The RMA has failed in good part because of two fundamental flaws from a property right perspective: first, it allowed all and sundry to object with impunity to a changed land use; second, it denied compensation for the lost value from a successful objection.
Both flaws are bad for New Zealanders’ wellbeing. Unaffordable housing, over-crowded homes and people sleeping in cars is one result. Consenting costs for infrastructure projects exceed $1.3 billion per year and can add many months to getting them built.
The impacts are much wider than housing and infrastructure. An anecdotal article in last week’s Insights illustrated how ludicrously wasteful the RMA has become.
Despite such evidence, many will scoff that the government’s affirmation is ideological.
To the contrary, it is evidence-based. Security in one’s possessions is essential for dignity and prosperity. Tom Bethell documented this in his 1998 book, The Noblest Triumph Property and Prosperity throughout the Ages.
Eighteenth century philosopher and social reformer Jeremy Bentham wrote that the law that gives security to property is “the noblest triumph of humanity over itself”. A lack of property rights was a key reason the Soviet Union was a poor country despite rich natural resources.
Property rights determine the degree to which legal owners can determine the best use of their property, retain any income from that use, and dispose of their property. Those rights affect owners’ incentives. Property rights are not absolute, but government over-rides should be restrained and principled.
The RMA’s neglect of property rights is not an aberration, there is a long history of it including confiscations of Māori land. Their protection is absent from New Zealand’s Bill of Rights Act. A 2009 paper for the Victoria University’s New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation argued that:
Despite such evidence, many will scoff that the government’s affirmation is ideological.
To the contrary, it is evidence-based. Security in one’s possessions is essential for dignity and prosperity. Tom Bethell documented this in his 1998 book, The Noblest Triumph Property and Prosperity throughout the Ages.
Eighteenth century philosopher and social reformer Jeremy Bentham wrote that the law that gives security to property is “the noblest triumph of humanity over itself”. A lack of property rights was a key reason the Soviet Union was a poor country despite rich natural resources.
Property rights determine the degree to which legal owners can determine the best use of their property, retain any income from that use, and dispose of their property. Those rights affect owners’ incentives. Property rights are not absolute, but government over-rides should be restrained and principled.
The RMA’s neglect of property rights is not an aberration, there is a long history of it including confiscations of Māori land. Their protection is absent from New Zealand’s Bill of Rights Act. A 2009 paper for the Victoria University’s New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation argued that:
New Zealand is distinguished by having among the weakest protection of private rights in the OECD, a history of confiscation of private property rights, and a long-standing failure to recognise the protection of the basic human right of property rights.
New Zealand is not alone in having neglected protection for property rights. But we need to be doing better, and not just with housing and infrastructure.
The also announced expert advisory group has a big job to produce a blueprint for RMA replacement by Christmas. Let us wish it well.
Nick is a Senior Fellow, focusing on local government, resource management, and economic policy. This article was first published HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment