The Regulatory Standards Act was passed in parliament on 13 November and received royal assent on 18 November. The Act sets out a number of principles which lawmakers and civil servants will have to respect. Deviations from the principles will have to be publicly explained. The opposition, constitutional law scholars, civil society and the general public have reacted negatively to the Act, criticizing the formulation of principles – which include restrictions on taxation, taking of property, and a focus on individual liberties over common welfare - as vague, in conflict with existing constitutional provisions, or overly ideological. The principles are not enforceable in court but are expected to impact governance in the future should the opposition fail in its promise to repeal the Act if elected. Ninety-eight per cent of public comments on the bill were negative, with experts referring to it as ‘a dogmatic project designed to politically skew the process of lawmaking’ and ‘demonstrably antithetical to many core values underpinning modern welfare states.’ Specifically, its critics say adherence to the Act’s principles could undermine public health, social equality and environmental protections through a narrow conception of individual rights and private property.

Sources: Radio New Zealand, Radio New Zealand, Public Health Communication Centre, New Zealand Parliamentary Counsel Office

More than 100,000 public employees, including teachers, doctors and nurses went on a one-day strike on 23 October, protesting low salaries, poor working conditions and underinvestment in public services. The strike was the largest since New Zealand’s only general strike in 1979, which included nearly 300,000 workers, and caps a year of growing labour activism in the country. While the country’s workforce was almost entirely unionized during the 1979 general strike, unionization is below 20 per cent today. Sectoral unions cited additional grounds for the strike, ranging from concerns over curriculum and exam procedures for teachers’ unions to short-staffing and a lack of support for training for doctors’ unions. Government representatives called the strike ’politically motivated’ and criticized the effect it had on schools’ and hospitals’ operations, which labour leaders and the political opposition rejected.

Sources: Reuters, Labor Notes, Radio New Zealand

Parliament passed on 7 May the Pay Equity Amendment Bill, which significantly narrows the scope for pay equity claims under the 2020 Pay Equity Act. The old Act allowed for legal challenges to rectify historical gender-based pay disparities within or between comparable occupations. The new rules restrict the occupations that can bring cases by requiring a higher proportion of those employed in a profession to be women, prioritizes comparisons within rather than between professions, and places additional burdens of evidence on claimants. The effects of these measures will become clearer in practice. The new law dismissed all claims currently under consideration, negatively impacting women who have launched legal action alleging discrimination. The bill was condemned by gender equity advocates, the opposition, and unions as making equity claims between professions de facto impossible. Business groups supported the changes but criticized the process as undermining public trust.

Sources:  Radio New Zealand, DLA Piper, New Zealand Herald

New Zealand’s parliament passed a law criminalizing wage theft on 13 March, meaning that victims will now be able to report suspected wage theft to the police for investigation. The law carries penalties of up to NZD 30,000 and one year in prison. Wage theft was previously considered a matter for civil courts, meaning that a worker who suspected her employer of wage theft needed to hire legal counsel and purse the case in civil courts. The bill’s sponsor, Camilla Belich of the opposition Labour Party, argued the civil process was lengthy, complicated, and dissuaded victims of wage theft from seeking recompense. The governing National Party opposed the bill on the grounds that too many criminal cases would “clog up the courts.”

Sources: Radio New Zealand, DLA Piper

 A lawyer for Mana-Apiti Brown filed a legal challenge in March in Wellington’s High Court to New Zealand’s “gang patch ban”, which allows for fines of up to NZD 5,000 or six-months’ imprisonment for wearing clothing with the insignia of one of 41 recognized gangs in public. The case alleges that the ban infringes on freedoms of expression and association, a legal argument which was also made in a report by Attorney-General Judith Collins on the ban when it was still under parliamentary consideration. Brown was convicted of wearing a hat with the name and logo of a gang in the Lower Hutt suburb of Naenae on 7 December 2024 and was discharged with a criminal conviction but without further penalty. Proponents of the patch ban say it allows police to proactively prevent gangs from intimidating community members. Between the law’s enactment on 21 November 2024 and 24 February 2025, police charged 337 individuals and seized 76 patches or articles of clothing.

Sources: Radio New Zealand (1), Radio New Zealand (2)