Is politics getting in the way of democracy?

A few years ago, I decided to get some chickens to help tidy up the vege garden over winter. The last thing I wanted was for some of my former colleagues to come knocking on my door, so I spent a few hours digging through district plans knowing the rules can be very different depending on whether you’re in Christchurch, Rolleston, or Ashburton.

Simplifying planning makes sense. Provided everyone follows the rules and is considerate. But there’s always that ONE person who sets up a large egg business next door to an alektorophobic (someone who’s terrified of chickens). Inevitably, a rule is needed to determine how many chickens are allowed. Under the RMA, even a simple question requires public consultations, working groups, and chances to appeal. Multiply the process by all 78 districts and hundreds of zones, and you see how complex it can get.

Recently, the government announced major reforms to the Resource Management Act (RMA), with promises of protecting property rights, simpler planning rules, national directions, and more consistency across districts. On the surface, this all sounds like good news for my urban chickens.

But New Zealanders also like rules. We are a nation of people who take great pleasure in dobbing in our neighbours, as proven in Covid, as well as raised a generation of kids who feel entitled to be offended by life. Our petty district planning system reflects a passive-aggressive tendency to call in outside help instead of working them out as well as an inherent belief we can do whatever we want, provided our neighbour can not.

National rules could make things clearer. However, there’s some uncertainty in what “national direction” means. Broad-scale rules are rarely applicable in all areas and all circumstances. These reforms also provide ministers with an enormous influence on the national rules. For example, what if an alektorophobic minister decided to ban urban chickens everywhere? What about the hundreds of dollars I invested in chicken-care infrastructure? How do I explain to my kids that I need to kill their favourite pet chook, particularly if yet another minister comes along and changes the rules back again?

The question becomes even more significant if you swap “chickens” for “cows,” “irrigation” or “new electricity generation”.

We have seen what happens with “national directives” and “national bottom lines”. The RMA has these provisions and the chaos really got started when Governments started to use them.  Since 2011, the National Policy Statement for Freshwater has changed at least four times. Each change led to more amendments in planning documents, making it hard for investors, councils, and community groups to know where they stand. Councils have to re-interpret rules to meet political ideologies, leading to paralysis or “whack-a-mole” consent processes. In this sense, are these reforms going to solve anything or merely enable our politicians to get in the way of our democratic planning processes?

I’m hopeful that the new Natural Environment Act and Spatial Planning Acts will strike a better balance—making the rules straightforward while also providing the certainty people and councils need. If these changes mean I can keep my chickens without endless red tape and councils can make decisions without getting bogged down, then that’s a win for all of us. Ultimately, real progress will come when our planning system empowers communities to solve problems together, rather than letting politics get in the way of genuine democracy.

Eva Harris is Principal Environmental Advisor at Enviro Collective