Reading Between the Lines: RSB First Reading

Coalition Endorsement Without Conviction

The Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB) had its first reading in Parliament yesterday. It was strongly opposed by all opposition parties but passed by the coalition and referred to the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee. Despite voting in favour, National and NZ First gave no clear indication of genuine support to the government bill. Their backing appeared transactional — simply honouring the coalition agreement with the ACT Party rather than endorsing the bill’s content. The select committee process is now the key opportunity for the public to demonstrate that this is not a bill the other coalition parties can continue to support.

A Surge of Submissions — and a Tribunal Warning

While the timeframe for submissions has not yet been announced, the select committee is due to report back by 22 November. Public interest is expected to be high. Earlier agency consultation — which was poorly publicised and ran over the summer shutdown — attracted nearly 23,000 submissions. Awareness has grown further following the Waitangi Tribunal’s recent urgent inquiry, which recommended the bill be halted to allow targeted consultation with Māori. The Government disregarded this recommendation and introduced the bill immediately afterward. This is likely to further increase public awareness and opposition to the deeply unpopular bill which David Seymour’s own Ministry for Regulation states garnered a mere 0.33% support in the initial consultation period.

National and NZ First: Quiet Voices, Careful Distance

Notably absent from yesterday’s debate was any explicit support from National or NZ First for the bill’s content. There was an outward show of support as they spoke in favour of it proceeding to select committee, but their remarks were limited and procedural. They did not use their full allotted speaking time, and across five MPs from both parties, fewer than 500 words were spoken.

According to a recent Newsroom report, both National and NZ First want changes to the bill as it progresses through Parliament — though what those changes might be remains unclear. Even David Seymour, the bill’s sponsor, appeared unaware of the specifics and surprised by the development.

These short, minimal speeches may reflect unease or deliberate distancing. National and NZ First may be fulfilling their coalition obligations — which include passing a Regulatory Standards Act “as soon as practicable” — while quietly questioning whether ACT’s version of the bill aligns with their values or electoral interests.

Vague Support, Healthy Scepticism

First reading speeches typically set out a bill’s rationale, benefits, and alignment with the government’s vision. David Seymour, of course, presented his views on this. However, National and NZ First offered no such framing. Instead, they relied on vague, procedural language that suggested the bill is tentative and open to challenge, rather than a proud government initiative.

Casey Costello (NZ First) stated:

“This is something that is an important process that has been a long time in the making and development, and we look forward to the process of the select committee and scrutinising the work that will be undertaken on this bill.”

Nancy Lu (National) gave a particularly brief speech, quoted here in its entirety:

“Many New Zealanders have called for a regulatory responsibility law to help restrain the growth of unnecessary and poor quality regulations, so let's take it to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Let's hear from the public. Let us scrutinise this bill. I support the first reading.”

Dan Bidois (National) ambiguously quoted Adam Smith – an economist which neoliberalism has adopted as a supposed forefather – on legislative caution before concluding:

“It is with that scepticism that we support this bill in the House, and my message to the public is clear: submit to the Finance and Expenditure Committee; I look forward to hearing your submissions.”

MPs from both parties also made a point of attributing the bill to ACT, despite it being introduced as a government bill. This positioning leaves them room to later shift their stance — by seeking amendments or eventually walking away if the bill proves too divisive or impractical.

Room for Redefinition

They have flexibility to do so. The coalition agreement provides no detail on the content of the Regulatory Standards Act, only to “legislate to improve the quality of regulation, ensuring that regulatory decisions are based on principles of good law-making and economic efficiency, by passing the Regulatory Standards Act as soon as practicable.” Those terms are open to interpretation. “Good law-making” is of course a subjective concept, which David Seymour is attempting to redefine based on his ideology. There is no requirement in the coalition agreement for the RSB to adopt ACT’s narrow set of libertarian principles. A Regulatory Standards Act grounded in the broader, more inclusive Legislation Guidelines — for example — would still fulfil the coalition’s commitment.

If the bill meets strong resistance through select committee submissions, this early distancing may signal that it is positioned to be diluted, delayed, or even quietly dropped under public pressure.

Opposition Speaks Out — and Speaks at Length

In contrast to the government parties, opposition MPs used their full speaking time — delivering around 4,000 words across five speeches — and strongly rejected the bill.

Labour’s Duncan Webb called it a “cherry-picked right-wing neoliberal agenda,” criticising the lack of consultation with Māori and the absence of Treaty considerations in the proposed new lawmaking process. He described the proposed Regulatory Standards Board as “David Seymour’s little pet organisation,” pointing out that it would be appointed by — and accountable to — the Minister for Regulation. He labelled the board wasteful, duplicative, and bureaucratic.

Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson declared the bill “one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation the House has seen,” arguing that New Zealand already has one of the best non-partisan mechanisms for lawmaking in the world: the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee (LDAC). She warned that the bill undermines this established system and threatens to politicise law design, by adopting such a party-political set of guiding principles.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer (Te Pāti Māori) addressed her speech directly to whānau around the country, focusing on the bill’s potential to erode Māori equity initiatives and enable future governments to challenge Treaty-based laws. She warned that it “deliberately cuts through who we are as people,” and called for public submissions, saying the Treaty principles bill was only the warm-up.

Labour’s Willie Jackson dismissed the bill as “a David Seymour right-wing fantasy,” saying it would prioritise corporate property rights over human rights, enable polluters, and give the wealthy undue influence over public life.

Deborah Russell (Labour) criticised the bill’s focus on individualism and its neglect of society’s interdependent nature. On the bill’s reference to liberty, she asked:

“What kind of liberty? Freedom from, or freedom to? Liberty is enabled by the things we do for each other — like a health system, like an education system. It is enabled by a welfare system which enables people to live with free choices.”

The Public's Turn to Speak

While Labour, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori voiced strong opposition, they will need to continue improving how they explain the bill’s wide-reaching implications to the public. It would be easy for the public to mistake the RSB as primarily a Treaty issue, and not realise how it affects every person in this country. While it is indeed a serious threat to te Tiriti o Waitangi, as Professor Jonathan Boston put it, this is “the Everything Bill.” It aims to reshape the foundations of our entire legal and regulatory system.

The muted support from National and NZ First signals a lack of genuine enthusiasm — and leaves open the possibility of compromise or retreat. It’s hard to imagine NZ First or all of National being truly aligned with the libertarian thrust of ACT’s proposal.

Marama Davidson captured the stakes when she asked whether this is really the legacy the Prime Minister wants to leave:

“This bill has failed three times already because no one was careless enough to let it through… It is not too late for the PM to save his reputation from this.”

The public will now have its say through the select committee process. This is the moment to propose changes that could be adopted — or to make a clear case for the bill to be abandoned. National and NZ First will be looking ahead to the next election. If there’s a strong enough signal from the public, they may decide that this isn’t a battle worth fighting.

If you can afford a paid subscription, you’ll be directly supporting this work — helping me dedicate time to tracking developments, unravelling the spin, and providing public-interest analysis.