I wrote about the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill earlier this year. At the time, I expressed concern about the level of impassioned rhetoric surrounding the bill, hoping for a shift towards more reasoned debate. Regrettably, that shift has not occurred. Much of the current opposition stems from either a misunderstanding – or deliberate misrepresentation – of the bill’s purpose.
The bill has sparked a wide-ranging comment. Detractors claim it threatens treaty obligations, entrenches ideological bias, undermines public health and environmental protections and sidesteps democratic norms. These critiques have persisted as the bill progresses through Parliament.
But these claims misconstrue what the bill actually does. It does not set policy or outcomes. Rather, it proposes a principled framework for lawmaking, encouraging clarity, transparency and accountability. It applies equally to all laws. A process that requires ministers to explain their reasoning before legislating is not a danger to democracy – it is a safeguard against obscure and unchecked lawmaking.
One recurring critique is that the bill embeds Act Party ideology into the country’s constitutional structure, restricting future governments’ ability to pursue progressive agendas.
This is simply incorrect. The bill is advisory. Like the Bill of Rights Act or the Legislation Act, it does not bind Parliament. Legislative supremacy remains intact.
Others claim there was insufficient time for public consultation. The argument goes that a bill ostensibly promoting “good lawmaking” should not be rushed through select committee. But this line of attack is both political and misleading.
A public consultation on the proposals was conducted late last year. The bill was introduced on May 26, 2025, with submissions open until 1pm on June 23, 2025 – almost a month. Those genuinely wishing to participate had ample time to make or revise submissions.
A more substantive concern is the bill’s silence on the Treaty of Waitangi. This omission is worth noting. The principles of good lawmaking should include treaty considerations. The Regulatory Standards Bill framework clearly engages with governance (article 1) and legal equality (article 3).
It follows that a truly principled lawmaking process must be attuned to treaty obligations where relevant. Although the bill does not currently reference the treaty, its guiding principles ought naturally to incorporate such concerns if good lawmaking is the goal.
Ultimately, the bill establishes a structure for more disciplined legislative practice. It sets standards and evaluative tests for ensuring that new laws are necessary, proportionate and justifiable. Lawmaking should never be casual. Each statute, no matter how well-intentioned, limits liberty. Legislation, if excessive or poorly reasoned, risks becoming an instrument of repression rather than justice.
That is why I support the bill. It introduces a measure of restraint into the legislative process and reflects the values of classical liberalism: accountability, individual freedom and limited government. Critics have tried to paint the bill as a product of libertarian dogma. That is inaccurate – and rhetorically charged. For some, “liberty” is a suspect word, and those who speak in its favour are to be dismissed or vilified.
Commentators such as Dame Anne Salmond, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, Jane Kelsey, Melanie Nelson and Bryan Bruce have characterised the bill as a libertarian project. But what it represents is a classical liberal commitment to the rule of law and to principled governance. Laws are essential to society, but their formulation must be careful, not cavalier. Overreach and excess can lead to the erosion of freedoms.
The answer lies in process: in ensuring that those who make laws do so transparently, with due regard to rights, obligations and limits. It is through open scrutiny, democratic engagement and fidelity to principles such as justice and equality that we safeguard liberty within the lawmaking process.
David Harvey is a retired district court judge.
