RMLA Submission on the Regulatory Standards Bill 2025

INTRODUCTION

1. RMLA’s main objective in making submissions on Government proposals is to ensure that a coherent and workable body of resource management and environmental law and practice is developed in New Zealand. In this submission, we record that RMLA has significant concerns regarding the Bill’s content; and that RMLA acknowledges and supports the submission of Te Hunga Roia Māori o Aotearoa (Te Hunga Roia Māori), and supports its critical perspective on the Bill’s compliance with Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

RECOMMENDATIONS

2. RMLA recommends:

a. The Finance and Expenditure Committee reports the Regulatory Standards Bill 2025 back to the House with a recommendation it does not proceed.

OR

b. The Crown engages in comprehensive, meaningful consultation with iwi, hapū, other Treaty partners and broader stakeholders to refine the Bill; and at a minimum expands the principles set out in s8 to include all aspects of the existing LDAC guidelines, not a selection of these.

SUBMISSION

Lack of evidence supporting the need for the bill

3. There is little to no independent evidence that supports any need for this Bill. Consultation undertaken by the Government in respect of this Bill identified considerable community concerns with the Bill. These concerns warrant further, meaningful consideration.

Cherry picking certain principles

4. The principles set out in section 8 of the Bill appear to be very selective based on many more principles set out in the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee (LDAC) Legislation guidelines. Many of the other principles, such as public collective interests, environmental matters, and the role of Te Tiriti/The Treaty appear to have been ignored and will be significantly undermined by the limited set of principles current proposed.

Ambiguity leading to impossibility of effective implementation

5. The proposed principles are ambiguous. Rather than improving certainty and clarity, the principles as drafted will give rise to significant subjectivity in their interpretation and application. RMLA has serious concerns that the principles, as drafted, could result in legislation and regulations which are not legally sound, effective or efficient and which do not produce high quality environmental outcomes. Consideration should be given to the status quo of retaining the principles as guidelines, particularly given the significant complexity and risk of unintended consequences, especially within resource management law.