Why opponents and supporters of the Regulatory Standards Bill are so far apart

A moment years in the making arrived with a grin from David Seymour.

The ACT Party leader stood in the house to introduce the Regulatory Standards Bill for its first reading in mid-May.

It's legislation that Seymour has long championed, the origins of which date back to the early 2000s. Now he hopes it will finally pass into law and reshape how governments create legislation in Aotearoa.

Declaring himself "extremely excited", he framed the bill as a much-needed removal of red tape and a win for transparency.

"This bill is a crucial piece of legislation for improving the long-term quality of regulation in our country and, ultimately, allowing New Zealanders to live longer, happier, healthier, and wealthier lives. But the political left have got themselves in quite a lather about the Regulatory Standards Bill," Seymour said.

He was right: the left is mad. Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson described the bill as the most dangerous piece of legislation that the House of Representatives has seen.

"It seeks to destroy the very foundation of who we are. It seeks to remove Te Tiriti o Waitangi from lawmaking … It would put private property above protecting the environment or public safety or indigenous rights."

Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer pointed out Te Tiriti was not mentioned once in the bill.

"The silence on the impact for Te Tiriti is on purpose. The bill promotes equal treatment before the law, but it opens the door [for] government to attack every Māori equity initiative."

On one side, Seymour's supporters see a bill about better law-making and transparency. On the other, critics are calling it the "Treaty Principles Bill 2.0" and warn it could gut treaty protections.

How can one bill on such a seemingly bland topic have two such drastically divergent interpretations?

Rules for making rules: What the RSB seeks to do

According to the Ministry for Regulation, the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB) seeks to "establish a benchmark for good legislation" by introducing a set of principles of "responsible regulation".

Essentially, the bill creates a set of rules that all lawmakers must consider in regulation design.

The law would also set up a Regulatory Standards Board, which would respond to concerns raised around the consistency of regulation. Appointed by the Regulation Minister (currently ACT Party Leader David Seymour), the board would be able to make non-binding recommendations, much like the Waitangi Tribunal.

The bill took its foundations from a report written by Dr Bryce Wilkinson in the early 2000s. The report was commissioned by the Business Roundtable (now merged into the New Zealand Initiative), a public policy think tank and business membership organisation.

Wilkinson was tasked with examining the quality of government regulation in New Zealand. Inspired by the Fiscal Responsibility Act of the early 1990s, a transparency mechanism designed to prevent another public debt blowout, he drafted an initial "Regulatory Responsibility Bill".

He describes his original concept as a way to prevent regulatory abuses by focusing on making "government laws and regulations more principled and more respectful of personal autonomy and property."

Various different versions of the bill have been introduced to Parliament on three separate occasions, each time failing to become law. First, by the ACT Party under Rodney Hide's leadership in 2006, then again in 2011, and then by Seymour in 2021.

The RSB was once again resurrected in 2023, this time as part of the coalition agreement signed between National and ACT, which included a pledge to improve the quality of regulation and pass a Regulatory Standards Act "as soon as practicable."

Should good law-making consider the principles of te Tiriti?

The bill defines what it sees as good law-making, but some legal experts warn that this definition reflects only a single political viewpoint.

Everyone is in favour of good lawmaking, suggests Andrew Geddis, Professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Otago. "The question is, how do you define what a good law is, and what principles should good law follow?"

Geddis argues it would elevate one party's political ideology, namely ACT's libertarian views, into a framework future governments would have to follow.

"By choosing a few principles and saying these are the really important principles that matter. These are the ones that must be complied with. It kind of bakes into our law making system an idea that this is what the ideal society ought to look like" he says.

Dr Carwyn Jones, Kaihautū Te Whare Whakatupu Mātauranga at Te Wānanga o Raukawa, says the bill is a constitutional overreach which focuses on property rights and wealth.

"Those come at the expense of things like environmental protection, protection of human rights that are protected under the Bill of Rights Act, or rights under te Tiriti."

Of the more than 10 principles which will define good lawmaking, there is no reference to considering the Treaty or its principles.

Geddis, an expert in constitutional law, says this puts the Bill at odds with the Treaty, and the principles enshrined in the RSB would constrain the Treaty's impact.

"The principles it contains, and the way those principles constrain lawmaking, means that lawmaking in New Zealand can't really respond to the needs or the demands of te Tiriti. It puts a constraint on how our system of government can operate in a way that is treaty compliant, and that in itself, undermines or undercuts what effect the treaty can have."

Another key sticking point in the bill is the principle, "every person is equal before the law".

That almost identical phrase was featured in the now dead Treaty Principles Bill, also backed by ACT.

Whilst seemingly neutral, lawyer and Special Counsel at Tāmaki Legal, Tania Waikato fears the clause could be used to dismantle existing laws designed to address historic inequities.

"Every single piece of legislation where it treats Māori differently, they can assess it against that principle and say that doesn't comply. And if that doesn't comply, they then have the ability to review it. It can be repealed."

For this reason, Waikato says it is the most dangerous piece of legislation she has seen in the 20 years she has been a lawyer, dubbing it "Treaty Principles Bill 2.0".

"It can take away every single right that Māori have under te Tiriti that's in legislation already, and it can stop any new rights being recognised in any incoming laws."

Waikato, who also acts as the legal representative for Te Pāti Māori and activist group Toitū te Tiriti, says the legislation will impact the revitalisation of te reo Māori.

"If you've got a piece of legislation for te reo Maori that gives funding support, for example, to te reo Māori, that's not treating everyone the same, that's treating Maori differently."

Carwyn Jones suggests the RSB will create a "filter" or "control gate" for all existing and new legislation, providing a mechanism to diminish the legal standing of te Tiriti from New Zealand law.

"The Treaty Principles Bill was about removing the legal impact and meaning, and effect of te Tiriti from our law... What it will do is provide an opportunity to remove te Tiriti from our law with exactly the same effect, I think, as the Treaty Principles Bill would have."

Jones also sees the creation of a Regulatory Standards Board as a kind of 'anti-Waitangi Tribunal'.

"The [Waitangi] Tribunal is about protecting those rights under te Tiriti and giving effect to treaty principles, finding practical ways of giving effect to those. The regulatory standards board will be about removing those rights under te Tiriti, finding ways of ensuring that te Tiriti does not have any legal effect or meaning in our law."

Just a 'little transparency measure'

Wilkinson says he's spent hours trying to understand treaty concerns, but can't see what the problem is.

"At the moment I'm just seeing an assertion that somehow these principles are in conflict with the treaty, but I can't see how they would be."

He describes the bill as a minor transparency measure, which won't restrict parliament in its lawmaking, more than it will encourage pause for thought.

"The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is a much more serious sort of constitutional beast. It doesn't have a treaty clause in it either. So why isn't the eye being directed at the Bill of Rights Act rather than this little transparency measure."

Responding to concerns the bill is "dangerous", Wilkinson says he doesn't understand that point of view either.

"There's so much public misunderstanding and distrust of this."

"Māori are seeing it [the bill] as anti-Māori but people are assuming motives which aren't there, and then they're getting really uptight about it, because they think they're going to be screwed, and that this is about screwing them."

In a written statement, Seymour said the RSB will help Aotearoa get its "mojo back".

"It requires politicians and officials to ask and answer certain questions before they place restrictions on citizens' freedoms. What problem are we trying to solve? What are the costs and benefits? Who pays the costs and gets the benefits? What restrictions are being placed on the use and exchange of private property?

He said it is about transparent lawmaking and that all New Zealanders benefit.

"This bill turns 'because we said so' into 'because here's the evidence.' So if a politician wants to tax you, take your property, or restrict your livelihood, they should be able to show you their work."

Seymour said misinformation about the bill was being spread by social media campaigns.

"Clearly some groups see this sort of fearmongering and manufactured outrage as a good way of fundraising. Thankfully, I think most Kiwis can see right through this."

Does the bill abide by its own standards?

Critics also argue that the RSB process itself hasn't followed good lawmaking practices, including consultation with Māori.

Andrew Geddis says that lack of consultation amounts to a breach of treaty principles.

"A principle of te Tiriti is that when a new law is being made by the government that affects Māori, Māori should be consulted and have their views taken into account. That just hasn't really happened at all with regards [to this] legislation… Māori just haven't been talked to about it."

The Ministry for Regulation did seek public input on a discussion document about the bill in January, which garnered about 23,000 responses, 88 percent of which opposed the bill.

But Jones agrees there was no meaningful consultation with Māori.

"Māori who submitted were opposed to the bill, and the particular concerns they raised were around its impact on te Tiriti, and yet the government still didn't identify that there were any particular issues that they ought to be consulting with Māori about."

Tania Waikato says it gives a disproportionate amount of power to the ACT Party, allowing them to create "long-lasting intergenerational change without the consent of the people."

"Eight percent of the vote does not entitle you to change our constitution, and they were devious and deceptive in terms of how they described this bill and how they failed to consult on this bill."

But in an interview on RNZ's 30 with Guyon Espiner, Seymour insisted Māori voices were heard through public consultation.

"We had 144 iwi-based groups who submitted … if that's not enough, then I don't know what is," Seymour said.

After an urgent inquiry was launched, the Waitangi Tribunal found that if the RSB was enacted without meaningful consultation with Māori, it would "constitute a breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi".

It called for an immediate halt to the bill's advancement to allow more engagement with Māori.

Jones also points out that the Bill isn't even something the Ministry for Regulation thinks will encourage good lawmaking.

"The Ministry of Regulation, David Seymour's own ministry, their advice to the government was that not only is this not needed, but this is not a very effective way to encourage good law making, and neither is it a very efficient way of doing it," he says.

The RSB is currently open for public submissions with the select committee due to report back on 22 November, although Seymour has asked that it be moved up to 23 September.

If the bill passes, it would likely come into effect on 1 January 2026.