This week was the deadline for public submissions on the Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB), and debate continues to ramp up over its implications for New Zealand’s legislative and constitutional framework.
Proponents hail the bill as a necessary measure to improve regulatory quality and transparency. Critics label it a “constitutional straitjacket” and a “dangerous” ideological shift. At the heart of the debate is a fundamental question: Does the RSB represent progressive reform or a perilous reconfiguration of the nation’s governance?
Championed by Regulation Minister David Seymour, and as articulated in a Ministry of Regulation discussion document, the bill aims to codify principles of “good regulatory practice,” ensure laws align with these standards, and provide mechanisms for transparency and accountability.
Seymour has consistently argued that New Zealand’s low productivity stems from outdated and inefficient regulations. “New Zealanders deserve the ability to make a difference in their own lives,” Seymour stated. “That’s how more New Zealanders can grow their businesses and create opportunities for others.” Central to Seymour’s vision is the creation of a Regulatory Standards Board tasked with reviewing existing regulations and making non-binding recommendations on their alignment with the proposed principles of responsible regulation.
However, critics such as Emeritus Professor Jane Kelsey contend the bill is less about enhancing regulatory quality and more about advancing libertarian ideology. “The fact that this was in the coalition deal effectively circumscribes what scrutiny there can be,” Kelsey remarked. “So, there has been no effective engagement.” Detractors argue the bill prioritises property rights and individual liberties at the expense of collective welfare, environmental safeguards, and Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) obligations.
Key Features of the RSB
The RSB proposes several mechanisms to enhance New Zealand’s regulatory framework:
Principles of Responsible Regulation
These include adherence to the rule of law, respect for liberties, and limitations on government powers regarding taxation, fees, and property rights. The principles also emphasise efficient, proportional, and transparent lawmaking.
Assessment Mechanisms
Ministers and agencies would need to certify that proposed and existing regulations align with the principles. In cases of inconsistency, public justification would be required.
Regulatory Standards Board
A new statutory body would assess regulations’ compliance with the principles and issue non-binding recommendations. Critics have raised concerns about the board’s independence, as its members would be appointed by the Regulation Minister.
Strengthened Oversight
The Ministry for Regulation would gain new powers, including the ability to conduct reviews and require information from public and private entities.
Proponents compare the RSB to the Public Finance Act, suggesting it would instil discipline and accountability in regulatory processes. Critics, however, argue that its scope goes far beyond fiscal management, potentially affecting every aspect of legislative decision-making.
Constitutional and Social Concerns
At the core of the opposition lies a concern that the RSB would fundamentally alter New Zealand’s legislative framework. Critics argue the bill’s principles embed a neoliberal bias, prioritising market freedoms and property rights over broader societal and environmental considerations. Kelsey has called the bill “a travesty of democracy,” noting its potential to sideline critical issues like climate action and public health.
Melanie Nelson, a researcher and cross-cultural consultant, echoed these sentiments. “This bill really supports the ‘haves’ and makes it much harder to improve the lot of the ‘have-nots’,” she said. Nelson also highlighted the absence of explicit recognition of te Tiriti o Waitangi in the bill’s principles. A preliminary Treaty Impact Analysis by the Ministry for Regulation noted that the omission could be politically significant for Māori and might signal a retreat from established Treaty obligations in lawmaking.
Concerns also extend to the bill’s operational aspects. Critics fear the Regulatory Standards Board could be used to erode protections for workers, environmental safeguards, and public services. The board’s non-binding recommendations, while ostensibly limited in power, could still pressure governments to prioritise individual and corporate rights over collective interests.
A History of Controversy
The RSB is not a novel concept. Versions of the bill, originally rooted in the Business Roundtable’s advocacy for regulatory reform, have been introduced and rejected multiple times since 2006. Each iteration faced resistance for its perceived constitutional overreach and its potential to undermine parliamentary sovereignty. Despite these setbacks, the ACT Party has persisted, and with its inclusion in the ACT-National coalition agreement, the bill now has a clear path to legislative consideration.
Dr. Bryce Wilkinson of the New Zealand Initiative, who contributed to earlier versions of the bill, views it as a long-overdue reform. He argues that it would prevent poor-quality regulations from imposing unnecessary costs on businesses and individuals. “Good-quality regulation… makes people better off,” Wilkinson stated. However, he acknowledged that achieving a balance between competing interests is an inherently subjective exercise.
Public Engagement and Transparency
The consultation period for the RSB, which opened on November 19, 2024, and closed on Monday, has been another flashpoint of criticism. Opponents argue the timing—coinciding with the holiday season and the consultation on the Treaty Principles Bill—hindered meaningful public engagement. Nelson described it as “an attempt to restrict public awareness,” given the bill’s potential unpopularity.
The Ministry for Regulation has promised a summary of submissions and further opportunities for public input during the Parliamentary Select Committee process. However, many remain sceptical of the government’s commitment to genuine consultation, given the expedited timeline outlined in the coalition agreement.
What’s at Stake?
Supporters of the RSB argue that it is necessary to modernise New Zealand’s regulatory environment, align it with international best practices, and foster economic growth. Opponents, however, see it as a thinly veiled attempt to entrench libertarian free-market ideology, eroding social protections and environmental safeguards in the process.
Next Steps
With public consultation now closed, the Ministry for Regulation will use the feedback to finalise the draft bill, which is expected to be introduced to Parliament in mid-2025.