Regulatory Standards Bill passes second reading after heated debate in Parliament

The Regulatory Standards Bill has passed its second reading, following a heated debate in Parliament.

The bill, introduced by ACT and part of National and Act’s coalition agreement, seeks to set out principles of responsible regulation, and requires the government and officials to explain whether they’re following them.

Critics argue it puts ACT’s ideology over other relevant principles including those in Te Tiriti o Waitangi; that it could tilt the playing field in favour of big corporations; and it would only increase cost and delays to lawmaking.

Minister for Regulation David Seymour said the bill will make the legislative process more “transparent, principled, and accountable”, and will help build confidence in the system.

“To the rest of the colleagues across the House: If you want to tax someone, if you want to take or impair their property, if you want to restrict their livelihoods, you can still do it, but you’ll face tough questions about the impacts those actions have about people’s property rights, their freedom, and the compliance of your proposal with the rule of law.”

Several changes have been made to the bill following the select committee process, including that the Regulatory Standards Board – which oversees reviews to regulations – is appointed by the Governor-General on the minister’s recommendation, rather than directly by the Minister for Regulation himself.

Seymour said the changes to the board will “enhance its independence”, and appointments being made by the Governor-General will make it a “much more auguste body with more authority”.

The committee also made changes to the “takings principle” – saying that compensation should be provided for the taking of property only in cases where there has been a “severe” level of impairment.

“This principle will make it easier for parliament and the public to see where property rights are being severly impaired, with the intent of helping reduce instances where impaired property rights without compensation lead to New Zealanders being so much poorer,” Seymour said.

Labour’s Regulations spokesperson Duncan Webb slammed the bill as a “bad” piece of law, which sought to embed a narrow set of principles in the legislative process.

It placed private property rights at the top of that hierarchy, he said.

“This bill is seeking by the back door to entrench private property rights as a constitutional principle.”

Official advice from the Ministry for Regulation in its regulatory impact statement was that the bill was “poorly consulted on”, and “hasn’t got a problem that it needs to address”, Webb said.

Greens Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick criticised the bill for not conducting targeted consultation with Māori on the bill, and for “removing” and deprioritising the Treaty of Waitangi.

“If we are to believe the aim here is to make good law, then surely there should have been a good law-making process to produce this very law, which would have brought the people of this country along for that process.

“The overwhelming majority of regular New Zealanders who used their time to oppose this legislation – 99 percent of them – only to be ignored yet again by this government.”

Fellow Greens MP Francisco Hernandez decribed the bill as a “wet fart of a dying government that’s run out of ideas, that’s incapable of doing what everyday New Zealanders want”.

Hernandez said the bill was likely to cost millions, and would create a “tsunami of yellow tape” for the public service.

The Act, National and New Zealand First parties voted for the bill, while Labour, The Greens and Te Pāti Māori voted against.

The bill will now proceed to the committee of the whole House, where it will considered clause by clause, before heading to its third reading.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.