Source: New Zealand Ministry of Health
| Agency responsible | Ministry of Health |
|---|---|
| Portfolio | Minister of Health |
| Date finalised | 14 July 2026 |
| Identification Number | REG-2302 |
Good law-making: 9(i)
The importance of consulting, to the extent that is reasonably practicable, the persons or representatives of the persons that the responsible agency considers will be directly and materially affected by the legislation
Inconsistency identified?
No
Summary of agency analysis
Targeted engagement was undertaken with Taupō District Council, Central Hawke’s Bay District Council, and the New Zealand Institute of Environmental Health. Information was also sought from Auckland City Council, Wellington City Council, Christchurch City Council, and Dunedin City Council during development of this policy.
Good law-making: 9(j)
The importance of carefully evaluating—
- the issue concerned; and
- the effectiveness of any relevant existing legislation and common law; and
- whether the public interest requires that the issue be addressed; and
- any options (including non-legislative options) that are reasonably available for addressing the issue; and
- who is likely to benefit, and who is likely to suffer a detriment, from the legislation
Inconsistency identified?
No
Summary of agency analysis
The Order in Council removing listed offensive trades from Schedule 3 of the Health Act is developed following a clear identification of the regulatory problem, an assessment of the effectiveness of other existing regulatory regimes for regulating the listed offensive trades, and consideration of other options.
There is a clear case that removing listed offensive trades is in the public interest as it removes unnecessary regulatory burden for businesses who are classified as carrying out an offensive trade. The Order in Council is coherent with existing law and supported by analysis of distributional impacts. This reflects a good law-making process.
Good law-making: 9(k)
The importance of the responsible agency identifying and developing effective arrangements for implementing the legislation
Inconsistency identified?
No
Summary of agency analysis
A communication plan has been developed by the Ministry for Regulation to inform businesses of the change.
Good law-making: 9(l)
Legislation should be expected to produce benefits that exceed the costs of the legislation to the public or persons
Inconsistency identified?
No
Summary of agency analysis
The Order in Council proceeds based on a transparent assessment of expected costs and benefits, with expected cost savings and no perceived unintended consequences as a result of the policy change.
Good law-making: 9(m)
Legislation should be the most effective, efficient, and proportionate response to the issue concerned that is available
Inconsistency identified?
No
Summary of agency analysis
The Order in Council was identified by the Ministry for Regulation and the Ministry of Health as the best policy option to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden, as the listed offensive trades are already sufficiently regulated under other existing regulatory regimes.
Rule of Law: 9(a)(i)
The law should be clear and accessible
Inconsistency identified?
No
Summary of agency analysis
The Order in Council is straightforward and accessible to those who it affects. It simply removes the 19 offensive trades listed in Schedule 3 of the Health Act 1956, thereby removing the associated registration requirements under the Health (Registration of Premises) Regulations 1966. The amendment does not introduce new obligations, technical concepts, or regulatory requirements. Businesses, local authorities, and other affected parties can readily understand its effect: offensive trades will no longer be required to register with local authorities as under the current regime.
Rule of Law: 9(a)(ii)
The law should not adversely affect rights and liberties, or impose obligations, retrospectively
Inconsistency identified?
No
Summary of agency analysis
The Order in Council removes the 19 offensive trades listed in Schedule 3 of the Health Act 1956 on a prospective basis. It does not alter the legal effect of past actions, retrospectively impose penalties, invalidate previous registrations, or create new liabilities for conduct that was lawful when it occurred.
Rule of Law: 9(a)(iii)
Every person is equal before the law
Inconsistency identified?
No
Summary of agency analysis
The Order in Council applies equally to all people and entities carrying out trades currently listed as offensive trades in Schedule 3 of the Health Act 1956, and does not create any exemptions, immunities, or special treatment for the Crown or other public bodies. Existing regulatory frameworks and public health powers will continue to apply in the same manner to all relevant parties.
Rule of Law: 9(a)(iv)
There should be an independent impartial judiciary
Inconsistency identified?
Not applicable
Summary of agency analysis
Not applicable as the Order in Council does not affect judicial appointments or independence and does not confer judicial functions on any person.
Rule of Law: 9(a)(v)
Issues of legal right and liability should be resolved by the application of law, rather than the exercise of administrative discretion
Inconsistency identified?
Not applicable
Summary of agency analysis
Not applicable as the Order in Council only removes trades listed in Schedule 3 and does not delegate any authority to an administrative body such as a minister or a regulator to resolve issues relating to legal rights and abilities.
Liberties: 9(b)
Legislation should not unduly diminish a person’s liberty, personal security, freedom of choice or action, or rights to own, use, and dispose of property, except as is necessary to provide for, or protect, any such liberty, freedom, or right of another person
Inconsistency identified?
No
Summary of agency analysis
Through removal of the 19 offensive trades listed in Schedule 3 of the Health Act 1956, these trades will not be required to register with local authorities under the Health (Registration of Premises) Regulations 1966. This reduces regulatory requirements, annual fees, and compliance obligations for affected businesses, thereby increasing freedom of action rather than imposing additional restrictions. The Ministry of Health’s assessment found that public health risks associated with these trades are appropriately managed through other regulatory frameworks and existing powers under the Health Act 1956 to address nuisance and public health risks.
Taking of property: 9(c)
Legislation should not take or severely impair, or authorise the taking or severe impairment of, property without the consent of the owner unless—
- there is a good justification for the taking or severe impairment; and
- fair compensation for the taking or severe impairment is provided to the owner; and
- the compensation is provided, to the extent practicable, by or on behalf of the persons who obtain the benefit of the taking or severe impairment
Inconsistency identified?
Not applicable
Summary of agency analysis
Not applicable as the Order in Council does not take, severely impair or authorise the taking or severe impairment of property.
Taxes, fees and levies: 9(d)
The importance of maintaining consistency with section 22(a) of the Constitution Act 1996 (Parliamentary control of taxation)
Inconsistency identified?
Not applicable
Summary of agency analysis
Not applicable as the Order in Council does not impose or increase any tax, fee, levy, or other charge.
Taxes, fees and levies: 9(e)
Legislation should impose, or authorise the imposition of, a fee for goods or services only if the amount of the fee bears a proper relation to the cost of providing the good or service to which it relates
Inconsistency identified?
Not applicable
Summary of agency analysis
Not applicable as the Order in Council does not impose or authorise any new fees. Rather, it removes the requirement for businesses to pay an existing fee by decoupling these trades from registration requirements.
Taxes, fees and levies: 9(f)
Legislation should impose, or authorise the imposition of, a levy to fund an objective or a function only if the amount of the levy is reasonable in relation to both—
- the benefits that the class of payers is likely to derive, or the risks attributable to the class, in connection with the objective or function; and
- the costs of efficiently achieving the objective or providing the function
Inconsistency identified?
Not applicable
Summary of agency analysis
Not applicable as the Order in Council does not impose, or authorise the imposition of, a levy.
Role of courts: 9(g)
Legislation should preserve the courts’ constitutional role of ascertaining the meaning of legislation
Inconsistency identified?
Not applicable
Summary of agency analysis
Not applicable as the Order in Council does not limit court’s ability to interpret legislation or interfere with judicial proceeding. The courts will continue to exercise their ordinary role in interpreting and applying the Health Act 1956 and other relevant legislation.
Role of courts: 9(h)
Legislation should make rights and liberties, or obligations, dependent on administrative power only if the power is sufficiently defined and subject to appropriate review
Inconsistency identified?
Not applicable
Summary of agency analysis
Not applicable as the Order in Council does not create any new administrative powers or allow exercise of powers that can interfere with rights, liberties, or obligations.
Original source: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/08/13/summary-of-underpinning-analysis-health-offensive-trades-removal-order-2026/