Red-tape bill risks cost blow-outs, climate backsliding, officials warn June 28, 2025
Toop says the concerns raised by officials echo many of those made in an open letter to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon from environmental groups including Forest & Bird, the Environmental Defence Society and WWF-New Zealand. “It is the role of Government to govern for the collective wellbeing of the people it serves, and that includes protecting the environment and the climate on which we all depend,” Toop said. “This Bill flips that around and tries to make our Government serve corporate interests instead. But clean drinking water, safe food and a liveable climate should never be made subservient to the so-called property rights of corporations.” She said the bill represents “an unprecedented threat” to the environment and the Government’s ability to respond to the climate crisis. “This bill has been rejected three times for good reason. This is the fourth attempt by ACT to get this dangerous bill across the line and this time they are advancing it in plainly undemocratic ways, including through a coalition agreement that was negotiated behind closed doors.” ACT has been pushing versions of this idea for over a decade, with legislation drafted in 2006 and in 2012, and through an expert taskforce established in 2009. Seymour has embraced this, saying earlier this week that it is “probably the most consulted-on bill this century.” Toop said it was “a direct attack” on democracy and called on National to withdraw support.
Undermining the foundational principles upon which the bill is built, Treasury found: “Not all of the principles proposed in the legislation are broadly accepted as good regulatory practice.” MfE officials were equally scathing. They warned the bill’s proposed principles — especially around individual liberties and “taking of property”— clash with environmental laws that prioritise long-term, collective wellbeing. It could undermine managed retreat, weaken emissions controls, and reverse the “polluter pays” principle, potentially forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for pollution and resource overuse. “These principles could make it harder for councils and government to enforce land use controls or limit development — even where it’s vital for climate adaptation or public health,” officials wrote. MfE was also alarmed by the potential for retrospective compensation claims, which could saddle local councils with massive liabilities for past planning decisions — transferring risk from property owners to ratepayers and handcuffing future climate response efforts.
Wow! The Regulatory Standards Bill could force taxpayers to compensate polluters, stop all efforts to preserve nature/climate & cost tens of millions of dollars a year?!
Treasury and Ministry officials confirm Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill is a hot mess.
#nzpol
#kiwi
