A group of prominent New Zealanders, including well-known academics and a former Prime Minister, have written an open letter calling for the Government to drop the controversial Regulatory Standards Bill being advanced by Act’s David Seymour.
The authors – including Dame Anne Salmond, Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Professor Jane Kelsey – have all previously been vocal in their opposition to the legislation and released the letter publicly today ahead of select committee hearings on the bill.
Seymour, the Regulations Minister, told the Herald he welcomed engagement on the bill, but believed debate had been “marred by misinformation and alarmist language”.
Act has shared social media posts in recent weeks accusing some critics – including Salmond – of “Regulatory Standards Derangement Syndrome”. This has led to claims the posts were inappropriate from a senior minister, though Seymour has rejected that.
He referenced that in his statement on Thursday, saying some people “respond with horror and indignation when someone bothers to fact-check their fabrications”.
“Fortunately, New Zealand is not governed by professors or former Prime Ministers, it is governed by Parliament, accountable to the people,” Seymour said.
“The bill’s critics are entitled to their views, but so are the thousands of small business owners, tradespeople, farmers and everyday citizens who want a regulatory system that is predictable, fair, and subject to checks and balances.”
The legislation would codify a set of principles that Seymour believes are a guide to “responsible regulation” and requires agencies to assess the consistency of legislation against these. Any findings, however, are non-binding and politicians can still pursue bills that don’t comply.
In their open letter today, the signatories say previous iterations of the bill – a project proposed by Act for years – have been rejected by Parliament as being “philosophically and legally unsound, profoundly undemocratic and contrary to Te Tiriti o Waitangi”.
While the current bill has similarities to previous versions supported by Act, it does have some differences.
For example, a 2021 iteration contains sections explicitly detailing how the courts could make declarations on legislation’s consistency with the principles. The new bill says the legislation does not impose any legal obligations enforceable in court, though some observers say judges may still take note of the principles.
The letter says Act has “sought to bypass rigorous parliamentary scrutiny by securing commitments from the National and New Zealand First parties to legislate the bill into law”.
The National-Act coalition document states: “Legislate to improve the quality of regulation, ensuring that regulatory decisions are based on principles of good law-making and economic efficiency, by passing the Regulatory Standards Act as soon as practicable.”
Such documents, and commitments to different policies, are a usual part of the formation of Governments under MMP, whereby two or more parties make agreements about what policies to pursue when working together.
The coalition documents publicly identify what policies the government parties have agreed to support, which makes it more politically difficult for parties to deviate from their commitments.
Seymour suggested the letter’s signatories “either do not understand the lawmaking process or are deliberately misleading the public about it”.
“The bill is going through a standard select committee process, with full public submissions and debate. Like all legislation, it’s subject to scrutiny and amendment. There’s nothing unusual about how it’s being handled.”
The academics also claim in their letter that the Government “ignored” much of the advice given to it through a public submission process over the summer.
As the Herald has previously reported, a summary of that feedback found 88% of submitters opposed the bill and just 0.33% supported or partially supported it.
Seymour said in May that this process was influenced by political social media campaigns that led to “totally off-topic” submissions. However, he added that changes were made following the feedback.
He reiterated this on Thursday, saying public consultation is “not a popularity contest” and what mattered was the “quality of submissions, not the volume of emails driven by advocacy campaigns”.
The letter argues that the Regulatory Standards Bill “could have profound constitutional consequences”.
“It establishes a set of principles as a benchmark for good legislation/regulation, many of which are highly questionable and designed to establish a presumption in favour of a libertarian view of the role of the state – one that ceased to have any currency globally more than a century ago.
“Te Tiriti o Waitangi has been excluded altogether. The power vested in the Minister for Regulation and a ministerial-appointed board is not subject to the normal accountabilities of Crown entities, conferring significant yet largely unaccountable authority on the executive.”
The proposed principles found in the bill include that it is important laws are “clear and accessible”, should “not unduly diminish a person’s liberty” and there should be reasonable consultation on bills.
There has been significant debate about some principles, particular those relating to private property rights. For example, the principles say legislation should not be taken or impaired without “good justification” or “fair compensation”.
Seymour has said he believes the principles reflected “good regulatory practice” and would bring “discipline” to regulation. He hadn’t heard a “compelling reason” why Te Tiriti should be included and believed the principles included would be beneficial to Māori.
The bill would set up a Regulatory Standards Board to assess different legislation’s consistency with the principles. However, this would only be able to make non-binding recommendations or findings of inconsistency.
The rest of the letter is focused on the upcoming select committee review of the bill, which will have 30 hours of public submissions, less than other controversial legislation such as Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill.
The signatories believe this “exposes the hypocrisy that this bill is about good governance, better laws, improved regulation, greater transparency and enhanced governmental accountability”.
However, the Act leader has previously told reporters he believed the bill was among the most consulted-on pieces of legislation this century, given there has been feedback on several different iterations over many years.
The letter says the signatories had “thought long and hard about whether to say we want to challenge this bill before the select committee, lest it give some credibility to a process that is devoid of legitimacy”.
“Some of us, such as Professor Dame Anne Salmond, 2013 New Zealander of the Year, and Professor Andrew Geddis, made written submissions, but feel there is no point in participating [in] such a harmful process.”
Others had indicated they wanted to appear before the committee “to reinforce their submissions”. According to the letter, Palmer was originally not invited to address the committee, but then subsequently offered an opportunity.
“All of us appeal to the National and New Zealand First parties to find their democratic voice and prevent this bill from proceeding past the select committee.”
Asked if National was committed to passing the bill in its current form, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon on Thursday said the legislation’s intention was to “make sure we pass better quality regulations and legislation”.
“Obviously the devil is in the detail with this bill. That is why it is going through the select committee process,” Luxon said.
“That is where we expect it to get a really good workover, in terms of understanding what other builds [sic] from the public and from experts and other political parties. We digest it once it’s gone through a select committee process.”
The letter’s signatories:
Jamie Ensor is a political reporter in the NZ Herald press gallery team based at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub press gallery office. In 2025, he was a finalist for Political Journalist of the Year at the Voyager Media Awards.