helen (@helen.systerserver.town.ap.brid.gy)

Seymour makes behind-closed-doors concessions on Regulatory Standards Bill The parliamentary committee tasked with scrutinising David Seymour’s controversial Regulatory Standards Bill has recommended owners only be compensated if they suffer “severe impairment” to their property at the hands of the state. Meanwhile, the committee – at the request of NZ First – called for members of the Regulatory Standards Board to be appointed by the Governor-General (rather than the minister) to increase independence. On Friday, Parliament’s finance and expenditure committee reported back to the House on the bill, with the majority of the committee recommending the legislation proceed. However, Labour and the Greens put forward differing views in opposition to the bill, and all three opposition parties voted against the law moving ahead. ## read more Politics ### Seymour makes behind-closed-doors concessions on Regulatory Standards Bill Politics ### Parliament’s law-making watchdog warns against Regulatory Standards Bill The departmental report prepared by the Ministry for Regulation and cited in the committee’s report revealed Parliament received 159,000 submissions on the bill, with 156,000 of those (or 98.7 percent) in opposition. The Government has argued the bill will improve the quality of lawmaking by testing it (in a non-binding way) against a set of core principles, including the rule of law, liberties, taking of property, taxes, fees and levies, the role of the courts, and good lawmaking. The bill will also establish a board to review laws for consistency with the principles, although its findings and recommendations would be non-binding. It will essentially seek to codify what the Act Party believed to be the principles of good lawmaking, with Seymour saying the new system would “finally ensure regulatory decisions are based on principles of good lawmaking and economic efficiency”. Now, one of those principles is set to be altered, with the committee recommending changes to the part of bill that says legislation should not take or impair property without the consent of the owner, unless there is good justification and fair compensation is provided. Instead, MPs said the so-called property takings principle should be changed to say fair compensation should be paid only when there is “severe impairment” of private property, as opposed to any impairment. Start your day informed. Make room for newsroom's top stories. Direct to your inbox daily. Join For Free This would likely be the most significant change to the law if supported by Parliament, although it was currently unclear how severity would be defined and when the Crown would need to pay “fair compensation”. These specifics of what constituted “severe impairment” would be clarified by guidance issued by the Minister for Regulation and Attorney-General. Work on that guidance was underway. The recommendation also came after the bill went back to the Cabinet table so the three coalition parties could hash out desired amendments while the select committee was still conducting its deliberations, as reported by Newsroom last month. In a differing view, the committee’s Labour MPs said they were “deeply concerned the Government is progressing this deeply flawed and ideologically driven bill” and raised issues with the property clause. Legislation that required the retrofitting of accessibility ramps to public-facing businesses like shops or cafes would be considered an “impairment” on the property rights of the business owners – but also an important step to ensure equitable access for disabled people, Labour said. While this type of legislation could still go ahead, it would fall foul of the Regulatory Standards Bill’s good lawmaking principles, which could ultimately result in a “chilling effect” that would discourage similar legislation from progressing. In written comments sent to Newsroom, Minister for Regulation David Seymour said the addition of ‘severe’ would allow trivial effects on property to be overlooked. This would make the bill easier to administer, and ensure declarations of impairment were taken seriously when they were made, he said. Meanwhile, NZ First also called for a change to the way Regulatory Standards Board members were appointed, to make the process more independent. The current bill says board members would be appointed by the minister for regulation, but the committee recommended changing the appointment (and removal) process to mirror appointments made to independent Crown entity boards – meaning appointments would be made by the Governor-General, at the recommendation of the minister. Seymour said this change, which was being made at the request of NZ First, would increase its independence and effectiveness. The committee also recommended that the law make clear that other principles, beyond those specifically outlined, could be considered when legislation was being made or reviewed. The committee also recommended changes to ensure there was clarity about which legislation would be exempt from the bill’s consistency assessment requirements – particularly all legislation that gave effect to a Treaty settlement, and any bill that recognised agreements under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. While the bill already permitted this, the recommendation could go some way to addressing – or at least acknowledging – concerns about the chosen set of core principles that would be defined as underpinning ‘good lawmaking’. In its submission, the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee described some of the bill’s principles as “novel and deeply contestable”, while other submitters criticised the absence of any reference to the Treaty of Waitangi. > _‘There are a host of reasons why this committee should recommend that this bill not pass. It is unworkable, ideological, and deeply flawed.’_ > > Labour MPs Further proposed technical changes included pulling all exempted legislation together into a single clause, and kicking off the establishment of the board and the start of the consistency assessments in the middle of next year, rather than starting some elements in January and others in July. The differing views put forward by Labour and the Greens were scathing in their assessment of the bill, criticising its substance, the chosen principles, the absence of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the time and cost it would take to implement the law, and the process undertaken to bring it before Parliament. “There are a host of reasons why this committee should recommend that this bill not pass. It is unworkable, ideological, and deeply flawed,” Labour MPs said. “While improving regulatory quality is an appropriate policy goal, this bill will not achieve the goal and may in fact have the opposite effect. “This is known to members of the National Party, but they have agreed that this bill be passed as part of their coalition agreements. The fact that the National Party is prepared to see such a poor piece of legislation enter the statute book is a poor reflection on it.” The Green Party said it would repeal the legislation and shut the Ministry for Regulation should it find itself in a position of power following next year’s election. “The Green Party opposes the Regulatory Standards Bill and the wider libertarian bureaucratic-industrial complex that underpins this effort.” Te Pāti Māori also opposed the bill, but did not put forward its own differing view in the committee report. In response to the number of submitters opposed to the bill, which was highlighted by both Labour and the Green Party in their differing views, Seymour said that figure was “dishonest and misleading”. “The submissions are not a survey, the percentage of opinions tell us nothing more than who was motivated by misleading online campaigns to make token submissions.” The law has courted controversy, with critics disagreeing with the list of fundamental values said to underpin good lawmaking. There have even been differences of opinion between coalition parties on the bill, with National and New Zealand First both expressing reservations, and Winston Peters previously describing it as a “work in progress”. Overall, Seymour said he was “very happy” with where the select committee had landed. And spoke positively about the changes put forward by his coalition partner. “The changes to the principles are net helpful, and the changes to how the Regulatory Standards Board is appointed, at the request of New Zealand First, will increase its independence and effectiveness.” The report and the suggested amendments will now be considered by the coalition Government before it comes back before the House for its second reading. The passing of the Regulatory Standards Bill is on the Government’s fourth quarter plan, meaning it is expected to pass before the end of the year and come into effect at the start of 2026. “If we’re going to be a prosperous country where people have ambition and confidence to invest in the future, we must lift our game on good lawmaking,” Seymour said. “The Regulatory Standards Bill is a serious commitment to making New Zealand a grown up country with a serious future, not somewhere where the whims of politicians can dash your future.” * _This article has been updated to include comments from Minister for Regulation David Seymour_ https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/09/05/seymour-makes-behind-closed-doors-concessions-on-regulatory-standards-bill/