Towards a system that respects property rights: tidy tweaks or real change?
The infrastructure and development package demonstrates coherent reform. It recognises that efficient infrastructure and housing supply are prerequisites for a functioning society.
New national standards for electricity networks, telecommunications, and renewable energy would sweep away inconsistent local rules that add significant time and cost for infrastructure projects – $1.3 billion a year in consenting costs alone, according to the Infrastructure Commission.
New standards could cut $1.3 billion in annual infrastructure consenting costs.
The proposed standards for granny flats could unlock thousands of affordable housing options.
The freshwater reforms show promise by abandoning a rigid environmental hierarchy that has paralysed decision-making. The current approach of 'environment-first' (and arguably second, third and fourth) prevents councils from properly weighing economic and social benefits against environmental costs.
It has created regulatory straitjackets that are not working, pleasing no one. Replacing this with objectives that treat environmental, social, and economic factors equally represents a crucial shift toward a balanced approach.
Proposals to rebalance Te Mana o te Wai would reduce layers of assessment that add uncertainty, time and cost to freshwater management. Removing its rigid hierarchy of obligations and principles and its extra layers of policy and decision-making processes would mean freshwater would revert to being managed like any other natural resource under the RMA.
Resource management changes promise infrastructure, freshwater balance. Photo / Tania Whyte
It would let councils better balance economic development with environmental protection. Crucially, it would restore the regulatory certainty businesses and farms need to invest, expand, and create jobs.
An alternative to heavy-handed regulation would allow market-based instruments to align private incentives with public objectives. Rather than mandating specific outcomes through complex rules and stifling processes, pricing mechanisms and tradeable permits could achieve superior environmental results while preserving choice and encouraging innovation. Making more use of them would revolutionise not only freshwater management but also biodiversity protection and urban development.
Other elements of the packages reveal some contradictions. The continuation of the National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land, even with modest changes, exemplifies how good intentions are inconsistent with broader policy goals. While food production is of course important, the policy artificially constrains land use on urban fringes where housing growth naturally occurs.
The irony is stark. A Government committed to property rights as the foundation of resource management simultaneously maintains regulations that prevent landowners from responding to market signals or pursuing their highest-value land use. The restrictions not only inflate housing costs but also demonstrate an assumption that politicians and bureaucrats can better determine land use than property owners themselves.
Balancing reform goals with property rights in NZ.
These policy choices matter. Property rights create incentive structures that drive innovation, investment, and responsible stewardship. When regulations unduly constrain these rights, particularly without compensation, they generate perverse outcomes that can harm both economic efficiency and environmental quality.
The current consultation is also silent on compensation for regulatory takings. When national direction significantly constrains landowners' development rights, affected parties should not bear the full cost of delivering public benefits.
International experience offers various models for addressing this fundamental fairness issue, from statutory compensation triggers to targeted buyout schemes.
Chances to tweak a bad system should of course be taken, but they will remain patches on a bad system. Comprehensive reform in the form of RMA replacement remains crucially important.
Minister Chris Bishop's speech to Local Government New Zealand's conference yesterday shows the Government is still committed, which is reassuring.
In the meantime, the test of any interim tweaks should be simple: do they enhance or erode the principles that will govern the replacement system? On this measure, the specific proposals largely point in the right direction, but some could be better.
After many attempts to fix the RMA, New Zealand once again stands at a resource management crossroads. The path toward property rights, market mechanisms, and genuine choice remains open. Taking it would unlock decades of suppressed growth and innovative ways to improve the environment.
Taking the other path would condemn New Zealand to more of the same dysfunction that has plagued us for a generation. It is a path we simply cannot afford to take.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
New Low From Govt In Public Service Act Changes Aimed At Ending Long Term Planning, Diversity & Inclusion & Pay Equity
The Government's proposed changes to the Public Service Act, to be debated in Parliament today, aim to strip away key provisions that ensure fairness, equality and long-term planning in the public sector. Under the proposed amendments, detailed in the Public Service Amendment Bill, diversity and inclusion, pay equity and long-term planning would be downgraded. "This is a new low from the Government. It now wants to tell chief executives of Government departments that they are not to focus on the long-term public interest, this is reckless given that the complex problems New Zealand's facing need long term policy solutions," said Fleur Fitzsimons, National Secretary for the Public Service Association Te Pūkenga Here Tikanga Mahi. "This approach will limit New Zealand's ability to solve complicated problems like climate change adaptation, family violence and our infrastructure deficit." The Public Service Amendment Bill also scraps requirements on pay equity. It would remove responsibilities for chief executives and the Public Service Commissioner to work towards pay equity between women and men, and to work towards eliminating bias and discrimination in decisions about pay. "Pay equity is about fairness and justice for workers and includes ensuring flexible and part time work is available. The Government has already ripped up pay equity claims, denying pay increases for more than150,000 women in the public and community sectors. Taking away its priority in this legislation again shows how little the Government values supporting the career of women and closing the gender pay gap." The Bill would also remove requirements on chief executives and the Public Service Commissioner to foster a public service that's inclusive and representative of the communities it serves. "Diversity and inclusion in our workforce are not nice to haves - they are essential to delivering fair and effective public services that are sensitive to the needs of all New Zealanders. The public service does its job well and is legitimate because it represents our diverse country. Reducing the importance of these principles risks turning back decades of progress." The PSA is also alarmed by amendments to the purpose of the Public Service Act which would reduce emphasis on pursuing the long-term public interest, and remove the requirement of the public service to enable both the current Government and successive governments to develop and implement their policies. "This is a worrying attack on the political neutrality of the public service and makes it less accountable to the people of New Zealand. Public services must look beyond the next political cycle. Downgrading the public service's role in pursuing the long-term public interest means less focus on how our public service can meet future challenges - whether that's dealing with an ageing population, infrastructure challenges, adapting to new technology, or responding to climate change. "The Government has stripped the public service of thousands of jobs despite our population growing, and our challenges becoming more complex and urgent. "The Bill was tabled on the same day the Government extended a tax break for big tobacco, showing how misplaced its priorities are. "This is a time to invest in a fairer, more future-focused public service - not tear down the progress we've made. It's 2025, not 1955." Note
NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
David Seymour resurrects idea of migrants signing NZ ‘values statement'
'These sorts of things are values that we need to stress. If you don't subscribe to that, don't come here,' he said. Asked about immigration concerns on Newstalk ZB this week, Seymour noted that in 2016 he had made the point that 'we should actually have a New Zealand values statement'. 'That's not the Government's policy. But I suspect it should be,' the Act leader said. He said that 'if you want to be part of New Zealand', people should 'sign up to' ideas such as 'men and women are equal', 'someone's sexuality or religion is a private matter', 'we have certain rights before the law' and 'we have free speech'. The Act Party's constitution makes mention of this idea as an example of a policy that reflects its principles. 'Any person seeking New Zealand citizenship or permanent residency should be required to affirm that they subscribe to the democratic and civil rights enunciated in sections 12-18 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.' These sections of the Bill of Rights Act relate to the likes of freedom of peaceful assembly, expression and association. Act's David Seymour has again raised the idea of a New Zealand values statement. Photo / Michael Craig A spokesman for Immigration Minister Erica Stanford said a values statement is not something the minister has raised with officials or been advised on. 'The minister's work programme has been focused on restoring stability and predictability to the immigration system – getting net migration under control, prioritising higher skilled migrants, reducing migrant exploitation, speeding up visa processing, supporting additional foreign investment for New Zealand, and fit for purpose settings across work, study and visitor visas.' Unlike New Zealand, Australia does have a values statement that most temporary, provisional or permanent visa applicants must sign or accept. This includes confirming they understand 'Australian society values', like 'respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual', 'freedom of religion (including the freedom not to follow a particular religion), freedom of speech, and freedom of association', and 'commitment to the rule of law'. The Australian Home Affairs Department says by accepting the statement, migrants are 'undertaking to conduct yourself in accordance with Australian values and to obey Australian laws during your stay in Australia'. In 2016, Peters, who is now in a coalition Government with Seymour, suggested the Act leader was stealing NZ First's policy. 'Being a secretive admirer of New Zealand First is no excuse for plagiarising that party's leader's statements,' the Herald reported Peters as saying at the time. He also described Seymour as a 'toy MP'. Peters said at the time that migrants should be interviewed at the border to ensure they respect New Zealand 'views'. Two years later, then-NZ First MP Clayton Mitchell proposed the Respecting New Zealand Values Bill, which would have required refugees and migrants to sign up to New Zealand values. These were identified as including respect for gender equality, religious freedom and New Zealand law. NZ First leader Winston Peters also believes migrants should subscribe to New Zealand values. Photo / Mark Mitchell While speaking with Newstalk ZB, Seymour also said there were some people who say, 'immigration is terrible, vote for me [and] I will get rid of it'. 'But they don't actually stop immigration when they get into power,' he said. Seymour said he believed the reason for that was because business owners know 'you can't succeed when you only have 5 million people to pick from when your competitors around the world are operating in labour markets of half a billion'. Peters last week told the Herald he was concerned with the number of migrants entering New Zealand and said it remained NZ First's view that immigration shouldn't be 'an excuse for our failure to train, skill and employ our own people'. His comments about the 'alarming development' overseas of 'careless immigration policies transforming cities' received criticism from Opposition parties. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon on Monday said Peters was entitled to have his own views. 'What I am focused on is making sure I advance New Zealand's national interests, economic and security. Immigration will always be on our terms and in the interest of New Zealand,' Luxon said. 'He is entitled as a political party leader to make comments about his observations of other countries. My job as Prime Minister of New Zealand is to say I am focused on making sure we have the right immigration settings for ourselves in order for us to grow our economy.' Jamie Ensor is a political reporter in the NZ Herald press gallery team based at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub press gallery office. In 2025, he was a finalist for Political Journalist of the Year at the Voyager Media Awards.
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Government must step up to save vital regional air routes
This follows its withdrawal of its Wellington to Taupō and Wellington to Westport routes last year. Loss of regional air routes rips out lifelines for our communities – literally, in the case of Blenheim to Christchurch. This is a critical healthcare link for Marlborough people needing specialist treatment such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy and day surgery in Christchurch. As of September 28, that's gone and they face an about four-hour drive, one way. Regional air services are the backbone of connectivity for New Zealand, not just healthcare and holidaymakers but business, education, freight and emergency response capability. The Kaikōura earthquake and Cyclone Gabrielle showed us just how vital these regional air routes and carriers are in times of crisis, delivering vital supplies and medical care to cut-off communities. With extreme weather events now part of life, they are becoming even more important. Yet our regional carriers that serve smaller centres, supplementing Air New Zealand's domestic network, are struggling. They face a growing burden of compliance costs across a range of government agencies that intersect with the industry. This also includes other government charges such as ACC levies and airport landing fees. Alongside the CAA's hikes, government air traffic control agency Airways New Zealand this week set a 6% average annual price increase. These hikes amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars per year for regional carriers, on top of fee increases from airports and growing operational and maintenance costs. The assumption is that operators can pass the cost on to the passenger, but there comes a point where that's not feasible. This leads to route cuts, aircraft sales and staff losses and once gone, these are very difficult to bring back. The Government says it wants to partner with the industry to 'build an aviation sector that continues to be a pillar of New Zealand's economy and a lifeline for our communities'. Its goal is to transition the CAA into a 100% industry-funded regulatory body (it is already 90% industry-funded) and rely on market forces to lift the sector and support regional communities. This is wrong. As with Crown funding for critical infrastructure such as rail and roading, the Government plays a role in supporting access to safe and secure air services domestically and internationally. This is in the wider public interest and good for New Zealand. There are at least 30 countries around the world that support regional airlines in different ways. In Australia, the Government has made a strong commitment to support access to safe and secure regional air services with a package of measures. This includes access to concessional loans, something that has been floated here and is part of a possible solution. Aviation services are essential to our regional communities and New Zealanders deserve access to them now and into the future. If the Government really wants to support regional connectivity and deliver its economic growth plan, it urgently needs to lend a helping hand to our regional carriers so they can keep these routes in the air.
