It was ironic that the very week former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer lambasted Parliament and recent governments for too much rushed legislation and excessive use of Urgency, the government announced the repeal of his flagship Resource Management Act and then took Urgency to pass the first stage of its reforms through Parliament.

The Resource Management Act was a radical piece of legislation designed in the late 1980s to balance economic development and environmental sustainability. It combined a previously disorganised regime of up to 54 different pieces of planning legislation in one coherent Act. However, the plethora of local government rules and by-laws developed subsequently to make the legislation work, steadily ground it down, blunted its purpose, and reduced its effect.

In recent years, there have been many calls for the Resource Management Act to be replaced, but that has proved to be difficult to achieve. The Key government sought to “streamline” the Act to make it work more effectively but could not secure the political support necessary to do so. The Ardern government did manage to repeal the Resource Management Act and replace it with two new pieces of legislation. However, they were quickly repealed by the current government when it came to office, and the Resource Management Act was reinstated temporarily, pending the government’s consideration of the changes it wanted to make.

This week’s announcements, which appear to have been generally well received, spell out the government’s intentions, but they do not necessarily restore the sense of certainty that has been lacking in recent years. Moreover, it is likely to be at least 2029 before the range of the reforms the government is proposing, and the associated changes to the regional government structure take full effect. With at least one general election due before then, there is no guarantee that the changes being proposed now will survive unaltered until then.

All of which raises another serious concern to go alongside Sir Geoffrey’s criticisms of rushed legislation and too much Urgency. Too often, major legislative reforms passed by one government have been repealed by the next government, often before there has been sufficient time to assess whether they are working properly. The saga of the Resource Management Act over the last 35 years would be the stand-out example.

We therefore need to develop a better way of dealing with major, complex law reforms to ensure they are both durable and sustainable. A greater level of agreement across the political aisle when significant structural reform legislation is being developed would be a step towards achieving that, but the change in our still combative political culture that would require that will not happen quickly.

Earlier this year, both National and Labour mused loftily about the desirability of a more bipartisan approach to long-term infrastructure development but so far there have been few signs of any practical steps either party has taken to achieve that.

Right now, proposed changes to the structure and purpose of regional government and the changes to resource management law cry out for such an approach if they are to be successfully implemented. Labour has so far kept its powder reasonably dry on its attitude to these changes, but there does not seem to have been much, if any, cross-party discussion before their announcement.

Yet intended long-term, major legislative reforms developed without cross-party input, only to be abruptly overturned by an incoming government, have the potential to weaken our Parliamentary democracy, just as much as the rushed legislation and excessive use of Urgency that Sir Geoffrey has called out.

As it proceeds down its current reform path, which it claims will save New Zealanders more than $13 billion in compliance costs over the next thirty years, the government has a real opportunity to change the paradigm by engaging constructively with the Opposition on the new legislation it is developing. Their joint aim should be structural change that will both meet the country’s needs and substantially endure beyond future changes of government.

Such a move would break the entrenched mould of only the government of the day being capable of having the answers to complex problems. And that could lead to a more collaborative Parliament, and better overall decision making and legislation as a result.

That is perhaps too optimistic and wishful an outcome to immediately aim for. But it is a positive thought for the future, and a good note for Dunne’s Weekly to conclude on for this year.

Best wishes to all readers for Christmas and the New Year ahead!