DON BRASH: Instead of fixing the RMA, Govt is perfecting the machinery of division

The following is written in Don's capacity as Hobson's Pledge Trustee.

A few weeks ago, Hobson’s Pledge sent the Government an Official Information Act (OIA) request concerning the Gore District Plan and its requirement that farmers and those using the land must assess their use against Ngāi Tahu's cultural values, such as mauri, wairua, whakapapa, and utu.

In this request, we pointed out how the Government has repeatedly emphasised its commitment to equal rights and the removal of race-based preferences in public policy. Yet through the Gore District Plan, we see a planning framework that is embedding cultural obligations and is thereby contrary to the Government’s intentions.

We originally sent this OIA to Minister Simon Watts (as Minister of Local Government), but the reply came from the Hon Chris Bishop, the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform.

While the Minister’s tone was polite, the substance of his reply - and the reality of the Government’s proposed legislation - should concern every New Zealander who values equality and private property rights.

The Minister assures us that the new Planning and Natural Environment Bills will be “clearer,” “faster,” and offer “stronger recognition of private property rights.”

However, there is a glaring disconnect between the Minister’s words and the draft Bills themselves.

Despite the promise to put property rights at the heart of these reforms, the sad irony is that property rights are never mentioned in the ‘purpose’ or ‘goals’ of the two Bills. While property rights are frequently referenced by Ministers, it is missing from the defining reasons for the Bills. Instead of a system based on universal principles of ownership and use, we are seeing the entrenchment of a two-tiered system of citizenship based on ancestry.

What the Minister isn't saying

While the Minister suggests that the Government is moving away from the "shortcomings" of the current RMA, the draft Bills explicitly state that:

“…each local authority will ensure that its obligations or agreements under iwi participation legislation... joint management agreements, or existing or initiated Mana Whakahono ā Rohe are upheld during the process."

In plain English: the bureaucracy of co-governance isn't being dismantled; instead, it is being embedded so as to be "nationally consistent" and "clearly defined." By enshrining these specific iwi participation requirements into the new system, the Government is not fixing the RMA - they are instead perfecting the machinery of division.

Why Gore Matters

We raised the Gore District Plan with the Government because it serves as another canary in the coal mine, incorporating cultural concepts that infringe upon the rights of all residents. The Minister’s response was, essentially, that while he doesn't "expect" such approaches in the new system, his hands are tied because this particular plan is "well advanced." This approach is already seeing some councils racing to get joint management agreements and other co-governance arrangements in place before this RMA reform passes in Parliament. Not only is this wrong, but rushing these agreements will lead to even more trouble.

Nick Clark of the NZ Initiative, who spent many years with Federated Farmers, has written carefully on what getting the new system right would actually require. His analysis makes very clear what the draft Bills currently lack: a genuine commitment to equal treatment before the law, and to property rights as a foundational principle.

Commenting in the Sunday Star Times over the weekend, Damien Grant also noted that the danger with these "reforms" is that they often replace one complex, failed system with another that simply formalises the very problems we seek to escape.

This is simply not good enough. If the Government truly intended to restore the principle of democratic equality, these reforms would prioritise the rights of the individual over the vested interests of any entity, tribal or otherwise.

We respect Minister Bishop's intent. We do not question his good faith. But good intentions don't guarantee good legislation, and the draft Bills as currently written do not match the rhetoric in his recent letter to us.

The Minister still has time to get this right. He has time to delete the clauses that privilege one group of New Zealanders over all others, and it is certainly time to write "property rights" into the law. We urge the Minister to do so for the sake of all New Zealanders.

It is clear, more than ever, that we must see change to these two RMA replacement Bills and that we here at Hobson’s Pledge need to do even more.

We are considering our next moves to put pressure on the Minister and the Coalition Government to stand by its promises and to have the new RMA Bills reflect what was promised – a commitment to Kiwis’ property rights, and not to division and preference based on ancestry.