What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Can developers be forced to pay for karakia? ACT says it would stop resource-consent conditions from requiring developers to fund, arrange, perform or take part in karakia or other spiritual observances. The party announced the pledge on 3 October 2026; it is a proposed change, not an enacted law. Te Ao Māori News reported that ACT would also prevent spiritual beliefs alone from being treated as adverse effects in consent decisions.
What ACT is proposing to change
ACT infrastructure spokesperson Simon Court said the party would introduce a rule barring resource-consent requirements that compel people to fund, arrange, perform or participate in karakia and other spiritual observances. The proposal is broader than a ban on payment: it concerns compelled involvement as well as paying for a ceremony. Voluntary observances would not be prohibited. The pledge is attributed to ACT, and the available reporting does not include draft legislation or an enacted amendment. Te Ao Māori News reported the announcement.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
ACT also proposes that a religious or spiritual belief, by itself, could not be treated as an adverse effect, used to refuse or restrict consent, trigger requests for more information, or support a consent condition. The reported proposal is intended to apply equally across religions and belief systems. It would therefore address how beliefs are considered in resource-consent decisions, not only whether a developer must pay for a ceremony.
Examples cited by ACT
Te Ao Māori News reported examples offered by Court in support of the pledge. The article says some housing developments are allegedly required to invite iwi to perform karakia before construction; IKEA’s Sylvia Park consent reportedly requires invitations to seven mana whenua groups to attend karakia and ceremonies at specified construction milestones; and solar farms at Ongaonga and Ōpunake reportedly have similar conditions. The report also refers to the Ōtākiri water-bottling dispute, which reached the Supreme Court and included evidence about te mauri o te wai. These examples are reported as part of Court’s case for the proposal; the consent records and court judgment are not available in the cited reporting, so their precise legal details should not be treated as independently verified here.
#1 Best Overall
What ACT says would remain protected
Court drew a distinction between spiritual propositions and effects or rights that can be identified in the physical world or recognised by law. ACT says its proposal would leave protections for heritage sites, urupā, archaeological sites, customary physical uses, water quality, ecosystems and rights in Treaty-settlement legislation intact. That is ACT’s account of the intended boundary, not a settled interpretation of planning law or an independently tested account of how a future rule would operate.
Court said: “Planning law should regulate effects that can be identified, measured and tested, and protect rights recognised by law. It should not require planners, councils or judges to rule on spiritual or religious beliefs.” Te Ao Māori News reported the statement on 3 October 2026.
How this differs from ACT’s workplace proposal
ACT has made a separate proposal about cultural and spiritual practices in public-service workplaces. Published on 16 August 2026, that policy says public-service employers should not initiate or resource such practices at work, while staff should remain free to practise their own religion, culture or traditions in their own time, with reasonable accommodation where appropriate. It is related political context, but it is not the same proposal as the October resource-consent pledge.
In a 22 July 2024 email, the Public Service Commission said there were no formal standards or expectations for agencies’ use of karakia, and that agency practice was at the discretion of chief executives. The Commission said karakia was commonly made available or encouraged, for example to open and close meetings, but that there was no data on how widely it was used. The email referred to Human Rights Commission guidance that karakia should not be compulsory. This workplace evidence does not establish that resource consents legally require developers to fund karakia. Public Service Commission OIA response material.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What is not yet clear
- Whether the pledge will become law: implementation depends on future political and legislative action. The reported announcement supplies no bill text.
- How the proposed rule would be worded: no draft is available to establish exactly which planning processes, conditions or decision-makers it would cover.
- How it would interact with existing law: the material cited here does not include independent legal analysis of its relationship to planning statutes, heritage and environmental protections, or Treaty-settlement rights.
- What the cited consent conditions say: underlying consent documents and the Ōtākiri judgment are not included in the reporting used here.
Court argued that excluding a requirement explicitly would establish a clearer boundary than leaving it out and allowing spiritual matters to return through broader cultural-effects provisions. That is ACT’s rationale for a specific rule; how councils and courts would apply any eventual law remains unknown until its wording and legal effect are established.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
