Parliamentary Debate on Regulatory Making: Insights from Part 6

In a recent session of parliament, members engaged in a detailed discussion over clauses 165 to 168, focusing on "Regulations and Miscellaneous Provisions" within the legislative bill. The debate centered around regulatory making functions, with particular attention given to prioritization and consultation processes.

Prioritizing Regulatory Making Functions

Arena Williams from Labour—Manurewa initiated the conversation by questioning how the Minister plans to prioritize regulatory making under this Act. She highlighted that while regulations related to brokers in Part 4 do not have a specific timing requirement, they are crucial, unlike other provisions which must be enacted within two years. This discrepancy underscores the need for strategic prioritization.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb from Labour—Christchurch Central emphasized the critical role these regulations play in implementing the bill's provisions on the ground. He expressed concerns about potential gaps in regulatory frameworks, particularly in areas like genetic testing and interest rates, where specific requirements might be absent. To address these issues, he suggested ensuring balanced consultation processes by involving consumer organizations or reference groups.

Consultation Process Concerns

In response, Hon Andrew Bayly, the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, acknowledged that not all regulations require immediate action. He noted that provisions for insurance intermediary arrangements have been carried over without significant changes, indicating limited but essential areas requiring regulation. Specific needs, such as setting interest rates in the event of death, were identified.

Minister Bayly assured that consultations with relevant parties, including consumer advocacy groups, are a regular part of his process. He highlighted ongoing meetings with these groups across various bills to ensure their input is considered appropriately for each context.

Conclusion and Voting Outcomes

The debate concluded when Suze Redmayne, Junior Whip for National, moved to close the discussion on this topic. The motion to close the debate was agreed upon with 68 Ayes from:

  • New Zealand National (49 votes)
  • ACT New Zealand (11 votes)
  • New Zealand First (8 votes)

In contrast, there were 55 Noes:

  • Labour (34 votes)
  • Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand (15 votes)
  • Te Pāti Māori (6 votes)

Following this, a vote was held on whether Part 6 should be agreed upon. The outcome mirrored that of the previous motion, with 68 Ayes from:

  • National (49 votes)
  • ACT (11 votes)
  • New Zealand First (8 votes)

And 55 Noes from:

  • Labour (34 votes)
  • Green Party (15 votes)
  • Te Pāti Māori (6 votes)

This decision marked consensus on the regulatory and miscellaneous provisions outlined in this section of the bill.

The debate highlighted the complexities involved in legislative regulation-making and underscored the importance of prioritization and inclusive consultation in crafting effective laws.