Over the coming weeks Radio Waatea will be diving deeper into the Regulatory Standards Bill. We will be unpacking what are called “Regulatory Impact Statements”(RIS) – starting with the RIS from the Ministers own Ministry:
On the 26th of March 2025 the Ministry of Regulation, of which David Seymour is Minister, provided a more than 70 page insight into the feedback it had in respect of the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill. The document is called “Regulatory Impact Statement: proposed Regulatory Standards Bill”. The document is part of the process of giving insights and advice to Cabinet, by way of responsible Ministers when it comes to items such as proposed legislative changes, policies etc – its often referred to as part of the “machinery of Government”.
Documents like this are often either proactively released (the Ministry self publishes) or by way of an Official Information Act request (requested by a third party). So what does it tell us?
“Most public submissions (around 88%) opposed the proposal for a Regulatory Standards Bill,” (with key reasons being the perceived narrow focus of the proposal in strengthening individual rights and liberties at the expense of other objectives, the lack of provision for the Treaty/te Tiriti and broader Māori rights and interests and the likely costs relative to effectiveness.)”
“0.33% of submissions supported or partially supported the proposal for a Regulatory Standards Bill”
“Of those that expressed a clear position, submissions analysed tended to prefer existing arrangements that support transparency and accountability in the law-making process, including RISs and disclosure statements, with feedback noting these could be strengthened.”
Drafts of the Cabinet paper, RIS, and Treaty Impact Analysis were circulated to government agencies for consultation. The main themes from the departmental feedback included some broad support for the objectives of the proposal, but a general preference for these to be achieved in other ways, such as strengthening regulatory impact analysis requirements or Parliamentary mechanisms. Agencies also raised concerns about the proposed principles and their application to specific regulatory systems; costs and resourcing implications; the role and makeup of the proposed Regulatory Standards Board (Board); the exclusion of provision for Treaty principles and Māori rights and interests; and the process and timing of consultation. In particular:
- the components of the proposed Bill would duplicate, or add complexity, to existing RMS tools that support regulatory quality and transparency – for example, the proposed Regulatory Standards Board could duplicate elements of the role of the Regulations Review Committee and cut across individual Ministerial responsibility where the Board has a role in reviewing legislation before the House
- the proposed regulatory responsibility principles deviate from similar concepts in existing guidance, or conflict with objectives within existing legislation and regulatory systems
- the lack of recognition of the rights and interests of iwi, hapū and Māori due to there being no specific reference to the Treaty/te Tiriti, or its constitutional importance
- if all secondary legislation (in addition to new or amended primary legislation) was included in the requirement to assess consistency with the principles there would be significant cost and resourcing implications for agencies (and currently uncosted costs on local government, should bylaws be in scope of consistency assessments).Nearly all agencies indicated it would be challenging or unworkable to undertake the work involved within existing baselines without impacting on future government priorities and legislative programmes
The Ministers Preferred Option? “will incur costs to the Ministry for Regulation and agencies.”
The document then outlines 1 full time employee is required for each review of existing primary legislation. Waateas estimate is that could mean as many as 100 people (or more) employed to review both primary and secondary legislation. The average salary for a Senior Advisor in the New Zealand public service is around $104,500 per year, with a typical range between $97,000 and $125,000. That would equate to around $9.7 million – once you wind in set-up costs, on costs, equipment and establishment costs you could also see year one costs going to more than $20 million. In a separate RIS MBIE had this to say: “This translates to 95 – 285 FTE in total ($11.4 to $34.2 million). The range in estimates reflects the differences in size and complexity between different pieces of legislation – larger Acts such as the Building Act 2004 would take significantly more resources to review than smaller legislation.”
Waatea then asked Chat GPT of “would you recommend AI be used to review a nations Legislation or regulations?” – the response? “AI can be used to review a nation’s legislation or regulations – and in some contexts, it already is – but it should not be the only tool relied upon.”
The response went further:
Where Human Oversight Is Essential:
- Cultural & Ethical Interpretation:
Laws often depend on values, cultural norms, and social context. AI lacks the lived experience and moral judgment to weigh these properly – especially in Indigenous, minority, or post-colonial contexts. - Legal Nuance:
AI may misinterpret the intent behind a law, especially where language is ambiguous or relies on precedent. - Bias Risks:
If trained on biased data or outdated legal systems, AI could reinforce inequity or colonial frameworks. - Accountability:
Democratic legal systems require transparent, accountable processes – not black-box AI decisions.
Why ask Chat GPT? David Seymour said this:
“Look at the pace of development of AI, the cost estimates were based on a human reading through every piece of legislation, I suspect that actually we’ll be able to do it much faster than we expected because of AI,” – AI itself begged to differ.
See next week for part two
