Ministry Warns of $60M Annual Cost to Review Laws Under Regulatory Standards Bill

New Zealand's Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) has raised significant concerns about the potential financial and operational impacts of David Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill, suggesting the legislation could cost the government between $50 million and $60 million annually.

According to internal documents obtained through the Official Information Act, MBIE officials warned that the bill could slow the passage of legislation by two to four weeks and increase regulatory uncertainty, potentially dampening economic growth. They also highlighted that the proposed changes could require the ministry to hire up to 95 full-time staff to review the 95 laws under its responsibility, with some larger pieces of legislation, such as the Building Act 2004, requiring even more resources.

MBIE estimated that the cost of reviewing existing legislation alone could reach up to $34.2 million over multiple years. Additionally, the ministry noted that the bill could require hiring one additional full-time employee for each new bill the government introduces, further increasing the workload and costs.

While the publicly available Regulatory Impact Statement predicted a $18 million annual cost across the whole of government, MBIE officials suggested that this figure was a lower bound, with the real cost likely to be significantly higher. They also expressed concerns about the bill's potential to create regulatory instability, as some of its principles may not be widely accepted and could be subject to change under future governments.

David Seymour, the bill's sponsor, has dismissed these concerns, arguing that AI could help reduce the administrative burden and speed up the legislative process. He also pointed out that the bill would replace much of the work currently required to produce Regulatory Impact Statements, potentially saving the government money in the long run.

However, critics of the bill, including the Green Party, have expressed skepticism about the feasibility of AI reducing the costs and have called the proposed changes a