“They propose comprehensively changing the nation’s legislative and political environment by embedding rigid legal frameworks that prioritise individual and property rights, constrain regulatory powers, and reduce the government’s ability to implement environmental protections, social safeguards, and Tiriti-based initiatives.”
Note this article is from December 2024 … submissions for both Bills are now closed.
It’s been said that the Principles Bill is dead in the water (so why have they allowed it in the first place? Inciting division and wasting money?) However my concern is, as highlighted in the article, that it will (among other things) affect our ability to protect the environment. The environment has been a big issue for NZ given 60+ years of poisoning with 1080, and the possible agenda behind that. All the while trumpeting to the world we are clean and green! All info to be mindful of anyway going forwards. EWNZ
From E_TANGATA
New Zealand stands at a pivotal moment in its constitutional development. Not one but two key bills, both driven by the Act Party, signify a profound new direction for the country, writes Melanie Nelson.
Much has been said about the significant impacts of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill.
Meanwhile, its long-standing companion, the Regulatory Standards Bill, is advancing quietly through government processes, with limited public awareness, minimal media coverage, and little parliamentary debate.
Consultation on the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill opened on November 19, the day the hīkoi arrived at parliament. The consultation period ends the week after submissions close on the Treaty principles bill.
Both bills, if progressed, will result in significant constitutional reforms with profound implications for New Zealand.
They propose comprehensively changing the nation’s legislative and political environment by embedding rigid legal frameworks that prioritise individual and property rights, constrain regulatory powers, and reduce the government’s ability to implement environmental protections, social safeguards, and Tiriti-based initiatives.
Restricting legislative freedom: A legal straitjacket in the making?
The focus on the Treaty principles bill has overshadowed its dull but dangerous regulatory cousin.
The Regulatory Standards Bill is the brainchild of the Business Roundtable (now the New Zealand Initiative). The Act Party has tried three times, since 2006, to introduce a version of this bill — failing each time it was put under scrutiny, as its dangerous consequences became clear.
Yet, this latest attempt seems to be sailing through with little to no scrutiny so far.
Emeritus Professor Jane Kelsey, reflecting on these previous attempts, said that “if the Business Roundtable and Act had their way, these directives and guidelines would have become a legal straitjacket.”
She described the proposals as “meta-regulation”, intended to govern how legislation is created.
The Roundtable’s 2001 report, Constraining Government Regulation, included the first draft of that meta-regulation, called the Regulatory Responsibility Bill.
Act adopted the bill, and in 2006 it was drawn from the ballot in the name of Roger Douglas. This is the same year that Act first introduced a version of its Treaty principles bill. The Regulatory Responsibility Bill was blocked by Labour, then subsequently revived in 2009 by Act’s Rodney Hide and National’s Bill English, through a Regulatory Responsibility Taskforce.
Reintroduced as the Regulatory Standards Bill in 2011, it failed to pass amid opposition from the Legislative Advisory Committee, Treasury, and others, who criticised its focus on property rights, the expansion of judicial roles, and its proposed creation of a set of constitutional rights that conflicted with the New Zealand Bill of Rights.
Then, with National’s support, David Seymour reintroduced the bill in 2021 but, again, ultimately failed. MPs condemned it as “a dangerous constitutional shift,” undermining public and collective rights and threatening parliamentary sovereignty.
They highlighted its “political choices”, which enshrined Act’s ideology in place of alternative principles such as Te Tiriti o Waitangi, international obligations, community wellbeing, or climate and environmental protection.
Nonetheless, Act is finally poised to achieve its goal. The bill is included in the Act-National coalition agreement, as a bill to be passed.
The coalition government’s bill is based, with some proposed changes, on the Regulatory Standards Bill 2021. It outlines how all new legislation and regulation — and after 10 years all existing legislation (excluding Treaty settlements) — should adhere to a specific set of libertarian principles.
These principles include selected elements of the rule of law, equality before the law, individual freedoms, property rights, restrictions on government, and constraints on taxes and charges.
Preliminary advice (available here) on the Regulatory Standards Bill has been provided by the Ministry for Regulation, David Seymour’s newly established ministry, set up this year as part of the coalition agreement. The advice notes:
“Of significance is that the proposals do not include a principle related to the Treaty/te Tiriti and its role as part of good law-making, meaning that the Bill is effectively silent about how the Crown will meet its duties under the Treaty/te Tiriti in this space.”
The regulatory bill also proposes to establish a Regulatory Standards Board. The Board would consider complaints from the public about existing regulation (including legislation) which is inconsistent with one or more of the bill’s principles.
This could include complaints about laws, or their implementation through regulatory systems. That might mean complaints about laws that recognise collective Māori rights, on the basis that they are inconsistent with individualistic rights and equality before the law. Or complaints about environmental protections, on the basis that they are inconsistent with unrestricted property rights. Or complaints about social safeguards, on the basis they are inconsistent with equality before the law and the principles on imposition of taxes and levies.
The Board could also initiate its own reviews, or at the direction of the Minister for Regulation. It would provide non-binding recommendations to Ministers who would then be required to publicly justify any departures from the principles.
Overall, the regulatory bill’s principles are very similar to the distinctive libertarian interpretations of the terms contained in the Treaty principles bill — interpretations that differ significantly from common usage.
Together, these bills propose embedding Act’s ideological worldview in the heart of New Zealand’s constitutional framework, limiting legislative flexibility, executive decision-making, and judicial interpretation.
Constitutional collisions ahead?
While distinct in focus, the two constitutional bills have the potential to significantly intersect. The Regulatory Standards Bill shapes how legislation and regulation are developed and implemented, and it determines the foundational values these are based on. It potentially also influences how laws are interpreted by the courts.
Meanwhile, the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill is concerned with how legislation is interpreted.
Individually or together, these bills would entrench libertarian preferences in New Zealand’s constitutional framework. They would also obstruct the consideration of Te Tiriti in future lawmaking, interpretation and the delivery of public services.
Should only the Regulatory Standards Bill be enacted, common law might still mandate consideration of the current Treaty principles in legislative interpretation unless explicitly excluded. This would create constitutional tensions, as the regulatory bill’s individualistic, property-focused framework conflicts with the collective rights and interests of iwi and hapū upheld by Te Tiriti and its common law principles.
It may have been this conflict that prompted efforts to redefine the Treaty principles in legislation, to make them run parallel to the libertarian rights outlined in the Regulatory Standards Bill.
As a nation, we are now being asked to submit feedback on both sets of sweeping constitutional changes without fully grasping the impact of these extensive proposals on our lives and the country.
New Zealanders must ask themselves whether they want a minor party’s libertarian ideology to shape the boundaries of legislation, government action, and judicial interpretation, even after Act is no longer in power.
The Regulatory Standards Bill and the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill, individually or together, would fundamentally reshape New Zealand’s economic, social, environmental, and political landscapes.
Written submissions on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill are now closed. No special expertise is required to make a submission on either bill.
Melanie Nelson (Pākehā) is a consultant, educator, writer and podcaster on cross-cultural issues, and a licensed Māori language translator and interpreter. She is a graduate of Te Panekiretanga o te Reo Māori / Institute of Excellence in the Māori Language and holds a master’s degree in Māori Language Excellence — Te Tohu Paerua o te Reo Kairangi.
They propose comprehensively changing the nation’s legislative and political environment by embedding rigid legal frameworks that prioritise individual and property rights, constrain regulatory powers, and reduce the government’s ability to implement environmental protections, social safeguards, and Tiriti-based initiatives.
Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay
