Efforts to improve law-making face scrutiny over key omissions and rushed timelines
The New Zealand Law Society Te Kāhui Ture o Aotearoa has expressed significant reservations about the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB) in its formal submission to the Ministry for Regulation. The proposed legislation aims to enhance the quality of law-making and regulatory oversight in New Zealand. However, the Law Society believes the Bill falls short of its intended purpose, citing inadequate consultation, insufficient problem definition, and ineffective legislative content.
The Law Society criticised the timing and process of consultation, noting that it was conducted hastily over the Christmas and New Year period. They said this limited the opportunity for meaningful stakeholder engagement. Additionally, the Society argued that the discussion document lacks a clear definition of the problem it seeks to address and fails to adequately explore non-legislative solutions.
David Campbell, vice-president of the Law Society, remarked, “Good law-making is ultimately the outcome of a good electoral system, a good political culture, and the employment of a well-educated and properly resourced professional civil service. Each of these can be furthered without new legislation and it is not clear what legislation could or would contribute to achieving them.”
The Society highlighted concerns about the principles proposed in the Bill, which aim to codify regulatory standards. According to the submission, many of these principles restate existing legal norms and risk trivialising foundational democratic values. For instance, principles on the rule of law and personal liberties are seen as redundant, given their established presence in other frameworks such as the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
Furthermore, the Law Society questioned the practical utility of the proposed Regulatory Standards Board. It described the board as a “low-cost forum for relitigating policy battles” without the authority to deliver meaningful outcomes.
Another point of contention is the Bill’s omission of critical matters such as environmental concerns, New Zealand’s international obligations, and the Treaty of Waitangi. The Society views these omissions as a significant flaw, arguing that they undermine the Bill’s broader aspirations to set comprehensive regulatory standards.
The submission also addressed questions about regulatory quality and oversight mechanisms. While acknowledging that current regulatory arrangements could be improved, the Society maintained that legislative measures are not the answer. Instead, it advocated for institutional reforms, including better resourcing for agencies and departments.
The Law Society routinely consults Regulatory Impact Statements (RIS) and disclosure statements when assessing proposed regulations. While these tools are valuable, the Society noted that their quality is inconsistent, often due to time constraints and limited consultation during the policy-making process.
The Society urged the government to consider non-legislative alternatives. Strengthening existing processes, enhancing resources for regulatory agencies, and promoting adherence to established policy development guidelines were among the recommended approaches.
“The Law Society considers it is vital that non-legislative options are considered if work on this subject is to continue, and these options should not be excluded from the project’s scope,” the Society noted.
The Ministry for Regulation is expected to review submissions before deciding on the next steps for the Bill.