Natural and Built Environment Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Natural and Built Environment Bill.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could I just ask people leaving to be quiet please. The business is still to go on, thank you.

I move, That the Natural and Built Environment Bill be now read a third time.

This bill replaces the Resource Management Act (RMA). As economist Herman Daly famously said, “The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment, not the reverse.” Environmental legislation is undoubtedly needed to protect the environment, but it should also efficiently enable appropriate development. The RMA achieves neither. There’s widespread agreement the RMA is not working, it takes too long, and it costs too much. It hasn’t adequately protected the environment nor supported housing and infrastructure, nor promoted a low-carbon economy. Cumulative effects have degraded water and biodiversity. It’s no exaggeration to say it’s broken.

Reports from the Productivity Commission, the Environmental Defence Society, the Property Council, the Northern Employers and Manufacturers Association, Infrastructure New Zealand, the Waitangi Tribunal, and Local Government New Zealand all attest to that. Those reports were drawn on by the expert review panel chaired by former Court of Appeal judge Tony Randerson KC, who set out the blueprint for the new resource management system. Over 100 RMA plans decrease to 16 with more permitted activities, faster plan-making, and fewer consents. Hundreds of millions of dollars will be saved every year across infrastructure and housing.

The consensus for change is clear. Until recently, even our political opponents in the National Party agreed. But now the election is upon us, they’ve changed their tune. Having railed against the RMA for years, National announced that, if elected, they’ll repeal the new Acts. Incredibly, they say they’ll reinstate the RMA and recreate the problems of the old system. Never mind that the fundamentals of the new laws are widely supported. The Nats would rather throw it all away to chase a few votes from nimbies and others who self-interestedly support the status quo. The only justification National has for their flip-flop is that the new laws have many pages and will take time to implement and interpret. Of course they will. This is system change. You can’t do that with a bit of fiddling around the edges. That’s what National and ACT ineffectually did for years.

Our opponents accuse us of ramming reform through without proper input—arrant nonsense. We’ve had five years of preparation, extensive consultation, and two select committee processes, the last of which attracted 3,000 submissions. Many sensible and practical submissions improved the new legislation. Local democracy is strengthened through statements of community outcomes. Improvements to planning and consenting provisions, notification, better designations and fast track have all been made. The Environment Court applies the law and Treaty of Waitangi provisions, but it’s not constituted under the Treaty clause. This was clarified at select committee in response to the concerns raised by the Chief Justice.

Our reform provides the critical framework to protect and, where necessary, restore the environment, the natural environment, and we’ll do this while enabling development within environmental limits. The Natural and Built Environment Act (NBEA) will shift the focus from managing adverse effects to promoting positive outcomes.

Clarifying the role and purpose of system outcomes was a focus of submissions to the Environment Committee. The system has to deal with tensions between environmental protection and development. Not all outcomes can always be achieved across all places. What should be priorities, where and when, and resolving tensions between outcomes is achieved through the hierarchy of instruments preserving the King Salmon logic helpfully provided by the Supreme Court.

Environmental limits and targets will have a central role in achieving environmental protection and, where necessary, improvement. Biophysical limits will be set for things like water and air quality, subject to matters of personal taste—a crutch for nimbyism in the present system—have less weight in the new system.

Under the RMA, national direction is provided across over 20 national policy statements, environmental standards, planning standards, and regulations. The new system consolidates these into a national planning framework, the NPF, that will provide regional spatial strategies under the Spatial Planning Act and the NBEA plans that flow from them.

The bill knocks over the first in first served for water resources, which, allied with the bias in favour of renewal, has prevented the rational, fair, and economically efficient allocation of water in water short catchments.

The average current consent duration is 12 years, but the theoretical maximum is 35. During the transition, renewals will be normally for 10 years, but they’ll be easy to get. Hydro facilities of any size can still get a 35-year renewal. The bill was amended at select committee to enable further exemptions from the 10-year transitional term for nationally and regionally significant infrastructure, including water storage.

The new system will better recognise Te Tiriti and Te Ao Māori. The new laws give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in a similar way to the Conservation Act. The legislation commits the Government to fully upholding all Treaty settlement arrangements that currently interact with the RMA. Many of these arrangements were created by the previous National-ACT Government.

In recognition of the Waikato River settlement, the Prime Minister and I have provided a letter of undertaking to Waikato-Tainui committing to a process to ensure all elements of the Waikato River settlement are upheld in full. It is expected that a Treaty Settlement Transition Settlement Bill for that and other settlements will be introduced to the House in 2024.

Māori participation has to be efficient. Te Puni Kōkiri already maintain a list of iwi and hapū for each area, but it can’t be relied upon by participants in the RMA processes. That central record will in future be able to be relied upon as an authoritative list or code of Māori groups who need to be consulted on or notified on plans and consents. This important aspect of the new legislation helps provide greater certainty around who needs to be notified. Of course, the list can be updated, but it can be relied upon by those using it at the time used.

A freshwater working group is established to make recommendations relating to freshwater allocation and a process for engagement between the Crown on Māori and freshwater allocation. My expectation is that working group will include a broad set of Māori interests in fresh water, including landowners. Non-Māori interests are of course also important and must be heard.

The RMA not only failed to protect the environment, it failed to enable provision of infrastructure and housing. Consenting costs and urban land prices soared. Overly restricted planning rules hindered much needed housing intensification. No one is forcing intensification, but plans have prevented people doing what they wanted to do.

In the five years to 2019, consenting costs increased by 66 percent for non-notified consents and 124 percent for notified. Processing times ballooned by about 15 percent. Consenting costs for mid-size infrastructure—there are about 5.5 percent of total project costs in New Zealand compared to a range of just 0.1 to 5 percent in European countries. New Zealand is outside the extreme end of that range. This legislation fixes that, dealing to the waste of time and money.

There are many provisions in the new Acts and the NPF to improve outcomes for infrastructure. These include better designation powers. The new system will deliver significant cost savings to system users. New content in the NPF, led by the Infrastructure Commission, will reduce infrastructure consenting costs, including by enabling standards to be used instead of bespoke conditions. Renewable energy is made easier to consent. There will be fewer consent categories and greater clarity up front in plans about what is permitted.

The Government’s fast-track process decreased consenting times by an average of 15 months, benefiting infrastructure and housing projects. The environmental tests didn’t change, but the process sped up, saving both process and holding costs. Fast Track is reinstated under the NBEA for infrastructure and regionally significant housing projects. The legislation requires plans to meet the environmental protections of the NPF and development outcomes, including more expansive land markets for housing. Analysis indicates that for every dollar spent, the new system will deliver from $2.60 to $4.90 in benefits; in fact, $4.90 is the mid-range.

System users will get the biggest benefits through a 20 to 40 percent reduction in consents, efficiency benefits to users—and modelled it between $210 million and $430 million per annum. Improved land markets will also moderate land prices. Environmental outcomes, which can’t be valued in dollar terms, will also be better as we move from an effects-based regime to an outcomes regime. Again, there’s been too much emphasis on subjective matters of taste, allowing nimbyism, but not enough attention to biophysical cumulative effects. Both of these issues are addressed.

Poor implementation of the RMA almost guaranteed its failure. A lesson from the RMA is that if you try to do the whole country at once, the system gums up and everything is delayed. So the new system turns on region by region. Central government will give extra help to those regions who go first. High quality plans will help those who follow. The complexity endured in the transition from the Town and Country Planning Act will be avoided. Existing authorisations like resource consents are preserved and acknowledged. We are on the cusp of a new system, more efficient, less costly, positive outcomes for natural and built environments. It will be faster, cheaper, and better, and I commend the bill to the House.

The legislative statement the member referred to is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

The question before the House is not “Is the Resource Management Act (RMA) bad?”, because you won’t find many people who will defend the RMA; the question before this Parliament, with this bill and its long passage, is: are the bills that the Government has put before the Parliament better than what we have now? That’s the question. And the answer is a demonstrable no. And that’s the reason why the National Party will oppose the third reading of this bill and the Spatial Planning Bill, and, if we are given the privilege of governing the country after 14 October, we will repeal both bills by Christmas.

You won’t find anyone on this side of the House defending the Resource Management Act, but we are not going to sign up to a mammoth, labyrinthine piece of legislation just because David Parker says he thinks it will work. Actually, we’ve closely scrutinised it and analysed it, and our view is that it will make it harder to do things in New Zealand. It will not lead to things that are “faster, cheaper, and better”—to use his language. It will make it harder to do things, it will make it harder to use the environment, and it will make it harder to protect the environment, and therefore we will oppose it.

This is all very well to rail against the RMA, as Mr Parker, the Minister for the Environment, does. The question has to be: is what the Government’s proposing actually going to work; will it be better? And our view is the answer is no. So the National Party is not just going to go along for the ride with the Government just because they’ve produced a reform package. If the reform package is retrograde and bad, then we in the National Opposition would not be doing our duty if we were to vote for it.

Actually, just because a lot of people have spent a lot of time and money on it doesn’t make it right. I acknowledge that there’s been a lot of work gone into it—I see the Associate Minister for the Environment, Rachel Brooking, who was on the Randerson review panel, is here—and a lot of people have worked hard on it. But that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s going to work. That’s a classic sunk cost fallacy. This is how we get ourselves into trouble—we spend a lot of time on something, and we just keep on going and going and going, even though we’re heading in the wrong direction. And that’s actually how we’ve ended up, in some ways, with this position today.

So our view is: better to cut and run now; better to stop all work on this because it is fundamentally flawed. That’s why we’re going to repeal it by Christmas. And some people have said, “Well, why don’t you just let it sort of start and let some have a good look at it?” The reason why—the reason why—it has to be repealed forthwith is that there is a 10-year transition window, and there’s an army of officials working away on all the things that will happen once the bills pass, and we have to stop that immediately, or as quickly as possible. So that is why we will get it off the statute box and make it very clear that the new Parliament is not going to have any truck with what has just passed.

Let me go through the fundamental objections. The first is the purpose of the bill, the Natural Environment Bill—clause 3. The purpose—the sole purpose—is “to uphold te Oranga o te Taiao.” That’s it. That’s the purpose of the bill—to uphold te Oranga o te Taiao.

💬 Simeon Brown: What does that mean? What does that mean?

Well, Simeon Brown says, “What does that mean?” That is actually defined, but that’s another problem—I’ll come to that.

The second point is that the purpose must be achieved in a way that protects the health of the natural environment. Now, the word “protect” is particularly prescriptive and directive. It’s a strong word. “Protect” means protect. “Protect” means you have to go out of your way to look after the environment. Only subject to the protection of the environment, can you use and develop the environment. So the purpose is to uphold te Oranga o te Taiao—and I’ll come back to that. That must be achieved in a way that protects the natural environment. Only if you can do something in a way that upholds te Oranga o te Taiao and that protects the environment can you use and develop the environment. That is a licence and a charter for doing nothing.

So our objections, as David Parker says, are not about the fact that the bill is long, even though it is, and complicated, even though it is; our objections are fundamental. The starting point for the bill is wrong. The whole starting point—clause 3—infuses itself throughout the rest of the legislation. The system outcomes, in clause 5, have to give effect to the purpose of the bill or ensure that the bill is given effect to. It suffuses itself through the national planning framework and the regional plans. The starting point, the most core piece of legislative architecture in the bill, which will become an Act, is wrong—it is unbalanced.

For David Parker to say it is “widely supported” is nonsense. Absolute nonsense. The Environment Committee heard submission after submission from people up and down the country, from widely different political persuasions and different economic perspectives. The support for the bill was actually scant. Support for RMA reform is comprehensive and substantive; support for this bill and this package of bills is thin on the ground, actually. So the idea that it is “widely supported” is nonsense. The purpose of the bill is misguided and wrong.

Secondly, the whole approach is naive. Mr Parker thinks that the bill can do everything. On the one hand, he says it’s going to allow for ample land supply and stop the nimbies and it’s going to allow for infrastructure provision and fast track. And, on the other hand, he says, “Oh, and, at the same time, it’s going to be this enormous boon for the environment”—make it harder to do things, protect the health and wellbeing of natural habitats and indigenous biodiversity, and all the rest of it. He thinks that it can do everything. Actually, the lesson of the RMA is that you can’t—you can’t—do that in the one piece of legislation. So the whole approach is naive and misguided.

Everything has an environmental impact. The using and developing of the environment has an impact on the environment, but things that help the environment, impact the environment. To give an obvious example, wind farms have an impact on the environment. You put in pylons and concrete and all of the work and all of the things that go into wind farms, on land—sometimes that will cut across areas that have, you know, birds and forests and lakes and all the rest of it. Likewise with height. I mean, the most obvious example is not actually wind, it’s hydroelectricity, which has an enormous impact on the environment. But why do we do it? We do it because we want to harness our natural resources in order to provide sustainable, renewable electricity. So all of these things have an impact on the environment and the bill pretends that they don’t, and that’s the problem. The worry is that the courts will decide that new wind farms or hydroelectricity—or anything, actually, for that matter—has an effect on the environment that doesn’t protect it, and it will make it harder to do things. So the approach is naive.

The third point is this will inevitably lead to endless litigation. What does the word “uphold” mean in relation to te Oranga o te Taiao? What does that mean generally? And yes, it’s defined in subclause (3) of clause 3, but that takes you not very far. Most of the subclauses in clause 3 are, essentially, tautological. Most of them don’t actually advance things and help the courts define what it means. And I encourage people to listen to the exchange in the committee stage between Tama Potaka and the Minister, who went through some of the nonsense talked by the Minister in relation to te Oranga o te Taiao.

There will be litigation as a result of this. We are not a wealthy enough country to have endless fights about words in Acts when it comes to doing things in this country. This will be a stumbling block for development, and people said so in the committee. Contact Energy turned up and said this bill will be the single biggest barrier to decarbonising the New Zealand economy. In contradistinction to what the Minister’s just said, the Wind Energy Association said it will be harder after this bill passes to build a wind farm—harder, not easier. Well, these are the guys who actually built them. So it’s all very well for David Parker to say, “Oh, yeah, we want to make it easier.”—everyone’s in favour of more wind energy. But these are the experts turning up and saying “We’ve read your 900 page monstrosity and we think it will be harder.” It’s not easy enough now but it will be harder.

The national policy statement on renewables, which actually would make a difference, which the Government’s farted around on for six years not developing, isn’t even in the national planning framework. It’s not even in the first national planning framework. The thing that would actually make a difference, they haven’t bothered to do.

So the purpose is wrong. The whole approach is naive. It will be litigated. It’s a stumbling block for development. We oppose and will repeal it.

The House is suspended until 2 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 1.04 p.m. to 2 p.m.