
A response to sincerely-held concerns about the Regulatory Standards Bill
These fears reflect what people have been told, and genuinely believe.
Distrust of the bill's intentions is significant. The most ideological submitters think the bill is driven by an unacceptable 'neo-liberal', libertarian ideology.
Many more think it prioritises individual property rights over collective wellbeing.
The bill's premise is the opposite: that the collective rules all. Parliament represents the collective voice of the nation. Its laws are those of the collective. It is sovereign lawmaker. Nothing in the bill changes that.
Instead, the bill makes the Government of the day more transparent and accountable to Parliament when asking Parliament to pass a regulatory measure.
Specifically, the bill requires the Government to inform Parliament about departures from key fundamental legal principles, and to provide a reason.
Parliament is free to ignore that information. It would be as free as now to implement strong environmental protections, extensive public health measures, or policies specifically to advance Māori interests.
The Bill draws on ten legal principles from the Government's own Legislation Guidelines. Photo / Mark Mitchell
That is the key point. It is why the bill is merely a transparency measure.
A related, sincerely held view is that the bill's selected principles are ideologically biased. They screw the scrum in favour of individual rights.
Yet the state's first duty is to protect citizens in their persons and possessions. National defence, the police and the courts are fundamental state responsibilities.
At their most basic, constitutional arrangements need to protect citizens, as groups and as individuals, from the unprincipled abuse of the state's power.
Chapter 4 of the 2021 edition of the Government's Legislation Guidelines distils 10 default principles from 'the fundamental constitutional principles and values of New Zealand law'.
The 10 default principles include preserving the rule of law, a presumption in favour of liberty, and respect for property rights. That is not extreme, it is basic.
The six broad principles in the Bill draw heavily from the most relevant of those default principles. This is not accidental. The 2009 Regulatory Responsibility Taskforce drew them from earlier editions of the same publication. (Space does not permit going into differences here.)
Why not include a reference to Treaty principles? The open question is 'precisely what difference would this make'? Specific examples would be helpful.
For some years now Cabinet has required officials to identify departures from these 10 default principles. Ministers must give reasons for such departures. This is to be done before a measure is put to Cabinet or to a Cabinet Committee. The same requirement applies to another 138 default principles from the other 22 chapters in the guidelines.
The problem here is that Cabinet can ignore its own requirements when it wishes to do so. Hence the concerns about measures pushed through Parliament under urgency.
The bill aims to make it harder for governments to ignore such requirements, at least in respect of the most fundamental common law principles.
Another widely expressed concern is that complying with the bill's assessment requirements will cost many millions of dollars in public sector time.
First, that would be worth it if enhanced parliamentary scrutiny could help prevent regulation disasters, such as the housing affordability disaster.
Second, it is hard to see any additional costs from the scrutiny the bill proposes – if officials and ministers are complying with the myriad of existing requirements.
With respect to the review of existing laws and regulations, there will be additional costs. But the scope for using rapidly-improving AI to greatly reduce those costs has not been factored into current estimates.
Nor does the Regulatory Standards Board have 'sweeping powers'. It is pretty toothless. It declares a finding but cannot force anyone to pay it any attention. Its function is to increase transparency.
Finally, some common ground. Experts widely agree that regulatory quality in New Zealand is a concern.
The challenge now is to move beyond misunderstandings toward a more constructive, better-informed and less ideological discussion about how more transparent and principled lawmaking can better serve New Zealanders.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Scoop
5 hours ago
- Scoop
Sovereignty ‘Red Line' In Any Future Ngāpuhi Settlement Message At Whangārei Hapū Hui
Article – RNZ Much of hap hui agenda taken up by discussions of sovereignty and bill which aims to impose a single settlement on Ngpuhi. A hapū hui in Whangārei has sent a clear message that sovereignty is a 'red line' in any future Ngāpuhi settlement. The vexed issue of sovereignty hit the headlines again recently when Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith said settlement talks with Bay of Plenty iwi Te Whānau-ā-Apanui had been put on hold over a controversial 'agree to disagree' clause. The clause, added during the previous government in 2023, spells out the iwi's claim it is a sovereign nation – while at the same time allowing the Crown to maintain it has sovereignty over New Zealand. A landmark Waitangi Tribunal report in 2014 sided with iwi by ruling that Ngāpuhi chiefs did not cede sovereignty when they signed Te Tiriti in 1840. Wednesday's hui at Ngāraratunua Marae was to have been a routine gathering of Te Kotahitanga o Ngā Hapū Ngāpuhi. Instead, much of the agenda was consumed by discussions of sovereignty and NZ First Minister Shane Jones' member's bill which aims to impose a single settlement on Ngāpuhi, instead of the multiple smaller settlements sought by some hapū. Te Kotahitanga co-chair Pita Tipene said he would not enter any discussions with the Crown if there was no acknowledgement of hapū sovereignty. 'It's a red line for me, a bottom line … it would mean everything that we've been fighting for, prosecuting through the Waitangi Tribunal that we have never ceded our sovereignty, will be signed away by a couple of signatures on a piece of paper,' he said. Anyone willing to sign such a settlement was 'giving up their soul for pieces of silver and gold'. However, Tipene said he was still willing to meet Goldsmith if he travelled to Northland in coming weeks, as indicated by the minister in an interview last week. 'We're always willing to meet with the minister. He's responsible for the government in terms of our Tiriti o Waitangi claims so it's only right that we sit down and talk with him instead of talking with him through the media.' Tipene was also dismissive of Jones' member's bill, which he described as a distraction. 'We will not be corralled into a single settlement. If hapū want to come together, they will do it because they want to, not because they have to.' Tipene said East Coast iwi Ngāti Kahungunu had proven it was possible to split the settlement for a large and complex iwi into smaller agreements based on taiwhenua, or regional hapū groupings. With Ngāpuhi, however, Tipene said successive governments seemed to consider settlement as a kind of trophy, with politicians like big game hunters hoping to be photographed with a gun in hand and a foot on the head of the biggest lion. While he didn't agree with Jones on Treaty matters, Tipene said he respected him and valued his role in stirring up debate. 'One must admire him for agitating. By agitating, it gets people thinking and moving and having conversations that they may not ordinarily have.' 'We do not want a single commercial settlement' – Tipene Tipene said the message from Wednesday's hui was clear. 'We do not want a single commercial settlement. We will be adhering strongly to our own rangatiratanga or sovereignty, and we won't be signing anything that may undermine that.' Earlier, Jones said multiple smaller settlements risked turning Ngāpuhi – which had some of the worst socio-economic statistics in the country – into 'economic confetti'. He told RNZ his bill would bring clarity as to how the claim could be settled. 'Then people can consult on the member's bill, and I accept it will take some time, but they will have a clear target, because at the moment, it's like a flock of ducks quacking loudly, flying in all different directions, and sadly, that's what the Ngāpuhi claim has turned into,' Jones said. Te Kotahitanga co-chair Lee Harris, who also co-chairs the Hokianga Taiwhenua, said a meeting in Rāwene a day earlier came to the same conclusions as the Whangārei hui. 'The position of the hapū that attended was complete opposition to Shane Jones' proposal. We do not accept one settlement for Ngāpuhi. In regard to Minister Goldsmith's kōrero about the removal of any possible clause acknowledging sovereignty, well, we don't agree with that either, especially in light of the stage one Te Paparahi o Te Raki report [that found Ngāpuhi did not cede sovereignty],' she said. Harris also rejected the argument that a single settlement was needed so work could begin quickly on turning around Northland's dire poverty statistics. 'In Hokianga, we're pretty sick and tired of people using our existing very poor standards of living against us as a weapon by trying to push a settlement over the top of us. Paparahi o Te Raki [The Waitangi Tribunal's Northland inquiry] addressed historical grievances. Therefore, any settlement is to pay for the wrongs of yesterday that happened to our tūpuna. It's not to be used to tidy up the contemporary mess of the poor living conditions in which we live in today. That is a separate issue, and that is solely on the Crown.' Not all at the hui, however, considered sovereignty a sticking point. Kaumatua Waihoroi 'Wassie' Shortland said Crown sovereignty was the only way the nation could operate collectively, even if history was littered with examples of governments exercising that sovereignty badly. However, if the Crown maintained Ngāpuhi had lost its sovereignty, that came at a cost that needed to be factored into any future settlement. Like Tipene, Shortland said he was ready to talk to Goldsmith, because he did not have to agree with people to engage with them. Shortland believed settlement would come when Ngāpuhi, which made up one in five Māori and one in 25 New Zealanders, learnt to use the strength of its numbers. About 120 people attended Wednesday's hui. Te Kotahitanga o Ngā Hapū Ngāpuhi is an informal group initially set up by Tipene and the late Rudy Taylor to oppose Tuhoronuku, an earlier attempt to set up a mandated iwi authority to negotiate a single Ngāpuhi settlement. Tuhoronuku was recognised by the government in 2014 but abandoned in late 2018.


Scoop
6 hours ago
- Scoop
Sovereignty 'Red Line' In Any Future Ngāpuhi Settlement Message At Whangārei Hapū Hui
A hapū hui in Whangārei has sent a clear message that sovereignty is a "red line" in any future Ngāpuhi settlement. The vexed issue of sovereignty hit the headlines again recently when Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith said settlement talks with Bay of Plenty iwi Te Whānau-ā-Apanui had been put on hold over a controversial "agree to disagree" clause. The clause, added during the previous government in 2023, spells out the iwi's claim it is a sovereign nation - while at the same time allowing the Crown to maintain it has sovereignty over New Zealand. A landmark Waitangi Tribunal report in 2014 sided with iwi by ruling that Ngāpuhi chiefs did not cede sovereignty when they signed Te Tiriti in 1840. Wednesday's hui at Ngāraratunua Marae was to have been a routine gathering of Te Kotahitanga o Ngā Hapū Ngāpuhi. Instead, much of the agenda was consumed by discussions of sovereignty and NZ First Minister Shane Jones' member's bill which aims to impose a single settlement on Ngāpuhi, instead of the multiple smaller settlements sought by some hapū. Te Kotahitanga co-chair Pita Tipene said he would not enter any discussions with the Crown if there was no acknowledgement of hapū sovereignty. "It's a red line for me, a bottom line … it would mean everything that we've been fighting for, prosecuting through the Waitangi Tribunal that we have never ceded our sovereignty, will be signed away by a couple of signatures on a piece of paper," he said. Anyone willing to sign such a settlement was "giving up their soul for pieces of silver and gold". However, Tipene said he was still willing to meet Goldsmith if he travelled to Northland in coming weeks, as indicated by the minister in an interview last week. "We're always willing to meet with the minister. He's responsible for the government in terms of our Tiriti o Waitangi claims so it's only right that we sit down and talk with him instead of talking with him through the media." Tipene was also dismissive of Jones' member's bill, which he described as a distraction. "We will not be corralled into a single settlement. If hapū want to come together, they will do it because they want to, not because they have to." Tipene said East Coast iwi Ngāti Kahungunu had proven it was possible to split the settlement for a large and complex iwi into smaller agreements based on taiwhenua, or regional hapū groupings. With Ngāpuhi, however, Tipene said successive governments seemed to consider settlement as a kind of trophy, with politicians like big game hunters hoping to be photographed with a gun in hand and a foot on the head of the biggest lion. While he didn't agree with Jones on Treaty matters, Tipene said he respected him and valued his role in stirring up debate. "One must admire him for agitating. By agitating, it gets people thinking and moving and having conversations that they may not ordinarily have." 'We do not want a single commercial settlement' - Tipene Tipene said the message from Wednesday's hui was clear. "We do not want a single commercial settlement. We will be adhering strongly to our own rangatiratanga or sovereignty, and we won't be signing anything that may undermine that." Earlier, Jones said multiple smaller settlements risked turning Ngāpuhi - which had some of the worst socio-economic statistics in the country - into "economic confetti". He told RNZ his bill would bring clarity as to how the claim could be settled. "Then people can consult on the member's bill, and I accept it will take some time, but they will have a clear target, because at the moment, it's like a flock of ducks quacking loudly, flying in all different directions, and sadly, that's what the Ngāpuhi claim has turned into," Jones said. Te Kotahitanga co-chair Lee Harris, who also co-chairs the Hokianga Taiwhenua, said a meeting in Rāwene a day earlier came to the same conclusions as the Whangārei hui. "The position of the hapū that attended was complete opposition to Shane Jones' proposal. We do not accept one settlement for Ngāpuhi. In regard to Minister Goldsmith's kōrero about the removal of any possible clause acknowledging sovereignty, well, we don't agree with that either, especially in light of the stage one Te Paparahi o Te Raki report [that found Ngāpuhi did not cede sovereignty]," she said. Harris also rejected the argument that a single settlement was needed so work could begin quickly on turning around Northland's dire poverty statistics. "In Hokianga, we're pretty sick and tired of people using our existing very poor standards of living against us as a weapon by trying to push a settlement over the top of us. Paparahi o Te Raki [The Waitangi Tribunal's Northland inquiry] addressed historical grievances. Therefore, any settlement is to pay for the wrongs of yesterday that happened to our tūpuna. It's not to be used to tidy up the contemporary mess of the poor living conditions in which we live in today. That is a separate issue, and that is solely on the Crown." Not all at the hui, however, considered sovereignty a sticking point. Kaumatua Waihoroi "Wassie" Shortland said Crown sovereignty was the only way the nation could operate collectively, even if history was littered with examples of governments exercising that sovereignty badly. However, if the Crown maintained Ngāpuhi had lost its sovereignty, that came at a cost that needed to be factored into any future settlement. Like Tipene, Shortland said he was ready to talk to Goldsmith, because he did not have to agree with people to engage with them. Shortland believed settlement would come when Ngāpuhi, which made up one in five Māori and one in 25 New Zealanders, learnt to use the strength of its numbers. About 120 people attended Wednesday's hui. Te Kotahitanga o Ngā Hapū Ngāpuhi is an informal group initially set up by Tipene and the late Rudy Taylor to oppose Tuhoronuku, an earlier attempt to set up a mandated iwi authority to negotiate a single Ngāpuhi settlement. Tuhoronuku was recognised by the government in 2014 but abandoned in late 2018.

RNZ News
7 hours ago
- RNZ News
No need for bill protecting campus free speech, unis and legal experts say
Paul Rishworth KC says academic freedom is already protected in the Education Act, and the Bill of Rights protects free speech. Photo: RNZ / Alexander Robertson Universities and legal experts say there is no need for a bill protecting free speech on campus . But the legislation's supporters say universities can't be trusted to uphold freedom of expression. Parliament's Education and Workforce Select Committee has been hearing submissions on the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No. 2). If passed, it would require universities to develop a freedom of expression statement and complaints procedure, and report annually on it. The Law Society told the committee the bill created "needless complexity" because freedom of expression was already protected by law. Paul Rishworth KC said freedom of expression was of the utmost importance, but the bill was not necessary. He said academic freedom was already protected in the Education Act and the Bill of Rights protected free speech. "So, to add in to the Education Act a requirement that there be a statement on freedom of expression, introduces a needless complexity," he said. University staff warned the bill would force universities to host speakers spreading misinformation and hate speech. Tertiary Education Union co-president Julie Douglas told the committee there was a lack of evidence that universities were limiting free speech. "What we have now is a functioning model which does not need this level of monitoring," she said. Douglas said universities were special places but were being undermined "with a disregard for science, with a disregard for evidence , with a disregard for expert opinion". "I fear that this sort of move by the government with this sort of clause is meddling in a place where it's just not required," she said. University of Otago vice-chancellor Grant Robertson and Universities New Zealand chief executive Chris Whelan appeared before the committee together. They said the law was unnecessary, but if it was to go ahead universities wanted to reduce the associated compliance requirements. "We don't think it's either necessary nor a proportionate response to the issues that are there," Robertson said. Whelan said a similar complaints system in the UK had been "weaponised". New Zealand Initiative senior fellow Dr James Kierstead said staff and student surveys and 21 separate cases proved that universities were not protecting freedom of expression. Kierstead said the problem included staff fearful of losing their jobs if they voiced unpopular opinions and speakers refused the right to appear on campus. "It suggests that university senior management cannot be relied upon to uphold their obligations to academic freedom. If we have plentiful evidence that ordinary academics and students feel stifled and no evidence that senior management is going to solve the problem, then legislation is the only solution." Free Speech Union chief executive Jonathan Ayling said the organisation was sad the legislation was needed. Free Speech Union chief executive Jonathan Ayling. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith He said students could cope with hearing challenging ideas and opinions. "We should not let a small group of students use their vulnerability... and work with university managers to stop other students hearing views that they think are dangerous," he said. "Free debate, free and open to ideas is part of being an academic, it is part of being a student and universities need to allow that." Canterbury University biological sciences professor Tammy Steeves told the committee should not be required to host any event or speaker . She said academics could judge whether ideas were robust and evidence-based. Otago University law professor Andrew Geddis said the legislation was likely to backfire. "It will actually make it worse for free speech on campus, it will politicise it, it will mean that opposing speech on campus will become a political act because it will be seen as opposing the government and I think it will be bad." Geddis said he was on a committee that drew up the university's free speech statement and statement of institutional neutrality. He said translating those statements into legal requirements would be a mistake. "I don't think actually it's the role of government to be trying to impose views on how universities as institutions ought to work. I think that's a dangerous imposition into the autonomy of them as institutions." Geddis said maintaining a culture of free speech would be more effective than making laws. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.