Leading Environmental Organisations Call On The PM To Reject The Regulatory Standards Bill
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
Scoop
10 hours ago
- Scoop
Green Party Condemns Decision To Suspend Te Pāti Māori Members
The Green Party condemns the unprecedented decision to suspend Te Pāti Māori co-leaders Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi for 21 days, and MP for Hauraki-Waikato Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke for 7 days. 'This decision is a disgrace and so is this Tiriti trampling Government," says Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson. 'Te Tiriti o Waitangi promises protection for people and planet. We've seen hundreds of thousands of people show up in support of te Tiriti, and today Te Pāti Māori members have been severely punished for doing so. 'The severity of the punishment sought by the Privileges Committee was unprecedented and has raised serious concerns on whether this is a new standard that will only apply when haka, waiata, and other tikanga Māori are expressed in the House. 'There was a better way of dealing with this. We must find ways to incorporate the tikanga this country was founded on into our House of Parliament. Instead, Māori have been punished for using tikanga Māori to challenge the Treaty Principles Bill – one of the most divisive pieces of legislation we have seen. 'When those with assumed power think their privilege is under threat, there is a tendency to scream victim. One needn't feel intimidated by the power of upholding te mana i te Tiriti o Waitangi in the face of futile attempts to denigrate it. 'These consensus ignoring, Tiriti trampling, democracy mocking, narrowly supported recommendations from the Privileges Committee bring this House into more disrepute than any haka ever has,' says Marama Davidson.
NZ Herald
11 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Te Pāti Māori haka sanctions debate continues in Parliament today
The debate on whether Te Pāti Māori co-leaders will face the toughest Parliamentary sanctions ever dished out continues today after it was abruptly adjourned last month to give way to the Budget. The debate is set to begin around 3pm. It will be livestreamed at the top of this article. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW Labour and the Greens MPs are expected to push fiercely for a weaker punishment while National is not expected to budge. Parliament's Privileges Committee has recommended suspending Te Pāti Māori co-leaders Rawiri Waititi and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer for 21 days and MP Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke for seven days after a controversial haka in the House last year. The longest suspension in Parliament's 171-year history is three sitting days. The committee's recommendations will be put to the House for debate and likely pass. Labour's shadow leader of the House Kieran McAnulty said Labour believed Te Pāti Māori had overstepped and that they should be sanctioned but that 21 days was disproportionate. 'Our contributions to the debate will be focused on that and not trying to defend their actions.' National minister and Leader of the House Chris Bishop said he was keen to get the matter sorted. Last month, Bishop had unexpectedly called for the debate to be adjourned. Bishop's justification was that if the Te Pāti Māori MPs were suspended from Parliament that particular week, they would miss the debate on the Budget. He also believed delaying the debate would bring the temperature 'down a notch' after recent heated commentary. 'My strong preference would be for Parliament to deal with it, deal with it once, have a big debate about it and then finish it,' he told reporters on Wednesday. 'It's before Parliament, we've had the report, frankly New Zealanders expect us to get on with the business of governing. This is a distraction from the major issues as to why we were elected to this Parliament.' The haka at the centre of the matter happened during the first reading of the controversial Treaty Principles Bill, which was eventually voted down at second reading. The haka has since gone viral globally, amassing hundreds of millions of views on social media. Maipi-Clarke, Parliament's youngest MP, brought Parliament to a standstill when she began the haka while ripping up a copy of the Treaty Principles Bill, a proposal from Act leader David Seymour to replace the many Treaty principles developed over time by experts and the court with three new ones. Many perceived the bill as a threat to Māori and detrimental to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It was a catalyst of the massive hīkoi protest to Parliament in November last year. Waititi and Ngarewa-Packer stood up and joined Maipi-Clarke in the haka, moving from their seats towards the Act party benches. Labour's Peeni Henare also moved away from his seat to perform. Henare later apologised to the Judith Collins-led Privileges Committee for knowingly breaking the rules by stepping away from his seat, but said he stood by his haka and would do it again. The trio from Te Pāti Māori were referred to the Privileges Committee but ignored the initial summons to appear in person, arguing they had been denied legal representation and the ability to appear together. At the time, they promised to hold a separate 'independent' hearing. Te Pāti Māori have been defiant in their defence of the haka. Waititi told reporters on Wednesday afternoon it was not clear exactly what the trio were being punished for. 'Some of the House found it intimidating, some of the House found it exhilarating because half of House stood up. We don't know what the reasons are for the 21 days sanctions.' Waititi spoke with The Hui soon after the committee's unprecedented recommendations were released. He said he was thinking about the people who had entrusted him to 'represent them the best way I know'. 'And that is to be unapologetic, that is to be authentic and honest and respectful of who we are. We should be able to do that without fear or favour and be able to do that without being ashamed of being Māori,' Waititi told The Hui host Julian Wilcox. 'What I feel is that we are being punished for being Māori. The country loves my haka, the world loves my haka, but it feels like they don't love me.'
RNZ News
12 hours ago
- RNZ News
Resignation of Prime Minister's press secretary highlights gaps in NZ law on covert recording and harassment
By Cassandra Mudgway of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon takes questions at the Beehive after the resignation of press secretary Michael Forbes. Photo: Analysis: 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Cassandra Mudgway is a Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Canterbury. This story was originally published on The Conversation.
