Written By:
- Date published:
10:47 am, May 11th, 2025 - 24 comments
Categories: act, david seymour, Deep stuff, human rights, treaty settlements, workers' rights -
Tags: Regulatory Standards Bill
The recent sense of shock and awe is strong.
Following on from the undermining under urgency of the current Pay Equity scheme the Government intends to introduce the Regulatory Standards Bill.
And its clear intention is to sideline the Waitangi Tribunal by again bringing forward the introduction of the Bill to undermine a a planned Waitangi Tribunal hearing.
From Pokere Paewai at Radio New Zealand:
The Waitangi Tribunal have moved forward the date of an urgent inquiry looking into the Regulatory Standards Bill to Wednesday, 14 May.
The decision follows a request from claimants Toitū te Tiriti to move the date of the inquiry forward to 13 May after it was announced the bill would be introduced to Parliament on 19 May.
The inquiry date was originally set for 6 June, which means the Tribunal would have lost its jurisdiction to review the proposed legislation if the inquiry proceeded as is.
To add to the pressure on the Waitangi Tribunal the Government has announced a review into its operation. David Seymour welcomed the announcement and said that the Government was reigning the Tribunal in and that it was time “to put the Tribunal in its place”. Given that Tribunal decisions are advisory only it is hard to understand why Act should be so upset with it.
Accelerating the introduction of the Bill to attempt and usurp the Tribunal has been tried before.
And I anticipate that the Tribunal will rightfully give the Government bollocks over the bill. Because the Bill attempts to guide the formation of law but excludes any reference to the Treaty of Waitangi. Property rights are to be sacrosanct unless they belong to Iwi.
At one level it is a shame that the Bill is not already law. The consultation document provided that “the law should not adversely affect rights and liberties, or impose obligations, retrospectively”. It would be good if David Seymour could explain how the changes to Pay Equity complied with this principle.
But the proposal is deeply troubling. The consultation document proposed the following principle for the bill:
Legislation should not unduly diminish a personʼs liberty, personal security, freedom of choice or action, or rights to own, use, and dispose of property, except as is necessary to provide for, or protect, any such liberty, freedom, or right of another person.
And there is the further proposal that “fair compensation for the taking or impairment [of property rights] is provided to the owner”.
There is no room for collective rights under these principles. And measures to enhance environmental protection would be significantly limited by the need to pay private compensation if this was enacted.
The proposal reads unsurprisingly like core Atlas Network values and was supported by the New Zealand Initiative which described the measure as a “modest transparency measure” that “will better inform the public about laws and regulations likely to make New Zealanders worse off”.
The measure to exclude the Treaty is clearly deliberate. Collective rights do not get a look in.
Already New Zealanders have rejected the proposal. The Herald reported that 88% of submitters to the consultation document opposed the bill, with just 0.33% supporting or partially supporting it. The rest didn’t have a clear position.
The fight against this proposal is potentially as important as that against the Treaty Principles Bill.
If this measure is passed it could significantly affect the Government’s ability to govern, undermine Treaty rights and skewer the legal system away from collective rights and responsibilities to a Atlas inspired preference to private rights over everything else.
Get ready to submit. In opposition.
What are our options Micky?
Many of us are so worn down by the "sorted' crowd’s agenda.
It is like being in front of a steam roller with our feet in quick sand.
We need an island of sanity, a group of parties promising to reverse all Atlas agenda moves.
The problem is this lot will put penalties in place that will make it expensive for future gov'ts to repel such laws
It almost seems the world is speed running fascism.
Under this legislation, where property rights are paramount, a person could build a massive ugly monstrosity on their rural land and the (say) 4 neighbours to the property would have no right to object during the planning stage. The public would also have no say.
The values of the 4 neighbours property would be significantly reduced due to the effects of the monstrosity. The wider public's enjoyment of the landscape would be diminished.
That sounds like taking rights away from people and the general public to me.
Which would be supremely ironic (hypocritical even?), given that Minister Seymour has opposed housing developments when it suited him…
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/act-leader-accused-of-prejudice-after-warning-epsom-residents-about-future-neighbours-with-mental-health-issues/UNZHIEQR4CJDEWPH4KTQB2TBHY/
I think you are right about Seymour being (massively) hypocritical. He has not thought through the implications of granting individual property rights which requires throwing out several generations of planning law development.
Similarly the Nats attempts at replacing the RMA seems to be getting more and more complicated.
If they continue along the current track people with lifestyle properties will see their rural amenity wrecked by developments all around them.
They are actually talking about a new level of bureaucracy by bringing back Planning Tribunals, which seems to contradict their whole simplification approach. That might not be a bad idea, though the PT will probably be toothless and, for someone to be able to be involved in the process, it assumes a development has been publicly notified In the first place.
I doubt the Nats can get this legislation through and working before the election. If it does Hipkins should say it will repealed immediately if he becomes PM.
If you think about undoing regulation in NZ
Just think
Leaky Homes
Leaky homes will just be the tip of the iceberg if this lot have their way.
The general philosophy of the Bill doesn't even touch on Health and Safety and why we need H&S regulation. The whole thing is abhorrent.
The author states that "Given that Tribunal decisions are advisory only it is hard to understand why Act should be so upset with it." Equally, the provisions of the Regulatory Standards Bill are also advisory only – so it is hard to see why the left are so upset with it.
This lefty is upset by insincere hypocrites intending to retrospectively change, under urgency, the Equal Pay Act 2020, and then hamstring future Parliaments.
/
6 Principles
(1)
The principles of responsible regulation are that, except as provided in subsection (2), legislation should—
Rule of law
(a)
be consistent with the following aspects of the rule of law:
(i)
the law should be clear and accessible:
(ii)
the law should not adversely affect rights and liberties, or impose obligations, retrospectively:
(iii)
every person is equal before the law:
(iv)
issues of legal right and liability should be resolved by the application of law, rather than the exercise of administrative discretion:
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/member/2021/0027/latest/whole.html#LMS477253
I do not understand, if you are opposed to retrospective law, surely this Bill would add more scrutiny to any future government imposing retrospective law? Or are you simply upset that a government is hypocritical, and if so, which government was not hypocritical? Also, you completely missed the point that this Bill only has declaratory powers (similar to the Waitangi Tribunal) and therefore it does not "hamstring future Parliaments."
Because, funnily enough, there’s a massive difference between applying law retroactively and doing what this government has just done by extinguishing a raft of legitimate legal claims under urgency, without consultation, debate, or democratic scrutiny.
This isn't some high-minded philosophical exercise about parliamentary sovereignty. It’s a gutless, cynical, and authoritarian maneuver that cuts off access to justice for people who acted in good faith under the law as it stood. That’s not just bad process: it’s a direct attack on the rule of law.
And let’s talk about this “it only has declaratory powers” nonsense. For now? Sure. But anyone who’s read a single submission to a select committee knows exactly how malleable legislation becomes once it's in the machine. There is nothing stopping this Bill from being amended to expand its powers, and no reason to believe it won’t be, especially given the precedent this government is setting.
Even if the Bill stays as-is, the chilling effect will be real. It establishes a parallel review body—not the judiciary, but a panel of ministerial appointees—political stooges, handpicked to re-litigate the decisions of elected governments. That’s not oversight. That’s control.
It’s a signal to future governments: Don’t be bold. Don’t challenge the status quo. Don’t try to govern in the public interest, or we’ll send in the Review Board. And it gives the powerful: those with money, legacy assets, and entrenched interests, a permanent thumb on the scale.
Because you can bet a sizable chunk of Nicola Willis’ Cook Strait ferry cost overrun that every property developer in the country is already salivating at the prospect of having their version of “property rights” enshrined in law—enshrined in a way that shields wealth and entrenched interests from future policy change.
Well, them, and their lawyers.
The real winners of this Bill aren’t the everyday New Zealanders it supposedly protects. It’s the consultants, the corporate litigators, and the asset-holders who’ll use this new review body to challenge, delay, and water down anything that threatens their bottom line. Housing reform? Climate adaptation? Urban density? Water regulation? Forget it—they’ve just been handed a new legal weapon.
This isn’t about fairness. It’s not even about freedom. It’s about locking in the power of those who already have it, and making damn sure the rest of us can’t do anything to shift the balance.
You want to talk hypocrisy? Let’s start with a party that once screamed about overreach and now rewrites the rules when the law becomes inconvenient. This isn't constitutional principle—it's raw power dressed up in process. And anyone defending it should stop pretending otherwise.
That is it in a nut shell.
I am talking about the regulatory standards Bill, and you are talking about the whole government.
"And let’s talk about this “it only has declaratory powers” nonsense. For now? Sure." Nice admission that I am right that it only has declaratory powers.
"There is nothing stopping this Bill from being amended to expand its powers." Equally, there is nothing technically stopping any Bill from declaring anything.
"It establishes a parallel review body—not the judiciary, but a panel of ministerial appointees." You can't just make up stuff. The Bill categorically does not do this. The onus is on the Minister introducing the Bill, and the Chief Executive of the relevant Ministry to present to the House whether it is compatible or not.(s7) Furthermore, it is the judiciary who makes declarations. (s11)
A bit of advice – next time, read the Bill before you write an essay on it. c-
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/member/2021/0027/latest/whole.html
[lprent: This isn’t the bill that is being presented to parliament.
That is one from 2021.
The 2025 bill in front of parliament is here
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2025/0155/latest/whole.html#LMS1016713
Basically your entire comment is complete bullshit based on a previous private members bill.
A piece of advice. Next time look at the current bill. It stops you looks like so much of a lying troll. ]
Either you’re poorly informed & misguided or you’re a disingenuous troll.
Let me know which one it is so that I can respond appropriately without wasting any more ATP molecules than strictly necessary.
ATP molecules are useful for walking away. Or extensive use of the fingers to send a message.
So you are saying that the ACT Party want to have planned government actions examined by a set criteria, that some might call a neo-liberal hurdle.
And at the same time ACT also want to block any such examination of government plans by either the WT, or because of the Treaty (as per legislative reference to it).
Thus a nation not bound to any founding Treaty, but instead to a neo-liberal order.
Are you really wondering why those not neo-liberals are in disagreement?
Imagine a world where both oversights exist!
Imagine a world where the rules for oversight are set by a tiny minority and imposed from above by fiat.
Because rather than accept it is a party of losers and fringe crackpots, ACT is trying to do an endrun around our constitution and ram through their unpopular and stupid "reforms."
I see you could not respond to my reply of your other comment, which demonstrated how little you know about the Bill you hate. I have some follow-up questions:
(1) How do principles which already feature in our constitution amount to "an endrun" of our constitution?
(2) How is the rule of law a "fringe crackpot" policy?
(3) Regarding your statement:"rules for oversight are set by a tiny minority", do you oppose the voice of minorities being heard at the legislative level? If so, do you no longer support MMP?
Such is not the intent of the ACT values straight jacket/regime.
It has been described as part of the Treaty Principles Bill stable.
This sounds suspiciously like the "delicious and nutritious" food in schools reform advocacy. If a huckster fools National and NZF more than once shame on them.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/urgent-waitangi-tribunal-hearing-concerns-david-seymours-new-legislation-is-akin-to-treaty-principles-bill/2JM25NKOBZDUJFFY2LBMPDK6JM/
I think you made a spelling mistake in your username [deleted]
None of this is about the rule of law, or respecting the voice of minorities. You're simply throwing shit in bad faith.
It's about ACT attempting to enshrine their own, very narrow interpretation of property rights in law. Over the top of the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders that submitted on the consultation document.
I deleted that bit, not necessary for the political points you are making, and the kind of thing that starts flame wars.
Sorry Weka! My apologies for getting carried away with my own rhetorical brilliance.
The $64 billion dollar question now is: Will a Labour-led guvmint repeal this nasty piece of libertarian lawmaking?
This Act-led govt can enact anything it wants. It's up the a Labour-Green-TPM coalition to bury it deep, and explain to New Zealanders why it had no place in a progressive society. Frame it simply: do you really want a law that allows a tyre shredding/recycling factory, open 24/7, right next to your home?
I betcha most NZers would respond with a "You can f**k right off" with that!"