ROGER PARTRIDGE: A Straightforward Guide to the Regulatory Standards Bill (And How Asking Ministers to Justify Laws Became a Neoliberal Conspiracy)

The Saturday Satire

Q: What is the Regulatory Standards Bill?

A: It’s a modest proposal requiring governments to explain the rationale for new laws and regulations, test them against time-honoured principles like rule of law and property rights, and disclose when they fall short. Or, if you prefer the popular version: it’s a neoliberal Trojan horse to strip-mine democracy and hand the keys of the state to the ghost of the “father of neoliberalism” (and Nobel prize-winning economist), Friedrich Hayek.

Q: What does the Bill actually do?

A: It creates a framework to encourage transparent, principled lawmaking. Ministers must certify whether proposed laws comply with basic principles, and if not, explain why. An independent Board can review old laws and issue non-binding reports. That’s it. No vetoes, no court challenges, no tanks on the lawn. What’s more, the principles themselves aren’t new. They already exist in the government’s own guidelines – the same ones routinely ignored when inconvenient. The Bill doesn’t constrain power. It just makes hypocrisy harder.

Q: But doesn’t it prioritise property rights over everything else?

A: Only if you consider centuries of legal precedent “ideological.” The Bill affirms that property should not be taken or impaired without justification and compensation – a radical idea already embedded in the law since the Magna Carta. Even then, like every other principle in the Bill, it’s advisory. Parliament remains free to ignore it – it just has to put it in writing and keep a straight face.

Q: Aren’t these principles new and dangerous?

A: They include such fringe concepts as “laws should be clear,” “individual liberty matters,” and “governments should explain themselves.” Revolutionary stuff. But only if you’ve recently emerged from the 14th century.

Q: But isn’t it really about shrinking the state?

A: No. It’s about making bad regulation harder to justify. If a future government wants to pass a dumb law that violates every principle in the Bill, it can still do so. It just has to tell the public, “We know this is a bad idea, and we’re doing it anyway.” Democracy, but with footnotes.

Q: Is it true this Bill was written to serve overseas corporate interests?

A: No. It was drafted in Wellington, not Davos. The core ideas have been public for two decades, developed by economists, lawyers, and former public servants – many of them from across the political spectrum. But because the Bill includes words like “liberty” and “property,” some critics see a plot to import foreign ideology. In reality, it reflects principles found in New Zealand’s own legal tradition – the Public Works Act, the Bill of Rights Act, and the Legislation Guidelines. If that’s foreign influence, it must have arrived by schooner.

Q: What about Māori rights and the Treaty?

A: Debates about the Treaty are important. But this isn’t one of them. The Regulatory Standards Bill doesn’t amend the Treaty, interpret it, or affect existing Treaty obligations. It doesn’t mention the Treaty because it doesn’t engage with it. The Waitangi Tribunal says the Crown should have consulted Māori and included Treaty considerations in the Bill’s design. But the Bill doesn’t set policy; it sets out a process – one that applies to all laws equally and transparently. A law that asks Ministers to explain themselves before legislating isn’t a threat to Māori rights. It’s a threat to opaque policymaking.

Q: Who decides if laws meet the Bill’s standards?

A: An expert Board appointed by the Minister for Regulation. It can review existing laws and issue public findings. These have no legal force. They can’t strike down laws. They can’t even fine anyone. Their job is to embarrass Ministers into lifting their game. Like the Auditor-General, but with fewer spreadsheets.

Q: Will this result in judicial activism or lawsuits?

A: No. Courts are explicitly kept out. The Bill does not create new rights or override Parliament. In fact, its designers bent over backwards to avoid “activist judge” allegations. It’s less an assault on judicial restraint than a reminder that we need more of it.

Q: Why are people so worked up?

A: Some are genuinely concerned without understanding why. Others are just distressed that anyone might ask governments to show their work before changing your rights. Transparency, to them, is authoritarianism in a three-piece suit.

Q: Could this really erode democracy?

A: Only in the sense that democracy becomes mildly inconvenient for ministers who don’t like explaining themselves. If anything, the Bill strengthens democratic accountability by making policy decisions more visible, contestable, and public. But it does so using legal words like “reasoned justification,” which – as we all know – is the gateway drug to neoliberalism.

Q: What have we learned?

A: That requiring governments to think before they regulate is now considered radical. That respecting property rights is a form of colonial violence, unless you’re being compensated for a zoning change. And that a non-binding report from a regulatory ombudsman is one small step for legal process, one giant leap toward corporate feudalism.

In short: the Bill changes nothing – except the expectation that Ministers think before they legislate. Apparently, that’s controversial.

Roger Partridge blogs at Plain Thinking