Two Bills to replace the Resource Management Act were introduced to Parliament yesterday by the Government.
A range of expert reactions (including Te Aka Toro | NZES) are available through the Science Media Centre. The Te Aka Toro | NZES response is below:
Dr Jo Monks, President, Te Aka Toro | New Zealand Ecological Society, comments:
“Te Aka Toro | The New Zealand Ecological Society is deeply concerned by the Government’s decision to replace the Resource Management Act with the new Natural Environment and Planning Bills, marking a decisive shift away from environmental protection and toward prioritising private property rights. Most troubling is the introduction of “regulatory relief,” which effectively means councils may be required to compensate landowners—through direct payments, rates reductions, expert support, or expanded development rights—simply for applying standard environmental safeguards. We appear to be entering an era where public authorities must pay to prevent the loss of habitats and biodiversity, an approach that is both economically untenable and a profound reversal of long-standing policy.
“The Bills also downgrade the role of clear statutory purpose, instead offering multiple, often competing, goals that provide little guidance when development pressures clash with ecological limits. Alongside this, the new Bills are likely to exacerbate, rather than remedy, the cumulative impacts of small-scale effects by dispensing with almost half of the consents currently within scope of the Resource Management Act. Provisions for environmental limits contain some constructive elements, but their effectiveness is undermined by an emphasis on voluntary measures, and opportunities for councils to justify weaker standards.
“Public participation would also be significantly curtailed, with higher thresholds for notification and restrictive standing rules that exclude many organisations capable of contributing scientific expertise. While spatial planning and nationalised e-plan tools have merit, the overall package risks weakening biodiversity protection at precisely the time it needs strengthening.”
Conflict of interest statement: “None.”