SSDP Submission on the Regulatory Standards Bill

Students for Sensible Drug Policy Aotearoa New Zealand has made a submission on the Regulatory Standards Bill. This bill introduces a requirement of good lawmaking practice that would hinder public health promoting activities such as ours and would give greater rights and powers to corporations to oppose measures that protect the health of us all. Our submission can be read below: Submission to the Chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Regulatory Standards Bill

Students for Sensible Drug Policy Aotearoa New Zealand

Background on the submitter

1. Students for Sensible Drug Policy Aotearoa New Zealand (SSDP) is a student organisation focused on reducing harm to people who use drugs. We advocate for reform to harmful campus, local, and national policies and pursue reduced drug harm through education of people who use drugs and their communities.

2. We do not wish to speak to our submission. 

SSDP opposes the Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB) 

1. We oppose the Regulatory Standards Bill in its entirety. This bill would impede our efforts to reduce drug harm, improve public health, and reduce the economic costs associated with drug prohibition.

2. While we oppose this Bill in its entirety, below we explain specific principles which if this Bill is to proceed further, should be repealed or altered. 

3. This submission squarely focuses on harm reduction advocacy lens as this is where our perspective is most helpful. However, we note that there are wider issues such as climate and environmental issues, as well as Te Tiriti o Waitangi that this Bill will be incredibly harmful to. 

Cost-effectiveness and efficaciousness requirements

1. The RSB requires that “legislation should be expected to produce benefits that exceed the costs of the legislation to the public or persons; and legislation should be the most effective, efficient, and proportionate response to the issue concerned that is available.”

2. This requirement requires that a substantial evidence base for future policies already exists which is rarely the case, particularly for innovative and ambitious policies as well as novel approaches to rapidly changing pubic health concerns, such as the rise of synthetic cannabinoids, the opioid crisis, and the HIV crisis.

3. New Zealand has one of the lowest HIV rates in the world, largely due to our early implementation of needle and syringe exchange services. At the time, there was little evidence around the effectiveness of this intervention however it has now proven to be highly efficacious in reducing harm and has produced significant economic gains through reduced disease burden on the country. Under the RSB, such legislation may have not been found in accordance with good law making as there was not a substantial evidence base when it was implemented.

4. Rather than evaluating legislation for cost effectiveness and efficaciousness at the time of implementation, the RSB should instead review legislation 5 to 10 years down the road to allow for novel and innovative legislation that does not yet have an evidence base for or against its cost effectiveness and efficaciousness. The method taken for the evaluation of the Drug and Substances Checking Legislation Act seems appropriate.

5. Cost effectiveness should not focus purely on economic value but should also consider the improved mental and physical health of the population. Cost effectiveness should also consider economic gains from saving money elsewhere such as through reduced healthcare costs or reduced crime.

Property rights should not be embedded and put above individual rights 

1. Property rights should not be put above the rights of individuals. Focus on property unfairly provides greater rights to those who possess more property and thus, further entrenches inequality. Additionally, the rights of businesses and organisations should not be put above the rights of individuals for the same reasons.

2. The focus on property rights is particularly worrisome as it may open the door for extensive legal action by businesses who believe their profits, intellectual property, or other assets are harmed by legislation which aims to improve public health.

3. The requirement to provide adequate compensation to affected parties who have their property rights affected by legislation is fundamentally flawed. This would enable businesses to sue the government over legislation around plain packaging of cigarettes, reduced operating hours for businesses that sell alcohol or other legal drugs, or other legislation that improves public health at the expense not of individual liberty but of businesses freedom.

4. Compensation should not be a requirement of legislation if it involves damage to private property rights and particularly those that have a significant effect on others - this includes the intersection of intellectual property and public health legislation as occurs in plain packaging of tobacco.

5. Whilst the focus on private property rights may give power to large corporations, particularly those that sell products that cause public harm, a focus on protecting an individuals personal property would be more appropriate as it would reduce risks of things such as unreasonable search and seizure or other legal harm that focusses on individuals rather than corporations.

Consistency with the NZ Bill of Rights Act

1. “legislation should not unduly diminish a person’s liberty, personal security, freedom of choice or action, or various property rights, except as is necessary to provide for, or protect, any such liberty, freedom, or right of another person” this seems like an unnecessary principle to have when we already have an entire bill dedicated to upholding the rights of individual New Zealanders. It would be far simpler to just reaffirm that all legislation should be in accordance with the Bill of Rights Act.

2. The RSB would be treated similarly to the NZ Bill of Rights Act whereby legislation inconsistent with the RSB principles / the Bill of Rights could still go ahead with adequate justification.

3. Despite inconsistencies with the Bill of Rights Act being determined, legislation that impedes the rights of people who use drugs has previously been enacted without good reason or evidence. The Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill is a prime example of this.

4. If a principle is added that all legislation should be in accordance with the Bill of Rights Act, it should also ensure that further barriers are put in place to strengthen the protections from legislation which is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. Legislation which is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act has far too easily been implemented in the past.