Latest news with #NationalEnvironmentalStandards
The Advertiser
18 hours ago
- Politics
- The Advertiser
Every month we waste has a cost. The time is now to protect what is uniquely Australian
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will soon mark the first 100 days of his renewed mandate. The first hundred days of any government offer a glimpse of what the next three years may hold. They signal what matters. The Prime Minister personally committed to creating strong, new nature laws early in his term - a moment of hope. Australians want to protect the nature and wildlife that make our country special - animals like the platypus that have to be seen to be believed, and places like the Great Barrier Reef that exist nowhere else on earth. So many of us, including the prime minister, grew up with nature. We owe it to our kids to make sure they can see a koala in the wild or swim among coral reefs. Seven in 10 Australians say the federal government must do more to protect and restore nature; 86 per cent back stronger federal nature laws; and 96 per cent fear further extinctions without urgent reform. Labor has the authority - and responsibility - to act. With a strong majority and a fresh mandate, the government can deliver what voters have long called for: credible laws that actually protect nature. After 25 years in operation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act) has failed to stem broad-scale deforestation or halt wildlife decline. Many species are now in even greater danger. Stronger protections would prove Labor's climate-and-nature promise is real. Graeme Samuel's independent review of the EPBC Act has already supplied the blueprint: binding National Environmental Standards; an independent, well-resourced regulator to enforce them without fear or favour, and up-to-date environmental data to support clearer, faster decisions. It's time to close loopholes that allow native forest logging and broadscale land clearing - and to bring climate squarely into our nature laws. Time matters. In the 25 years of our existing laws, a staggering 7.7 million hectares of threatened species habitat have been destroyed - that's the size of Tasmania. In the five years since the Samuel Review, koalas have been declared endangered in NSW. In the past year, Ningaloo and the Great Barrier Reef have bleached, and South Australia's marine life is dying from climate-fuelled ocean heatwaves. Drafting instructions are on the shelf. The election is behind us. The parliamentary setting is favourable. Political will is what remains. Passing the full Nature Laws package would give communities confidence that unique ecosystems aren't bargaining chips. Clear, modern rules would also give businesses certainty. Every month of drift has a cost: more habitat lost, more projects stalled, more investment on hold. Delay is expensive. MORE OPINION: But decisive reform pays off. Strong, consistent standards reduce duplication, shorten approval times for projects that meet the bar, and give communities confidence that fragile ecosystems are protected. Our three organisations-the Australian Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace Australia Pacific and WWF-Australia- know the country is ready for effective and enforceable nature laws. Together, we represent millions of Australians who want this continent's unique wildlife to thrive alongside a regenerative economy. The choice is clear, the opportunity is real, and the reward belongs to every Australian who values living landscapes and a safe climate. The window to deliver is still open. Miss it, and we inherit a legacy of stalled progress and rising extinctions. Seize it, and we unlock investment, protect nature, and set Australia on a path to a thriving, low-carbon future. The blueprint is ready. The public is watching. The cost of inaction grows daily. Pass the laws. Set the standards. Let this hundred-day mark stand for progress, not pause. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will soon mark the first 100 days of his renewed mandate. The first hundred days of any government offer a glimpse of what the next three years may hold. They signal what matters. The Prime Minister personally committed to creating strong, new nature laws early in his term - a moment of hope. Australians want to protect the nature and wildlife that make our country special - animals like the platypus that have to be seen to be believed, and places like the Great Barrier Reef that exist nowhere else on earth. So many of us, including the prime minister, grew up with nature. We owe it to our kids to make sure they can see a koala in the wild or swim among coral reefs. Seven in 10 Australians say the federal government must do more to protect and restore nature; 86 per cent back stronger federal nature laws; and 96 per cent fear further extinctions without urgent reform. Labor has the authority - and responsibility - to act. With a strong majority and a fresh mandate, the government can deliver what voters have long called for: credible laws that actually protect nature. After 25 years in operation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act) has failed to stem broad-scale deforestation or halt wildlife decline. Many species are now in even greater danger. Stronger protections would prove Labor's climate-and-nature promise is real. Graeme Samuel's independent review of the EPBC Act has already supplied the blueprint: binding National Environmental Standards; an independent, well-resourced regulator to enforce them without fear or favour, and up-to-date environmental data to support clearer, faster decisions. It's time to close loopholes that allow native forest logging and broadscale land clearing - and to bring climate squarely into our nature laws. Time matters. In the 25 years of our existing laws, a staggering 7.7 million hectares of threatened species habitat have been destroyed - that's the size of Tasmania. In the five years since the Samuel Review, koalas have been declared endangered in NSW. In the past year, Ningaloo and the Great Barrier Reef have bleached, and South Australia's marine life is dying from climate-fuelled ocean heatwaves. Drafting instructions are on the shelf. The election is behind us. The parliamentary setting is favourable. Political will is what remains. Passing the full Nature Laws package would give communities confidence that unique ecosystems aren't bargaining chips. Clear, modern rules would also give businesses certainty. Every month of drift has a cost: more habitat lost, more projects stalled, more investment on hold. Delay is expensive. MORE OPINION: But decisive reform pays off. Strong, consistent standards reduce duplication, shorten approval times for projects that meet the bar, and give communities confidence that fragile ecosystems are protected. Our three organisations-the Australian Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace Australia Pacific and WWF-Australia- know the country is ready for effective and enforceable nature laws. Together, we represent millions of Australians who want this continent's unique wildlife to thrive alongside a regenerative economy. The choice is clear, the opportunity is real, and the reward belongs to every Australian who values living landscapes and a safe climate. The window to deliver is still open. Miss it, and we inherit a legacy of stalled progress and rising extinctions. Seize it, and we unlock investment, protect nature, and set Australia on a path to a thriving, low-carbon future. The blueprint is ready. The public is watching. The cost of inaction grows daily. Pass the laws. Set the standards. Let this hundred-day mark stand for progress, not pause. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will soon mark the first 100 days of his renewed mandate. The first hundred days of any government offer a glimpse of what the next three years may hold. They signal what matters. The Prime Minister personally committed to creating strong, new nature laws early in his term - a moment of hope. Australians want to protect the nature and wildlife that make our country special - animals like the platypus that have to be seen to be believed, and places like the Great Barrier Reef that exist nowhere else on earth. So many of us, including the prime minister, grew up with nature. We owe it to our kids to make sure they can see a koala in the wild or swim among coral reefs. Seven in 10 Australians say the federal government must do more to protect and restore nature; 86 per cent back stronger federal nature laws; and 96 per cent fear further extinctions without urgent reform. Labor has the authority - and responsibility - to act. With a strong majority and a fresh mandate, the government can deliver what voters have long called for: credible laws that actually protect nature. After 25 years in operation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act) has failed to stem broad-scale deforestation or halt wildlife decline. Many species are now in even greater danger. Stronger protections would prove Labor's climate-and-nature promise is real. Graeme Samuel's independent review of the EPBC Act has already supplied the blueprint: binding National Environmental Standards; an independent, well-resourced regulator to enforce them without fear or favour, and up-to-date environmental data to support clearer, faster decisions. It's time to close loopholes that allow native forest logging and broadscale land clearing - and to bring climate squarely into our nature laws. Time matters. In the 25 years of our existing laws, a staggering 7.7 million hectares of threatened species habitat have been destroyed - that's the size of Tasmania. In the five years since the Samuel Review, koalas have been declared endangered in NSW. In the past year, Ningaloo and the Great Barrier Reef have bleached, and South Australia's marine life is dying from climate-fuelled ocean heatwaves. Drafting instructions are on the shelf. The election is behind us. The parliamentary setting is favourable. Political will is what remains. Passing the full Nature Laws package would give communities confidence that unique ecosystems aren't bargaining chips. Clear, modern rules would also give businesses certainty. Every month of drift has a cost: more habitat lost, more projects stalled, more investment on hold. Delay is expensive. MORE OPINION: But decisive reform pays off. Strong, consistent standards reduce duplication, shorten approval times for projects that meet the bar, and give communities confidence that fragile ecosystems are protected. Our three organisations-the Australian Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace Australia Pacific and WWF-Australia- know the country is ready for effective and enforceable nature laws. Together, we represent millions of Australians who want this continent's unique wildlife to thrive alongside a regenerative economy. The choice is clear, the opportunity is real, and the reward belongs to every Australian who values living landscapes and a safe climate. The window to deliver is still open. Miss it, and we inherit a legacy of stalled progress and rising extinctions. Seize it, and we unlock investment, protect nature, and set Australia on a path to a thriving, low-carbon future. The blueprint is ready. The public is watching. The cost of inaction grows daily. Pass the laws. Set the standards. Let this hundred-day mark stand for progress, not pause. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will soon mark the first 100 days of his renewed mandate. The first hundred days of any government offer a glimpse of what the next three years may hold. They signal what matters. The Prime Minister personally committed to creating strong, new nature laws early in his term - a moment of hope. Australians want to protect the nature and wildlife that make our country special - animals like the platypus that have to be seen to be believed, and places like the Great Barrier Reef that exist nowhere else on earth. So many of us, including the prime minister, grew up with nature. We owe it to our kids to make sure they can see a koala in the wild or swim among coral reefs. Seven in 10 Australians say the federal government must do more to protect and restore nature; 86 per cent back stronger federal nature laws; and 96 per cent fear further extinctions without urgent reform. Labor has the authority - and responsibility - to act. With a strong majority and a fresh mandate, the government can deliver what voters have long called for: credible laws that actually protect nature. After 25 years in operation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act) has failed to stem broad-scale deforestation or halt wildlife decline. Many species are now in even greater danger. Stronger protections would prove Labor's climate-and-nature promise is real. Graeme Samuel's independent review of the EPBC Act has already supplied the blueprint: binding National Environmental Standards; an independent, well-resourced regulator to enforce them without fear or favour, and up-to-date environmental data to support clearer, faster decisions. It's time to close loopholes that allow native forest logging and broadscale land clearing - and to bring climate squarely into our nature laws. Time matters. In the 25 years of our existing laws, a staggering 7.7 million hectares of threatened species habitat have been destroyed - that's the size of Tasmania. In the five years since the Samuel Review, koalas have been declared endangered in NSW. In the past year, Ningaloo and the Great Barrier Reef have bleached, and South Australia's marine life is dying from climate-fuelled ocean heatwaves. Drafting instructions are on the shelf. The election is behind us. The parliamentary setting is favourable. Political will is what remains. Passing the full Nature Laws package would give communities confidence that unique ecosystems aren't bargaining chips. Clear, modern rules would also give businesses certainty. Every month of drift has a cost: more habitat lost, more projects stalled, more investment on hold. Delay is expensive. MORE OPINION: But decisive reform pays off. Strong, consistent standards reduce duplication, shorten approval times for projects that meet the bar, and give communities confidence that fragile ecosystems are protected. Our three organisations-the Australian Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace Australia Pacific and WWF-Australia- know the country is ready for effective and enforceable nature laws. Together, we represent millions of Australians who want this continent's unique wildlife to thrive alongside a regenerative economy. The choice is clear, the opportunity is real, and the reward belongs to every Australian who values living landscapes and a safe climate. The window to deliver is still open. Miss it, and we inherit a legacy of stalled progress and rising extinctions. Seize it, and we unlock investment, protect nature, and set Australia on a path to a thriving, low-carbon future. The blueprint is ready. The public is watching. The cost of inaction grows daily. Pass the laws. Set the standards. Let this hundred-day mark stand for progress, not pause.
The Age
5 days ago
- Business
- The Age
Like ChatGPT, we need clear goals and rules. Otherwise, we could make bad decisions
And, after an independent review led by the former chair of the competition watchdog Graeme Samuel recommended a series of big reforms in 2020, both ministers – from opposite sides of the political fence – promised to act on them. Loading 'Yet here we are, in the winter of 2025, and nothing has changed,' Henry points out. That's despite the clear warning signs and relatively broad support for such change. Could it be that political focus has shifted to the economic issue of the day? Treasurer Jim Chalmers, having moved past inflation, has made it clear the government's second term will be focused on boosting the country's lagging productivity growth. Never mind the existential issue we face. But as Henry points out, even if productivity is our focus, no reform is more important to the country's ambition to pump out more of what we want (with less work hours or materials) than environmental law reform. 'If we can't achieve [that], then we should stop dreaming about more challenging options,' he says. There's been no shortage of activity on environmental reform – from policy papers to bills and endless rounds of consultation – yet little to show for it. Henry rejects the idea that this 'policy paralysis' comes down to a conflict between climate warriors and those wanting to charge ahead with economic growth. If this were the case, then why, he asks, is the pace of environmental damage speeding up at the same time our economy is stagnating? Henry acknowledges reforms won't be easy. Businesses and politicians are good at seizing moments of uncertainty when new changes are floated to send those changes to the graveyard. For some, he says, the stakes are high: 'We have whole industries with business models built on the destruction of the natural world.' Loading But we've done hard things before. And Henry points out it's now or never. While Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and his team won't want to hear it, changes have to be made within this term of parliament. The Labor Party may have been swept into a second term in power with a huge majority despite doing little to improve environmental laws. However, the growing national vote for the Greens is solid proof that voters have more appetite for environmental reform than the major parties have been serving. Many of these reforms are clear and supported by a wider range of people with different interests. So, what reforms are we actually talking about? Well, Graeme Samuel's review made 38 recommendations. But a big focus was on fixing what's known as the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, which Samuel said was complex, cumbersome and essentially powerless. Us humans are full of shortcomings, but by recognising them and changing the frameworks we work with, we can improve the way we look at our choices and make decisions. Samuel's suggestions ranged from introducing a set of mandatory National Environmental Standards and enforceable rules to apply to every environmental decision made around the country. These standards would be detailed, based on data and evidence, use clear language and leave very little wriggle room. He also recommended wiping out all special exemptions and moving from a species-to-species and project-by-project approach, to one that focused on the needs of different regions: areas that shouldn't be developed, those needing to be revived, and those where development assessments could be waved through more quickly. This would help give businesses greater certainty, but also help us overcome one of our biggest shortcomings. Because nature is so vast, when we assess the negative environmental impact of one project at a time, it will often seem tiny and irrelevant. That leads us to underestimate the environmental damage we are allowing over time, especially in particularly vulnerable ecosystems. The remarkable thing is that Samuel's recommendations were – and still are – widely supported by both business and environmental organisations. Yet, there has been no movement five years on. Loading That's a problem because there are plenty of big projects we need to get cracking on: huge investments in renewable energy generation and the government's ambitious target of building 1.2 million homes by 2030. In 2021, assessment and approval of a wind farm or solar farm blew out to 831 days – up from 505 days in 2018. And between 2018 and 2024, 124 renewables projects in Queensland, NSW and Victoria needed to be assessed under the Environment Protection Act. Only 28 received a clear 'yes' or 'no' answer. There could also be a way to give accreditation to state and territory decision-makers if they proved they could protect the national interest. That would remove the double-ups and complexity in approvals processes, and cut down the time taken to assess development proposals. Of course, developers have stressed the importance of the types of reforms which fast-track development, while environmentally-focused groups have pushed for more focus on new protections. Samuel also recommended an expert, independent and trusted decision-maker, in the form of a national Environmental Protection Authority, to work with the government to protect the national interest. Us humans are full of shortcomings, but by recognising them and changing the frameworks we work with, we can improve the way we look at our choices and make decisions. One of our problems is that, under the current Environment Protection Act, we tend to undervalue the environment. Part of that, as we've discussed, comes down to the vastness of nature (which needs to be matched by a broader regional lens, rather than our project-by-project approach). The other is our short-sighted view. Because the cost of damaging nature is overwhelmingly shouldered by future generations, Henry points out we have found it very difficult to stop ourselves stealing from the future. Loading Like bad eyesight, these issues are not unsolvable. We just need clear goals, rules and accountability measures to keep us on track. As Henry puts it, economics is concerned with optimising choices. That requires carefully defining what we're wanting to achieve and, just as importantly, determining the constraints that shape the choices we're incentivised to make. 'If the constraints are mis-specified, then decisions will be suboptimal,' Henry says.
Sydney Morning Herald
5 days ago
- Business
- Sydney Morning Herald
Like ChatGPT, we need clear goals and rules. Otherwise, we could make bad decisions
And, after an independent review led by the former chair of the competition watchdog Graeme Samuel recommended a series of big reforms in 2020, both ministers – from opposite sides of the political fence – promised to act on them. Loading 'Yet here we are, in the winter of 2025, and nothing has changed,' Henry points out. That's despite the clear warning signs and relatively broad support for such change. Could it be that political focus has shifted to the economic issue of the day? Treasurer Jim Chalmers, having moved past inflation, has made it clear the government's second term will be focused on boosting the country's lagging productivity growth. Never mind the existential issue we face. But as Henry points out, even if productivity is our focus, no reform is more important to the country's ambition to pump out more of what we want (with less work hours or materials) than environmental law reform. 'If we can't achieve [that], then we should stop dreaming about more challenging options,' he says. There's been no shortage of activity on environmental reform – from policy papers to bills and endless rounds of consultation – yet little to show for it. Henry rejects the idea that this 'policy paralysis' comes down to a conflict between climate warriors and those wanting to charge ahead with economic growth. If this were the case, then why, he asks, is the pace of environmental damage speeding up at the same time our economy is stagnating? Henry acknowledges reforms won't be easy. Businesses and politicians are good at seizing moments of uncertainty when new changes are floated to send those changes to the graveyard. For some, he says, the stakes are high: 'We have whole industries with business models built on the destruction of the natural world.' Loading But we've done hard things before. And Henry points out it's now or never. While Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and his team won't want to hear it, changes have to be made within this term of parliament. The Labor Party may have been swept into a second term in power with a huge majority despite doing little to improve environmental laws. However, the growing national vote for the Greens is solid proof that voters have more appetite for environmental reform than the major parties have been serving. Many of these reforms are clear and supported by a wider range of people with different interests. So, what reforms are we actually talking about? Well, Graeme Samuel's review made 38 recommendations. But a big focus was on fixing what's known as the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, which Samuel said was complex, cumbersome and essentially powerless. Us humans are full of shortcomings, but by recognising them and changing the frameworks we work with, we can improve the way we look at our choices and make decisions. Samuel's suggestions ranged from introducing a set of mandatory National Environmental Standards and enforceable rules to apply to every environmental decision made around the country. These standards would be detailed, based on data and evidence, use clear language and leave very little wriggle room. He also recommended wiping out all special exemptions and moving from a species-to-species and project-by-project approach, to one that focused on the needs of different regions: areas that shouldn't be developed, those needing to be revived, and those where development assessments could be waved through more quickly. This would help give businesses greater certainty, but also help us overcome one of our biggest shortcomings. Because nature is so vast, when we assess the negative environmental impact of one project at a time, it will often seem tiny and irrelevant. That leads us to underestimate the environmental damage we are allowing over time, especially in particularly vulnerable ecosystems. The remarkable thing is that Samuel's recommendations were – and still are – widely supported by both business and environmental organisations. Yet, there has been no movement five years on. Loading That's a problem because there are plenty of big projects we need to get cracking on: huge investments in renewable energy generation and the government's ambitious target of building 1.2 million homes by 2030. In 2021, assessment and approval of a wind farm or solar farm blew out to 831 days – up from 505 days in 2018. And between 2018 and 2024, 124 renewables projects in Queensland, NSW and Victoria needed to be assessed under the Environment Protection Act. Only 28 received a clear 'yes' or 'no' answer. There could also be a way to give accreditation to state and territory decision-makers if they proved they could protect the national interest. That would remove the double-ups and complexity in approvals processes, and cut down the time taken to assess development proposals. Of course, developers have stressed the importance of the types of reforms which fast-track development, while environmentally-focused groups have pushed for more focus on new protections. Samuel also recommended an expert, independent and trusted decision-maker, in the form of a national Environmental Protection Authority, to work with the government to protect the national interest. Us humans are full of shortcomings, but by recognising them and changing the frameworks we work with, we can improve the way we look at our choices and make decisions. One of our problems is that, under the current Environment Protection Act, we tend to undervalue the environment. Part of that, as we've discussed, comes down to the vastness of nature (which needs to be matched by a broader regional lens, rather than our project-by-project approach). The other is our short-sighted view. Because the cost of damaging nature is overwhelmingly shouldered by future generations, Henry points out we have found it very difficult to stop ourselves stealing from the future. Loading Like bad eyesight, these issues are not unsolvable. We just need clear goals, rules and accountability measures to keep us on track. As Henry puts it, economics is concerned with optimising choices. That requires carefully defining what we're wanting to achieve and, just as importantly, determining the constraints that shape the choices we're incentivised to make. 'If the constraints are mis-specified, then decisions will be suboptimal,' Henry says.
Scoop
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Resource Consent Exemptions For Granny Flats And Papakāinga
Press Release – Science Media Centre The government is asking for public feedback on proposed changes to how we can create more housing in Aotearoa, such as 'granny flats' in backyards and papakāinga on Māori ancestral land. Proposed National Environmental Standards (NES) for granny flats would require all councils to permit a granny flat of up to 70 m2 on an existing property without needing to get a resource consent, subject to certain conditions. The new NES for papakāinga would create uniform standards across the motu, and would allow Māori landowners to build up to 10 homes for small papakāinga without needing a resource consent. Submissions on these and many other proposed changes to the Resource Management Act are open until Sunday, 27 July. The SMC asked experts to comment. Jade Kake, Senior Lecturer, Huri te Ao School of Future Environments, AUT, comments: Comment on New NES for papakāinga: 'Papakāinga provisions vary widely throughout Aotearoa, with territorial authorities either having no provisions at all or provisions with varying approaches, rules, and definitions of papakāinga. This issue was raised in the Office of the Auditor General's 2011 report and in the 2014 follow-up. Whilst a number of individual territorial authorities have initiated plan change processes in the intervening years to adopt papakāinga policies, many have yet to initiate this process. The proposed NES will be welcomed by Māori housing advocates, including Te Matapihi he tirohanga mō te Iwi Trust, who have long advocated for consistency at a national level with regards to papakāinga provisions. 'The NES for papakāinga is an important step towards unlocking Māori land for the development of papakāinga, providing national direction to territorial authorities to introduce minimum standards for papakāinga within their district plans. For some, this will mean introducing new papakāinga policies; for others, this will mean making changes to existing ones. These are minimum standards, which means that although territorial authorities can set their own rules, these must meet or exceed the minimum standards (be more enabling) but cannot be less enabling. 'A major issue is that much of Māori land is zoned rural, with density provisions of around one dwelling per 10 hectares, limiting the ability of whānau Māori to establish or re-establish kāinga on their ancestral lands. Under the proposed provisions, the NES will remove the need for notified consents for papakāinga (of up to 10 dwellings) within all territorial authority areas. Māori landowners (of Māori ancestral land as defined in the NES) will be able to develop up to 10 residential units, marae, and a number of ancillary non-residential activities (such as commercial, conservation, educational, health, sports and recreation activities, provided these are directly associated with the papakāinga) as a matter of right without the need for resource consent (for the activity – consents can still be required for other matters, such as earthworks, wastewater, Indigenous vegetation clearance, etc). The NES also includes provisions for medium and larger papakāinga: medium-sized papakāinga (11-30 units) will be a restricted discretionary activity, and more than 30 units will be a discretionary activity.' Comment on New NES for Granny Flats (Minor Residential Units) Regulations: 'Similar to the NES for papakāinga, these changes direct territorial authorities to amend their district plans to allow for one minor residential unit per site in residential, rural, mixed-use, and Māori purpose zones across all of New Zealand. Many district plans already provide for minor residential units as a permitted activity, and some are more enabling, however, the NES will ensure that all territorial authorities adopt this standard as a minimum. Outside of papakāinga provisions, this will provide greater opportunities for multigenerational living on a single site, enabling whānau to develop a minor dwelling or granny flat without the need for resource consent.' Conflict of interest statement: 'Not a conflict, but I have a background in policy advocacy and have provided policy advice to government and political parties and provided expert commentary both in an independent capacity and in a previous role for Te Matapihi he Tirohanga mō te Iwi Trust, an independent national Māori housing advocacy organisation.' Dr Timothy Welch, Senior Lecturer in Urban Planning, University of Auckland, comments: Note: Dr Welch also recently wrote an in-depth piece on this topic for The Conversation. 'While New Zealand's granny flat exemption removes important regulatory barriers, we need to be honest about its limitations. Adding 13,000 small units over a decade – just 2.6% more housing supply – won't solve a crisis of this magnitude. With construction costs reaching $300,000, these units primarily benefit existing property owners who can access capital, not the young families and essential workers most in need of affordable housing. 'The real challenge isn't just regulation – it's infrastructure capacity and construction costs. Our water networks are already strained, and dispersed infill development only adds pressure. The policy's design constraints, requiring standalone single-storey units, deliver the least efficient form of density possible. 'This is progress, but incremental progress. We should embrace these reforms while acknowledging they're no substitute for the comprehensive urban development our housing crisis demands. Granny flats can be part of the solution, but only if we view them as one small component of much larger reforms needed to house New Zealanders affordably.' No conflicts of interest. Professor John Tookey, School of Future Environments, AUT, comments: 'The proposal for broadening the opportunities to construct 70m2 'granny flats' is a useful way of generating additional housing, specifically by creating rental properties in the category of 'home with income' subsidiary dwellings. The initial reporting around this issue in effect predicted a housing free-for-all where any proposals would likely be approved. In reality this was always misleading. The new proposals indicate more reservations in that zoning will need careful consideration of the cumulative effects of all the critical infrastructural loads servicing the proposed property. These include such issues as provision of potable water, managing stormwater, sewerage, on/off street parking, traffic volumes, schools, hospitals etc. In short, this will not and cannot be a free for all for development. In reality, councils will likely err on the side of caution in their announcements of zones suitable for the new granny flats because of these infrastructural impacts. Hence the outcome is unlikely to be a panacea for developing affordable housing in our cities. More likely a measured additional option rather than a 'go to' across the country.' No conflicts of interest. Bill McKay, Senior Lecturer, School of Architecture and Planning, University of Auckland, comments: Granny Flats 'Granny flats are additional, detached 'minor residential units' on a property with an existing family home. The size limit of 70m2 will enable two bedrooms plus living area, kitchen, bathroom etc. They can be self-contained in contrast with 'sleep outs' which don't have kitchens or bathrooms. The government consultation received a lot of supportive public feedback from the public, not so councils. 'This policy will introduce consistency as the rules currently vary across many councils. It won't solve the housing crisis but it will allow families more flexibility to solve their own housing issues. Granny flats aren't just for grandparents, they can be for young adults as well. They can improve accommodation for intergenerational living. Or they could be rentals to improve family income. The proposal is to allow them without resource consent (council planning permission) or building consent, but the devil will be in the detail: They need to comply with the Building Code, how will this be ensured without building consent or inspections? Councils will want records of what is built for their statutory requirements such as property files and Land Information Memorandum. Councils will want to know what plumbing and drainage is connected to the systems they maintain. These issues explain why a detailed proposal and legislation are yet to appear.' Papakāinga 'To do a granny flat / minor dwelling unit you need land with a family home on it already. A lot of public feedback on the granny flats proposal, particularly from Māori, focused on the desire to do small houses as of right on 'empty' land. As a result, the government has now proposed papakāinga. What's a papakāinga? Basically a small group of housing where mostly related people live together. So this proposal will allow as of right up to 10 homes on Māori or Treaty settlement land. You can build on up to 50% of the land and you can also have non-residential activity: 100m2 of commercial, accommodation for eight guests, educational and health facilities, sports and recreation activities, marae, urupā, food gardens and so on. And if you want more housing than 10 homes, that's 'restricted discretionary' meaning you will need to apply for resource consent / planning permission from your council. Just a proposal at the moment, open for consultation. 'I commend this as giving power / opportunity to Māori. A few centuries of Pākehā patronage hasn't really worked out for them so this papakāinga proposal can allow some self-determination. It hasn't got much publicity so I would encourage people to get in there and support it. And the success of this can open the door for others to build small homes on chunks of land, whether individually, such as tiny homes, or collectively such as co-housing groups or community housing providers.'
Scoop
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Resource Consent Exemptions For Granny Flats And Papakāinga
Press Release – Science Media Centre Proposed National Environmental Standards (NES) for granny flats would require all councils to permit a granny flat of up to 70 m2 on an existing property without needing to get a resource consent, subject to certain conditions. The government is asking for public feedback on proposed changes to how we can create more housing in Aotearoa, such as 'granny flats' in backyards and papakāinga on Māori ancestral land. Proposed National Environmental Standards (NES) for granny flats would require all councils to permit a granny flat of up to 70 m2 on an existing property without needing to get a resource consent, subject to certain conditions. The new NES for papakāinga would create uniform standards across the motu, and would allow Māori landowners to build up to 10 homes for small papakāinga without needing a resource consent. Submissions on these and many other proposed changes to the Resource Management Act are open until Sunday, 27 July. The SMC asked experts to comment. Jade Kake, Senior Lecturer, Huri te Ao School of Future Environments, AUT, comments: Comment on New NES for papakāinga: 'Papakāinga provisions vary widely throughout Aotearoa, with territorial authorities either having no provisions at all or provisions with varying approaches, rules, and definitions of papakāinga. This issue was raised in the Office of the Auditor General's 2011 report and in the 2014 follow-up. Whilst a number of individual territorial authorities have initiated plan change processes in the intervening years to adopt papakāinga policies, many have yet to initiate this process. The proposed NES will be welcomed by Māori housing advocates, including Te Matapihi he tirohanga mō te Iwi Trust, who have long advocated for consistency at a national level with regards to papakāinga provisions. 'The NES for papakāinga is an important step towards unlocking Māori land for the development of papakāinga, providing national direction to territorial authorities to introduce minimum standards for papakāinga within their district plans. For some, this will mean introducing new papakāinga policies; for others, this will mean making changes to existing ones. These are minimum standards, which means that although territorial authorities can set their own rules, these must meet or exceed the minimum standards (be more enabling) but cannot be less enabling. 'A major issue is that much of Māori land is zoned rural, with density provisions of around one dwelling per 10 hectares, limiting the ability of whānau Māori to establish or re-establish kāinga on their ancestral lands. Under the proposed provisions, the NES will remove the need for notified consents for papakāinga (of up to 10 dwellings) within all territorial authority areas. Māori landowners (of Māori ancestral land as defined in the NES) will be able to develop up to 10 residential units, marae, and a number of ancillary non-residential activities (such as commercial, conservation, educational, health, sports and recreation activities, provided these are directly associated with the papakāinga) as a matter of right without the need for resource consent (for the activity – consents can still be required for other matters, such as earthworks, wastewater, Indigenous vegetation clearance, etc). The NES also includes provisions for medium and larger papakāinga: medium-sized papakāinga (11-30 units) will be a restricted discretionary activity, and more than 30 units will be a discretionary activity.' Comment on New NES for Granny Flats (Minor Residential Units) Regulations: 'Similar to the NES for papakāinga, these changes direct territorial authorities to amend their district plans to allow for one minor residential unit per site in residential, rural, mixed-use, and Māori purpose zones across all of New Zealand. Many district plans already provide for minor residential units as a permitted activity, and some are more enabling, however, the NES will ensure that all territorial authorities adopt this standard as a minimum. Outside of papakāinga provisions, this will provide greater opportunities for multigenerational living on a single site, enabling whānau to develop a minor dwelling or granny flat without the need for resource consent.' Conflict of interest statement: 'Not a conflict, but I have a background in policy advocacy and have provided policy advice to government and political parties and provided expert commentary both in an independent capacity and in a previous role for Te Matapihi he Tirohanga mō te Iwi Trust, an independent national Māori housing advocacy organisation.' Dr Timothy Welch, Senior Lecturer in Urban Planning, University of Auckland, comments: Note: Dr Welch also recently wrote an in-depth piece on this topic for The Conversation. 'While New Zealand's granny flat exemption removes important regulatory barriers, we need to be honest about its limitations. Adding 13,000 small units over a decade – just 2.6% more housing supply – won't solve a crisis of this magnitude. With construction costs reaching $300,000, these units primarily benefit existing property owners who can access capital, not the young families and essential workers most in need of affordable housing. 'The real challenge isn't just regulation – it's infrastructure capacity and construction costs. Our water networks are already strained, and dispersed infill development only adds pressure. The policy's design constraints, requiring standalone single-storey units, deliver the least efficient form of density possible. 'This is progress, but incremental progress. We should embrace these reforms while acknowledging they're no substitute for the comprehensive urban development our housing crisis demands. Granny flats can be part of the solution, but only if we view them as one small component of much larger reforms needed to house New Zealanders affordably.' No conflicts of interest. Professor John Tookey, School of Future Environments, AUT, comments: 'The proposal for broadening the opportunities to construct 70m2 'granny flats' is a useful way of generating additional housing, specifically by creating rental properties in the category of 'home with income' subsidiary dwellings. The initial reporting around this issue in effect predicted a housing free-for-all where any proposals would likely be approved. In reality this was always misleading. The new proposals indicate more reservations in that zoning will need careful consideration of the cumulative effects of all the critical infrastructural loads servicing the proposed property. These include such issues as provision of potable water, managing stormwater, sewerage, on/off street parking, traffic volumes, schools, hospitals etc. In short, this will not and cannot be a free for all for development. In reality, councils will likely err on the side of caution in their announcements of zones suitable for the new granny flats because of these infrastructural impacts. Hence the outcome is unlikely to be a panacea for developing affordable housing in our cities. More likely a measured additional option rather than a 'go to' across the country.' No conflicts of interest. Bill McKay, Senior Lecturer, School of Architecture and Planning, University of Auckland, comments: Granny Flats 'Granny flats are additional, detached 'minor residential units' on a property with an existing family home. The size limit of 70m2 will enable two bedrooms plus living area, kitchen, bathroom etc. They can be self-contained in contrast with 'sleep outs' which don't have kitchens or bathrooms. The government consultation received a lot of supportive public feedback from the public, not so councils. 'This policy will introduce consistency as the rules currently vary across many councils. It won't solve the housing crisis but it will allow families more flexibility to solve their own housing issues. Granny flats aren't just for grandparents, they can be for young adults as well. They can improve accommodation for intergenerational living. Or they could be rentals to improve family income. The proposal is to allow them without resource consent (council planning permission) or building consent, but the devil will be in the detail: They need to comply with the Building Code, how will this be ensured without building consent or inspections? Councils will want records of what is built for their statutory requirements such as property files and Land Information Memorandum. Councils will want to know what plumbing and drainage is connected to the systems they maintain. These issues explain why a detailed proposal and legislation are yet to appear.' Papakāinga 'To do a granny flat / minor dwelling unit you need land with a family home on it already. A lot of public feedback on the granny flats proposal, particularly from Māori, focused on the desire to do small houses as of right on 'empty' land. As a result, the government has now proposed papakāinga. What's a papakāinga? Basically a small group of housing where mostly related people live together. So this proposal will allow as of right up to 10 homes on Māori or Treaty settlement land. You can build on up to 50% of the land and you can also have non-residential activity: 100m2 of commercial, accommodation for eight guests, educational and health facilities, sports and recreation activities, marae, urupā, food gardens and so on. And if you want more housing than 10 homes, that's 'restricted discretionary' meaning you will need to apply for resource consent / planning permission from your council. Just a proposal at the moment, open for consultation. 'I commend this as giving power / opportunity to Māori. A few centuries of Pākehā patronage hasn't really worked out for them so this papakāinga proposal can allow some self-determination. It hasn't got much publicity so I would encourage people to get in there and support it. And the success of this can open the door for others to build small homes on chunks of land, whether individually, such as tiny homes, or collectively such as co-housing groups or community housing providers.'
