Why Oppose the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill
Principle good — mechanism harmful. Keeping transport law tidy makes sense. But this Bill goes too far: it is an omnibus vehicle spanning land transport, maritime, and aviation that masks substantive reforms as technical fixes, expands powers without explicit safeguards, and weakens transparency — while overlooking clear Te Tiriti and equity obligations.
Here’s what the Bill actually does, why it is dangerous, and how it erodes clarity, accountability, and trust.
Key Principles at Stake
- Transparency: Omnibus “tidy-ups” must not hide material policy shifts.
- Proportionality: Any new closure or investigatory powers require tight thresholds, reasons, and review rights.
- Accessibility: “Digital-by-default” must not exclude people without reliable connectivity or devices.
- Te Tiriti & Equity: Changes should be assessed for impacts on Māori, rural/remote communities, and small operators.
- Plain Language & Certainty: High-volume amendments must not create ambiguity or inconsistency across rules.
What This Bill Really Does
- Bundles cross-mode changes: Land transport, maritime, and aviation amendments are packaged together as “minor fixes.”
- Introduces/extends powers: For example, enabling state highway closures and signalling enhanced investigatory settings without detailed safeguards on the face of the Bill.
- Shifts to electronic compliance: Treats inspection/permit evidence as “displayed” if available electronically — beneficial, but risky without offline guarantees and resilience standards.
- Relies on parallel rule churn: Large volumes of rule tweaks proceed alongside the Bill, increasing the risk that substantive shifts slip through as technical edits.
Why This Threatens Clarity, Rights, and Trust
- Omnibus overreach: Combining many topics into one Bill blunts line-by-line scrutiny and public input.
- Insufficient guardrails: Closure/investigation powers need crisp tests (necessity, proportionality), time caps, and reasons in writing.
- Digital exclusion risks: Electronic-only “display” can penalise those without connectivity; outages can stall enforcement and compliance.
- Drafting complexity: High-volume edits raise the odds of inconsistency and legal uncertainty for operators and the public.
- Equity & Te Tiriti gaps: No clear public assessment of distributional impacts or Treaty obligations.
What Good Law Would Do Instead
- Split the Bill by mode/theme so each change gets focused scrutiny and public consultation.
- Codify safeguards for any new closure/investigatory powers: objective thresholds, time limits, written reasons, notice duties, and rights of review/appeal.
- Guarantee offline pathways and reliability standards for electronic compliance (with privacy protections and outage protocols).
- Publish a change-register showing before/after text and run plain-language/legal-consistency audits before commencement.
- Undertake Te Tiriti & equity impact assessments and consult impacted iwi, communities, and small operators.
If You Care About Safety, Fairness, and Accountability
This Bill is not mere housekeeping — it is omnibus overreach. It risks consolidating power, creating confusion, and undermining trust.
If you believe efficiency should not trump transparency…
If you believe digital progress should not exclude people…
If you believe transport rules should be clear, fair, and Treaty-consistent…
Then now is the time to oppose this Bill.
“A tidy-up that hides real change isn’t tidy — it’s erosion.” — Ukes Baha
Read the full submission:
Formal Opposition to the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill