Growth and the environment
As if we needed reminding. The government reinforced its emphasis on growth by releasing three discussion documents, which cover 12 national policy statements and national environmental standards.
The aim is to have 16 new or updated statements and standards in place by the end of this year, well ahead of legislation to replace the Resource Management Act. They would underpin both the RMA and its replacement.
The consultation covers infrastructure and development, the primary sector and freshwater. It opened at the end of last week and runs until July 27.
The scope is vast, leaving much to digest and react to. RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop described the changes as both complex and technical, but also essential.
The government claims its balanced approach represents the biggest change in national policy statement direction. The present regime was a "direct contributor to infrastructure deficits, driving up costs and slowing down projects". The measures would help "unclog the arteries of the economy".
However, others see these changes as an assault on the environment and a win for the wish lists of lobbyists, such as farmers and miners.
Freshwater will be a fierce battleground, and the government is consulting on options. After feedback, specific proposals will be released for further submissions.
The government plans to "rebalance" Te Mana o te Wai, while Act New Zealand would like it scrapped altogether. Te Mana o te Wai placed the health of waterways as the priority, followed by drinking water, with economics and social matters secondary.
New objectives propose that councils should "safeguard the life-supporting capacity of freshwater and the health of people and communities, while enabling communities to provide for their social, cultural and economic well-being, including productive economic opportunities". In other words, neither priority is ranked above the other.
Councils would also be required "to consider the pace and cost of change, and who bears the cost".
The government, occasionally correctly, claims that practical realities were sometimes ignored when previous standards were applied. Yet, strong action is vital to reverse the degradation of wetlands, lakes, rivers and aquifers.
There are also loosened provisions for vegetable growers and water storage. The definition of wetlands is "clarified".
It is claimed that the costs were disproportionate to the benefits, with fencing requirements for non-intensive grazing a notable example. In some cases, dilution is the solution.
Consenting for quarrying and mining and clean energy projects would be streamlined, described as "cutting red tape and not corners".
Commercial forestry changes may lead to slash mobilisation plan assessments, although questions have been raised about their enforcement.
Granny flats of up to 70sq m would be allowed without consent in specific zones, and rules for housing on Māori land would be made more consistent and accessible. Consultation on housing direction as a whole is expected soon.
Of course, the government claims environmental protections are important and will be retained. Rightly, there is scepticism.
The devil lurks within a hell of a lot of detail across the standards. They will each need to be carefully and fairly scrutinised, although the results will inevitably fall short of satisfying competing views and interests.
It has become clear that the narrow majority of Otago Regional councillors were quixotic when they fought on for their land and water plan. The government was always going to change the rules, and they should have accepted that sooner.
National regional council representatives this week expressed frustration at policy swings. They are on the front line of RMA (and any replacements).
They seek greater certainty and bipartisan agreement, as substantial changes bring upheaval and expense.
The RMA itself was a bipartisan measure, once a pioneering piece of legislation internationally. However, it became more complex and criticised from all quarters. National promptly discarded Labour's 2023 RMA replacement.
Lasting and consistent laws and standards built on practical environmental protection would necessitate major compromises.
Yet, such a consensus is increasingly unlikely as National and Labour move further apart.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
Chair Refuses To Apologise, Rejects Use Of ‘Kia Ora' In Council Email
A chair of a southern council group is unrepentant about his behaviour at a recent meeting, which was dubbed "disrespectful" by a council leader. Mataura catchment liaison committee chair Hugh Gardyne has also rejected the use of 'kia ora' in an email reprimanding him for his actions. The committee Gardyne oversees is one of eight in the region that supports Environment Southland with local river work. In May, Gardyne gave a blunt presentation to councillors, alleging catchment management was in "a state of paralysis" under the watch of the council chief executive and that communication was ineffective with the general manager in charge. He was shut down at the end of his talk, when he mentioned an abatement notice later revealed to be one issued by Environment Southland against itself. A letter from Environment Southland chair Nicol Horrell on 28 May warned Gardyne of his behaviour, saying parts of his presentation were factually incorrect and disrespectful. "My intention is both to correct your understanding of the facts, and to inform you that councillors will not tolerate any criticism levelled at staff in public meetings or disrespectful behaviour," Horrell wrote. He added it was incorrect to suggest catchment work was in a state of paralysis and accused Gardyne of not having all the facts. "I would be interested to know from where you are getting your information." The letter ended with a suggestion that Gardyne apologise to the chief executive and manager in question, but Gardyne has defended his actions, saying his criticism was about questioning professional ability. "It doesn't, in my opinion, deserve a response or an apology." Gardyne said he would speak at council again in the future and the response from the general manager had been "great", following the presentation. Separately, he also took exception with the use of 'kia ora' in the email sent by Horrell, which delivered the reprimanding letter. Gardyne requested he instead be addressed with 'hello' or 'dear'. Horrell told Local Democracy Reporting using the te reo Māori greeting was commonplace and he didn't think its use would be Gardyne's biggest issue. "I would have thought that that's almost a wee bit racist." In a letter back to Horrell, Gardyne doubled down on perceived issues with river management and questioned whether the chair's concerns were shared by other members. Environment Southland oversees eight catchment liaison committees, which help the council develop annual maintenance programmes and budgets, as well as provide a local point of contact. Gardyne has been involved with the Mataura group since the early 1990s. Last month, the council said it was working to improve communication with its catchment committees.
Scoop
3 hours ago
- Scoop
Te Pāti Māori Co-Leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer On The Longest Suspension In Parliament
This week, Parliament took the unprecedented step of suspending both Te Pāti Māori leaders - Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi - for 21 days. Te Pāti Māori MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke was suspended for seven days - but had also been punished with a 24-hour suspension on the day over a haka all three had performed in Parliament, against the Treaty Principles Bill, in November. It is against the rules of the House for members to leave their seats during a debate - which all three did. Ngarewa-Packer told Saturday Morning that the 21-day suspension, which was seven times harsher than any previous sanction an MP has faced, was not proportionate. "I think the backlash from the public, nationally and internationally, validates that," she said. Previously, the longest suspension for an MP had been three days, given to the former prime minister Robert Muldoon for criticising the speaker in the 1980s. While New Zealand First leader Winston Peters said the duration of the suspension would have been lessened if the Te Pāti Māori MPs had apologised, Ngarewa-Packer said that was never requested by the Privileges Committee. "What we have here is a situation where, and some are calling it Trumpism, we've been a lot more specific - we have an Atlas agenda that has not only crept in, it's stormed in on the shores of Aotearoa and some may not understand what that means, but this is just the extension of the attack on the treaty, on the attack on Indigenous voices. "We made the point the whole way through when we started to see that they weren't going to be able to meet us halfway on anything, even a quarter of the way, on any of the requests for tikanga experts, for legal experts when we knew the bias of the committee." Ngarewa-Packer added that the Privileges Committee process was not equipped to deal with the issue. "We hit a nerve and we can call it a colonial nerve, we can call it institutional nerve... "I think that this will be looked back on at some stage and say how ridiculous we looked back in 2025." Ngarewa-Packer also added that the language from Peters during the debate on Thursday was "all very deliberate" - "and that's what we're contending with in Aotearoa". "Everyone should have a view but don't use the might of legislation and the power to be able to assert your racism and assert your anti-Māori, anti-Treaty agenda." Peters had taken aim at Waititi on Thursday as "the one in the cowboy hat" and "scribbles on his face" in reference to his mataora moko. He said countless haka have taken place in Parliament but only after first consulting the Speaker. "They told the media they were going to do it, but they didn't tell the Speaker did they?" Peters added that Te Pāti Māori were "a bunch of extremists" and that "New Zealand has had enough of them". "They don't want democracy, they want anarchy," he said. "They don't want one country, they don't want one law, they don't want one people."
Scoop
3 hours ago
- Scoop
The House: Parliamentary Week Achieves Two Out Of Three Goals
, Editor: The House While Parliament's week was dominated by its final event - Thursday's debate on the report from the Privileges Committee into a haka performed in the chamber - the rest of the week focussed on other business that, while more mundane, was still worthy of note. The Government appeared to have three objectives for this week in the house. Crucial to the administration's continuance, the first goal was to successfully complete the initial debate on the budget. The long initial budget debate could no longer dribble on over weeks, so the house spent six hours of the week completing the second reading debate, which is the first debate a budget gets. The reading was accomplished and so the Government continues. This may sound silly, but a Government cannot survive, if the house votes against its budget. Agreeing to vote for budget and taxation bills are the 'supply' portion of the 'confidence and supply' agreement that is the foundation of any coalition agreement. The budget focus now turns to select committees and what is called 'Scrutiny Week', when ministers appear before various subject committees to defend their budget plans. Scrutiny Week begins on 16 June. Slow seconds A second objective was possibly not in earlier plans for this week - to finally polish off the bills originally slated for completion two weeks ago during budget week urgency. Then, the Leader of the House had asked the house to accord urgency for 12 bills the Government hoped to progress through 30 stages of parliamentary debate. The plan was ambitious and it did not succeed. Despite day-long sittings until midnight Saturday (when urgency must end), only two bills were completed, others were untouched, and 13 stages were unfinished or unstarted. This week's plan for the house had MPs returning to the well for more of the same. Just like last time, progress was at a snail's pace. After quite a few hours, the Government had slugged its way through just a few more stages. The plan was slowed to a crawl by bills' committee stages (formally known as the Committee of the Whole House). Committee stages are a crucial way for MPs to publicly interrogate the minister in charge of a bill. With patience, they can tease out a lot about both a government's development of legislation and its intended real-world impacts. Because the committee stage has no set duration, it is also a way for the opposition to make the Government really work for progress. The Government did achieve progress on the bills left incomplete from budget week, but again, it was probably not what was hoped for. They will need to come back yet again in three weeks to have a third crack. The Opposition is showing itself to be quite effective at the filibuster. The Government's third objective was to have the debate on the recent Privileges Committee Report on three Te Pāti Māori MPs done by the week's end. As Leader of the House Chris Bishop said in re-initiating the debate: "My encouragement would be for everybody to finish this debate today. "Have a robust debate, but let's end this issue once and for all, and deal with the issue and get back to the major issues facing this country." That wish was fulfilled with apparent agreement from across the house. As 6pm neared, the MP who eventually moved that a vote be taken was Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi. The frankly fascinating debate on the report will be reported separately. - RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ.
