New Zealand’s regulatory landscape shifted more dramatically in 2025 than at any point since the reforms of the 1980s.
The Regulatory Standards Act 2025 received Royal Assent on 17 November despite a Waitangi Tribunal finding of Treaty breach and opposition from 98.7 per cent of public submissions – perhaps the most contested piece of legislation in modern parliamentary history.
Two days earlier, the Supreme Court confirmed that Uber drivers are employees, a ruling the government now seeks to legislate around.
And between these constitutional flashpoints, open banking went live, grocery suppliers gained stronger protections against the supermarket duopoly, and builders won the right to self-certify residential work.
What ties these disparate moves together is tension – between Māori consultation rights and efficiency, between growth and consumer protection, between innovation and worker security.
New Zealand faces similar challenges to Australia and the UK, but its small-market dynamics, coalition politics, and Treaty obligations have produced a distinctively contentious year.
Regulatory Standards Act: a constitutional turn
Nothing symbolised the government’s regulatory ambitions – or provoked fiercer opposition – more than the Regulatory Standards Act, which received Royal Assent on 18 November.
The legislation establishes a principles-based framework for good law-making, codifying requirements for regulatory quality, transparency, property rights protection, and efficiency that future legislation and regulation must be measured against. It also creates a Regulatory Standards Board – appointed by the Minister for Regulation – empowered to scrutinise both new and existing legislation for consistency with these principles.
At its first reading on 23 May, the bill’s sponsor and Minister for Regulation, David Seymour, described it as a crucial piece of legislation for improving the long-term quality of regulation in the country and ultimately allowing New Zealanders to live longer, happier, healthier, and wealthier lives.
At the bill’s progression in May, he framed its purpose: the bill would help the government achieve its goal of improving New Zealand’s productivity by ensuring that regulated parties are regulated by a system which is transparent, has a mechanism for recourse, and holds regulators accountable to the people.
A principles-based law or a constitutional provocation?
But what the coalition government presented as regulatory modernisation, critics condemned as constitutional overreach.
When the Waitangi Tribunal released its interim report on 16 May, it found that the Crown had breached Treaty principles of partnership and active protection by failing to meaningfully consult Māori before Cabinet took significant decisions on the bill. The tribunal recommended an immediate halt to the bill’s progression – advice the government declined to accept.
The tribunal’s finding that the bill’s development occurred without targeted engagement with Māori and that proceeding without meaningful consultation would constitute a breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi set the stage for months of acrimonious parliamentary debate.
Opposition was not limited to Māori advocates. The New Zealand Council of Trade Unions opposed the bill in the strongest terms, warning that the taking of property principle could require compensation when regulation reduces business profits.
The New Zealand Law Society questioned the irony of legislation purporting to promote good law-making that itself failed to meet basic standards of policy development. More than 156,000 people signed a petition opposing it, and 98.7 per cent of the roughly 166,000 public submissions to the select committee were opposed.
At the bill’s third reading on 13 November, the ideological divide was stark. Labour’s Regulation spokesperson Duncan Webb described it as a “bad” piece of law that sought to entrench private property rights in the legislative process, arguing it “baked in a libertarian set of values into our lawmaking process.”
Green co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick criticised the bill for not conducting targeted consultation with Māori and for “removing and deprioritising the Treaty of Waitangi.”
Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi delivered the most visceral opposition, denouncing the bill as cold, calculated arson designed to burn down the constitutional protections standing between Māori and exploitation.
Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi delivered the most visceral opposition, denouncing the bill as cold, calculated arson designed to burn down the constitutional protections standing between Māori and exploitation. He warned that Te Tiriti o Waitangi – which is the first and highest regulatory standard of this land – is being sidelined.
The bill nonetheless passed along coalition party lines – National, ACT, and New Zealand First voting in favour; Labour, Green, and Te Pāti Māori opposed. All three opposition parties have committed to repealing the legislation if they form the next government.
The Act’s implementation will test whether its principles – including provisions around property rights and compensation – shift the balance of power in regulatory design. The newly established Regulatory Standards Board will begin reviewing legislation against the Act’s principles, and the first compensation claims may materialise as early as 2026. For now, the Act stands as both a landmark in New Zealand’s constitutional development and a flashpoint for ongoing political contestation.
Open banking and financial modernisation
While constitutional reform dominated headlines, a quieter revolution began on 1 December 2025: regulated open banking officially went live.
Under the Customer and Product Data Act 2025, New Zealand’s four major banks – ANZ, ASB, BNZ, and Westpac – are now required to provide standardised APIs enabling customers to securely share their financial data with accredited third parties. The framework establishes a consumer data right that, when combined with payment initiation capabilities, promises to reshape competition in financial services.
Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Scott Simpson framed the launch in terms of consumer empowerment. From budgeting tools to faster mortgage comparisons and low-cost payment options, the opportunities and innovations presented by open banking are endless, he said.
The regulations align with global best practice and build on successful models in Australia and the UK, where open banking has sped up home loan approvals and enabled new consumer-friendly apps.
They also ensure data can only be shared under explicit customer consent, and third-party requestors must be accredited by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. Simpson noted that open banking will accelerate innovation and enhance competition in the banking sector, creating opportunities for fintechs and smaller players to deliver services that traditional banks have been slow to offer.
The implementation timeline reveals both ambition and pragmatic accommodation. State-owned Kiwibank has been granted a delayed compliance schedule: June 2026 for payment initiation services, and December 2026 for full customer data access. All other banks and deposit-takers can opt in voluntarily.
The phased approach reflects the Commerce Commission’s earlier concerns about implementation readiness. In its 2024 market study, the commission had warned that major banks were playing a delaying game, hindering independent fintechs and locking in their market power. It recommended that open banking be fully operational by June 2026 – a timeline the government has now codified, at least for the largest institutions.
For New Zealand’s concentrated banking sector – dominated by the four Australian-owned majors – open banking represents both a competitive challenge and an opportunity. The regulations prohibit banks from charging customers for data requests and limit charges for accredited requestors to nominal amounts: five cents per payment request, one cent per successful API call for customer data. These pricing constraints are designed to ensure that data portability does not become a profit centre for incumbents.
The 2026 test will be whether payment initiation – the ability for third parties to trigger payments directly from customer accounts – delivers on its competition promise. Cross-border data flows with Australia, which has its own Consumer Data Right framework, will also shape how regional financial services evolve.
Gig economy and employment classification
In a judgment that sent shockwaves through platform-based businesses, the Supreme Court on 17 November unanimously dismissed Uber’s appeal and confirmed that four Uber drivers are employees under the Employment Relations Act 2000.
The ruling, led by Chief Justice Helen Winkelmann, concludes a case first launched by unions E Tū and First Union in 2021. The Employment Court sided with the drivers in 2022, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision in 2024, and now the country’s highest court has closed the matter.
The court rejected Uber’s claim that its drivers are independent contractors, calling the contractual language “window-dressing” that misrepresented the actual relationship. Passengers were contracting with Uber, not the individual driver, the justices said.
What tipped the scales was Uber’s high level of control: it sets fares via algorithm, controls access to the platform, manages customer relations through ratings, enforces performance standards, and disciplines drivers unilaterally. While drivers can choose their hours, work for other platforms, and own their vehicles, these factors were outweighed by their integration into Uber’s operations and the absence of any meaningful business independence.
The decision gives affected drivers access to minimum wage protections, leave entitlements, and collective bargaining. Unions are now advancing more than 1,000 claims for backpay and lost benefits.
Wellington City Councillor and former Uber driver Nureddin Abdurahman, one of the original claimants, called the ruling a long-awaited recognition: “Drivers are workers, not contractors. The Supreme Court has backed us.”
Business groups warned of wider consequences. BusinessNZ’s Katherine Rich said the decision could collapse the gig economy, while the Employers and Manufacturers Association’s Alan McDonald said current legislation is ill-equipped to handle modern work models.
Uber said it was disappointed. New Zealand general manager Emma Foley noted the ruling applies only to the four named drivers and said Uber and Uber Eats would continue operating as normal. But she added the decision raises doubts about contracting arrangements across the economy.
The ruling lands just as the government pushes forward the Employment Relations Amendment Bill, which would introduce a new gateway test limiting workers’ ability to challenge their employment status. Unions say the bill would override the court’s decision and entrench platform worker exploitation. They are calling for it to be dropped.
The question for 2026 is whether the government will legislate to codify the court’s reasoning – or reverse it. Either way, the implications for platform businesses are now impossible to ignore.
Consumer protection and penalties
The government will introduce legislation in early 2026 to significantly raise penalties under the Fair Trading Act, aiming to strengthen deterrence and align enforcement with commercial realities.
Under the new regime, maximum penalties will rise from $600,000 to the greater of three times the commercial gain, the transaction value, or $5 million for companies. Civil penalties will also be introduced, allowing the Commerce Commission to act on the balance of probabilities rather than proving criminal intent.
Under the new regime, maximum penalties will rise from $600,000 to the greater of three times the commercial gain, the transaction value, or $5 million for companies.
Ministers framed the changes as necessary to remove incentives to break the law. Economic Growth Minister Nicola Willis said businesses can currently profit from breaches even after penalties are applied. Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Scott Simpson noted over 48,000 fair trading complaints since 2020, including pricing, refunds, and misleading advertising.
Recent enforcement in the supermarket sector helped set the stage. Woolworths NZ is facing criminal charges, and two Pak’nSave stores pleaded guilty to breaches earlier this year. Willis had previously warned major grocers about poor compliance.
The penalty uplift brings New Zealand closer to Australian settings, where fines can reach A$50 million. Commerce Commission Deputy Chair Anne Callinan welcomed the changes as a meaningful step in improving deterrence.
The government confirmed it will not proceed with proposals to ban indemnity insurance for directors or expand infringement notices and unfair contract terms powers.
Building reform and self-certification
Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk has announced a new self-certification regime for approved builders, plumbers, and drainlayers – allowing them to sign off on simple residential work without Building Consent Authority (BCA) inspections.
Enabled by amendments to the Building Act 2004 and Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Act 2006, the voluntary scheme aligns plumbers and drainlayers with electricians and gasfitters, who already self-certify. Penk estimates 3,000 homes per year could be delivered without delays from BCA approvals, freeing authorities to focus on higher-risk projects.
Master Builders welcomed the shift, citing costly inspection delays. But legal experts warned of liability gaps, noting that homeowners may be left without recourse if a self-certifier becomes insolvent – an echo of the leaky homes crisis.
Responsibility for compliance and defects will rest entirely with the certifier. The Self Certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers Bill passed its first reading in November, with full rollout expected in 2026.
The reforms revive long-standing tensions between deregulation and oversight in New Zealand’s construction regime.
Grocery supply code and market fairness
Following a statutory review completed in September, the Commerce Commission issued the Grocery Supply Code 2025 on 16 October, strengthening supplier protections against New Zealand’s supermarket duopoly.
The new code, which will come into force no later than 1 May 2026, amends provisions of the 2023 code to strengthen protections for suppliers, particularly smaller suppliers with less bargaining power. Key changes include prohibiting certain retailer charges, introducing new transparency requirements, and enhancing anti-retaliation measures.
The code regulates conduct by Foodstuffs North Island, Foodstuffs South Island, and Woolworths New Zealand when dealing with grocery suppliers. Its purpose is to address the power imbalance between regulated grocery retailers and suppliers – a structural feature of a market where two groups control over 80 per cent of grocery retailing.
Specific protections include requirements around rejection of fresh produce (which must occur within 24 hours with written reasons), restrictions on wastage charges, improved payment terms, and prohibitions on conduct that has the purpose, effect, or likely effect of unduly hindering or obstructing supply.
The commission’s role extends to monitoring compliance and, under the strengthened penalty regime being developed by MBIE, pursuing enforcement action. The code creates a framework for suppliers to raise concerns without fear of retaliation – though the willingness of suppliers to test these protections against powerful retailers remains to be seen.
First Grocery Commissioner Pierre van Heerden, appointed in July 2023, has overseen the code’s development and initial implementation. The 2026 review will assess whether the strengthened provisions deliver material improvements for suppliers.
Banking scams and consumer protection
New scam protection measures came into force on 30 November under the updated Code of Banking Practice, marking a coordinated push against rising financial fraud.
Led by the New Zealand Banking Association, the changes target authorised payment scams – where consumers are tricked into transferring funds to criminals. Banks have committed to five new actions: issuing scam warnings for high-risk payments, offering 24/7 reporting channels, sharing scammer account data, freezing suspect funds, and compensating eligible customers where obligations are unmet. Compensation is capped at $500,000 per banking relationship.
NZBA chief executive Roger Beaumont said the new code reflects banks’ commitment to tackling increasingly sophisticated scams. Banking Ombudsman Nicola Sladden welcomed the shift, but warned losses remain high. While scam complaints dropped 17 per cent last year, average losses rose to $88,000.
An Anti-Scam Alliance launched in July is bringing banks, regulators, and consumer groups together. Sladden called it a long overdue step toward sector-wide action.
RBNZ eases LVRs and reshapes governance
The Reserve Bank of New Zealand announced major shifts in 2025, easing lending restrictions and overhauling its governance framework.
As of December, loan-to-value ratio (LVR) has been loosened. Banks may lend more to borrowers with smaller deposits – up to 25 per cent of new lending above 80 per cent LVR for owner‑occupiers (up from 20 per cent), and 10 per cent above 70 per cent LVR for investors (up from 5 per cent). The Reserve Bank cited the stabilising impact of last year’s debt-to-income limits as grounds for the change.
Acting Assistant Governor Angus McGregor said the move will improve credit access, especially for first-home buyers. Finance Minister Nicola Willis called it a welcome shift for Kiwis seeking to enter the housing market.
A new Financial Policy Committee was also announced, separating prudential oversight from monetary policy and enhancing the Bank’s structural independence.
Leadership changes capped off the year. Rodger Finlay was confirmed as RBNZ Board Chair in November, and Anna Breman commenced as Governor on 1 December. Willis framed the transition as a full refresh: new leadership, new committees, and a leaner funding agreement.
Three takeaways and the 2026 test
Looking back over 2025, three themes stand out in New Zealand’s regulatory story.
- Constitutional-level reform has met unprecedented resistance, but proceeded anyway. The Regulatory Standards Act represents perhaps the most contested piece of legislation in modern New Zealand parliamentary history. It was opposed by nearly 99 per cent of submitters and condemned by the Waitangi Tribunal. Yet it passed, establishing a precedent for how future governments may treat overwhelming opposition. The Act’s implementation will test whether the Regulatory Standards Board becomes a meaningful constraint on lawmaking or a largely symbolic exercise.
- Market fairness and worker protection advance even as the government pursues deregulation elsewhere. The Supreme Court’s Uber ruling and the strengthened Grocery Supply Code demonstrate that existing legal frameworks retain capacity to address power imbalances – even when political will for legislative intervention is limited. The tension between these judicial and regulatory interventions and the government’s broader deregulatory agenda will shape 2026 debates.
- Digital and financial modernisation is accelerating, positioning New Zealand alongside Australia and the UK. Open banking, digital identity frameworks, and enhanced scam protections show a regulatory state capable of sophisticated market design. The question is whether implementation capacity matches ambition, and whether New Zealand can maintain distinctiveness while aligning with larger neighbours.
What to watch:
- Regulatory Standards Board: First decisions and potential compensation claims under the Act will reveal whether the legislation has teeth or remains largely declaratory.
- Open banking payment initiation: Performance of payment services, particularly after Kiwibank’s June 2026 deadline, will test whether the regime delivers competitive benefits.
- Gig-economy legislative response: Whether the government advances the Employment Relations Amendment Bill to override the Supreme Court decision – and whether New Zealand First supports it – will be pivotal.
- Fair Trading Act enforcement: First prosecutions under enhanced penalties will establish whether the regime delivers meaningful deterrence.
- Building self-certification: Safety incidents – or their absence – will determine whether the scheme expands or faces rollback.
By the close of 2026, it will be clearer whether 2025 marked the beginning of a more contested, more digitally integrated, and more constitutionally fraught regulatory state – or simply the latest chapter in New Zealand’s ongoing negotiation between market efficiency, social protection, and Treaty obligations.
