|
You are subscribed as |
Unsubscribe
|
View online version
|
Forward to a friend
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Dr Oliver Hartwich | Executive Director | oliver.hartwich@nzinitiative.org.nz | ||||||||||||
|
By splitting planning and environmental laws, the reforms directly target the RMA’s growth-strangling red tape that has driven up housing costs, blocked infrastructure, and held back our economic potential for decades. The reforms put property rights front and centre. This shift has been a core recommendation from the Initiative since our founding and represents a fundamental reorientation of our planning system. Instead of controlling every aspect of land use, the new system will only step in when activities truly affect neighbours or the environment in material ways. While it will still regulate so-called highly-productive soils – a practice we have consistently criticised – normal activities on your own land will face fewer hurdles overall, reducing compliance costs. The reforms will stop councils from regulating things that do not matter. The new system establishes a higher threshold for when effects require management, focusing only on substantive impacts rather than minor or theoretical concerns that currently delay worthwhile projects. Common sense will replace complexity. Rather than the current patchwork of 1,175 locally defined zones across the country, New Zealand will move to standardised national zones. Japan has just 13 zones nationwide – New Zealand may well adopt a similarly straightforward approach. This standardisation means most everyday building activities will follow clear, preset rules. Though we normally favour localism, nationwide consistency in this specific area will free local authorities to focus on genuine local priorities instead of reinventing the wheel over and over again. In any case, when councils want to create their own rules beyond national standards, they will be able to do so. But they will need to explain why – a welcome accountability mechanism that should prevent unnecessary restrictions. The new spatial plans will define growth areas and future infrastructure corridors years in advance, with real legal weight behind them. Such early designations are significant because they allow for more coordinated long-term investment. Some questions remain about implementation. The national compliance regulator and planning tribunal – which will enforce standards and resolve disputes, respectively – will not be in the first round of legislation. While these mechanisms deserve careful design, they should not be unduly delayed. Success depends on staying the course through the drafting process. The government must resist pressure for complicated exceptions that would recreate the very maze we are trying to escape. These reforms represent the most significant positive change to New Zealand’s planning system in a generation. With proper implementation, they will deliver the affordable housing, efficient infrastructure and economic growth our country has needed for decades. The Initiative strongly welcomes this bold step forward. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Nick Clark | Senior Fellow | nick.clark@nzinitiative.org.nz | ||||||||||||
|
The Government's introduction of a Bill enabling a four-year term is a once in a generation opportunity for change. The three-year term has been in place since the 19th century, but it is increasingly out of step with the complex challenges facing modern government, including the demands of the MMP electoral system. It is also unusually short by international standards. Most comparable democracies operate on four or five-year terms. Australia is also thinking about moving from three to four years. A three-year term creates a perpetual cycle where the first year is spent establishing government, the second implementing policy, and the third campaigning for re-election. Under MMP, the problem has intensified. Coalition negotiations and the complexity of multi-party governance consume precious time. Important reforms require careful consultation, drafting, implementation, and assessment, processes that rarely fit neatly into a three-year window. The pressure is on governments, including the current one, to ram through major policy changes. This might be lessened under a four-year term. The Bill provides for the standard term to remain three years. It makes extending it to four years subject to select committee membership being proportional to MPs that are not in the executive. This will give opposition parties majorities on committees, addressing concern that longer terms might reduce government accountability. In the absence of a second chamber, this compromise is sensible, but the Bill’s provisions are complex and a recipe for uncertainty. A much simpler approach would be to extend the term to four years and, at the same time, amend Parliament’s Standing Orders for select committees. If the Bill passes, a referendum will be held. Recent polling suggests support for four-year terms is significantly higher than previous referendums in 1967 and 1990 which strongly favoured retaining three-year terms. This sentiment is reinforced by real-life election results. There has not been a single-term government since that of 1972-75. They were also rare before then. It is almost as though we have a six-year term. Four years is not universally supported by my colleagues, but I like the idea. Just as no business leader would accept a tenure too brief to deliver meaningful results, New Zealand deserves governance not hamstrung by the ticking clock of an imminent election. Submissions on the Bill close on 17 April. I would be interested to hear what people think. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Lottie Evans | Office Administrator & Event Coordinator | lottie.evans@nzinitiative.org.nz | ||||||||||||
|
Sources report that the Ministry of Transport has hastily buried 20 traffic cones, three "Road Works Ahead" signs, and a half-finished infrastructure plan beneath the Wellington motorway. "We've labelled it 'do not open until 2075, or whenever they complete the Auckland light rail,'" said an insider who wished to remain anonymous. Not to be outdone, the Department of Conservation has placed three kiwi feathers, an "optimistic" species recovery plan, and a petition against mining in national parks in a biscuit tin under a tree in the Waitakere Ranges. "We've included a note apologising to future New Zealanders for whatever species we've let go extinct by then," admitted DOC spokesperson Sarah Williams. The Ministry for Primary Industries reportedly spent yesterday afternoon frantically stuffing Anchor butter packages, Fonterra annual reports, and photographs of cows into an old chilly bin before burying it in a paddock outside Hamilton. "We've also included detailed descriptions of what a cow was, just in case," said one official. The situation escalated further when the Ministry of Education was spotted burying a mysterious container on school grounds that reportedly contained 200 half-chewed pencils and a collection of confiscated fidget spinners. "We've also included recordings of every school bell sound used since 1990, just so future generations can experience that universal feeling of Monday morning dread," revealed an enthusiastic Ministry spokesperson. Even local councils have joined the trend. The Wellington City Council reportedly sealing an incomplete proposal for cycle lanes, three parking tickets, and a broken Snapper card in concrete under Cuba Street. "We've labelled it to be opened when the trains run for more than 3 days in a row, so effectively never,” said a council member. The time-capsule craze has transformed Parliament grounds with mysterious holes appearing everywhere and officials from various ministries staking claims to prime burial spots under cover of darkness. Parliamentary groundskeepers discovered seventeen newly-buried containers in a single morning, with several more suspicious mounds yet to be investigated. The Speaker of the House has now implemented a "one-in, one-out" time capsule policy, requiring departments to dig up something historical before burying anything new. "At this rate, we'll need to rename Parliament grounds the Parliament burial grounds," he sighed. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| On The Record | ||||||||||||
Initiative Activities:
To listen to our latest podcasts, please subscribe to The New Zealand Initiative podcast on iTunes, Spotify or The Podcast App. |
||||||||||||
| All Things Considered | ||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
Unsubscribe me please |
|
Brought to you by outreachcrm |