the two locally and party vote the other.
Not only not wanting to work in the first place but equally bad is how what work is done, is done. Far too much of NZ’s bureaucracy operates on the basis of all authority, no responsibility. Hence the haste to engage consultants at any whim, in order to be able to lay the blame elsewhere. If National become government though they are going to have utmost difficulty in penetrating let alone shifting this entrenched bloc, culture. Heck even a cut through artist such as Richard Prebble had a hatful of challenges progressing such matters in the 80s as Railways minister for example.
We're unproductive for a range of reasons. One of the biggest problems is someone else is prepared to do it cheaper, on easier terms. So you end up having to develop a business that can't be replicated easily by a competing market, that is of significantly higher value.
Ever tried running a decent sized business?
You do realize you are discussing a problem that is primarily caused by red tape ensuring supply can never keep up with demand right?
Buying lots of houses is suddenly a lot less profitable if there is an abundant supply of properties relative to demand, ample capacity to meet growth, and a nimble planning system that can meet unexpected peaks in demand on a dime...
Farmers are already using public groundwater supplies as their private sewer.
I guess it's a sentence like this which is the problem behind legislative thinking.
"Some" farmers might be doing this.
"All" farmers then have to put in mitigating measures because of the "some".
So you have entire sectors bearing costs, over the actions of a few. And it never ends, and eventually you get more commercial entities falling by the wayside, and less entering. And wondering why our productivity is in a spiral.
This isn't to say I'm against any regulation, but that compliance runs counter to productivity.
I am 35 and have been somewhat a centrist since I became eligible to vote. Until recently, I thought that all politicians want to pursue policies that they genuinely believe are in the best interests of the country as a whole and will benefit the little people as well as the wealthy. However, I am now really struggling to decide whether I should vote for a group who I still think have the best intentions and have made some real efforts to tackle systemic issues with housing and tax, but have made some rather big blunders in other areas, or the people who should just admit that they are only interested in making things better for "the right sort of people" who are already well off. I'm not sure whether National's agenda is set by lobbyists, whether it is self-interest/borderline corruption on the part of the MPs themselves or whether they really have just drunk the Kool-Aid and are incapable or critically analysing how their ideology will actually play out in practice. There are many social and economic issues that I am not well informed enough about to form an opinion about which party has the best policies but from what I do know, I would not trust anything being said by National / Act about those issues as they just seem to be acting in bad faith when it comes to tax/housing.
National's agenda may be one thing to consider, Labours track record is another.
A long & depressing read
https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/alex-holland-labour-s-failures
https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/alex-holland-race-based-division
That's why you shouldn't vote for either of them. There are more than 2 choices you realise?
National are, by and large, captured by special interests. Mainly business groups and property investors. Hell, the leader IS a property investor, who has already avoided the question multiple times of lowering the rent on his rental properties, if they were to change the interest deductibility rules back. Of course he will say he can't "cos Labour pushed up interest rates" or similar
Don't vote for either of them. Protest vote a small party, if you are centrist, TOP is considered extreme centrist.
I am doing exactly this.
At present it'll be two ticks Green.
But if TOP look like taking a seat - I'll switch. Why? The land tax is simple and very hard to escape and it absolutely nails "property investment" into a coffin it should have been in 30 years ago. The Green's wealth tax is trickier but still workable. Both should, IMO, set their rates differently (TOP's lower) and Greens wealth limit somewhat higher (or perhaps regionally). Both can be adjusted over time.
In any event - I'm sick and tired of the gutless action from the purple parties (and their looney, extremist potential coalition partners whose policies are either sound-bite-ist, experimental. or at the whim of some fringe group ... or just plain looney.)
I really wish politicians and political parties would stop using the work "promise", like a child promising to behave with their fingers and toes crossed.
At the end of the day there is literally nothing that they could "promise" to do. It simply devalues the meaning of the word.
The "wasteful speeding" argument is 100% fact based.
Govt don't get multi quotes.
All consultants, companies double their price for govt and they pay it as it's not their money they have targets to meet but saving money is NOT one of them!
Pay way over price for housing - both buying housing and to landlords they pay 2x rent - take emergency housing - over 1k a day for a studio 1 bed motel unit (we the tax payer still, 6 years on, are paying this and its only snowballed).
Bring it on Nats and Act. Cull season!
A major gain would be to reform urban development legislation so all development regulation is standards-based. If you comply with the standards you don’t need resource consent.
In most zones in Auckland you automatically need resource consent for a development comprising four or more dwellings. And then it becomes a discretionary process full of discretionary calls on what constitutes ‘good urban design.’ It’s an absolute nightmare, takes a long time and costs a lot of money. For often minimal if any benefit.
if you have a performance standard system, you comply with the standards then can avoid resource consent! If you don’t then you go through the pain of a consent. Creates a great incentive to comply!
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.