Mediawatch: How A Budget Is Covered
, Mediawatch Presenter
The sudden scrapping of pay equity claims was hailed as "saving the Budget" by ACT leader David Seymour, while Finance Minister Nicola Willis insisted it was not a book-balancing move.
When reporters and analysts went into the Budget day lock-up, the estimated saving was the first number many looked for - and it led the coverage once the embargo lapsed.
The sum certainly startled presenter Ryan Bridge.
"$12.8 billion. Almost half the savings over the entire Budget period," he spluttered on the Herald website's live-streamed video coverage (which doubled as a practice for the Herald Now livestream launching this week).
But NZIER economist Christina Leung, who had been previewing the Budget for broadcasters since dawn, was not surprised - or energised.
"It was a boring Budget to be honest," she told Bridge.
The Three Gals, One Beehive podcast labelled it "a yeah, nah Budget." At the Spinoff, Bernard Hickey declared it merely "meh". Other pundits labelled it a 'true blue' Budget National would expect to deliver in times that are tight.
But the tepid reaction was mainly because they already knew where $3b of fresh state spending would go, thanks to the pre-Budget announcements staggered in advance to maximise media coverage.
Big ticket items like defence, rail, acute healthcare and more were old news by Thursday. Substantial sums committed to costly medicines via Pharmac last year were also already baked in.
The finance minister was managing expectations for reporters by teasing it as a "No BS" budget with no "unicorns and rainbows".
The same message was also driven home hard by the media, though The Herald 's business editor-at-large Liam Dann did not need imaginary animals. Instead he used the word the government was trying to avoid.
"Austerity is an ugly word - but that's what experts call it when there's no new money to spend," said Dann in an explainer for the Herald.
"It is a Budget that promised little and therefore did not disappoint," The Post 's editorial pointed out on Friday.
"There is now no question Willis' Budget was built on the backs of thousands of underpaid, hard-working New Zealand women" who had taken one for the team of 5 million, the paper said.
Big tech given a swerve again
"The government is leaving the hard work of growth and recovery to businesses," The Post added - and pointed out it would be slow.
But some businesses were off the hook.
Just two days before the Budget, the government abandoned legislation to impose a 3 percent tax on the New Zealand revenues of online search and social media platforms. BusinessDesk reported the Digital Services Tax Bill was forecast raise around $320 million over four years - and almost $100m a year in additional tax revenue after that.
Revenue Minister Simon Watts told Newstalk ZB Donald Trump's threat to punish countries taxing US corporations was a factor in scrapping the law change.
A bill to oblige Facebook and Google to pay for locally-produced news is also languishing on the back-burner. Many pundits believe the Fair Digital News Bargaining bill may be scrapped soon too, in part for the same reason.
And while incremental financial tweaks revealed on Budget day inevitably became the focus of the rolling coverage, it obscured some of the structural stuff.
Last week The Listener 's political writer Danyl McLauchlan noted"mostly trivial payments and cuts announced each year (are) presented as 'winners' and 'losers' in Budget media coverage, without considering the vast, submerged commitments frozen-in from decades of previous Budgets."
The biggest of all was superannuation, he said, which was "untouchable so long as Winston Peters glowers at Willis from across the Cabinet table."
The Post noted that while KiwiSaver contributions were cut for high earners, "it still remains politically impossible to make the same sorts of arguments about revising NZ Super."
In The Post, pundit Ben Thomas said the most urgent question in the next decade is how to make paying for an ageing population sustainable.
Newsroom's Fox Meyer pointed out several spending programmes - including the controversial school lunches - were "looming over fiscal cliffs."
RNZ's budget cut
With just $1.3b in nominal spending left, few in the media were expecting any unicorns or rainbows.
Noting that RNZ got a substantial boost of $26m a year in 2023 - in the wake of the failed merger with TVNZ - the government pegged back RNZ's budget by about 7 percent for the next four years. That's $4.6m a year in dollar terms, leaving RNZ with about $62m a year as things stand.
RNZ was not required to find savings last year when many other public agencies and ministries were directed to make cuts, so it was no surprise the axe was swung this time.
"Government-funded media must deliver the same efficiency and value-for-money as the rest of the public sector. I expect RNZ to improve audience reach, trust and transparency ... in a period of tightened fiscal constraint," media and communications minister Paul Goldsmith said in a stern statement.
That was echoed by the finance minister.
RNZ's top brass were also questioned about RNZ's rising salary costs during last year's annual review in Parliament.
Chief executive Paul Thompson told the select committee RNZ was investing in its digital transition "and that all costs money".
"The media system in New Zealand is incredibly fragile - it doesn't make sense for RNZ to also be weak when the government has given us a mandate to be that strong cornerstone," he told the committee.
Māori media take a hit
Māori media funding is under the auspices of the Māori Development Ministry Te Puni Kokiri and Māori broadcasting funding agency Te Māngai Pāho (TMP).
TMP's funding is up marginally to $66m, but the Budget reduces Whakaata Māori's annual funding by about $6m to just over $42m next year.
Māori media were heavily backed by the previous government and its minister of broadcasting and Māori development Willie Jackson, who was also a former broadcaster and media boss himself.
Just over $90m was made available in two separate Budgets to cover the cost of programmes and content. Some of that would last until 2029, and one stream of funding would end in 2027.
Whakaata Māori restructured last year to take account of money running out. As part of that restructure 27 jobs were cut, along with programmes and services.
Māori media and journalism also benefited from the PIJF until 2023. Waatea - the urban Māori radio station and online news service - added seven roles to its news team which also service the iwi radio network.
Interestingly the funding peril has barely been mentioned in the news - or in any politicians' statements, save for a passing mention in one by Willie Jackson and one from the Greens.
New money for regional reporters
Goldsmith's statement was headed: 'Investing in Journalism'.
Two existing schemes covering the cost of reporters in the regions will see $6.4 million over four years : Local Democracy Reporting (LDR) and [https://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/public-interest-open-justice/ Open Justice - both of which have had significant sums of public funding to date.
The LDR scheme - modelled on a UK programme of the same name - is managed by RNZ. It deploys 18 reporters in local newsrooms around the country, which would otherwise be unable to fully cover local affairs.
Previously funded by both RNZ and NZ on Air, all the content created was free online at RNZ.co.nz and available to other interested publishers.
Open Justice is administered by the New Zealand Herald's publisher NZME. This pays reporters to cover courts about a dozen locations and was prompted by diminished coverage of non-high-profile cases in recent years.
Matters before the District and High Courts, Family and Youth Courts and a variety of tribunals too are now much more likely to be reported. But not so much in the South Island. NZME's newsgathering and mastheads are concentrated in the north.
It is important to the judiciary and the government alike that justice is seen to be done - and the Open Justice reports appear on a wide range of news websites.
Open Justice was funded for two years initially in 2022 via NZ on Air at a cost of just less than $3m. Both schemes were previously paid for out of the Public Interest Journalism Fund (PIJF) set up by the former government in 2020 to run for three years.
The fund was persistently criticised by the parties then in opposition, who made claims about the government buying media compliance and also stifling debate about the Treaty.
Some critics did not like state funding of private sector journalism, or paying the wages of newspaper reporters in private media companies.
But now in government, National's ministers seem to accept regional newsrooms cannot employ dedicated justice and local politics reporters within their own finances. And they are comfortable paying more for journalism that does not encroach on national issues.
The media minister pointedly said in his statement "reporting, rather than opinion" is being supported by the added funding.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Nicola Willis considers allowing KiwiSaver withdrawals for farm purchases; critic says she's opening a can of worms
There are fears Finance Minister Nicola Willis is opening a can of worms by looking into allowing people to withdraw money from their KiwiSaver funds to buy farms. 'If you can withdraw your KiwiSaver funds to buy a house, you should be able to withdraw them to buy a farm,'
Scoop
8 hours ago
- Scoop
The Regulatory Standards Bill: What Is It, What Does It Propose And What's Next?
Article – RNZ Explainer – A new bill would make big changes to how legislation is drafted in New Zealand, but has also drawn considerable criticism as it works its way through Parliament. The Regulatory Standards Bill presented by ACT Party leader David Seymour is complex, but the heart of the matter is about how the rules and regulations that we all live by are put together, and whether that can or should be done better. It's now out for public comment through submissions to the select committee, due by 23 June. The bill has been called everything from a libertarian power grab to a common-sense solution to cutting red tape. But what's it all about, really? RNZ is here to tell you what you need to know. What is the bill? The bill proposes a set of regulatory principles that lawmakers, agencies and ministries would have to consider in regulation design. Those principles cover the rule of law, personal liberties, taking of property, taxes, fees and levies and the role of courts. Makers of legislation would be required to assess proposed and existing legislation against those principles. The definitions in the legislation as drafted set out Seymour's ideal for what makes good law, but are contested. (See end of article for a complete summary of the principles.) Seymour called the principles 'focused on the effect of legislation on existing interests and liberties,' while Victoria University of Wellington law professor Dean Knight said they are 'strongly libertarian in character'. The bill would set up a Regulatory Standards Board to consider how legislation measures up to the principles. Members of the board would be appointed by the Minister for Regulation, currently Seymour. In putting the bill forward, Seymour said: 'In a high-cost economy, regulation isn't neutral – it's a tax on growth. This government is committed to clearing the path of needless regulations by improving how laws are made.' The bill wants politicians to show their workings, he said. 'This bill turns the explanation from politicians' 'because we said so' into 'because here is the justification according to a set of principles'.' The bill was part of the coalition agreements National, ACT and New Zealand First agreed to in 2023 which included a pledge to improve the quality of regulation and pass a 'Regulatory Standards Act as soon as practicable' (page 4). The bill passed its first reading in Parliament on 23 May. It is now before the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee and open for public feedback. You can read the complete text of the bill right here: . The government's departmental disclosure statement also gives further information regarding the scrutiny of the bill. Okay, but what is regulation, anyway? The Ministry of Regulation, which was formed just last year with Seymour named as the minister in charge, says that 'regulation is all around us in our daily lives'. 'It's in the workplace, the sports field, the home, the shopping mall – in our cities and the great outdoors. Regulation protects our rights and safety, our property and the environment.' But what does that actually mean? 'Fundamentally, it's a law, something that tells you you have to do something or something that tells you you can't do something,' said constitutional law expert Graeme Edgeler. Aren't there already legislative guidelines for Parliament? Yes, such as the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee (LDAC), which produce legislative guidelines and advises on legislative design. 'There already are a range of 'best practice' lawmaking guides and practices within government, such as the LDAC's 'Legislation Guidelines', Regulatory Impact Statements, and departmental disclosure statements under the Legislation Act,' University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said. Seymour has said the bill is about adding transparency, not enforcement. In an FAQ on the bill, the Ministry for Regulation says the bill 'does not require new legislation to be consistent with the principles '. 'It requires that legislation is assessed for any inconsistency with the principles, and that this assessment is made available to the public. Agencies and ministers are required to be transparent about any identified inconsistencies, but this would not stop new legislation from progressing.' Geddis said while the bill was intended to operate in the executive branch of government only, it may have implications for the courts. 'Once the particular standards of 'good lawmaking' included in the RSB are written into our law by Parliament, the courts cannot but take notice of that fact,' he said. 'And so, these standards may become relevant to how the courts interpret and apply legislation, or how they review the way the executive government makes regulatory decisions.' Haven't ACT tried to pass something like this bill before? That's right – similar legislation has been introduced to the House three times, and failed to become law three times. Previous tries saw the 2006 Regulatory Responsibility Bill Member's Bill by former ACT leader Rodney Hide; the Regulatory Standards Bill in 2011 also introduced by Hyde and produced by the Regulatory Responsibility Taskforce; and a 2021 Member's Bill by Seymour. Unlike previous versions of the bill, the 2025 iteration adds a regulatory standards board to consider issues, removing courts from the equation 'in relation to a recourse mechanism for legislation inconsistent with the principles'. The bill has been somewhat softened in this incarnation, Edgeler said. 'This is the weakest form of the regulatory standards proposal that there has been.' He also noted that future governments could repeal or amend the bill as well. And as the Ministry for Regulation says, 'any recommendations made by the Regulatory Standards Board would be non-binding'. 'It won't stop any future government doing something it actually wants to do,' Edgeler said. So what are some of the concerns about the bill? The bill has drawn considerable feedback, with earlier public submissions strongly negative. After the discussion document was launched on the bill in November, the Ministry of Regulation received about 23,000 submissions. Of those, 88 percent opposed the bill, 0.33 percent – or 76 submissions – supported or partially supported it, and about 12 percent did not have a clear position, the ministry reported. Seymour has since dismissed the negative submissions and alleged some of them were made by 'bots'. Among the top concerns the ministry's analysis of the feedback found were that the bill would 'attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist'; 'result in duplication and increase complexity in lawmaking' and 'undermine future Parliaments and democracy'. Bill opponent University of Auckland Emeritus Professor Jane Kelsey has said the bill is too in line with minority party ACT's ideology and will 'bind governments forever to the neoliberal logic of economic freedom'. Other government agencies have also weighed in. In a report on the bill after launching an urgent inquiry, the Waitangi Tribunal found that 'if the Regulatory Standards Act were enacted without meaningful consultation with Māori, it would constitute a breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, specifically the principles of partnership and active protection'. It called for an immediate halt to the bill's advancement to allow more engagement with Māori. In a submission received by Newsroom under the Official Information Act, the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee said it had 'misgivings about the capacity of this bill to offer improvement' and it might have 'significant unintended consequences'. In terms of the financial impact, a regulatory impact statement by the Ministry for Regulation estimated the bill would cost a minimum of $18 million a year across the public service under the minister's preferred approach. Seymour said the cost of policy work across the government was $870m a year, and the bill was about 2 percent of that. And in an interim regulatory impact statement, the Ministry of Regulation itself expressed some ambivalence about the bill. The ministry said its preferred approach was to 'build on the disclosure statement regime … and create new legislative provisions'. It said it supported the overall objectives of the bill but 'that an enhanced disclosure statement regime with enhanced obligations, will achieve many of the same benefits' and also impose fewer costs. Does it remove the Treaty of Waitangi from governance? It does not say that, but the bill's silence on Māori representation in government has troubled opponents. 'On the consultation point, Māori clearly weren't adequately engaged with before the RSB was created and introduced into the House,' Geddis said. 'The Waitangi Tribunal's report on the RSB is unequivocal on this issue.' Geddis said in contrast, that LDAC guidelines contain an entire chapter of guidance on how Te Tiriti should be considered. 'That very silence creates uncertainty as to how the principles in the RSB are meant to interact with these principles of the Treaty.' Under principles of responsible legislation outlined at the start the bill, there is a statement that 'every person is equal before the law,' which some have said dismisses Māori concerns. Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer at the bill's first reading last month attacked the bill. 'If you look through the whole 37 pages, which I encourage that you don't, the silence on the impact for Te Tiriti is on purpose. The bill promotes equal treatment before the law but it opens the door [for] government to attack every Māori equity initiative.' Seymour has insisted Māori voices were heard through public consultation. 'We had 144 Iwi-based groups who submitted… If that's not enough, then I don't know what is,' he told RNZ's Guyon Espiner. What does the bill say about property rights? A section that has drawn attention says 'legislation should not take or impair, or authorise the taking or impairment of, property without the consent of the owner unless there is a good justification for the taking or impairment; and fair compensation for the taking or impairment is provided to the owner; and the compensation is provided, to the extent practicable, by or on behalf of the persons who obtain the benefit of the taking or impairment'. The question many opponents have raised is what 'compensation' might mean and who might seek it. 'Applied to the real world, this means that anything the government does that decreases corporate profits opens it up to possible legal action,' bill opponent Ryan Ward wrote for E-Tangata. What do supporters say? Writing for the New Zealand Institute, Bryce Wilkinson said criticisms of the bill as 'a 'dangerous ideological' drive towards limited government are arrant nonsense'. 'The bill itself is a mild transparency measure,' Wilkinson has also written. 'The Regulatory Standards Bill's modest aim is to make wilful lack of disclosure harder.' 'At the end of the day we are putting critical principles into lawmaking,' Seymour told Newsroom. 'We know bureaucrats don't like this law. For New Zealanders that's a good thing.' So how can we have our say on it? Now is the time to do it. Public submissions to the Finance and Expenditure Committee will be accepted until 1pm Monday 23 June. Submissions are publicly released and will be published to the Parliament website. What happens after that? Does the bill look likely to pass? Here's what happens next. The select committee is due to report back on submissions by 22 November, although Seymour has asked that to be moved up to 23 September, Newsroom reported. After the select committee, the bill would proceed to a second reading, then a committee of the Whole House, and a final vote in the third reading, which would need support from more than half of Parliament to pass. If the bill passes, it would likely come into effect on 1 January 2026. While the Treaty Principles Bill, also championed by ACT, failed in Parliament in April and was voted down by every party but ACT, Edgeler said the path for this one was less shaky. 'This one, of course, is more likely to pass because the promise in the coalition agreement is to pass it,' Edgeler said. That agreement requires National to support the bill all the way through, which is different to the agreement's clause on the Treaty Principles Bill. By extension it also requires New Zealand First to support it all the way through because their agreement requires them to support the agreement with ACT. 'Whether it passes in the exact form, who knows, whether New Zealand First continues its support or insists on changes which might drastically alter it, or even water it down further, is a different question.' NZ First leader Winston Peters has described the bill as a 'work in progress' and Geddis said: 'It is possible that the changes NZ First want so alter the RSB's content that it ceases to deliver what ACT wants it to, creating a stand-off between the two coalition partners.' Geddis agreed the coalition agreement makes it difficult for National to not support the bill. 'Given that these agreements are treated as being something close to holy writ, and given how much political capital David Seymour is investing in this bill, it seems unlikely that National will feel able to withhold its support. That then leaves NZ First as being, in effect, the decider.' One last question – what were those regulatory principles again? From the bill itself, in summary, the principles are: the importance of maintaining consistency with various aspects of the rule of law; and legislation should not unduly diminish a person's liberty, personal security, freedom of choice or action, or various property rights, except as is necessary to provide for, or protect, any such liberty, freedom, or right of another person; and legislation should not take or impair property without the owner's consent unless certain requirements are met. The requirements include that there is a good justification for the taking or impairment and fair compensation is provided to the owner; and the importance of maintaining consistency with section 22 of the Constitution Act 1986. Section 22 of that Act provides that it is not lawful for the Crown, except by or under an Act, to levy a tax, borrow money, or spend public money; and legislation should impose a fee for goods or services only if the amount of the fee bears a proper relation to the cost of providing the good or service; and legislation should impose a levy to fund an objective or a function only if the levy is reasonable in relation to: legislation should preserve the courts' constitutional role of ascertaining the meaning of legislation; and legislation should make rights and liberties, or obligations, dependent on administrative power only if the power is sufficiently defined and subject to appropriate review; and the importance of consulting, to the extent that is reasonably practicable, the persons that the responsible agency considers will be directly and materially affected by the legislation; and the importance of carefully evaluating various matters as part of a good law-making process. These include: who is likely to benefit and who is likely to suffer a detriment; and legislation should be expected to produce benefits that exceed the costs of the legislation to the public or persons; and legislation should be the most effective, efficient, and proportionate response to the issue concerned that is available.
Scoop
9 hours ago
- Scoop
The Regulatory Standards Bill: What Is It, What Does It Propose And What's Next?
Article – RNZ Explainer – The public has been asked to give feedback on David Seymour's new bill this month. Here's what it would do, and some of the concerns. , Digital Explainer Editor Explainer – A new bill would make big changes to how legislation is drafted in New Zealand, but has also drawn considerable criticism as it works its way through Parliament. The Regulatory Standards Bill presented by ACT Party leader David Seymour is complex, but the heart of the matter is about how the rules and regulations that we all live by are put together, and whether that can or should be done better. It's now out for public comment through submissions to the select committee, due by 23 June. The bill has been called everything from a libertarian power grab to a common-sense solution to cutting red tape. But what's it all about, really? RNZ is here to tell you what you need to know. What is the bill? The bill proposes a set of regulatory principles that lawmakers, agencies and ministries would have to consider in regulation design. Those principles cover the rule of law, personal liberties, taking of property, taxes, fees and levies and the role of courts. Makers of legislation would be required to assess proposed and existing legislation against those principles. The definitions in the legislation as drafted set out Seymour's ideal for what makes good law, but are contested. (See end of article for a complete summary of the principles.) Seymour called the principles 'focused on the effect of legislation on existing interests and liberties,' while Victoria University of Wellington law professor Dean Knight said they are 'strongly libertarian in character'. The bill would set up a Regulatory Standards Board to consider how legislation measures up to the principles. Members of the board would be appointed by the Minister for Regulation, currently Seymour. In putting the bill forward, Seymour said: 'In a high-cost economy, regulation isn't neutral – it's a tax on growth. This government is committed to clearing the path of needless regulations by improving how laws are made.' The bill wants politicians to show their workings, he said. 'This bill turns the explanation from politicians' 'because we said so' into 'because here is the justification according to a set of principles'.' The bill was part of the coalition agreements National, ACT and New Zealand First agreed to in 2023 which included a pledge to improve the quality of regulation and pass a 'Regulatory Standards Act as soon as practicable' (page 4). The bill passed its first reading in Parliament on 23 May. It is now before the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee and open for public feedback. You can read the complete text of the bill right here: Read the Regulatory Standards Bill 2025. The government's departmental disclosure statement also gives further information regarding the scrutiny of the bill. Okay, but what is regulation, anyway? The Ministry of Regulation, which was formed just last year with Seymour named as the minister in charge, says that 'regulation is all around us in our daily lives'. 'It's in the workplace, the sports field, the home, the shopping mall – in our cities and the great outdoors. Regulation protects our rights and safety, our property and the environment.' But what does that actually mean? 'Fundamentally, it's a law, something that tells you you have to do something or something that tells you you can't do something,' said constitutional law expert Graeme Edgeler. Aren't there already legislative guidelines for Parliament? Yes, such as the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee (LDAC), which produce legislative guidelines and advises on legislative design. 'There already are a range of 'best practice' lawmaking guides and practices within government, such as the LDAC's 'Legislation Guidelines', Regulatory Impact Statements, and departmental disclosure statements under the Legislation Act,' University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said. Seymour has said the bill is about adding transparency, not enforcement. In an FAQ on the bill, the Ministry for Regulation says the bill 'does not require new legislation to be consistent with the principles '. 'It requires that legislation is assessed for any inconsistency with the principles, and that this assessment is made available to the public. Agencies and ministers are required to be transparent about any identified inconsistencies, but this would not stop new legislation from progressing.' Geddis said while the bill was intended to operate in the executive branch of government only, it may have implications for the courts. 'Once the particular standards of 'good lawmaking' included in the RSB are written into our law by Parliament, the courts cannot but take notice of that fact,' he said. 'And so, these standards may become relevant to how the courts interpret and apply legislation, or how they review the way the executive government makes regulatory decisions.' Haven't ACT tried to pass something like this bill before? That's right – similar legislation has been introduced to the House three times, and failed to become law three times. Previous tries saw the 2006 Regulatory Responsibility Bill Member's Bill by former ACT leader Rodney Hide; the Regulatory Standards Bill in 2011 also introduced by Hyde and produced by the Regulatory Responsibility Taskforce; and a 2021 Member's Bill by Seymour. Unlike previous versions of the bill, the 2025 iteration adds a regulatory standards board to consider issues, removing courts from the equation 'in relation to a recourse mechanism for legislation inconsistent with the principles'. The bill has been somewhat softened in this incarnation, Edgeler said. 'This is the weakest form of the regulatory standards proposal that there has been.' He also noted that future governments could repeal or amend the bill as well. And as the Ministry for Regulation says, 'any recommendations made by the Regulatory Standards Board would be non-binding'. 'It won't stop any future government doing something it actually wants to do,' Edgeler said. So what are some of the concerns about the bill? The bill has drawn considerable feedback, with earlier public submissions strongly negative. After the discussion document was launched on the bill in November, the Ministry of Regulation received about 23,000 submissions. Of those, 88 percent opposed the bill, 0.33 percent – or 76 submissions – supported or partially supported it, and about 12 percent did not have a clear position, the ministry reported. Seymour has since dismissed the negative submissions and alleged some of them were made by 'bots'. Among the top concerns the ministry's analysis of the feedback found were that the bill would 'attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist'; 'result in duplication and increase complexity in lawmaking' and 'undermine future Parliaments and democracy'. Bill opponent University of Auckland Emeritus Professor Jane Kelsey has said the bill is too in line with minority party ACT's ideology and will 'bind governments forever to the neoliberal logic of economic freedom'. Other government agencies have also weighed in. In a report on the bill after launching an urgent inquiry, the Waitangi Tribunal found that 'if the Regulatory Standards Act were enacted without meaningful consultation with Māori, it would constitute a breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, specifically the principles of partnership and active protection'. It called for an immediate halt to the bill's advancement to allow more engagement with Māori. In a submission received by Newsroom under the Official Information Act, the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee said it had 'misgivings about the capacity of this bill to offer improvement' and it might have 'significant unintended consequences'. In terms of the financial impact, a regulatory impact statement by the Ministry for Regulation estimated the bill would cost a minimum of $18 million a year across the public service under the minister's preferred approach. Seymour said the cost of policy work across the government was $870m a year, and the bill was about 2 percent of that. And in an interim regulatory impact statement, the Ministry of Regulation itself expressed some ambivalence about the bill. The ministry said its preferred approach was to 'build on the disclosure statement regime … and create new legislative provisions'. It said it supported the overall objectives of the bill but 'that an enhanced disclosure statement regime with enhanced obligations, will achieve many of the same benefits' and also impose fewer costs. Does it remove the Treaty of Waitangi from governance? It does not say that, but the bill's silence on Māori representation in government has troubled opponents. 'On the consultation point, Māori clearly weren't adequately engaged with before the RSB was created and introduced into the House,' Geddis said. 'The Waitangi Tribunal's report on the RSB is unequivocal on this issue.' Geddis said in contrast, that LDAC guidelines contain an entire chapter of guidance on how Te Tiriti should be considered. 'That very silence creates uncertainty as to how the principles in the RSB are meant to interact with these principles of the Treaty.' Under principles of responsible legislation outlined at the start the bill, there is a statement that 'every person is equal before the law,' which some have said dismisses Māori concerns. Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer at the bill's first reading last month attacked the bill. 'If you look through the whole 37 pages, which I encourage that you don't, the silence on the impact for Te Tiriti is on purpose. The bill promotes equal treatment before the law but it opens the door [for] government to attack every Māori equity initiative.' Seymour has insisted Māori voices were heard through public consultation. 'We had 144 Iwi-based groups who submitted… If that's not enough, then I don't know what is,' he told RNZ's Guyon Espiner. What does the bill say about property rights? A section that has drawn attention says 'legislation should not take or impair, or authorise the taking or impairment of, property without the consent of the owner unless there is a good justification for the taking or impairment; and fair compensation for the taking or impairment is provided to the owner; and the compensation is provided, to the extent practicable, by or on behalf of the persons who obtain the benefit of the taking or impairment'. The question many opponents have raised is what 'compensation' might mean and who might seek it. 'Applied to the real world, this means that anything the government does that decreases corporate profits opens it up to possible legal action,' bill opponent Ryan Ward wrote for E-Tangata. What do supporters say? Writing for the New Zealand Institute, Bryce Wilkinson said criticisms of the bill as 'a 'dangerous ideological' drive towards limited government are arrant nonsense'. 'The bill itself is a mild transparency measure,' Wilkinson has also written. 'The Regulatory Standards Bill's modest aim is to make wilful lack of disclosure harder.' 'At the end of the day we are putting critical principles into lawmaking,' Seymour told Newsroom. 'We know bureaucrats don't like this law. For New Zealanders that's a good thing.' So how can we have our say on it? Now is the time to do it. Public submissions to the Finance and Expenditure Committee will be accepted until 1pm Monday 23 June. Submissions are publicly released and will be published to the Parliament website. What happens after that? Does the bill look likely to pass? Here's what happens next. The select committee is due to report back on submissions by 22 November, although Seymour has asked that to be moved up to 23 September, Newsroom reported. After the select committee, the bill would proceed to a second reading, then a committee of the Whole House, and a final vote in the third reading, which would need support from more than half of Parliament to pass. If the bill passes, it would likely come into effect on 1 January 2026. While the Treaty Principles Bill, also championed by ACT, failed in Parliament in April and was voted down by every party but ACT, Edgeler said the path for this one was less shaky. 'This one, of course, is more likely to pass because the promise in the coalition agreement is to pass it,' Edgeler said. That agreement requires National to support the bill all the way through, which is different to the agreement's clause on the Treaty Principles Bill. By extension it also requires New Zealand First to support it all the way through because their agreement requires them to support the agreement with ACT. 'Whether it passes in the exact form, who knows, whether New Zealand First continues its support or insists on changes which might drastically alter it, or even water it down further, is a different question.' NZ First leader Winston Peters has described the bill as a 'work in progress' and Geddis said: 'It is possible that the changes NZ First want so alter the RSB's content that it ceases to deliver what ACT wants it to, creating a stand-off between the two coalition partners.' Geddis agreed the coalition agreement makes it difficult for National to not support the bill. 'Given that these agreements are treated as being something close to holy writ, and given how much political capital David Seymour is investing in this bill, it seems unlikely that National will feel able to withhold its support. That then leaves NZ First as being, in effect, the decider.' One last question – what were those regulatory principles again? From the bill itself, in summary, the principles are: the importance of maintaining consistency with various aspects of the rule of law; and legislation should not unduly diminish a person's liberty, personal security, freedom of choice or action, or various property rights, except as is necessary to provide for, or protect, any such liberty, freedom, or right of another person; and legislation should not take or impair property without the owner's consent unless certain requirements are met. The requirements include that there is a good justification for the taking or impairment and fair compensation is provided to the owner; and the importance of maintaining consistency with section 22 of the Constitution Act 1986. Section 22 of that Act provides that it is not lawful for the Crown, except by or under an Act, to levy a tax, borrow money, or spend public money; and legislation should impose a fee for goods or services only if the amount of the fee bears a proper relation to the cost of providing the good or service; and legislation should impose a levy to fund an objective or a function only if the levy is reasonable in relation to: legislation should preserve the courts' constitutional role of ascertaining the meaning of legislation; and legislation should make rights and liberties, or obligations, dependent on administrative power only if the power is sufficiently defined and subject to appropriate review; and the importance of consulting, to the extent that is reasonably practicable, the persons that the responsible agency considers will be directly and materially affected by the legislation; and the importance of carefully evaluating various matters as part of a good law-making process. These include: who is likely to benefit and who is likely to suffer a detriment; and legislation should be expected to produce benefits that exceed the costs of the legislation to the public or persons; and legislation should be the most effective, efficient, and proportionate response to the issue concerned that is available.
