The debating chamber shortly before the last election. Photo / Mark Mitchell
The debating chamber shortly before the last election. Photo / Mark Mitchell
It has been the best of law-making and the worst of law-making in the space of 24 hours by a single-party majority government on two different controversial bills.
One law is being rushed through under urgency, with no consultation. The other couldn't be more different.
In the best example, areview of the inadequate old law by experts was commissioned by the last government and a broad promise put into the Labour Party manifesto about the party's view.
Detailed decisions were then made by the new Cabinet, other parliamentary parties consulted on the high-level plan, a process outlined including a select committee inquiry on a draft bill.
The committee will hear from the public as well as specialists by the end of the is year, and a stated aim by the minister in charge, David Parker, is to have replacement laws in place by the end of 2022. Brilliant.
There will be a big range of views because it is about repealing the Resource Management Act. It will be a contest of competing rights.
Environmentalists, property developers, ratepayers and councils may well have competing interests. Lawyers will have firm ideas about the importance of case law.
The invitation to the select committee to hold an inquiry into a draft bill is novel. But it represents a clear willingness of the minister to allow some of the detail be written by a committee that will be exposed to arguments from all sides and will be able test them.
Environment Minister David Parker during his press conference outlining how he will go about replacing the Resource Management Act. Photo / Mark Mitchell
It is an acceptance that a public process can improve legislation.
The worst example of law-making is also about what has turned out to be an inadequate law, the power of local referendum to overturn a council's decision to establish Māori wards.
Māori wards were introduced by Helen's Clark's government with the best of intentions to address the woeful representation by Māori in local government. It was highly controversial in 2002 and that was before the Foreshore and Seabed Act or Don Brash's Orewa speech.
To gain wider acceptance – presumably local voters were given a power of veto in a referendum which could be held with the support of 5 per cent of voters and that veto has been widely used to overturn Māori wards.
There may have been promises given by Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta to change the law including to Local Government NZ, but they were private promises, not to voters.
Local government minister Nanaia Mahuta. Photo / Alex Burton
There was no mention of it in Labour's manifesto. The law change was mooted a month after the election. Debate about the process has been dismissed. It reeks of arrogance.
There has been no consultation as is customary with electoral law, with either experts or other parties.
It is being rushed through Parliament in order to prevent nine councils which are seeking to establish Māori wards for the 2022 election from being vetoed.
The first reading was held under urgency, submissions opened today and the Māori Affairs select committee will report back by next Monday in order that it be passed by March 22 to avoid local referendums.
The process has even surprised officials writing the Regulatory Impact Statement, which noted: "Changes to democratic processes for local government should be accompanied by an opportunity for consultation with the general public, and in this case, specific consultation with local authorities ... electoral officers and iwi/Māori ... This view was endorsed by the Ministry of Justice because of the constitutional nature of the electoral process. This consultation has not been possible within the timeframe."
