Analysis: Where next for Regulatory Standards Bill?

9:08 am on 11 July 2025

Russell Palmer, Political Reporter

ACT leader David Seymour is the bill's main proponent. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii

Analysis - With select committee hearings complete, the many submitters who called for the Regulatory Standards Bill to be thrown out - in the compost, as one put it - are destined for disappointment.

Unlike the Treaty Principles Bill, National committed to passing it in its agreement with ACT - and by extension, New Zealand First's agreement commits them to do the same.

NZ First's Winston Peters publicly voiced a preference for changes, saying the bill was a "work in progress", although it remained unclear exactly what changes he wanted.

ACT leader David Seymour - the bill's main proponent - pointedly noted on Monday the commitment was to pass "The" Regulatory Standards Bill - signalling he believed his partners could not demand changes.

While some have theorised - perhaps wishfully - such a disagreement could cause Peters to collapse the government, it is very much not in his interests politically to do so, as it would likely tank his electoral prospects.

The government's coalition agreement promises the passing of the bill. Photo: RNZ

The opposition to the bill has been fierce and accounted for most submitters, running the gamut from current and former politicians to lawyers, unions, environmentalists, iwi, academics, Treaty of Waitangi campaigners, church groups, health groups, local and regional councils, and state-owned enterprises.

Even the Regulations Ministry set up by Seymour, and the non-partisan Clerk of the House - which provides administration for Parliament - raised objections.

Supporters - both in total submission numbers, and the number of those invited to speak - were comparatively few and far between. They included a former judge, a right-leaning think tank, business groups and the "Rock the Vote" movement.

Opponents had three main criticisms: that it prioritises the ACT Party's ideology over others (including Te Tiriti o Waitangi, protection for the environment and other collective good); that it could tilt the playing field in favour of big corporations; and that the bill - despite its objective of improving lawmaking - would only add another layer of bureaucracy, increasing cost and making the government's job harder.

Seymour on Monday - in a media conference held at the Beehive Theatrette - spent much of the time defending against some of these critiques.

"There's been so much misinformation about the bill that you have to really search for a needle in a haystack to find a really constructive criticism about it," he claimed, though he later admitted - under questioning about specific criticisms - he had not seen those specific ones.

"I haven't been able to watch them all day," he said.

Dr Bryce Wilkinson from the New Zealand Initiative right-leaning think tank has helped work on various iterations of the bill, and was one of the most vocal supporters.

He argued the measures already in place to ensure good lawmaking practice were not working effectively, echoing some of Seymour's Monday talking points.

"It's just to make executive government give Parliament more information about the nature of things it's wanting Parliament to pass - so it's a transparency mechanism for better informing Parliament, and it's needed because things aren't working well enough with all the existing processes," he said.

Dr Bryce Wilkinson from the New Zealand Initiative. Photo: RNZ / Kate Gudsell

Seymour's criticisms of the bill's critics in a series of social media posts - and his dismissal of submissions against the bill as having been made by bots, or generated through online campaigns - also came under attack. Māori lawyer and legal academic Ani Mikaere called it a "frankly childish tirade".

Constitutional experts laid into the additional powers the bill would grant to Seymour and any subsequent Minister of Regulation and the board he could appoint, saying the reviews they order could interfere with government ministers doing their jobs.

Victoria University of Wellington law professor Dean Knight said the bill would change public sector culture "through the exercise of soft power - and the ways it would have real impact on policy and law making process, and without doubt, will have a much greater instrumental effect on laws than merely providing transparency, as it is claimed".

Victoria University of Wellington law professor Dean Knight. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone

Some argued the principles in the bill should more closely resemble the Legislative Guideline principles on which they are based - including, for example, reference to the Treaty.

Seymour on Monday dismissed calls to include mention of the Treaty.

"This is actually a practical project. It's not a sort of spiritual exercise," he said.

"If you can find any person that will give me a practical example of how putting the Treaty into the regulatory standards bill would change the outcome in a way that's better for all New Zealanders, then I'm open minded ... but so far, not a single person who's mindlessly said 'oh, but it's our founding document, it should be there, can practically explain how that makes the boat go faster."

Dr Wilkinson suggested the values in the bill were the "fundamental" ones from the Legislative Guidelines, and - facing pushback from Labour MPs - asserted those principles did value the communal, collective good - like indigenous rights and environmental protection. The exchange was brought to an end before he could pinpoint how this would happen, so other MPs would have a chance to ask questions.

Some critics with more specific interests - the SPCA, Vision Impaired, and Transpower, for example - feared the bill could override regulations and laws protecting animal rights, braille translations, and overhead lines from people who could assert property rights over abused dogs, copyrighted works, or neighbouring homeowners. Councils raised concerns their bylaws or other rules could also be up for review.

Seymour argues such compensation is not enforceable by the courts, merely a guideline for when the government makes legislation.

"The legislation is very, very clear. It says nobody gains any actionable legal rights from this piece of legislation. So you would be ... laughed out of court immediately."

It should be noted courts would take that comment on how the law should be interpreted - by the minister most closely involved in writing the bill - into consideration, if it ever did make it that far.

However, the regulatory reviews could still incentivise more emphasis in legislation and regulation on compensating someone who loses out, and Seymour's comments seem to indicate that is the point.

"The Bill of Rights, until very recently, hasn't had any impact in courts of law. However it has, I think, really changed behavior. It has put a bit of a chill on politicians who say 'well, if we do that, we'll get a hostile section seven report' ... and that's kind of the point. This law won't stop politicians ultimately from doing things but it will start to say 'well, this is what good law making looks like, we as a community, place a value on that'."

The bill's critics may well object that the values Seymour's bill would set down were not arrived at "as a community".

Further frustration stemmed from the process undertaken. The RSB was pushed through all 30 hours of hearings this week, the timeframe having drawn criticism from Labour and several of the submitters. The five minutes for individual submissions and 10 for groups also came under fire, although committee chair Ryan Hamilton pointed out this was standard practice.

The group which led protests against the Treaty Principles Bill (TPB) last year - Toitū te Tiriti - has cast the RSB as a continuation of Seymour's Treaty and complained about the initial consultation taking place over the summer holiday - alongside that of the TPB.