By Katharine Moody*
The Coalition government’s Fast Track Approvals Bill is proving highly controversial – so much so, I suspect the poor polling performance of the coalition parties, might have a bit to do with the widespread public distaste generated by this authoritarian-style, executive branch decision-making in environmental management.
At the same time as Chris Bishop is in damage-control regarding potential conflicts of interest, Shane Jones (another of the anointed ‘gang-of-three’ ministerial decision makers) is posing in the bucket of a behemoth bulldozer.
The Environment Select Committee has received more than 8000+ submissions on the Bill since closing date. Mine is displayed below;
For those unfamiliar with the issue, there is already a fast-track consenting process defined by the previous government and administered by the Environmental Protection Authority. Therefore, it is difficult to see this undemocratic shift toward ministerial diktat as anything other than an executive power grab.
The kerfuffle arising from the Bill, reminds me of the last time a National Government tried to substantively reform the Resource Management Act (RMA), as a means to ‘tip’ the legislation in favour of development. That intention largely failed and the RMA’s Purpose clause remains (to this day) just as it was written back in 1991;
(1) The purpose of this Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.
(2) In this Act, sustainable management means managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety while—
(a) sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and
(b) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and
(c) avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.
I also recall at that time, the Parliamentary Commissioner of the Environment, Jan Wright being quoted widely from her media statement and submission on those proposed 2013 changes, that;
“The RMA itself provides the balance to the economic imperatives of the marketplace. It is not, and should not become, an economic development act.”
I agree with Wright that our planning legislation should not be an economic development act, but in my opinion, neither should it be an environmental protection act.
If we continue down the path of viewing environmental management through a simplistic ‘economy versus environment’ lens, then New Zealand will never prosper; its people will continue to argue; and its political leaders will repeal and replace planning legislation ad infinitum.
And with that, the basic tenets of - and belief in – democracy, will splinter ever wider. This ‘fast track’ Coalition Bill is testament to that.
As Jacques Derrida theorised, each binary oppositional privileges one side over the other, and to my mind, attempting to ‘strike a balance’ between the economy and the environment in environmental management decision-making, is a futile exercise.
Instead, as a means to avoid this ‘economy vs environment’ binary, triangulating considerations across a trio of agreed planning priorities is perhaps a direction that should be taken in reform.
Urban planning academic, Scott D. Campbell defines three fundamental “priorities” in planning practice (Equity, Economy and Environment) and their relational “conflicts” in the conceptual framework illustrated below:
Campbell, S. (1996). Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities? Urban Planning and the Contradictions of Sustainable Development, Journal of the American Planning Association (JAPA), Summer 1996.
He further elaborated on this framework in a 20-year review of it in theory and practice in an article titled, The Planner’s Triangle Revisited: Sustainability and the Evolution of a Planning Ideal That Can’t Sit Still (2016).
In looking at this framework, one can immediately identify the missing consideration in the ‘economy vs environment’ binary oppositional – that being equity/social justice, or as referred to in economic theory, human well-being.
A wise friend of mine in discussing an unrelated policy matter (that being, remittances as they relate to the New Zealand economy), reminded me that ‘the economy’ is an abstraction, and what counts (i.e., what I was missing in my analysis in that context) was people’s wellbeing as they perceive it for themselves – in other words, equity/social justice considerations for both the sender and the recipient in the remittance transaction.
Much of the complaints from the economics profession with the RMA’s Purpose was that it failed to prioritise individual/community preferences; many of which impact on private property rights. And it was this exchange that got me thinking of the concept of social justice in our national planning context.
In the Campbell framework, a short description of each of the “conflicts” arising between the three “priorities” are:
♦ Property conflict: The conflict between private interests and public good.
♦ Development conflict: The conflict between human prosperity and environmental protection.
♦ Resource conflict: The conflict between the economic and the ecologic utility of natural resources.
The framework, in theory, suggests that if we can identify and work through the matters arising toward the resolution of each of these three different conflicts on an individual basis, then the question on a specific resource consent, or the outcome of a deliberation on a particular environmental management policy issue, will provide a more sustainable direction in which to proceed (i.e., decide).
And so, as the Coalition must soon embark on something beyond this latest ‘authoritarian quick fix’ to the RMA, it might be worth considering the idea of ‘The Planner’s Triangle’ framework as an over-arching purpose for a replacement environmental management regime. That thought-exercise might kick off on a draft text for a new legislative Purpose clause by discussing something like this:
(1) The purpose of this Act is to address the resource management priorities associated with the economy, the environment and the wellbeing of communities, with the aim of achieving optimal sustainability, through individually identifying and addressing ̶
(a) The conflict between private interests and public good; and
(b) The conflict between human prosperity and environmental protection; and
(c) The conflict between the economic and the ecologic utility of natural resources
to achieve an overall broad judgment that is mindful of the wider interests of both current and future generations, taking into account the spatial aspect of resource management on local, regional, national and international scales, depending on the nature of the activity, policy or proposal under consideration.
As readers will recall, I was not a big fan of the previous government’s Natural and Built Environment Act (NBA), now repealed. In particular, I was concerned with the intention to move environmental decision-making away from individuals and their communities, in favour of a bureaucratically- appointed ‘elite’, referred to as “Regional Planning Committees”. And I had problems with the Act’s Purpose clause as well.
That said, the Coalition’s Fast Track Approvals Bill (2024) is a giant leap backwards – much, much worse than the decision-making by an ‘elite’ cohort as embedded in the NBA framework. The Fast Track Approvals Bill is a governance arrangement that is as bad as the partisan means by which US Supreme Court judges are picked – and one that is subject to much the same conflict of interest issues which lead to the bribery and corruption of individual decision-makers.
*Katharine Moody is a retired Senior Tutor from the Massey University School of People, Environment & Planning, having taught students in both the Bachelor and Master of Resource and Environment Planning (BRP and MRP) degree programmes for 12+ years.
82 Comments
Not sure if KM wrote this article before one of interest commentators raised the the subject of the Waitaki hydro scheme rma consent where Meridian and Genesis had to pay $180m to smooth the consent process past DoC and two or three iwis. This is a typical case where fast tracking would benefit without having to outlay $180m to smooth the process. No doubt Meridian and Genesis would have needed to outlay some money but this amount? I doubt it. Need to reveal how the $180m was spent.
Written after that news;
https://businessdesk.co.nz/article/law-regulation/gentailers-spend-180m…
It would be an interesting case study to run the proposed framework through - I think renewing the consents would be a 'slam dunk' (certainty) against the logic applied by the framework.
Compensation for past damage will no doubt be used for environmental restoration and conservation purposes, but like you, I find it an odd/questionable way to go about that - given renewing the consents was always a fait accompli (i.e., there is no other decision to eventually come to).
A more appropriate means to recognise and remedy prior and on-going environmental harm would have been to require, at the time of privatisation of the assets, that a percentage of private profit of the entities be paid to government for environmental restoration and improvement purposes.
There is much logic in your point there. The problem is what is logical to some is not logical to all and that then takes us into the black hole of process, decision making under the influence of the agendas and even ambitions of those involved. For instance in the above example, perhaps the recipients were too impatient to receive some payments in due course rather than upfront? Seems to be here though, this government’s haste to simplify matters, por let’s just say cut red tape, is very likely to have unforeseen ramifications and, inadvertent or not, likely to arrive at disagreeable consequences.
edited.
Its needed for small projects too Katharine. There is no sense to some of the planning rules, so when council staff have an application in front of them it comes down to their "discretion". As a consultant planner you'd be familiar with how this works
If the application goes to notification it probably becomes nigh on impossible to gain consent
Totally agree - a better methodology is needed across ALL consenting considerations.
If you look at something like building a second dwelling/granny flat on one's own property - an initial analysis against the framework would most certainly find that that activity sails through the framework - and then similar proposals in future use that finding as a decision-making precedent.
The previous government's NBA did indeed make consenting of minor projects (such as a second dwelling and a subdivision of one section into two) much, much easier. It was much more prescriptive with respect to larger scale (including agricultural activity matters) through its environmental 'outcomes' framework. In that way, it was very much designed as an environmental protection act - and as I said above, we've got to get away from that binary - environment vs economy (development).
Then along came the NPS HPL. Our family member wants to add a <70sqm minor dwelling on a half hectare rural lot. Something which was easily processed a few years ago is now a dilemma. With the Highly Productive Land NPS it makes no difference the land area, whether the land is used or capable of being used for agriculture. Council make the call after you've had reports up the wazoo but council wont say what their assessment criteria is. If they say NO you still have to pay them big $ for processing the RC, its like pouring money into the abyss. Totally uninspiring to make things happen
Yes, and the dollars involved in such minor consenting decisions are a deadweight to the economy - that gives rise to a property conflict under the above framework - a private interest vs public good issue - and the framework (I imagine) would determine there is no significant disadvantage to the public good, and indeed therefore refusal of the consent would be inequitable/socially unjust to the property right-holder.
I imagine, that half acre rural lot, even if highly productive land, might have been so fragmented (from a land management point of view) that the likelihood of it ever being 'joined back' (consolidated) into a large enough single title, plot of land to sustain a horticulture operation is very low. In planning terms we refer to the problem/issue (of fragmentation) as an anti-commons (as opposed to 'tragedy of the commons') issue;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_anticommons
That said, retaining HPL, particularly in close proximity to local markets (i.e., centres of population) is a very important future-proofing issue. But the resolution of that needs to be made via a proper investigation and eventual spatial plan. Such a plan would need to consider that fragmentation issue. It is silly to use a generic HPL designation if the agricultural production use will never be likely from a property rights/economic perspective.
In other words, the planning mistake/oversite (in Auckland, for example) was in the consenting of large parcels of productive land into residential subdivision in the Pukekohe area. I get the feeling the nation-wide (i.e., generic HPL regulatory initiative) was in large part in response to that hindsight realisation.
The other interesting point about Pukekohe land is that those subdivision consents had impact across a wider spatial extent than just Auckland, I suspect. Again, the kind of consideration that would be taken into account under the above proposed wording of a new RMA purpose clause.
And this often results in the job not going ahead and others choosing not to even start for fear of delay and costs - a primary example of why NZ level of productivity continues to decline as bureacrtic legislation and obstruction have increased. I bet the reduction in burecrats will not only save money but improve productivity and well being amongst the taxpayers who contribute most to the burecrats salaries.
Unfortunately there are times when discretionary options are needed but then discretionary falls into the hard/messy basket for council officials so the default for discretionary is generally no. Discretionary options need to be absolutely minimised. A councilor reading the planning rules would be an exception and querying them as rare as hen's teeth. To busy with what councilors see as the grander stuff.
Had a look on Gmaps. Been past them and David Lomas (TV Investigates, and Missing Pieces ) uses one of them as an office. Perhaps the developer had oiled the wheels prior to submission?
Unless one really does some investigation it's hard to say why it was non notified. For most councils there a rules around notification/non-notification but I'm unaware whether its up to the local council or comes from Wellington.
It's the local council's planning department that makes that decision against the rules surrounding the type of activity in their local plan.
Boat sheds are a bit different/interesting as the governance of the coastal marine area (from mean high water springs - seaward to the 12 mile limit) rests with the regional council (AKL is both a local and regional council, called 'unitary authority' in planning lingo) - and consents in that area are generally very difficult to obtain and are almost always publicly notified.
So, yes, non-notification sounds unusual.
Perhaps we are lucky they chose 3 totally unsuitable ministers to be the decision makers . Had it been more reasonable ministers, people might not realise the danger, and there would be less opposition.
They must know they are picking a huge fight with environmental groups ,and Iwi. If there is no legal redress, where does that go?
+1
TOTALLY ADSURD.
The authoritarianism is straight out of the US Republicans & rich donor's fascist playbook.
Perfect for pork barreling and corruption as well.
Elect monkeys get a circus.
If successive governments had bothered to:
a) put national planning and environmental standards in place
b) manage immigration at a sustainable level so we didn't end up with a massive infrastructure deficit
we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.
Mass immigration some of being unsuitable is a core reason for NZ issues, especially housing costs and availability. Time to shut the door for six months and work out what needs NZ really does have going forward and how best they can be met by immigration and what other solutions should be included eg automation/robotics - much of which is available but NZ has not noticed yet.
I remember the boarders being shut during covid in a multi-building complex with 100's of similar apartments in central Auckland. Rents fell about 20% and took a long time to tenant (further falls possible) by the end of 2022. Rents recovered and eventually surpassed where they were pre covid when the masses returned.
My conclusion was that the limiting of population growth was indeed starting to solve the largest component of the 'cost of living crisis' in Auckland to the point I was hoping covid didn't get in and they would keep the boarders closed for longer - not because I cared about catching the virus, but because rents were falling. There have been owners in Auckland posting similar about their central Auckland apartments too during that time.
Sale prices didn't fall, they went up. What the RBNZ were doing with interest rates and also talking about banks needing to be ready for negative rates might explain that though.
My vote is to stop immigration again so more get a chance to learn the lesson. It also made finding a job easier - I got a job in an unrelated field with no experience becuase the seasonal workers were locked out, try doing that today with today's job adds all asking for 'two years experience' just to scratch your nose.
And all that's before we even consider your nearly name's sake and how many recourses per person we have in this country.
We already have one;
https://www.epa.govt.nz/fast-track-consenting/
What you really mean is bring on the dictatorial decision-making.
the bill is to open to conflicts of interest and when you have one of the ministers that can make decisions bemoan the fact, he does not have enough power, that minister last time left in charge of a bundle of money to give out was criticized by all in sundry for what most people could see what it really was
Chris Bishop, the new minister for infrastructure, is promising the new Provincial Growth Fund - now dubbed the Regional Infrastructure Fund - will not be a "slush fund" for New Zealand First pet projects
Write it up - in other words, put your idea into a proposed purpose for a new act. That's exactly what I'd like to see in feedback - an alternative.
To my mind the current decision-making framework in the RMA is weighted too heavily on science/scientific expert testimony. The problems with that is that for any values-based position the "right" science can be bought/found. John Key pointed that out brilliantly in this interview on BBC Hardtalk - in comparing scientists to lawyers;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3yFiNk_Ufw
Much as I thought at the time it was a 'cheap shot' by him in trying to discredit a very credible scientist - and thus 'excuse' NZ for our poor water quality - the point is, he's not wrong. People like him will indeed hunt out the "right" science in order to get a proposed activity over-the-line.
That's not to say we don't need to use science in our decision-making, but we also need to consider 'unscientific' matters such as equity/social justice (values-based issues).
Thanks for the article and response.
Fair call, it’s much harder to come up with an alternative than whinge about the status quo.
I agree on the shortcoming of scientific expertise (and that of landscape architects) on questions of fact as part of consenting process.
To clarify, I mean scientific, in the sense of quantifying costs and benefits (and recognition of indisputable economic “laws”, like simple supply and demand). This should be baked into the policy, not a consideration used to justify consistency with a policy; an issue of law, not fact. It gets a bit harder with natural resource issues, but it’s much easier to just price usage than it is to make case-by-case judgements/judgments.
My ideal alternative purpose would be far more limited than s5 of the RMA, as the only reason legislation requires a purpose is to guide interpretation when there’s ambiguity in application to the facts. The dream alternative act would:
- allow development by default, or at least require auto up zoning when a certain price is hit
- require planning decisions to be primarily guided by prices (a la Alain Bertaud)
- put meaningful prices on environmental externalities and use of infrastructure
- price land values, in recognition that surrounding community drives the price of land, not the land owners
This is trash drafting, but the purpose would be something like: “The purpose of this act is to promote urban development, and sustainable usage of natural resources; using price signals to determine supply, demand; and price mechanisms to conserve finite resources.”
I’d obviously want to avoid defining something like “sustainable management”, and the dreaded “while”.
Thanks - and don't worry about 'trash drafting' - I'd never call it that. It's another good start in terms of the proper debate needed and the 'testing' (through case study examples) that is required in order for such a purpose to stand the test of time in EM decision-making.
My next question would be how those price signals (i.e., the process around when a threshold is met or fails) could be worded - as that would be critical in making such a regime workable.
I think the reach of planners is far too great. My biggest complaint is the discretion available to them on urban design matters. It’s far too subjective, and even very good designs often get held up for months on the whim of a planner / urban designer.
I would like to see far less discretion , and much more of a standards-based approach.
But I think planning still has an important role at a macro-level.
I think a lot of the urban design prescriptions that exist in the planning world - are those employed by developers when setting rules of covenants in new subdivisions.
In locations where land is not covenanted, I'm not familiar with too many planning instruments that cover design matters (aside from height-to-boundary; and perhaps some specific precinct (such as historic character) definitions. And most of those precinct definitions in plans are driven by the 'leafy, nimby, whatever the word' neighbouhoods of existng homeowners.
Whether such precincts (i.e., design prescriptions) would 'survive' the above framework would be interesting - as again that property conflict comes in to play - and the 'public good' of preventing someone from building a building, or altering a building would be unlikely to 'pass' a public good test. Keeping a neighbourhood - as it is' in character has a very questionable public good benefit - such a restriction on a new owner, is more a private benefit for those that already live in that neighbourhood.
There are some very unique exceptions - for example, Savage Crescent in Palmerston North - and it might pass the public good test given it is an historically important collection of house designs used in the first period of state house building in NZ.
In Auckland, and many parts of the country, developments of 4 or more dwellings automatically require resource consent, and some of the key considerations are design matters. It’s nice in theory, but in practice it’s a shambles. As I said, even many developments of a generally high standard get held up on design issues for months. Maybe that results, on average, in improved development outcomes. But the delay can be costly, in many respects. I am not convinced the benefits of these processes outweigh the costs.
Got it - I suspect you're talking about medium density developments under the new MDRS rules (or prior). Yes, really only height-to-boundary and other minor rules need apply. Fit within those and design really should not be a concern for the planners.
I was never a "fan" when councils started bringing in what types of rooms, doors etc. needed to be 'street facing', for example - ridiculous detail all (I assume) based on some kind of neighbourhood friendly/safety theory (or some such).
If you have a quick link to those 'street facing' rules in the Auckland Plan - that would be useful as those would be an excellent rule/policy to run through the matrix/framework above. Point is, if such a rule can't pass the overall purpose of the act - then it cannot be in compliance with the act. That's the kind of purpose we need - one that 'let's in' and 'keeps out' good and bad rules respectively.
That's right - I'd forgotten the word/phrase for it.
And just think how long NZ urban development got on without it.
That said, all the private residential security cameras aimed at public roads and pathways are proving to be a boon in terms of giving law enforcement more tools in their kit bag - and at no expense whatsoever to the state/government. Making such mandatory (in the same way as smoke alarms of mandatory) would make so much more sense and cut so much poorly conceived rules in plans.
Passive surveillance
It’s good up to a point but it often starts getting silly, with privacy unduly compromised. Many of the townhouses where I live have had street facing windows frosted after the houses were built and occupied, or else curtains / blinds never opened.
Deregulation is coming, so land will be freed up, so landbankers can be bypassed. And the only way this works is to deregulate to a truly free market and then the planners go work for the developers.
But what the main complaint seems to be is the Govt. as doing exactly campaigned on. Shock horror.
I'm not sure I heard the same complaints from the same people when Labour tried the three waters (5 actually) and co-governance combo?
It works in other jurisdictions.
But of course, Labour were convinced that they were doing exactly that.
You can give different people exactly the same resources, and show them exactly what they need to do, but they will each take a different interpretation based on their ideology, and get a different result?
Then will put the blame on everything and everyone else, rather than them doing it wrong.
I presume you mean to tax them into developing rather than just sitting on the land.
This completely overlooks how free markets operate.
Because the market is cyclic, sometimes it is undersupplied, other times it will oversupply. The trick is to keep this to minimums in either direction so the supply curve sits on top of the demand curve. The more restrictive the market is, the bigger the delay in supply equalling demand to the point it becomes countercyclical.
By forcing development in times of oversupply to develop, or at least keep developing past the point of equilibrium, then this is a huge downside side risk that means they won't engage in landbanking (the small players), or will just price that risk into the system. (the bigger players), so the end result will be more restrictive supply because it will be in the hands of fewer players giving them even more of a monopoly.
The far easier (quicker response and cheaper) option is to just have a less restrictive presumptive right to build (with a few exceptions) and then the market will find its equilibrium real quick, no matter where it is in the demand and supply cycle.
The biggest issue we have at the moment is land bankers and developers who have bought in the last few years and can't afford to develop unless the speculative status quo capital gains continues. Some will have to take a loss and sell (forcing the same result a land tax would have done) or hang and recoup any costs going forward and being in a better monopoly position to do so because of being one of the few survivors in a still restrictive system.
The system has to be better than someone making money at the expense(loss) of any other, both up and down the chain.
What we need is a less restrictive, true free market, open up and out (with exceptions), and new development players in the market that do not have the same historical baggage to get rid of first. Then you will get some quicker action from the encumbrants.
It might do, but it will make development colocate better to what people want, both in location or jobs, house type, amenity, and price.
Some places will do better, some worse.
And of course, if you have already paid the old higher price, what your next step will be will depend on your own circumstances.
And the urban development of supply will better be able to follow and match demand, so the cycle will become more stable, reducing the change of boom and bust cycles.
I presume you mean to tax them into developing rather than just sitting on the land.
I would tax them for just sitting on the land (not exclusive to those deemed to be land bankers - ie a universal land tax). So ideally, they don't bother to land bank (no need to bypass them then) or if they do then they'll bid up the price of land less due to the higher holding costs. Assuming fixed land supply, the less land that is banked (effectively off the market) must mean more is available to develop.
This land banking is a thorny issue and from my observations in NP there are, over 25 and probably closer to 50 sections, that have been developed to the point of being able to build on them but haven't sold in over six months. No one to buy. You bet at the price they're asking. Ownership in the hands of the rich who can sit tight and even pay bare bones rates on the unsold sections. There has to be some mechanism where sections must be sold and houses built on in a given time frame after section 223 and 224 of the rma have been completed. Basically the developer has fulfilled all the council requirements and I think paid up Bit rusty on the exact requirement of 223 and 224 but it is a defining point in development of sections.
Yes, it's a problem for sure.
Are these empty sections part of a larger subdivision?
Many developers release sections in stages as a means to keep the land price high on the initial 'drop' of however many are released. It's a common practice and yes, there are many very easy ways for councils to work to prevent it. Targeted rates, for example.
who can sit tight and even pay bare bones rates on the unsold sections
Do you think they would be more or less inclined to sell them (probably have to drop price to do it) if they were also paying, for example, a 1% land value tax each and every year they continue to sit tight?
No it won't. See my reply to Kate above.
Punitive measures as a first response to someone doing something you don't like is not a first principle basis for doing anything, as would be smacking a child everything they did something you didn't like.
The reason they are land banking is because Govt. allows them to. Rather than land tax them just open up to a truly free market and let them sit there if they want as you will always need infill for schools, commercial etc. that always follow residential, never proceed it.
And if the restrictions are not removed then they will just build the holding cost in, making the land even more expensive.
Hi Dale, I was talking about a universal land tax (not what you were addressing?) which I don't see as being punitive since everyone would pay it. I would offset the revenue raised with income tax reduction or a UBI which I consider a win for the fairness of the tax system/society.
You make good points about freeing things up which stand by themselves. I'm happy to leave the complicated planning detail to the likes of you, Brendan and Kate! I'm much more happy thinking in the clouds about the fairness of society (affordable shelter) and what the point of growing NZ's population is.
There is a good argument for a universal tax, or stamp duty, to a point.
In that when land prices on the fringe are artificially pushed up the it pushes all property prices up everywhere which all property owners,(owner occupiers and investors alike) get the benefit of for doing nothing and home owners in particular are not taxed on.
But then as a taxable revenue their is no incentive for Govt. to want to limit churn or price increases as to do so would reduce revenue.
One of the first fast tracks is the kings quarry, it already smells bad and the story hit the front page billing of NZ Herald... BUT there are so many crazy dodgy details to come out yet, That article was like a warning shot, If they have the nerve to go ahead the real yucky stuff will come out quick fast....
Application was lodged by them under the existing process;
https://www.epa.govt.nz/fast-track-consenting/referred-projects/kings-q…
They might have been one of those that has since been cancelled by the applicant in favour of this new "Ministers decide" Bill.
" it already smells bad and the story hit the front page billing of NZ Herald" That's headline chasing stuff. I've had a quick look at a particular redacted document and I smell koha and lots of it to get an RMA. https://environment.govt.nz/assets/publications/Fast-track-consenting/S…
The issue of Koha (Blackmail) can be resolved by requiring Charities dispose 75% of their net income to their cause or tribe ans failure creates a tax able liability of total income just like the business you are eg Nai Tahu as a developer and tourism operator, they do pay health contirbutions for the tribal members which at least is a start.
Good piece Kate. The fast track bill is another example of NZ (and the world because this is a global trend) becoming more authoritarian and more populist. I think it will fail like Muldoon's authoritarian and populist policies of the 1970s and 80s did.
I also think it is inherently unstable politically. For example how can ACT and NZF both support it when ACT's ideology originates in opposition to Muldoon and NZF wants to revive Muldoon.
I think NZ should look at improving upon the incentives it has in place for its existing public and private structures so that a 'build more' coalition can form that genuinely meets NZs infrastructure and housing (the built environment) needs. I fully describe my thinking here.
https://www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/125989/brendon-harre-circles-b…
P.S Kate I happy with needs (the RMA objectives for example) being legislatively defined as a trifecta of environmental, inequality and economic (productivity) considerations.
Glad the framework resonates with you. I've done no case study 'testing' at all against actual consenting decisions made in the past.
Any specific case studies anyone might have would be welcome!
PS - on clicking through to your article - I don't think I've read it yet - will do so now. Looks very relevant, thanks!
Kate I think you will like this paragraph in my piece.
"When Labour decided on how to tackle the housing crisis, choosing between a top-down versus bottom-up approach was a key strategic decision. They tried a top-down governance strategy to fulfil its “Let’s Do This” promise. It is not clear the decision makers at the time, or even now after the fact, are aware of the implications of their choice. But this choice determined the policy direction for how they managed their most important 2017 election promises."
I think National are making the same mistake by going down the Ministerial fast track consent pathway.
Essentially National is a choosing the NZF/Muldoonism/economic authoritarian path over a more decentralised/better incentives/more economically liberal strategic alternative.
I can't see Luxon managing this choice any better than what Ardern and Hipkins did.
While on the RMA and including building consents. The politicians love to say we are going to ease the path to not having a BC for a shed, sleep out, granny flat etc. About to jump from 30m2 to 60m2. I certainly support that but you then come across RMA rules which are not standardised across the country. Should be centralised on latitude basis. Want to put a <10m2 shed in NP that is closer than 3m to a road boundary, RMA required.
The problem with extremes is you end up with the worst of both possibilities. We need a lot more balance in our decision-making but we're not teaching [learning] it particularly well, it seems. The power play for the sake of having the power is somewhat immature in reality. We need to develop a nation for the rest of the 21st Century, which means creating good jobs for the people. Jobs underwrite every civilised nation [indeed even the uncivilised ones]. They are a key cornerstone of our existence. Why are there over one million people born in these islands that no longer want to call New Zealand home? If you can answer that you're onto something.
In the above framework, the conflict that addresses the 'jobs vs environment' one is the Development conflict. The mega-type (on a NZ scale) resource management projects/activities - will have issues to be addressed across each of the three conflicts. That's what is great about triangulation of considerations under this model. And hence my use of the words 'overall broad judgment' (the phrase comes from an early RMA president set in law).
Thanks!
You should read Massey University planning program's submission - not soft at all! I was so pleased to see them representing academia and getting 'stuck in' in a very forthright way.
Generally, planning academia has had much the same 'weak' voice that the NZ Planning Institute has traditionally adopted. As academics, we often bemoaned the poor leadership on the Institute and their reluctance to stand up and represent planning in the plethora of debates/criticism about the profession - but we 'bemoaned' it in the background.
Hopefully, this time around planning academia will get a more visible and influential voice on.
You are exactly right - it is (by number of members - highest to lowest) consultants (of many disciplines but mostly planners; others being landscape architects; surveyors; etc) working in the private sector (they love the bureaucratic nature of planning as it means $$$$); then council planners (they generally need to have Masters quals and to be NZPI full members in order to present evidence in the EC); and then academics and others.
And, yes, NZPI are always constructive in 'tone'. Rarely critical (and to my mind) rarely looking to confront the big issues/problems that make planning such a dreaded (but of course, highly paid!) profession :-).
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.