Submission on the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill
The RMLA filed its submission with the Select Committee this afternoon for the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill. Read the executive summary below and click on the link to read the submission.
To contact us, please email our Executive Officer.
Executive Summary
RMLA supports reform of New Zealand’s resource management system in principle. Replacing the Resource Management Act 1991 with two separate bills addressing land use planning and development and the protection of the natural environment, has the potential to deliver an efficient, coherent, and effective framework. However, RMLA has significant concerns regarding the workability, internal consistency, and practical implementation of the Bills as currently drafted.
In their present form, both Bills contain structural, procedural, and substantive issues that risk undermining certainty, efficiency, and the achievement of high-quality land use planning, development and environmental outcomes.
Our submission therefore supports the direction of reform, but recommends targeted and, in some cases, material amendments to ensure the new system is legally robust, practicable, and enduring.
In summary, RMLA submitted that:
The two-Bill architecture creates material risks of inconsistency, duplication, unresolved conflict and silos where activities engage both statutes simultaneously, and regulatory gaps. Either the Bills should be amalgamated, or a clear statutory hierarchy, joint decision-making processes and conflict resolution mechanism is essential.
The purpose provisions of both Bills are procedural rather than substantive, and the legal weight of the requirement to "seek to achieve" the goals is uncertain and untested. This creates scope for protracted dispute over the hierarchy and weight of the goals. Should be a ‘success’ purpose and need greater around the goals and conflict resolution between goals where multiple goals are engaged.
The environmental limits framework, while sound in concept, raises significant workability concerns and questions regarding whether good environmental outcomes will be achieved in practice - particularly the absence of targets, the interaction between national and regional limit-setting, and the ability for regional councils to set standards below national bottom lines. It is unclear to RMLA how exclusions will operate in practice For the system to work, there needs to be a scientific basis for standards.
The Bills weaken Māori rights protections by replacing operative Treaty obligations with largely descriptive provisions and qualifying Treaty settlement redress. The Māori interests goal lacks priority and may be outweighed by development objectives. RMLA recommends an operative Treaty clause, removal of the settlement qualification, and strengthened mechanisms for meaningful Māori engagement.
The inclusion of broadly framed regulatory relief powers is not supported and RMLA recommends their removal or significant narrowing.
The introduction of untested concepts and new terminology (including "management unit", "biophysical state", "qualifying resident", and "disregarded effects") without adequate definitions or transitional guidance will increase litigation risk and will likely delay the transition to the new system.
The Bills contain a significant number of cross-referencing errors, terminology inconsistencies, and drafting deficiencies that will impede implementation. RMLA recommends a comprehensive cross-referencing and definitions audit during the Select Committee process.
Compressed transition timeframes, unclear mechanisms for ending the transition period, and uncertainty about iwi engagement in the preparation of the first national direction create significant implementation risk.
The establishment of the Planning Tribunal as a division of the Environment Court has the potential to improve accessibility and affordability of dispute resolution. However, aspects of the proposed model-particularly appointment processes, jurisdictional boundaries, and procedural settings-require further clarification to ensure that the Tribunal delivers its intended access-to-justice benefits.
RMLA also notes that the timeframes provided for preparation of submissions on the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill have been insufficient, having regard to the scale, complexity, and significance of the proposed reforms. As a result, it has not been possible to prepare comprehensive submissions or detailed recommended amendments in relation to all issues arising under the Bills. Accordingly, the matters addressed in this submission should not be taken as exhaustive, and the RMLA reserves the opportunity to provide additional input as the legislative process continues.
