How Seymour’s bill could blow up the coalition

Thursday, 19 June 2025

David Seymour sees the Regulatory Standards Bill as a prized taonga, writes Janet Wilson, but would his commitment to it be enough to potentially drive him and ACT to the cross benches if he can’t get it through Parliament?

Janet Wilson is a regular opinion contributor and a freelance journalist who has also worked in communications, including with the National Party.

OPINION: There was a time when the concept of fairness was a universal guiding principle in New Zealand - until the rather utilitarian-sounding Regulatory Standards Bill became a libertarian contradiction of that notion.

Which is why the bill’s present passage through the select committee process has led to the continuation of ideological clashes that are reminiscent of ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill that was defeated only two months ago.

What makes the Regulatory Standards Bill different though, is that it’s certain to be passed into law in some form because the National Party agreed to it as part of its coalition agreement, despite vehemently opposing it for nearly 20 years.

David Seymour contends the bill simply gets rid of regulatory red tape and increases transparency and productivity, while enshrining ACT’s guiding philosophy of personal autonomy and property rights.

For the left, it’s those very rights that are being prioritised over public interest that are the issue. Its many critics include academics who say that the Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB) eschews collective rights and values which will “reorient policy making and legislation in a quasi-libertarian direction”.

The bill is a threat to te Tiriti and the future of public health because its retrospective application to existing and future law is a radical shift in the legislative process.

What’s more, critics claim it will have unintended consequences if the state tries to regulate public harm, that could see private companies compensated if they’re affected by government regulation.

ACT leader David Seymour suggested 'bots' drove 'fake submissions' against his Regulatory Standards Bill

It’s legislation that, rather than serving its citizens, rewards corporations, the left screams.

“Nothing to see here,” Seymour claims in response, enraging opposition further by declaring that of the 23,000 submissions received for a discussion document on the RSB, 99.5% were created using “bots”.

Disingenuous, much? Sure, but at this stage it’s pretty much where David Seymour wants the debate to be - overheated and overwrought shouting across the aisles, designed to overwhelm debt-laden, doom-scrolling voters into evermore apathy until the bill passes into law.

Because the RSB is the apotheosis of ACT’s Ayn Rand-like philosophy of self-interest, with the creation of a Regulatory Standards Board appointed by Seymour whose decisions are non-binding, in effect giving the minister free rein to change any law he deems fit.

Let’s ignore for a minute ACT’s own lack of regulatory “good practice” it employed when it severely curtailed pay equity, and look instead at the implications for its other two coalition partners.

The passage of the Regulatory Standards Bill could give Winston Peters the chance to show everyone who’s the real boss, writes Janet Wilson.

National, once the master of sniffing the political breeze and adopting policy that won hearts and votes, is inexplicably onboard with the RSB. Having suffered tortuous months getting the Treaty Principles Bill to a first reading, that Chris Luxon, his apparatchiks, or his party couldn’t see the political earthquakes the RSB is unleashing shows the price they were prepared to pay for power.

The Prime Minister may believe that the legislation is about getting rid of red tape and being transparent, he may even believe it’s good for business, but how could he be so politically naïve as not to countenance the RSB’s implications?

Expect him to behave as he’s done previously with pickles he’s got himself into; like a sullen husband with selective hearing in a bad divorce, avoiding confrontation and pretending that the marriage is still tickety-boo.

That makes the passage of this piece of legislation, thanks to the coalition agreement signed by ACT, National and NZ First, pretty much a certainty.

Or will it instead become the first real test of the triumvirate? New Zealand First has expressed doubts about the RSB in its present form and has sent signals that it will use the power of select committee public submissions to make necessary changes.

Which sets up the very real possibility of a coalition showdown between Seymour, for whom the RSB is a prized ideological taonga, and Winston, who’d love nothing more than to show everyone who’s the real boss.

If NZ First manages to achieve the kind of substantial changes to a bill that 88% of public submissions oppose, Seymour will have two choices: to accept it, which seems unlikely, or to retreat and sit on the cross benches, leaving National in a minority government with NZ First.

It would play perfectly into Winston’s often expressed aim of next election doubling NZ First’s vote, thus securing a prized second term, while cutting ACT out of the coalition.

That would enable NZ First to target the disillusioned working-class and centrist vote, leaving National to scrap it out with ACT in the regions and with the business community.

Even if Seymour doesn’t take to the cross benches, the Regulatory Standards Bill is set to become another form of polarising legislation, destined for repeal in much the same way that the coalition Government repealed Labour’s RMA legislation or Three Waters.

It’s indicative of societies and parliaments across the world, choosing confrontation instead of collaboration.

A politician who can read rooms, for whom this is not their first rodeo, will know this instinctively and act accordingly.