Subject: Opposition to the Regulatory Standards Bill – Undermining Community and Environmental Values
Dear Members of the Select Committee,
I write to express strong opposition to the Regulatory Standards Bill (2023/24). As an urban designer and mayoral candidate for Tasman District, I am committed to building inclusive, sustainable, and resilient communities. This Bill undermines those goals by imposing a rigid and economically reductive standard for regulation—one that threatens local democracy, environmental responsibility, and the wellbeing of our communities.
1. The Importance of Community Wellbeing in Urban Design
Urban design is fundamentally about shaping environments that support human and ecological wellbeing. This includes access to affordable housing, transport options, public spaces, clean air and water, social connection, and cultural identity. Effective regulation that prioritises “community interest” is essential to achieving these outcomes.
When designing for towns like Motueka, Richmond, or Māpua, we depend on local rules that reflect community needs and values—whether it’s a bylaw protecting mature trees, planning rules encouraging mixed-use neighbourhoods, or design guidelines supporting the local character. These are not abstractions; they are the foundation of healthy, liveable places.
The Regulatory Standards Bill threatens this by subjecting all regulation to a narrow test of whether it:
“does not impair the enjoyment of any property right, contract right, or civil liberty” (Clause 7(1)(b)), and
“produces benefits that outweigh the costs, and those benefits and costs are measured to the extent practicable” (Clause 7(1)(f)).
Community wellbeing often involves long-term or intangible benefits—like fostering social cohesion or preserving a sense of place—which are difficult to measure in monetary terms. This Bill risks rendering such goals subordinate to individual property rights and short-term cost-benefit assessments.
2. Imposing Onerous and Inflexible Requirements on Local Regulation
Clause 10 mandates that all new legislation or regulations include a “responsible regulation report” to certify compliance with the Bill’s principles. This creates significant administrative and financial burdens, especially for smaller local authorities like Tasman District Council. Worse, Clause 9 establishes a legal presumption against the validity of any regulation not conforming to these standards.
This creates a chilling effect: councils may be deterred from regulating in areas where quantifying benefits is difficult—such as public health, biodiversity protection, or heritage preservation—even when communities strongly support such regulation.
3. Undermining Local Democracy and Regional Diversity
The Bill promotes a centralised, one-size-fits-all regulatory framework that disregards the diversity of New Zealand’s regions. What is economically efficient in Wellington may be socially or environmentally disastrous in Golden Bay or rural Tasman.
Local government exists precisely to reflect the values and priorities of local communities. By subjecting all regulation to uniform, ideologically driven “standards,” the Bill sidelines democratic decision-making and local autonomy.
4. Failure to Uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Tikanga Māori
The Bill makes no mention of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, nor does it provide mechanisms to uphold Māori values or obligations. This omission is not just an oversight—it risks further entrenching colonial approaches to regulation and excluding tangata whenua from shaping the legal frameworks that govern land, water, and resources.
Sustainable and equitable regulation in New Zealand must be grounded in partnership with Māori, respect for mātauranga Māori, and the recognition of environmental kaitiakitanga. This Bill does not meet that standard.
Conclusion
The Regulatory Standards Bill introduces a narrowly economic lens that is incompatible with the complex, place-based, and people-focused work of urban design and community development. It sidelines the principles of wellbeing, equity, and environmental stewardship in favour of an inflexible regulatory test designed to protect economic interests above all else.
As a candidate for mayor and someone deeply engaged in shaping the future of our built environment, I urge the Select Committee to reject this Bill. We need smarter, more democratic regulatory tools—ones that uplift communities, respect indigenous rights, and prepare us for the environmental and social challenges ahead.
Kind regards,
Timo Neubauer
Urban Designer & Mayoral Candidate for Tasman