Formal Opposition to
Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill
(Government Bill 194–1, James Meager)
From: Ukes Baha | 01 October 2025
Submitted in response to the call for submissions on the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill
Summary of Position
I ask the Committee to reject the Bill.
I oppose the Bill in its current form. Though presented as “small regulatory fixes,” this is a wide-ranging omnibus bill spanning land transport, maritime, and aviation law. It risks masking substantive policy shifts, expanding powers without safeguards, and weakening transparency. The already complex transport legislative framework (26 Acts, 15 Regulations, 151 Rules) becomes harder for the public and operators to navigate when bundled changes are presented as minor.
Core stance:
- Omnibus masking: Substantive reforms hidden as “tidy-ups” reduce proper scrutiny.
- Power shifts: New closure powers for state highways and investigatory expansions lack proportionate safeguards.
- Digital-by-default risks: Allowing electronic-only display risks excluding those without reliable access and complicates roadside enforcement.
- Process gaps: Consultation was narrow and technical; Bill lacks Te Tiriti and equity impact assessments.
Recommendation: Reject the Bill. If Parliament proceeds, split by mode/issue, add safeguards, publish change-registers, and include equity/Treaty analysis.
Constitutional & Democratic Framework
- Omnibus overreach: Multiple statutes across three transport modes altered at once impedes democratic scrutiny.
- System complexity: The transport rulebook is vast; bundling amplifies risk of error and opacity.
- Secondary churn: Companion amendments (e.g. RSRA 2025’s 41 proposals) show how “minor” edits accumulate into major change.
Clause-by-Clause Concerns
New s61AA – Closure of State Highways
Problem: Broad power for Waka Kotahi to close highways without strict thresholds or time limits; risks overuse or poor community consultation.
Position: Limit to imminent safety risks; require written reasons, time caps, notification, and review rights.
Electronic Display Obligations
Problem: Inspection/permit evidence deemed displayed if available electronically; risks digital exclusion and enforcement issues.
Position: Retain equivalent offline compliance options; require redundancy and safeguards.
Investigatory & Enforcement Powers
Problem: Enhanced investigatory powers across modes without proportionality tests or reporting obligations.
Position: Codify necessity limits; require annual reporting and independent review pathways.
Omnibus Rule Amendments
Problem: High-volume edits increase inconsistency and legal uncertainty.
Position: Publish full before/after change-registers; stage commencement with plain-language audits.
Evidence, Equity & Effectiveness
- Evidence: No detailed risk analysis for closure powers or digital shifts.
- Equity & Te Tiriti: Bill omits assessment of Māori, rural, and low-income impacts.
- Effectiveness: Efficiency gains may be undermined by outages, poor access, or enforcement inconsistency.
Recommendations
- Reject the Bill.
- If proceeding, amend to:
- Split into separate Bills by mode/theme.
- Tightly limit new closure and investigatory powers with thresholds and review rights.
- Guarantee offline alternatives for compliance.
- Publish itemised change-registers and require plain-language audits.
- Undertake and publish Te Tiriti and equity assessments before enactment.
References
- Bill text: Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill (Government Bill 194–1, James Meager).
- Ministry of Transport release (14 Aug 2025): purpose and scope of Bill.
- Legislation.govt.nz Bill index (new s61AA, electronic display provisions).
- MoT proactive releases on transport regulatory system: 26 Acts, 15 Regulations, 151 Rules.
- Waka Kotahi RSRA 2025 consultation: 41 concurrent rule proposals.
Respectfully submitted,
Ukes Baha
Public Health Advocate | Counsellor | Policy Analyst
ukesbaha.com