Regulatory Standards Bill hearing, day two: ‘Just good law-making' or ‘Act's ideological fetish'?

The Spinoff

08-07-2025

Day two of select committee hearings into the Regulatory Standards Bill saw submissions from the Taxpayers' Union, Tania Waikato and the Greater Wellington Regional Council.
It was another quiet morning in select committee room four on Tuesday, and for the second consecutive day, no committee members from NZ First showed up to hear oral submissions on the Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB). One of the first submitters of the day was former district judge David Harvey, who supported the bill, with the argument that every piece of legislation created comes with the 'erosion or some form of interference with the individual or corporate liberty' – the RSB would fix this.
The bill is procedural rather than constitutional, Harvey said, meaning any changes made by the bill can be amended, or the bill itself could be repealed (as the Labour Party has already promised to do if it wins next year's election).
When it came to questions, Harvey came into verbal blows with Labour MP Deborah Rusell, who informed him 'I have a PhD in political theory' when he asked her if she was familiar with Jean Rousseau. 'There's no need to patronise me,' Russell told him.
'Nothing like a bit of academic jousting on a Tuesday morning,' committee deputy chair Ryan Hamilton chirped.
Up next was Rebekah Graham of Parents of Vision Impaired, who submitted against the bill with the concern that the RSB would slap more red tape onto laws which make a 'positive material difference' to the lives of her members. Such as the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008, which includes an exception which allows the creation of materials in accessible formats, like braille, without needing permission – as copyright is intellectual property, Graham worried the bill would prioritise the rights of copyright holders over the rights of blind New Zealanders.
The Taxpayers' Union's executive director Jordan Williams and economist Ray Deacon submitted in favour of the bill, which Williams described as 'an encapsulation of what used to be seen as just good lawmaking'. The bill would not compel compliance with its principles nor does it favour a specific ideology, Deacon said – it just provides more transparency around the creation of laws.
Asked by Hamilton why there was so much 'misalignment' in positions on the bill, Williams replied: 'Because it's Act. Because it's off the back of a very contentious bill, the Treaty principles bill. It's really that simple … it's been hijacked by a campaign that piggybacks off an early campaign.'
Former Act Party MP Donna Huata began her submission against the bill by reflecting on being a founding member of the party, which she believed was formed with the goal to 'fix the gutting of the common good by Rogernomics and undo the social cruelty of Ruth Richardson's brutal austerity agenda', but 'I was deluded and misled, I was wrong'. Since then, New Zealand had become like 19th century Britain, she said, with the rights of polluters graded over the rights of the environment – and this bill would 'take the economic dogma that caused this harm and elevate it into constitutional doctrine'.
Rawiri Wright from Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Ngā Mokopuna told the committee the bill was 'dismissive' of Māori aspirations. Tamariki in kura kaupapa 'outperform' their peers in mainstream schooling when it comes to NCEA, Wright said, yet the bill gives no consideration to the state-funded obligations to the Treaty nor to the notions of collective government, leaving a question mark over how kura kaupapa will operate in a RSB world.
'I cry at the thought of what could be lost, what could be denied to future generations of tamariki and mokpuna Māori,' Wright said.
After the lunch break, BusinessNZ's chief economist John Pask told the committee he supported the bill as it would be 'another tool in the toolbox towards improving the quality of regulation'. Pask suggested the reviews published by the regulatory standards board should be reviewed in an annual select committee process, and that regulatory takings should be considered in property compensation.
Lawyer Tania Waikato, who was counsel for the Waitangi Tribunal's urgent review into the bill, said the 'influence and control' the RSB would afford to the regulations minister – and the bill's architect – David Seymour would be 'dangerous'. The information gathering powers granted are 'unjustified', and 'raise significant red flags about the introduction of fascism to this country,' she said.
Waikato described the 'escalating security risks' the bill has caused for opponents of the bill. She and another activist had their addresses doxxed by 'right-wing extremists' last week, which has led Waikato to hire a security escort – this, along with Seymour's 'victim of the day' social media posts, shows the minister has 'given implicit support to the actions of these extremists' to target experts speaking out against the bill.
Legal scholar Eddie Clark argued that, given legislation should not be designed to interfere with our daily lives, and the ministry of regulation has already deemed it unnecessary, the RSB should not be passed. The bill in its current form will not achieve its purpose, Clark warned, and suggested changing the bill's wording from a 'libertarian understanding' to a 'more generally accepted one'.
'$20m for the, funnily enough, enhanced bureaucratic process for something that's supposed to cut bureaucracy, [is instead] creating significant bureaucracy,' Clark said. 'So in terms of the bill's own cost-benefit standards, it's actually not clear that the bill itself meets those.'
Academic Tina Ngata, who held a people's select committee on the parliament lawns prior to her submission, spoke against the bill in two submissions. As lead advisor for Maranga Mai Working Group, Ngata first spoke to the 'targeted intimidation' of opponents of the bill intended to 'dissuade the public from participating in democratic practice'. A minister 'willing to weaponise the privilege of his public platform' should not possess the political powers afforded by this bill, she said.
In her individual submission, Ngata reflected on her hometown Te Araroa, and how 'Ruthanasia' and other 'neo-liberal reforms' had 'economically gutted' the community. She said given this is the third time the Act Party has tried to pass this bill, the government has an issue with 'denial of consent', which could be compared to 'procedural harassment'.
Academic Jane Kelsey, one of the bill's most vocal critics, told the committee members in the coalition government they were 'pandering to Act's ideological fetish' by passing this bill. She was concerned about appointments Seymour will make to the regulatory standards board, and whether these will be 'fellow travellers of Act'. 'Are we really going to accept these unelected ideological partisans are those who should be passing judgement on proposed or existing legislation?' Kelsey asked.
Greater Wellington Regional Council's Adrienne Staples, Nigel Corry and Thomas Nash told the committee they opposed the bill, as 'we're not sure what the problem is that you're trying to fix'. The bill will create 'legal risks, economic inefficiency, complexity, increased costs to ratepayers' and, at a time when the government is already 'emasculating' the council's ability to work, trying to introduce this bill is 'very frustrating', Staples said.
The team of three said they also represented the interests of local iwi. 'I find that [the bill's] abandonment of [the Treaty] is abhorrent, and rather than working in partnership with our indigenous people, we seem to be trying to walk around them,' Staples said.
The finance and expenditure committee will resume oral hearings into the bill today at 8.30am.