Submissions Are Now Open On The Regulatory Standards Bill
The Chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee is calling for submissions on the Regulatory Standards Bill with a closing date of 1pm, 23 June 2025.
The bill aims to support Parliament's scrutiny of legislation, and its oversight and control of the use of delegated powers to make legislation. The bill would achieve these objectives in four ways. First, it would introduce a set of regulatory principles that new and existing regulations would be measured against. These include the rule of law, personal liberties, taking of property, taxes, fees, and levies, and the role of courts. Responsible Ministers, administering agencies, and other makers of legislation would be required to assess the consistency of proposed and existing legislation against these principles. Ministers, as well as makers of secondary legislation, would be required to publish or present to the House of Representatives the results of those assessments.
The bill would also establish a Regulatory Standards Board to independently consider the consistency of legislation with the principles. The members of the board would be appointed by the Minister for Regulation. The board would carry out inquiries into whether legislation is inconsistent with the principles following a complaint, at the direction of the Minister, or on its own accord. Finally, the bill would strengthen the regulatory oversight of the Ministry of Regulation by requiring the Ministry to report on the overall state of the regulatory management system. It would empower the Ministry for Regulation to require agencies to supply information as a part of its oversight of the regulatory management system. This would include public service agencies, makers and administrators of secondary legislation, and agencies and contractors that perform a statutory function.
Make a submission on the bill by 1pm on 23 June 2025.
Using Scoop for work?
Scoop is free for personal use, but you'll need a licence for work use. This is part of our Ethical Paywall and how we fund Scoop. Join today with plans starting from less than $3 per week, plus gain access to exclusive Pro features.
Join Pro Individual Find out more
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
Law & society: A proposed curb on deepfake AI is a necessary step
Act MP Laura McClure showing an AI generated deepfake nude photo of herself in Parliament. Photo / Supplied The rise of deepfake technology has sparked debate in New Zealand over whether existing legislation, particularly the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 (HDCA), is sufficient to address the harms caused by AI-generated content. Act MP Laura McClure has introduced the Deepfake Digital Harm and Exploitation Bill, a private member's
Otago Daily Times
3 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
The efficacy of a submission is dubious in this Bill's case
David Seymour. File photo: Gregor Richardson We can now see on the Ministry of Regulation website a "summary of submissions" as a result of a consultation on the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill. The summary is dated May 2025, so we cannot be sure as to when it was published. We do know that the Bill itself was given its first reading on May 19 and is now before the select committee. The minister in charge of the Bill would have us believe that there is both widespread support for a grave need to legislate a prescriptive standard for our laws and regulations to comply with, and also that his, or the Act New Zealand party's, formula for such legislation is that which the public was asked to make a submission on, in December 2024. On closer examination, the minister's pronouncements would appear to be somewhat of a stretch, or perhaps he is not familiar with the summary of the submissions made on the proposal and now published by his own ministry. The executive summary contained in the document records the receipt of "approximately 23,000 submissions" (1) and that "analysis showed that 20,108 submissions (around 88%) opposed the Bill, 76 submissions (0.33%) supported or partially supported it, and the remaining 2637 submissions (about 12%) did not have a clear position". It does not take a genius to conclude that by a huge majority of those that responded to the consultation, this Bill is not wanted nor seen as necessary. Less than a third of 1% of those citizens who knew or cared enough about this important issue expressed support for it. A summary of reasons for opposing the proposed Bill included that it would "attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist"; "result in duplication and increase complexity in lawmaking"; "undermine future Parliaments and democracy"; "lack recognition and provision for the Treaty of Waitangi"; "prioritise individual property rights over the collective"; and "lead to worse social, environmental and economic outcomes". Notwithstanding this overwhelming expression of opposition to the proposed Bill, we find it introduced to the House with none of these matters having been addressed, the minister in charge (David Seymour) stating with confidence that it will be passed in the current session of Parliament and come into effect on January 1, 2026. That the minister, with the support of his coalition partners, can bring this Bill into law is not questioned. The question is whether it is in the interest of his major coalition partner to continue to support this Bill without, at least, addressing the issues that have been raised by an overwhelming majority of submissions in its consultation stage. These will no doubt be mirrored in the submissions to the select committee, charged with considering the Bill, as was the case with the Treaty Principles Bill. The potential negative effects of this Bill arguably outweigh those of the Treaty Principles Bill, which both National and New Zealand First did not support past the first reading. Historically, two National party-led governments have rejected legislation in the same form as now presented for very sound constitutional and political reasons. These reasons remain as sound and as pressing as ever. Our prime minister will be treading a very narrow path should he choose to overlook the historical rejections of this Bill by earlier National Party-led governments and enact legislation contrived and promoted by the founders of Act, which blatantly tips the balance in favour of the protection and enhancement of property rights over those of good governance and preservation of the common good. Such a step, in combination with the negative response to the recent unseemly passage of the Fair Pay Amendment Act 2025 and the excessive response by the coalition parties to the performance of Ka Mate in the House, could see dark clouds gather over the prospects of this coalition retaining the Treasury benches come November 2026. • Noel O'Malley is a Balclutha lawyer. He is a past president of the Otago District Law Society.
RNZ News
13 hours ago
- RNZ News
The House: Tactics from the 'Scrutiny Week' bear pit
Photo: VNP/Louis Collins This week, Parliament hosted a twice-yearly event called 'Scrutiny Week'. It was a sitting week and MPs were expected to be in Wellington, but the House didn't sit, no legislation was debated and there were no question times. Instead, the ministers were all expected to spend time fronting hearings in the 12 subject select committees defending their budget plans - hence 'scrutiny'. On the Sunday edition of The House (above) you can hear an interview with Lawrence Xu-Nan about Scrutiny Week and the intense preparation necessary. You can also listen to a quick description of a few of the more political tactics observed in hearings. Politics muddies everything in Parliament, including Parliament's role in providing governance over governments. In Scrutiny Week, some politics is inevitable in both MPs' questions and ministers' answers. Our focus on the tactics is more about the answers than the questions, because those answering tend to employ a wider range of techniques. Either the ministers have more tactical options available or they are more creative in finding them. No matter who is in government, some ministers genuinely engage in the spirit of the event, freely answering questions and providing information. Others tend to be grudging with details. Some face aggressive political questions evincing fiercely political answers and a few appear to just really enjoy the stoush. Photo: VNP/Louis Collins Listen above for examples of political questions and answers tactics, including rejection of questions, answering alternative questions, redefining the terms, insult and humour as a defence, and various ways to eat up time. Oddly, sometimes ministers get so involved in the tussle that they ignore options to their own benefit. Typically, sitting beside a minister under scrutiny are senior ministerial officials - whose answers are less politically suspect. Sometimes, if an official can get a word in, the detail given is positive and the minister had no reason to be obfuscating - other than for the fun of the stoush. The audio above might give the appearance that Scrutiny Week is an endless and frustrating bear pit, and it can be, but we also saw hearings where ministers from all the governing parties gave good answers and had constructive interchanges with the committees, sometimes even in contentious areas. That is especially true in hearings where officials from ministries or agencies are providing information, but examples of good in-depth discussions are, almost by definition, far too lengthy to include in a short programme. Good politics is seldom quick politics. Photo: VNP/Phil Smith *RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ.
