Reminder to submit on the Regulatory Standards Bill
Here's my submission: feel free to draw on it
Apologies that this is not quite the usual offering from me, but this Bill needs us all to pay attention as it is attempting to make deep changes to the nature and focus of what government can do now and into the future. Feel free to share and use any of my arguments if you agree with them. And make your submission by 23 June 1pm!
—R x
Overview of Submission
I oppose the Regulatory Standards Bill and request that it be rejected. The Bill:
Redefines “responsible regulation” through a narrow, ideological lens—elevating individual liberty and private property rights above all other rights, collective wellbeing, or public interest (reflecting ACT Party philosophy).
Imposes a burdensome and costly regime of analysis and reporting—focused primarily on property rights—which will divert resources away from the creation of high-quality legislation and delay regulation that serves the public good.
Erases Te Tiriti o Waitangi by excluding any requirement to give effect to it, undermining the legitimacy of our constitutional foundations and silencing relational, collective, and indigenous worldviews from the lawmaking process.
Exacerbates inequality by entrenching a model of individual and corporate self-interest, privileging property owners over everyone else, and sidelining responsibility to others and to the environment.
Concentrates executive power, giving a single Minister undue control over the legislative agenda via the Regulatory Standards Board, which lacks true independence and invites political interference.
Undermines the State’s role in protecting public welfare and environmental health, weakening its capacity to act on behalf of future generations or address complex, systemic issues.
Locks us into an outdated economic worldview at a time when we urgently need adaptive, relational, and systems-based regulation capable of responding to interconnected global crises.
The Bill represents a sweeping ideological intervention into our legislative system—one that serves corporate interests at the expense of democratic accountability, public good, and intergenerational justice.
Overall commentary
A systems lens: One Ring to Rule Them All
The power to make rules is significant; the power to make rule about making rules is of a different magnitude entirely. The Regulatory Standards Bill would, if passed, affect every other piece of legislation in Aotearoa, making it quasi-constitutional. It is an attempt to embed the libertarian worldview of the ACT Party at the heart of our legislative process—normalising property and profit as the central values that define responsible governance.
The Bill defines “responsible regulation” in a narrow, selective, and ideologically contested way—elevating individual liberty and private property rights above all other rights, freedoms, and public goods. In doing so, it sidesteps the constitutional foundation of Aotearoa: Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This is the foundation that gives government its legitimacy.
Originating from the Business Roundtable (now the NZ Initiative) and designed to serve business interests, this Bill confuses a country with a corporation. Aotearoa is not a business—it is our collective home. Regulation is about more than what fits in a spreadsheet. To reduce it to economic outputs is to do violence to our shared life.
"Not everything that can be counted counts. Not everything that counts can be counted."
—William Bruce Cameron
The logic of the Bill will not lead to peace and prosperity for all—it will exacerbate inequality and restrict the freedoms of those without wealth. It encodes the erosion of the collective good into law, a path that leads to long-term social and environmental impoverishment. Inequality harms everyone—even those at the top—because it degrades the systems we all rely on to thrive.
The (false) logic of untethered individualism
At its core, the Bill is built on a flawed logic: that collective good will emerge from individuals acting in their own self-interest. This is evident in the Bill’s emphasis on ‘persons’ and the weighing of individual rights and liberties (including those of corporations) as the main test of “good law-making.” But this framing misunderstands the interdependence of people and systems.
We do not live as hermetically-sealed economic units—we are shaped by community, care, and connection. Libertarianism’s imagined atomised individuals reflect ideology, not reality. And when regulation reinforces this worldview, it undermines social cohesion and erodes our shared responsibilities.
This approach diverts resources downstream—toward managing harm—rather than addressing upstream causes. For a government concerned with “efficiency,” this model is deeply inefficient. The philosophy underpinning this Bill is systems-blind and economically short-sighted.
ACT’s market-driven individualism should not define the logic of the entire regulatory system.
Rationale for the Bill
The Minister’s justification for the Bill lacks evidence and misunderstands the role of regulation.
In his press release, the Minister claims low productivity stems from poor regulation, and that to raise productivity we must reduce compliance burdens. This claim is unsupported, stated as fact, and centres business interests while ignoring the broader public purpose of regulation.
There is almost no recognition in the Bill of the need to constrain harmful “productive activities”—nor any acknowledgement of the catastrophic costs of deregulation (e.g. leaky homes, the GFC, social media harms). Regulation is framed as “red tape” obstructing “productivity,” rather than a tool for enabling social and environmental wellbeing.
In contrast, the Ministry for Regulation itself notes that New Zealand performs well in international regulatory benchmarks and already has enhanced disclosure requirements coming into force. The Interim Regulatory Impact Statement cites high-speed reform and under-resourcing—not overregulation—as key issues. These are problems within the government's control.
The evidence suggests that poor regulation arises from rushed processes and resource-starved agencies. The solution is to invest in regulatory capacity—not to overhaul the system using ideologically driven and untested reforms.
The Legislation Act 2019, once fully implemented, will strengthen legislative scrutiny through improved disclosure. This approach is more targeted, effective, and cost-efficient than what the Bill proposes.
The Regulatory Standards Bill is a sweeping ideological solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.
Principles of responsible regulation
A tautological, manipulative framework
The Bill redefines “responsible,” “high-quality,” and “good” regulation using narrow and partisan criteria—and then demands that all legislation be judged against them. This amounts to a closed feedback loop: critiques that don’t operate within the Bill’s logic are deemed irrelevant.
There is no explanation for why these definitions should override the broader and more nuanced guidance found in established sources like the LDAC manual. The definitions are circular (“responsible regulation means the principles set out in section 8”) and unaccountable.
Who is regulation “responsible” to? If the answer isn’t “everyone in Aotearoa, including future generations,” then the Bill has no place in our constitutional framework. All signs point to responsibility being directed toward corporate interests—at the expense of ordinary New Zealanders.
A selective and contested set of principles
The LDAC manual provides a balanced and thoughtful approach to regulation. It recognises the need to hold both rights and responsibilities, considers both individual and collective good, and foregrounds the fundamental constitutional values that underpin our legal system. In contrast, the principles proposed in this Bill have been cherry-picked from that broader framework. Taken out of context, they no longer serve as part of a balanced matrix but instead take on a very different—and deeply skewed—orientation.
The emphasis in this Bill is overwhelmingly on individual rights and liberties, particularly property rights, without corresponding attention to our responsibilities to others or to the whole—the communities, ecosystems, and relationships we are part of. This imbalance crowds out the wider range of rights that are essential for a just, cohesive, and flourishing society.
What is excluded from the Bill is just as significant as what is included. Te Tiriti o Waitangi—our founding constitutional document—is nowhere to be found in these principles. That absence is a breach of Te Tiriti in itself. But the Bill goes further: it defines “responsible regulation” in a way that actively excludes Māori worldviews and ways of being. It leaves no room for concepts that are central to te ao Māori: collective rights and obligations, relational understandings of property, reciprocity, intergenerational thinking, and a deep responsibility to care for the environment as a living ancestor.
This deliberate exclusion is not only constitutionally damaging—it is a loss for all of us. It dishonours the Crown’s commitments under Te Tiriti, and undermines decades of work toward restoration and healing. It risks turning back the clock on hard-won progress by cutting off access to the holistic, systems-based wisdom that te ao Māori offers—wisdom that could help us collectively face the immense social and ecological challenges ahead.
In addition to the significant matter of justice for Māori, it is also a matter of survival and wellbeing for everyone. We need frameworks that are relational, responsive, and rooted in care—not narrow definitions built around atomised individualism and extractive economics. Te Tiriti offers a path towards a future grounded in mutuality and mana-enhancing governance. Its exclusion from this Bill is not just a legal or cultural oversight—it is a structural failure that weakens our collective capacity to respond to complexity.
I support and amplify the many expert submissions that have called attention to this erasure of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I also draw attention to the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal, which underscore the deep harm this Bill would do—not only to Māori rights, but to the legitimacy and integrity of our entire constitutional framework.
Also absent from the Bill is any reference to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, another glaring omission from a framework that claims to define “responsible regulation.” If regulation is to be truly “responsible,” it must be grounded in the legal and ethical commitments we have already made as a society. Ignoring the Bill of Rights Act weakens protections for individuals and groups, particularly those already marginalised, and signals a narrowing of the regulatory lens to one that is primarily economic and property-focused. This is not just a missed opportunity—it is a structural oversight that risks undermining the legal coherence, moral legitimacy, and public trust essential to the lawmaking process.
Comments on specific principles
Rule of law
While these principles appear to codify foundational legal norms, they carry real risks—especially if applied rigidly.
The demand for clarity may lead to rigid legalism, stripping the law of its capacity to respond to nuance, context, or emergent issues. And what is “clear” from a Western legal perspective may not align with or allow space for mātauranga Māori or tikanga-based justice.
The clause against retrospective lawmaking could hinder the redress of historical injustice—deliberately or otherwise—by rendering any retrospective action legally suspect, even where it's morally necessary.
The phrase “every person is equal before the law” is drawn from LDAC guidance, but its rewording subtly shifts the emphasis. In LDAC’s full framing, the statement is situated within limits on power: “Everyone is subject to the law, including the Government.” Here, that framing is lost. The shift from “everybody” to “every person” opens the door to include corporate legal persons and ignores the very real power imbalances between those persons.
By asserting a formal equality between vastly unequal actors, the principle reinforces the fiction that all persons are starting from the same place—when in reality, freedoms and liberties are often determined by how much property one owns. This kind of legal equality without material equity enables power to concentrate, property to consolidate, and monopolies to grow—ultimately degrading the conditions for a functioning society.
The final subclause, which seeks to resolve legal issues “by application of law, not discretion,” is especially troubling. Some decisions—such as those involving social welfare, emergency health responses, or immigration—must be discretionary to be humane. Overprescription here ties the hands of frontline decision-makers and risks preventing compassionate, context-aware choices.
Liberties
The principle on liberties is underpinned by a vision of atomised individualism and a property-centric understanding of freedom. It emphasises the right to “own, use, and dispose of property” as though these actions exist in a vacuum, disconnected from ecological systems, collective wellbeing, or social responsibility.
This worldview has helped drive the climate and ecological crisis we now face. It recognises no obligation to the land, the future, or to others—and that is precisely the problem.
Even where the clause appears to reflect the “harm principle,” it is too narrow. Liberties do not exist solely at the level of individuals. They emerge from interactions between people, groups, and systems. When concentrated into powerful entities—like monopolies or corporate cartels—individual liberties can infringe on the rights of others at scale.
If we don’t account for collective liberties and structural power, we leave major parts of reality—and major threats to equity—outside the regulatory frame. That is the very definition of irresponsibility.
Taking of property
This principle marks a radical shift in the balance between public interest and private wealth. It elevates property rights to a position of near-absolute priority—demanding compensation even when property is impaired to prevent harm to people or the environment.
The implications are profound. Currently, regulation creates incentives for individuals and corporations to self-regulate, knowing that harmful actions may lead to constraints. This principle reverses those incentives. If regulation that prevents harm triggers a compensation claim, then it is in the polluter’s interest to wait for the regulator—and then litigate.
To make matters worse, the clause states that those who benefit (i.e. the general public not being harmed) should pay compensation to the property holder. This deeply perverse logic legitimises the idea that once property is acquired—by whatever means—it becomes more important than the collective right to safety, health, or environmental protection.
Even in more straightforward cases—like building a cycleway or protecting a heritage site—the principle introduces a “user pays” approach that increases inequality. It could mean that access to public goods becomes conditional on who can afford to “compensate” for them.
Taxes, fees, and levies
This principle restricts the government's ability to cross-subsidise, plan for the long term, or address collective needs through fees and levies. It demands a strict cost–benefit alignment for every fee charged, forcing government agencies to track precise inputs and beneficiaries—no matter how diffuse or emergent the public value being created.
The compliance burden will be significant. Agencies will need to conduct extensive modelling, open themselves to litigation, and possibly pull back from charging fees for anything where benefits are shared or difficult to isolate.
In practice, this risks shifting the costs of doing business from corporations onto the general public—socialising private costs through general taxation. It will also reduce public sector productivity, not improve it, by burying agencies in administrative and legal complexity.
We may also see indirect effects, such as pressure to raise company tax rates if direct cost recovery becomes legally fraught. In the name of efficiency, this clause introduces inefficiency—and creates an uneven playing field where private actors are shielded from their full social and environmental impacts.
Good law-making
These principles claim to promote better law—but their design encourages a mechanistic, technocratic approach that is poorly suited to the complexity of real life.
They overemphasise quantifiable costs and benefits, privileging what can be easily measured over what actually matters—like justice, trust, resilience, or long-term flourishing. Public goods and social cohesion often rely on intangible, systemic, or delayed benefits that don’t show up neatly in a spreadsheet.
By demanding certainty and predefined comparisons, the principles work against adaptive and iterative policymaking—which is often the only way to respond effectively in complex systems. Aggregating individual costs and benefits does not equal collective wellbeing, especially where power and access are unequal.
The focus on those “directly and materially affected” by regulation narrows consultation to the most obvious stakeholders, excluding those affected indirectly, over time, or in interconnected ways. This risks leaving out the very groups most in need of protection.
What we’re left with is a vision of law that’s brittle, closed, and short-sighted—one that favours codified expertise over lived experience, and individual rights over collective care.
This Bill wraps itself in the language of freedom, but in practice it serves the most self-interested—those who treat the accumulation of wealth and property as an end in itself, no matter the consequences for the common wealth on which we all depend. It doesn’t liberate us—it locks us into a system where only the already-powerful are truly free.
The Regulatory Standards Board: consolidating power, not enhancing accountability
The Regulatory Standards Board (RSB), as proposed in this Bill, represents not an improvement in oversight or accountability, but a dangerous consolidation of executive power under the guise of regulatory scrutiny.
A redundant and politicised mechanism
The RSB duplicates mechanisms that already exist for members of the public to raise concerns about regulation. What it adds is not independence or accountability—but centralised, Ministerial control. The Minister appoints the Board, raising the very real risk of it being stacked with political appointees. In this form, the Board is not truly independent—it is an extension of the executive branch.
Oversight of regulation should remain with Parliament, where elected representatives can debate and balance competing interests in the open. Instead, this Bill shifts the power of scrutiny into the hands of the executive, enabling a government to effectively self-regulate while appearing to defer to an “independent” body. While the Board may appear to reduce judicial overreach, it instead skews the balance of power toward Ministers and Cabinet—eroding the proper role of the legislative branch in our constitutional order.
A tool for privileged interests
The Bill would allow anyone to complain to the RSB about regulation—but in practice, it will empower those with the most resources. Corporate lobbyists and well-funded interest groups will be far more capable of exploiting the complaints mechanism than ordinary New Zealanders. As we’ve seen in other systems—such as with OIA requests—it's often the squeakiest, best-resourced wheels that dominate.
The RSB would thus become a channel through which powerful interests could challenge or delay regulation intended to protect people, communities, and the environment. The chilling effect on public interest legislation could be profound. By inserting more procedural grit into the wheels of government, the RSB would slow down the regulatory process and increase compliance costs—without improving quality in any meaningful way.
Narrow principles, sweeping influence
Crucially, the RSB can only evaluate regulations against the narrow set of “responsible regulation” principles defined in the Bill—principles that enshrine a libertarian, property-centric ideology. This one decision—to define good regulation in these terms—sets off a cascade of downstream consequences that would lock us into a neoliberal policy architecture, regardless of who is in government.
Through the RSB, a single Minister gains sweeping influence over the legislative and regulatory agenda, using “regulatory stewardship” as the pretext. This power to determine the rules, and then enforce them through a handpicked Board, concentrates huge power in one individual. If that power is ever exercised in bad faith, there will be few mechanisms left to constrain it.
A regulatory system that is fit for the future
The bigger issue: what the Bill ignores
While the Bill is preoccupied with how regulation might affect the wealth and property of those who already have both, it is silent on the real regulatory challenge of our time: how to govern in the face of complex, systemic, and interdependent crises.
Climate change, biodiversity loss, economic inequality, housing precarity, digital harms—these cannot be solved within narrow silos or simple models of cause and effect. They require a new kind of regulatory architecture: one that is holistic, adaptive, relational, and able to respond to shock, emergence, and transformation.
A regulation system shaped by libertarian individualism—every person for themselves, every regulation a threat to private interest—is utterly unfit for purpose in this context. We cannot face the meta-crisis with a meta-framework that denies interdependence and social responsibility.
A better way forward: Te Tiriti and systemic intelligence
Aotearoa already has models for systems thinking, holistic governance, and collective responsibility—in te ao Māori. A true Te Tiriti-led constitutional framework would centre relationality, responsibility, and the well-being of people and place. It offers a sophisticated and deeply grounded alternative to the brittle, adversarial, and self-interested logic encoded in this Bill.
Now is the time to strengthen our capacity to govern for the whole—not to double down on ideologies that have created global harm. We don’t need a Regulatory Standards Bill that entrenches economic dogma. We need a constitutional vision grounded in justice, connection, and care—for each other, and for those yet to come.
Closing
This Bill risks transforming New Zealand’s legislative culture into one dominated by narrow economic values and private interests. It undermines Te Tiriti, marginalises collective responsibility, and dismisses the real-world complexity that regulation is meant to address. We need regulation that is adaptive, inclusive, and guided by care for each other and the land—not one beholden to a worldview that treats people and planet as collateral to profit.
Thank you Rebecca. This is an excellent analysis of everything that is wrong about the proposed bill. A well argued and incredibly articulate explanation of why this needs to be consigned to the dustbin. Thank you again.
wow thank you. you have put into clear words the things that have been rattling around in my head and heart for a while but couldnt find words for. except maybe "kill all libertarians, bills!"