The Act began in 1991 at a relatively svelte 382 pages. It went through more revisions and reinventions than David Bowie and, when it was finally laid to rest, was a bloated 1008 pages.
The RMA was a Möbius strip of regulation. No beginning. No end. This wasn’t a party political issue. The previous government appointed Court of Appeal judge the Honourable Tony Randerson KC to survey the landscape and his 2020 conclusion was that in the three decades the law had been in place “…the RMA has been subjected to numerous amendments designed to improve its effectiveness but which have instead resulted in … an unduly complex patchwork of provisions.”
Randerson then got a bit woke, advocating a new law with a focus on climate change and “…a significantly greater role for Māori in the resource management system”. And this is what David Parker delivered with two new bills that the Chief Justice submitted on, noting their complexity and the years of judicial interpretation that would result.
Parker’s law stated: “All persons exercising powers and functions and duties under this Act must recognise and provide for the responsibility and mana of each iwi and hapū to protect and sustain the health and well-being… in their area of interest.”
Nothing would have been built and, as soon as Chris Bishop got his loafers under the ministerial desk, the Acts were scrapped and the thousand-page behemoth of the old law was reinstated.
For 30 months Bishop toiled on his replacement. Many commentators, including this one, became frustrated and, perhaps unfairly, although I stand by the claims, asserted he had been captured by the ministry. The legislation that emerged from the Ministry for the Environment was David Parker’s bill with better headings.
Well. It was at this point that Minister Bishop and his deacon, undersecretary Simon Court, accepted the folly of relying on public servants who viewed conservative governments as interregnums between legitimate authority. They sat down and began their own drafting.
Randerson then got a bit woke, advocating a new law with a focus on climate change and “…a significantly greater role for Māori in the resource management system”. And this is what David Parker delivered with two new bills that the Chief Justice submitted on, noting their complexity and the years of judicial interpretation that would result.
Parker’s law stated: “All persons exercising powers and functions and duties under this Act must recognise and provide for the responsibility and mana of each iwi and hapū to protect and sustain the health and well-being… in their area of interest.”
Nothing would have been built and, as soon as Chris Bishop got his loafers under the ministerial desk, the Acts were scrapped and the thousand-page behemoth of the old law was reinstated.
For 30 months Bishop toiled on his replacement. Many commentators, including this one, became frustrated and, perhaps unfairly, although I stand by the claims, asserted he had been captured by the ministry. The legislation that emerged from the Ministry for the Environment was David Parker’s bill with better headings.
Well. It was at this point that Minister Bishop and his deacon, undersecretary Simon Court, accepted the folly of relying on public servants who viewed conservative governments as interregnums between legitimate authority. They sat down and began their own drafting.
They had assistance from the good folks at the New Zealand Initiative and others, but there were a lot of late nights and bad coffee as these two gentlemen wrestled with officials, stakeholders and inertia to bring this legislation through the molasses that is our legislative process.
I didn’t think they’d get it done. Perhaps at times they doubted themselves. But, with one day left in the current Parliament, racing against the clock, their own stamina and the demands of an election, the Planning Bill 2026 and the Natural Environment Bill 2026 passed their final readings.
The changes are complex. They are significant. They are the largest change to the way land will be managed in a generation. This should be getting a lot more attention.
The power of councils to control your land has been eviscerated. Clause 17 is sweeping, demanding that those with a consenting pen must disregard the internal layout of a building, or the external if it is within the boundaries of the property.
Negative effects on development of competition, views from adjacent private property, any precedent and even “the character, appearance, and aesthetic qualities of a… building” must be ignored.
The Act has created an urban land markets officer, whose statutory role is to bully councils if they are creating land-use restrictions that result in distortions in the market for land. In crude terms, central government wants to force local government to open up more land for development.
And if you want to turn your farmland into a commercial zone, you can submit a private plan change that the council must assess on its merits. Its veto power has been rescinded.
There is enough executive flexibility in this legislation to allow central government to thwart the Act’s intention but, if allowed to run as Messrs Bishop and Court intend, the cost of housing in these islands will begin to fall. And combined with the changes to building regulations by Chris Penk, this government has set New Zealand back towards the path of being, once again, a property-owning democracy.
This will not be a rapid improvement and it will not be felt over the next electoral cycle. It is a generational change. It is the sort of achievement people go to Parliament for but few manage to achieve.
The purpose of the Planning Act, in contrast to its predecessor, is “to provide for the enjoyment of land by establishing a framework for planning and regulating the use and development of land”.
Regardless of the election next month, Chris Bishop has left his mark on this country and, in short order, will be able to look out on his works. And, hopefully, not despair....The full article is published HERE
Damien Grant is an Auckland business owner, a member of the Taxpayers’ Union and a regular opinion contributor for Stuff, writing from a libertarian perspective
I didn’t think they’d get it done. Perhaps at times they doubted themselves. But, with one day left in the current Parliament, racing against the clock, their own stamina and the demands of an election, the Planning Bill 2026 and the Natural Environment Bill 2026 passed their final readings.
The changes are complex. They are significant. They are the largest change to the way land will be managed in a generation. This should be getting a lot more attention.
The power of councils to control your land has been eviscerated. Clause 17 is sweeping, demanding that those with a consenting pen must disregard the internal layout of a building, or the external if it is within the boundaries of the property.
Negative effects on development of competition, views from adjacent private property, any precedent and even “the character, appearance, and aesthetic qualities of a… building” must be ignored.
The Act has created an urban land markets officer, whose statutory role is to bully councils if they are creating land-use restrictions that result in distortions in the market for land. In crude terms, central government wants to force local government to open up more land for development.
And if you want to turn your farmland into a commercial zone, you can submit a private plan change that the council must assess on its merits. Its veto power has been rescinded.
There is enough executive flexibility in this legislation to allow central government to thwart the Act’s intention but, if allowed to run as Messrs Bishop and Court intend, the cost of housing in these islands will begin to fall. And combined with the changes to building regulations by Chris Penk, this government has set New Zealand back towards the path of being, once again, a property-owning democracy.
This will not be a rapid improvement and it will not be felt over the next electoral cycle. It is a generational change. It is the sort of achievement people go to Parliament for but few manage to achieve.
The purpose of the Planning Act, in contrast to its predecessor, is “to provide for the enjoyment of land by establishing a framework for planning and regulating the use and development of land”.
Regardless of the election next month, Chris Bishop has left his mark on this country and, in short order, will be able to look out on his works. And, hopefully, not despair....The full article is published HERE
Damien Grant is an Auckland business owner, a member of the Taxpayers’ Union and a regular opinion contributor for Stuff, writing from a libertarian perspective
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.