Response from Te Ohu Kaimoana on the Regulatory Standards Bill

The Regulatory Standards Bill represents a significant constitutional shift in how laws are made in Aotearoa. It introduces a set of overarching principles intended to define “responsible regulation.” However, it does so without any recognition of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

The Bill places economic efficiency, individual liberty, and private property rights above Te Tiriti obligations, environmental sustainability, and the collective rights of tangata whenua. In doing so, it reshapes the legal framework within which Treaty rights are expressed and protected, and risks rolling back generations of progress made between Māori and the Crown.

Click here to read our full response, or check out our recommendation and key positions on the Bill below.

Our key positions on the Bill

1) Te Tiriti o Waitangi is Aotearoa’s foundational document and is what our laws should be measured against, not the Bill. The Cabinet Manual and the LDAC Guidelines state that the Treaty of Waitangi is integral to the constitutional framework of NZ. However, by omitting Te Tiriti from the Bill, it disregards Te Tiriti’s constitutional status and ignores the clear responsibilities it places on the Government. This marks a serious shift away from how laws in Aotearoa should be developed and upheld.

2) The Bill gives the Ministry for Regulation powers to gather information from any entity, across both the public and private sectors, if they perform a statutory function under legislation. Te Ohu Kaimoana would be impacted by these powers, and we reject any inference that we are an entity equivalent to any Government agency as the Bill implies. This breach of Te Tiriti compromises sensitive cultural and commercial information, undermines Māori data privacy and sovereignty, and threatens the trust and independence built through iwi-Crown agreements.

3) The Bill could reshape how key settlements are upheld. By applying new regulatory principles across all legislation (including customary fishing regulations under the Fisheries Act 1996), the Bill may undermine parts of the Fisheries Settlement. It risks imposing values that are inconsistent with the Settlement’s intent and Te Tiriti obligations.

4) While MCASCA is exempt from certain parts of the Bill, the wider set of tools that give effect to the Aquaculture Settlement are not. Key mechanisms under the RMA are essential to upholding the Aquaculture Settlement in practice. Because these tools fall outside the Bill’s limited exemptions, they remain vulnerable. If judged against the Bill’s new principles, vital protections could be reinterpreted or removed which will weaken the ability to deliver on the intent of the Settlement.

5) Yes, fishing quota as a property right is important to protect, but so is our role as kaitiaki. Our economic interests do not override our responsibilities as kaitiaki. These roles are not competing, they coexist. Kaitiakitanga is not separate from our commercial interests and any legal framework that separates or prioritises one over the other misunderstands our relationship with Tangaroa.

6) The Bill lets the Crown decide who gets a say and who doesn’t. It gives the government discretion over who it “considers will be affected,” with no guarantee that iwi or hapū will be included in future consultation processes. Without guaranteed, meaningful engagement, iwi, hapū and the Crown face real barriers to upholding their role as Treaty partners.

7) The Bill’s focus on equality overlooks that equal treatment does not guarantee equal outcomes, especially when inequality has existed from the outset. By applying a universal standard of equality, the Bill ignores Te Tiriti’s status and the Crown’s obligations to address historic and ongoing inequities. This disregards the unique redress mechanisms established to address the historical and structural injustices that made Treaty Settlements necessary in the first place.

8) The Bill puts individual property rights first, ignoring collective rights that are upheld through our whānau, hapū, and iwi structures. This risks blocking important collective efforts to protect Tangaroa, while potentially letting polluters off the hook.

‍