Reform tracker · New Zealand
New Zealand's bill would let the Health Minister direct the health regulators on policy and let a ministerial committee overturn registration refusals. Parliament has since been dissolved for the November 2026 election.
Status note: Introduced 18 May 2026. Parliament was dissolved on 1 October 2026 for the 7 November election, and we could not confirm that the bill had its first reading. Whether it proceeds depends on the next Parliament.
The Cabinet paper says the framework is "outdated, inflexible and too slow", criticises "unnecessarily high standards" including "long training programmes, strict supervision requirements" and "patch protection", and states that "workforce regulation is not a supply control tool". The bill grew out of the government's Putting Patients First review, which promised "right-sized" regulation.
It does not merge the regulators. Paragraphs of the Cabinet paper that follow its criticism of “18 separate profession-funded regulators” are withheld.
The Cabinet paper names physician associates and “associate psychologists” as new professions, and says regulators “have sometimes been slow to adapt … due to professional resistance or lack of direction from government”. A Minister with power to direct the Psychologists Board on policy would be a significant change for the profession.
In our view, New Zealand’s government uses right-touch-style language more openly than the others. But the classic right-touch model relies on independent assessment of risk, while this bill relies on ministerial direction. That is why, as we see it, the main criticism here is about political control of regulators rather than lighter touch as such.
An opinion piece by Ian Powell, former executive director of ASMS, arguing New Zealand's HPCA Amendment Bill gives the Health Minister too much power over independent health regulators.
Why it matters: Captures what we see as the main criticism in New Zealand: political control of regulators, rather than lighter-touch regulation as such.
The New Zealand government's case for reform. It criticises 'unnecessarily high standards', long training and strict supervision, 'patch protection' and siloed regulators, and names associate psychologists among new professions it says regulators have been slow to adapt to, citing 'professional resistance or lack of direction from government'.
Why it matters: A strikingly direct statement of what the government believes is wrong with professional regulation. It mentions psychology once, naming associate psychologists as a new profession.
A rapid review of the government's 2025 Putting Patients First proposals through the lens of equity and Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations.
Why it matters: A critique, published as a Viewpoint in the NZMJ, of the 2025 Putting Patients First proposals, focused on what they mean for Māori health and cultural safety.