Submission to the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Regulatory Standards Bill

On behalf of: Rights Aotearoa, paul@chsa.nz
We request to speak to our submission to the committee.

Date: 29 May 2025

1. The Regulatory Standards Bill: An Unprecedented Assault on New Zealand's Democracy and Human Rights

The Regulatory Standards Bill is the most undemocratic piece of legislation ever introduced in our House of Representatives. It is entirely at odds with our entire Human Rights posture, places unconscionable limits on future parliaments' ability to make laws, and forces a neo-liberal posture on the whole machinery of government. If it passes in its current form, then our CEO will promptly file in their personal capacity an action in the High Court seeking that it is declared inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act. I urge this select committee to adopt the recommendation that the Bill be rejected wholesale, with the note that should such a bill ever be put forward again, it be voted down before first reading.

The Bill's purported aims to "reduce unnecessary and poor-quality regulation" and "promote accountability" are, in the abstract, unobjectionable. However, the mechanisms proposed betray a deeper, ideologically driven agenda to reshape governance in Aotearoa according to a narrow, contested economic philosophy. The claim that it will bring "discipline to regulatory management that New Zealand has for fiscal management" is a dangerously misleading analogy. Fiscal management serves broad public purposes determined by democratically elected governments; this Bill, conversely, seeks to impose specific, restrictive ideological filters on all future law-making, regardless of the public will. The very language of "good governance," "transparency," and "high-quality legislation" is weaponised to conceal the Bill's radical and divisive nature. These universally positive concepts are subverted by the Bill's method: a set of narrowly defined "principles of responsible regulation" and an oversight body, the Regulatory Standards Board, which numerous critics have identified as ideologically biased. This suggests a deliberate strategy to present a highly contentious political project as a neutral, technocratic improvement.

This Bill represents a fundamental philosophical shift in governance, moving from a system of responsive democracy, where Parliament reacts to the evolving needs and values of the populace, towards an ideologically constrained technocracy. It is not merely about establishing "better rules"; it is about fundamentally altering who decides what rules are deemed "good" and, critically, what criteria are used in that determination. The emphasis on a pre-defined, narrow set of "principles of responsible regulation" and the creation of a politically appointed Regulatory Standards Board are designed to shift substantive power away from democratically elected representatives. These representatives are, by their nature, accountable to and must respond to the diverse and often complex needs of the public. Instead, power would be vested in a body operating under a narrow, fixed ideology, far removed from direct public accountability. This is not an incremental adjustment to our regulatory system; it is a structural upheaval designed to limit the scope of democratic action for future generations of New Zealanders. The profound distrust in the democratic process itself and in the capacity of future elected governments to act responsibly, which is an undeniable undercurrent of this Bill, is not merely a rhetorical flourish but a core operational premise. By attempting to codify a specific, partisan set of regulatory principles into primary legislation and establishing this politically appointed board to oversee compliance, the Bill seeks to constrain the legitimate policy choices of future, democratically elected Parliaments. Such an impulse is inherently anti-democratic, as it elevates a pre-defined ideology above the sovereign mandate of future electorates.

The fact that an overwhelming 88% of nearly 23,000 public submissions opposed the Bill indicates that the public is not deceived by this facade. This sheer volume of opposition, particularly for a bill framed in technical, regulatory language, signals a deep and widespread public unease. It suggests that New Zealanders perceive this Bill not as a benign administrative improvement, but as a direct attack on fundamental democratic and social values that underpin our society. The opposition is not confined to narrow interest groups; it reflects a broad-based concern that the Bill undermines core tenets of Aotearoa's societal contract, including principles of fairness, robust environmental protection, and the sanctity of the Treaty partnership, as detailed extensively in the reasons for opposition submitted by a diverse range of individuals and organisations. This level of public engagement and condemnation suggests that the Bill has struck a raw nerve regarding our national identity, our democratic traditions, and the values we collectively hold dear.

2. Fundamentally Undemocratic: Subverting Parliamentary Sovereignty and Imposing Ideological Constraints

Parliamentary sovereignty—its supreme law-making authority reflecting the people's will via elected representatives—is a cornerstone of New Zealand's unwritten constitution. This Bill strikes at this principle's heart by attempting to pre-determine and limit future legislation's substantive nature through its "principles of responsible regulation". Tony Simpson rightly argues it imposes "severe limitations on the enactments which parliament can pass". Though proponents claim principles aren't court-enforceable and non-compliance doesn't invalidate laws, the architecture of mandatory "consistency accountability statements" and Regulatory Standards Board reviews is designed to generate immense political pressure. This framework aims to bind future Parliaments to a narrow ideology, chilling deviating legislative initiatives.

The Bill's architecture subtly, yet profoundly, redefines "parliamentary sovereignty," shifting it from substantive law-making, where Parliament genuinely responds to the electorate's diverse will, to mere procedural finality. Parliament could technically pass laws, but pre-set principles, mandatory Consistency Accountability Statements, and Regulatory Standards Board reviews ¹ create an ideological gauntlet. A Board finding of "inconsistency," amplified by supportive media or partisan lobbies, would make proceeding politically perilous, even if legally possible. This effectively limits legislative scope, prompting Parliament to adopt policies aligned with the Bill's ideology. Sovereignty becomes rubber-stamping pre-filtered options, not genuinely reflecting the people's mandate.

The Regulatory Standards Board, appointed by and accountable to the Minister for Regulation, is an egregious affront to democratic accountability. This unelected body, assessing legislative consistency with the Bill's skewed principles, would wield significant, undue influence over the legislative agenda. It creates what experts term a "regulatory constitution" or a "constitutional straitjacket," shifting substantive law-making power from elected representatives to a technocratic body susceptible to the appointing Minister's partisan ideology. The Environmental Defence Society correctly criticises the "excessive and inappropriate powers vested in the Minister for Regulation".

Furthermore, the Board's establishment, appointed by a single Minister and potentially subject to their direction, institutionalises a mechanism for executive overreach into the legislative agenda, blurring the separation of powers. The Minister for Regulation, an executive member, would appoint the Board, which then takes on the role of scrutinising legislation—a function traditionally of Parliament (via Select Committees) or the independent judiciary (NZBORA review). This gives the executive a potent, constitutionally questionable tool to critique, delay, or discredit legislative proposals, even those from its own government, if they deviate from the prescribed ideology, and certainly those from future, differently minded governments. This represents a significant and dangerous departure from New Zealand's constitutional norms.

This Bill is widely recognised as a long-standing ACT Party ideological project. Its advancement via coalition agreement is a blatant attempt by a minority-vote party to embed its economic and political ideology into New Zealand's governance, irrespective of future mandates or public will—a clear abuse of democratic process. The Sustainable Business Network identifies it as an "undemocratic attempt by a minority political party... to define New Zealand's law-making and regulation in terms of its own ideology. "The Bill's focus on constraining future parliaments reveals profound pessimism about democratic evolution, attempting to lock in a specific economic worldview insulated from future public opinion shifts or societal needs. This implies its proponents believe their ideology is so definitively correct that it shouldn't be subject to normal democratic re-evaluation. It endeavours to remove fundamental policy questions from democratic contestation, fossilising one set of policy preferences against democratic change.

The Bill creates a parallel, less accountable legislative scrutiny process. Parliament already has robust mechanisms such as Select Committee inquiries and open debates. The Regulatory Standards Board and mandatory "consistency accountability statements" add a duplicative, burdensome assessment layer operating under an ideological lens dictated by the Bill's narrow principles and overseen by a Ministerially-appointed Board lacking direct democratic accountability. It risks becoming ideological gatekeeping, not genuine legislative improvement. The claim that sovereignty remains intact because Board recommendations are "non-binding" is incredibly deceptive and highly disingenuous. The political cost of ignoring a Board's "inconsistency" finding could be substantial, especially if amplified by supportive media, partisan lobbies or astroturf groups. This creates a powerful chilling effect, subtly coercing compliance without legal compulsion, thereby constraining future parliamentary legislative autonomy.

3. A Direct Threat to Human Rights and Te Tiriti o Waitangi

The Bill's "principles of responsible regulation" selectively elevate certain rights, particularly private property and economic liberty, while downplaying or ignoring broader human rights—social, economic, cultural, and environmental—essential for collective well-being. This selective prioritisation clashes with the holistic ontological nature of human rights and New Zealand's existing human rights framework, including NZBORA.

The Public Health Communication Centre notes the principles "primarily centre around property rights and individual/corporation rights. There is no requirement to consider human rights, societal wellbeing, the environment, and Te Tiriti". This elevation of certain economic considerations over fundamental human rights (social, cultural, environmental, Te Tiriti rights) rejects the modern human rights paradigm, which emphasises that all human rights are interconnected, interdependent, and equally important. Prioritising economic liberties to the detriment of, for example, the right to a healthy environment, health, or Indigenous peoples' collective rights, is profoundly regressive. The Bill attempts to establish a hierarchy where certain rights, aligning with its neoliberal ideology, are foundational, while others are secondary or framed as obstacles. This is starkly at odds with New Zealand's broader human rights posture and international norms, inevitably leading to policy outcomes disproportionately harming vulnerable groups and our environment, as these often require robust regulations challenging unfettered economic activity.

Perhaps the Bill's most egregious omission is its profound failure to incorporate Te Tiriti o Waitangi in any way whatsoever. This bill erases our collective history. This is not an oversight but a fundamental constitutional failing disrespecting Aotearoa New Zealand’s founding covenant. The deliberate exclusion of Te Tiriti, despite overwhelming advice and clear Waitangi Tribunal findings, signals a conscious, alarming policy choice. This choice, with the Bill's emphasis on individualistic property rights and narrow economic efficiency, is a calculated attempt to create a framework where Treaty-based collective rights are inherently subordinated or harder to protect. It is a structural manoeuvre to sideline Te Tiriti in future regulatory development, attempting to diminish its constitutional status by stealth, aligning with a broader agenda to reframe Crown-Māori relations as individual rights rather than a partnership.

The Waitangi Tribunal found the Crown breached Treaty principles of partnership and active protection by failing meaningful consultation with Māori on a Bill whose effects "will undoubtedly be felt in the law-making and policy space, are constitutional in nature, and inherently relevant to Māori.". The Tribunal recommended an "immediate halt" to the Bill's progress ¹—a damning finding ignored by the government. Critics, like the Sustainable Business Network, argue the Bill "deliberately fails to refer to Te Tiriti o Waitangi," betraying an "ideological desire... to downplay or ignore the commitments" in our founding document. The Ministry for Regulation's submission summary revealed "approximately 65% of all submissions mentioning the Treaty/te Tiriti" raised concerns, and "None of the submissions from iwi or hapū supported the Bill," citing lack of Te Tiriti recognition, negative impacts on Māori sovereignty, and failed consultation. The Bill proceeds despite this opposition and critiques from experts, advocates, environmental groups, and iwi/Māori, showing profound disregard for democratic consultation, expert advice, and national foundational principles.

This Bill's framework inherently conflicts with Te Tiriti o Waitangi's relational framework. Te Tiriti establishes an enduring Crown-Māori partnership requiring good faith, mutual respect, and active protection of Māori interests, rights, and taonga. The Bill's principles, focused on individualistic property rights and narrow economic efficiency, are philosophically misaligned with the collective rights, responsibilities, and kaitiakitanga central to Te Ao Māori and Te Tiriti. Deliberately omitting Te Tiriti, the Bill breaches legal obligations and imposes a culturally alien, constitutionally incongruent governance model. This legislative architecture virtually guarantees future conflict, as it creates an irreconcilable clash between its "principles of responsible regulation" and Crown duties under Te Tiriti. The Bill mandates all future legislation be assessed against its narrow principles. However, Te Tiriti requires active protection of Māori interests, often necessitating regulation (e.g., environmental protections for taonga, co-management regimes) that the Regulatory Standards Board might perceive as "impairing" property rights or failing a narrow economic cost-benefit analysis. Consequently, actions mandated by Te Tiriti could be deemed "inconsistent" with the Bill's principles, forcing future governments to choose between upholding Treaty obligations (facing censure under this Bill) or adhering to the Bill's principles (breaching Te Tiriti). This will undoubtedly lead to a future constitutional crisis.

The Bill also fails to adequately incorporate New Zealand's extensive international treaty obligations. This critical flaw means the Bill's narrow "principles of responsible regulation," emphasising economic efficiency and individual property rights, risk marginalising or conflicting with substantive international commitments. By not mandating consideration of international obligations, the Bill could lead to domestic policy inadvertently breaching these binding international commitments, particularly concerning environmental protection and broader human rights. Many such treaties (climate change, biodiversity, fundamental human rights beyond championed economic liberties) require proactive, comprehensive, and sometimes burdensome domestic regulations. The Bill's tenets, like minimising regulatory costs and compensating for "impaired" property rights, could create significant "regulatory chill," deterring governments from enacting laws to meet international environmental and human rights commitments, risking non-compliance and damaging New Zealand's international standing. Furthermore, New Zealand's adherence to International Labour Organisation (ILO) conventions on workers' rights could be undermined if essential protections are deemed "undue compliance costs" or inconsistent with the Bill's economic drivers. Lastly, the Bill risks creating a hierarchy where rights not aligned with its narrow economic criteria are subordinated.

4. Imposing a Neo-Liberal Ideology: A Regressive Agenda with Damaging Consequences

The Regulatory Standards Bill is a transparent attempt to legislate a specific, contested neo-liberal economic philosophy into New Zealand's governance DNA. Its emphasis on "economic efficiency," minimising regulatory burdens (almost exclusively on business), and sacrosanct private property rights are core tenets. Professor Jane Kelsey accurately states its objective is binding "governments forever to the neoliberal logic of economic freedom". This isn't "better" regulation; it's less regulation, especially where it might impinge on private profit or mandate corporate responsibility.

A pernicious aspect is the principle that "legislation should not take or impair property without the owner's consent unless there is good justification and fair compensation". This introduces a concept similar to controversial "regulatory takings" doctrines common overseas. Businesses could demand taxpayer-funded compensation if public interest regulations (such as environmental, public health, or worker safety regulations) are perceived to "impair" property value or profits. Greenpeace warns this turns the "polluters should pay - not be paid by the public" principle on its head. The "regulatory takings" provision could lead to significant public funds transferring to private corporations for merely complying with laws protecting the public good. This creates perverse incentives: a company required to invest in cleaner technology might argue the cost "impairs" its property and demand taxpayer compensation. New Zealanders could subsidise corporations to meet basic societal expectations, establishing ongoing wealth transfer from public to private entities and undermining the principle that businesses internalise harm mitigation costs.

The inevitable consequence is "regulatory chill"—a reluctance by future governments to enact progressive regulations for fear of costly compensation claims, stifling vital public interest policy. This chill will be acute for environmental protection (climate change, biodiversity measures deemed too costly with compensation) and public health (regulations on harmful products challenged by affected industries). The Bill's framework risks a "race to the bottom." Wary governments may avoid robust regulation, leading to deteriorating domestic social/environmental conditions and harming New Zealand's international reputation, especially in markets valuing high standards. Weakened protections could increase social inequities and environmental problems, carrying substantial long-term economic costs (e.g., increased healthcare from pollution, lost tourism from environmental degradation).

The Bill's framework is skewed entirely towards corporate interests, often at the expense of the public good, social equity, and environmental sustainability. Mandated cost-benefit analysis, where diffuse, long-term social/environmental benefits are hard to quantify while alleged business costs are easily articulated (and often exaggerated), will inherently favour deregulation. The Bill's extremely narrow definition of "cost-benefit analysis" and "regulatory burden" systematically disadvantages regulations protecting non-monetisable values (human dignity, cultural heritage, biodiversity, ecological stability). Prioritising easily quantifiable (often business-related) costs over less tangible but vital benefits devalues and undermines regulations protecting them, leading to their erosion. This is biased regulation reflecting a narrow, economistic worldview.

International experience with "better regulation" initiatives shows they are frequently captured by industry interests, weakening public protections. The EU's "Better Regulation" agenda faced criticism for "regulatory chill" in health policy, delaying protections for EU citizens.

This Bill institutionalises bias against preventative and precautionary regulation. Heavy emphasis on quantifiable cost-benefit analysis and onerous justification for "impairment" of private property rights make enacting regulations based on the precautionary principle—vital for complex, long-term risks like climate change, biodiversity loss, or emerging public health threats—extraordinarily difficult. The Bill's framework inherently favours reactive responses after damage, not proactive, preventative measures, which are often more effective and less costly.

Furthermore, the Bill misrepresents "regulatory burden," consistently framing regulation as a "burden," "cost," or "red tape." However, what's a "burden" to one (e.g., a polluter's cost for emission control) is a vital "protection" or "responsibility" to society (cleaner air, better public health). The Bill's language and mechanisms systematically devalue regulation's public benefit side, leading to skewed decision-making prioritising private economic costs over essential public benefits, ultimately harming New Zealanders and our environment.

5. Inconsistency with the Bill of Rights Act 1990: A Clear Path to Legal Challenge

The Regulatory Standards Bill, in its current form, is demonstrably inconsistent with several fundamental rights and freedoms in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA). These core inconsistencies, while not flagged by the Attorney-General's initial advice (which reportedly found "No Issues"), will inevitably arise from the Bill's downstream effects on future legislation. The framework itself is designed to produce NZBORA-inconsistent outcomes.

Specific NZBORA Breaches – Detailed Analysis:

●      Section 12 (Electoral Rights): By rigidly binding future Parliaments and severely limiting their legislative scope based on a pre-ordained ideology that may not be endorsed by future electorates, the Bill undermines citizens' democratic rights. NZBORA Section 12 protects the right to vote in genuine periodic elections. This right implies electing representatives who can effectively legislate. If their power is pre-constrained by a fixed ideological framework, the vote's efficacy is diminished. The Bill attempts to entrench specific political-economic views, making it harder for future electorates to choose different policy paths, striking at representative democracy.

●      Section 19 (Freedom from Discrimination): The Bill's narrow focus on economic principles and property rights, and its failure to adequately provide for Te Tiriti o Waitangi, risks enabling or perpetuating discrimination. NZBORA Section 19(1) affirms freedom from discrimination on prohibited grounds. A framework disproportionately impacting vulnerable groups or hindering remedies for systemic inequalities would almost certainly be discriminatory. The Bill's prioritisation of economic efficiency and property rights could challenge regulations advancing substantive equality (e.g., for Māori, women, disabled persons) if these are argued to "impair" property or deemed too "costly." The Public Health Communication Centre noted the Bill could prevent addressing unequal outcomes for vulnerable communities. The Sustainable Business Network implied this danger regarding reparative action for colonial history. While NZBORA section 19(2) allows measures assisting disadvantaged groups, the Bill's overriding principles could frustrate such measures if they don't align with its economic focus.

●      Section 14 (Freedom of Expression): The Bill could chill advocacy for regulations protecting human rights, social equity, or the environment if such advocacy, or resulting regulations, conflict with its narrow principles. NZBORA Section 14 protects freedom of expression, crucial for public debate and policy advocacy. If the Bill creates a hostile environment for regulations prioritising, for instance, environmental protection over narrow economic interpretations of property rights, it could discourage advocacy for such regulations. The threat of "inconsistency" findings or compensation claims could lead to self-censorship, chilling public discourse.

●      Section 20 (Rights of Minorities): The deliberate sidelining of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Māori concerns directly implicates Māori rights as tangata whenua—a distinct people with unique Treaty rights. The Bill's failure to protect, and potential to undermine, these rights is profoundly inconsistent with NZBORA section 20, which protects minorities' rights to enjoy their culture. For Māori, this right is intrinsically linked to Te Tiriti and associated collective rights like kaitiakitanga. The Waitangi Tribunal's findings underscore this.

●      Section 8 (Right not to be deprived of life): If "regulatory chill" prevents or weakens regulations necessary to protect human life (e.g., environmental protection from toxins, public health ensuring safe products/services), it could be argued it indirectly contributes to situations where the right to life (NZBORA section 8) is inadequately protected. While often invoked in criminal justice, State failure to regulate against known, serious, preventable threats to life could engage this right if it leads to avoidable harm. If the Bill's mechanisms deter essential life-protecting regulations, the State might fail its broader positive obligation to protect life, especially if ignoring scientific evidence of grave harm to prioritise narrow economic interests. Advocacy for a right to a sustainable environment, linked to the right to life, highlights this connection.

●      Section 21 (Right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure): While not directly authorising searches, the Bill's emphasis on minimising regulatory burdens  could pressure weakening essential inspection, monitoring, and enforcement regimes necessary for public safety, environmental protection, etc. NZBORA Section 21 protects against unreasonable search or seizure. Effective regulation often requires such oversight. If the Bill's principles deem reasonable oversight as "undue burdens" without balanced consideration of their protective function, it could weaken these powers, making it harder to deter harmful activities, indirectly affecting the security robust regulation aims to protect.

●      Section 27 (Right to justice): The Bill's framework, particularly the Regulatory Standards Board's role and its ideologically skewed principles potentially overriding other legal rights, could impede access to justice or lead to unfair outcomes. NZBORA Section 27(1) affirms the right to natural justice from public authorities determining rights/obligations. Section 27(2) affirms the right to bring civil proceedings against the Crown. If the Board operates with perceived bias, or its processes chill legitimate regulatory action that would provide remedies, it could undermine the broader right to justice. For instance, if Board assessments prevent regulations giving citizens cause of action against harmful corporate behaviour, this impedes justice.

The Bill effectively creates a new, competing hierarchy of quasi-constitutional "rights"—primarily economic and property-based—not subject to the same rigorous justificatory limits (like NZBORA section 5) as actual NZBORA rights. NZBORA rights can be subject to "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". The Bill's principles, especially on property and economic liberty, are presented with near-absolute character, with compensation as the primary remedy for "impairment." This framework lacks a section 5-style balancing test for these economic "principles." Thus, future legislation upholding fundamental NZBORA rights could be deemed "inconsistent" with the Bill's economic principles without the robust, democratic justification section 5 demands, creating a skewed constitutional landscape.

As stated, should this Bill pass, Rights Aotearoa’s CEO will file for a High Court declaration that the Regulatory Standards Act is inconsistent with NZBORA. While such a declaration wouldn’t invalidate the Act (due to parliamentary sovereignty, NZBORA section 4), it would be a powerful judicial statement confirming the law infringes fundamental human rights unjustifiably in a free and democratic society. It also triggers a statutory parliamentary response. This threat carries significant political and moral weight, potentially rendering the Act unworkable or politically toxic. For a government aiming for "high-quality" regulation, a High Court declaration of inconsistency with fundamental human rights would be a profound public indictment, severely undermining the Act's credibility. The argument some governments might wear such a declaration as a "badge of honour" is less likely for a foundational framework bill.

This Bill creates untenable constitutional tension by legislating "principles" inherently susceptible to, and likely conflicting with, NZBORA. It purports to elevate its narrow "principles of responsible regulation" to quasi-constitutional status. However, these principles, particularly on property rights, are not inherently superior to, and will often directly conflict with, NZBORA's fundamental rights. This establishes an inevitable, damaging clash, where the judiciary, upholding NZBORA, may repeatedly declare aspects of the Regulatory Standards framework—or laws passed under it at NZBORA rights' expense—inconsistent with fundamental human rights. This is a blueprint for legal and constitutional uncertainty, not "good regulation." A successful NZBORA challenge, even non-invalidating, would severely undermine the Bill's legitimacy. A High Court declaration would expose the Bill not as benign governance tool, but as a dangerous mechanism for rights violations, defeating its claimed purpose and damaging its authority. 

To illustrate the pervasive conflicts, the following table outlines key inconsistencies:

6. Conclusion and Urgent Recommendation: Reject This Bill Wholesale

The Regulatory Standards Bill is a profoundly, irredeemably flawed piece of legislation that should never have been proposed. It is:

●      Undemocratic: It subverts parliamentary sovereignty by seeking to bind future elected governments to a narrow, partisan ideology. It empowers an unelected, politically appointed Regulatory Standards Board with undue, dangerous influence over law-making, eroding public trust and diminishing meaningful public participation. Its passage would set a dangerous precedent for constitutional change driven by narrow partisan interests via opaque coalition deals, not broad public consensus. Major constitutional shifts, which this Bill represents, demand widespread support and extensive, good-faith consultation, yet this Bill advances despite overwhelming public opposition and expert condemnation. This normalises ideologically driven constitutional re-engineering by minority interests, detrimental to stable, democratic governance.

●      A Threat to Rights: It selectively prioritises narrow economic and property rights over comprehensive, ontologically indivisible human rights. It disrespects Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Crown obligations to Māori, ignoring Waitangi Tribunal concerns. This damages Crown-Māori relations and undermines the principle that all human rights are interconnected and equal.

●      Ideologically Driven: It forces a contested, outdated, and harmful neoliberal agenda onto government machinery, risking a widespread regulatory chill and systematically prioritising narrow corporate interests over the public good, social equity, and environmental protection. The long-term societal costs—environmental degradation, increased social inequality, diminished public health—will be substantial and borne by all, especially the vulnerable.

●      Fundamentally Legally Unsound: It is demonstrably inconsistent with multiple NZBORA rights, inviting inevitable, costly, constitutionally damaging legal challenges. This Bill is a recipe for constitutional instability and ongoing uncertainty.

Despite proponents' disingenuous claims of "better regulation", this Bill is an instrument for ideological entrenchment and regressive deregulation, causing significant, lasting harm to Aotearoa. The overwhelming public opposition (88% of nearly 23,000 submissions); grave Waitangi Tribunal concerns; and damning critiques from countless experts must not be ignored.

The significant public resources, parliamentary time, and political capital spent advancing this flawed Bill, given widespread opposition, represent a considerable opportunity cost, diverting from genuine regulatory challenges and constructive reforms. This Bill itself has become a barrier to good governance.

Rights Aotearoa implores this Committee to heed the unified opposition and recognise the Bill's severe dangers. We urge decisive action to defend our democracy, human rights, and founding covenant. Rejecting this Bill is not just about stopping bad legislation; it's an opportunity to affirm New Zealand's commitment to core democratic principles, the indivisibility of human rights, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi's foundational constitutional importance. Recommending wholesale rejection and admonishing against future similar attempts sends an unequivocal message about these non-negotiable values, strengthening New Zealand's constitutional integrity.

Rights Aotearoa’s recommendations to the Committee:

1.     That the Finance and Expenditure Committee recommend to the House of Representatives that the Regulatory Standards Bill be rejected wholesale and not proceed.

2.     That the Finance and Expenditure Committee, in its report to the House, place on record a clear admonition that should such a constitutionally damaging, ideologically prescriptive, and democratically offensive Bill ever be contemplated again, it must be decisively voted down before it even reaches a first reading. This is essential to protect our democratic processes, Parliamentary supremacy, Aotearoa New Zealand's foundational constitutional principles, and to avoid egregious waste of public resources on initiatives so at odds with our nation's values.

Works Cited

·       ACT New Zealand. (25 January 2025). The Regulatory Standards Bill. ACT New Zealand. https://www.act.org.nz/200125

·       Alsharabati, C., & de Mello e Souza, L. B. (n.d.). Investor-State Dispute Settlement and the Regulatory Chill Hypothesis: The Effect of Pending and Lost Cases on Environmental Regulation (PEIO12_Paper_78). https://www.peio.me/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/PEIO12_Paper_78.pdf

·       Auckland Catholic Justice and Peace Commission. (January 2025). Submission on the Regulatory Standards Bill. https://www.aucklandcatholic.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Submission-Regulatory-Standards-Bill-JPCA.pdf

·       Bills.parliament.nz. (n.d.). Regulatory Standards Bill - History. New Zealand Parliament. https://bills.parliament.nz/v/6/e22299b3-b67b-4f74-023d-08dd9688d2c5?Tab=history

·       Brooks, Eleanor, & Lauber, Kathrin. (2024). Administering a Chill Pill? Better Regulation and the Potential for Regulatory Chill in European Union Health Policy. EPHA. https://epha.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/brooks-and-lauber-2024-highlights.pdf

·       BusinessNZ. (15 Jun 2022). ILO findings misinterpreted. BusinessNZ. https://businessnz.org.nz/ilo-findings-misinterpreted/

·       Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC). (n.d.). Declarations of inconsistency. Cabinet Manual. https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/our-business-units/cabinet-office/supporting-work-cabinet/cabinet-manual/7-executive-legislation-and-house/declarations-inconsistency

·       Double Aspect. (21 January 2025). Trying Nicer. https://doubleaspect.blog/2025/01/21/trying-nicer/

·       Environmental Defence Society. (January 2025). Submission on the Proposed Regulatory Standards Bill. https://eds.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Regulatory-Standards-Bill-Submission.pdf

·       EPHA. (n.d.). Better Regulation for Better Health Toolkit. EPHA. https://epha.org/brbh-toolkit/

·       Franks Ogilvie. (18 May 2025). Explainer: Declarations of Inconsistency. Franks Ogilvie. https://www.franksogilvie.co.nz/news/explainer-declarations-of-inconsistency

·       Greenpeace Aotearoa. (22 May 2025). Govt ridiculed over deeply ironic use of urgency for Regulatory Standards Bill. Greenpeace Aotearoa. https://www.greenpeace.org/aotearoa/press-release/govt-ridiculed-over-deeply-ironic-use-of-urgency-for-regulatory-standards-bill/

·       Greenpeace Aotearoa. (23 May 2025). Regulatory Standards Bill Inflicts ACT's Far-Right Principles On Aotearoa. Greenpeace Aotearoa. https://www.greenpeace.org/aotearoa/press-release/regulatory-standards-bill-inflicts-acts-far-right-principles-on-aotearoa/

·       Greenpeace Aotearoa. (26 May 2025). ACT's regulatory standards bill threatens to pass, despite Treaty and legal doubts. Greenpeace Aotearoa. https://www.greenpeace.org/aotearoa/story/acts-regulatory-standards-bill-threatens-to-pass-despite-treaty-and-legal-doubts/

·       IIED. (16 July 2020). Unpacking regulatory chill: the case of mining in the Santurbán páramo in Colombia. IIED. https://www.iied.org/unpacking-regulatory-chill-case-mining-santurban-paramo-colombia

·       ILO. (n.d.). C155 - Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155). NORMLEX. https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/nrmlx_en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C155

·       ILO. (n.d.). 155. Occupational Safety and Health, 1981. International Labour Organization. https://wwwex.ilo.org/dyn/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:51:0::NO:51:P51_CONTENT_REPOSITORY_ID:2543194:NO

·       ILO. (n.d.). ILO Convention No.98 Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention. ILO. https://www.ilo.org/media/406851/download

·       ILO. (n.d.). C98 Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949. International Labour Organization. https://www.ilo.org/media/334646/download

·       Kelsey, Jane. (18 January 2025). Proposed bill 'an ideological project that must be stopped'. E-Tangata. https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/proposed-bill-an-ideological-project-that-must-be-stopped/

·       Lauber, K., & Brooks, E. (2022). How does better regulation shape EU health policy? A case study of unhealthy advertising regulation. European Journal of Public Health, 32(Supplement_3), ckac131.535. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckac131.535

·       Lawyers for Climate Action NZ Inc. (n.d.). NZBORA AND THE RIGHT TO A SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT. Lawyers for Climate Action NZ Inc. https://www.lawyersforclimateaction.nz/nzbora

·       Legislation Design and Advisory Committee. (n.d.). Legislation Guidelines 2021 Edition: Chapter 7 - Discrimination and section 19 NZBORA. LDAC. https://ldac.org.nz/guidelines/legislation-guidelines-2021-edition/constitutional-issues-and-recognising-rights-2/chapter-7/

·       MFAT. (31 January 2025). Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction: Policy approvals for implementing legislation and approval to ratify. New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/media-and-resources/agreement-on-the-conservation-and-sustainable-use-of-marine-biodiversity-beyond-national-jurisdiction-policy-approvals-for-implementing-legislation-and-approval-to-ratify

·       Ministry for Regulation. (May 2025). Information Release - Summary of Submissions for proposed Regulatory Standards Bill. https://www.regulation.govt.nz/assets/Publication-Documents/Information-Release-Summary-of-Submissions-for-proposed-Regulatory-Standards-Bill.pdf

·       Ministry for Regulation. (May 2025). Policy Approvals for Progressing a Regulatory Standards Bill (v2). https://www.regulation.govt.nz/assets/Publication-Documents/Information-Release-Policy-Approvals-for-Progressing-a-Regulatory-Standards-Bill-May-2025-v2.pdf

·       Ministry for Regulation. (May 2025). Policy Approvals for Progressing a Regulatory Standards Bill (v4). https://www.regulation.govt.nz/assets/Publication-Documents/Information-Release-Policy-Approvals-for-Progressing-a-Regulatory-Standards-Bill-May-2025_v4.pdf

·       Ministry for Regulation. (n.d.). The Regulatory Standards Bill. Ministry for Regulation. https://www.regulation.govt.nz/our-work/regulatory-standards-bill/

·       Ministry of Justice. (n.d.). Advice on consistency of Bills with the Bill of Rights Act. Ministry of Justice. https://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector-policy/constitutional-issues-and-human-rights/the-bill-of-rights-act/advice/

·       New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. New Zealand Legislation. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM224792.html

·       New Zealand Business Roundtable (NZ Initiative). (n.d.). Submission: Regulatory Standards Bill. The New Zealand Initiative. https://www.nzinitiative.org.nz/reports-and-media/submissions/submission-regulatory-standards-bill/document/295

·       New Zealand Initiative. (n.d.). Property, liberty, transparency: the principled basis for the Regulatory Standards Bill. https://www.nzinitiative.org.nz/reports-and-media/opinion/property-liberty-transparency-the-principled-basis-for-the-regulatory-standards-bill/

·       New Zealand Law Society Te Kāhui Ture o Aotearoa. (13 January 2025). Feedback on the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill. https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/assets/Law-Reform-Submissions/Proposed-Regulatory-Standards-Bill-13-January-2025.pdf

·       New Zealand Legislation. (n.d.). New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 - Section 8 Right not to be deprived of life. New Zealand Legislation. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM225506.html

·       New Zealand Legislation. (n.d.). New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 - Section 14 Freedom of expression. New Zealand Legislation. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM225513.html

·       New Zealand Legislation. (n.d.). New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 - Section 19 Freedom from discrimination. New Zealand Legislation. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/dlm225519.html

·       NZ Herald. (n.d.). 'Alarm bells need to ring': Concerns over Regulatory Standards Bill. NZ Herald. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/alarm-bells-need-to-ring-concerns-over-regulatory-standards-bill/XVEYKMMEYRD2VP63XKBIPIHNOQ/

·       NZ Legislation Disclosures. (n.d.). Regulatory Standards Bill - NZ Legislation Disclosures. NZ Legislation Disclosures. https://disclosure.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2025/155

·       Opie, Joss. (2012). A case for including economic, social and cultural rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, 43. https://www.abuseincare.org.nz/assets/Evidence-library/Part-1/Opie-J-A-case-for-including-economic-social-and-cultural-rights-in-the-New-Zealand-Bill-of-Rights-Act-1990-Victoria-University-of-Wellington-Law-Review-43-2012.pdf

·       Public Health Communication Centre. (13 January 2025). Submission on content of proposed Regulatory Standards Bill. https://www.phcc.org.nz/sites/default/files/2025-01/PHCC%20Regulatory%20Standards%20Bill%20Submission%20final_0.pdf

·       Reddit. (n.d.). Have your say on the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill. r/newzealand. https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/1hvgauj/have_your_say_on_the_proposed_regulatory/

·       Reddit. (n.d.). What I would say to you is... Regulatory Standards Bill. r/newzealand. https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/1i1gg3k/what_i_would_say_to_you_is_regulatory_standards/

·       Regulatory Standards Bill 155-1 (2025), Government Bill. New Zealand Legislation. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2025/0155/latest/whole.html

·       RNZ. (13 January 2025). Regulatory Standards Bill slammed as 'dangerous' call for 'alarm bells'. RNZ. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/538784/regulatory-standards-bill-slammed-as-dangerous-call-for-alarm-bells

·       RNZ. (26 May 2025). Fourth time lucky? ACT's regulatory standards law may finally pass despite Treaty and legal doubts. RNZ. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/on-the-inside/562204/fourth-time-lucky-act-s-regulatory-standards-law-may-finally-pass-despite-treaty-and-legal-doubts

·       Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Terrorist Attack on Christchurch Mosques. (n.d.). Part 2: Context - Overview of New Zealand’s international and domestic human rights framework. Royal Commission of Inquiry. https://christchurchattack.royalcommission.nz/the-report/part-2-context/overview-of-new-zealands-international-and-domestic-human-rights-framework/

·       Russell McVeagh. (n.d.). Regulatory Standards Bill passes first reading in Parliament. Accessed on May 27, 2025. https://www.russellmcveagh.com/insights-news/regulatory-standards-bill-passes-first-reading-in-parliament/

·       Te Wai Māori Trust. (n.d.). Submission on the Treaty Principles Bill. https://waimaori.maori.nz/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Te-Wai-Maori-Trust-Submission-on-Treaty-Principles-Bill.pdf

·       Tikanga Tangata - Human Rights Commission. (n.d.). Wāteatanga o te Whakaaro me te Whakapuaki - Freedom of Opinion and Expression. Human Rights Commission. https://tikatangata.org.nz/human-rights-in-aotearoa/freedom-of-opinion-and-expression

·       United Nations. (n.d.). Third and fourth periodic reports of States parties--New Zealand. UN Women Watch. https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/cedaw19/newzeal.htm

·       University of Melbourne. LibGuides. (n.d.). New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. University of Melbourne Library. https://unimelb.libguides.com/c.php?g=928011&p=6704327

·       Wikipedia. (n.d.). Regulatory Standards Bill. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_Standards_Bill

·       Wikipedia. (n.d.). Search and seizure. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_and_seizure

·       Wikipedia. (n.d.). Unreasonable search and seizure in New Zealand. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreasonable_search_and_seizure_in_New_Zealand