Leading Environmental Organisations Call On The PM To Reject The Regulatory Standards Bill
Press Release – Greenpeace
The open letter, signed by the executive directors of Forest & Bird, Greenpeace Aotearoa, EDS, and WWF-NZ, describes the Regulatory Standards Bill as 'an unprecedented threat' to environmental protection, climate action, and the countrys democratic and constitutional …
Four of Aotearoa New Zealand's leading environmental organisations have today issued a joint open letter to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, urging him to reject the Regulatory Standards Bill in full.
The Regulatory Standards Bill is being discussed in Cabinet on Monday, 19 May 2025.
The open letter, signed by the executive directors of Forest & Bird, Greenpeace Aotearoa, the Environmental Defence Society (EDS), and WWF-New Zealand, describes the Regulatory Standards Bill as 'an unprecedented threat' to environmental protection, climate action, and the country's democratic and constitutional foundations.
The organisations warn the Bill would create a dangerous new precedent where governments are expected to compensate companies if new environmental protections interfere with their property, effectively turning the polluters pay principle on its head.
— Open Letter to the Prime Minister of Aotearoa New Zealand, the Rt Hon Christopher Luxon
Re: The Regulatory Standards Bill
Dear Prime Minister,
As leading environmental organisations in Aotearoa New Zealand, we are writing to express our deep concern regarding the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill. We strongly urge your Government to reject this bill in its entirety.
The Regulatory Standards Bill poses a significant and unprecedented threat to New Zealand's ability to respond to pressing environmental challenges, uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and maintain a functioning and responsive democracy.
If enacted, this legislation would:
Impose financial penalties on environmental action, making it a new and unprecedented expectation that the Crown would compensate corporations when laws to protect nature or the climate affect the use or value of their property;
Undermine environmental protections by prioritising individual freedoms and private property rights over the health of nature and the public interest;
Establish an unelected Regulatory Standards Board, appointed by the Minister for Regulation, with the power to hear and amplify complaints from companies and pressure the Government over any policy inconsistent with a rigid set of principles.
The bill also explicitly excludes Te Tiriti o Waitangi from its set of 'good' law making principles. This risks undermining decades of progress towards incorporating Treaty principles into environmental governance and will likely result in legal confusion and uncertainty.
The Ministry of Justice has already advised that the Bill fails to reflect the constitutional significance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and is not aligned with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
The principles that all future governments would be required to consider under the Regulatory Standards Bill omit critical aspects of environmental stewardship, and elevate individual freedoms and private property rights above all other considerations.
This ideology has no place in our legal system here in Aotearoa, where we have long valued fairness and collective responsibility rather than individual entitlement to harm nature or others under the guise of freedom.
At a time of escalating climate change and declining biodiversity, this Bill would make it harder – not easier – for governments to act in the national interest.
The Regulatory Standards Bill has been rejected three times before. We believe it should be rejected again. There is no public mandate for this proposal, and it is being advanced through a coalition agreement, not by popular demand or broad consensus.
We therefore respectfully call on you to:
– Reject the Regulatory Standards Bill in its entirety;
– Commit to strengthening, not weakening, the Government's capacity to address environmental challenges for the benefit of all people in Aotearoa and future generations; and
– Reaffirm the importance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in lawmaking and regulatory design.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
9 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Scraping the bottom of the barrel
Just when you think things can't get any worse, they often do. That is precisely what we have seen politically this week when it comes to the behaviour of our politicians. As if Leader of the House Chris Bishop's ill-conceived and poorly controlled ramblings at the Aotearoa Music Awards about a Stan Walker performance featuring Toitū Te Tiriti banners and people waving tino rangatiratanga flags weren't enough, the country had to endure even ghastlier behaviour in Parliament on Thursday. The debate about whether to endorse the recommendation to suspend three Te Pāti Māori MPs really showed New Zealanders the worst of Parliament. Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, and Rawiri Waititi have now been barred from the House for seven days, 21 days and 21 days respectively for performing a haka in Parliament during debate last November about the waste of time, energy and money that was the Act party's contentious Treaty Principles Bill. Their intimidatory behaviour towards Act MPs then was at the core of the complaints considered by the Privileges Committee. Despite efforts by Opposition parties to reduce the length of the recommended suspensions, the government on Thursday ratified the committee's recommendations for punishments which, in the case of Ms Ngarewa-Packer and Mr Waititi, are the most severe ever handed down to MPs. While there can be little doubt that the behaviour of the three MPs last November was threatening and failed to meet the standards of Parliament, the severity seems unnecessarily vindictive. Interestingly, an RNZ poll of just over 1000 people, with a margin of error of 3.1 %, now shows that most respondents – 37% – think the punishment is 'about right" while 36.2% consider it too harsh. It is 'too lenient" in the minds of 17.2% of those surveyed. Of Labour Party supporters, 8% believe it should have been tougher, as do 3.8% of Green Party followers and, surprisingly, 9% of Te Pāti Māori supporters. The poll shows 54.2% of respondents either support the penalties or think they were too weak, a reflection of the government's view. While the impromptu haka by the three was seen by some as unacceptable and a breach of parliamentary protocol, it was Ms Ngarewa-Packer's foolish mimicry of shooting Act MPs which was the worst and most intimidatory action that day. The second she put her two fingers together, made the pretend gun and pointed it at Act leader David Seymour and colleagues marked the start of this whole sorry saga – though of course it can also be argued the real start came with the introduction of Mr Seymour's divisive Bill, allowed to happen by a prime minister too focused on stitching up a coalition deal with him at the top. The inciting incidents, the response and the reactions this week leave a stain on the reputation of Parliament. Some of the grandiloquence in the House on Thursday was vituperative and unwarranted. NZ First leader Winston Peters went way too far when he likened Mr Waititi's moko to scribbles, though he did apologise after the Speaker's intervention. Mr Waititi also stepped over the line by bringing a noose into the House. It was a bit rich for Mr Peters to tell RNZ it was a sad day in Parliament when he played a significant role in making it that. Parliament is no place for shrinking violets. We have seen that time and time again. It has had more than its share of biffo and nastiness over the years, which never led to suspensions anywhere near the length of those rubberstamped this week. Let us hope we don't see the like of this miserable drama again. Saw that coming It was always going to be a case of 'this town ain't big enough for the both of us". The implosion in recent days of United States President Donald Trump's simpering friendship with Elon Musk, the world's richest man, has been both highly predictable and highly amusing. Mr Musk has become increasingly caustic and is now calling for Mr Trump to be impeached. In turn, the president wants all Mr Musk's government contracts to be cancelled. When two such massive egos meet, there can only be one winner. Who that will ultimately be remains to be seen. In the meantime, let's be honest, the feud provides some much-needed light relief.
Scoop
18 hours ago
- Scoop
Resignation Of PM's Press Secretary Highlights Gaps In NZ Law On Covert Recording And Harassment
Article – The Conversation Criminal law struggles to keep up with predatory uses of the technology for image-based sexual abuse. Its time to step back and build future-proof protections. The sudden resignation this week of one of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon's senior press secretaries was politically embarrassing, but also raises questions about how New Zealand law operates in such cases. A Stuff investigation revealed the Beehive staffer allegedly recorded audio of sessions with sex workers, and whose phone contained images and video of women at the gym, supermarket shopping, and filmed through a window while getting dressed. The man at the centre of the allegations has reportedly apologised and said he had sought professional help for his behaviour last year. The police have said the case did not meet the threshold for prosecution. And this highlights the difficulties surrounding existing laws when it comes to non-consensual recording, harassment and image-based harm. Describing his 'shock' at the allegations against his former staffer, the prime minister said he was 'open to revisiting' the laws around intimate audio recordings without consent. If that happens, there are several key areas to consider. Are covert audio recordings illegal? New Zealand law prohibits the non-consensual creation, possession and distribution of intimate visual recordings under sections 216H to 216J of the Crimes Act 1961. These provisions aim to protect individuals' privacy and bodily autonomy in situations where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The definition of 'intimate visual recording' under these sections is limited to visual material, such as photographs, video or digital images, and does not extend to audio-only recordings. As a result, covert audio recordings of sex workers engaged in sexual activity would fall outside the scope of these offences, even though the harm caused is similar. If such audio or video recordings were ever shared with others or posted online, that may be a criminal offence under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 – if it can be proved this was done with the intention to cause serious emotional distress. What about covert filming of women in public places? Covert recording of women working out or walking down a road, including extreme closeups of clothed body parts, would unlikely meet the definition of 'intimate visual recording'. That is because they do not typically involve nudity, undergarments or private bodily activities, and they often occur in public places where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Even extreme closeups may not meet the threshold unless they are taken from beneath or through clothing in a way that targets the genitals, buttocks or breasts. While they are invasive and degrading, they may remain lawful. By contrast, it is more likely that covert filming of women dressing or undressing through a window would satisfy the definition, depending on where the women were. For example, were they in a place where they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy? If the non-consensual recording captures a person in a state of undress, then the creation of such images or videos could be considered a crime. Are any of these behaviours 'harassment'? Under the Harassment Act 1997, 'harassment' is defined as a pattern of behaviour directed at a person that involves at least two specified acts within a 12-month period, or a single continuing act. These acts can include following, watching, or any conduct that causes the person to fear for their safety. Although covert filming or audio recording is not expressly referenced, the acts of following and watching within alleged voyeuristic behaviour, if repeated, could fall within the definition. But harassment is only a crime where it is done with the intent or knowledge that the behaviour will likely cause a person to fear for their safety. This is a threshold that might be difficult to prove in voyeurism or similar cases. Covert recording of women's bodies, whether audio or visual, is part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence facilitated by technology. Feminist legal scholars have framed this as 'image-based sexual abuse'. The term captures how non-consensual creation, recording, sharing or threatening to share intimate content violates sexual autonomy and dignity. This form of harm disproportionately affects women and often reflects gender power imbalances rooted in misogyny, surveillance and control. The concept has become more mainstream and is referenced by law and policymakers in Australia and the United Kingdom. Has New Zealand law kept up? Some forms of image-based sexual abuse are criminalised in New Zealand, but others are not. What we know of this case suggests some key gaps remain – largely because law reform has been piecemeal and reactive. For example, the intimate visual recording offences in the Crimes Act were introduced in 2006 when wider access to digital cameras led to an upswing in covert filming (of women showering or 'upskirting', for example). Therefore, the definition is limited to these behaviours. But the law was drafted before later advances in smartphone technology, now owned by many more people than in 2006. Generally, laws are thought of as 'living documents', able to be read in line with the development of new or advanced technology. But when the legislation itself is drafted with certain technology or behaviours in mind, it is not necessarily future-proofed. Where to now? There is a risk to simply adding more offences to plug the gaps (and New Zealand is not alone in having to deal with this challenge). Amending the Crimes Act to include intimate audio recordings might address one issue. But new or advanced technologies will inevitably raise others. Rather than responding to each new form of abuse as it arises, it would be better to take a step back and develop a more principled, future-focused criminal law framework. That would mean defining offences in a technology-neutral way. Grounded in core values such as privacy, autonomy and consent, they would be more capable of adapting to new contexts and tools. Only then can the law provide meaningful protection against the evolving forms of gendered harm facilitated by digital technologies.
Scoop
18 hours ago
- Scoop
The David Seymour ‘Bots' Debate: Do Online Submission Tools Help Or Hurt Democracy?
Article – RNZ The ACT leader's comments raise questions about how forms are changing the way people engage with politics. , (Ngāpuhi, Te Māhurehure, Ngāti Manu) Longform Journalist, Te Ao Māori A discussion document on a Regulatory Standards Bill is not, on the face of it, the sort of thing that might have been expected to prompt 23,000 responses. But in an age of digital democracy, the Ministry for Regulation was probably expecting it. The bill, led by ACT Party leader David Seymour, is controversial. It sparked a response from activists, who used online tools to help people make their opposition known. Of the 23,000 submissions, 88 percent were opposed. Seymour this week told RNZ's 'bots' generating 'fake' submissions. He did not provide evidence for the claim and later explained he wasn't referring to literal bots but to 'online campaigns' that generate 'non-representative samples' that don't reflect public opinion. Seymour has previous experience with this sort of thing. The Treaty Principles Bill got a record 300,000 submissions when it was considered by the Justice Committee earlier this year. Is Seymour right to have raised concerns about how these tools are affecting public debate? Or are they a boon for democracy? Submission tools used across the political spectrum Submission tools are commonly used by advocacy groups to mobilise public input during the select committee process. The online tools often offer a template for users to fill out or suggested wording that can be edited or submitted as is. Each submission is usually still sent by the individual. Taxpayers' Union spokesperson Jordan Williams said submitting to Parliament used to be 'pretty difficult'. 'You'd have to write a letter and things like that. What the tools do allow is for people to very easily and quickly make their voice heard.' The tools being used now are part of sophisticated marketing campaigns, Williams said. 'You do get pressure groups that take particular interest, and it blows out the numbers, but that doesn't mean that officials should be ruling them out or refusing to engage or read submissions.' The Taxpayers' Union has created submission tools in the past, but Williams said he isn't in favour of tools that don't allow the submitter to alter the submission. He has encouraged supporters to change the contents of the submission to ensure it is original. 'The ones that we are pretty suspicious of is when it doesn't allow the end user to actually change the submission, and in effect, it just operates like a petition, which I don't think quite has the same democratic value.' Clerk of the House of Representatives David Wilson said campaigns that see thousands of similar submissions on proposed legislation are not new, they've just taken a different form. 'It's happened for many, many years. It used to be photocopied forms. Now, often it's things online that you can fill out. And there's nothing wrong with doing that. It's a legitimate submission.' However, Wilson pointed out that identical responses would likely be grouped by the select committee and treated as one submission. 'The purpose of the select committee calling for public submissions is so that the members of the committee can better inform themselves about the issues. They're looking at the bill, thinking about whether it needs to be amended or whether it should pass. So if they receive the same view from hundreds of people, they will know that.' But that isn't to say those submissions are discredited, Wilson said. 'For example, the committee staff would say, you've received 10,000 submissions that all look exactly like this. So members will know how many there were and what they said. But I don't know if there's any point in all of the members individually reading the same thing that many times.' But Williams said there were risks in treating similar submissions created using 'tools' as one submission. 'Treating those ones as if they are all identical is not just wrong, it's actually undemocratic,' he said. 'It's been really concerning that, under the current parliament, they are trying to carte blanche, reject people's submissions, because a lot of them are similar.' AI should be used to analyse submissions and identify the unique points. 'Because if people are going to take the time and make a submission to Parliament, at the very least, the officials should be reading them or having them summarised,' Williams said. 'Every single case on its merits' Labour MP Duncan Webb is a member of the Justice Committee and sat in on oral submissions for the Treaty Principles Bill. He said he attempted to read as many submissions as possible. 'When you get a stock submission, which is a body of text that is identical and it's just been clicked and dragged, then you don't have to read them all, because you just know that there are 500 people who think exactly the same thing,' he said. 'But when you get 500 postcards, which each have three handwritten sentences on them, they may all have the same theme, they may all be from a particular organisation, but the individual thoughts that have been individually expressed. So you can't kind of categorise it as just one size fits all. You've got to take every single case on its merits.' Webb said he takes the select committee process very seriously. 'The thing that struck me was, sure, you read a lot [of submissions] which are repetitive, but then all of a sudden you come across one which actually changes the way you think about the problem in front of you. 'To kind of dismiss that as just one of a pile from this organisation is actually denying someone who's got an important point to make, their voice in the democratic process.'
