Rock The Vote NZ submission for The Regulatory Standards Bill

Submitted on the 23rd of June 2025

Summary

Rock The Vote NZ supports the intent of the Regulatory Standards Bill overall.  However, we have major concerns with the implementation of the bill and are concerned with the risk that opinionated principles, wide exemption powers, and an under-powered watchdog will struggle to lift the quality of legislation without key improvements.

We believe that this Bill has the potential to improve the quality of new legislation by promoting sound law-making practices. It can serve as a valuable tool for members of Parliament—particularly those without a legal background—by providing a clear framework to guide the drafting of legislation that aligns with the principles of the common law system, existing statutory frameworks, and foundational documents such as the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. In doing so, it can help ensure that legislation is coherent, consistent, and constitutionally sound.

Our main points are the following:

• The Purpose of the Bill should include that good law-making be consistent with established constitutional norms and the hierarchy of legal sources in New Zealand

• The Principles of the Bill should be derived and be the result of already existing legislation and case law, there should be no stand-alone principles and every one should be linked to something existing.

• Transparency tools such as the Consistency Accountability Statements and Ministerial explanations could be followed by a consistent evidence-based template so it’s easier for the public to follow.

• A minor thing, but Ministerial powers to exempt classes of legislation need strict safeguards, so its not just a convenience tool to avoid controversial legislation such as possible time limits, super-majority approval, or even select-committee veto

• The Regulatory Standards Board should be appointed through an all-of-Parliament process to guarantee independence, rather than just the minister in charge.

Where is the Bill now?

The Regulatory Standards Bill is currently before Parliament. The Bill was introduced to Parliament on 19 May 2025 and passed its First Reading on 22 May 2025.

A copy of the Bill is available on the New Zealand Legislation website.

Purpose and intent of the Bill

Rock The Vote NZ acknowledges the Regulatory Standards Bill’s stated purpose: to improve the quality of legislation by making Ministers and agencies publicly account for departures from accepted principles of good regulation. Clause 3 crystallises that intent into three objectives—(i) promoting Executive accountability for high-quality law, (ii) strengthening Parliament’s scrutiny of Bills, and (iii) safeguarding delegated-legislation controls. We regard these objectives as constitution-enhancing rather than partisan.

Good law-making, however, begins with coherence. Principles that acquire quasi-constitutional status must be demonstrably rooted in New Zealand’s inherited legal tradition—namely:

• Common-law doctrine (e.g. the rule of law, natural justice

• Foundational statutes such as the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, including the rules of equity

• Long-standing constitutional conventions that uphold parliamentary sovereignty and judicial independence

Accordingly, we urge the Committee to require, either through amendment or standing orders—that every Consistency Accountability Statement trace each principle invoked to its legal provenance. Without such traceability, the Bill risks entrenching contested policy preferences under the rubric of “principles”, thereby diluting its legitimacy and exposing it to judicial or political challenge.  We have seen this already during the submission process, entire groups have been instructed to submit against the bill based on their disagreement with the principles.

In short, Rock The Vote NZ supports the Bill’s intent to embed transparency and disciplined reasoning in the legislative process, provided that:

1. Each principle is explicitly sourced to recognised common-law authority, statute, or convention; and

2. No principle is elevated above its pedigree, ensuring that Parliament remains the supreme law-maker while the Courts remain interpreters, not enforcers, of the Bill’s standards.

The Principles of the Bill

We support the goal of codifying well-established legal principles, but each must be clearly linked to existing law. Rock The Vote NZ supports all the principles in the Bill and believes that only minor technical changes are needed to clarify their meaning and reduce opposition. The Committee should assess how each principle was derived; they should reflect settled case law and statute, not the personal views of any political party or individual. Below, we provide commentary and suggest alternative wording where appropriate to better align each principle with its legal foundations. For the following principles, we provide commentary and where appropriate suggest alternative wording to consider. 

Rule of Law

Rock The Vote NZ supports this principle fully, for this particular one it seems to check all the boxes and serves as a reminder to our Members of Parliament that all are equal under the law.  We have no issue with this and just for reference and are confident everyone knows where this comes from.

Liberties

Rock The Vote NZ supports this principle up to “except as is necessary to provide for, or protect, any such liberty, freedom, or right of another person.” That carve-out is so broad it could nullify the rule, because almost any limit can be framed as protecting someone else’s rights.

To ensure the test is meaningful, “necessary” must be defined. We propose the well-accepted proportionality formula:

"Legislation should not unduly diminish a person's liberty, personal security, freedom of choice or action, or rights to own, use, and dispose of property, except where such limitations are reasonable limits prescribed by law that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, having regard to:

1. The importance of the objective served by the limitation

2. Whether the means chosen are rationally connected to that objective

3. Whether the limitation impairs the right or freedom no more than is reasonably necessary to accomplish the objective; and

4. Whether there is proportionally between the effects of the limitation and the objective sought to be achieved.”

This language—drawn from the Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the R v Oakes test—offers a ready-made, court-tested standard; lawyers can refine details, but the wheel need not be reinvented.

Taking of Property

Rock The Vote NZ agrees with this principle as a position of natural justice. The Government is not entitled to property simply by virtue of its authority. We expect minimal resistance to this principle, aside from concerns about the scope of “fair compensation.”

A common example is government restrictions on tobacco for public health. In practice, clause 8(c)’s “fair compensation” could reflect the Public Works Act 1981, Part 5—compensation based on market value, disturbance, and injurious affection—with statutory exceptions where Parliament explicitly excludes compensation.

For instance, under the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act 1990, including the 2022 retail restrictions, no compensation was provided to affected businesses. This confirms Parliament’s authority to act in the public interest without triggering compensation.

Clause 8(c) should clarify that “fair compensation” is subject to such statutory exclusions, especially for public health, safety, and environmental protection. This aligns the Bill with established legal practice and public expectations.

Taxes, fees, and levies

Legislation that imposes pecuniary burdens should satisfy three tests:

1. Purpose clarity, the tax funds a clearly defined public function;

2. Proportionality, the amount bears a rational relationship to the benefit or cost recovery objective.

3. Predictability, taxpayers must be able to ascertain liability in advance from the statute or delegated instrument.

Finally, we invite a challenge to the income tax regime and to put the fear of the lord into those that are complacent with our tax dollars to show that our hard earned income is being used to fulfil the public functions as best as possible, better than the individual could use it for the good of the community!

Consistency accountability statements

The Bill’s transparency engine is the obligation on every Government Bill, amendment and piece of secondary legislation to carry a Consistency Accountability Statement which is an independent certification by the chief executive that the proposal has been tested against the principles of the bill and a brief Ministerial (or maker’s) explanation of any inconsistency.

Rock The Vote NZ fully supports the idea of transparency and testing against the principles, by requiring the technical assessment and the political justification, it gives the Parliament, media and our people a reference point for scrutinising the quality of law our lawmakers put out.  It can potentially act as a screening process to filter out any badly thought legislation, not necessarily due to malice but perhaps due to oversight on the writer’s part.  The fact that the chief executive is to act “independently” when issuing a CAS only further reinforces this credibility

We submit that this could be made even stronger by the insertion of a schedule that:

• Sets out minimum headings (principle-by-principle findings, methodology, data, consultation, peer-review sign-off)

• Requires publication five working days before first reading for Bills and before select-committee hearings for amendments, ensuring that current MP’s have time to read it and time to benchmark it against the current legislation put before them; and

• Obliges Ministers to state either how inconsistencies will be remedied or why departure is justified.

Regulatory Standards Board (RSB)

The Board is the principal watchdog yet its independence can be put into question by the fact the Minister himself is making the appointments, so we understand and empathize with the people that see David Seymour put forward a bill, with a committee that if were in charge of the ministerial appointments would be bad optics, thus we suggest the following if the select committee want to allay concerns:

• Appointment by the House on a 75 percent super-majority, with at least one member nominated by the Opposition

• Fixed, non-renewable five-year terms to reduce perceived patronage

• A statutory obligation to publish all inquiries and annual work plans

These changes would make the RSB a credible, non-partisan guardian of the principles without granting it veto powers over elected decision-makers.

Notes on Commentary by the public

Here we refute some arguments against the bill that we feel are not very strong reasons to reject the bill as below

Democratic Mandate

Some have considered the fact that since ACT was the only one to put forward such a proposal that it lacks a strong democratic mandate and does not express ‘the will of the people’ i.e. “since ACT only got 8.6% of the vote therefore the bill only represents 8.6% of the people and ought to be rejected”.  Rock The Vote NZ rejects this as a valid argument and submits that the test of the democratic mandate comes at the voting stage of the Bill where the other parties will weigh in on the bill, otherwise this argument would apply to every Bill put forward by a party with less than 50% of the vote, which happens to be every party in the current Parliament.

Various stands against the principles

Many have criticised the principles as being ACT party principles rather than principles derived from existing laws.  This can easily be remedied by following the advice we have set out to essentially “Show your working” as they would say at school and thus, if done correctly it would make all arguments against the principles for the purpose of the Bill invalid, rather the stands against the principles would be targeted at the case law its derived from

Confusion on whether it’s binding

The progressive left in the country seem to be attacking this bill for its principles and the fact that even though its not binding it could somehow put some pressure to compensate for regulation to protect the public health and the environment, the famous example being Tobacco companies expecting compensation for the efforts to move towards a smoke-free country.

The property principle (cl 8(c)) says regulation that takes or impairs property requires “fair compensation… provided, to the extent practicable, by or on behalf of the persons who obtain the benefit”.

Without reading the rest of the Bill it seems as though it means that taxpayers could be forced to pay tobacco or mining firms for lost profits due to actions taken for the benefit of the public health, however there are two crucial caveats:

1. The Good justification test must first be satisfied and will show clearly why the taking is justified.

2. No enforceability – The Bill expressly states that any statements and decisions are non-binding

Thus, any attempt to use this Bill to show damage will be invalidated and thrown out by the courts.  People who believe its binding likely haven’t read the bill fully or are afraid that even with the explicit statement of no enforceability that these industries will attempt to use social pressure to get the Government to provide compensation due to the bill, which I suppose if they are dumb enough to attempt then let them embarrass themselves.

Conclusion

Rock The Vote NZ respectfully asks the Committee to adopt the targeted amendments above so the Bill can achieve its stated aim - higher-quality, more transparent law-making—without importing avoidable constitutional or practical risks. We are willing to appear before the Committee to elaborate on any point.