The Regulatory Standards Bill: Neoliberal Shackles Disguised As 'Good Law"
When the New Zealand Parliament debates "better law-making," most people yawn. It sounds procedural, technocratic — even boring. But beneath the jargon of 'clarity,' 'predictability,' and 'transparency,' lurks a political agenda. The Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB), first introduced in 2011 by ACT Party founder Roger Douglas's disciple Rodney Hide and continuously revived in various guises since, represents a stealth weapon in the arsenal of neoliberal capitalism. It is a Trojan horse for embedding pro-market ideology into the very machinery of the state — making it harder for any future government, let alone a radical movement, to challenge the dominance of capital.
We argue that the bill is not about making regulation 'better' or 'fairer,' but about handcuffing future lawmakers to an ideology that privileges private property, contract law, and the capitalist 'right to profit.' Its passage would mark a dangerous deepening of bourgeois legalism, constraining any collective attempts to democratise the economy or dismantle capitalist structures through parliamentary reform — let alone revolutionary means.
The Origins: ACT's Neoliberal Dream
To understand the Regulatory Standards Bill, we must start with ACT. Founded in the 1990s as the ideological successor to Roger Douglas's Rogernomics project, the ACT Party exists to finish what the Fourth Labour Government started: the total commodification of public life. With its roots in Chicago School economics, ACT idolises the free market, loathes the state (except when protecting capital), and views regulation as an obstacle to "freedom" — defined narrowly as consumer and investor liberty.
In 2009, the National-ACT confidence and supply agreement commissioned a taskforce led by arch-neoliberal Graham Scott to look into 'regulatory responsibility.' Its conclusion: regulation should conform to a strict set of principles designed to prevent the state from interfering too much with market activity. This taskforce gave birth to the Regulatory Standards Bill.
Rodney Hide introduced the first version in 2011. It was met with scepticism, even from centrist legal scholars, who warned that the bill would judicialise politics and constitutionalise neoliberalism. While the bill didn't pass, its zombie-like persistence over the years shows how committed the New Zealand right remains to embedding capitalist ideology in law.
What the Bill Proposes: Rights for Capital, Not People
At first glance, the RSB reads like a list of nice-sounding principles: laws should not be retrospective, should respect property rights, should avoid creating unnecessary costs, and should be clear and accessible. But a closer look reveals its insidiousness.
1. "Property Rights" as Sacred
One of the central tenets of the bill is that laws should not 'take or impair property' unless justified. This may sound reasonable, but in practice, it elevates private property above public interest. It would give courts — not the people — the power to decide whether environmental protections, housing controls, or land use laws unduly infringe on property rights. It shifts power from democratically accountable institutions to unelected judges, many of whom are steeped in commercial law and capitalist ideology.
This is a direct threat to mana whenua struggles for land justice. Imagine if land reform legislation, urban rent controls, or even a future law to nationalise fossil fuel companies were struck down because they infringed on 'property rights.' The bill constitutionalises the most reactionary legal principle of all: that the right to own and profit from land or capital is inviolable.
2. 'No More Than Necessary'
Another clause says that regulation should not impose 'obligations, costs, or risks' that are more than 'reasonably necessary.' But who decides what's 'necessary'? Under capitalism, this often means what's necessary for profit. Environmental laws, workplace protections, or rent freezes could all be challenged for being 'too costly' to business. The bill invites judicial activism — not in the progressive sense, but as a means of protecting capitalist interests from redistributive policies.
3. Parliamentary Veto in Disguise
The bill would require that every new law be accompanied by a "certification" that it complies with these principles. If it doesn't, it must be justified — and could be challenged in court. This sets up a system where legislation is no longer judged on its social merit, but on how well it conforms to market logic.
In essence, it's a regulatory veto wrapped in legal procedure. The aim is to make it politically and legally risky for any future government to pass redistributive or transformative laws.
Embedding Capitalist Ideology into Law
What makes the RSB especially dangerous is not just its content, but its method. It doesn't ban socialism outright. Instead, it sets up legal roadblocks that make any move toward economic democracy more difficult, expensive, or outright unconstitutional.
This is classic capitalist strategy: not just win political battles, but rig the rules. It's the same logic behind investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) clauses in trade agreements, which allow corporations to sue states for regulating in the public interest. It's the logic behind independent central banks, which remove monetary policy from democratic control. And it's the logic behind 'fiscal responsibility' laws that force governments to prioritise debt repayment over social investment.
The RSB is part of this neoliberal constitutionalism. It transforms what should be political questions - Who owns the land? Should rent be controlled? Should fossil fuels be nationalised? - into legal technicalities. It makes revolution, or even reform, illegal by stealth.
Aotearoa's Class War by Other Means
The Regulatory Standards Bill must be understood in the context of Aotearoa's broader class structure. We live in a settler-colonial capitalist state where wealth is concentrated among a small elite - disproportionately Pākehā - while working-class, Māori, and Pasifika communities struggle under the weight of exploitation, housing precarity, and intergenerational poverty.
In such a context, regulation is one of the few remaining tools communities have to fight back. Whether it's tenant protections, limits on corporate land use, environmental regulations, or worker rights, regulation is one of the few levers available within capitalist democracy to redistribute power and resources.
The RSB seeks to destroy that lever. It cloaks itself in legal neutrality, but in reality, it is a ruling class weapon designed to foreclose collective action. It represents the judicialisation of class war. One where the capitalist class doesn't need tanks or cops to crush resistance, just well-written legislation and friendly judges.
The Limits of Parliamentary Critique
It's important to note that opposition to the RSB has come not just from the left, but from mainstream legal figures and centrists worried about the erosion of parliamentary sovereignty. The New Zealand Law Society, in a rare political statement, warned that the bill would shift power from Parliament to the judiciary, undermining democratic accountability.
But for anarcho-communists, the issue goes deeper than defending Parliament. Parliamentary democracy in a capitalist state is already limited, corrupt, and structurally skewed toward the ruling class. Our concern is not that the RSB undermines Parliament per se, but that it further consolidates capitalist power within the state, making radical transformation through any legal means even harder.
In this sense, the RSB is not an aberration but a logical outcome of a capitalist democracy reaching its authoritarian phase. As global inequality deepens and ecological collapse accelerates, capitalist states are preemptively locking in protections for the wealthy - insulating themselves from the possibility of revolt.
A Vision Beyond the Bill
Anarcho-communists reject the premise of the RSB because we reject the premise of capitalist law itself. We do not believe the protection of property is a neutral good. We do not believe 'regulatory efficiency' should be the measure of political action. And we do not accept a legal framework that privileges capital over collective well-being.
Instead, we fight for a society based on direct democracy, collective ownership, and ecological harmony. We envision a world where land is returned to tangata whenua, where housing is a right not a commodity, and where communities make decisions together, without the distortions of profit or property law.
In such a world, the RSB would be unthinkable — not just because it's unjust, but because its very logic would no longer apply. There would be no 'regulators' because there would be no corporations to regulate. No 'property rights' because the land would belong to all. No 'cost-benefit analyses' because human need, not market efficiency, would guide our choices.
What Is to Be Done?
The Regulatory Standards Bill has not yet passed — but it remains a live threat. ACT and National are eager to revive it, and a future coalition could easily slip it through under the radar.
We must oppose it not just with legal submissions or op-eds, but with direct action and radical education. We must expose it for what it is: a blueprint for capitalist entrenchment, not a neutral law reform. And we must prepare ourselves intellectually, and organisationally for the broader authoritarian turn it signals.
This means:
Popular education in unions, hapū, and community groups about the bill's implications.
Legal support for those resisting unjust property laws and regulations.
Resisting co-optation by parliamentary parties who offer weak, technocratic opposition.
The battle over the Regulatory Standards Bill is a battle over who controls the future: the people, or capital. Let's make sure it's us.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
2 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
Arrest after woman found dead in Tūrangi
Labour has overtaken National as the party New Zealanders consider most able to handle the cost of living, according to the latest Ipsos Issues Monitor survey.
Scoop
3 days ago
- Scoop
The Employment Relations Amendment Bill: A State-Sanctioned Assault On The Working Class
The National-ACT-New Zealand First coalition government's Employment Relations Amendment Bill (ERAB), will see a sweeping series of legislative changes that reshape the legal terrain of labour in Aotearoa. These changes, billed by the government as necessary for 'labour market flexibility' and 'economic growth,' represent a radical rollback of worker protections. Cloaked in technocratic language and presented as pragmatic reform, the bill in fact amounts to a systemic attack on organised labour, unionism, and the basic rights of working people. ERAB does not signal the failure of the state to protect workers, it reveals the true nature of the state itself. The bill should be understood not as a policy misstep, but as a calculated act of class warfare by a government acting as the political arm of capital. What the Bill Contains At the heart of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill lies a multi-pronged effort to deregulate labour protections and entrench power in the hands of employers. There are four major pillars to this legislative shift: The Introduction of a 'Contractor Gateway Test' The Limitation of Personal Grievance Remedies The Repeal of the 30-Day Rule for New Employees The Restoration of Employer Powers to Deduct Wages During Partial Strikes Each of these measures contributes to the erosion of worker autonomy and legal protections, and together they mark a sharp rightward shift in employment law—one that prioritises capital accumulation over dignity, security, or fairness. Institutionalising Insecurity: The Contractor Gateway Test Perhaps the most structurally damaging reform is the introduction of a 'contractor gateway test.' This test is intended to establish a legal presumption that certain workers are not employees, but independent contractors—thereby removing them from the protections afforded under the Employment Relations Act. If a worker meets a checklist of conditions (such as having a written contract stating they are a contractor, having the theoretical ability to work for others, and not being penalised for declining work), they can be categorised as contractors regardless of the actual nature of the work. This change is designed to exploit the legal fiction of contractor 'freedom.' In practice, it will increase precarity for thousands of workers who are functionally dependent on a single employer. Gig economy workers, cleaners, hospitality staff, care workers, and migrant labourers will be among the hardest hit – those least able to negotiate or contest exploitative arrangements. By facilitating this mass misclassification, the state legitimises a race to the bottom. Sick leave, minimum wages, overtime, and holiday pay become luxuries rather than rights. Workers will be rendered atomised economic agents, responsible for their own exploitation. Making Workers the Problem: Personal Grievance Restrictions The bill also proposes restricting workers' ability to raise personal grievances, especially in cases of dismissal. Under ERAB, employers may avoid paying compensation if the dismissed worker is deemed to have contributed to their dismissal through 'serious misconduct.' In other words, the government is offering employers legal leeway to terminate employment while avoiding financial consequences. The bill also excludes workers earning more than $180,000 from being able to raise personal grievances, creating a two-tier system in which legal recourse is determined not by the justice of one's case, but by the size of one's paycheque. These provisions are punitive and ideological. They send a clear message: if a worker is sacked, it is probably their own fault. This is not an attempt to resolve disputes fairly – it is a mechanism of discipline. A demoralised, fearful workforce is a compliant one. Attacking Unionism: Repealing the 30-Day Rule Another key component of ERAB is the repeal of the 30-day rule. Previously, when a worker started a job in a workplace with a collective agreement, they would automatically receive the terms of that agreement for their first 30 days. This protected workers from being picked off and offered worse contracts before they had a chance to join a union or understand their rights. Its repeal will allow employers to immediately undercut collective agreements by offering inferior individual contracts. The aim is not to promote fairness—it is to weaken union density, divide workers, and remove the incentive for employers to negotiate with unions at all. It is a classic tactic of divide and rule. Recriminalising Solidarity: Deductions for Partial Strikes Finally, the bill reintroduces employers' ability to deduct pay for 'partial strike' actions—where workers might refuse specific duties while continuing to perform others. Partial strikes are a form of limited industrial action that allow workers to escalate disputes strategically and carefully. Punishing them with pay cuts is intended to suppress this tactic and reassert managerial authority. This reform is aimed squarely at reasserting capital's power to punish resistance. It also represents a symbolic victory for employers: a return to the draconian provisions of the Employment Contracts Act era. A Longer History of Repression While these reforms are severe, they are not novel. Rather, they follow a decades-long trajectory of neoliberal labour market restructuring in Aotearoa. The 1991 Employment Contracts Act, spearheaded by National's Ruth Richardson, abolished compulsory unionism and national awards, deregulating industrial relations and shifting power dramatically towards employers. This was complemented by the broader economic reforms of the Fourth Labour Government, which introduced market logic into almost every facet of public life, including education, health, and welfare. Since then, no government has meaningfully reversed this trend. The Clark government (1999–2008) offered some mild reversals, and the Sixth Labour Government (2017–2023) introduced the Fair Pay Agreements (since repealed). But the fundamental structure of employer dominance has remained untouched. In this light, ERAB is not a betrayal of some progressive consensus. It is a continuation of the neoliberal project with renewed aggression. Its goal is to further erode the legal terrain on which workers might mount a defence. The State as the Manager of Capital Anarcho-communists have long argued that the state does not function as a neutral arbiter in labour relations. It is the executive committee of the ruling class, managing the conditions under which capital can reproduce itself. It may, at times, offer workers concessions such as welfare payments, labour protections, or health and safety laws, but these are always tactical, not moral. They can be revoked as easily as they are granted, and they are most often granted in the wake of unrest or threat. ERAB illustrates this logic perfectly. Rather than responding to a crisis of productivity or economic necessity, it seeks to pre-emptively disarm the working class in anticipation of future struggle. Its goal is to ensure that capital can extract more surplus value with fewer obstacles. In this sense, the bill is not simply anti-worker—it is anti-democratic, in the truest sense. It aims to suppress the ability of people to determine the conditions of their own labour, and thus their own lives. Resistance: Beyond Legalism, Beyond the State Faced with these developments, many liberal commentators and union leaders have called for legal challenges, electoral change, and lobbying. But anarcho-communists recognise that such strategies are insufficient. The state has already shown its allegiances. No matter which party holds office, workers' rights will be contingent on the approval of capital and its political servants. Instead, we must build resistance from below. That means rejecting the logic of legalism and instead fostering the conditions for direct action and solidarity. This includes: -Rebuilding radical, rank-and-file led unions that are accountable to workers, not party officials. -Organising mutual aid networks to provide material support for striking or sacked workers. -Occupying and collectivising workplaces under threat, with or without legal recognition. Conclusion: No Authority but Ourselves The Employment Relations Amendment Bill is not a detour from democratic principles – it is a confirmation that parliamentary democracy in a capitalist state is a dead end for the working class. It consolidates employer power, undermines unionism, and exposes the state's role as an instrument of class domination. But in this dark moment, there is also clarity. The illusions of social partnership, of progressive government, of justice through legislation are burning away. What remains is the possibility of something else: the possibility of worker self-organisation, of mutual aid, of a society based not on hierarchy or profit, but on solidarity and shared need. We must turn away from begging for better laws and begin building our own power. The road ahead is not easy, but it is ours. And as always, it begins not in Parliament but on the shop floor, in the streets, and in the hearts of those who still believe that another world is possible.
Scoop
3 days ago
- Scoop
New Zealanders' Worry About Cost Of Living On The Rise Again Following The Budget 2025 Announcement
New Zealand / Aotearoa, 17 June 2025 - Ipsos New Zealand has released the 28th edition of the Ipsos Issues Monitor which tracks the issues most important to New Zealanders today and which political parties are best able to manage them. The survey has been running since 2018. The quarterly survey of 1,002 New Zealanders reveals that following a steady decline since May 2024, more than one in two (55%) consider inflation / cost of living to be the most important issue. Healthcare follows as the second highest concern, while the economy remains the third most important issue, with slight increases (by 2pp) for both issues. Notably, New Zealanders' concern for the economy has reached the highest level since February 2021. Key findings for the New Zealand market include: Inflation / cost of living is still the primary concern for one in two New Zealanders. While not statistically significant, the proportion of New Zealanders selecting this as a key issue has risen by 5 percentage points from the previous wave in February. Healthcare / hospitals remains the second top issue and continues on its upward trend, reaching its highest level of concern since tracking began (43%). Concerns around the economy continue to rise over the long-term, once again reaching the highest level seen since February 2021. Issues change in importance across generations: Inflation / cost of living is the primary concern for New Zealanders aged 18-64, while those aged 65+ are significantly less likely to be concerned about it Healthcare continues as the primary concern for those aged 65+, it ranks third and second respectively for those aged 18-34 and 35-64 Housing is the second most important issue for 18-34 age group and fifth for 35–49-year-olds, while it is outside of the top-5 issues for those aged 50+ While concern for the economy is relatively consistent across all the age groups, unemployment is more significant issue for young New Zealanders aged 18-34 (23%). Although political leaning has an impact on the perception of importance for multiple issues, both those intending to vote on the 'left' if there was an election tomorrow, and those intending to vote on the 'right' continue to agree that inflation / cost of living and healthcare are the two primary concerns facing New Zealand. However: The economy and crime are of significantly higher concern to right-leaning voters Left-leaning voters are significantly more concerned about poverty / inequality. Following a significant decline, New Zealanders' rating of the current coalition government's performance has stabilised, rising by 0.1 points to 4.3, with 39% of New Zealanders scoring it 0-3 out of 10. Labour is now perceived as the political party most capable of handling three of the top five issues – inflation / cost of living, healthcare, and housing, while National is seen to be most capable of managing the economy and crime. Beyond the top 5 issues, National is now seen as being the most capable of managing just one of the remaining fifteen issues: Defence / foreign affairs / terrorism. New Zealanders' top five concerns are largely in line with our Australian counterparts, with both countries identifying inflation / cost of living as their top issue and showing a similar level of concern for the economy. More Australians are concerned about housing than us, while more of us are concerned about healthcare. Carin Hercock, Country Manager, Ipsos New Zealand, said: 'Despite several reductions in the OCR, New Zealanders are still feeling the impact of high living costs. This is particularly an issue for young adult New Zealanders who are increasingly concerned about inflation, housing costs and unemployment.' Amanda Dudding, Executive Director Public Affairs, Ipsos New Zealand, added: 'No matter your political stance, inflation and healthcare are seen as the most important issues for New Zealanders. Healthcare is now the leading issue for 7 out of 10 New Zealanders over 65 years and is well ahead of the level of concern felt during the peak of Covid community transition. '
