Regulatory Standards Bill Faces Strong Opposition at Select Committee Hearings

David Seymour’s proposed Regulatory Standards Bill has drawn sharp criticism from a range of stakeholders, including former Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer and Māori leaders, during its first select committee hearings. Critics argue the legislation could undermine regulatory oversight and favor corporate interests over public welfare.

During the hearings, former Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer described the bill as the “strangest piece of New Zealand legislation I have ever known,” calling it “bizarre” and warning it would not function as intended. He argued that the bill’s core ideology—that there is “too much regulation”—is unproven and could disrupt the functioning of Parliament itself.

Palmer also pointed out that existing mechanisms, such as the Regulations Review Committee, already provide oversight for regulations. He warned that the proposed Regulatory Standards Council would flood ministers and committees with reports, asking them to justify every regulation, which he said would be impractical and counterproductive.

Regulation Minister David Seymour defended the bill, stating it aims to bring transparency to the regulatory process and codify principles for responsible regulation. He dismissed concerns as “misinformation” and insisted the bill is not about reducing regulation but about ensuring it is “clear, accessible, and consistent.”

However, Māori leaders, including Rahui Papa of the Pou Tangata National Iwi Chairs Forum, voiced strong opposition. Papa described the bill as a “power grab” that would benefit the “old boys’ network” and undermine the Treaty of Waitangi. He argued that the legislation sidesteps the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which he believes should be central to any regulatory framework.

“This is not a bot submission,” Papa emphasized. “This is in the hearts and minds of people who have been talking to us. We want the committee to show leadership in stopping this bill until there can be fulsome and comprehensive consultation.”

Former Green MP Darleen Tana, who was expelled from Parliament over allegations of migrant exploitation, also spoke against the bill. She argued that while it presents itself as neutral, it actually constrains future governance and promotes a narrow economic agenda. “This bill sets up a narrow economic lens as if it’s the only valuable one,” she said.

Health experts, including Professor Boyd Swinburn of Health Coalition Aotearoa, raised concerns about the bill’s potential impact on public health. Swinburn warned that the legislation could create a “regulatory chill” and allow corporations to “weaponize” it to delay or block public health regulations, particularly those targeting tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed foods.

Despite the criticism, the bill has some supporters. Professor Ananish Chaudhuri of the University of Auckland described the bill as “sensible” and argued that its principles—such as safeguarding individual rights and property—are common in Western democracies. However, he expressed reservations about the establishment of a regulatory board, warning it could become a tool for ideological capture and bureaucratic expansion.

Seymour, who has long argued that the opposition is driven by “misinformed social media campaigns and bots,” remains confident in the bill’s intent. He reiterated that the legislation is not about reducing regulation but about ensuring it is transparent and consistent. “If he thinks it’s too hard for the Government to keep tabs on all the rules it’s making, he should be worried about all the poor buggers out there that have to follow the government rules,” Seymour said in response to Palmer’s criticism.

The Regulatory Standards Bill is part of the National-Act coalition agreement and has been a key policy focus for Seymour since the 2023 election. As the select committee continues its deliberations, the debate over its implications for governance, public health, and Māori rights is likely to intensify.