Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Alan's avatar

Thanks Bryan, I am hopeful.

I've made a submission and emailed NZ First urging them to oppose the bill because of the risk that foreign corporations will dictate NZ policy.

I'd suggest also putting on the bottom of the submission "This was not written by a bot, I am a genuine human".

The sooner the 'arrogant prick' is out of parliament, the better.

Expand full comment
NZ Global Economics Context's avatar

I do to Bryan,

But unfortunately due to how the voting power in select Committees is set up to mirror the voting power in the main house, the will of the people via submissions can be vetoed by the government of the day.

And given ACT were promised full support of this bill by National, because it's their wet dream to, and NZ First has promised to support it I full for being let in the Coalition, it does not look good, even if the public demonstrably reject it.

But I, like you vehemently encourage people to continue submitting, but I also think that New Zealand Democracy is in the fight of its life, and the people need to accompany their submissions with the a public display that makes that very, very clear to those that sit on that committee, just how much will they are thinking of committing treason against, and what that might mean for them.

Make it clear that Parliament needs to stand down to the will of the people on this one, as it's supposed to do.

Remember For the people, by the people, of the people.

Here is our submission if anyone is interested:

Submission to the Finance and Expenditure Committee

Re: Regulatory Standards Bill (2025)

Submitted by: Iain Parker

On behalf of: Uniting People's Credit Movement NZ (UPCMNZ)

Contact: www.facebook.com/groups/peoplescredit.nz

Introduction

Thank you for the opportunity to submit on the Regulatory Standards Bill. I submit this as a concerned citizen and founder of the Uniting People's Credit Movement NZ, which advocates for democratic oversight and public control of our economic and financial systems.

While the stated intent of this bill is to improve parliamentary scrutiny, uphold the rule of law, and protect liberties, the underlying design of the bill risks doing the opposite: creating an unelected regulatory superstructure that further distances decision-making from the public and Parliament.

This is not happening in isolation. When considered alongside the current suite of financial sector reforms—particularly the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill, the Financial Service Providers Amendment Bill, and the Financial Markets Conduct Amendment Bill—this Regulatory Standards Bill appears as part of a broader legislative shift that empowers corporate and technocratic actors while sidelining democratic oversight.

In much the same way the Citizens United decision in the United States judicially rewrote the rules of democratic finance to favour billionaires and corporations, this Bill risks handing a regulatory veto to unelected technocrats who are not meaningfully accountable to the public. Only here, the mechanism is subtler — not cash bribes, but cushy post-political jobs and captured advisory boards.

There are currently no effective barriers preventing ministers or senior regulatory staff from moving directly into roles with the very institutions they oversee — creating an environment ripe for influence peddling and regulatory bias.

1. Democratic Oversight Must Not Be Outsourced

At the heart of my concern is the creation of a Regulatory Standards Board, appointed by the Minister for Regulation, which will have powers to issue binding assessments of legislation’s consistency with regulatory principles. This creates a dangerous precedent: an unelected, unaccountable body arbitrating what is deemed acceptable regulation under abstract principles that are not democratically defined or easily contestable.

Even more troubling is the potential for this Board to become a veto gatekeeper against public-interest legislation, especially if dominated by commercial legal minds or technocrats from financial or corporate sectors—as has happened in other jurisdictions under similar models.

This approach undermines the very parliamentary scrutiny it claims to enhance. If Parliament is to remain the supreme law-making body of New Zealand, its authority cannot be diluted by technocratic panels that are insulated from public pressure, media scrutiny, or electoral accountability.

2. Compounding Risk with the Financial Services Omnibus

This bill must not be viewed in isolation.

Currently before the Committee are several interconnected financial reform bills:

The Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill, which shifts oversight from the Commerce Commission to the FMA, undermining consumer recourse.

The Financial Services Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Amendment Bill, which further consolidates control of registration and disciplinary processes.

The Financial Markets Conduct Amendment Bill, which modifies how market participants are licensed and overseen.

All of these bills share a common trajectory: centralising regulatory power under technocratic bodies like the Financial Markets Authority (FMA), which sits inside the Council of Financial Regulators (CoFR)—an opaque advisory body with no formal public accountability, and known for deep regulatory harmonisation with Australian financial authorities.

By overlaying the Regulatory Standards Bill onto this structure, we risk formalising a regulatory straitjacket that locks in pro-corporate interpretations of “acceptable” regulation while making it nearly impossible for Parliament to pass transformative, people-focused legislation that challenges entrenched financial interests.

3. Dangerously Asymmetric Principles

The regulatory principles proposed—such as protections for property rights, limits on taxation powers, and strict consistency with past legislation—may seem innocuous, even virtuous. But they are dangerously asymmetric when not paired with principles about public interest, climate responsibility, Te Tiriti obligations, or economic equity.

The result could be a system where any attempt to regulate banks, tax windfall profits, or restore public control over essential infrastructure could be struck down as “inconsistent,” while deregulation and financialisation are given a free pass.

This risks codifying a neoliberal bias into law under the guise of neutrality.

This bill to me is an effort of corporate interests to protect their property rights over commonwealth property they know they had no right ever obtaining possesion of in the first place, and would not have if it were not for the detrimental impacts of the flawed, if not corrupt, colonial era originated private bank centric money supply system we still endure.

4. CoFR and the Erosion of Sovereignty

The Council of Financial Regulators (CoFR)—made up of the RBNZ, Treasury, FMA, MBIE, and Commerce Commission—is increasingly ceding strategic oversight to its Australian counterparts, including APRA and ASIC. This is happening without public mandate, formal treaty, or parliamentary debate.

Multiple senior figures within our regulatory bodies now have Australian backgrounds or secondments. Decisions of national consequence—such as Basel banking standards, systemic risk definitions, or capital requirements—are being shaped to suit Australian interests, not necessarily New Zealand’s economic needs.

If the Regulatory Standards Bill becomes law, it could reinforce this drift by formalising a top-down, bureaucratic regime that is even less responsive to local communities, elected representatives, or national development goals.

5. Recommendations

I urge the Committee to:

Reject the Regulatory Standards Board in its current unelected, minister-appointed form.

Include protections for parliamentary sovereignty—explicit language guaranteeing that Parliament remains the ultimate decision-maker.

Require transparency in the CoFR’s operations, including public minutes and appointment scrutiny.

Delay passage of this bill until it can be properly reviewed in conjunction with the other financial system legislation currently under consideration.

New Zealand’s future regulatory landscape should not be built in silos. These bills interact. Taken together, they amount to a creeping regulatory coup that risks locking in corporate privilege and dismantling the public’s ability to hold power to account.

Conclusion

New Zealanders deserve a guarantee that legislation is shaped in the public interest, not behind closed doors by councils, boards and roundtables that rotate their chairs but never their priorities.

For these reasons, I urge the committee not only to scrutinise the text of the Regulatory Standards Bill, but to examine its role in the broader financial sector legislative agenda — and to halt the advance of a system that threatens to hollow out our democracy in favour of private control.

Please stand for transparency, accountability, and real democracy. Reject this bill in its current form.

Ngā mihi nui,

Iain Parker

Uniting People’s Credit Movement NZ (UPCMNZ)

www.facebook.com/groups/peoplescredit.nz

Expand full comment
11 more comments...

No posts