Maori Party wins tug-of-war between National's coalition partners, striking deal with the Government so the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill can be passed

Maori Party wins tug-of-war between National's coalition partners, striking deal with the Government so the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill can be passed

Amendments to the Resource Management Act 1991 look set to be passed next month, after two years of delays.

The Maori Party has struck a deal with the National Party to give the support needed to pass the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill 2015, intended to streamline planning and consent laws.

The agreement follows a tug-of-war between National’s coalition partners, all of which have stipulated different conditions under which they would support the Bill.

National last year struck a deal with the Maori Party agreeing to include provisions that would give iwi a greater role in the consenting process. Yet the Maori Party wanted the Government to go further and scrap amendments that would give government ministers powers to override decisions.

UnitedFuture and ACT, hours before the deal was announced on Thursday afternoon, presented the Prime Minister with a letter saying they too wanted amendments giving ministers powers to override local plans to be scrapped. However they also wanted the proposed additional iwi consultation requirements to go.

While it isn’t yet clear how far National has bent to win support from the Maori Party, the Maori Party is confident the agreed RMA amendments better balance “development and kaitiakitanga” [guardianship].

“The Maori Party recognises the importance to New Zealand of increasing housing supply and the essential role that the RMA plays in supporting development in the areas where it is needed most i.e. Auckland and Christchurch. However this should not be at the detriment to this country’s natural and cultural taonga,” it said.

“We’ve worked hard on the outcomes to reach an agreement that we are satisfied with,” Māori Party co-leader Te Ururoa Flavell said.

Questioned by ACT Party leader David Seymour in Parliament, Environment Minister Nick Smith said: “I’ve sought to get the support of all the government support parties. The difficulty is that ACT has said the Bill does not go far enough, the UnitedFuture party has been concerned that the reforms go too far. As a consequence we have negotiated in good faith with the Maori Party.

“We have a good Bill - the most substantive reforms to the RMA in 25 years. And if actually, we want more houses built, we want more jobs, we want better environmental control, then parties will support that Bill.”

ACT leader David Seymour, earlier in the day said: “We know that the Maori Party is using its negotiating position to demand concessions that National would never usually give.”

UnitedFuture leader Peter Dunne added: “The Resource Management Act (RMA) already provides strong protections for Maori interests.

“The principles of the Act, which I have spent years defending from change, provide for recognition of Iwi and Hapu in the planning process and the principle of kaitiakitanga remains a guiding part of decisions.”

Reiterating issues they raised with the Government a year ago, ACT and UnitedFuture also requested the Government amend the RMA to “recognise property rights”.

“Property rights are undermined under the current law and the Government’s current proposals do nothing to fix this. The rights of property owners must be recognised in law,” Seymour said.

The provisions in the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill include:

  • National planning standards to reduce complexity and cost
  • Streamlined planning process to improve responsiveness
  • Discretion for councils to exempt an activity from consents
  • Strengthening of requirements to manage natural hazard risks
  • New 10-day consent category for minor activities
  • New requirements for council to free up land for housing
  • New provisions to enable stock exclusion from waterways
  • New provisions requiring decommissioning plans for offshore platforms
  • More generous compensation for land required for public works
  • Better alignment with other Acts like Reserves, Conservation and EEZ
  • Collaborative planning process to encourage community-led solutions
  • Improved Maori participation arrangements

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

7 Comments

Comment Filter

Highlight new comments in the last hr(s).

More in behind the Nats real desperation to get this through - central government control/ability to override local planning decisions - decisions that have already in many cases been subject to Court rulings - so a Parliamentary override of the judicial branch effectively as well - referred to as "Henry VIII" clause(s);

Sunday did a good piece on it;
http://tvnz.co.nz/sunday-news/billion-dollar-battle-video-6518656

And here;
https://organicnz.org.nz/media-releases/ge/ge-free-zones-threat-rma-amen...

These are very general provisions - and very unspecific. Council planners can't/or struggle to meet 20 day statutory timeframes now, let alone 10 day timeframes. Consultants sure wont be able to pick up the pieces for Council that fast.

They'll probably allow a streamlined 10 day consent but return to multiple s92's.... - one step forward, two steps back.

None of these clowns can streamline anything. But yes Kate you are correct, they want the power to override anyone to ensure their "friends" don't encounter roadblocks.

I get so disheartened with the past 9 year focus of National on processing timeframes, all the while adding more and more complexity to the statute (and the process itself!). They haven't got a bloody clue - and haven't got the intellectual grunt to comprehend the issues/problems and properly reform the planning system in the way that Palmer did back in the late 80s/90s. It is time for that kind of major overhaul with a strict holding pattern on amendments in the meantime.

Yes, so many councils are spending a fortune on bolstering planning staff with the use of consultants. Ridiculous.

I hear you. The complexity is out of hand - hence high staff turnover at Graham St.

And here is something else which sounds like history repeating itself - prior to 2007, which was also prior to Auckland Council amalgamation (as you're obviously aware), Manukau Council spent a lot of money engaging a specialist consultant to look at improving the efficiencies in processing consents and streamline the planning system - largely due to the high volume of applications at that time. This consultant came up with a wonderful streamlined process which entailed a specialist "fast-track team" to process non-complex applications.

Anyway, to cut to the chase, the fast-track team was just about to be established and BANG, the GFC hit. Consent numbers twindled, there was no need for the fast-track team, the idea got binned, and the consultant moved on. I wonder if history will repeat again as we are due for a serious housing correction. And if there are less applications to process, then timeframes may naturally improve soon enough - all on there own.

Yes, highly likely... it all sure looks and feels rather similar - minus the finance company investment adds on the telly :-).

ha :-)

I can't see a serious housing correction on the horizon 'Triple'. We still have record immigration and anyone anywhere in the world can still purchase houses in Auckland or anywhere else in NZ. Our housing is out of reach of NZ wage earners but that doesn't concern National or Labour both parties having stated that they don't want to see a price correction so will change little or nothing.