Watch live: Taxpayers Union, Māori data scientist among Regulatory Standards Bill submitters
Regulatory Standards Bill
is underway at Parliament, with MPs from the Finance and Expenditure committee hearing arguments in opposition and support of what has been
dubbed by some the Treaty Principles Bill 2.0
.
Some have called it a "procedural" Bill that looks to introduce the concept of good lawmaking. Others have raised concerns around the failure to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi. A former ACT MP has given a scathing rebuke of the "economic dogma" it represents.
Submissions continue on Tuesday afternoon and over the following two days. A small group has gathered outside parliament calling themselves 'The Peoples Committee' to provide a space for those who haven't received formal speaking slots to make their case.
Retired judge David Harvey spoke in support of the bill, because it introduces the concept of "good lawmaking".
Harvey said every piece of legislation involved some form of erosion or interference with "individual or corporate liberty."
He argued that it wasn't a "constitutional" bill, an argument he claimed had been reported or published, and that it was in fact "procedural."
"It can be amended. It can be repealed by subsequent governments, and it can, like the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 be ignored in the legislative process.
Jordan Williams of the Taxpayers Union was one of the submitters on Tuesday.
Photo:
RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly
"The only thing is that, if it is going to be ignored, those who are responsible for ignoring it are going to have to stand up and say, why."
Harvey also said the bill should reference Te Tiriti o Waitangi because it involved elements of governance and of "equal application of the law."
He didn't know how that should be done within the scope of the bill, but said there should be "some recognition of the Treaty."
A leading Māori data scientist argued the bill "fundamentally fails to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi".
Te Kahui Raraunga's Kirikowhai Mikaere told the committee it disregarded the collective rights and aspirations of iwi Māori and prioritised private property and corporate interests over public good, environmental protection and the wellbeing of iwi Māori.
She said the privileging of individual and corporate rights would have a "negative and long term impact" when it came to the data landscape of the country. She also said it would risk the "very delicate social license" of trust the country had of its own data system.
"Data is not only a strategic asset, and what we know to be probably the biggest commercial asset in the world, it is a national asset for New Zealand, and what we recognise is this bill puts at jeopardy that national asset."
Mikaere argued the Bill had also failed to honour Te Tiriti principles of partnership and participation in its creation.
"Even the way that the bill was crafted, was in isolation of Te Tiriti partners.
"Going forward, it reflects the values of and priorities of a very small number of New Zealanders."
The Taxpayers Union argued New Zealand's poor quality regulations was one thing holding back the country's economy.
Executive director Jordan Williams said the Bill was a "litmus test" for whether the government was serious about getting New Zealand back into the "status of the first world economy and with first world living standards."
Williams said the bill was primarily about transparency.
"The bill is, in effect, an information disclosure regime.
"It does not obviously tie the hands of Parliament, other than forcing lawmakers to turn their minds to cost trade offs and regulatory takings, among other things."
Williams said it was an "encapsulation" of what used to be seen as "just good law making."
He challenged the MPs listening, saying one of their key roles as an MP was to uphold the rule of law.
"Frankly, if you vote against a bill that requires disclosure of the rule of law implications of proposed legislation, I'd put to you that that is a failing of what is traditionally a duty of being a public representative in Parliament."
Ray Deacon, an economist for the group who also submitted, added the "economic cost of poor legislation is enormous."
"There has been no plan to assess the quality of legislation. There has been no plan to improve the quality of legislation. Therefore, there has been no plan to reduce the economic cost of redundant, ineffective or poorly implemented regulation."
He argued there had been an ad hoc approach to reviewing and amending legislation and only when it was impossible to ignore.
"This bill provides the legal structure for assessing the quality of existing legislation. This has to be worth something."
A former member of Parliament for the ACT party gave a scathing rebuke of historical legislation she said had ripped apart New Zealand's collective strength.
In opposing the bill, Donna Awatere Huata referenced the State Sector Act which "turned our public service into a business."
She said the Reserve Bank Act legislated that "inflation matters more than jobs, more than housing, more than food on the table, more than anything."
Huata said the Public Finance Act "made our children invisible unless they could be turned into an output."
She told the committee the Fiscal Responsibility Act "made caring a liability."
"These laws have got to go. They are not neutral. They slash jobs without a single thought of the devastation to families pushed us into unsafe homes, or worse, into cars or the streets.
"They gouged fairness and equality, tore the spirit from our public life, recreating the misery and hatred of the poor of 19th century Britain."
Huata argued the Regulatory Standards Bill would take "the economic dogma that caused this harm" and elevate it into "constitutional doctrine."
"It would make it almost impossible to rebuild, to fix the broken systems, to honor Te Tiriti o Waitangi, to re-weave tikanga into public life.
"It would allow courts to override our voices, your voice, my voice, the voice of community, of collective care."
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags

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


Otago Daily Times
32 minutes ago
- Otago Daily Times
Veteran councillors rule out returning
Invercargill will lose the services of two long-serving councillors following the October election. Peter Kett and Lesley Soper have ruled out returning to the table after serving seven terms and three terms respectively. Their decisions come at a time when the majority of councillors are putting their hands up for another stint. Cr Kett made up his mind three years ago that this would be his last term and said that would not change. "I'd always go out in person and talk to the people that called me, so I'll miss all that. "I'll miss most of the councillors." Last year was a difficult year for him as he faced both the death of his wife and numerous health difficulties. Multiple knee operations late last year and two heart attacks under anesthetic forced him to step aside from council duties while he recovered. Despite the setbacks, he was now feeling "bloody good" and was sad to be leaving. Also finishing up is Cr Soper, whose nine years at the council ends a long political career. She spent time on the district health board and had two stints in Parliament as a Labour MP in 2005 and from 2007-08. She made the decision to leave "some time ago", she said. "Very early in my career I discovered you can help individuals, but if you want to make really lasting changes for large groups of the population, then get involved where the power actually is." Her highlights on the council included fighting to keep the children's library in its current location, the council's credit rating and supporting the appointment of mana whenua representatives. Mayor Nobby Clark's recent use of his casting vote to not update the council's procurement policy in support of Palestine was "a definite low point". Invercargill will be in for a new mayor with Mr Clark repeatedly ruling out the possibility of a second term. The mayoral race includes deputy mayor Tom Campbell and councillors Alex Crackett, Ria Bond and Ian Pottinger. Mr Campbell is all-in with his bid having ruled out running for council, while Cr Crackett is also leaning in that direction while keeping her options open. She recently quit her job to focus on her campaign. TikTok enthusiast Tom Morton is also throwing his hat in the ring for mayor while town crier Lynley McKerrow changed her mind and will now just run for council. Other councillors standing again include Grant Dermody, Trish Boyle, Steve Broad, Barry Stewart and Darren Ludlow. Cr Allan Arnold could not be reached for comment. Nominations officially opened on Friday and candidates have until August 1 to put their name forward. Voting documents will be sent out in September ahead of election day on October 11. • LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.


Otago Daily Times
35 minutes ago
- Otago Daily Times
Focus on what youth need and say, not censorship debate
Claims of censorship overshadowed what Youth MPs actually said, Josh Henderson writes. Youth Parliament 2025 involved 143 people from various backgrounds and communities across New Zealand, and it truly shone through with the quality of speeches, questions and input all around the parliamentary premises. Let me be clear, I don't have an opinion about this supposed censorship of our speeches. A lot of us don't. We came here to represent our communities, our livelihoods and future career pathways, and that's what we did. The reality of it is, the claimed "censorship" was realistically just an error on the Ministry of Youth Development's part, which they have now admitted. The error made by the ministry was brought to their attention by the media and they have admitted fault and I am sure they will work to fix that for next time. That should have been the end of it. There was no need to denigrate and bring down the Youth Parliament like a group of Youth MPs did at a press conference. It got so bad, the media were questioning whether they should wrap it up or not. What happened that day on the Parliament steps was not the Youth Parliament most of us were in and saw. We weren't here to engage in a debate on Parliament's steps as to whether or not there was censorship at this event. We were here to listen and speak. We heard some absolutely phenomenal speeches across the chamber, varying from mental health, education, farming, rural communities, Māori and Pasifika rights, and many many more. Young people were given a voice, and they were not heard. An event which was supposed to give young people a say, a seat at the table, a voice for their communities, was turned on its head. The media was focused on an idea of censorship that was simply a mistake. There was no coverage of the important issues affecting young rangatahi today. To clarify the censorship debacle, as I was one of the Youth MPs who did have their original speech edited, I was absolutely confused at first. The changes weren't making much sense to me, and being forced to say "I believe" or "In my opinion" in every sentence was not the power my speech was going to hold. I took it into my own hands, and emailed the ministry seeking clarification. I received the same copy-paste email that was made mention of in the first press conference in return, that told me the changes were not mandatory and instead up to me. I chose to adopt some of the changes they made, and left the rest as it was. The media attention on this issue of censorship really tainted the experience for a number of Youth MPs who wanted to have their voices heard, and put together incredibly powerful speeches in the debating chamber. I put these press conferences to the back of my head, and actually listened to what Youth MPs had to say about what matters most to them. I heard an incredibly impassioned speech on mental health from Taiko Edwards-Haruru, from Gustav Schwind on bullying, Terangitūkiwaho Edwards on Māori environmental rights and Jorja Simmonds on homelessness. Add to that the speeches from Daniel Matthews and Fletcher Brown on education and trades, from Neeve Smith and Sylvie MacFarlane on farming and rural healthcare, and Isabella White on sexual assault, plus so many other great speeches that I'd run out of words to name, you have one of the most talented and passionate Youth Parliaments in history. Do you notice a trend here though? Have you heard about any of those speeches? Have you seen any of them in the mainstream media? No? I wonder why. Youth Parliament 2025 was overshadowed by this overarching idea of censorship, leaving out the speeches that put questions into our heads, leaving out the ideas that made us think, and leaving out the people who put the time and effort into being in Wellington and speaking out about what mattered most to them. Young people have historically never had a seat at the table, they've rarely been represented in Parliament and cannot vote until they're 18. Youth Parliament is realistically their only opportunity to have their say and express what they need to thrive and strive to succeed. If that chance is being overshadowed, they don't get heard. I would hope the media look at this and start to push for coverage of Youth MPs' speeches and move past the censorship issue of an event that has now ended. These Youth MPs are returning to their communities to continue their work, so it's only fair to give them the right coverage on the issues that matter to all of us young people. • Josh Henderson is the Youth MP for Gerry Brownlee.

RNZ News
9 hours ago
- RNZ News
Covid inquiry hearings: No decisions yet on which politicians will appear
Former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern led the country through the first response to Covid-19, but the Royal Commission will not confirm if she will appear at the inquiry. Photo: 2021 Getty Images The Royal Commission investigating New Zealand's Covid-19 pandemic response has not made any decisions about which leaders and politicians will appear for a public healing. The inquiry is looking into the government's response to the pandemic and its effects. This week's hearings have concentrated on the impact of the extended lockdown in Auckland and Northland in 2021 and on vaccine mandates and safety. RNZ previously reported that the commission had requested former prime minister Dame Jacinda Ardern to give evidence at a public hearing in August. But the commission said no decisions had been made about who would appear at the hearing. "The witness list is still under consideration, and it is not appropriate to make further comment about it at this stage," they said in a written statement. "The Inquiry will share the witness list and more information about the planned August public hearing in due course." They also noted that people giving evidence would not necessarily be required to do so in a public hearing. "Public hearings are just one way the Inquiry can gather evidence, in addition to private interviews, written correspondence, stakeholder engagements, public submissions and document analysis." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.