However, when reading the Bills in isolation she would not realise that self-identified Māori make up only about 16% of the New Zealand population, and almost all have some non-Māori blood. Furthermore, few live on tribal land or live in tribal ways. If our visitor then read the Treaty itself, she would learn that the Crown obligations and principles stated were not actually from the Treaty and had in fact been invented from the 1980s on by judicial, political, and tribal activists. She would be surprised to learn that the Bills largely ignored 84% of the New Zealand population.
However, the biggest surprise of all would be the argument legislators seemed to be making that resources are best managed using Māori tribal customs (tikanga) and traditional knowledge (mātauranga Māori) rather than modern scientific methods and disciplines such as ecology, geology, planning, surveying, architecture, building, infrastructure, and property and contract law.
Over the last fifty or so years the apartheid system in South Africa has been abolished, and segregation has long since ended even in America’s Jim Crow States. The Natural and Built Environment and the Spatial Planning Bills are part of a wave of New Zealand legislation that departs from the progressive arc of history and are regressive. These Bills create new race-based rights and privileges that further divide New Zealanders.
The 1986 New Zealand Constitution Act marked the point where the Crown’s role was reduced to the symbolic and procedural, and our democratically elected Parliament became sovereign in New Zealand. In a Parliamentary democracy power comes from people’s votes not out of the barrel of a gun, or from tribal, judicial or political activism. Authentic democracy can only function in an open and informed society where people have equal rights and exercise them. This is what we are rapidly losing.
Democracy Action has published an excellent critique of current resource management issues at: Resource management law replacement shaping up to be a can of worms. Submissions on the Natural and Built Environment and the Spatial Planning Bills are due by 11.59pm on 5 February 2023.
The new system replacing the Resource Management Act requires decision-makers to produce three key planning documents:
Among the objectives for the new resource management system is “to give proper recognition to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and provide greater recognition of te ao Māori including mātauranga Māori.” All persons exercising powers under the legislation must give effect to the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi. “Giving effect to” is stronger than the RMA’s current requirement for the Treaty of Waitangi’s principles to be “taken into account.”
A National Māori Entity will be established. It will be a statutory entity and will operate independently of the government of the day. Māori are expected to determine its membership. The entity will monitor and assess whether the resource management system is giving effect to the principles of te Tiriti. It will provide direct input into NPF development, it can nominate members to be considered for appointment to an NPF board of inquiry, and it will have the right to be heard at inquiry hearings. It can provide advice to those in the resource management system, either proactively or on request. It can be consulted by the Chief Environment Court Judge when the Judge is making appointments to Independent Hearing Panels (IHPs).
An NBE strength is recognising and upholding te Oranga o te Taiao. This concept is defined in the legislation as:
(a) the health of the natural environment;
(b) the essential relationship between the health of the natural environment and its capacity to sustain life;
(c) the interconnectedness of all parts of the environment;
(d) the intrinsic relationship between iwi and hapū and te Taiao.
(a) to (c) inclusive warrant strong support, however (d) is racially focused and fails to recognise the deep relationships New Zealanders have with te Taiao.
Under the new legislation the Māori voice is paramount. Māori, especially at the iwi and hapu level will be able to participate at all levels of the resource management system, including direct roles in decision making. For example, local authorities are to come together with Māori to prepare and agree on a Natural and Built Environment (NBE) plan for their region, and along with central government, to agree on a regional spatial strategy (RSS).
Regional Planning Committees (RPCs) will be established with decision-making autonomy – they are not accountable to elected local authorities. Local authorities are required to agree with iwi and hapū on the composition of the RPCs. An RPC must include at least two Māori members, who are to be chosen by iwi/hapū. In addition, RPCs must consult with iwi and hapū groups during the preparation of strategic plans.
The Regional Planning Committees will be making significant decisions that will impact on the lives and wellbeing of all citizens. These committees should be subject to democratic accountability, probably through requirements for election of key people. However, as the legislation now stands there is little electoral accountability and none in the case of Māori members of the Regional Planning Committees.
For non-Māori New Zealanders input into resource management may largely be indirect, that is through the councillors elected in local body elections, and by providing feedback on details of draft regional plans that are at an advanced stage and therefore difficult to change substantively.
Instead of treating all New Zealanders as equals regardless of race, this legislation confers extra rights on Māori. Despite some implausible Crown legal advice, the legislation seems to clearly breach section 19(1) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 that ensures freedom from discrimination based on race.
Compared to the current Resource Management Act the proposed new system erodes democracy and accountability to voters. It shifts much decision making to non-elected tribal representatives who may wield power far beyond what their numbers justify. While many of these people will be knowledgeable, skilled and dedicated, the overall impact is to reduce the pool of available (non-Māori) expertise that can be brought to bear in natural environment protection and resource management.
Good law needs to use unambiguous language, be clear in intent, provide certainty, and be workable. That is, people must understand and be able to respond to it. Common law has been built up over many years as precedents have been established and shared understandings have been widely adopted.
Terms such as ‘tikanga’, ‘kaitiakitanga’ and ‘mātauranga Māori’ are core elements of the legislation. Precise definitions of these terms will be needed for the legal system to function effectively.
Much tikanga from pre-European times died out after European immigration to New Zealand, and through the influence of missionaries and colonial institutions. Integrating tikanga concepts into our legal system may not fit easily with the common law system and may conflict with statute law. However, non-Māori New Zealanders are often comfortable with rahui that have no legal basis but a logical purpose, such as protecting fisheries stocks.
The Peter Ellis case saw tikanga recognise that a person’s reputation has an existence beyond his life. Such tikanga illustrate Māori universalism not exceptionalism. Some World War One soldiers who fled the fight were shot for desertion. When medical advances showed that shell-shock rather than cowardice was to blame the dead soldiers were pardoned and their reputations exonerated. Statues of heroes in one time can become toppled statues of anti-heroes as history is rewritten. The King Richard 111 Society was founded in 1924 to promote a more balanced view of a monarch who had been demonised in Shakespeare’s play.
Inevitably there will be conflicts between tikanga and mātauranga Māori assertions and evidence from modern, universal science. The former may depend on custom and authority and the latter on evidence, and it is evidence that must prevail in a modern, open and secular society.
The legislation seeks to make Māori custom or tikanga sources of law within New Zealand. For example, the NBE Bill states that: “All persons exercising powers and performing functions and duties under this Act must recognise and provide for the responsibility and mana of each iwi and to protect and sustain the health and well-being of te taiao in accordance with the kawa, tikanga (including kaitiakitanga), and mātauranga in their area of interest.”
The Regional Planning Committees (RPCs) are required to develop a Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) under the Spatial Planning Act, and a Natural and Built Environment Plan under the Natural and Built Environment Act. These committees will be made up of local government representatives, Māori, and central government officials where central government involvement is needed for the RSS development.
The resource management reforms are more about instituting a race-based system than creating a more efficient resource management system. It may be appropriate to intervene to overcome barriers to Māori engagement in resource management or any other such fields. However, the Bills do not remove barriers so much as create powerful new race-based institutions and regulatory processes that privilege Māori over all other New Zealanders.
The government would be wise to withdraw the proposed Bills and replace them with enabling legislation that does not discriminate on race lines. This legislation should vest decision-making in local communities and focus on improving the speed and lowering the cost of local decision-making processes. Decision-making must be accountable to affected communities, including but not limited to Māori.
Dr Peter Winsley has worked in policy and economics-related fields in New Zealand for many years. With qualifications and publications in economics, management and literature. This article was first published HERE
Over the last fifty or so years the apartheid system in South Africa has been abolished, and segregation has long since ended even in America’s Jim Crow States. The Natural and Built Environment and the Spatial Planning Bills are part of a wave of New Zealand legislation that departs from the progressive arc of history and are regressive. These Bills create new race-based rights and privileges that further divide New Zealanders.
The 1986 New Zealand Constitution Act marked the point where the Crown’s role was reduced to the symbolic and procedural, and our democratically elected Parliament became sovereign in New Zealand. In a Parliamentary democracy power comes from people’s votes not out of the barrel of a gun, or from tribal, judicial or political activism. Authentic democracy can only function in an open and informed society where people have equal rights and exercise them. This is what we are rapidly losing.
Democracy Action has published an excellent critique of current resource management issues at: Resource management law replacement shaping up to be a can of worms. Submissions on the Natural and Built Environment and the Spatial Planning Bills are due by 11.59pm on 5 February 2023.
The new system replacing the Resource Management Act requires decision-makers to produce three key planning documents:
- A National Planning Framework (NPF) on matters of national significance, produced by central government.
- Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) based on this Framework, produced by Regional Planning Committees (RPCs).
- Following the approval of an RSS the RPCs will develop Natural and Built Environment (NBE) Plans.
Among the objectives for the new resource management system is “to give proper recognition to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and provide greater recognition of te ao Māori including mātauranga Māori.” All persons exercising powers under the legislation must give effect to the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi. “Giving effect to” is stronger than the RMA’s current requirement for the Treaty of Waitangi’s principles to be “taken into account.”
A National Māori Entity will be established. It will be a statutory entity and will operate independently of the government of the day. Māori are expected to determine its membership. The entity will monitor and assess whether the resource management system is giving effect to the principles of te Tiriti. It will provide direct input into NPF development, it can nominate members to be considered for appointment to an NPF board of inquiry, and it will have the right to be heard at inquiry hearings. It can provide advice to those in the resource management system, either proactively or on request. It can be consulted by the Chief Environment Court Judge when the Judge is making appointments to Independent Hearing Panels (IHPs).
An NBE strength is recognising and upholding te Oranga o te Taiao. This concept is defined in the legislation as:
(a) the health of the natural environment;
(b) the essential relationship between the health of the natural environment and its capacity to sustain life;
(c) the interconnectedness of all parts of the environment;
(d) the intrinsic relationship between iwi and hapū and te Taiao.
(a) to (c) inclusive warrant strong support, however (d) is racially focused and fails to recognise the deep relationships New Zealanders have with te Taiao.
Under the new legislation the Māori voice is paramount. Māori, especially at the iwi and hapu level will be able to participate at all levels of the resource management system, including direct roles in decision making. For example, local authorities are to come together with Māori to prepare and agree on a Natural and Built Environment (NBE) plan for their region, and along with central government, to agree on a regional spatial strategy (RSS).
Regional Planning Committees (RPCs) will be established with decision-making autonomy – they are not accountable to elected local authorities. Local authorities are required to agree with iwi and hapū on the composition of the RPCs. An RPC must include at least two Māori members, who are to be chosen by iwi/hapū. In addition, RPCs must consult with iwi and hapū groups during the preparation of strategic plans.
The Regional Planning Committees will be making significant decisions that will impact on the lives and wellbeing of all citizens. These committees should be subject to democratic accountability, probably through requirements for election of key people. However, as the legislation now stands there is little electoral accountability and none in the case of Māori members of the Regional Planning Committees.
For non-Māori New Zealanders input into resource management may largely be indirect, that is through the councillors elected in local body elections, and by providing feedback on details of draft regional plans that are at an advanced stage and therefore difficult to change substantively.
Instead of treating all New Zealanders as equals regardless of race, this legislation confers extra rights on Māori. Despite some implausible Crown legal advice, the legislation seems to clearly breach section 19(1) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 that ensures freedom from discrimination based on race.
Compared to the current Resource Management Act the proposed new system erodes democracy and accountability to voters. It shifts much decision making to non-elected tribal representatives who may wield power far beyond what their numbers justify. While many of these people will be knowledgeable, skilled and dedicated, the overall impact is to reduce the pool of available (non-Māori) expertise that can be brought to bear in natural environment protection and resource management.
Good law needs to use unambiguous language, be clear in intent, provide certainty, and be workable. That is, people must understand and be able to respond to it. Common law has been built up over many years as precedents have been established and shared understandings have been widely adopted.
Terms such as ‘tikanga’, ‘kaitiakitanga’ and ‘mātauranga Māori’ are core elements of the legislation. Precise definitions of these terms will be needed for the legal system to function effectively.
Much tikanga from pre-European times died out after European immigration to New Zealand, and through the influence of missionaries and colonial institutions. Integrating tikanga concepts into our legal system may not fit easily with the common law system and may conflict with statute law. However, non-Māori New Zealanders are often comfortable with rahui that have no legal basis but a logical purpose, such as protecting fisheries stocks.
The Peter Ellis case saw tikanga recognise that a person’s reputation has an existence beyond his life. Such tikanga illustrate Māori universalism not exceptionalism. Some World War One soldiers who fled the fight were shot for desertion. When medical advances showed that shell-shock rather than cowardice was to blame the dead soldiers were pardoned and their reputations exonerated. Statues of heroes in one time can become toppled statues of anti-heroes as history is rewritten. The King Richard 111 Society was founded in 1924 to promote a more balanced view of a monarch who had been demonised in Shakespeare’s play.
Inevitably there will be conflicts between tikanga and mātauranga Māori assertions and evidence from modern, universal science. The former may depend on custom and authority and the latter on evidence, and it is evidence that must prevail in a modern, open and secular society.
The legislation seeks to make Māori custom or tikanga sources of law within New Zealand. For example, the NBE Bill states that: “All persons exercising powers and performing functions and duties under this Act must recognise and provide for the responsibility and mana of each iwi and to protect and sustain the health and well-being of te taiao in accordance with the kawa, tikanga (including kaitiakitanga), and mātauranga in their area of interest.”
The Regional Planning Committees (RPCs) are required to develop a Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) under the Spatial Planning Act, and a Natural and Built Environment Plan under the Natural and Built Environment Act. These committees will be made up of local government representatives, Māori, and central government officials where central government involvement is needed for the RSS development.
The resource management reforms are more about instituting a race-based system than creating a more efficient resource management system. It may be appropriate to intervene to overcome barriers to Māori engagement in resource management or any other such fields. However, the Bills do not remove barriers so much as create powerful new race-based institutions and regulatory processes that privilege Māori over all other New Zealanders.
The government would be wise to withdraw the proposed Bills and replace them with enabling legislation that does not discriminate on race lines. This legislation should vest decision-making in local communities and focus on improving the speed and lowering the cost of local decision-making processes. Decision-making must be accountable to affected communities, including but not limited to Māori.
Dr Peter Winsley has worked in policy and economics-related fields in New Zealand for many years. With qualifications and publications in economics, management and literature. This article was first published HERE
7 comments:
Local body management plans are riddled with similar maori pandering. It was recently reported that local mana whenua (reps appointed by maori who can claim links to tribes who often transiently, often as slaves , were in the area 180-500 years ago) cannot cope with the degree of (paid) consultation required. There is constant pressure to involve rangitahi so that they may be trained in the consultation extortion art.
Much of associated legislation is very lengthy and obtusely worded. Quite apart from the terror of cancellation if anything is questioned, I doubt if many mps or councillors thoroughly read; just rely on instructions of party seniors.
For ordinary non lawyer citizens to acquaint with and prepare submissions is a very laborious task. And futile. I doubt if many mps or councillors ever read more than the submissions summary prepared by staff who are motivated to support the original, and like most public service and local body staff, are invariably captured by current pro maori sentiment.
I dread what Luxon will say at Waitangi, locking himself into continued maori pandering. He has already effectively sanctioned co governance in local bodies.
Seriously, this situation has gone so far for so long - that return to anything normal is not realistic.
It is now a question of what deal can be made to avoid unrest.
Keeping the sheeple on the dark has paid off handsomely.
It is truly unbelievable that a modern, multi-racial, purportedly egalitarian nation could even consider countenancing this nonsense, yet here we are - ready to bestow special and over-arching rights to a minority that embrace stone-age concepts and a totally race-centric, incredibly myopic 'world' view. Just another nail in the coffin of democracy and indisputable proof that intelligence and commonsense is indeed rare - leastwise when it comes to ignorant and apathetic New Zealanders who allow these absurd, divisive policies to proceed all based on patently concocted, revisionist falsehoods. Those that are pushing these agendas deserve our opprobrium and one can only hope their day of judgement will be high.
Hi Anonymous 11.33. A line has to be drawn in the sand. Considerably further back than where we are now. Compromise is impossible as maori constantly strive for more ie the successive waves of full and final settlement, where, accustomed to twisting the meaning of maori words, they have succeeded in also twisting straight English. An interesting article in Herald today 3rd. Maori are getting nervous that the co governance con is being rumbled, and want another term. Maori Control would be most accurate. They pursuing the partnership con. Tino rangatiratanga in the Treaty has been stretched to mean maori control by some multi tribal influence chiefs in common, of all trace maori wherever, and superceeding their obligations as British subjects. Then further stretched to mean partnership. In the article, Ngarimu Blair effectively bemoans that instead of Ngati Whatua, the occupiers of Auckland in 1840, being recognised as mana whenua, every tribe of whom some minion ever paddled a canoe on the Waitemata has muscled in on the consultancy action and racket. He calls them "pretenders to mana whenua"' and mentions that there are no less than eighteen!!! Pretenders or not they can create great expense and inconvenience to anyone attempting to do anything. And they all want fees.
Thank you, Peter. You are not alone - as of course you know, in your knowledge and good sense in questioning this current madness - actual in-sanity - this mania for tikanga. I. who am pretty ignorant of science, and leave that to you, am a life-long student of psychology and human behaviour. I marvel at the stupidity (and I use the word literally rather than pejoratively - well....) of these people who are framing legislation, educating our children, planning to run our country on this basis. Sure, I think there are a number of chancers who would be in for anything, where they could see an advantage for themselves - just crooks, who will always be part of society. And then there must be constitutionally weak people, who, from the moment they drew breath - no conception probably - have feared to rely on their own judgement and needed others to structure their world for them.
But I can't for the life of me figure out the motivation of others - people I actually know and thought were quite functional in most respects. They can't say in any coherent way. I read about Derrida - makes no sense - and listen to Jordan Peterson and realise this is bigger than NZ - this woke epidemic. Does it just have to run its course? No, I cry - as do so many others. The prospect of getting much sense out of most political aspirants looks poor - apart from Seymour. There are one or two others, but it is the rank and file to get behind them, who are lacking. This is a very important year. Thank you again for your persistent effort. Your country needs you.
Well said fingerscrossed and thanks to Peter and all who inform us on NZCPR.
The coup is well advanced. Parliament could draw up a constitution for NZ, have it put to referendum which would, if it was endorsed by the country, mean the end of any Treaty claims or settlements.
Who on the horizon could take this away and make it happen?
Democracy would be at the front instead of under threat with twisted democracy being accepted by the few who would have the veto.
The whiners and grizzlers could then moan as much as they like but wouldn't get paid for it.
We taxpayers are told we can't afford Super but we taxpayers can't afford the Maori gravy train either.
MC
great comment mc a perfect solution as I have said before stop the money and you will stop their gravy train
Post a Comment