What the Regulatory Standards Bill does - and does not - do
Thursday, 13 November 2025
This story was first published on July 1 and has been republished following the legislation’s passage into law on Thursday.
The Regulatory Standards Bill has been shrouded with dramatic accusations and heavy campaigning, from both sides of the debate. But what is actually going on? Glenn McConnell explains.
Minister of Regulations David Seymour says many critics of his Regulatory Standards Bill have fallen victim to “derangement” about what it actually means.
He says the bill is a helpful guide to improve the quality of lawmaking. But his critics say it is either “dangerous”, or “pointless”. And there are a lot of critics with a lot to say about this bill.
When the bill was being drafted, the Ministry of Regulation received 23,000 submissions about it. Most, an estimated 88%, were opposed to it.
Parliament’s finance select committee is still sorting through public submissions it received about the bill, but Te Pāti Māori estimated more than 131,000 submissions - mostly opposed - were received.
Those critics say the bill prioritises corporate profits above public good, and could sideline the interests of Māori, the environment and disabled communities.
There’s a lot to unpack here.
Before we go further, this is basically what the Regulatory Standards Bill is about:
The bill will set new ‘regulatory principles’ that governments must consider when creating laws and regulations.
Those principles, as stated in the bill, centre around maintaining the rule of law, and maintaining personal rights to property ownership and freedom of choice. It also says new regulations should be efficient and any new costs should not be overly burdensome.
Ministers must explain why any law change does not comply with the principles, if advice shows that a bill doesn’t adhere to the stated principles.
A new regulatory standards board will be established, which can assess new and old laws. The board will be able to make recommendations about the state of regulation.
So what’s the issue?
Willie Jackson: Bill will sideline everyday Kiwis
Labour’s Willie Jackson said the bill was about the wealthy seizing power from everyday New Zealanders.
“It’s a bill that’s been set up for David Seymour’s mates. Basically, he wants to invite big business into this country and take away community input. There is no respect for Māori, the Treaty has been totally ignored by Seymour,” Jackson said.
He said he didn’t trust Seymour when he said that the bill would not give any company or person the ability to seek compensation, or challenge lawmaking through the courts.
“Don’t believe it. Don’t trust him. I don’t trust them,” Jackson said.
But Jackson (and others) have also criticised the principles themselves. He said it ignored the constitutional foundation of New Zealand, being Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Which is, of course, predictable in politics.
That has been a key concern of the bill, and a reason why many people who were opposed to the Treaty Principles Bill also submitted against the Regulatory Standards Bill.
The Government has been warned about this - with officials at Te Puni Kōkiri saying the bill failed to acknowledge the rights of hapū and iwi, as promised in Te Tiriti.
This is a challenging critique to fact check as it’s quite subjective and quite political. (Again perfectly normal in politics).
Seymour said the bill would strengthen democracy, by making the Government “show its working”. He told Stuff future governments could change the principles, and that would be fine.
“If all I achieve is forcing governments to regulate in a transparent and principled way, and yet they may choose to legislate different principles in the future, I think that is still a better and more democratic outcome than what we have now,” he said.
Dame Anne Salmond: Bill could undermine public health efforts
Seymour said those comments made Jackson a “victim” of the “Regulatory Standards Derangement Syndrome”. Also in Seymour’s firing line, with his daily “victim of the day” posts on social media, was Dame Anne Salmond.
Salmond said the bill was “profoundly undemocratic” and “unnecessary”.
In a Newsroom column, she said: “The practical effect of this bill attempts to tie the hands of the state in regulating private activities or initiatives that create public harm, by requiring those who benefit from laws or regulations to compensate others for the losses of profit that may arise.”
But her claim that the bill could ‘require’ compensation has opened argument up to rebuttal.
Seymour said it wouldn’t do that at all.
Salmond said that this bill could open taxpayers up, “over time to to compensation tobacco companies for regulations that reduce their profits”.
Seymour said arguments like that were “totally factually incorrect”.
A key limit in the bill is that, in Subpart 5, it states the bill would not impose any enforceable legal right, obligation, or avenue to challenge Parliament’s lawmaking.
That means it’s effectively a tool for officials and lawmakers to use to debate law. The law would largely create further mechanisms for officials to make “recommendations”, and for the public to see and debate that.
So, it appears this specific Salmond claim is questionable but the rest of her argument represents a valid perspective.
There has also been widespread concern in academia about how this bill could impact public health.
Other commentators, such as public health expert associate professor Dr George Laking, said the bill could make it harder for governments to regulate to protect public health at the expense of personal freedoms.
Legal groups: Not enough consultation to form these principles
Lawyers, government departments and legal institutions have raised concern about how the Government came up with these principles.
Whaikaha, the ministry for disabled people, advised that the bill’s focus on individual rights risked undermining collective rights. It said these principles could risk overlooking minority groups, such as disabled people.
The Law Society, which represents all lawyers, wrote to Parliament saying the bill should not pass. It said it was effectively undercooked and proposed significant changes with “inadequate consultation”.
It said the bill wasn’t clear about what it hoped to achieve and predicted it would be “ineffective”.
The Ministry for Regulation itself raised concerns that the principles were “selective”, “and some of them novel in that they do not align with, or go further than, generally accepted legal values”.
And The Waitangi Tribunal told the Government it should halt the progress of this bill. It said the Crown failed to properly consult with Māori and the bill, if enacted, could impact existing Māori rights.
Despite the Ministry for Regulation saying these principles went further than “generally accepted legal values”, Seymour argued there was nothing dramatic about the principles.
He said it was just focused on respecting “your rights, your property, and your wallet”. Which is what you’d expect from a libertarian party.
Under the current setting, he said governments should already be considering these issues. But he claimed that was not happening.
“Regulation is the Wild West, there’s very little appreciation of the cost it imposes on people or the reasons it's done in the first place,” Seymour said, in an interview with Stuff.
The principles are:
Rule of law.
Personal liberty.
Right to property.
That taxes and fees should not be unreasonable.
Courts have a constitutional role of ascertaining the meaning of legislation.
New laws and regulations should be put to the public for consultation and feedback.