Fixing Regulation:  The UK Acts While Aotearoa New Zealand Does More Paperwork

10/03/2025

Regulation is like plumbing. When it works, you don’t notice it. When it doesn’t, everything gets clogged, leaks, and starts to smell.

The UK has decided to grab a wrench and fix the mess, while Aotearoa New Zealand is still standing around debating whether to call a plumber.

The UK government has admitted its regulatory system is too complicated. There are too many regulators, too many rules, and too much paperwork for businesses. Their solution? Cut the fat. They’re merging agencies, reducing bureaucracy, and aiming to cut admin costs for businesses by 25%. They know the real problem: a slow, risk-averse system that stops investment and innovation.

Aotearoa New Zealand is taking a different approach. Instead of simplifying regulation, the Government has set up a new Ministry for Regulation and a Regulatory Standards Board. The board’s job? To make recommendations: but with no power to change anything. It’s like having a complaints department that can’t fix problems. Imagine sending back a burnt meal at a restaurant, and the waiter just nods and writes it down. That’s how this board will deal with bad regulations.

The UK is cutting red tape, while Aotearoa New Zealand is adding more. The UK is making it easier for businesses to experiment with new ideas by using regulatory “sandboxes.” Aotearoa New Zealand, on the other hand, is planning to write fixed regulatory principles into law. This sounds good but could make the system less flexible and harder to change in the future. Good regulation needs to adapt to new industries and technology. The UK understands this; Aotearoa New Zealand doesn’t seem to.

Risk-taking is another issue. The UK is tackling a culture where regulators are scared to make bold decisions. They want regulators to be more responsive and balanced, making decisions that support both safety and growth. Aotearoa New Zealand, however, is focused on making sure regulations follow a set of principles, without changing how regulators actually work. It’s all about process, not results.

Then there’s accountability. The UK is demanding clear performance targets from regulators, and they’ll publish results so people can see what’s working. Aotearoa New Zealand’s plan? Let he poneketanga write reports about regulations, but without clear targets or real consequences if nothing improves. It’s another layer of bureaucracy to manage bureaucracy.

So here we are. The UK, late but decisive, is acting to fix its system. Aotearoa New Zealand is still holding consultations and adding more complexity.

If the goal is a regulatory system that supports investment, growth and innovation, the UK is moving forward while Aotearoa New Zealand risks getting stuck in the mud.

So what if Aotearoa New Zealand took the UK’s approach?

Instead of setting up another board, they could merge overlapping regulators and cut compliance costs. Imagine a system where businesses spend less time on paperwork and more time innovating. Where regulators make smart, practical and proportionate decisions instead of getting stuck in using a hammer for every intervention. Regulators need to be enabled to work as partners, not just as problems.

Instead, we have more consultation, another round of reports, and more complexity. It’s a classic case of Aotearoa New Zealand’s approach to reform: never waste a good opportunity to do nothing and have another meeting about it.