New Zealand’s Epstein Files

The Foreign Influence Behind New Zealand’s Regulatory Standards Bill

New Zealand’s controversial Regulatory Standards Bill 2025 (RSB) may look like a technical fix – a tidy set of principles to improve lawmaking, and this is largely how its proponents have described it. But documents released under the Official Information Act (OIA) uncover a more complex reality: the Bill is the product of a decades-long project to reshape New Zealand’s legal foundations, using regulation itself as the battleground.

At its core is a radical theory from American legal scholar Richard Epstein – a leading figure in libertarian circles – who argues that most government regulation should be treated as a violation of private property rights.

This idea, known as "regulatory takings," reimagines public-interest law as a form of harm – and a potential source of profit and a rent-seeking opportunity for those with the means to challenge it.

Documents obtained under the OIA by Dr Ryan Ward, and other documents now in the public arena, show how Epstein’s theories were promoted inside government through sustained lobbying by economist Bryce Wilkinson, a long-time associate of Epstein and a senior figure at the New Zealand Initiative.

Far from being rebuffed, Wilkinson’s influence was often invited – including by officials at the newly established Ministry for Regulation, who sought his input on recruitment and the design of the RSB. Wilkinson also sent officials unsolicited reading material that promoted Epstein’s views.

If enacted, the RSB would make New Zealand the first country in the world to embed Epstein’s untested doctrine into domestic law. It could mark a fundamental shift in the role of government: one that treats regulation as a liability to be minimised or compensated, not a tool to serve the public good.

What is presented as a neutral framework is, in fact, a sharp reorientation of how the state governs.

A Global First: Embedding Regulatory Takings in Domestic Law

The OIA documents show that Richard Epstein’s fringe economic ideas on regulation and “regulatory takings” were repeatedly conveyed to senior government officials by Wilkinson. The released communications reveal sustained lobbying and privileged access to senior officials.

Wilkinson was the architect in 2001 of the Regulatory Responsibility Bill – the forerunner to the current RSB. His contribution to laying the groundwork for the RSB was publicly acknowledged by David Seymour. Epstein has previously described Wilkinson as “a long term friend”.

The connection between the RSB and Epstein’s legal theory was made explicit in 2009 by Business Roundtable head Roger Kerr in an interview with RNZ, where he noted that Wilkinson was on the taskforce exploring “the idea of a Regulatory Responsibility Act which harks back to some of the ideas we were talking about associated with Richard Epstein.”

The RSB 2025, as introduced to Parliament, reflects many of the ideas promoted by Epstein’s work – and marks a new phase in the ongoing ideological New Zealand experiment. Previously, New Zealand has gone further than almost any other country in embracing neoliberal economic reform during the 1980s and 1990s.

But these reforms were not simply homegrown ideas – they were imported, shaped in the United States by institutions such as the Chicago School of Economics and eventually further promoted by New Zealand Business Roundtable after their establishment.

If the RSB is passed in its current form, New Zealand would become the first country in the world to enshrine Epstein’s novel concept of "regulatory takings" into domestic law. While related provisions have appeared in some free trade agreements, and weaker interpretations in U.S. jurisprudence, this would be an unprecedented move globally.

Epstein has openly explained that his takings theory is designed to scale back the role of modern government. By creating an expectation of compensation whenever regulation affects private property, the framework makes public-interest regulation much harder – and potentially prohibitively expensive – to enact.

This shift undermines areas like environmental protection, te Tiriti, urban planning, labour law, equity measures, public services, and social policy.

Why New Zealand? A Testbed for Property Absolutism

Epstein viewed New Zealand as having a lack of formal constitutional protections for property rights and saw this as an opportunity.

In a 1999 address, published by the New Zealand Business Roundtable, he noted that unlike the United States, New Zealand places “all legal power in the hands of the sovereign”. While this leaves much power with the legislature, it also makes it easier for Parliament to enact “regulatory takings” laws without facing constitutional hurdles.

This legal flexibility has enabled advocates to revive Epstein’s ideas through legislation – first through the Bill which Wilkinson drafted for the Business Roundtable in 2001, the three introductions and rejections by Parliament of the Regulatory Responsibility Bill and Regulatory Standards Bill, and now through the RSB 2025.

It is effectively a live trial of embedding property-rights absolutism into statutory law. David Seymour acknowledged this was a unique approach globally in a Q&A at the Adam Smith Institute during his recent visit to the UK in June.

Epstein argues that even modest interferences with property rights should be considered takings unless clearly consented to or compensated. Property is undefined in the RSB, as per Epstein’s preference, to give it the broadest possible reach.

Epstein himself asserts his approach could invalidate substantial swaths of 19th- and 20th-century regulatory law. His “regulatory takings” doctrine has been widely criticised for reframing regulation as a form of state overreach – and an opportunity for profit.

Regulation: A New Frontier for Profit?

One of the most controversial aspects of Epstein’s approach is its potential to convert regulation into a source of speculative income. Under his doctrine, any government action that constrains private property rights – whether over land, resources, business, intellectual property, leases, licences or contracts – could create the expectation that compensation should be paid.

“Regulatory takings compensation” potentially applies both to constraints on existing investments and to restrictions on future use or development. This incentivises government avoidance of regulation and encourages corporate rent-seeking when public-good regulation is created.

It also creates a risk that speculative investments are made in areas which are likely to be subject to new or stronger regulation in future, meaning that compensation may be payable when regulation is put in place.

This was demonstrated by the current government’s consideration of whether it should compensate the owners of cryptocurrency ATMs, which they plan to ban.

Through the regulatory takings doctrine, public-interest governance is reimagined as a punitive financial burden for the state and a potential income stream for private actors.

Embedding Epstein’s Theory: From Informal Catch-Ups to Formal Policy

OIA documents reveal that from early 2024 to mid-2025, Wilkinson maintained regular contact with senior Ministry for Regulation figures, including Chief Executive Gráinne Moss, staff at the Public Service Commission (PSC), and those overseeing key appointments.

In his communications with the Ministry for Regulation, Wilkinson referred to Epstein’s work as “the literature” and “the bible” on regulation, and promoted it as core reading for staff and candidates.

Cover of document retrieved from https://www.nzinitiative.org.nz/reports-and-media/reports/towards-a-regulatory-constitution/

He circulated a suite of Epstein’s writings – including Towards a Regulatory Constitution, Property Rights and Takings, and Human Rights and Anti-discrimination Legislation (in which Epstein argues that human rights and anti-discrimination legislation should be repealed or significantly rolled back) and various other monographs and summaries – among Ministry officials. He urged that staff be familiar with these texts.

Wilkinson participated in multiple formal meetings and informal “catch-ups” with both Ministry and PSC officials. In one email, he writes “as the three of us know,” implying a shared understanding or ideological alignment with senior officials. The familiarity of tone suggests not just access – but influence rooted in shared convictions.

He engaged with Ministry officials to directly influence the RSB’s structure, and argued that regulatory principles should be expressed without exceptions or qualifications, stating that “qualifications weaken principles.”

This reflects Epstein’s view that the definition of “property” should not be narrowly confined by statute, and instead interpreted expansively by courts. Wilkinson also pushed for a presumption of compensation for regulatory takings – unless Parliament explicitly excluded it – mirroring Epstein’s legal logic.

Wilkinson’s language closely reflects Epstein’s approach, which flips the legal norm: if this presumption was implemented, rather than requiring affected parties to prove harm, the state would have to defend not providing compensation when regulating.

A December 2023 text exchange between Wilkinson and David Seymour, the ACT Party leader and Minister for Regulation, shows Wilkinson asking whether it was “safe enough” to send an email about the RSB:

“Any chance of a chat on the Regulatory Standards Bill this week – or is it safe enough for me to email you?”

The message suggests a conscious awareness of the sensitivity – and perhaps secrecy – surrounding his involvement in the Bill’s development.

Decades in the Making: Epstein’s New Zealand Legacy

Between 1990 and 2004, Epstein visited New Zealand at least four times, delivering more than 30 lectures organised and sponsored by the New Zealand Business Roundtable.

After each visit, the Roundtable published monographs and essays based on his lectures. Another publication – A Property Rights Primer – featured an introduction by Epstein. It aimed to strengthen the role of property rights in New Zealand public policy.

Wilkinson’s own 2001 monograph, published by the Business Roundtable, Constraining Government Regulation – which underpins the RSB and included the first iteration of the Bill as an appendix – draws heavily upon Epstein’s ideas, particularly his arguments for compensation and limited government intervention.

Epstein has long been associated with major American neoliberal think tanks, including:

• Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution since 2000

• Visiting Scholar at the Manhattan Institute

• Regular contributor to Cato Institute publications since the 1980s.

An Experiment Without Consent

The RSB imports a radical legal theory into New Zealand law – without transparent public debate, a mandate, or constitutional checks. Public consultation occurred over the summer holiday period, without even the draft law available for review.

The Bill was not a central feature of the election campaign, yet with just 8% of voters supporting ACT, a commitment to pass a Regulatory Standards Act was written into the coalition agreement.

Despite the current Bill not having been drafted at the time of negotiations, ACT asserts that the coalition agreement was to pass the RSB exactly as they desire. New Zealand First, however, has noted that there are caveats on this in the coalition agreement, around good governance [law-making] and economic efficiency. National has also said that they expect to see changes to the Bill through the select committee process.

The RSB 2025 was introduced to Parliament under urgency, and the select committee period was subsequently shortened. Approximately 157,000 submissions were made to the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee on the RSB, with a reported 98.7% opposed. The select committee is expected to report back on 23 September.

The Bill’s process and content have been strongly criticised by legal and policy experts. The Legislation Design and Advisory Committee noted that the Bill does not meet established standards for good lawmaking. The Ministry for Regulation itself and the New Zealand Law Society have also raised serious concerns. None of these bodies are partisan – and yet the Minister for Regulation, David Seymour, has dismissed their advice.

The OIA documents, together with an examination of Epstein’s writing, reveal that what is presented as a neutral framework of principles is in fact a project designed to elevate private property rights above the public good. This project reflects a longstanding goal of some business interests to constrain government regulation that impacts profits.

The RSB removes regulatory burdens from private actors, placing the cost on the public and reinforcing the power of those already economically dominant. It would embed a narrow legal view of property rights as the fundamental barometer by which existing and future laws and regulation would be measured.

The impact on government policy and public opinion in New Zealand could be far-reaching. Although governments may formally choose to not adhere to it, the Bill’s layers of soft power amount to an attempt to redefine how regulation is conceived and assessed – laying the groundwork for binding legislation of this kind to become politically acceptable in the future.

Epstein himself has expressed that embedding ideas through norms, language, and expectations can prove more effective than immediate legal enforceability.

The question is no longer whether Epstein’s radical ideas are gaining traction – but whether they are being quietly written into the foundations of our law.