Warnings are being raised about the Government’s proposed overhaul of the Resource Management Act, with Māori advocates and legal experts saying the reforms strip away Treaty protections, weaken environmental safeguards and fundamentally change how iwi and hapū could participate in decisions affecting land and water.
The reforms would replace the Resource Management Act with two new laws, a Planning Bill and a Natural Environment Bill, which the Government says are designed to simplify the system, speed up development and enable more housing and infrastructure. Ministers argue the existing framework is too slow, overly complex and restrictive.
However, critics say the changes go far beyond streamlining and instead dismantle the legal foundation that has enabled Māori participation and environmental protection for more than three decades.
The reforms have had their first reading in the House and are now before the select committee, with submissions closing on Friday the 13th of February.
The current Resource Management Act requires decision makers to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi when managing natural resources. Under the proposed legislation, that requirement would be removed entirely.
Treaty principles would no longer operate as an overarching consideration, instead replaced by high level goals and limited consultation requirements.
Kaupapa Māori environmental expert and founder of Poipoia consultancy, Tina Porou, says the reforms undermine decades of progress and fundamentally reshape power within the system.
“These bills don’t just change process, they change power,” she says.
“They push us out of a whakapapa based relationship with our taiao and into a property rights system that was never designed for us, and that is incredibly dangerous for our people and our environment.”
Porou says Treaty settlements were negotiated on the understanding that there was a legal foundation recognising iwi and hapū relationships with the environment, including the ability to act as kaitiaki and participate meaningfully in decision making.
“All of our Treaty settlements were negotiated on the understanding that there was a legal foundation in place that recognised our relationship with the taiao,” she says.
“You can’t strip that foundation away and claim settlements are still protected, because without that platform, meaningful participation disappears.”
She warns the changes will have long term consequences.
“What we have built over the last 30 years in terms of Māori participation in environmental decision making is being severely eroded, and it will take at least 20 years to get us back to the place we were before this legislation is enacted,” Porou says.
Lecturer and legal academic Dr Luke Fitzmaurice-Brown says the changes are significant and far reaching, both legally and environmentally.
“Te Tiriti o Waitangi is one of the most important protections we have of our natural environment both from a Māori perspective in terms of our Tiriti rights, but also for everyone in terms of protecting the environment,” he says.
“So to get rid of Te Tiriti from the law as an overarching consideration will do real damage both for Māori but also for everyone in terms of that conservation.”
He says the shift removes any real reference to tino rangatiratanga.
“Whenua is a Te Tiriti right that gives us tino rangatiratanga over that whenua and that right or tino rangatiratanga is far more than just participating in or being consulted,” he says.
“Those sorts of things are still in the law to an extent but there’s not that overarching protection which means that there’s not any reference to tino rangatiratanga at all.”
Fitzmaurice-Brown says the Government’s reliance on Treaty settlement references misunderstands the nature of Te Tiriti.
“It’s a bit of a smoke screen to say that there are still references to settlements in the law or still references to Treaty principles in the law,” he says.
“The vast bulk of the changes is to diminish Te Tiriti and remove those overarching references.”
The Government has argued the reforms are necessary to remove barriers to development, with ministers suggesting Treaty requirements have slowed housing and infrastructure projects, but that framing is being rejected.
Porou says delays are more often the result of under resourced councils and bureaucratic inefficiencies, not Māori involvement.
“This idea that Māori slow everything down is a racist stereotype,” she says.
“Māori don’t hold up development. Slow, bureaucratic processes do.”
Despite widespread frustration and submission fatigue, both say it remains critical that people continue to engage with the process.
“At the heart of who we are as Māori is our whakapapa to our taiao,” Porou says.
“If you don’t care about taiao, then who are we as people who whakapapa to the whenua?”
She says submissions matter beyond the immediate legislative process.
“Submissions do suck and they aren’t getting us anywhere in terms of changes to the law,” she says.
“But what they are creating in our hapū and iwi is technical matter subject experts. They are creating a whole generation of people who now know the law better than the lawmakers. And if we don’t know the tools of the oppressor, then how can we stop being oppressed?”
Fitzmaurice-Brown agrees, saying submissions serve a wider purpose.
“I still think it’s really important that those of us who do have the ability to share our views stand up for Te Tiriti,” he says.
“I think that’s not just for the politicians but for all the rest of us as well and also for future governments to know that so many of us care about it and want to see it upheld in our laws.”
Resource Management Reform Minister, Chris Bishop, has said the Government supports the intent of the reforms and expects key issues to be worked through during the Select Committee process.
“That’s the reason we send bills to select committee, to thrash out the big issues and try to get a robust and durable regime,” he says.
He says he has had discussions with iwi leaders about the reforms, including at the National Iwi Chairs Forum in Waitangi last week, bud didn’t disclose what the details of those discussions.
