Treaty Principles 2.0? Hearings Begin Into Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill

Scoop

07-07-2025

Analysis: A week of political scrutiny lies ahead for one of the government's most polarising bills, dubbed by some critics as "Treaty Principles 2.0".
Starting Monday morning, the Finance and Expenditure select committee will reconvene for about 30 hours over four days to hear public submissions on the lightning rod Regulatory Standards Bill.
The bill - championed by ACT's David Seymour - sets out "principles of responsible regulation" and would require ministers to explain whether they are following them.
It would also set up a new board to assess legislation against those benchmarks.
But while it may sound dry and technical, the legislation has become a flashpoint in a wider debate about the country's constitution, te Tiriti o Waitangi, and competing ideologies.
Among the submitters on day one: former prime minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer, former Green MP Darleen Tana, Transpower, and the Royal Australian and NZ College of Psychiatrists.
What's in the bill?
The bill lists principles that Seymour believes should guide all law-making. These include:
Respect for the rule of law
Protection of individual freedom and property rights
Keeping taxes and fees fair and reasonable
Proper consultation and clear cost-benefit analysis
Ministers introducing new laws would have to declare whether they meet these standards, and justify those that do not.
The new Regulatory Standards Board - appointed by the Minister for Regulation - could also review older laws and make non-binding recommendations.
"We need to make regulating less rewarding for politicians by putting more sunlight on their activities," Seymour told Parliament in May.
Why are people so upset?
Opposition to the bill has been intense. An early round of consultation last year attracted about 23,000 submissions, with 88 percent in opposition and just 0.33 percent in support.
Seymour has dismissed that as "meaningless" and initially claimed many of the submissions had been created by "bots". He later walked that back, but maintained they were driven by non-representative online campaigns.
It is true campaign groups have provided templates for submissions or even offered to write them on people's behalf.
But the pushback has come from far and wide: lawyers, academics, advocacy groups and public servants. Even Seymour's own Ministry of Regulation has raised concerns.
Seymour has labelled much of the criticism "alarmist" and grounded in misinformation. He's also targetted some critics on social media, accusing them of having "derangement syndrome" and conspiracy thinking.
The most common criticisms are:
1. That it elevates ACT's values above all else
Critics argue the bill embeds ACT's political ideology into law, particularly its emphasis on individual rights and private property, while ignoring other considerations.
Notably, te Tiriti o Waitangi is not mentioned in the bill - an omission which critics fear could undermine the Treaty's legal status and influence.
Seymour says he has yet to hear a convincing reason why the Treaty should get special consideration when evaluating good law-making.
Critics also object to the principle of individual property rights being given prominence over, say, collective rights.
They fear the bill could dissuade governments from introducing rules that protect the environment, or restrictions on tobacco and alcohol, because that might be seen as breaching the listed principles.
Even though the government could still pass those laws, critics worry it would send a message that profits and property are more important than public health or environmental protections.
For his part, Seymour is unapologetic about the principles proposed and open that he wants to reset the culture of government.
"If you want to tax someone, take their property, and restrict their livelihood, you can, but you'll actually have to show why it's in the public interest," Seymour says.
2. That it's a solution in search of a problem
New Zealand already has a raft of systems in place to check laws are made properly.
For example, Cabinet's Legislation Guidelines require ministers to follow best practice principles - including the rule of law, human rights compliance and consultation.
The Legislation Design and Advisory Committee, made up of experts and officials, also provides detailed feedback on bills, and Treasury checks the impact of major policy decisions.
As well, Justice officials and Crown Law conduct Bill of Rights vetting of legislation, with the Attorney-General required to report any breaches.
Critics say this bill just adds another layer of process - increasing cost and workload for little benefit.
To that, Seymour says: "If the public service think being required to justify their laws is a faff, imagine what it's like for the public they have to serve who are obliged to follow them."
3. That it is a corporate power grab
A lingering concern has been whether the bill could open the government up to legal challenges or claims for compensation - especially from large corporations.
Among its principles, the bill does include the concept that property should not usually be taken without consent and "fair compensation".
But the legislation also clearly states that it does not create any new legal rights or obligation enforceable through the courts.
That means companies would not have a new avenue to sue the government if a law affected their property or profits.
Still, critics argue that simply embedding the principle in law could alter expectations over time. Businesses or lobby groups, for example, might point to it to put pressure on ministers to avoid certain policies.
As well, lawyers say the courts could take note of the new principles when interpreting legislation or reviewing regulatory decisions elsewhere.
The political debate
The National-ACT coalition agreement includes a firm commitment to pass the bill through into law - though not necessarily in its current form.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says the government will pay close attention to the select committee process and remains open to changes.
"The devil is in the detail," he told reporters on Friday.
New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has described the bill as "a work in progress" and has indicated his party wants changes. He has not specified which provisions in particular concern him.
The opposition parties, Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori, have already promised to repeal the bill if elected next year.
That means, for all the noise, the bill's practical impact may be limited, affecting only the parties introducing it - which presumably would adhere to these principles whether they were codified in law or not.
The select committee hearings will run from 8:30am till 5pm, Monday through Thursday.