Waitangi Tribunal wants halt to Regulatory Standards Bill introduction

The Waitangi Tribunal has with some urgency released an interim decision on the Regulatory Standards Bill. THe urgency is so that it could beat the impending introduction of the Bill. Under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1976 the Tribunal loses jurisdiction once a Bill is introduced into Parliament.

The Government has tried to speed the introduction of bills before, clearly with the intent of taking away the Waitangi Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

You have to wonder what they are afraid of.

The Tribunal has powers to recommend only. It analyses alleged breaches and provides historical and legal analysis of the claims. The Government can then decide to accept or not accept the advice.

The Tribunal has produced some groundbreaking decisions that have had a profound effect on Aotearoa New Zealand. The Te Reo Maori claim is one whose effects have reverberated strongly over the past 40 years.

In its judgment the Tribunal said this:

Some New Zealanders may say that the loss of Maori language is unimportant. The claimants in reply have reminded us that the Maori culture is a part of the heritage of new Zealand and that the Maori language is at the heart of that culture. if the language dies the culture will die, and some thing quite unique will have been lost to the world.

The use of Te Reo has since surged.

You have to wonder why David Seymour and Shane Jones in particular should be afraid of the Tribunal. Seymour in rails in support of free speech for right wingers. But free speech from informed bodies who provide important analysis apparently needs to be silenced.

The Tribunal has received a further attack by Seymour after it published its interim ruling on Seymour’s Regulatory Standards Bill.

And it is clear from the Judgment that the Government has been playing games with the Tribunal.

In its decision the Tribunal sets out the background to the rushed nature of its release. The details are:

• On 28 April 2025 the Tribunal granted an application for an urgent hearing. At the time it had little information on the timeline for the drafting and introduction of the Regulatory Standards Bill .
• The Crown had consistently opposed the application for urgency. It said that the Regulatory Standards Bill policy was not yet developed enough to constitute a proposed policy of the Crown
• On 7 April 2025, Crown counsel advised the Government’s intent to introduce the Bill by the end of June 2025.
• On 23 April 2025 Crown counsel told the Tribunal that the proposed Bill was not yet drafted and Cabinet had not yet made a decision as to its contents.
• On 5 May 2025 Cabinet met to consider the proposed Bill and made decisions about its content.
• On 7 May 2025 through a David Seymour press release the Tribunal learned Cabinet had decided to support drafting of the Bill, and that the proposed Bill would be put before Cabinet for its consideration on 19 May 2025.
• Cabinet was aware that the Waitangi Tribunal had scheduled a hearing in relation to the Bill for 6 June 2025. It still decided to introduce the Bill at the earlier date.

This reeks of bad faith.

Imagine telling the Tribunal there is no need for an urgent hearing because the bill will not be introduced until the end of June, then announcing in a press release that the bill would be introduced mid May and deciding on this even though you knew the Tribunal was not going to consider the application until June.

In its judgment the Tribunal held that the Government’s failure to have any targeted consultation with Maori before the introduction of the Bill was itself a breach of the treaty.

It said:

We … consider that the Crown’s actions in progressing the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill significantly, as outlined in the Cabinet Minute of 5 May 2025 … without targeted and meaningful engagement with Māori, to be a breach of the te Tiriti/Treaty principle of partnership. In doing so, the Crown violated its partnership obligations to consult with Māori in good faith. Progressing the policy in this way also did not reflect an appropriate balancing of the powers and obligations of the respective kāwanatanga and tino rangatiratanga spheres of authority envisioned by the Treaty partnership. We also find that by progressing with the policy in the face of clear opposition by Māori and concerns raised by officials as to the constitutional significance of the proposed Bill and its potential impacts on the Crown’s ability to uphold its te Tiriti/Treaty obligations to Māori (beyond the narrow confines of specific Treaty settlement and redress legislation …), constituted a breach of the principle of active protection.

In the absence of a draft of the bill the Tribunal was not able to comment if the Bill itself would undermine the treaty. It did say however:

The claimants and interested parties, and their respective witnesses, told us the proposed Bill would create a ‘regulatory constitution’ based on neo-liberal principles that would have profound impacts on current and prospective regulation and legislation, should the Bill be enacted. These impacts would be highly prejudicial to Māori, in the claimants’ submission … On the other hand, Crown counsel emphasised that the Bill, if enacted, would not result in the invalidation of existing legislation. However, counsel conceded there was some uncertainty about the impact of any Regulatory Standards Act …”

The Tribunal recommended that the Bill be halted pending meaningful consultation with Maori.

David Seymour has responded by saying this:

“The Regulatory Standards Bill will help New Zealand get its mojo back. It requires politicians and officials to ask and answer certain questions before they place restrictions on citizens’ freedoms.”

“The Tribunal’s main objection is that the Bill requires ‘equality before the law’, which is mentioned repeatedly in the document.

“What it doesn’t understand is that equality before the law is fundamental to a functioning democracy. We can address New Zealand’s problems without racial discrimination.”

The Waitangi Tribunal was not a parallel government elected by New Zealanders, even if it acted like it was, Seymour said.

“The Tribunal’s claims are incorrect. This law increases the transparency of bad lawmaking so New Zealanders face less red tape and regulation and can live better lives. There’s not a single point in their report that disagrees with this. As their report accepts, no Treaty settlements will ever be affected by the bill.”

There is absolutely no evidence of the Tribunal acting as a parallel Government. The latest Judgment is lucid and well reasoned and contains only recommendations.

Seymour’s highlighting of “citizen’s freedoms” is a rerun of his arguments used during the Treaty Principles Bill that effectively said treaty rights were discriminatory.

He is having a second go at these rights but using a piece of legislation that National has agreed to pass. Unlike the Treaty Principles Bill National’s promise is to pass this bill as soon as is practicable.

As I noted earlier there is no room for collective rights under these principles. And measures to enhance environmental protection would be significantly limited by the need to pay private compensation if this was enacted.

The measure to exclude the Treaty is clearly deliberate. Collective rights do not get a look in.

This bill has the potential to cause the same level of dissent as the Treaty Principles Bill.

And it should do.