Regulatory Standards Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Regulatory Standards Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I move, That the Regulatory Standards Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill, and at the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 23 December 2025.

I’m extremely excited to introduce the Regulatory Standards Bill to this House. This bill is a crucial piece of legislation for improving the long-term quality of regulation in our country and, ultimately, allowing New Zealanders to live longer, happier, healthier, and wealthier lives. But the political left have got themselves in quite a lather about the Regulatory Standards Bill. The hard left Auckland law professor Jane Kelsey helpfully explains that the bill is “basically about the protection of private property and wealth.” Well, Jane, now you’re catching on. Funnily enough, she seemed to think that her comments were a criticism, and, judging by some of the commentary I’ve heard from the other side of the House, I’m not sure that they know what’s in the bill, but, thankfully, my job is to explain it.

In a nutshell: if red tape and regulation is holding New Zealanders back because politicians find it politically rewarding to tie them in red tape, then we need to make regulating less rewarding for politicians by putting more sunlight on their activities. That is how the Regulatory Standards Bill will help New Zealand get its mojo back. This bill turns the explanation from politicians’ “Because we said so.” into “Because here is the justification, according to a set of principles.” And to the rest of my colleagues across the House: if you want to tax someone, take their property, and restrict their livelihood, you can, but you’ll actually have to show why it’s in the public interest. The bill demands you show your working.

It aims to reduce the amount of unnecessary poor-quality regulation by setting a clear standard for what good regulation should look like through a set of principles in primary legislation, and those principles of responsible regulation focus on the effect that legislation has on rights and liberties, as well as establishing processes for good lawmaking. In setting the standards this way, the bill seeks to bring the same level of discipline to regulating—that is, placing restrictions on—the use and exchange of private property as the Public Finance Act brings to public spending or the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act brings to monetary policy, with the Ministry for Regulation playing a role akin to that of the Treasury. We have a Public Finance Act to protect the taxpayer, and I guess you could say that this bill is to protect the citizen.

The need for this bill should be clear from the way New Zealanders are expected to comply with regulations when going about their work and everyday life. Those regulations should be clear if we are going to be able to produce more in the time that we each have on earth.

This bill will codify the principles of good regulatory practice for existing and future regulations, with some exclusions. The principles are focused on the effect of legislation on existing interests and liberties; the rule of law; liberties; the taking of property, taxes, fees, and levies; and the role of courts and good lawmaking processes, including consultation, problem definition, and cost-benefit analysis. In essence, there are key questions lawmakers will need to have answers to when progressing regulation—what problem are we trying to solve, what are the costs and benefits and who pays those costs and gets those benefits, what restrictions are being placed on the use and exchange of private property—and when regulation does not meet those standards, it’s reasonable for the public to expect lawmakers to be transparent about that fact.

For the bill to have an impact on the overall quality of regulation, it won’t be enough for agencies to simply say that they have considered the principles. If that was the case, regulatory impact statements, the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee, and select committees would have solved the problem by now. This bill is necessary because it will require agencies to publicly confirm that the legislation and its processes for developing it have been reviewed for consistency with the principles and to summarise any inconsistencies with the principles, and the results of this assessment will need to be published in a consistency accountability statement that is required by the law.

Where an inconsistency is identified, the bill requires a statement from the responsible Minister to explain why they believe that their purpose justifies breaching the normal rules. Now, I want to be clear that this will not prevent lawmakers from making or retaining legislation inconsistent with the principles. Parliament will remain sovereign and it can pass whatever laws it chooses—we’re not changing that—nor will it prevent secondary legislation being made if it’s inconsistent with the principles. That can continue. There’s no statutory requirement for inconsistencies to be changed. The law doesn’t grant any specific rights to anybody. The discretion will remain with the responsible elected Minister, and there may well be justifications where the public accepts that there can be good policy reasons for inconsistencies. But—but—what it will do is raise the amount of scrutiny and the political cost of being that person making bad laws that are inconsistent with the principles.

The default setting of Governments for too long has been to regulate first and ask questions later, and this bill is designed to reset that culture of lawmaking. It insists on questions being asked and answered before rules are imposed about the impact, about the cost, and about the necessity, because good intentions aren’t good enough for this country of ours.

If members of the public believe legislation is inconsistent with the principles, they’ll have the ability to raise those concerns with the Regulatory Standards Board. The board will be made up of individuals who have the appropriate knowledge, skills, and experience. The board will be appointed by the Minister for Regulation, and that board will be able to independently consider the consistency of proposed and existing legislation in response to stakeholder concerns at the request of the Minister for Regulation, or on its own accord. The board will be able to make non-binding recommendations to the Minister responsible for the legislation or, in the case of a bill, to the relevant select committee. All of this will improve the accountability and transparency of our democracy when laws are being made that affect people’s rights, and the reasons for any inconsistency in relevant documents will be made publicly available.

Finally, the bill will also increase regulatory quality by supporting the Ministry for Regulation in its oversight role by allowing it to request information in aid of a system of regulatory sector reviews, and also to report on the overall regulatory management system, so that we make it a norm to stand up for people’s rights to go about their business and get things done without being needlessly tied up in red tape.

At the heart of this law is a desire for New Zealand to get its mojo back by changing the incentives for politicians so that we don’t have the kind of red tape and regulation that is holding us back in three different ways. Number one, it adds too much cost to the things that people would like to do. Too often, we have builders saying, “It takes me twice as long to get permission to build the thing as actually build it.” We get educators who say, “All I wanted to do was unleash the creativity and potential of young minds, and all I actually do is fill out papers for the Ministry of Education.” We get people in finance who say that they spend more time asking, “What sort of cat food do you buy?” than they do actually helping people achieve financial independence, which is what they went into business for. Too often, those costs make life more expensive than it needs to be, and that is part of the reason we have a cost of living crisis, which is really a productivity crisis.

But then there are the things that don’t happen at all, and the reason that they don’t happen is because people have been burnt too many times by the expensive regulatory costs that they’ve seen in other activities. I’ve talked to people who have developed properties for 30 years, and they say, “People come to me with propositions now, and I just say no, because it’s too hard.” It’s the things that don’t go ahead that have left, among other things, a generation of young New Zealanders feeling they have no pathway to owning their own part of a property-owning democracy.

Finally, all of that accumulated red tape and burden is seriously affecting our culture, and I often tell the story of the climbing walls where I understand Sir Edmund Hillary first learnt to climb in the Epsom electorate. Today, they are walled off with a sign saying, “Do not climb”. Our regulatory culture is not just adding cost to things we do and stopping us from doing things that might have otherwise given people a more affordable, happier life. It’s actually dulling our culture to the point that I’m not sure that we could any longer produce a Hillary, because it is killing the can-do Kiwi attitude and the number eight wire dream that we like to see in ourselves.

For all of these reasons, I commend this bill to the House, and I hope it will be a great piece of New Zealand’s infrastructure so we can all live better lives. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I call the Hon Dr Duncan Webb.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. I raise this point of order under Standing Order 269. I’m concerned that the departmental disclosure statement for this bill has failed the transparency test under Standing Order 269. They did not properly consider the ways that this bill undermines the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—aka UNDRIP. UNDRIP is an international agreement which Aotearoa is still a party to, and the bill we are discussing today—

Can I interrupt the member. This is not a point of order. This is a debating point, and I suggest that you use this in your allocated time slot.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: So it’s not a point of order—sorry, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I’m not taking it as a point of order.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: OK.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): It’s a debating point.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Ka pai.

Hon David Seymour: Could I speak to it, Madam Speaker?

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: But it’s not one—you don’t have to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I think I’ve just dealt with the matter. Apologies to the Hon Dr—

Hon David Seymour: God, you’re an idiot.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): —Duncan Webb. Would you like to start again.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. I have just heard the Minister to my left—David Seymour—call a member of Te Pāti Māori an idiot. I ask that you ask him to apologise and withdraw.

I didn’t hear the comment. I was busy—

Ricardo Menéndez March: Speaking to the point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): No—excuse me, I’m speaking. I was speaking to a member on my left. If that is the case, then I invite the member to give us opinion about that.

Well, I think it’s rather rich for Te Pāti Māori—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): No, what I’m asking is: was that comment made?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Oh, was it made? Not towards Te Pāti Māori; just to anyone in the area.

It’s a bit frivolous. Look, let’s settle it down. I’ve already called the Hon Dr Duncan Webb a couple of times—so, apologies to Mr Webb.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. Sorry, Madam Speaker. I ask that you actually treat this seriously. The words that I heard myself were “You are an idiot.” It cannot—sorry—be a generalised statement when the words being used include a “you” towards a very specific individual.

And I made it very clear that I did not hear the comment. I have asked the member what he actually said. He has given us his feedback. In this House, we have to take members at their word, and so—

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, if I may—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I’m speaking. So as far as I’m concerned, that is the end of that. Fourth time lucky, Mr Webb.

Oh, and lucky—well, it’s not really lucky because this bill is an exercise in vanity. It’s wasteful and it’s unnecessary. The irony of this Government bringing a bill about good lawmaking principles and process when only last week they were rushing through—covertly—pay equity legislation which stripped hundreds of thousands of women of rights, of claims that were in process does not escape me. It’s absolutely shameful.

What does this bill say? What are the values that underpin this bill? What are the values that David Seymour wants to bake into our constitution as if it was the Public Finance Act? Property, individual rights, freedoms, equality, limited levies and taxation, costs and benefits. Just one thing: there is no cost-benefit analysis of this bill. The stupidity of a bill pitching for costs and benefits when it can’t prove its own cost or benefit is just outrageous.

That’s what the bill says. What doesn’t it say? What’s the bill silent on? What about our fundamental constitutional principles and values? Does it mention the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? No. Does it mention the Treaty of Waitangi? No. It’s entirely silent on whether a law with a good lawmaking process is consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Does it mention privacy? No. Does it mention discrimination against minorities? No. Does it mention international obligations? No. It is a cherry-picked right-wing neoliberal agenda that we have in front of us.

Then what do we have? David Seymour gets to pick a handful of his mates to be on the Regulatory Standards Board—a board that will consume $18 million a year for nothing; a little personal coterie of appointed clipboard-holding bureaucrats. To do what? To do nothing that isn’t already being done. We already have the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee, a committee which has a huge amount of detail as to what good lawmaking is. It provides much more balanced guidance than a few little principles of David Seymour’s.

Basically, what does the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee do? What does it say about appointing a board? Well, it says this about appointing a board: “A new public body should be created only if no existing body possesses the appropriate governance arrangements or is capable of properly performing necessary functions.” Do we need a statutory board to do this? That’s basically what it says. Don’t go making boards when you don’t need them. So once again, we’ve got a good principle there from the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee, but David Seymour says, “No, no, I want my own personal board. My board that’s actually, also, not even independent.” The legislation as it stands says that the board is accountable to David Seymour, appointed by the Minister for Regulation, and accountable to the Minister. It’s David Seymour’s little pet organisation. It is wasteful, it’s duplicative, it’s bureaucratic, it’s tainted with neoliberal ideology.

But here’s another thing. In clause 24 of the bill, it says this: “This Act does not confer a legal right or impose a legal obligation on any person that is enforceable in a court of law.” Do you know what that actually means? That means we’re spending all our time passing a law which isn’t a law. It doesn’t create any legal obligations. It is an utter waste of time. All it is an exercise in flag waving, and it’s a neoliberal little flag that’s being waved.

But probably the most offensive thing about this bill is not that it seeks to promote some of those neoliberal ideologies, but it’s the fact that it is yet again an attack on Māori. Once again, we have a founding constitutional document, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which sets out the partnership between Māori and the Crown. In this place, this lawmaking function is an exercise of the Crown’s powers. The idea that in doing it we shouldn’t turn and look and say, “Does this meet our obligations under the Treaty?” is absolutely shameful. As the Waitangi Tribunal has said, this should not proceed. A bill of this nature in this form should not proceed.

Of course, once again, it’s bad lawmaking. The legislation says consult with affected parties appropriately. Was there targeted consultation with Māori, with iwi, with urban authorities? No, there was not. What’s worse, the pre-introduction consultation that occurred, how did they read the submissions? With a bot—with a bot. I’m not talking about David Seymour; I’m talking about a genuine AI programme. They didn’t even read the 23,000 submissions. Why? Because they’re not interested. They’re not actually interested in the fact that over 90 percent of those people said, “This is a very bad idea, bad in so very many ways.” So they swept them aside and David Seymour had the temerity to say, “There were no really good ideas in there.” You know, he didn’t even read them. No one in the Ministry for Regulation read them. They ran them through a computer.

That is particularly shameful because he comes forward as if he’s some kind of defender of democracy. Yet when people actually want to participate in the democratic process, he’s not interested because if they don’t repeat his ideas, if they don’t reflect his values, then they’re left-wing crazies. Well, you know what? This is a bill which would increase the inequity in our society. It entrenches property rights as essentially the centrepiece of that Government. If you do that, you’re going to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Nowhere in there did I see anything about wellbeing, about social cohesion, about what the effects on our society would be, about equitable outcomes for everyone, about addressing the inequalities which exist in our society. Those are the principles that I bring to this House when I think about what good lawmaking is—not simply protecting property rights, not compensating people at every turn. Essentially, those rules—the idea that you can’t impair a property right—would have stopped us fencing swimming pools. You got to compensate them because that’s an impairment. You couldn’t require landlords to have healthy homes because it’s an impairment on a property right. This kind of, “Oh, don’t limit the free exchange of property.” is absolute bunkum. It is simply entrenching inequality that exists in our community already.

The idea that this is going to cost $18 million a year to administer when we already have the Attorney-General doing Attorney-General’s reports through the Crown Law Office, the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee—he’s already got his own pet ministry, which is supposed to be doing this work through regulatory impact statements and helping with departmental disclosure statements as well. There is a raft of effective tools out there already, but he doesn’t want to spend his time making sure that those are done. Of course, the irony is this: there are all those tools out there, but he doesn’t use them himself; his own legislation doesn’t use them.

Look at the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill and look at the poor regulatory impact statement there. Look at the poor process that was embarked on there. He can’t meet his own standards of good regulatory quality, so it is ridiculous. He says one thing and he does another. The bill is a waste of time, it’s duplicative, and it’s vain.

By his own admission, the Minister in charge of this bill, David Seymour, puts forward that this is a culture reset. What I have to say here today is this bill is not who we are as a country. When it comes to Te Tiriti, well, we saw the multitudes turn out here and around the country time and time again to say, “Toitū Te Tiriti.” When it comes to protecting Papatūānuku, our people across all corners of this beautiful country cherish her. When it comes to caring for each other, our people show up for each other when we see others doing it tough. It is these values of manaaki and justice and creating an Aotearoa that our mokopuna deserve that hold us together now and point to where else we need to go. We believe in public good. So the Green Party is strongly opposed to this Regulatory Standards Bill because it flies in the face of everything that is good and right on this whenua we call home.

Now, this bill is one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation that this House has seen. It seeks to destroy the very foundation of who we are. It seeks to remove Te Tiriti o Waitangi from lawmaking. This bill would penalise Governments by way of Government payouts if corporations’ property is impacted by any rules, including those designed to safeguard nature and people. It would put private property above protecting the environment or public safety or indigenous rights. And it is the ideological push of a minor party with a leader who we’ve just seen this morning is quite triggered by brown women in this House, with a PM unable to show true leadership against such a threat. Once again, we have a Prime Minister unable to uphold the fabric of our country. Once again, we have a Prime Minister neglecting his duty of care for the safety and wellbeing of the people and our living systems.

This guise behind this bill, the pretend rationale, is to improve lawmaking, which is, like this Government’s Budget, BS. This country already has a robust check in place for lawmaking. It has existed for decades and is considered, actually, one of the best checks in the world when it comes to non-partisan lawmaking that aligns with our founding values. It is dangerous for this Government to be overriding the non-partisan nature and the already well-established norms of good lawmaking through what is called the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee—LDAC. We have talked in this House already. We’ve got something. It has been working for a long time. We do not need this bill. It is not solving a problem. It is pushing an ideological culture reset, one that is not us.

Now, one could ask: how do we know what our country values when it comes to lawmaking? Well, history has seen this bill’s predecessors defeated three times already over the past couple of decades—defeated, because it was always clear to the masses that this bill rips apart who we are. It has failed every time so far because the legal consequences of this are nasty. This bill would put our country into a stranglehold—and I use the term purposefully, because this is legislative, constitutional, and political violence in favour of benefiting corporations and the uber-wealthy few.

What I’m trying to make clear here is that this bill has failed three times already because no one was careless enough to let it through. Elected representatives, time after time after time, were smart enough to stop it. To our Prime Minister, let me be clear: is this really the mould, the legacy, that our Prime Minister wants to leave? Finally, someone careless enough to let this bill through, a PM, who sought power at the cost of our nation’s constitutional heart. Wow. It is not too late for the PM to save his reputation from this. This scenario has the vibes and visions of countless leaders who were able to protect this Parliament from this sort of legislation until this current Prime Minister. There is still time. There is still time for him to stand against the evil of this legislation.

I am really proud, instead, that the Greens continue to offer the direction for where our country needs to be pointing, for upholding the very things that we value the most, that our people all across the country are very clear on. We care for each other; we care for mokopuna. We can have a different system that stops upholding the rights of the few. I’m proud of the Green Party for what we offer and for voting against the Regulatory Standards Bill. Thank you.

Very happy to support this first reading of the Regulatory Standards Bill and for it going off to the Finance and Expenditure Committee for submissions and for the scrutinisation of submissions. I just want to correct one thing, and the perception over here is it’s something that David Seymour’s come up with overnight and on the back of an envelope. But, as one of his previous press releases acknowledged, the long, long work put together goes right back to the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers. It goes right back to Dr Bryce Wilkinson’s book, which laid the groundwork constraining Government regulation. It goes right back to the Regulatory Responsibility Taskforce that refined this very bill back in 2009. It’s got a very long and considered history, and so I congratulate the Minister for Regulation. We look forward to the submissions, and I commend the first reading.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak also in support of the Regulatory Standards Bill at the first reading. As has been said, this is part of a process of reviewing regulation as it impacts—and we all know there are regulations that impact every aspect of our lives, every aspect of business. This is something that is an important process that has been a long time in the making and development, and we look forward to the process of the select committee and scrutinising the work that will be undertaken on this bill. Therefore, New Zealand First support the Regulatory Standards Bill. Thank you.

Kia ora. You would be not a fool to actually listen to the Minister for Regulation speak to this bill and think he was speaking to something else, because not once did he mention “Treaty”. And let me be really clear to our whānau out there: that was on purpose.

What we could be doing is spending my whole five minutes speaking to this side here; actually, I’m not going to. I’m going to remind ourselves what we’re going through. The Treaty principles bill tried to rewrite the Treaty principles. This bill is actually trying to replace them, but worse. Over here—I’m trying to learn not to point—we have a National-led Government that is going to support it. Luxon and National are happy to vote against the Treaty principles bill, but wait, whānau, they are in staunch support of this one. Why?—

Hon Casey Costello: Point of order. Madam Speaker, I’ll just raise the point that has been raised several times on the opposite side of the House: referring to a member of this House by their surname only is disrespectful.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Further, the member who recently resumed her seat also said that my earlier comments were deliberately intended to be targeted at Te Pāti Māori. I’ve told the House that they weren’t, and she’s got an obligation to take me at my word. Now, to accuse the Minister of misleading the House is disorderly, and she should withdraw and apologise, unless of course—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Thank you. No, that’s enough—that’s enough. That’s not relevant.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: Appreciate it, thank you. What we have here, whānau mā—because that’s who I’m talking to. Just to explain what we’re going through, we have National, again, Prime Minister Luxon, who has supported and will continue to support this bill. And the reason why: if you look through the whole 37 pages—which I encourage that you don’t—the silence on the impact for Te Tiriti is on purpose. The bill promotes equal treatment before the law, but it opens the door for Government to attack every Māori equity initiative. It weaponises future Governments to challenge Treaty-focused laws. It refers to individual rights over collective rights of tino rangatiratanga. It deliberately—deliberately—cuts through who we are as people.

And the reason why we need to be questioning the National Government—because remember they polled their absolute worst during the Treaty principles bill—is that we have, again, the denial, and I know they’ve been pulling that Trojan horse, but I actually think it’s sneakier. We’ve got a party that is setting out to make sure that they use this as part of the deregulation agenda to increase the corporate exploitation of Aotearoa. It is really simple. There’s nothing else to explain about this bill. What we have—and sadly—is a Prime Minister in a National-led Government who struggles to understand what Te Tiriti o Waitangi means, what the opportunities for Aotearoa’s future means, and in fact has relegated economic desperation and economic development reliant on taking Te Tiriti o Waitangi out of the game.

I think we need to also be saying to our people and remind them: whānau ma, how many times do we have to show them what we’re made of? Eight percent supported the Treaty principles bill—8 percent. There were 300,000-plus submitters. We actually broke the system. The computer systems that actually sit there and work around the select committees couldn’t handle the influx of us.

The Treaty principles bill was just a warm-up. Don’t get discouraged by what this is about. Remember the difference is we have a National Government, a National Party, a National-led Government, a Prime Minister that is supporting what ACT are saying, and we need to focus on that, whānau mā. When you get up there, and I know you’re so great at submissions, and you get our kōhanga mobilised, our kura mobilised, our marae mobilised, our communities mobilised, our rangatahi mobilised, our kaumātua mobilised, our tangata Tiriti mobilised, remember that this is a Government that is fighting against unions who are protecting women. They don’t have a problem with Te Tiriti. This is a Government that has taken off any type of tautoko for rangatahi—they don’t have a problem with Te Tiriti. This is a Government that is sitting there fighting non-Māori surfers trying to fight against seabed mining—they don’t have a problem with Te Tiriti.

What we have is a Government that has a problem with every other New Zealander that wants to live in peace, that lives in dignity, and lives with pride, because we are a Tiriti-centric nation unlike every other colonised country. The poor Islands has spent 700 years getting out of that whole regime, our Welsh whānau with their whole reo, our Scottish whānau. We are lucky because, as the last of the nations colonised, we have Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and it is not something that we will give up easily.

So whānau mā, you have a few months to mobilise and get ready to make sure that you understand what’s at risk here, and eyeball—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The Speaker is not.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: Sorry. Eyeball, through the Speaker, those National MPs in your backyard whose Government and whose leader is supporting this ridiculous, repugnant, revolting, anti-Tiriti, anti-Māori, anti-diversity Government.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired.

It’ll be great to actually talk about the bill. Some critics have attacked this as being an ideological scheme to shrink the Government. On this side of the House, we actually don’t think that’s a bad idea. We believe in less Government. Let’s take this to the select committee and see what we can do.

Well, there you go. That’s another example of how seriously National treats this Government—clearly intimidated by the leader of the ACT Party who runs the Government, as we all know. I did say some time ago that the leader of the ACT Party was the most dangerous politician in this country, and this bill is another example of that.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Can I get the member to refer to the bill.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Absolutely. Thank you for that reminder, Madam Speaker. But as the Minister for Regulation knows, this is all about the ACT philosophy. So I absolutely denounce this vile piece of legislation, support all the kōrero from the Māori Party and the Green Party and, of course, our main man on it, Duncan Webb—excellent. Absolutely—absolutely—on the mark.

The Regulatory Standards Bill represents a dangerous and threatening assault on the values of this country, opening up legislation, as everyone has pointed out, to corporate influence. Just in simple terms, those are David Seymour’s mates. It’s a fringe libertarian perspective that gives private ownership—as he well knows—a level of distorted supremacy to trump Māori values, Māori concerns, environmental concerns, and community concerns.

It’s really sad that the Minister goes down this track. He likes to refer to his Māori background, but no one in his Māori background wants to refer to him. They’re not interested in him at all but he loves to quote his Māori background as it suits him, even though they want to throw him out of the tribe.

The Waitangi Tribunal ruling that this extreme legislation should be immediately halted was born from the concern that it was so far-reaching in its power and so over the top in its agenda that there was every way that it was going to breach the Treaty. There’s been no meaningful interaction with Māori and no meaningful debate with the wider public. I don’t know why the Minister is scared to consult with Māori. Maybe he’s scared of the response; I would imagine that’s the case. No meaningful engagement with NGOs or academic critics.

The Regulatory Standards Bill is another bad-faith argument from Mr Seymour, just like the Treaty principles referendum bill was. This is “Treaty principles 2”.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I really enjoy Mr Jackson’s speeches, but to say that another member is motivated by fear or lacks courage or that they are arguing in bad faith—I believe both are out of order and not the kind of references that members should make in the House.

SPEAKER: I’m sorry, we were just in a changeover for the Chair at the time, so I didn’t entirely get all of that. But, Mr Jackson, you should refrain from referring to any member of the House in the terms that have been described by Mr Seymour.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh, thank you for that reminder, Mr Speaker. I know that Mr Seymour’s very sensitive so I will refrain from that.

Hon David Seymour: Well, no, I’m sorry, he’s trifling with you, Mr Speaker.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I will refrain from that, him being so sensitive about things.

SPEAKER: No, just stop there. That’s sort of like adding kind of a layer of insult, isn’t it?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: All right, I’ll just continue with my speech then.

SPEAKER: You know I’m a very tolerant man when it comes to you, Mr Jackson.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yes—yes. OK, thank you, Mr Speaker. What I was saying is this is “Treaty principles 2”—this is what our people are saying. This is what the brilliant Jane Kelsey said: there’s no real debate, there’s no good-faith engagement, just another trick for ACT to slip past the public before the public know what is happening. The tribunal’s urgent hearing on the impacts of the Regulatory Standards Bill on Treaty rights is so damning that the tribunal has ordered it must be stopped immediately as, as Mr Seymour knows, its creation would challenge the Treaty in a dreadful way. The tribunal found that the Crown has breached the Treaty principles of partnership and active protection by failing to meaningfully consult with Māori before Cabinet made decisions.

The Regulatory Standards Bill is really a David Seymour right-wing fantasy, as we all know. It will allow corporations to put their property rights ahead of our human rights; it would allow polluters to pollute no matter the environmental costs; it would allow the wealthy to dictate to the community; and it would allow corporate interests into the very heart of our democracy.

I just want to know why Mr Seymour hates working together with Māoridom in our own country, yet he falls over himself to allow corporations and their property rights inside Parliament. What the general public don’t know is that it’s going to cost $20 million. This is not a nation for corporate elites to dictate their property rights to us, the Parliament of the people.

New Zealand First should be ashamed of supporting this bill. I thought Winston Peters would oppose it—they support good law, but the Regulatory Standards Bill is another bad-faith law promoted for the few, not for the many, and New Zealanders will not accept this managing of our democratic values so private property rights are promoted over our common good. We are citizens, not clients.

Many New Zealanders have called for a regulatory responsibility law to help restrain the growth of unnecessary and poor-quality regulations, so let’s take it to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Let’s hear from the public. Let us scrutinise this bill. I support the first reading.

We have heard from the public on this bill. There was a consultation process at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—a huge number of submissions received, and 0.33 percent support of this bill. We have heard already from the public on this bill; there is virtually no support for it. Despite that overwhelming rejection, that Minister for Regulation has had the gall to bring it to this House and to demand that this House spends their time on it, when a mere 0.33 percent of submissions supported it. What an exercise in vanity.

Not only is it an exercise in vanity, ignoring what the public have already overwhelmingly said about this bill; the analysis says that it is simply not needed. Drafts of the bill, of the Cabinet paper, were circulated to other Government agencies, and let me read from the regulatory impact statement about what those other agencies said about the bill. It says: “The main themes from the departmental feedback included some broad support for the objectives of the proposal, but a general preference for these to be achieved in other ways, such as strengthening regulatory impact analysis requirements or Parliamentary mechanisms.” They said that this bill would just duplicate existing mechanisms. It was not going to add anything to what we do in this House, in this Government, around regulatory equality—yet another sign that this is just a vanity exercise.

Let’s look, then, at the content of the bill. Why are people rejecting it? Well, I tautoko what my colleagues have said around the Treaty of Waitangi and the extent to which Māori have simply been ignored in the drafting of this bill. It’s astonishing. This bill wants to set up a system so that there can be a voice to Parliament keeping a check on the regulations and on the reviews. We have that voice already; it’s called the Waitangi Tribunal. That’s what they do for us. And yet these people reject the Waitangi Tribunal, but they are a voice to Parliament checking us and keeping us in check in terms of how we deal with our country. We have that coming through in our regulatory impact statements and the Legislative Design and Advisory Committee. We have these voices already. There’s that kind of content in it.

But then there’s the underlying philosophy here. This is a bill which sees people only as individuals—just as individuals. There seems to be no notion of society, and it’s as individuals that we hold property and as individuals that we interact with the Government. But let me give an example. We have magnificent kahikatea trees on our property at home. They are wonderful trees. Kahikatea grow in swamps, and they have great, spreading roots that hold the tree in the ground. The great, spreading roots of our kahikatea trees, which we treasure; they are beautiful on our property, but they hold the hillside together for our neighbours as well. If we took those kahikatea trees out, the impact would not be just on us—and not just obviously on our flora and fauna, on the whole ecology around our home—but it would be on our neighbours, too. We are not mere individuals. We exist in a society. We have a complex web of relationships, and this bill ignores that complex web of relationships and treats us just as individuals. Think of the kahikatea tree and what it brings to us as a neighbourhood, as a community. That is the sort of analysis we need to have.

One final point. This bill talks about not unduly diminishing a person’s liberty. But what kind of liberty? Freedom from, or freedom to? It’s really important. Liberty is enabled by the things we do for each other—like a health system, like an education system. It is enabled by a welfare system which enables people to live with free choices. And it is a bit rich of that Government to talk about liberty when they have people in it who want to box people into narrow, little definitions of male and female, of women and men, when they will not allow people to be themselves, when they want to get Māori out of our Parliament, where they will not recognise the importance of Māori. This is a thin, attenuated version of society, and we should utterly reject it.

Most people would agree that regulation is important but that regulation often does more harm than good. One more important person, moral philosopher, quoted in the 1700s, Adam Smith: “The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce ought always to be listened to with great precaution and ought never to be adopted until having been long and carefully examined.” It is with that scepticism that we support this bill in the House, and my message to the public is clear: submit to the Finance and Expenditure Committee; I look forward to hearing your submissions. I commend this bill to the House.

I move, That the Regulatory Standards Bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.