Regulatory Standards Bill

Members, we now come to our final debate. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2, “Title” and “Commencement”.

I’ll briefly describe that the Regulatory Standards Act is the name of the Act. The Government has no intention of entertaining any of the alternative names that members have proposed, entertaining and hopeful as some of them may be. We are happy with our own name for this bill.

Secondly, the commencement says that the Act comes into force on 1 January 2026. That is Part 1 and Part 3, which set out the purpose and interpretation of the bill, and, in the case of Part 3, the powers that we’ve been debating tonight for the purposes of obtaining information, reporting, and doing regulatory reviews. However, Part 2 comes into force on a date no later than 1 July 2026. This is what is set out in the subclauses of clause 2, “Commencement”.

The reason for the delay of up to six months is to provide time for the Government to issue guidance—which is required under, I think, clause 27—to also appoint the Regulatory Standards Board, and to prepare ministries for adhering to the Act and administering it. We don’t believe that there is any need for debate on those timelines. We’re very confident that all of the things required for Part 2 to come into force can be done within the time frames set out, along with the flexibility of it being up to six months.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It may come as a surprise, but I have some amendments on this, and one of them actually suggests that we title this Act—and this isn’t a joke title; it’s actually quite a serious title—the “Regulatory Constitution Act 2025”. There are two reasons for that. One is that it actually reflects what this piece of legislation will do, which is change the very structure of our constitution in New Zealand, and it will change the way in which the organs of Government work with and speak to each other. In fact, you know, if we go back and see the history—in New Zealand, at least—of this bill, you’ll see that it really started with a paper by Richard Epstein in April 2000 called “Towards a Regulatory Constitution”.

Todd Stephenson: Great guy. I met him.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Yeah—I even read stuff like that. Of course, that was commissioned by the New Zealand Business Roundtable—now the New Zealand Initiative—which really just tells you what you’ve got in front of you here. So for two reasons: one, call it the “Regulatory Constitution Act”, because it is about a shift in how Government works, and that’s what constitutional law is about. It’s appropriate to recognise that, but also, it’s appropriate to recognise where it came from. This legislation came from libertarian philosophy in the United States, adopted and promoted by the Business Roundtable, and that’s exactly how we’ve got to where we are today.

There you go. Let’s be a bit upfront. It’s still a serious title: “Regulatory Constitution Act 2025”. I’m surprised that the Minister won’t entertain anything. He hasn’t been very entertaining all night, which is a bit of a pity. There is plenty more of those amendments, but I’ll do them one at a time. So I’ll come back to my next one in my next contribution.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 1, replacing “Regulatory Standards” with “Lawmaking Procedures” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 1, inserting “(Right to Personal Property Rights)” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 1, replacing “Standards” with “Constitution” be agreed to.

The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s remaining six tabled amendments to clause 1 are ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

Francisco Hernandez’s six tabled amendments to clause 1 are ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment replacing clause 2 be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment replacing clause 2 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing subclause (1) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing subclause (2) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to delete clause 2(3) be agreed to.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Regulatory Standards Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

This bill is set down for third reading next sitting day. The time has come for me to leave the chair. The House will resume at 9 a.m.

Sitting suspended from 10.08 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)