When our New Zealand Initiative delegation visited Amsterdam last month, officials from the Advisory Board on Regulatory Burden shared something striking. Before talking to us, this government agency had researched New Zealand’s approach – and they were astonished. 

In the Netherlands, reducing administrative burdens has been an uncontroversial project for two decades. In New Zealand, meanwhile, aiming for better regulation has become distinctly political. Both creating the Ministry of Regulation and proposing a Regulatory Standards Bill sparked fierce debates. 

The different public responses became clear when the Dutch explained their strategy. From the start, they kept scope narrow – focusing on reducing paperwork and time. All parties understood this limited mission. There were no grand reforms, no ideological battles. It was just about making life easier. 

It worked. The Dutch cut regulatory burdens by 25 percent over two decades, surviving multiple governments.  

But the real achievement goes beyond numbers. “It’s about mental burden, too,” officials explained. They spoke of business owners previously drowning in paperwork and citizens baffled by requirements. 

Their approach remains apolitical. The agency never questions policy objectives – that is for politicians. They only ask whether they can achieve these goals with less frustration. This neutrality enables them to work with all governments. 

In New Zealand, on the other hand, regulatory reform often triggers deep concerns. Environmental advocates fear rivers will be poisoned. Worker groups see threats to employment protections. Others worry about sovereignty and corporate power. 

Why such strong reactions? Jonathan Haidt explained this in his 2012 book The Righteous Mind – Why Good People are Divided on Politics and Religion. His insight: when something threatens what we care about – clean rivers, jobs, democracy – we react emotionally first, then find reasons to support our emotional objections later. 

Thus, when it comes to better regulation, each group’s concerns shaped their political views on the Government of the day. This transforms technical reforms into tribal warfare. 

But what if we could interrupt this pattern? 

Despite different political views, most New Zealanders share fundamental goals such as affordable homes, excellent schools, quality healthcare, cleaner rivers. Could we depoliticise these debates as the Dutch did with regulation? 

Yes, we need vigorous debate about achieving good outcomes. But recognising what binds us matters more than what divides us. Progress requires less partisan positioning, more focus on results. 

The Netherlands faces its own divisions. Yet on regulatory reform, they found a way forward. 

The Dutch succeeded by keeping regulation reform apolitical and uncontroversial. Taking the politics out of an issue – as they proved – sometimes delivers what politics cannot.