Nicole McKee: Minister of Loopholes, Enabler of Overreach
Guns, Deregulation, and the Quiet Dismantling of Oversight
Associate Minister of Justice · Sponsor of Vague Powers · Undermining Trust in Regulation

Current Portfolios
- Minister for Courts
- Associate Minister of Justice
Nicole McKee fronts legislation that, in my view, erodes due process, weakens oversight, and consolidates authority under the guise of reform. From the Tribunals Amendment Bill to the Occupational Regulation Bill, and the sweeping Anti-Money Laundering Amendment Bill, McKee’s work advances centralised power at the expense of public protections.
Though party leader David Seymour authored the Medicines Amendment Bill and the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill, and Laura McClure carried the Employment Relations Amendment Bill, McKee remains the most persistent executor of ACT’s agenda. As Minister for Courts she sits at the crux of procedural reshaping — turning “tidying” into exclusion and consolidation.
Behind this sits a platform of exclusion and centralisation. In my assessment, McKee is not merely complicit — she is the legislative enforcer of ACT’s instincts, providing institutional weight and political cover for policies that undermine Aotearoa’s democratic and Treaty foundations.
The Tribunal Bill: Administrative Reform or Legal Subversion?
Marketed as streamlining, the tribunal package expands investigative reach, reshapes appointments with executive dominance, and introduces loose complaint mechanisms with thin safeguards. Coupled with vague cost-penalty provisions, it risks fairness in the very tribunals New Zealanders rely on for everyday justice.
McKee’s personal imprint is clearest in Part 4, amending the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Act 2010:
- Section 104A: Empowers the Complaints, Investigation, and Prosecution Unit to demand documents from any person — without judicial pre-approval. Non-compliance becomes an offence (fines up to $20,000).
- Section 73AAA: Enables complaints against unlicensed individuals, with limited safeguards and wide discretion for the Licensing Authority.
- Sections 80 & 83: Allow licence/certificate cancellation for alleged misconduct, potentially beyond business scope.
This is not mere “tidying”: it widens regulatory reach and normalises soft surveillance.
Formal Opposition Submitted By: Ukes Baha | Read the full opposition
The Occupational Regulation Bill: Soft Loopholes, Hard Consequences
Branded as efficiency, the Occupational Regulation Amendment Bill reduces transparency and increases discretion across legal services, real estate, and sex work.
- Section 135A (Lawyers and Conveyancers Act): Lets the Complaints Service dismiss complaints pre-Standards Committee on subjective grounds (“triviality”, “lack of personal interest”).
- Section 24A (Real Estate Agents Act): Compels documents from licensees and unlicensed persons within 10 working days; non-compliance can incur fines up to $50,000.
- Section 72 (Real Estate Agents Act): Broadens “unsatisfactory conduct” beyond professional scope.
- Section 272A (Lawyers Act): Shields Law Society insiders from “regulated services” definitions, narrowing accountability during complaint handling.
- No Treaty assessment: Despite sectoral reach, the bill omits Te Tiriti considerations.
The effect is more discretion for institutions, less recourse for the public.
Formal Opposition Submitted By: Ukes Baha | Read the full opposition
The AML/CFT Bill: International Compliance or Domestic Overreach?
Framed as a crackdown on crime and terrorism financing, the AML/CFT Amendment Bill (114–1) blends sensible clarifications with expansive controls that blur the line between necessary enforcement and financial surveillance.
- Section 90A: Directs pecuniary penalties to reimburse supervisor “actual costs” — a design that risks perverse enforcement incentives.
- Section 132: Enables inquiries on behalf of overseas agencies, raising transparency and reciprocity concerns for New Zealanders’ data.
- Section 67B: Extends “stored value instruments” to items like gold, silver, and precious stones, bringing personal/cultural holdings within AML scope.
- Section 80: Replaces “formal warnings” with “censures”, broadening labelling/punitive discretion with unclear appeal thresholds.
The posture favours bureaucratic convenience and external compliance optics over constitutional care.
Formal Opposition Submitted By: Ukes Baha | Read the full opposition
Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill (2025)
Pattern: centralisation of executive power, rule-by-notice, cost shifting to levies, and reduced consultation — embedding external (FATF) priorities over domestic parliamentary control.
- Single supervisor designated under PM authority (s5, s131): concentrates sensitive financial oversight.
- Delegated law-making (ss64, 156B–156J): obligations changed via rules/notices with carve-outs to skip consultation.
- Home entry (s133A): extends intrusion into dwellinghouses used for business.
- Compelled interviews (s132(2)(ba)): “any person” can be required to attend and answer questions.
- Industry levies (ss155A–155E): back-charging and exemptions under ministerial strategy/work programme (ss149A–149F).
Formal Opposition Submitted By: Ukes Baha | Read the full opposition
Legislative Pattern: Executive Control via Delegated Law-Making
This bill fits a broader pattern: concentrate power in a single supervisor, expand rule-by-notice to move obligations without debate, attach costs to a levy under ministerial strategy, and create generous exemption tools. The result is weaker parliamentary sovereignty and stronger executive discretion — especially over finance and data-rich sectors.
ACT’s Pattern of Power Without Accountability
In my view, McKee’s proposals are integral to a broader ACT blueprint: concentrating authority, bypassing safeguards, and sidelining dissent. Her tribunal bill reflects the party’s appetite for control; her occupational and financial legislation reinforce opaque authority and weakened checks.
The party has also faced scrutiny over its handling of matters involving former president Tim Jago, including extended name suppression and concerns about internal accountability (see public reporting and court records). Those episodes — and the silence around them — are inconsistent with a culture of transparency. (Add specific citations here.)
A Party of Projection, a Minister of Compliance
Elevated as a symbol of inclusion, McKee serves a political project that, in my assessment, prioritises exclusionary policy settings. Her presence may help deflect criticism, yet the policies she enables undermine communities she is expected to serve.
ACT has attacked Te Tiriti o Waitangi, championed property rights over people’s rights, and dismissed public accountability as “bureaucratic drag”. McKee may not be the architect — but she is its loyal builder. Representation without resistance becomes complicity.
This is how political erosion works: not always through aggression — often through obedience, polished rhetoric, and strategic silence.
Legislative Hyperactivity, Societal Restructuring
These bills are not isolated — they form a co-ordinated legislative offensive aimed at rewiring Aotearoa’s legal, cultural, and civic frameworks. In one parliamentary term, ACT has:
- Introduced the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill, threatening to erase Treaty obligations
- Pushed to dismantle school lunches and social supports in the name of “efficiency”
- Introduced multiple regulatory bills via McKee that centralise control and reduce public protections
- Advanced the Medicines Amendment Bill, overriding Medsafe and empowering ministers to bypass domestic pharmaceutical regulation
- Introduced the Employment Relations (Termination of Employment by Agreement) Amendment Bill via Laura McClure
- Expanded surveillance powers in the Anti-Money Laundering Amendment Bill, blurring global compliance with domestic overreach
- Supported privatisation, fast-track development, and deregulatory initiatives that undermine long-term sovereignty
This isn’t busyness — it’s ideological transformation by stealth: replacing collective protections with market logic, and democratic safeguards with executive dominance.
McKee is a key vessel in this effort — alongside Laura McClure and David Seymour. Their roles are functional: the interface between authoritarian lawmaking and public legitimacy.
What You Can Do
- Speak up. McKee’s record is not reform — it’s restriction. Her legislation is the blueprint.
- Opposition: Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill
- Opposition: Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill
- Opposition: The Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill
- Opposition: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill
- Share this exposé: nicole_mckee.html
- Don’t be distracted by titles. Track the pattern. Share the evidence. Defend transparent governance.
Every case documented strengthens public memory — and demands accountability.
🔙 Back to APIAPE Index