Editorial: 'Consulting' fees need to be pegged

Of all the rorts, real and imagined, that National leader Don Brash cites against "race-based policies", the cost of consultations for building consents has probably the most substance. The revelation that the Department of Corrections paid $1.3 million to consult local iwi over a new prison at Meremere can only add to his suspicion that corruption is rife.

But is it? The minister who presided over most of that payout, Matt Robson, considers the exercise was "worth every penny spent". In an article today he explains his reason. Prisons, he points out, are not popular in anyone's back yard and to gain Tainui's acquiescence he offered the Iwi a "genuine partnership". Tainui, in response, asked to be involved in the project from its design to the delivery of its services. The department, he suggests, was happy to agree because a "Maori focus unit" was always to be part of its rehabilitative effort and it was an opportunity also to elicit the tribe's help with a programme to keep its own offenders out of prison.

Design consultation begins to explain how the expense became so high. Nearly half the money - just under $600,000 - was paid over four years to the Waikato Raupatu Lands Trust which employed two full-time staff on the project. Further sizeable sums were paid to architects and others. All told, according to Mr Robson, $875,000 was spent over four years to enable the iwi to commission reviews of engineering reports and contributions to design, landscaping and water and sewage management.

But this sounds like a great deal of duplication of design work that ordinarily the taxpayer would not have to accept. And it still leaves $438,000, by Mr Robson's account, that was spent on the usual forms of consultations such as hui. He considers all the money well spent because the tribe has turned from initial opposition to the prison to the point that it has not just accepted its presence but is committed to a continuing role in its rehabilitation activities.

The whole arrangement goes far beyond the usual meaning of consultation under the Resource Management Act. To call the expense a "consultation fee" is to invite the ridicule that Act MP Rodney Hide heaps on it and to reinforce the campaign National's leader is running. However, the more that becomes known of the north Waikato prison case, the more it might illustrate the positive side of the treaty partnership principle.

In fact, it might be wondered why the Government has not quickly adopted Mr Robson's explanation. Instead, the Corrections Minister, Paul Swain, has been content to agree that the costs appear excessive and to suggest he will ensure this sort of expense is not repeated. Labour is probably wary of defending any case of this sort. It cannot assume that all concerns about obligatory consultation under the Resource Management Act might be satisfactorily explained. The act is based on a fine but flawed principle that almost anything can be done so long as adversely effected people are mollified. It is thus permissive rather than restrictive, but it also encourages people to object for the sake of a payoff.

Private developers are bursting with tales of apparent importunate demands on the part of Maori claiming tangata whenua status over a site. Some of the tales are finding their way into Dr Brash's speeches and web mailings. One, which he has just posted, claims a developer was charged $135 an hour for each of two people consulted and for their secretary.

While this sort of thing appears grossly excessive, some charge is reasonable for the time and research of those consulted. It also seems reasonable that a statutory guideline might be devised for the charge that can be made by those whom the law requires to be consulted. Otherwise they are in a position to make financial demands developers cannot refuse. There is a word for that. It is extortion.