Debating the Regulatory Standards Bill: A Clash of Ideologies
The Regulatory Standards Bill, championed by ACT Party leader David Seymour, is currently under intense scrutiny, sparking passionate debate among various groups in New Zealand. Proponents argue it’s a vital tool for improving lawmaking and ensuring transparency, while opponents contend it’s a veiled attempt to undermine democratic processes and Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Fierce Opposition and Safety Concerns
Lawyer Tania Waikato, known for representing Te Pāti Māori MPs, delivered a fiery submission against the bill, labeling it a “blatant and audacious attempt” by the ACT Party to “subvert our democratic processes for their own private gain.” Waikato’s concerns extended to personal safety, revealing she required a security escort to Parliament after her home address was publicly disseminated alongside hateful rhetoric. She directly implicated Minister for Regulation David Seymour, alleging he “has published photos of other academics online who have been critical of this bill,” thereby giving “implicit support to the actions of these extremists to target experts and others who are speaking out against this bill.” Waikato unequivocally stated that such actions threaten the very fabric of democracy, asserting that the bill is a “cowardly, covert attack” on Te Tiriti o Waitangi and an “affront to the constitutional foundations of Aotearoa.” She further claimed it’s an effort by the ACT Party and its “foreign sponsors” to “constitutionally entrench their far-right political views.” Adding to the criticism, Waikato highlighted the “supreme irony” that the Ministry for Regulation itself deemed the bill “unnecessary legislation,” with Seymour providing no explanation for disregarding his own ministry’s advice.
Similarly, Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Ngā Mokopuna, a Wellington-based kura kaupapa Māori, declared the bill “racist in design.” Rawiri Wright emphasized the bill’s lack of mention of state obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, indigenous Māori rights, and considerations of “collective ownership.” Instead, Wright argued, it prioritizes “individual rights, the accumulation of wealth by individuals and companies, and the exploitation of resources,” which would lead to “continued environmental degradation.” He concluded that the bill promotes “only one worldview…from a white, monocultural worldview by definition,” and urged the committee to consider its negative implications for Māori education.
Te Kahui Raraunga’s Kirikowhai Mikaere, a prominent Māori data scientist, also argued the bill “fundamentally fails to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi.” Mikaere asserted that it disregards the collective rights and aspirations of iwi Māori, favoring “private property and corporate interests over public good, environmental protection and the wellbeing of iwi Māori.” She warned that the privileging of individual and corporate rights would have a “negative and long-term impact” on the country’s data landscape and risk the “very delicate social license” of trust in its data system. Mikaere concluded that the bill, even in its crafting, failed to honor Te Tiriti principles of partnership and participation, reflecting the values of “a very small number of New Zealanders.”
The Council of Trade Unions (CTU) also voiced opposition, with Policy Analyst Jack Foster stating that while improving legislation is a “valid and desirable objective,” the bill fails to achieve this, instead proposing “ideological principles.” Foster argued that despite the Minister’s attempts to present them as “neutral standards of good regulatory practice,” they “quite plainly reflect and seek to embed in law, making peculiar and marginal libertarian beliefs about the supremacy of individualism and private property rights.” He pointed out the absence of “far more widely accepted principles” such as consistency with Te Tiriti o Waitangi, evidence-based policy, enforceability, equity, and sustainability.
The Law Society, through Tim Stephens, acknowledged the need for improved legislative design but deemed the bill “not an effective response.” Stephens explained that the bill’s primary mechanism is “transparency,” which he believes only works if it “injects a sense of obligation or shame or just potential downsides for the person responsible.” He saw “no real prospect” of this mechanism having the desired effect, particularly given the government’s ability to “discount these principles on the basis of political calculation.” Stephens ironically noted that the bill itself “should so conspicuously fail to meet its own standards” for good lawmaking.
Long-time bill opponent Jane Kelsey reiterated her concerns, marking this as her fourth submission on the legislation’s various iterations. She expressed distrust in Seymour’s commitment to “transparency, accountability and good governance.” Kelsey raised the issue of “regulatory takings” and their “chilling effect” due to potential compensation claims, citing examples like National’s proposed introduction of competition in supermarkets, banks, and electricity companies. She challenged the National and New Zealand First parties to “stop this bill. Now.”
Finally, former ACT Party MP Donna Awatere Huata offered a scathing critique, arguing the bill would elevate “the economic dogma that caused this harm” into “constitutional doctrine.” Huata referenced historical legislation like the State Sector Act, Reserve Bank Act, Public Finance Act, and Fiscal Responsibility Act, which she claimed “ripped apart New Zealand’s collective strength” by prioritizing economic metrics over social well-being. She asserted that these laws “are not neutral” and have led to job losses, unsafe housing, and the erosion of fairness and equality. Huata warned that the Regulatory Standards Bill would make it “almost impossible to rebuild, to fix the broken systems, to honor Te Tiriti o Waitangi, to re-weave tikanga into public life,” and would allow courts to “override our voices.”
Cartoon by © YeehawBoys
Arguments in Support
Conversely, some groups presented arguments in favor of the Regulatory Standards Bill. The owners of Bay of Many Coves Resort Limited in the Marlborough Sounds supported the bill, asserting it would affirm and protect property rights. Their case revolved around the “Queen’s chain” foreshore being crucial for guest access. They argued that if the bill had been in place, the impact on private property rights regarding perpetual licenses versus fixed-term concessions would have been “highlighted, would have been considered.”
Business NZ’s Chief Economist, John Pask, spoke in support, stating the bill is a valuable “tool in the toolbox toward improving the quality of regulation in New Zealand.” While not a “silver bullet,” Pask emphasized the importance of scrutinizing decision-makers to ensure sound regulatory interventions. He suggested improvements, such as ensuring the independent regulatory standards board has “appropriate skills to undertake sound cost benefit analysis,” and a role for public scrutiny through an annual select committee process. Pask also recommended clarifying “regulatory takings” and including local government regulation within the bill’s remit.
Retired judge David Harvey supported the bill, viewing it as introducing the concept of “good lawmaking.” Harvey argued that all legislation involves some “erosion or interference with individual or corporate liberty.” He countered claims that it’s a “constitutional” bill, asserting it is “procedural” and can be amended or repealed. Harvey noted that while the bill can be ignored, those responsible would “have to stand up and say, why.” He also suggested the bill should reference Te Tiriti o Waitangi, acknowledging its elements of governance and “equal application of the law,” though he was unsure how this should be incorporated.
The Taxpayers’ Union, represented by Executive Director Jordan Williams, argued that New Zealand’s “poor quality regulations” hinder the economy. Williams saw the bill as a “litmus test” for the government’s commitment to restoring New Zealand’s “status of the first world economy.” He characterized the bill as primarily a “transparency mechanism” or “information disclosure regime” that “does not obviously tie the hands of Parliament,” but rather compels lawmakers to consider “cost trade-offs and regulatory takings.” Williams challenged MPs to uphold the rule of law, suggesting that voting against a bill requiring disclosure of such implications would be a “failing” of their duty. Economist Ray Deacon from the Taxpayers’ Union added that the “economic cost of poor legislation is enormous,” lamenting the lack of a plan to assess or improve legislative quality. He stated that the bill “provides the legal structure for assessing the quality of existing legislation.”
The diverse range of submissions highlights the deep divisions surrounding the Regulatory Standards Bill, with its potential impact on New Zealand’s democratic processes, economic landscape, and the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi remaining central to the debate.
Summary of the Regulatory Standards Bill Debate
The Regulatory Standards Bill, spearheaded by ACT Party leader David Seymour, has sparked an intense and deeply polarized debate across New Zealand. Submissions to the parliamentary committee have poured in from a diverse array of stakeholders, including legal experts, Māori organizations, unions, businesses, and former political figures.
Supporters of the bill, such as the ACT Party itself, Business NZ, and the Taxpayers’ Union, contend that it is a vital mechanism for fostering greater transparency, elevating the quality of legislation, and enhancing accountability within the lawmaking process. They argue the bill’s “principles of responsible regulation” will compel ministers and government agencies to thoroughly justify their legislative proposals, particularly those impacting individual freedoms and property rights. These proponents believe the bill will help curb “poor quality” or “unnecessary” regulations, thereby boosting efficiency and economic growth. They largely characterize the bill as a “transparency measure” designed to shed more light on government activities. Retired judge David Harvey, for instance, supports it as a procedural tool to promote sound legislative practices.
In stark contrast, opponents of the bill vastly outnumber its supporters, with a significant majority of public submissions expressing strong opposition. Critics, including prominent Māori leaders, the Council of Trade Unions, the Law Society, and numerous academics, perceive the bill as a perilous and ideologically driven attempt to fundamentally reconfigure New Zealand’s legal and constitutional landscape.
How Dangerous the Bill is Perceived for New Zealand
The perceived dangers of the Regulatory Standards Bill for New Zealand are extensive and deeply troubling to its opponents:
- Undermining Te Tiriti o Waitangi: This is arguably the most profound and consistently voiced concern. The bill’s conspicuous absence of any mention of Te Tiriti o Waitangi is seen as a deliberate exclusion that marginalizes Māori rights, interests, and the foundational principles of partnership and active protection. Critics argue that the bill’s emphasis on a narrow, individualistic, and economic worldview could override collective Māori aspirations and hinder future legislation aimed at upholding Treaty obligations or advancing Māori wellbeing. The Waitangi Tribunal has also highlighted that the Crown’s failure to adequately consult with Māori on the bill constitutes a breach of Treaty principles.
- Imposing a Narrow Ideology and Stifling Public Interest Legislation: Opponents argue that the bill seeks to embed a specific, libertarian economic ideology into the very fabric of lawmaking, elevating individual freedom, private property rights, and economic efficiency above all other considerations. This “economic dogma” is feared to create a “chilling effect” on the development of laws that serve the broader public good, such as those related to environmental protection, public health (e.g., regulations on harmful substances), and social welfare. The bill’s inclusion of “regulatory takings” and the potential for compensation claims could make it financially prohibitive for governments to introduce regulations that might diminish commercial profits, effectively valuing private gain over public benefit.
- Constitutional Overreach and Erosion of Parliamentary Sovereignty: Despite claims of it being merely procedural, many constitutional experts and former political figures view the bill as “constitutionally significant.” They argue it could effectively establish a “regulatory constitution” or a “second Bill of Rights” that might subtly yet powerfully constrain Parliament’s democratic function. While the bill’s findings are non-binding, the inherent pressure to conform to its narrow principles could fundamentally alter the legislative culture, potentially limiting Parliament’s ability to respond flexibly to complex and evolving societal needs.
- Concentration of Power and Lack of Impartiality: Concerns have been raised regarding the significant power vested in the Minister for Regulation and the ministerially appointed Regulatory Standards Board. Critics contend that this body, lacking true independence, could become a vehicle for political interference, ensuring that legislation aligns with a particular party’s ideology rather than the broader public interest or diverse societal values.
- Risk to Democratic Processes and Open Discourse: The controversy surrounding Minister David Seymour’s public accusations against critics, along with instances of opponents facing security threats, raises serious questions about the suppression of dissenting voices and the integrity of democratic debate. Critics fear that such actions foster an intimidating environment, discouraging experts and citizens from openly challenging government policy and potentially narrowing the scope of public participation in lawmaking.
In summary, for a substantial portion of New Zealanders, the Regulatory Standards Bill represents a dangerous trajectory towards a system where economic considerations and a singular, specific ideology could systematically overshadow the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, collective wellbeing, and democratic responsiveness, thereby fundamentally reshaping the country’s governance in a manner widely seen as detrimental to its future.
