Submission to the Select Committee on the Regulatory Standards Bill

Tēnā koutou,  tēnā koutou,  tēnā koutou katoa  

Thank you for the opportunity to be heard today.

I am speaking as Chairperson on behalf of the members & registered supporters of Kiwis for the Treaty Incorporated who oppose the Regulatory Standards Bill 2025.

We are a diverse group of New Zealanders who  believe Aotearoa New Zealand is stronger for its founding agreement between Māori and the Crown. We are not aligned with any political party .

In terms of my background, I have worked in private investment, corporate management and as an RMA lawyer. I am a fifth-generation Pākehā New Zealander.

Specific Grounds for Opposition to the Regulatory Standards Bill 2025

Only 2 issues, I want to discuss today in support of our written submission:

• The drafting of the Principles

• And a realistic scenario of how the Bill could be used & its impact

1.        The Bill has failed to include key principles of the Rule of Law in clause 8

The Rule of Law forms a significant part of the Aotearoa New Zealand’s Constitution. It also applies in England, Europe and throughout out the common-law world.

The second half of the “Equality Principle” is missing. The Equality Principle in clause 8 (a) (iii) as currently drafted states;

 “ every person is equal before the law ”

But it fails to properly reflect the full Principle as set out by Lord Bingham, Senior Law Lord in the United Kingdom in 2006,  who was regarded as the greatest Judge of his generation;

“The laws of the land should apply equally to all, save to the extent that objective differences justify differentiation.

These additional words are the ones that protect minorities whose interests are always at risk in democracies. I don’t know whether the additional words  were accidentally or deliberately  deleted when drafting clause 8 (a) (iii) but their absence has a profound effect on this principle removing any protection for minorities.   Lawyers and politicians  throughout the Commonwealth and USA would be surprised by such a radical change to the rule of law by a well-known democracy.

The “International Treaty Principle”  is missing in clause 8. The Bill also fails to include Principle 8 of Lord Bingham’s summary of the Rule of Law referred to earlier;

“My eighth and last sub-rule is that the existing principle of the rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law, the law which whether deriving from treaty or international custom and practice governs the conduct of nations. I do not think this proposition is contentious.”

There is no explanation as to why this key “International Treaty Principle” has not been included in section 8 (a)(iii). If Principle 8 is included,  then the Government in complying with the Rule of Law  would meet its obligations under our international treaties which includes Te Tiriti/ the Treaty of Waitangi .

2.        Implementation – “Beware the “Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing” 

Spotting the “wolf in sheep’s clothing” is a key  responsibility for  Select  Committees.

Its crucial they stop  Bills going back to Parliament that look nice and friendly but cause havoc once they are enacted. Its an issue which  society  has tried to deal with right back to when Christ used this analogy in his sermon from the Mount.

This Bill is one of those “ravenous wolfs” which if passed will make it much  easier for the Government to sell public land, strategic businesses & state-owned assets to foreign investors.

Some commentors argue that this is the ‘true rationale” for this legislation because there is no evidence the current system is not working  - rather we are highly ranked for the quality of our legislation. And implementing this unnecessary new system will cost  a lot of Government  money.

Many people will recall how fortunes were made here and overseas on the sale of under-priced New Zealand Government assets in the past. A realistic scenario  of how this Bill would enable the sale of State-owned assets is;

Proposed Sale of Pamu (Landcorp Farming)

The Government needs an extra $2 billion for its upcoming budget so it decides to sell Pamu

• Pamu is a big business with  110 farms covering 360,000  hectares spread across New Zealand. It employs 1,100 staff. And  farms sheep, beef, deer and dairy, as well as growing horticulture, arable crops and forestry

• One of  the core purposes of Pamu is to manage land for eventual transfer to iwi as part of Treaty settlement

• The highest offer the Government receives is over $2 billion from an overseas agricultural fund. The offer is conditional on buying all Pamu’s assets and settling the transaction in 3 months.

  • 
    

Opposition to the Deal

• NZ farmers oppose the sale & believe they should much more than 30 days  to make offers on all the farms.

• Environmentalists oppose it because they claim they have evidence of environmental damage at some of the Funds overseas farms

• Maori oppose it because  they will lose the opportunity to recover some of their lands as part of the Treaty Settlements.

  
  

A New  Bill is drafted to Authorise the Deal

• The Government still really wants the $2 billion for its budget

• But it knows that it must meet its treaty obligations under the State-Owned Enterprises Act and social & environmental criteria under the Overseas Investment Act.

• The government drafts a Bill that amends both of those two Acts to let the deal go through

The Bill Satisfies the Regulatory Standards criteria

• The Bill goes to the Regulatory Standards Committee  who advise that the new Bill meets the Regulatory Standards Act  based on;

• The “liberty principle” that you should be able to dispose of your assets

• Treaty  is not a relevant criteria

• Social impact on NZ farmers is not a relevant criteria

• Potential environmental damage is not a relevant criteria

• Benefits are greater than the costs

• Bill is the most effective, efficient  and proportionate response to the  aim  of the  Government to complete the deal with the Agricultural Fund.

The Deal is Done

• Minister of Regulation advises Parliament the Bill has satisfied the criteria.

• The Bill is passed & the deal is completed.

• New Zealand loses 360,000 hectares  to foreign ownership

The Act Party’s “ravenous wolf in sheeps clothing “has arrived.

What could be next – another SOE which would benefit from the same Bill as Pamu ?

 eg. Transpower - worth $5b+ ?

Kia ora - Thank you

Mike Sleigh