July 08, 2025

Unmasking the RSB: Submissions Raise Constitutional and Treaty Concerns

Claudette Hauiti Posted On July 8, 2025

The Regulatory Standards Bill, introduced by ACT Party leader David Seymour, has drawn strong and considered opposition from across the motu.

Submitters representing iwi collectives, Māori legal professionals, advocates for abuse survivors, and constitutional experts have presented a clear message: the Bill risks undermining Te Tiriti o Waitangi, entrenching inequality, and weakening long-standing protections that serve both Māori and the wider community.

While the Bill claims to enhance the quality of regulation, many have warned it may instead destabilize the very constitutional and regulatory foundations it seeks to reform. While the Bill claims to improve the quality of regulation, many warn it could instead undermine the very constitutional and regulatory foundations it aims to reform. What they’re saying is clear: this Bill poses a threat to democracy, disrespects Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and favors corporate elites.

What they’re saying is loud and clear: this Bill is a danger to democracy, a slap in the face to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and a love letter to corporate elites.

The Finance and Expenditure Select Committee is hearing submissions. A mere 30 hours has been allocated to submitters invited to present via video link or in person at Parliament.

Out of 58 submissions on opening day, only one was from a dedicated supporter; however, that presenter lost favor with the Chair of the Select Committee, National’s Ryan Hamilton, who cut him off for criticizing the committee for allocating a mere 5 minutes. Two additional submitters agreed with the intent of the Bill but called for changes or amendments.

But from the beginning, most submitters expressed their opposition clearly and concisely.

Treaty and Constitutional expert Professor Ani Mikaere didn’t mince her words, saying: “You (National and New Zealand First) have been completely upstaged, reduced to the role of chorus line in the ACT pantomime.” Mikaere warned that the Bill creates “a default setting of non-compliance with Te Tiriti” and would establish what she called “an anti-Waitangi Tribunal”-a Regulatory Standards Board of “unqualified, unrepresentative, unaccountable and self-interested corporate elites handpicked by the Minister.”

Sonja Cooper from Cooper Legal, who represent survivors of abuse in state care, stated, “This legislation may require survivors to compensate their abusers because they are obtaining the benefit of the impairment by receiving that redress. It should go without saying that any such regime is nonsensical.” They argued that the Bill prioritizes economic efficiency and individualism in ways that could re-traumatize survivors of state abuse, particularly Māori.

Lawyer Natalie Coates from Te Hunga Roia Māori states, “The bill is constitutionally unsound, flagrantly breaches and ignores Te Tiriti o Waitangi, prioritises contested neoliberal values and elevates economic liberty above collective well-being.” Coates also warned that “Māori rights in the Takutai Moana are the only property rights specifically excluded from the property protections under this bill. In summary, we think it needs to be thrown in the bin, or at the very least gutted and completely rebuilt from scratch.”

Wharehoka Wano Ngā Iwi o Taranaki: “The Coalition Government has no intention of maintaining the honour of the Crown,” citing the exclusion of Treaty principles from the RSB. They argued that this directly undermines the promises made in their Treaty settlements.

Rangatira Rāhui Papa, Poutanga – National Iwi Chairs Forum: “This is about money over manaakitanga… a degradation of settlement legislation.” He warned that the Bill represents “a power grab that will support the old boys’ network,” and called for it to be stopped until there is “fulsome and comprehensive consultation.”

Former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer: “The proposal is constitutionally unsound… I have never seen [a statute] that says it is law for some purposes but not for others.” He argued the Bill disrupts ministerial responsibility and bypasses scrutiny. “This is not the way to make law.”

Te Hunga Roia Māori: “The bill does not promote good law making. It promotes ideological entrenchment, constitutional imbalance, and risk for Māori.” They warned that the Bill signals to public servants that “the impact of regulations and laws on Māori are not important.”

Across Aotearoa, from iwi leaders to legal experts, from survivors’ advocates to former political leaders, the submissions reflect a consistent view: the Regulatory Standards Bill poses serious risks to constitutional integrity, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and kaupapa Māori. While submitters differ in tone and emphasis, there is broad consensus that the Bill, in its current form, should not proceed.

As Natalie Coates put it, it may need to be “thrown in the bin, or at the very least gutted and completely rebuilt.” Whether through amendment or rejection, the call is clear – Parliament must take seriously the concerns raised and uphold the constitutional commitments that underpin Aotearoa’s democracy.

And finally, this from Ani Mikaere to all elected members and their parties: “This is your opportunity to stand up.” And if Parliament won’t? Then history – and the electorate – surely will.