The backbone of environmental law<\/p>\n
A main concern raised by several submitters is the removal of Part 2 of the Resource Management Act, long regarded as the backbone of New Zealand\u2019s environmental law. Part 2 includes provisions requiring decision-makers to recognise M\u0101ori relationships with land and water (section 6(e)), have particular regard to kaitiakitanga (section 7(a)), and take into account the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi (section 8).<\/p>\n
Porou told MPs these clauses were not simply technical provisions, but formed the legal foundation on which Treaty settlements were negotiated.<\/p>\n
Tina Porou tells the environment select committee she \u2018can\u2019t polish diarrhoea\u2019. (Photo: screenshot of parliamentary livestream).<\/p>\n
\u201cPart 2 ensures the Crown will uphold and protect Treaty settlements,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
The new legislation replaces Part 2 with a broader list of planning \u201cgoals\u201d. However, Porou argued that the new framework fails to carry the same legal weight: \u201cBy removing Part 2 and not replacing it with an equivalent set of clauses with the same effect, the Crown is breaching every Treaty settlement.\u201d<\/p>\n
Her argument is that iwi negotiated settlements on the expectation that Part 2 would remain central to environmental decision-making. Without it, the regulatory context those agreements relied upon may no longer exist.<\/p>\n
Who gets to define M\u0101ori interests?<\/p>\n
Porou also criticised what she described as a \u201cfundamental misunderstanding\u201d of M\u0101ori relationships with land and water in the proposed planning framework. Under the legislation, M\u0101ori interests are largely recognised through mechanisms such as identified M\u0101ori land or formally recognised sites of significance.<\/p>\n
Porou warned this risks confining M\u0101ori engagement to areas the Crown chooses to recognise. That framing ignores the whakapapa-based relationships M\u0101ori have with the taiao, she said, and reduces M\u0101ori authority to a set of discrete parcels of land.<\/p>\n
Submitters fear the approach could allow the Crown to define the boundaries of M\u0101ori interests \u2013 effectively determining where iwi and hap\u016b are permitted to participate in environmental decision-making.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe fact the government is narrowing the flexibility of arrangements that we make in our own home is frankly unacceptable,\u201d Porou said.<\/p>\n
Porou also challenged the economic assumptions underpinning the reforms. While the government argues the changes will create a more efficient planning system, she told MPs environmental safeguards must remain the foundation of any system: \u201cMarkets want to ensure environmental safeguards are at the core of what we do.\u201d<\/p>\n
Without strong environmental bottom lines, economic development ultimately undermines itself, said Porou. Degraded ecosystems impose long-term costs that cannot easily be reversed, particularly when it comes to freshwater and biodiversity. According to Porou, environmental protection is not simply one interest among many \u2013 it is the requirement for every other economic outcome.<\/p>\n
Some submitters warned the new planning framework could shift environmental risk onto future generations. In its written submission, Ng\u0101ti Te Rangiunuora \u2013 a hap\u016b of Ng\u0101ti Pikiao \u2013 described the reforms as creating an \u201cintergenerational transfer of risk\u201d, arguing the system may allow the present generation to meet immediate economic needs by \u201ccannibalising the inheritance of mokopuna\u201d.<\/p>\n
Lake Rotoiti in Rotorua is a tupuna for Ng\u0101ti Pikiao. (Image: Rotorua NZ).<\/p>\n
For some iwi, the debate is also about how the law understands the environment itself. In its written submission, Ng\u0101ti Pikiao argued the new planning framework treats water largely as an economic resource rather than a living ancestor. \u201cTe Rotoiti is not a water body. It is our tupuna,\u201d the submission read. \u201cIts health is our health. Its mauri is our mauri.\u201d<\/p>\n
Using the Mauri Model decision-making framework<\/a>, the iwi assessed the bills across their environmental, cultural, social and economic dimensions. It concluded that prioritising infrastructure efficiency over environmental protection risks undermining the life-supporting capacity of ecosystems.<\/p>\n For many M\u0101ori, the concern is that the planning system is shifting toward reactive management \u2013 intervening only once environmental damage becomes measurable \u2013 rather than preventing harm in the first place.<\/p>\n Consultation or partnership?<\/p>\n George Davis of Rangit\u0101ne o Manawat\u016b Settlement Trust told MPs the legislation also risks locking the Crown\u2019s interpretation of te Tiriti into law.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Treaty clauses in both bills fix the way in which the government interprets te Tiriti to the point at which the legislation is enacted,\u201d Davis said. \u201cIn doing so, the drafting fails to acknowledge that te Tiriti is a living instrument whose interpretation develops over time.\u201d<\/p>\n He also raised concerns about the legislation\u2019s definition of \u201ciwi authority\u201d, which he said fails to explicitly recognise post-settlement governance entities \u2013 the organisations created to represent iwi following Treaty settlements: \u201cLike every iwi and M\u0101ori in the country, we want to make sure that we\u2019re there in partnership making decisions about our taonga and what\u2019s happening within our own whenua.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cSettlement trusts and those that have settled must be main players,\u201d said Davis.<\/p>\n Many submitters, not just M\u0101ori, criticised the pace at which the reforms are being developed. Graham Young of Te R\u016bnanga o Ng\u0101ti Ruanui Trust pointed to the government\u2019s own regulatory impact statement, which acknowledged Treaty analysis had been constrained by the speed of policy development. The statement noted there had been limited opportunity to engage with M\u0101ori on the proposals.<\/p>\n Young said the proposed system offers M\u0101ori only a narrow window for engagement, with ministers deciding what counts as \u201cadequate\u201d consultation and no obligation to adopt iwi views.<\/p>\n Beyond Treaty law, submitters also raised concerns about how the planning system treats M\u0101ori land. M\u0101ori freehold land accounts for only around five percent of land in Aotearoa. Much of it is fragmented, collectively owned and often difficult to develop under standard planning frameworks.<\/p>\n The M\u0101ori Trustee, Te Tumu Paeroa \u2013 which administers more than 77,000 hectares of M\u0101ori land on behalf of over 100,000 owners \u2013 warned that market-based allocation systems could disadvantage M\u0101ori landowners. Tendering processes tend to reward those with the most capital<\/a>. Because M\u0101ori land has historically been underdeveloped \u2013 often landlocked or constrained by multiple ownership<\/a> \u2013 owners are unlikely to outbid large commercial developers.<\/p>\n Critics say this risks turning ancestral responsibilities to protect taonga such as water and geothermal resources into what Porou described as a contest for permits, capital and administrative advantage.<\/p>\n Future of Treaty settlements and environmental authority<\/p>\n Legal scholar Carwyn Jones warned MPs the proposed reforms will weaken the role of te Tiriti within environmental law. \u201cThese provisions significantly water down the protections that are currently provided by the Resource Management Act,\u201d he said. \u201cThey limit teTiriti rights to a narrow set of procedural mechanisms.\u201d<\/p>\n According to Jones, M\u0101ori involvement in environmental management should extend beyond consultation: \u201cThe default position ought to be that M\u0101ori interests are protected in a way that allows M\u0101ori to be making decisions about environmental management.\u201d<\/p>\n Instead, he argued, the reforms risk shifting the system from Treaty partnership toward consultation: \u201cWith the previous actions I\u2019ve seen this government taking, I\u2019m not surprised they are not interested in M\u0101ori rights, te Tiriti, evidence, or good public policy.\u201d<\/p>\n For decades, Treaty settlements have promised iwi a meaningful role in decisions affecting the lands and waters within their rohe. The question raised by these submissions is whether the government\u2019s new planning system honours those commitments \u2013 or quietly rewrites them.<\/p>\n If environmental authority becomes something defined by markets, planning goals and Crown-determined boundaries, many M\u0101ori say the promise of partnership embedded in Treaty settlements may prove far more fragile than expected.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Iwi leaders, environmental experts and legal scholars warn the government\u2019s new planning laws could weaken Treaty settlements and…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":316136,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[26380,111,43,139,69,135,85770,115899,171361,171362],"class_list":["post-316135","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-new-zealand","tag-atea","tag-new-zealand","tag-news","tag-newzealand","tag-nz","tag-politics","tag-rma","tag-rma-reform","tag-select-committee","tag-tina-porou"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/316135","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=316135"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/316135\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/316136"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=316135"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=316135"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=316135"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Chris Bishop is leading the reform of how Aotearoa manages its resources. (Image: Property Council NZ).<\/p>\n