Party Responses Reveal Sharp Differences On Environmental Law Reform

Environmental issues have received little attention
during the election campaign, and resource management issues
less, even though they are critically important. The
Environmental Defence Society has therefore asked political
parties some tightly focused questions about potential law
reform across resource management, fast-track and
conservation. Responses received from National, Labour, the
Greens and Opportunity are summarised below.

“These
laws will shape the future of our landscapes, indigenous
biodiversity, freshwater and public conservation land. They
also determine whether communities have an effective say in
decisions affecting their environment,” said EDS Chief
Executive Gary Taylor.

“Voters deserve to know what
the parties intend to do. The responses reveal substantial
differences, alongside some encouraging agreement on the
need for change.”

Fast-track approvals
and section 85

EDS is concerned
that the Fast-track Approvals Act gives insufficient weight
to environmental protection and public participation. In
particular, section 85 needs an effective environmental
bottom line requiring projects to be declined where
environmental harm is
unacceptable.

National
supports retaining the fast-track regime and explicitly
commits to retaining section 85 unchanged. It says the
regime is delivering economic benefits while continuing to
protect the environment.

Labour would
amend the Act to put environmental protection, public
benefit and public participation at its core. Its response
does not separately address section 85 or specify the
environmental test it would introduce, but it has criticised
that provision previously.

The Greens
would repeal the Act and, as a priority, revoke
fast-track consents for new coal, gold and seabed mining
projects. They would repeal section 85 and require
bottom-line environmental protections in any fast-track
projects.

Opportunity would amend the
Act, reduce ministerial powers and give greater weight to
environmental and climate outcomes and local infrastructure
impacts. It would amend section 85 to require refusal where
a project breaches genuine, science-based environmental
bottom lines, particularly where damage would be serious or
irreversible.

“National’s commitment to retaining
section 85 unchanged is disappointing. EDS considers that
the section is too heavily weighted in favour of development
and allows projects to proceed despite serious environmental
harm.

“Labour’s direction is welcome, but we would
like an explicit commitment to an effective environmental
bottom line. The Greens and Opportunity have clearly
endorsed that principle,” said Mr
Taylor.

Planning Act and Natural
Environment Act

EDS is concerned
that the new planning framework weakens environmental
protection and public participation, and fragments decisions
that need to be considered in an integrated way. Reform is
needed to provide enforceable environmental limits and a
coherent approach to managing development and its
effects.

National would
retain and implement both Acts. It says they will enable
economic growth while protecting the
environment.

Labour opposes the Acts
but would amend them rather than undertake another
repeal-and-replace exercise. It says the laws need to work
better for the environment and
communities.

The Greens would either
repeal or significantly amend both Acts to embed
environmental bottom lines and improve integration. They
remain open to which approach would best achieve that
result.

Opportunity would retain both
Acts but pause implementation while a cross-party select
committee develops amendments. Its proposals include making
development goals subject to safeguarding the
environment’s life-supporting capacity, strengthening
environmental limits and biodiversity protection, enabling
consideration of greenhouse gas emissions, and improving
public participation.

“The central question is
whether the framework will reliably protect the natural
systems on which our wellbeing and economy depend. The two
Acts do not do that in their current form.

“We
welcome the commitments from some parties to substantial
improvements. Opportunity’s detailed response also
provides a useful basis for discussion about achieving more
durable, cross-party reform regardless of who leads the next
government,” said Mr Taylor.

Regulatory
relief

EDS is concerned that
regulatory relief provisions in the new laws will impose
substantial costs on councils and discourage necessary
protection of indigenous biodiversity, outstanding
landscapes and sites of significance to Māori. Those
pressures would be particularly acute for councils facing
rates caps.

National would
retain the provisions.

Labour,
the Greens and Opportunity
would repeal them. Labour describes them as unworkable.
Opportunity says genuinely unreasonable rules could instead
be addressed through a revised version of the Resource
Management Act’s reasonable-use mechanism.

“There
is welcome agreement between three parties that these
provisions should go.

“Councils need to be able to
protect important environmental values without exposing
their communities to substantial financial liabilities.
Regulatory relief risks making necessary protection
unaffordable,” said Mr
Taylor.

Conservation Amendment
Bill

EDS supports conservation
law reform but considers that the Bill as drafted would
weaken the priority given to conservation, public
participation and independent oversight of decisions
affecting public conservation
land.

National is committed
to passing the Bill, while remaining open to amendments
following the select committee’s recommendations. Its
response points to the withdrawal of the land exchange and
disposal provisions as an example of its willingness to make
changes.

Labour would amend the
legislation to ensure conservation remains DOC’s primary
focus and public conservation land is
protected.

The Greens would withdraw
the Bill in its entirety. If it proceeds, they would seek
changes to ensure conservation remains the overarching
purpose.

Opportunity would oppose the
Bill unless significantly amended. It seeks to retain
conservation as DOC’s primary purpose, meaningful roles
for the New Zealand Conservation Authority and Conservation
Boards, genuine public participation, and stronger criteria
for land exchange and disposal.

“Modernising
conservation law should strengthen protection for nature and
retain a meaningful public voice in how conservation land is
managed.

“We welcome National’s willingness to
consider further amendments, but the substance of those
changes will be critical,” said Mr
Taylor.

DOC’s proposed economic
development function

Proposed
section 6(ea) would give DOC a function of prioritising
economic opportunities and commercial use and development of
the land and resources it manages. EDS considers that
conservation must remain DOC’s overriding priority, with
commercial activities subject to that
purpose.

National would
amend the provision, taking account of select committee
feedback. It wants wording that supports enduring
conservation outcomes while also recognising opportunities
for environmental, social, cultural and economic use and
development.

Labour’s response
commits to retaining conservation as DOC’s primary focus
but does not separately state whether it would remove or
amend section 6(ea).

The Greens and
Opportunity would remove the provision, or
repeal it if enacted.

“DOC needs a clear statutory
direction that conservation comes first. Any revised wording
must make that hierarchy explicit.

“The Greens have
identified their responses as firm commitments and
priorities in coalition negotiations. Opportunity would aim
to initiate its changes within the first months of the next
term, while reserving its position on post-election
negotiations.

“Overall these responses help voters
assess what environmental law reform might look like after
the election. EDS will continue to press for clear
commitments and their implementation,” concluded Mr
Taylor.

At the time of issuing this release, EDS had
not received responses from ACT, New Zealand First or Te
Pāti
Māori.

© Scoop Media