On its introduction in the early nineties, the Resource Management Act was hailed as groundbreaking. It was “enabling” legislation – a bold departure from the rigid, prescriptive Town and Country Planning Act that had governed land use for decades.
Instead of councils dictating what people could and could not do with their property, the new law was focussed on managing the environmental effects of a project.
The RMA was meant to empower development, but in the end, it smothered it.
Some of the changes that ultimately undermined the RMA’s original intent appeared to be relatively innocuous – such as the shift from allowing the non‑notification of consents where effects were considered to be “minor” to requiring them to be “less than minor”. While the wording change was subtle, its consequences were anything but. Activities that should have been waved through now triggered full public notification, not only creating bureaucratic bottlenecks, higher costs, and lengthy delays, but discouraging the public from undertaking any projects at all!
Other problems were structural. Buried within the supposedly enabling framework were “affected person” provisions that not only empowered activists to endlessly delay projects, but along with special Maori consultation rights and privileges, created such an opportunity for extortion that it wasn’t long before the RMA became known as the “Ransom Management Act”.
The control that Maori now have over the RMA was not planned. When the Resource Management Bill was first introduced into Parliament on 20 December 1989, schedule 1 created a discretionary framework for consultation during the early stages of developing regional policy statements, or district and regional plans, but there was no requirement to notify Maori above anyone else.
The Bill did specify Treaty ‘principles’ had to be taken into account, and it did recognise Maori relationships with ancestral land, but there were no special consultation rights.
However, after receiving more than 3,000 submissions, many from Maori organisations and advocates seeking stronger Treaty “partnership” provisions, Parliament’s Planning and Development Select Committee amended the Bill to introduce mandatory consultation. This significantly elevated the role of iwi authorities from discretionary participants in the planning process, to special groups entitled to preferential engagement.
Over the years, iwi involvement was expanded into something far more intrusive. Risk-averse councils, afraid of being accused of breaching Treaty principles, began consulting iwi on virtually every development proposal. A minor subdivision, a farm shed, or even a simple deck extension could all necessitate “cultural input” – not required by the Act but by risk-averse council staff.
The Ministry for the Environment encouraged this outcome by urging councils to treat iwi as “partners” in environmental management — a concept entirely absent from the legislation. As a result a plethora of co-governance type agreements between councils and local iwi emerged, with cultural impact assessments becoming routine: applicants were told to commission them, pay for them, and wait for iwi approval before their consent could proceed. In some regions, iwi began charging substantial fees to even look at an application.
Legally binding Treaty settlements created more problems as councils applied them far more broadly than intended. Provisions meant for specific rivers or sites were stretched across entire districts. The cumulative effect was a system where iwi influence depended not on law but on local politics and council activism.
RMA problems were further exacerbated by the courts, which expanded the meaning of “take into account the principles of the Treaty” far beyond what was ever intended. Councils responded by over‑consulting to protect themselves. The end result is a system where iwi are treated as a mandatory stakeholder in almost every resource consent decision.
This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator Frank Newman, a former District Councillor and Resource Consents Commissioner, highlights the problem:
“A recent example involves an application to split a lifestyle property into two titles. The council required consultation with two hapu that they said had ‘kaitiaki’ or guardianship status and the right to be consulted on resource consent applications.
“The nearest hapu, 20 km away, had no objections. The other was less obliging. Despite their closest marae being 60 km away, their concerns included the effect an access road would have on nearby juvenile kauri trees and potential adverse effects on their cultural and spiritual values.
“To address these concerns, the hapu demanded a karakia by a Kaumatua before any earthworks began (at $150 an hour plus travel); replacement of all removed native vegetation at a 4:1 ratio (despite the landowner already committing to designate 80% of the land as conservation reserve); kaitiaki monitors on-site during the earthworks (at $75 an hour plus travel); and consultant fees (at $200 an hour).
“After various meetings and invoices totalling $3,200, the landowner concluded the hapu had no meaningful connection with his land. He saw it as a scam and resented being placed in a position where the least costly option was to shut up and pay up.”
In the end, the RMA was beyond repair. It bore little resemblance to the statute Parliament had passed in 1991. What began as enabling law had become a roadblock to progress. Iwi consultation — originally a modest requirement during plan‑making – had evolved into an informal veto power, creating delays, uncertainty, and significant costs for property owners.
The Government’s replacement legislation is built around a simple insight: the RMA tried to do too much in one statute. It combined long‑term strategic planning with day‑to‑day consenting, and the result was confusion, duplication, and endless litigation. The solution they have proposed is to split these functions into two separate laws, each with a clear purpose.
The first, the Natural Environment Bill, sets out the environmental rules and consenting framework – the operational engine of the system. It defines how development is assessed, what standards must be met, and how councils make decisions. This law is designed to be simpler, faster, and more predictable than the RMA.
The second, the Planning Bill, enables long‑term, big‑picture decisions including where growth should occur, where infrastructure should go, and how regions should develop.
One of the most significant concerns over the reforms is how much influence iwi will retain.
While many voters expected a complete roll-back of race-based provisions – in line with the commitments made by the Coalition partners in their Coalition Agreements – this is not the case.
Instead of eliminating iwi involvement in the new planning system, the Coalition claims their reforms will limit it by redirecting it away from individual consents into a more strategic role.
The Treaty of Waitangi clause in both Bills sets out the details. Maori interests will be provided through their involvement in the development of national instruments, spatial planning, and council land use plans; their identification of sites of significance for protection (including, wahi tapu, water bodies, and coastal marine areas); and through “enabling the development and protection of ‘identified’ Maori land”.
The problem is that those national policy and planning instruments that determine land use, infrastructure, and environmental protection for decades to come – shaping how the country grows and functions – are amongst the most powerful tools of government. As such, special authority to influence the process should not be ceded to a privileged race-based group but developed through processes that treats all New Zealanders as equals.
The Coalition explains that since the Treaty is a Crown, not a local authority responsibility, and Treaty settlement obligations are legislated and binding, all Treaty-related RMA arrangements will be taken over by the Crown and renegotiated with post-settlement governance entities “to the same or equivalent effect to the greatest extent possible” over the next two years.
While clarifying that the Treaty is the sole responsibility of Central Government – not local authorities nor anyone else – is a positive move, creating new race-based co-governance rights under the new planning system is completely at odds with the Coalition’s election pledges.
Furthermore, instead of cancelling the cause of most of the current problems – namely the plethora of RMA-specific agreements that councils have put in place to give iwi special rights over resource consents, including Mana Whakahono a Rohe arrangements, Iwi Participation Agreements, Memoranda of Understanding, Relationship Agreements, Joint Management Agreements, Iwi Management Plans, and Cultural Impact Assessment requirements – they will all be left intact.
That means the very mechanisms that allowed the RMA to become captured and drift into co‑governance will be embedded in the new system to potentially undermine it from within.
The Coalition claims that by reclassifying almost half of all resource consents as “permitted activities” – by raising the threshold so only applications with effects that are “more than minor” will need to be notified, and only people “materially affected” will be able to participate in the consent process – the problems associated with iwi involvement will be minimised. But what they are not taking into account is the very real possibility that a future Labour-Green-Maori Party Coalition, could, through a simple legislative amendment, revert the threshold back to “less than minor” and deem iwi a “materially affected” party in all consent applications!
In other words, if council co-governance arrangements are left in place, then under this disastrous scenario, the corruption of the new planning system would proceed at pace.
To safeguard the future, the Coalition should not treat council agreements with iwi as if they carry the same constitutional status as Treaty settlements. Instead, these agreements should be cancelled.
Unlike Treaty settlements, council agreements were not negotiated by Parliament, were not subjected to public scrutiny, and were not approved by voters. They are political deals, often created behind closed doors, with no mandate from ratepayers.
By elevating them into national obligations, the Coalition is embedding in the new planning system the same distortions that crippled the RMA.
When the Coalition was elected in 2023, it was explicit in its commitment to end race‑based policies.
Both the National–ACT and National–New Zealand First Coalition Agreements stated: “The Coalition Government’s priorities for this term include ending race‑based policies.”
National’s Agreement with New Zealand First went further: “The Coalition Government will work to improve outcomes for all New Zealanders, and will not advance policies that seek to ascribe different rights and responsibilities to New Zealanders on the basis of their race or ancestry.”
And: “The Coalition Government will defend the principle that New Zealanders are equal before the law, with the same rights and obligations, and with the guarantee of the privileges and responsibilities of equal citizenship in New Zealand.”
Once the Resource Management Act is repealed, the statutory basis for all RMA‑linked special arrangements with iwi, no longer exists. Those mechanisms were designed for a planning system that Parliament is now rejecting. It is therefore neither logical nor constitutionally coherent to carry them forward into the new regime.
Retaining RMA‑era co‑governance or consultation rights for iwi under the new laws would entrench race‑based privilege at the very time the Government has committed to restoring equal citizenship. Continuing such arrangements within the new system would directly contradict the Coalition’s pledge to end race‑based policy and ensure all New Zealanders stand equal before the law.
To ensure the new planning system is coherent, democratic, and consistent with the Government’s commitments, all RMA‑related arrangements should be terminated – not only those negotiated with councils but those embedded in Treaty settlements as well.
No race-based entitlements should be carried over to potentially subvert the new planning system.
In addition, all ‘Maori’, ‘Treaty’, and ‘cultural’ references should be removed from the laws.
These changes would level the playing field – Maori involvement in the planning system would be confined to the same level as everyone else.
The new laws must apply equally to all New Zealanders, without privilege or veto powers based on race. This is essential to ensuring the planning system upholds Coalition promises and is grounded in fairness, transparency, and the rule of law.
Submissions on the Bill must be received by the Environment Select Committee by 4.30 pm on Friday February 13 – full details can be found HERE. We urge all New Zealanders concerned about the future to send in a submission calling for all race-based entitlements to be removed from the new laws.
Please note: To register for our free weekly newsletter please click HERE.
THIS WEEK’S POLL ASKS:
*Should all race-based entitlements be removed from the new planning laws?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.