Regulatory Standards Bill Inflicts ACT's Far-Right Principles On Aotearoa

Press Release – Greenpeace
'The Regulatory Standards Bill tries to make all future lawmakers in government follow a rigid set of the ACT Partys far-right principles – prioritising corporate interests over people, nature, and Te Tiriti,' says Greenpeace spokesperson Gen Toop.
The Government is facing backlash over David Seymour's controversial Regulatory Standards Bill which passed its first reading today, under the shadow of the Budget.
'After the uproar over the Treaty Principles Bill, the Luxon Government looks to be trying to keep Seymour's latest unpopular Bill quiet. They've clearly chosen to introduce it in Budget week to minimise scrutiny,' said Greenpeace spokesperson Gen Toop.
'The Regulatory Standards Bill tries to make all future lawmakers in government follow a rigid set of the ACT Party's far-right principles – prioritising corporate interests over people, nature, and Te Tiriti,' says Toop.
This is the fourth time ACT has tried to pass the bill. It's failed not once, not twice, but three times already. This time, more than 20,000 people submitted on the Bill during its first consultation, with only 0.33% of submitters in support, while 88% opposed it outright.
The Bill was also the subject of a Waitangi Tribunal inquiry, brought by over 13,000 claimants. The Tribunal found the Crown had breached its Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations and called on the Crown to halt further work on the controversial bill until it consults with Māori.
One of the principles in the Regulatory Standards Bill would create a new and unprecedented expectation that the Crown compensate corporations if environmental or public interest laws affect their property.
'It's a simple principle: polluters should pay – not be paid by the public. But Seymour's bill turns that on its head,' says Toop.
'If this bill becomes law, corporations like ExxonMobil, Fonterra and Monsanto would expect taxpayer handouts when the government introduces basic environmental or public protections.'
'These extreme neoliberal ideas have no place in our legal system here in Aotearoa, where we have long valued fairness and collective responsibility rather than individual entitlements to harm nature or others under the guise of freedom,' says Toop.
Greenpeace, along with Forest & Bird, WWF-New Zealand and the Environmental Defence Society, issued an open letter to the Prime Minister on Monday calling on him to reject the Regulatory Standards Bill, warning that it is an 'unprecedented threat' to environmental protection, climate action, and the country's democratic and constitutional foundations.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Scoop

8 hours ago

• Scoop

Overseas Investment Decisions Twice As Fast

Associate Minister of Finance Associate Minister of Finance David Seymour is encouraged to see overseas investment decisions being made twice as fast following his Ministerial directive letter (the letter) to Land Information New Zealand (LINZ). 'Last year I issued a Ministerial directive letter setting out my expectations for faster consent processing timeframes under the Overseas Investment Act (the Act),' Mr Seymour says. 'The letter set my expectation that LINZ, the regulator for the Act, will process 80 per cent of consent applications in half the statutory timeframes for decisions. 'The financial year beginning 1 July 2024 is on track to meet my expectations. So far, LINZ has been processing 88 per cent of consent applications in half the statutory timeframe. 'Since this financial year began, processing times have reduced by 39 per cent faster than the previous financial year. The average timeframe has reduced from 71 working days in the last financial year, to 28 working days this financial year. 'The improvements to processing times are largely owed to the new risk-based approach LINZ take to verifying information and streamlining consent processes. This recognises that the majority of consent applications are low-risk and should be processed more efficiently. '1 July 2024 to 19 June 2025 saw 122 applications for overseas investment, decreasing from 146 in the financial year prior (both figures exclude 'only home to live in' applications). The decrease is explained by a significant drop in applications for residential land development due to poor property market conditions. I expect these numbers to bounce back with the rise of the property market. 'In order to have a strong growing economy New Zealand needs to be more welcoming to investment. Long waiting times for applications was creating uncertainty and impacting the attractiveness of investing in New Zealand. This affected New Zealand businesses that rely on overseas investment for capital or for liquidity. 'Since delegating most decision-making to LINZ and directing officials to focus on realising the benefits of overseas investment, there has been a significant improvement in processing times. 'Feedback from investors has been overwhelmingly positive, and they have welcomed the changes to make the application process more efficient, while still giving the right level of scrutiny to high-risk transactions. 'LINZ still has the full statutory timeframe to process 20 per cent of consent applications, which will allow them to manage complex and higher-risk applications. 'This week will see the first reading of thee Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill as well. 'The Bill will consolidate and simplify the screening process for less sensitive assets, introducing a modified national interest test that will enable the regulator to triage low-risk transactions, replacing the existing benefit to New Zealand test and investor test. If a national interest risk is identified, the regulator and relevant Minister will have a range of tools to manage this, including through imposing conditions or blocking the transaction. The current screening requirements will stay in place for investments in farmland and fishing quota. 'New Zealand has been turning away opportunities for growth for too long. Having one of the most restrictive overseas investment regimes in the OECD means we've paid the price in lost opportunities, lower productivity, and stagnant wages. This Bill is about reversing that. 'For all investments aside from residential land, farmland and fishing quota, decisions must be made in 15 days, unless the application could be contrary to New Zealand's national interest. In contrast, the current timeframe in the Regulations for the benefit test is 70 days, and the average time taken for decisions to be made is 30 days for this test,' says Mr Seymour. 'International investment is critical to ensuring economic growth. It provides access to capital and technology that grows New Zealand businesses, enhances productivity, and supports high paying jobs.

Scoop

12 hours ago

• Scoop

Labour Will Repeal Regulatory Standards Bill

Labour will repeal the Regulatory Standards Bill in its first 100 days in Government. 'The Regulatory Standards Bill has no place in a fair and democratic New Zealand and Labour is committed to repealing it in our first 100 days if elected next year,' Labour justice spokesperson Duncan Webb said. 'This Bill is another concession by Christopher Luxon to ACT that puts corporate interests ahead of the public good, making it harder to pass laws that protect people and the environment. 'Under the Regulatory Standards Bill, laws that would keep people healthy and safe, like requiring landlords to heat homes, limiting the sale of vapes, or keeping our air and water clean would be at risk. 'It allows David Seymour to create his own hand-picked 'appeals body of regulatory economists' to criticise laws that are out of line with his minority views. 'Put another way, it takes power away from communities and hands it to corporate friends of the ACT Party. 'Christopher Luxon was too weak to stand up against it, but Labour will repeal it,' Duncan Webb said.

Newsroom

15 hours ago

• Newsroom

Anne Salmond: Victim of the Day

Over the past week, something remarkable has happened. The Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand has fronted an online campaign of harassment of scholars who have shared their views about his Regulatory Standards Bill, naming each of them as a 'Victim of the Day.' Each scholar has been accused of 'Regulatory Standards Derangement Syndrome,' a description borrowed from Donald Trump's followers, who accuse his critics of 'Trump Derangement Syndrome.' The portraits of each scholar are placed on David Seymour's Facebook page under this banner, and labelled 'Victim of the Day,' with online responses invited. The use of the term 'Victim of the Day' is, at best, careless. In the United States at present, political violence is escalating, with senators and their families being physically assaulted, even shot and killed. This has been associated with online incitements against individuals. No one in New Zealand, least of all the Deputy Prime Minister, can be unaware of these developments. In the United States, too, direct attacks by the Trump administration on universities, university scholars and their students have escalated from attacks on individual academics to attempts to take direct political control of what is taught on university campuses, by whom, and to whom, backed by the deployment of armed force including police and ICE agents. When universities such as Harvard have resisted these attempts, they have been punished by defunding their research and threats by the Trump administration to their right to admit international students. These and other attacks are happening to universities and other scientific institutions across the United States. At a time like this, it is extraordinary that a Deputy Prime Minister here should initiate an online campaign of intimidation against university scholars, using Trumpian rhetoric and tactics to harass them for exercising their academic freedom. In the United States, as in New Zealand, the independence of universities and academic freedom are designed as checks and balances on executive power, with the rule of law and the freedom of the press. All of these freedoms are being assailed in the United States at present. In New Zealand, the concept of academic freedom is specifically enshrined in legislation. Section 161 of the Education Amendment Act 1990 states: '161 Academic Freedom 1. It is declared to be the intention of Parliament in enacting the provisions of this Act relating to institutions that academic freedom and the autonomy of institutions are to be preserved and enhanced.' This requires that academics are free to offer commentaries within their fields of expertise without direct intimidation and harassment by politicians. The Act goes on to state: '2. For the purposes of this section, academic freedom, in relation to an institution, means – a. the freedom of academic staff and students, within the law, to question and test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas and to state controversial or unpopular opinions.' Without this kind of freedom, new ideas and discoveries are unlikely to emerge. In academic inquiry, they must be rigorously tested against the evidence, including robust exchanges and peer review. For this to work well, the debate has to be reasoned and civil. Academic freedom is a very old doctrine, designed to protect universities from those who seek to control research and teaching to advance particular political agendas, as in the United States at present. Such ambitions are typical of totalitarian, autocratic regimes, with the USSR and South Africa under apartheid as previous examples. This can come from any political direction. In New Zealand, for instance, the Education Act 1989 was drafted in response to an attempt by the Fourth Labour Government to take control over 'what was taught, by whom and to whom' in New Zealand universities. That effort was vigorously resisted, and as a result the Education Act was passed and enshrined academic freedom in our legislation, along with a section that requires universities to 'act as critic and conscience of society.' That, I think, is exactly what the 'Victims of the Day' were doing when they were attacked by the Deputy Prime Minister. From an array of different disciplinary perspectives, they were analysing and discussing the Regulatory Standards Bill as contributions to public debate. In many ways, the campaign launched and fronted by the Deputy Prime Minister is lame, even laughable. At the same time, it is an abuse of high office. For the Deputy Prime Minister of this country to deploy Trumpian rhetoric to single out individual scholars as 'Victims of the Day' is deplorable, given the requirements of the Education Act. It is also troubling, given its direct links with the political assault on universities that is happening in the United States. Worse still, this is a senior politician who has vigorously argued for freedom of speech in universities. Above all, every New Zealand citizen has the right to speak their minds about matters such as the Regulatory Standards Bill without being personally intimidated by politicians. If scholars whose academic freedom is legally protected under the Education Act can be singled out in this way, the freedom of speech of all New Zealanders is at risk. In New Zealand, the Cabinet manual requires ministers to 'behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical and behavioural standards. This includes exercising a professional approach and good judgement in their interactions with the public, staff, and officials, and in all their communications, personal and professional.' This 'Victim of the Day' campaign does not match this description. It is unethical, unprofessional and potentially dangerous to those targeted. Debate is fine, online incitements are not. Ultimately, all ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister for their behaviour. As one of David Seymour's 'Victims of the Day,' I ask that Christopher Luxon upholds the Cabinet manual, and requires the Deputy Prime Minister to withdraw and apologise to those he has targeted and harmed in this despicable campaign. I am formally lodging a complaint with the Cabinet Office, and look forward to its response.