Opinion: What's really at stake in planning reform

By Justin Tipa, Kaiwhakahaere of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu

Last week the Government announced that Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements will not be carried into its new resource management and planning system. Instead, they will be replaced by new iwi participation agreements with a more limited scope, although we have not yet seen the detail.

For many people, Mana Whakahono ā Rohe may not have been a familiar term before last week. But these agreements are important. They are formal arrangements between iwi and councils that set out how they will work together on issues affecting land, water, and the environment.

Ngāi Tahu already has an agreement in place on Te Tai Poutini and several other papatipu rūnaka have begun discussions with councils across the takiwā. These have grown out of long-standing relationships and a shared commitment to working together constructively, which makes the decision not to carry them into the new system particularly disappointing.

The Government’s decision comes after some groups pointed to the increasing number of Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements as evidence of an attempt to game the system. I would argue the opposite.

The Government should be reflecting on why iwi and hapū have been initiating these agreements. It is a response to a much deeper concern about the direction of the Government's resource management reforms.

For decades, New Zealand planning law has recognised the relationship of iwi and hapū with our ancestral lands, waters, wāhi tapu and taonga through section 6(e) of the Resource Management Act 1991. Alongside Treaty Principles and kaitiakitanga provisions, these protections formed part of the legal framework that existed when Treaty settlements were negotiated. In fact, their existence meant there was no need to replicate similar provisions in settlement legislation.

These are not new or radical concepts, yet the Government’s new Bills remove many of those long-standing provisions and replace them with a much narrower “Māori Goal” focused largely on consultation and process. That leaves many of us asking – who gets to decide how iwi rights and interests are recognised in the future?

The Government’s own Expert Advisory Group recommended that core protections for Māori interests be retained, noting that they had been part of the legal landscape for more than 30 years and did not create a veto power. Yet the Bills depart from that advice.

Former Environment Minister and Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Simon Upton has raised similar concerns about the direction of the reforms. His focus has been on environmental protections and the risk that too much of the system will depend on decisions made by future Ministers rather than clear parameters from Parliament.

Similar questions arise when it comes to Treaty rights and interests. If long-standing protections for Māori relationships with land, water, and taonga are removed from legislation and replaced with narrower process-based requirements, then Parliament is not simply changing the planning system. It is changing where important decisions about Treaty recognition sit, and how secure those protections will be in the future.

When people ask why iwi are seeking greater certainty through arrangements such as Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements, the answer lies in the broader context. Many are looking for reassurance that their rights and interests will continue to be recognised in a planning system that is changing significantly around them. Without that context, legitimate efforts by iwi and hapū to secure certainty can be portrayed as an attempt to obstruct reform. In some cases, they are even painted as evidence of an ‘iwi power grab’. That misses the point entirely.

Let me be clear: Ngāi Tahu wants a better planning system for New Zealand as much as anyone. We need a system that is clearer, faster and more effective. We need a system that supports responsible development and makes it easier to deliver the infrastructure our communities need. But a faster and more efficient planning system should not come at the expense of protections that have long been recognised in our law.

Any new planning system should reflect the unique history and character of this country, including the enduring place of iwi Māori in decisions about land, water and the environment. That is how we build a system that is durable, trusted and capable of standing the test of time.

I do not accept that reforming the planning system requires us to abandon principles that have been part of New Zealand planning law for decades, or to set aside agreements reached in good faith.

The Bills are not yet law. There is still time to get this right.