Environment Minister defends RMA reforms, says National has it wrong

Public Policy / news

The Government says new bills to replace the Resource Management Act will streamline environmental oversight, counter to National Party arguments it will do the opposite

28th Jun 23, 2:43pm by Eric Frykberg

The Minister for the Environment is defending the reforms to environmental management laws that he is pushing through parliament.

David Parker says, contrary to National Party arguments, the reforms will streamline environmental oversight.

Parker's legislation will kill off the Resource Management Act (RMA) of 1991. Despite frequent changes, the RMA has been repeatedly accused of throttling economic initiative in red tape.

In its place will be three laws, the Natural and Built Environment (NBE) Bill, the Spatial Planning Bill and the Climate Adaptation Bill.

The first two laws were reported back to Parliament from the Environment Committee on Tuesday, and provoked an immediate attack from the National Party.

Chris Bishop, National's RMA Reform and Urban Development spokesperson, says the bills would bog down economic progress even more than the RMA does, and is pledging to repeal them before the end of the year, if National is elected in October's election.

But Parker says National has got it wrong.

He says around 3000 submissions were received into the process and 94% of them agreed on the need for change. He adds most major organisations broadly support the aims of the reform.

Parker says the changes will reduce the number of RMA plans across New Zealand from 100 to 16, and allow more affordable housing along with fewer and faster consents.

“The reform...allows the housing and infrastructure we need for our communities to thrive, without depleting our natural resources and degrading the state of our environment."

Changes to the laws include giving more attention to local voices, continuation of fast track consenting, and tree protection.

"The RMA takes too long, costs too much and does not adequately protect the environment," says Parker.

"It’s time to repeal it."

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

10 Comments

by Kate | 28th Jun 23, 3:56pm 1687924563

If anyone is so inclined, here are the Select Committee report backs;

Spatial Planning Bill (selectcommittees.parliament.nz)

Natural and Built Environment Bill (selectcommittees.parliament.nz)

by agnostium | 28th Jun 23, 4:05pm 1687925134

I take back my comment on the other article where I accused Eric of only offering National's side of the argument. Apologies Eric

by powerdownkiwi | 28th Jun 23, 5:59pm 1687931963

Well mea-cupla'd, but there is yet another side - the one where both 'sides' are wrong.

That, he has yet to address.

Real sustainability - long-term non draw-down - is the only valid goal. Parker has never acknowledged that, although he has put the brakes on some things. Truth be told, his Overton Window is limited - not helped by the media or academia.

by powerdownkiwi | 28th Jun 23, 7:41pm 1687938099

'the RMA has been repeatedly accused of throttling economic initiative in red tape.'

That isn't the point.

Has the RMA managed resources in a way which allows my grandchildren the same resource chances I had? That was the implied Brundtland claim.

The answer is: No, in spades. So it has to be tightened - by many orders of magnitude - until it does. I sometime wonder if any of the punters - left, right, smart, stupid - get how much less we need to be doing, to qualify?

by Grattaway | 28th Jun 23, 7:42pm 1687938134

The track record says Govt and streamline do not go together

Methinks he also lies a lot - 94% of submissions agreed a change was needed does not equate to 94% supporting his change

the term "broadly support" is also used by this govt. when you dont have actual support for what you are proposing

by kiwi_overseas | 28th Jun 23, 7:50pm 1687938649

The new bills will only work if the government puts a raft of National Policy Statements and National Environmental Standards in place.

Otherwise local government will continue writing rules that haven’t been through cost benefit assessment and are stacked as high as the sky tower again.

This was meant to happen under the RMA anyway and never did.

NZ only has 5m people - we only need one set of effects based NPSs and NESs.

by Mikey | 28th Jun 23, 10:13pm 1687947219

I'm yet to read an NPS or NES that has undergone the level of scrutiny that a local planning document has. Cost benefit analysis is a key requirement of District Planning, unlike NPSs which are basically politically driven. The new system will make this even worse, by placing far too much power in the hands of a single minister. Virtually everything everyone does could be controlled by the Minister for the Environment without any real oversight. At least the current system requires public consultation and hearings, and the decisions can be challenged in court...

by kiwi_overseas | 29th Jun 23, 7:25am 1687980321

Sorry, district plans are full or rules that have not gone through cost benefit assessment.

A Section 32 report is not a cost benefit assessment either as it just weighs costs and benefits. It is not a quantitative analysis

by Sisyphus | 28th Jun 23, 11:42pm 1687952541

It would be nice to see a reform that placed value in the diverse range of non indigenous species that make NZ an outdoor paradise.

Fish and Game have been offering preformated submissions, sent on behalf of interested parties. Fish and Game didnt seem overly supportive where the changes affect their organisational purpose.

https://ourfuture.fishandgame.org.nz/

by Casual Observer | 29th Jun 23, 3:50pm 1688010643

A significant win for a small, but tenancious, community in Southland in a dispute with Meridian re Manapouri Power Station. Judge Borthwick in the Environment Court, has given her final confirmation that:

The renewal of consents for the Mānapouri Power Station has been changed back to a discretionary activity, and the ecosystem health and Mauri are now explicit considerations for the consent renewal.

The removal from the exception to water quality standards for the power scheme generally (now limited to temporary ancillary activities).

Meridian involvement with user consents is limited limited to where it's going to affect monitoring transects/equipment, the wiers themselves, or where it would reduce Meridian's take, i.e. upstream of the wier beyond an allocation limit.

Environment Southland is now empowered to consider all matters including the flow regime, when reconsenting the power scheme.

This has been a years long, David and Goliath, struggle for the Waiau Rivercare Group and their supporters. This is what Meridian, the Rivercare Group, and children from the Waiau area had to say in May 2023 - prior to the final confirmation from Judge Borthwick. https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/countrylife/audio/2018889865/…