Media release: Flawed principles, harmful impacts: Why the Regulatory Standards Bill must be rejected

Public policy and law experts are urging New Zealanders to oppose the Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB), warning that it would impose a narrow and ideologically driven benchmark for judging most laws that excludes key public values like health, wellbeing and environmental protection.

Emeritus Professor Jonathan Boston and co-authors argue that many of the proposed “principles of responsible regulation” in the RSB are open to serious legal, ethical, and administrative objections.

In the latest Public Health Communication Centre Briefing, they write that some of the principles are vague, and others are philosophically flawed. “Missing from the Bill are principles that have guided the development of modern welfare states, including improving public health and ensuring environmental sustainability,” says Prof Boston.

The Bill, currently before the Finance and Expenditure Committee, omits the long-established ‘public harm principle’, which allows governments to limit individual liberties to protect the public interest or promote the common good. “This means that government measures to protect the public interest, minimise public harm or safeguard the environment will be inconsistent with the proposed ‘benchmark for good legislation’.”

Furthermore, the authors point out that the RSB could have a chilling effect on public health measures by prioritising economic interests over population wellbeing. Its “takings or impairment” principle may open the door for commercial entities to seek compensation for laws that reduce profits or affect intellectual property, potentially discouraging policies such as denicotinisation of cigarettes, sugar taxes, or clean air regulations.

Prof Boston says the RSB aims to ensure virtually all legislation is tested against a highly specific template that disregards the principles and articles of te Tiriti o Waitangi, ignores Māori rights and interests, and discounts most of the core values underpinning modern welfare states. “In effect, the RSB seeks to create an anti-Treaty and anti-welfare state quasi-constitution.” 

“If the RSB is implemented in its current form, it risks undermining public health and critical environmental values, such as ecological integrity, biodiversity and prudent stewardship,” says Prof Boston. “Indeed, this appears to be the Bill’s intention. It is hard to conclude otherwise.”