The humanist position on the Regulatory Standards Bill
Humanism is a democratic and ethical lifestance which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethics based on human and other natural values, in a spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities.
Humanists:
- base their understanding of the world on reason and science, rejecting supernatural or divine beliefs.
- reject all forms of racism and prejudice, and believe in respecting and protecting everyone’s human rights, including the right to freedom of religion and belief.
- believe we have a responsibility to respect and care for one another and the natural world.
The NZARH has an interest in the Regulatory Standards Bill because we want to promote an ethical and fair society that considers the equity, equality and natural environment in legislation and regulations.
Regulatory Standards Bill
Our primary concern is the Bill’s focus on economic measures and personal liberty as the basis for determining ‘good’ legislation, rather than the more commonly accepted focus on collective wellbeing, transparency, and the protection of human rights. This Bill puts both individual rights and business interests ahead of collective interests, which we believe is not where the focus of government legislation should be.
Rule of law, personal liberty and humanist values
Humanist principles of justice and of valuing the dignity of each individual lead us to support equality and oppose unwarranted discrimination. While every system could be improved, and protecting rights and freedoms for all is a balancing act, our position is that this Bill is not the right mechanism for addressing inequality. In particular, s.8 (s)(i) will restrict the ability to pass legislation that will address the flaws in our system that are responsible for inequality in our society.
Humanists have long advocated for personal liberty. For example, we campaigned to legally recognise same-sex marriages, for the legalisation of assisted dying, to repeal New Zealand’s blasphemy law, and to remove abortion from the Crimes Act.
Section 8(b) talks about personal liberty as a guiding principle of how legislation should be crafted, arguing that everyone should be afforded as much freedom as possible up to the point where that freedom impinges on the freedom or rights of another individual.
However, our concern about this Bill is that the focus is primarily on property and ownership rights, taxes, fees and levies, and not about connecting personal liberties with social responsibilities, civil virtues, and democratic principles. We believe it is disingenuous to frame property and ownership rights as inherently an issue of personal liberty.
A humanist position on legislation producing benefits exceeding costs
We disagree with the premise in the bill that legislation should be expected to produce benefits that exceed the costs in s.8(k), and do not think that this principle is a good mechanism for improving decision-making when it comes to enacting legislation in New Zealand.
Much of the regulation and legislation that is in the interests of the public good will cost more than its benefit, and while cost-benefit analysis is a well-established mechanism for shaping public policy and for decision-making, it is just one tool policymakers use, and will unnecessarily limit the options available to address societal problems.
This Bill appears to favour economic benefit over social justice, which will make it more difficult for the government to enact reforms that address social inequities or address or reduce environmental harms.
If non-financial benefits are to be weighed against costs, we believe it is an equation that is impossible to solve without some objective way of measuring these benefits and costs.
The Bill ignores constitutional documents
While this Bill references several Acts, some of which make up the constitutional arrangements in New Zealand, we are concerned about the absence of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and other Acts, like the the Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Human Rights Act 1993, in the principles of responsible regulation.
Humanism advocates the extension of participatory democracy and the expansion of the open society. It is our position that establishing principles for regulation and good law-making that deliberately restrict consultation to only those who are considered to be directly and materially affected by the legislation, as is the case in Section 8 (i), is in direct conflict with well-established democratic principles and processes.
The Regulatory Impact Statement dated 26 March 2025 notes that a majority of submitters noted no or very minor issues with current regulatory quality. Along these lines, we believe that our existing regulatory mechanisms would be a better way to address any issues than this new legislation.
Final comments
The Treaty of Waitangi has an established history of protecting cultural identity, and as such, we believe that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi should be recognised in legislation and be considered when setting regulations and legislation. In terms of putting a cost figure on concepts such as cultural value, we believe that this Bill does not offer any way to measure the cost or benefit of cultural identity.
There is more to our society than just individuals. As a nation, we are a society of 5 million people. Legislation designed to nurture, advance, and protect our society and communities can ensure that everyone is treated fairly. A purely freedom-based view of individual rights, in the absence of collective rights and individual responsibilities, is at odds with promoting a fair and just society.
Recommendation
We recommend scrapping the Regulatory Standards Bill in its entirety.