1. The Bill provides undue influence for David Seymour’s libertarian/neo-liberal ideology, while his party only gained 8.64% support at the last general election.
In our view, the Bill makes an undemocratic attempt by a minority political party, and its allies in the current government, to define New Zealand lawmaking and regulation in terms of their own political preferences. This creates fundamental investment uncertainty for businesses, particularly those in export sectors competing in global markets that increasingly demand sustainable practices.
New Zealand’s MMP system is intended to ensure the fullest possible representation of all political outlooks within the nation. The Act Party, which is driving this Bill and the accompanying Ministry, is a minority party and is only in power due to that system.
One political grouping’s views should not be used to attempt to frame how our legislative process works. But political bias is acutely evident in many areas of the Bill.
Consider the “Taxes, fees and levies” section. Essentially, this section proposes means of cementing economic inequality in this country by arbitrarily reducing taxation and levies. It seems specifically designed to restrict any form of wealth redistribution, welfare spending, or the use of taxation or regulation to promote positive social behaviour. This conflicts with international market requirements. Major supply chains and investors now require ESG compliance, and tools like carbon pricing help New Zealand businesses meet these international standards.
For example, under these principles it would presumably be seen as by definition “bad law making” to create a capital gains tax on multiple home owners, when this is actually a matter of political debate. This, of course, is the declared position of the Act Party and to some extent the current government proposing this Bill. It’s not a view shared by other political parties, or the hundreds of thousands of Kiwis who vote for them.
Given the approach taken in the rest of the Bill and elsewhere by its authors, the idea that “Unnecessary regulatory burdens and undue compliance costs should be eliminated or minimised” also creates cause for concern.
Among the many things the current government considers “unnecessary regulatory burdens” are:
- banning the addictive and harmful sale of tobacco – protects worker health and reduces healthcare costs for employers and for future generations
- banning deep sea oil drilling, which protects our ‘clean green’ export brand worth billions to our economy – and fundamentally the wrong move in times of a climate crisis
- taxing high emissions vehicles to support the necessary transition to electric vehicles, which help commercial fleets transition to meet the international sustainability requirements for export
- continuing to exclude agriculture, the nation’s largest greenhouse gas emissions generator, from its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)
Such contentions with our physical reality should not be enshrined in law, let alone be framed as the only acceptable way to make such laws.
This regulatory uncertainty directly impacts business confidence and long-term investment decisions, particularly for infrastructure and sustainability transitions that require decades-long planning horizons.
One political grouping’s “unnecessary regulatory burden” is another’s “safeguard for society”. Parliament as a whole is the place where that should be decided.
Parties with different and even opposing views on legislation and regulation have recently and frequently been in government in this country.
This, critically for businesses working on sustainability, means that if passed this Bill is highly likely to be subject to immediate repeal by subsequent governments of a different political hue.
This negates its stated purpose: to stabilise and improve regulatory standards for the long term by needlessly introducing new regulatory uncertainty. This can only increase the challenges faced by businesses wishing to pioneer on sustainability. It undermines their ability to effectively forecast and plan for the regulatory and policy settings they need to operate within.
This should be enough to suggest redrafting at least the ideological aspects of this Bill to better reflect our vibrant democracy.
2. The Bill, as drafted, is likely to lead to parallel and duplicate processes between parliament and the proposed Regulatory Standards Board.
The proposed Board and accompanying Ministry will presumably be granted sufficient resources and statutory instruments to at least materially affect legislation development.
We agree with the Regulatory Impact Statement that this would be: “likely to impact on the respective balance of powers between Parliament and the judiciary, invite a level of judicial interference which may seek to undermine Parliamentary supremacy in passing legislation, and introduce significant ambiguity in New Zealand’s legal and constitutional landscape.”
That ambiguity is already evident in the Bill’s drafting.
The Discussion Document states that the Board’s decisions and responses to complaints will be “nonbinding recommendations independent of Ministers and agencies”.
However, the Bill also seeks to place undue influence in the hands of the Minister: “The proposed approach would therefore enable the Minister for Regulation to determine which types of regulation are required to comply with consistency requirements.”
The Minister for Regulation is, conveniently, David Seymour, the proposer of this Bill and the holder of the political views it so plainly seeks to enshrine in New Zealand law.
This creates a regulatory environment where business compliance requirements could change based on political preferences rather than evidence-based policy or international best practice.
As such, the entire Bill proposes a vastly elaborate, expensive and probably temporary vehicle for the Minister of Regulation to publicly pursue political points based on his own ideology and personal views about how law should be made in this country. This is doubly ironic, considering his stated aim to cut unnecessary government spending and bureaucracy.
This constitutional ambiguity creates direct business risks. Companies cannot predict which regulatory standards will apply to their operations, undermining long-term business planning and investment decisions.
3. The political view informing the Bill includes an undue, almost myopic, emphasis on one view of the economy’s role in a democratic nation.
This tends to conflate the entire nation with that economy, or with a commercial venture, as if they were one and the same.
This narrow view ignores that New Zealand's export success increasingly depends on our ‘clean, green’ brand and ability to meet international sustainability standards. Our most successful businesses consistently report that environmental and social standards help them access premium export markets, attract international investment and drive innovation.
Exporting businesses understand that their economic success depends on environmental and social sustainability. Clear regulatory frameworks create level playing fields that drive innovation and competitive advantage rather than imposing costs. Investing in business improvement is just that: an investment.
For example, the Minister’s foreword begins:
“Most of New Zealand's problems can be traced to poor productivity, and poor productivity can be traced to poor regulations.”
This is an extremely narrow assessment of the “problems” faced by a relatively small, post-colonial nation in the remote Pacific in the meta-crisis of climate change, pollution, biodiversity loss and global resource depletion. It suggests a studied or deliberate ignorance of an enormous range of other factors. It betrays an attempt to pre-empt and narrow debate and consideration of the issues we face.
4. The Bill deliberately ignores and seeks to undermine Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Treaty of Waitangi.
This betrays the ideological desire of its authors to at best downplay and at worst ignore these commitments and obligations. This omission alone should disqualify the Bill from further consideration if left unaddressed.
This is also implicit in the proposed Legislative Design Principles that:
- “the law should not adversely affect rights and liberties, or impose obligations, retrospectively”
- “every person is equal before the law”
And the accompanying similar statements on “Liberties” and “Taking of Property”.
This also represents a significant business risk. Many of New Zealand's most successful export businesses have found that Māori partnerships and tikanga Māori principles provide unique market positioning and innovation opportunities, which international customers increasingly value. Those market opportunities continue to grow.
The same Minister, David Seymour, put forward The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill. That made an even more blatant attempt to ignore the realities of Aotearoa New Zealand’s colonial history and its subsequent commitments and obligations.
With that in mind, it seems likely that these “principles” are actually a further thinly veiled, but highly specific, attempt to find ways to restrict redress for the Crown’s repeated breaches of its Tiriti/Treaty obligations to Māori, especially with regard to land rights. We know this ideological approach risks damaging Aotearoa New Zealand's unique cultural value, which provides competitive advantages in global markets and offers solutions, new business models and practices that the world is looking for.
Our recommendations
Robust regulatory standards can be a powerful driver of positive change, enabling and supporting business sustainability while contributing to the greater good.
Our network of 400+ businesses consistently reports that appropriate regulations help them access premium international markets, attract investment, drive innovation, and manage long-term risks. We’ve worked with businesses on sustainability for more than two decades. We know that appropriate regulations and policies can assist them to integrate environmental and climate stability into their operations.
A clear and consistent regulatory framework will encourage businesses to innovate and invest in sustainability as a long-term business strategy. This will make protecting and restoring environmental health not just an obligation, but a driver of competitive advantage and innovation.
Businesses adapt their strategies and operations to align with the regulatory frameworks of the day. It’s essential that they offer a clear, future-focused vision. They must carefully integrate community benefits, climate action and environmental health. This is what encourages businesses to think and act differently.
To be effective, regulations and regulatory processes should be consistent, strategic, transparent, proportionate, based on evidence and maintained and updated as needed.
Regulations must also ensure they benefit all. Not just a small number of vested interests, but the wider community, including iwi/hapū.
This means that any proposed regulatory standards must properly align private sector goals with public interests and international market requirements that increasingly demand Environmental Social and Governance compliance.
This would include reference to:
1. Good-faith consultation
Regulatory standards must explicitly encourage meaningful consultation with all stakeholders, from communities to environmental groups to Māori. This approach will help businesses incorporate diverse perspectives into their operations and decision-making processes, and align them with the broader social and environmental objectives of their communities. It strengthens their market positioning and reduces operational risks, ensuring regulations are practical, implementable and consistently enable investment.
2. Evidence-based decision-making and the Precautionary Principle
Businesses working on sustainability seek to align with regulatory frameworks that prioritise precautionary approaches to technological development. Importantly, they need regulatory frameworks that support long-term investment decisions through precautionary approaches that align with international investor expectations. This means incentivising them to develop resilient, forward-thinking, long-term solutions.
Adopting such an approach will encourage innovators to take proactive measures to mitigate risks and reduce potential harm.
It will:
- foster a vibrant culture of responsible innovation with the potential for global success
- enable businesses to build long-term resilience, reduce environmental risks, and seize new opportunities for growth-responsible innovation with global export potential
- align with the risk management approaches international investors expect
3. Honouring tikanga Māori and Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a core national value and intergenerational asset
In Aotearoa New Zealand, recognition of the importance of tikanga Māori and Te Tiriti o Waitangi is spurring uniquely culturally-informed sustainable innovations in both local and global markets.
This should be explicitly encouraged in any proposed regulatory standards.
This includes:
- encouraging partnership with Māori communities
- ensuring Māori values are respected in both policy and practice
- enabling businesses to foster long-term, mutually beneficial relationships with Māori, driving both innovation and cultural sustainability
- enabling businesses to access markets that value indigenous partnership (including those with a growing interest in nature-based business solutions)
- providing authentic sustainability credentials that command premium prices and offer better business models for global adoption
4. A Parliamentary Commissioner for regulatory oversight, not a Minister
We support the Environmental Defence Society’s recommendation for an independent Parliamentary Commissioner.
This will:
- offer businesses the assurance that regulatory oversight is fair, transparent and impartial
- allow businesses to plan with confidence, knowing that their operations will be held to consistent, fair standards
- create an environment where businesses can rely on a trusted body to resolve disputes and navigate complex regulatory environments
A Parliamentary Commissioner would play an essential role in overseeing regulatory frameworks that promote innovation and responsible business practices. By ensuring impartial oversight, businesses can focus on long-term goals without the fear of unpredictable or biased regulatory interventions. This would allow them to plan with certainty and confidence in their sustainability efforts.
Conclusion
The current Bill is fatally flawed by niche political ideology. It should be redrafted or abandoned.
Instead, the government should provide businesses with confidence that regulatory oversight is fair, transparent and consistent across political cycles, enabling long-term planning and major infrastructure investments.
SBN supports the development of a clear and robust regulatory framework, provided it:
- aligns with international and local climate, resource efficiency and environmental obligations and protections
- aligns with long-term aspirations for community well-being, climate action and environmental health
- incorporates principles such as aligning private and public interests, promoting evidence-based decision-making, and respecting tikanga and Te Tiriti o Waitangi
- includes clear guidelines in good-faith consultation, and has independent oversight beyond the government of the day