Regulatory Standards Bill

The Regulatory Standards Bill is a legislative proposal in New Zealand that forms part of the Sixth National Government coalition agreement between the ACT and National parties. It would establish a set of principles for good legislation or "responsible regulation". A discussion document was published for public feedback on the bill's objectives and provisions from November 2024 to January 2025.^[2] Critics of the proposed bill included the Environmental Defence Society, Māori group Toitū te Tiriti, and University of Auckland emeritus professor Jane Kelsey, whose concerns centre on claims that it could restrict environmental regulation, weaken Treaty of Waitangi protections and advance a libertarian, neoliberal agenda.^[3][4][5] The bill was introduced to Parliament and passed its first reading in May 2025. Public submissions on the bill concluded in June 2025 and the Finance and Expenditure select committee will consider the submissions, with its final report due on 22 November 2025.

Regulatory Standards Bill
New Zealand Parliament[1]
Territorial extent	New Zealand
Legislative history
Introduced by	David Seymour[1]
Committee responsible	Finance and Expenditure Committee[1]
First reading	22 May 2025[1]
Status: Pending — before

Background

The concept of the Regulatory Standards Bill originated from the "Constraining Government Regulation" report, published in 2001 by the New Zealand Business Roundtable (which has since been revamped as the New Zealand Initiative).^[6] The report's author, New Zealand Initiative senior research fellow Bryce Wilkinson, said he was influenced by the economic, fiscal and regulatory challenges that the Fourth Labour Government faced upon coming into power after the 1984 New Zealand general election.^[7]

Regulatory standards bills have been introduced to the New Zealand Parliament three times previously.^[2][6] In 2006, ACT leader Rodney Hide introduced the Regulatory Responsibility Bill as a member's bill. In 2011, the Regulatory Standards Bill was introduced on the recommendation of the Regulatory Responsibility Taskforce; the bill was robustly criticised by the New Zealand Treasury^[2] and the Regulations Review Committee.^[8] Following the 2011 New Zealand general election, the Fifth National Government abandoned plans to progress the bill, but the ACT and National parties agreed to work on an alternative bill based on Treasury's recommendations.^[8] In 2021, ACT leader David Seymour introduced a Regulatory Standards Bill to codify "good regulatory analysis" on the basis of protecting New Zealand's liberties,^[2] but it did not pass the first reading.^[6]

Following the 2023 New Zealand general election, a coalition agreement between the National and ACT parties committed them to introducing a Regulatory Standards Act that would improve the quality of regulation and ensure that regulatory decisions were based on "good law-making" and economic efficiency.^[2] On 12 September 2024, the Ministry for Regulation confirmed that passing the Regulatory Standards Bill was one of its five main priorities. The Ministry was also advising on the development of the legislation.^[9]

Discussion document and consultation

In 19 November 2024, public consultation opened on a discussion document regarding the Regulatory Standards Bill. Seymour said that the proposed legislation "would bring the same 'level of discipline' to regulation that the Public Finance Act brings to public spending". Under this legal framework, the Ministry for Regulation would be tasked with administering the Regulatory Standards legislation.^[2]

The discussion document contained a set of principles for "responsible regulation", which covered the rule of law, personal liberties, the taking of property, taxes, fees and levies, the role of the courts, good law-making and regulatory stewardship. It proposed that the bill not include a principle regarding the Treaty of Waitangi. The bill proposed a mechanism for assessing whether new regulatory proposals were consistent with the principles of "responsible regulation".^[2] Unlike the 2021 version, the 2025 version proposed the establishment of a Regulatory Standards Board to deal with concerns around existing legislation being inconsistent with the principles set out in the bill. The board would consist of members appointed by the Minister for Regulation and would be able to make non-binding recommendations to ministers.^[2][6][10]

There were almost 23,000 submissions on the discussion document, with 80% being in the final four days of the consultation period,^[2] which ended at 11:59 pm on 13 January 2025.^[7] The Ministry for Regulation estimated that 88 percent of submissions opposed the proposed regulations, while 0.33 percent supported or partially supported them. In an early June 2025 interview, Seymour alleged that 99.5 percent of submissions were created using "bots".^[11]

Key provisions

The Regulatory Standards Bill sets out principles for good legislation or "responsible regulation" in section 8. They concern the rule of law, personal liberties and rights, the taking of property, taxation and fees, the role of the courts, and good law-making.^[12]

The bill seeks to support the rule of law by ensuring that legislation is clear and accessible, and that it does not "adversely affect rights and liberties, or impose obligations, retrospectively". Everyone should be equal under the law, and the judiciary should be independent and impartial.^[12]

The bill seeks to ensure that legislation does not diminish personal liberties, personal security, freedom of choice and action, or property rights, except to protect the liberty, freedom or right of someone else. It states that legislation should not be used to take property without the owner's consent, unless there is a good justification and fair compensation is provided. It seeks to ensure that taxes, fees and levies comply with section 22 of the Constitution Act 1986, and to establish guidelines for any legislation that imposes taxes, fees and levies.^[12]

It seeks to preserve the constitutional role of the courts in determining the meaning of legislation. It establishes guidelines for "good law-making", such as ensuring that legislation produces benefits that exceed the costs of implementation.^[12]

The bill establishes guidelines to ensure that future primary and secondary legislation is either consistent with the Regulatory Standards Bill's principles or that any inconsistency is identified.^[12]

Legislative history

First reading

On 7 May 2025, Minister for Regulation David Seymour confirmed that the New Zealand Cabinet had approved a detailed proposal for the Regulatory Standards Bill.^[13] The bill was introduced into the New Zealand Parliament on 19 May.^[1]

On 23 May, the Regulation Standards Bill passed its first reading in Parliament with the support of the governing National, ACT and New Zealand First parties. Seymour, the bill's sponsor, described it as "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." Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer opposed the bill, saying it "promotes equal treatment before the law but it opens the door [for] government to attack every Māori equity initiative."^[14]

Select committee stage

Following its first reading, Parliament sought public submissions on the bill, which concluded on 23 June 2025. The Finance and Expenditure Committee will consider the submissions, with its final report due on 22 November 2025.^[15]

Oral submissions on the Regulatory Standards Bill began on 7 July 2025. During the first day, the Finance and Expenditure Committee heard oral submissions from former Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer, Iwi Chairs Forum representative Rahui Papa, Māori Law Society representative Natalie Coates, representatives of the Dunedin City Council and Horizons Regional Council, the Māori Women's Welfare League, Transpower and former Green Party MP Darleen Tana. These submitters criticised the Bill as unnecessary, hostile to regulatory legislation and the Treaty of Waitangi.^[16][17] Transpower expressed concern that the legislation could force power utility companies to compensate home and landowners affected by infrastructural projects.^[17] University of Auckland economist Professor Ananish Chaudhuri said the Bill safeguarded individual and property rights and disputed claims that it would allow companies to sue for lost business.^[16] The bill's sponsor Seymour defended the Bill, arguing that it would eliminate red tape and questioned the need to refer to the Treaty of Waitangi within the bill, which he argued would ensure that the Government would make laws carefully and was accountable to New Zealanders.^[17]

On 8 July, the Finance and Expenditure select committee heard submissions from various individuals and groups. Submitters supporting the Regulatory Standards Bill included the owners of the Bay of Many Coves Resort Limited, the Business NZ advocacy group, retired Judge David Harvey, and the New Zealand Taxpayers' Union. These argued that it would protect property rights, improve the quality of regulation, combat poor regulations and introduce the concept of "good lawmaking." Harvey suggested that the Bill include a reference to the Treaty of Waitangi because it involved elements of governance and "equal application of the law." Submitters opposing the bill included lawyer Tania Waikato, the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU), the New Zealand Law Society, Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Ngā Mokopuna, University of Auckland emeritus law professor Jane Kelsey, Māori data scientist Kirikowhai Mikaere and former ACT MP Donna Awatere Huata. These argued that the bill would the Treaty of Waitangi, Māori-Crown relations, impose libertarian beliefs about individualism and property rights into New Zealand's constitutional framework, had inherent flaws, and allow companies to seek compensation for regulation affecting their business operations.^[18]

On 9 July, the Finance and Expenditure select committee heard submissions from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, the Deputy Clerk of the House of Representatives, the Rail and Maritime Union, the Public Service Association, former MPs Jan Logie and Marian Hobbs, and Victoria University of Wellington law professor Dean Knight. Knight expressed concern that the Regulatory Standards Bill would incentivise certain kinds of laws and discourage others.^[19] On 10 July, the committee heard submissions from protest group Toitū te Tiriti spokesperson Eru Kapa-Kingi, the New Zealand Initiative's Dr Bryce Wilkinson and chief economist Eric Crampton, the Manukau Urban Māori Authority and several health experts. Kapa-Kingi claimed the bill would have an adverse impact on all legislation and tangata whenua. Crampton argued that the costs of beneficial public purpose should fall on the beneficiaries while Wilkinson sought several changes to ensure legal expertise on the regulatory board, a public interest test for takings, full compensation, strengthening "rule of law protections," and applying the legislation to local councils.^[20]

Responses

Support

Bryce Wilkinson of the New Zealand Initiative (formerly the New Zealand Business Roundtable), who had worked on an earlier version of the regulatory standards legislation, said that "economists believed good quality regulation was where the 'benefits to people who are affected by it exceed the costs to people who are affected by it."^[2]

Criticism

In June 2025, Seymour posted several social media posts accusing critics of the bill of suffering from "regulatory standards derangement syndrome". These critics included Mayor of Wellington Tory Whanau, Labour MP Willie Jackson, academics Dame Anne Salmond, George Laking, and Metiria Turei. In response, Whanau accused Seymour of breaching the Cabinet Manual and said she would lodge a complaint with the Prime Minister. Similarly, Salmond described Seymour's posts as an abuse of "high office" and said she would lodge a complaint with the New Zealand Cabinet Office. Seymour defended the posts and accused his critics of making "incorrect statements."^[15]

Academia

University of Auckland emeritus professor of law Jane Kelsey opposed the bill on the grounds that it would undermine the Treaty of Waitangi and undermine regulation, in favour of profit.^[5] Kelsey also said that the bill reflected the ACT Party's prioritisation of private property rights over the Treaty and other socio-economic factors.^[2]

University of Otago senior psychology lecturer Ryan Ward argued that the bill would give companies more rights than members of the public, potentially allowing corporations to seek financial compensation from Māori groups for any loss to profit from government legislation protecting environmental and indigenous land claims.^[21]

Environmental groups

In mid-January 2025, the Environmental Defence Society (EDS) published a submission opposing the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill, stating that it "constitutes a retrograde constitutional shift by mandating a narrow, ideological and radical approach to regulation-making." The EDS also said that the legislation could undermine environmental protection and expressed concern that the government was reviewing all environmental regulations.^[3] Similarly, environmental researcher and cross-cultural consultant Melanie Nelson claimed that the proposed bill lacked a "democratic mandate for constitutional changes of this magnitude."^[2]

In mid-June 2025, Greenpeace Aotearoa New Zealand opposed the bill on the grounds that it would enshrine several ACT party principles, including forcing governments to compensate corporations for environmental rules and regulations affecting their property, excluded the Treaty of Waitangi, and prioritised corporate property and individual freedom over environmental protection, public safety, and indigenous rights. Greenpeace encouraged their supporters to send submissions during the select committee stage.^[22]

Māori

In mid-December 2024, Māori language educator, consultant, podcaster and writer Melanie Nelson described the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill and companion Treaty Principles Bill as part of an effort by the ACT party to impose its ideology on New Zealand's legal framework, with implications for the Treaty of Waitangi and climate change mitigation.^[23] On 18 May, Nelson followed up with a second op-ed article arguing that the proposed legislation would strengthen the powers of the New Zealand Cabinet and could be used to undermine the Treaty of Waitangi claims and settlements.^[24]

The Māori group Toitū te Tiriti, which organised the Hīkoi mō te Tiriti (March for the Treaty), opposed the bill, claiming it would undermine the Treaty of Waitangi and would discriminate against Māori. They encouraged supporters to send submissions opposing the bill.^[4] On 29 January 2025 Toitū te Tiriti filed an urgent Waitangi Tribunal claim, arguing that the proposed legislation would undermine the Treaty of Waitangi and adversely affect Māori.^[4] On 15 May 2025, the Tribunal heard submissions from lawyers representing 18,000 New Zealanders opposed to the bill.^[25] On 16 May, the Tribunal released an interim report urging the Crown to halt work on the bill, to facilitate "meaningful consultation" with Māori.^[26]

Trade unions

The trade union E tū opposed the bill on the grounds that it allowed corporations to claim compensation for laws affecting their profits, accorded individual rights to corporations, undermined Māori protections and input and shifted parliamentary power into the hands of a minister-appointed board.^[27]

International

In June 2025, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Albert Kwokwo Barume wrote a letter to the New Zealand Government raising concerns about several policies affecting indigenous people including the Regulatory Standards Bill. Barume said that the legislation risked undermining the Government's Treaty of Waitangi obligations and sidelining Māori. In mid July 2025, Seymour wrote a letter dismissing the United Nations' concerns as "insane." In response, Prime Minister Luxon and Foreign Minister Peters reprimanded Seymour for writing a reply without consulting with his Cabinet colleagues.^[28][29] Following a meeting with Luxon, Seymour agreed to rescind his letter and allow Peters to draft an official response to Barume's letter.^[29]