Governing the regulators: applying experience

Abstract

It is tempting to characterise changes in the regulatory landscape in response to regulatory failure, such as leaky buildings, failed finance companies, and the Pike River disaster, as a reversion to state control and the triumph of prescription over principles and performance requirements. If judged by the quantum of law as measured by the increase in the number of clauses in relevant statutes, or the size of regulators’ budgets, one might be excused for drawing this conclusion. For example, the Building Act 1991 had 93 clauses, but its successor, the Building Act 2004, has some 451. The building regulator’s budget was $3.5 million in 2002, increasing to $16 million in 2011, with the security regulator’s budget increasing from a similar base and by a similar amount over the same period.