Regulatory Standards Bill Inflicts ACT's Far-Right Principles On Aotearoa
'The Regulatory Standards Bill tries to make all future lawmakers in government follow a rigid set of the ACT Partys far-right principles – prioritising corporate interests over people, nature, and Te Tiriti,' says Greenpeace spokesperson Gen Toop.
The Government is facing backlash over David Seymour's controversial Regulatory Standards Bill which passed its first reading today, under the shadow of the Budget.
'After the uproar over the Treaty Principles Bill, the Luxon Government looks to be trying to keep Seymour's latest unpopular Bill quiet. They've clearly chosen to introduce it in Budget week to minimise scrutiny,' said Greenpeace spokesperson Gen Toop.
'The Regulatory Standards Bill tries to make all future lawmakers in government follow a rigid set of the ACT Party's far-right principles – prioritising corporate interests over people, nature, and Te Tiriti,' says Toop.
This is the fourth time ACT has tried to pass the bill. It's failed not once, not twice, but three times already. This time, more than 20,000 people submitted on the Bill during its first consultation, with only 0.33% of submitters in support, while 88% opposed it outright.
The Bill was also the subject of a Waitangi Tribunal inquiry, brought by over 13,000 claimants. The Tribunal found the Crown had breached its Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations and called on the Crown to halt further work on the controversial bill until it consults with Māori.
One of the principles in the Regulatory Standards Bill would create a new and unprecedented expectation that the Crown compensate corporations if environmental or public interest laws affect their property.
'It's a simple principle: polluters should pay – not be paid by the public. But Seymour's bill turns that on its head,' says Toop.
'If this bill becomes law, corporations like ExxonMobil, Fonterra and Monsanto would expect taxpayer handouts when the government introduces basic environmental or public protections.'
'These extreme neoliberal ideas have no place in our legal system here in Aotearoa, where we have long valued fairness and collective responsibility rather than individual entitlements to harm nature or others under the guise of freedom,' says Toop.
Greenpeace, along with Forest & Bird, WWF-New Zealand and the Environmental Defence Society, issued an open letter to the Prime Minister on Monday calling on him to reject the Regulatory Standards Bill, warning that it is an 'unprecedented threat' to environmental protection, climate action, and the country's democratic and constitutional foundations.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Here's what was in Winston Peters' letter to UN Rapporteur on Indigenous Rights
Winston Peters sent the letter in his capacity as Foreign Minister. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii Foreign Minister Winston Peters' response to a UN official raising concerns about the government's approach is far milder than the one initially sent by ACT leader David Seymour. Seymour was rebuked by Peters and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon after writing back to the Geneva-based UN Rapporteur on Indigenous Rights Dr Albert K Barume, who raised concerns about the Regulatory Standards Bill. His letter, in his capacity as Regulations Minister, said Barume's views on the government's agenda were wrong and an affront to New Zealand's sovereignty, and Barume's letter itself was "presumptive, condescending and wholly misplaced". Peters and Luxon at the time said the Foreign Minister - who the letter was addressed to - was the appropriate person to send New Zealand's official response. While Luxon said he "fully agreed" with the contents of Seymour's message, Peters rejected Seymour's suggestion his official response would "make the same points". That official response , published on Monday night with a handful of redactions by the UN, said New Zealand "deeply regret this breakdown in protocol and appreciate the opportunity to put the record straight". It said the Regulatory Standards Bill was "a result of a Coalition Agreement between two of the three political parties that currently comprise the New Zealand Government", and was "intended to reduce the amount of unnecessary and poor-quality legislation". David Seymour was rebuked by Peters and Christopher Luxon. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii The letter also pointed out the bill was being considered by a select committee. "As a mature democracy, New Zealand has well established systems for developing legislation in a way that takes account of a wide range of interests." It said New Zealand "honours the undertakings that the Crown has made through past Treaty of Waitangi settlements and continues to address historical Treaty grievance claims", pointing to 101 such claims having been signed by iwi, hapū and the Crown. An appendix to the letter also provided further information about "relevant constitutional provisions", pointing out that "all legislative proposals that are submitted to the New Zealand Cabinet must consider the human rights and Treaty of Waitangi implications of the proposal". A second appendix on the Regulatory Standards Bill set out the bill's purpose, and how it aimed to achieve that - providing a straightforward explanation of how the bill would work, with links to public consultation and other publicly available information, noting it would not constrain Parliament's ability to make laws. It also noted "nothing in the bill will prevent any additional principles from being considered in the process of lawmaking, or in the review of existing law", and stated the absence of the Treaty of Waitangi from the bill "reflects a decision to focus on a discrete set of goals, including promoting the accountability of the Executive to Parliament". RNZ has sought comment from David Seymour.
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
‘Deeply regret': Winston Peters' writes to United Nations after David Seymour letter
'We ... understand that you did not directly receive the letter to you by my colleague [REDACTED - likely to be David Seymour], but rather that you learned about its existence from reports in the media. 'We deeply regret this breakdown in protocol and appreciate this opportunity to put the record straight,' Peters said. It is not clear why Seymour's letter did not reach Barume. Peters went on to say that he understood Barume's letter to the Government did not convey his or the UN's official views, but merely sought the Government's response to concerns that had been raised by others with the United Nations, implying that Seymour's initial letter misunderstood this. The letter sets out the Government's position on the Regulatory Standards Bill and the Treaty settlement process and notes that the Government was 'committed to improving outcomes for all New Zealanders'. 'We are focused on reaching targets to improve outcomes in health, education, law and order, work and housing and on providing public services to all New Zealanders including working with iwi (tribes) and Māori to accelerate Māori economic growth and enable targeted investment in Maori social development.' Seymour was meant to be consulted on the new letter. The Herald understands he was consulted and wanted the contents of his original letter to be sent again, this time through Peter's' letter. Seymour did not see the final copy of the letter before it was sent, which did not include any of his earlier remarks. Peters included three appendices to his letter. One detailed New Zealand's relevant constitutional arrangements, including a section on MMP and the realities of coalition government. It also detailed the status of the Māori seats, the Bill of Rights Act, and the Waitangi Tribunal.
NZ Herald
2 days ago
- NZ Herald
Shane Te Pou: We can't spend Government ghost money
There is nothing new here. All the money was already planned for in the Budget. That means no new jobs or economic growth are being delivered that weren't already in the Budget. A Budget after which unemployment rose by 24,000 by June 2025. This isn't a stimulus to the economy because there is no extra investment beyond that already being planned – meaning no extra GDP. It's a Clayton's announcement. Critics urge a genuine, long-term infrastructure strategy, emphasising collaboration and addressing urgent economic and social needs. Photo / Sylvie Whinray Given the fact that 16,000 fewer people are working in construction than this time last year, you would think this would be the ideal time to boost investment. ANZ reported this week that, 'it appears residential builders are giving up on a recovery any time soon'. You would think that now would be an excellent opportunity to build new state housing. Alas, no such announcements were made. As the famous quote goes, ministers are finding that 'winning is easy, governing is hard'. The initial decisions made to cut investment in areas such as ferries, housing and Dunedin Hospital have sapped confidence in the economy. The impact of tax cuts promised at the last election has long since gone. The likelihood of further interest rate cuts is diminishing as inflation creeps towards 3% and above. It's time for a different approach. Our economy, our productivity and our public realm don't benefit when the Government changes long-term infrastructure planning like this. It doesn't help when ministers use infrastructure announcements as a means of political advertising. Chris Bishop claimed he wanted a 'cross-party consensus' on infrastructure, but critics question whether he's truly engaging with a broad range of voices beyond his own. Photo / Sylvie Whinray That's made even harder when the announcements don't mean anything. We need a long-term approach to tackling this problem – one that will work across Parliaments. An approach that doesn't put one form in infrastructure – roads – ahead of everything else. In December last year, Bishop said he genuinely wanted to build a 'cross-party consensus' on how we build infrastructure in New Zealand. That's great in theory, but when your idea of a consensus is everyone agreeing with you, that's not going anywhere. Building a true consensus would involve working with much wider groups. When was the last time Bishop sat down with trade unions to discuss infrastructure? When did he last sit down with child poverty advocates to talk about our housing that puts kids in hospital? New Zealand's economy is struggling. The US President has just slapped 15% tariffs on our exports – and it's our second-biggest export market. We are losing a generation of people who are voting with their feet because they can't see a future here in Aotearoa. Nurses are on strike. Yet our Government is concerned with changing the name on the front of a passport. It's dangerously out of touch with the real needs of New Zealanders. Infrastructure development and renewal can play a key role in restarting the economy. You simply can't re-wrap last year's Christmas presents and present them as new this year. When we invest in New Zealand, we invest in ourselves and we reap the dividends. The Government is pretending to invest right now, dressing up old investments as new. There is a ghost plan for the economy. It's time for a real one.
