Three extraordinary interventions during March point to the reform’s inevitable demise.
The first occurred at the start of the month. Chief Justice Helen Winkelman took the highly unusual step of publicly warning, in a submission to the Environment Select Committee, that Parker’s reforms would disrupt the courts.
The chief justice cautioned that “extensive litigation” would follow the reforms and overburden the courts.
By constitutional convention, the judiciary should not be seen to interfere with parliamentary law-making. However, the convention has a narrow exception. The judiciary may express concerns relating to proposed legislation that directly affects the operation of the courts, the administration of justice or the rule of law.
Against this background, the chief justice’s intervention is sobering.
Submitters before the Environment Select Committee, including The New Zealand Initiative, repeatedly pointed to the vague language, the lack of coherence and the unworkability of Parker’s RMA reform proposals.
The high threshold required for the chief justice’s intervention means the judiciary shares those concerns. And that they are so serious they will adversely affect the administration of justice. Strike one against Parker’s reforms.
Strike two came from Environment Commissioner Simon Upton.
Upton is well versed in planning law bungles. After all, it was Upton who, as the Bolger government’s Environment Minister, delivered the RMA into law in 1991.
But even Upton sees the perils of Parker’s proposals. Indeed, his submission to the Select Committee says the reforms are so flawed the environment might be better off if they were scrapped. Parker’s reforms, he said, “weld a wide range of unprioritised outcomes into what is supposed to be the basis for environmental law.”
Even if the proposals are substantively amended, Upton questioned whether they can deliver an enduring framework. “As they stand, they substitute the uncertainty of new law with novel definitions and complex ambitions for the relative certainty of amending the existing legislation,” he said. Upton concluded that a better approach would be achieved through comprehensive amendment of the RMA.
Just in case the Prime Minister had not got the message, last week the Environment Committee chair, Green MP Eugenie Sage, delivered strike three.
Speaking at the Environmental Defence Society conference in Auckland, Sage said she wanted Parker’s reform proposals sent back for more public consultation. The Select Committee process was moving too fast. Too many changes were needed to the 859-clause Bill to do the reform process justice. “I don’t think we can get it panel-beaten… in the time we have available,” she said. Instead, she proposed the Government release a new exposure draft incorporating amendments from the Select Committee process, followed by further public consultation.
Sage was at pains to point out she was speaking as a Green MP rather than the Select Committee chair. But her views are her views, regardless of which hat she wears.
The last thing the Prime Minister will want in the lead-up to the election is the Greens joining ACT and National in a chorus of disapproval over Parker’s reform proposals.
So just what is wrong with the reforms? For such a complex reform exercise, the problems with can be succinctly stated.
They include multiple conflicting objectives with no mechanism for evaluating costs and benefits to resolve trade-offs.
They largely disregard property rights, so will have a chilling effect on investment.
They presume that planners know best – and will be able to predict society’s complex and diverse future needs.
They will undermine local democracy by conferring planning decision-making powers on new regional entities.
And perhaps worst of all, they introduce a Pandora’s Box of new amorphous concepts.
A generation or two of lawyers have got rich litigating the meaning of the RMA’s core concept of “sustainable development.” New requirements like “enabling the use… of the environment in a way that supports the well-being of present generations without compromising the well-being of future generations,” will have environmental lawyers licking their lips.
Not to mention the new “fundamental principle” of Te Oranga o te Taiao. This principle is defined to include the relationship between iwi and individual hapu and the environment. It places untested, undefined and unpredictable race-based considerations at the centre of the planning process.
It is no wonder submitters have warned that Parker’s new laws will be worse than the RMA he wants to repeal. That is some achievement.
Since taking over as Prime Minister, Hipkins has shown a ruthless determination to dispatch anything in the way of his Government being re-elected. So far, this has resulted in two so-called policy bonfires.
While these have largely involved dumb ideas being deferred, it would take a brave punter to bet against Parker’s reforms being struck out.
Roger Partridge is chairman and a co-founder of The New Zealand Initiative and is a senior member of its research team. He led law firm Bell Gully as executive chairman from 2007 to 2014. This article was first published HERE
By constitutional convention, the judiciary should not be seen to interfere with parliamentary law-making. However, the convention has a narrow exception. The judiciary may express concerns relating to proposed legislation that directly affects the operation of the courts, the administration of justice or the rule of law.
Against this background, the chief justice’s intervention is sobering.
Submitters before the Environment Select Committee, including The New Zealand Initiative, repeatedly pointed to the vague language, the lack of coherence and the unworkability of Parker’s RMA reform proposals.
The high threshold required for the chief justice’s intervention means the judiciary shares those concerns. And that they are so serious they will adversely affect the administration of justice. Strike one against Parker’s reforms.
Strike two came from Environment Commissioner Simon Upton.
Upton is well versed in planning law bungles. After all, it was Upton who, as the Bolger government’s Environment Minister, delivered the RMA into law in 1991.
But even Upton sees the perils of Parker’s proposals. Indeed, his submission to the Select Committee says the reforms are so flawed the environment might be better off if they were scrapped. Parker’s reforms, he said, “weld a wide range of unprioritised outcomes into what is supposed to be the basis for environmental law.”
Even if the proposals are substantively amended, Upton questioned whether they can deliver an enduring framework. “As they stand, they substitute the uncertainty of new law with novel definitions and complex ambitions for the relative certainty of amending the existing legislation,” he said. Upton concluded that a better approach would be achieved through comprehensive amendment of the RMA.
Just in case the Prime Minister had not got the message, last week the Environment Committee chair, Green MP Eugenie Sage, delivered strike three.
Speaking at the Environmental Defence Society conference in Auckland, Sage said she wanted Parker’s reform proposals sent back for more public consultation. The Select Committee process was moving too fast. Too many changes were needed to the 859-clause Bill to do the reform process justice. “I don’t think we can get it panel-beaten… in the time we have available,” she said. Instead, she proposed the Government release a new exposure draft incorporating amendments from the Select Committee process, followed by further public consultation.
Sage was at pains to point out she was speaking as a Green MP rather than the Select Committee chair. But her views are her views, regardless of which hat she wears.
The last thing the Prime Minister will want in the lead-up to the election is the Greens joining ACT and National in a chorus of disapproval over Parker’s reform proposals.
So just what is wrong with the reforms? For such a complex reform exercise, the problems with can be succinctly stated.
They include multiple conflicting objectives with no mechanism for evaluating costs and benefits to resolve trade-offs.
They largely disregard property rights, so will have a chilling effect on investment.
They presume that planners know best – and will be able to predict society’s complex and diverse future needs.
They will undermine local democracy by conferring planning decision-making powers on new regional entities.
And perhaps worst of all, they introduce a Pandora’s Box of new amorphous concepts.
A generation or two of lawyers have got rich litigating the meaning of the RMA’s core concept of “sustainable development.” New requirements like “enabling the use… of the environment in a way that supports the well-being of present generations without compromising the well-being of future generations,” will have environmental lawyers licking their lips.
Not to mention the new “fundamental principle” of Te Oranga o te Taiao. This principle is defined to include the relationship between iwi and individual hapu and the environment. It places untested, undefined and unpredictable race-based considerations at the centre of the planning process.
It is no wonder submitters have warned that Parker’s new laws will be worse than the RMA he wants to repeal. That is some achievement.
Since taking over as Prime Minister, Hipkins has shown a ruthless determination to dispatch anything in the way of his Government being re-elected. So far, this has resulted in two so-called policy bonfires.
While these have largely involved dumb ideas being deferred, it would take a brave punter to bet against Parker’s reforms being struck out.
Roger Partridge is chairman and a co-founder of The New Zealand Initiative and is a senior member of its research team. He led law firm Bell Gully as executive chairman from 2007 to 2014. This article was first published HERE
5 comments:
RMA 2.0 is not bad legislation.
It is in fact exactly what this government wants.
Like 3/5 Waters legislation is is designed to deny democracy and procure tribalised governance.
When I say it is not bad legislation I mean it is terrible, destructive apartheid legislation.
It will not be trashed but it will be filed and if Labour get the government again NZ will decline into a tribalised, back water, third world failed state because this sort of legislation prescribes this as the outcome.
Now, that really will be a test for Chippy - ditching Parker's terrible legislation.
When our woke judiciary and the Greens criticise it then he must know he's in deep shit.
And the Tax Payers Union haven't even started their public awareness campaign yet.
Hipkins won't have much left in Labour's "progressive" policy basket if he bins the new, much worse RMA. Mind you, he's being very quiet on Three Waters.
Chippy has his Chief Weasel working quietly in the background to keep 3 Waters viable. It will be re-worded with weasel words but the essence will be the same, racist, tribal, privilege and bad laW.
Notice all the provocative ministers have disappeared from the daily newsfeeds since New Year. As well as JA disappearing so have Grant, Willy, Kiri (except for foot shot) and Kelvin. The LP realised they needed to calm the farm but their policies have not changed.
I also see another u-turn for the RMA reform bill. Again, Labour have achieved nothing. We have many tears and much wailing and gnashing of teeth for all the money and a parliamentary majority wasted. Wasted. Wasted.
MC
I hope your confidence is well-founded Roger, for if this reform gets passed then we will, indeed, be in deep doo-doos. I have to admit the three strikes do seem truly remarkable and surely it would be a fool who ventures forth ignoring them but, like 3/5 Waters, there will be immense pressure coming to bear from one favoured quarter who will be seeing the writing on the wall and will want these reforms to progress at all costs. Let's hope Chippie does the right thing and cans them both, rather than 'taking the biscuit' for stupidity - the price of which we will all pay very dearly for.
" By constitutional convention, the judiciary should not be seen to interfere with parliamentary law-making. However, the convention has a narrow exception.." quote from the posted Article.
If this be the "case", then why did the Judiciary listen to a case, presented by 16 years old's, to petition the Govt to lower the voting age to 16??
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.