Natural Environment Bill

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Just hold on one second. I’d just hold the camera; we’ll just wait until the—

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to start by acknowledging Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri as they leave. I also want to acknowledge the great words that were shared across the House tonight, but I really struggle to marry those words, particularly from Government members across the aisle, with the bills that they are pushing through today, because we saw the same thing happen with the last-minute amendments that came in at the last minute under these bills where, on one hand, they are claiming to uphold the rights and Treaty obligations of Te Ture Whaimana, and then, on the other hand, they’re putting through other last-minute amendments that completely kibosh years and years of community planning, of iwi and hapū desires, to actually set rules and limits that may protect our environment and, particularly when it comes to water quality in the Waikato, offer solutions for Te Ture Whaimana to actually be upheld.

When you put this together with the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill, which we’re speaking to today, it does not add up. It doesn’t add up because iwi Māori made it so clear across these submissions that they opposed these bills, that they would, and I quote, “eviscerate Crown Māori relations”. And yet, the bills are going through even worse than they were when they were first tabled by the Government; even worse after the select committee process where we know that all the solutions were put on the table.

This is a historic moment in time. It’s historic because we’ve had this Resource Management Act in place for 35 years, and these bills are not the learnings and the understanding and the mātauranga and the experience that we’ve taken from those 35 years. They’re an absolute assault on the environment, and that is hugely concerning, because all the decline that we’ve seen across biodiversity, across our oceans, our forests, our rivers, our lakes, has primarily happened over that time, and it’s happened with environmental limits and protections that have actually been in place. Now, under these bills, we’re moving into this new era where environmental protections are, essentially, meaningless.

This Government has been absolutely relentless this entire term with their attacks on nature, and we’ve heard the Minister describe those bills and the Government’s work in the environmental space just tonight as “progress”. We’ve seen the disestablishment of the Ministry for the Environment, a dedicated voice that has been at the heart of government for 40 years—not only disestablished but merged into this mega-ministry where the primary purpose is growth and development. We’ve had crippling cuts across the environmental sector with agencies like the Department of Conservation, we’ve had the Climate Change Commission, we’ve had the Environmental Protection Authority, and job losses and cuts across the science sector.

In the build-up to these new bills, we’ve had resource management changes and amendment after amendment that have done things like make it easier to mine around significant natural areas and wetlands; to kill wildlife where they stand in the way of development; and fast-tracking coal, gold, and sea-bed mining through the resurrection of zombie projects under fast track that communities had already consigned to the waste bin because they were so significantly harmful for both the health of people and the health of environment. Just taking one of those examples of the projects that are contemplated under fast track, we have the most potentially damaging one on the Denniston Plateau, with a new open coal mine contemplated there. The emissions from that one mine would be equal to the net emissions of New Zealand’s annual fossil fuel emissions. This is the scale we’re talking about.

Of all of those things that the Government has done, these bills are actually the worst. They’re the worst because this isn’t just talking about places like our conservation land. This is about our everyday environment where people live and work and need and rely on the environment for clean drinking water; for rivers, lakes, or beaches that they can actually swim in without fear of getting sick; for oceans that actually support healthy ocean life and allow communities and future generations to actually head down to their local spot and grab a feed for their whānau. These are the things that are going to be increasingly far away for everyday New Zealanders and, certainly, for younger and future generations. These bills are embedding a dysfunctional system where climate denialism and environmental destruction is at the core of what they allow.

Now, that’s all hugely depressing, but the reason why I’m not hugely depressed about that is because we had this immense weight of submissions, of experience, of understanding, of mātauranga, from people across sectors. It was iwi and hapū, it was developers, it was farmers, it was public health experts. They have the solutions for what a functional system could actually be. That is all entirely possible if we have a Government who actually prioritises these things—if we had a Government that actually decided to stand with the tens of thousands of New Zealanders that showed up in Tāmaki-makau-rau just over the weekend to march to say they want to see conservation land protected, and the hundreds of thousands of people who used their voices to actually submit and help others understand how damaging this Government has been across all of these bills that I’ve been mentioning tonight.

They understand that this Government is failing in their duty of care. They want to see a Government of any political stripe protect the environment and set us on a course of certainty and direction, where environmental destruction and exploitation is not the way we’re going. This is simply common-sense stuff. This Government is going to understand that come 7 November, it may be the case that nature itself does not have a voice, but who certainly does is voters, and voters are seeing what is happening to this country and the vested-interest lobbying from industry that are getting their polluting and exploitation wish-lists put directly into legislation and then it’s claimed that this is some kind of balance—that this is some kind of balance of the environment and the economy. That is absolute bollocks. The environment is being taken for granted in every twist and turn of this dysfunctional legislation.

We absolutely oppose both the Natural Environment Bill and the Planning Bill, and we absolutely stand with New Zealanders to say not only is there a better way but in the next few weeks, it’s coming. It’s one where we prioritise the health of our people and the health of our environment. It’s what every New Zealander wants to see, and to vote for the Greens with a green heart at the centre of this next Government is a clear pathway towards that. That’s what we want to see. We absolutely oppose these bills.

ACT supports the Natural Environment Bill through its third reading. This bill represents a fundamental change in how New Zealand manages the natural environment. For 35 years, the Resource Management Act (RMA) forced land use, infrastructure, environmental protection, climate policy, and fisheries questions through one sprawling statute. The result was duplication, delay, and the same arguments being relitigated through plans and consents.

This bill, alongside the Planning Bill, separates different jobs into dedicated statutes, which both follow a clear funnel architecture. It also stops environmental law duplicating the Climate Change Response Act, which already regulates the adverse climate effects of greenhouse gas emissions, and the Fisheries Act, which already controls the effects of fishing within the coastal marine area. The old approach of effects management for its own sake is out.

The new system is outcomes based. The focus is on achieving its goals—subject to the funnel, of course—not driving effects to zero or near zero, as per RMA practice. These goals enable resource use while requiring environmental imperatives, including safeguarding life, supporting capacity, enhancing the natural environment, and protecting significant indigenous biodiversity. This bill provides the tools to deliver those imperatives. It puts clear limits around the use of shared natural resources, while requiring decisions to be practical and proportionate.

Environmental limits are at the heart of this bill. They will establish clear expectations for ecosystem and human health so that people know what they are working to. But a sensible limit cannot be an abstract aspiration divorced from the place, the science, or the people that have to live with it. The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 demonstrates why. To reach those targets, modelling predicts the need for complete removal of pastoral dry-stock farming from Tukituki and its conversion to exotic forestry—around 170,000 hectares of land-use change. That is not a credible or durable pathway for a farming community. Science must inform choices, but science does not itself decide the limit or the level at which a limit should be set. That inevitably involves judgments and trade-offs.

The bill therefore requires consideration of natural processes and levels, the current state of the environment, and costs and benefits of establishing a limit, including environmental, economic, and social impacts. That is reinforced by the removal of the term “within limits” from the use and development goal, which avoids an unintended hierarchy, and by the removal of the precautionary principle in favour of proportionality. Once the new system comes in, limits will bite immediately. Councils must act to avoid breaches and otherwise prepare action plans to manage resource use back within limits. But the bill does not pretend every catchment is pristine or can be restored overnight. Where time is needed, credible pathways can include target dates and interim limits.

The bill also doesn’t pretend nationally imported resources can simply be moved. We do not choose where the aggregate is; we do not choose where the wind blows or where our best soils lie. Limits may not always accommodate access to such resources where they are, but the likes of roads, electricity, and food production depend on them. That is why the bill provides a tightly bounded national standard pathway through a limit where there is a net public benefit.

Sensible environmental management also means having the right tools for the right jobs. Intervention should be graduated. We shouldn’t try to crack nuts with sledgehammers, like the Resource Management Act (RMA) does. That is why resource caps remain available to councils but are no longer treated as the default tool. Natural systems are often complex, but resource caps are useful only where there is a clear relationship between the measurable resource use and the environmental limit. That is why this bill also rejects a rigid effects hierarchy. The response should fit the actual risk. National standards will codify common practices such as drain maintenance and gravel extraction, instead of reinventing them permit by permit.

Simplified freshwater farm plans will be another central tool. Minister Hoggard has made vast improvements to the farm planning system, including a recent change through this bill focusing certification on the higher-risk parts of the farm. More restrictive tools including land-use controls should be reserved for where more proportionate approaches cannot deliver.

Permits will remain where genuinely needed. A water take might be a good case, but compared with the RMA, the bill narrows the effects that will be considered, raises the notification thresholds, and concentrates participation of people who are materially affected, making remaining permits easier and faster to obtain. That does not mean shutting people out; it means making the major choices once, upfront, and not reopening the same arguments permit by permit—that is the system’s funnel architecture at play.

Rules alone will not change the culture affecting the current system. Regulators must also be held accountable. The Planning Tribunal gives people a practical way to challenge regulatory overreach. Regulatory relief requires councils to recognise when rules, including indigenous biodiversity controls, impose significant restrictions on the use of private land for a public benefit. It disciplines councils by making the cost of regulation real to the decision maker, and restores fairness by ensuring that genuinely valuable public benefits are not secured at an individual’s expense. This is supported by another practical change: replacing the goal of “no net loss of” with protecting significant indigenous biodiversity. This addresses submitter concerns around workability between no net loss, biodiversity limits, and regulatory relief.

There is far more in this bill than 10 minutes can cover. The parliamentary process has delivered great improvements. As one example, there is now a new goal of supporting and enabling environmental enhancement. Implementation is now critical: Budget 2026 invests $294 million over four years to support implementation, including critical data and digital modernisation. The period to make new instruments as part of the transition has been extended from 30 to 39 months, giving councils more time to do the job properly. But New Zealanders will see the benefits much sooner. One month after Royal assent, several transitional changes will apply, including a narrowing of effects that councils may consider, and a requirement for more proportionate and pragmatic decisions. Illustrative national policy direction is already out for feedback, initial national standards will follow, and the Planning Tribunal will begin operating in 2027, giving people a faster route to challenge poor regulatory decisions.

I’d like to thank some of the people involved in delivering this legislation and the Planning Bill, which I spoke on earlier: Minister Bishop and the staff in his office, and in my office, who have been relentless in interrogating the provisions of the legislation to make sure it delivers on the coalition commitment; officials from the Ministry for the Environment, now the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions, and Transport, and the private secretaries who have worked in my office and supported my work; the Parliamentary Counsel Office, who worked tirelessly to produce legislation from the introduction, and helped improve it along the way; the expert advisory group, who contributed their specialist knowledge to a problem that required more than one or two people on our ideas about improving what the resource management system could possibly deliver. I thank the urban economists from the urban land management group, and everyone who contributed to improving the bills through submissions, and, yes, advocacy.

New Zealand needs environmental protection that is clear and proportionate, a system that respect landowners, recognises who carries the cost, and a system that gives investors confidence. This bill provides for limits that matter, proportionate rules and conditions, and holds regulators to account. It protects what is significant while allowing New Zealanders to farm, build, generate energy, and produce the exports that pay our way. It will help unlock New Zealand’s potential like nothing else that this Government has done this term. ACT supports it, and I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): For my final time calling a member from the floor, the Hon Mark Patterson.

Thank you. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this Natural Environment Bill. This is a great day for our primary sector and rural communities. [Applause for Greg O’Connor as he exits the Chamber] Thank you; appreciate it! It is a great day for our primary sector and rural communities, and it’s great to see the Green Party acknowledging that.

Today is a day when the noose of red and green tape has been removed from the throats of our farmers and growers. It is a day to celebrate for our miners, our quarriers, those seeking to establish aquaculture projects, our forestry people—the doers that drive this economy. It is a day when pragmatic, proportionate, and, most importantly, effective and risk-based environmental planning rules are passed into law.

This is part of New Zealand First’s coalition agreement with National, and also part of an agreement between the ACT Party and New Zealand First to reform our resource management planning system. This has been our collective mission. We haven’t always agreed on everything, but we absolutely agreed on this, and I commend Minister Bishop and Under-Secretary Court for their Herculean effort in shepherding this bill through this place. I’d like to commend Catherine Wedd and the Environment Committee. This has been a substantive deliberation, and I say well done to the team.

But make no mistake: New Zealand First has provided backbone to ensure that these changes delivered on our collective mandate. We are unapologetically a pro-industry party. Our planning laws are constipated. Well-meaning reforms, 35 years ago, have metastasised into a bureaucratic behemoth. Frustrations have boiled over. There were tractors in the streets up and down this country. That is the system we inherited. I recall being summonsed to a meeting of farmers in Ashburton. There were about 20 farmers that turned up. Each of them read out a written account of their experience. There was mind-numbing detail of information required, going back, sometimes, well over a decade. There was an opaque process, with the timeline stretching into years, and eye-watering expenses into the tens and sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars. With the need for consultants, they could see no way through. I had grown men and women in tears of exasperation, just to roll over a status quo water consent. They aren’t environmental vandals. They were well aware of their environmental stewardship responsibilities. They belong to catchment groups; they employed precision agriculture; but they were asked to comply with impossible standards of water quality at a lower rate than the natural state of the water coming out of the hills.

These are stories that were replicated up and down this country. What we are bringing in today is a clearer set of rules. This will mean nearly 50 percent less need for resource consenting. There will be more reliance on environmental farm plans, pragmatic tools to manage farming practices, and nutrient management. We are explicitly enabling the primary production and economic benefit within the purpose of this bill, adding much-needed balance, and we will be restoring property rights. No more can council officials come on to your farm and, essentially, confiscate the right for use.

New Zealand First, through this process, has been pleased that we have removed the market allocation mechanism for nutrients and water. I did signal in our first reading speech that we had real concerns over that. Where that’s been used overseas, that is sometimes with disastrous results, so it’s good, through that process, that we have removed those mechanisms. Water management should be less about allocating a scarce resource and more about storing water and harvesting at times of plenty. That is how we deal with water management, and this bill will assist with that too.

There is, of course, a lot more to do—the national directions, the limit-setting, the detail that sits below this huge bill. This is merely the framework, actually, for what the on-the-ground effects will be. We were sent here to fix the Resource Management Act. Today, we have delivered on that promise. I commend this bill to the House.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: This call is a split call—Oriini Kaipara.

Tonight, I carry with me into this House the story of my tipuna Wairaka, daughter of Toroa, chieftainess of Ngāti Awa, and the woman who saved the Mataatua waka. When the waka began drifting out to sea, custom—tikanga—forbade her from reaching out to the hoe, but Wairaka saw the danger. She understood what was at stake and what would be lost, and she acted.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

From that act of courage came the name for Whakatāne. Now, I don’t claim her feat as my own, but I carry the same responsibility she carried as her uri. When the waka is drifting towards danger, we cannot sit back in silence and just watch.

Today, the waka is our taiao, and this Government is taking a toki to it. A toki has immense power.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

In the hands of a kaiwhakairo, it can reveal whakapapa. A toki can shape a waka and can build something that will carry generations; but in careless hands, that same toki can destroy in minutes what took centuries to grow. This Government has chosen destruction. It’s taken the toki to Te Tiriti. It’s taken the toki to local decision-making and the authority of mana whenua. It’s taken the toki to mātauranga, to te reo rangatira, and to tikanga, and, now, it’s taking the toki to the laws that protect our ngahere, our wai, our moana, our wāhi tapu, and indigenous biodiversity.

The bill says it doesn’t extinguish customary rights in freshwater or geothermal resources, but it doesn’t also recognise ownership, settle allocation, or answer the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal. The greatest travesty of this once-in-a-generation reform is the Government’s taking of the toki to axe Mana Whakahono ā Rohe arrangements. They cherry-picked select partnerships from yesterday while denying partnership to all Māori tomorrow. That’s a toki straight to the neck of every kaitiaki ever born yesterday in our past, present, and future.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Who are we becoming? Kaitiakitanga isn’t a decorative Māori word to place in a strategy; it’s an inherited responsibility, a duty carried first and foremost by hapū. Hapū shouldn’t need permission from another structure to exercise their mana over their whenua, over their awa, and their wāhi tapu. Kaitiakitanga doesn’t disappear just because this Government refuses to write it into the law. It lives in every hapū restoring an awa, every whānau planting a rākau to grow a ngahere, every community fighting pollution, and every rangatahi demanding a future that they can breathe, swim, and thrive in.

Te Pāti Māori warns that there is a new form of raupatu in the 21st century, not only the taking of whenua but the transfer of authority over whenua from hapū and communities to Ministers and private interests. As the election approaches, let this message bring us all back to the waka that was constructed for every person who belongs to Aotearoa. Candidates and political parties come and go, and if you cannot bring yourself, Māori mā o Aotearoa, to vote for either a candidate or a political party, then vote for what you love. Vote for your awa. Vote for your maunga. You vote for your moana. You vote for the stream where your tamariki play. You vote for the ngahere that holds our history, that shelters our living world, and that carries the promise of our future. Vote as if their survival depends on it, because it does. Wairaka did not wait for permission to save our waka. Neither should we. Let your votes become

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

the instruments of restoration. Change the hands that hold power. Change this Government.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Kia ora, Madam Speaker. There are so many things wrong with this bill. It is the overarching law to manage the environment that you would expect from a Government that is the most anti-environmental Government in a generation. This is the Government that declared war on nature. On the penultimate day of this parliamentary term, it passes its Natural Environment Bill. The philosophy of this bill does not countenance protection of nature for its intrinsic values. It does not build on the generations of those who have fought to protect our biodiversity and who have tirelessly struggled to bring back numerous taonga species from the brink of extinction and, to this day, continuing that struggle. For that is our duty.

My colleague Oriini Kaipara talks about the responsibility of Māori as kaitiaki. We all are responsible in our duty as guardians of the species with which we share this planet in our generation. It is our generation of every human in this country and on this planet that is responsible for ensuring that we pass on the species with which we share this planet to future generations. Just as in the ancient myths of the Bible, when Noah included every species—not just the humans but every species that crawled and slithered—all of them belonged to be kept and protected. That was the duty imparted by God in that tradition.

I want to touch on but one momentous exclusion, which is consideration of the negative climate impacts. It seems amazing that in one of these clauses—clause 15A—it says that, in considering climate change effects, “A person exercising or performing a function, power, or duty under this Act … (a) must not … consider any adverse effect on climate change of any greenhouse gas emission that will or may result from or be increased by the activity, whether directly or indirectly;”. So climate change can’t be considered. Sit with that for a minute. Climate change is not just the existential challenge of our generation. It is not merely the biggest threat to the global economy this century, threatening to demolish GDP in the coming 50 years. It is not merely the greatest threat to human health this century, bar none. It is not merely the greatest threat to food production, and the ability of us to feed ourselves globally. It is not only the greatest threat to infrastructure from extreme weather events. It is the greatest threat to the natural environment and biodiversity.

This clause alone damns this bill, for it is by this clause alone that this Government is complicit in allowing, facilitating, and intensifying the biggest threat to the natural environment that the bill purports to protect—the very cradle of our existence. This is the most radically anti-environmental legislation that has been passed in this country, because of its extreme right-wing ideology, where the environment can only be saved if private property owners are paid to not destroy it. The commons is lost. Biodiversity and nature—the basis of our existence on this earth—are now in the realm of private property, owned by those who have the wealth and the means to own it, only saveable if the rest of society is prepared to pay the landowner to not destroy the biodiversity. It is such an inversion of the principle that we are in a collective project of life on this earth, and a collective project of humanity and society, for the good of all.

It is a victory for the far-right ideology, an inversion of that principle of life as a collective project. That is why I urge my fellow New Zealanders to damn this bill to the rubbish bin, along with this Government, on 7 November, when we will vote in a Government that will care for te taio, that will care for the climate, and will care for the people of this country. Kia ora koutou.

We will talk some common sense, and some facts, on this side of the House. I do rise with great excitement to support the Natural Environment Bill in this third reading. This Resource Management Act (RMA) reform protects the environment, while enabling economic development, and the two can actually go hand in hand together—the environment and our economy; we can achieve both. For over 30 years, our farmers, our food producers, our builders, and many of our industries have wrestled with a broken RMA system. At our Environment Committee, we heard submission after submission which acknowledged it was a broken RMA system that needed reform. This is good reform. We heard during that process about the compliance costs, consenting delays, and so much red tape for our primary sector.

The Natural Environment Bill will draw a clear common-sense line between managing land use and infrastructure and protecting and enhancing our natural environments. As the MP for Tukituki, I see, every day, the broken RMA system every day holding our growers and our farmers back. Hawke’s Bay is the fruit bowl of New Zealand, and we need a sensible resource management system that achieves a thriving agricultural economy and a healthy natural environment. Our orchards, our vineyards, our sheep and beef farms are the lifeblood of our regional economy. For decades, the RMA has treated food production like an activity to be restricted, rather than an essential national industry to be enabled and celebrated.

This bill finds that balance. It explicitly recognises that economic prosperity and environmental integrity must go hand in hand. The Natural Environment Bill establishes environmental limits. Environmental limits are at the heart of this bill. Under the old RMA regime, environmental management was bogged down by uncertainty and litigation. Applicants spent millions of dollars on lawyers and planning consultants, arguing over discretionary consent conditions, while actual environmental outcomes remained uncertain. The Natural Environment Bill changes this by establishing a robust framework for environmental limits and human health safeguards across air, fresh water, coastal waters, and soil. Environmental limits will be tailored to regional realities through clear management. Where environmental thresholds are met, compliance activities can proceed without requiring complex, expensive consent applications. Where limits are at risk, councils and catchments will have the tools to address it.

During our select committee hearings, we heard extensive feedback from farmers, growers, regional councils, and catchment groups regarding freshwater farm plans. Through the select committee, we have improved the farm-planning system to be more practical. Farm plans under this framework recognise that a hill-country sheep farm in the Ruahine Range operates under vastly different environmental conditions than an intensive dairy farm down in Canterbury, or an orchard on the Heretaunga Plains in Hastings. This empowers local farming communities to work together with catchment groups. Under the Natural Environment Bill, there is also a powerful shift towards expanding and allowing more permitted activities. This new resource management system is expected to save ratepayers and taxpayers over $13 billion, through reduced administrative and compliance costs. It will remove the need for up to 22,000 consents a year.

Food and fibre exports are the backbone of our economy. Farmers and growers need certainty. They need common sense. They need a planning system that allows investment, allows them to innovate and grow, while continuing to be excellent stewards of the environment. This legislation strikes that balance. We are fixing the planning system that everyone knew was broken. We’re cutting the red tape; we’re reducing the delays; we’re creating the conditions for more homes, more infrastructure, more renewable energy, and stronger economic growth. We also added a food and fibre goal, in clause 11(1)(a), to the goals in the new bill, which I think shows a real respect for our food production in New Zealand. We’re a trading nation at the bottom of the world; we rely on our food production. The new RMA system will respect that.

We heard from a lot of sectors during the RMA process—from the electricity sector, agriculture, building, and construction—and there was a clear message that we need certainty and we need to have more efficiency in our system, where we can see faster consenting. We can give some certainty to our agricultural sector and also respect our farmers and our growers to do what they do best, and that is grow the best produce in the world. I want to thank our wonderful Environment Committee for all their hard work. It’s been a landmark piece of legislation that we’ve navigated through, and we’re really proud of this. I commend it to the House.

We obviously oppose everything that’s been said on the other side.

💬 Hon Tama Potaka: Sad. Just sad.

Do you agree with me, Tama Potaka? I’m sure Tama Potaka does agree with me, because the way—

💬 Hon David Seymour: This guy knows nothing about this topic, or any other!

Oh, it’s good to see Mr Seymour here, because he’s been one of the main problems with this, because—

💬 Hon David Seymour: Tell us how.

Well, because of your refusal, Mr Seymour, to acknowledge Māori rights, to acknowledge Treaty rights.

💬 Hon David Seymour: I acknowledge everybody’s rights.

Because of your refusal, Mr Seymour, to acknowledge that there’s a partnership in this country. You believe in you, thinking you know more than Lord Cooke.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don’t bring the Speaker into the debate.

My apologies, Madam Speaker

💬 Hon David Seymour: He should have learnt the rules by now.

Mr Seymour thinks he knows more than Judge Cooke, more than Sian Elias, more than Jim Bolger—who else is there?—more than John Key, more than Jacinda Ardern, more than Andrew Little—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, that’s the member’s opinion; now we’ll come back to the bill.

Oh no, but he’s been asking me some questions. He’s been behind this Resource Management Act reform, basically looking to reduce Māori rights and Treaty rights.

💬 Hon David Seymour: Māori have the same rights as everybody.

No, no, you want to get rid of Māori and Treaty rights, and you don’t want to acknowledge things. You’re like—Mr Seymour, Madam Speaker, is like those people who deny anyone landed on the moon; you know, those guys that go to the moon? David Seymour would deny that anyone landed on the moon. It doesn’t matter what anyone says. It doesn’t matter what judge, it doesn’t matter what politician, whatever they say, only David Seymour and the ACT Party know! They are a disgrace to this Parliament, and I want to get that out on the last night.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: And now, with eight minutes to go, we’ll talk about the bill.

But I am!

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you’ve just spent two minutes talking about Mr Seymour; now you can talk about the bill.

He asked me a few questions. And I know that the ACT—

💬 Hon Member: Serjeant-at-Arms!

Ha, ha! The reality is that this is David Seymour and the National Party bowing to their big polluter mates. We already know that. That’s been said a number of times—

💬 Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Madam Speaker. [Interruption]

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ve got a point of order, Mr Jackson. [Interruption] Quiet during points of order, everybody—except for the Hon David Seymour.

💬 Hon David Seymour: Every member of this House, no matter how experienced, no matter how adept, knows that you cannot reflect on a member’s motivations as that member just has. He should withdraw and apologise, to uphold the standards of the House.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will ask Mr Jackson to withdraw and apologise, because I did ask the member to focus on the bill; he continued to focus on the Hon David Seymour, and this is not what the topic of the bill is. If the member wishes to continue, he can withdraw and apologise to the Hon David Seymour, and then he can carry on with the bill.

Jeez, that’s a big ask, Madam Speaker.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, it’s up to the member. I can stop the speech now if he doesn’t wish to do any more.

That’s big ask, but, for the sake of the kaupapa, and it’s the second to last night here, I have no problems withdrawing and—what am I withdrawing and apologising for? Could you just clarify that again?

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: The comments that you made about the Hon David Seymour’s beliefs and intentions—some words like that. OK, back to the bill, Mr Jackson, otherwise I’ll have to terminate your call, and I don’t want to, because I know you’ve got a good six minutes and 48 seconds about the bill left.

I’d like to talk about Mr Seymour. I’d be very happy to—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I’m not going to let you talk about Mr Seymour.

I respect that, Madam Speaker—I respect that. The original goal allowing the development of natural resources within environmental limits is all gone.

💬 Hon David Seymour: The bill introduces the concept of environmental limits. The member can’t read.

You don’t know. We object to interim environmental limits being stretched from around five to 10 years. That point has been made a number of times from this side, hasn’t it?

New Zealand, this summer, faces the worst El Niño in a thousand years, and we don’t have the luxury of pushing environmental limits to 10 years. The biodiversity test is too weak; that has been said a number of times. The proposed “no net loss” goal lacks a clear baseline and workable definition and, therefore, may provide little practical protection.

💬 Grant McCallum: Got the talking points?

I’d rather have a crack at David Seymour.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: But you don’t have that choice.

Madam Speaker, I do have a choice in terms of talking about how this weakens Māori rights and interests in terms of natural resources.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, you do.

I do have a right there, and David Seymour—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s a Government bill; it’s not a David Seymour bill.

No, but he’s behind it all!

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honestly, I’ve asked. I know you love talking about the Hon David Seymour, but I’ll ask you to carry on talking about the bill. You were doing well for a minute.

This bill weakens the rights and interests of Māori. That was conveyed to the Government by Tukoroirangi Morgan. Minister Potaka was there, at the koroneihana. They were attacked for their attack on Māori rights. Minister Potaka was there, and Minister Goldsmith was there, so it’s important that I say that. It’s important that I also say the future of iwi relationships with regional councils now is very uncertain, with their decision to get rid of the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe relationship.

The bill doesn’t sufficiently reflect the Waitangi Tribunal’s freshwater findings, specifically Wai 2358, when discussing Māori freshwater rights and interests, which is something that we as a Government tried to address.

💬 Hon David Seymour: You’re not in Government.

We will be shortly, and you’ll be out. At least, as a Government, this particular area, in terms of te mana o te wai, was something we navigated. We worked very much on that with Kiritapu Allan and David Parker, and we were brave in terms of addressing the property rights of water, unlike this Government, who just ditched it and put it to the side.

These are rights that must be addressed by Governments, no matter whether it’s a National Government or a Labour Government, whatever. Former National Governments would look at those types of rights. John Key—John Key, Madam Speaker, who you’ve got a bit of time for—addressed the whole question of these freshwater rights back in 2013-14, but this Government has walked away from that obligation. That’s why it’s incredibly important to mention that tonight. Environmental limits are too weak to protect taonga. If environmental limits can be delayed, qualified, or balanced against economic considerations, waterways and ecosystems of cultural significance remain vulnerable.

This bill—and this is where the Tuku Morgans and the iwi leaders are getting very upset—threatens Treaty settlement arrangements. That is the point we’ve been making on this side. Existing settlements frequently contain bespoke arrangements involving rivers, lakes, conservation land, and resource management. These shouldn’t be destabilised by a new, generic system. This legislation prioritises extraction over kaitiakitanga—Mr Seymour wouldn’t understand that word. He needs to go and get some training from his iwi. The truth is that climate and environmental planning aren’t integrated, not just for Māori; they’re not integrated for Pākehā either. Nobody knows what’s happening. A resource management system intended to last decades needs to deal coherently with emissions, adaption, and environmental resilience.

You can’t put in a system like this—this is the point. You can’t put in a system like this by ignoring Māori interests. This is what our people are saying. We are part and parcel of the environment: “Ko au te awa, ko te awa ahau.” That is the type of kōrero that comes from people like Tariana Turia, who say we are a part of the environment; we are part and parcel. We must be worked with, we must be consulted with, we can’t just be the karakia and mihi people for the ACT Party or for the National Party. We must play a meaningful role in this country.

That’s what we attempted to do when we were in Government. That’s what we tried to address. That’s what we owe Jacinda Ardern for. When we came through this process, it was one of the most difficult processes we had to deal with, but we made progress. This lot, driven by some of the right-wingers and money interests and donors, have decided to get rid of and water down and shut down Māori interests. We’re going to change that—

💬 Hon David Seymour: Hey, how did it go when Brooke called you out in Copperfields?

We’re going to change that, especially for that bloke over there, on 7 November, when we will come back to our communities, when we will come back to our people. This has been the most anti-worker, anti-women, anti-Māori Government of my lifetime. They are a total disgrace, and people like David Seymour should hang their heads in shame. I am glad he’s here tonight, so I can make it clear to him that he is an embarrassment to te ao Māori. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call in support of the Natural Environment Bill. New Zealand needs an environment management system that protects and enhances nature without holding communities and businesses back. For too long, the Resource Management Act has created uncertainty, delay, and cost while failing to deliver the environmental outcomes New Zealanders expect. The—

💬 Hon David Seymour: Did a Grammar boy write this for you?

The Natural Environment Bill is an important part—

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: You can’t trust him!

He’s just jealous he didn’t go to a good school, but that’s his problem. Working alongside the Planning Bill—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: He’s picking on you now.

It establishes a framework for the use, protection, and the enhancement of our natural environment. The Planning Bill deals with land use and development; this bill deals with natural resources, environmental limits, and the standards needed to protect what matters.

The backbone of the New Zealand economy is our primary sector. Our future prosperity will always rely on our farming families and all the workers who help produce the products for export. Because of this, the Environment Committee added—and I’m very proud of this—clearer recognition of food and fibre production, including aquaculture, within the goals for the use and development of natural resources. This is a welcome and practical improvement for Northland and the rest of the country. It recognises that primary production is not an afterthought; it is essential to our regional and national prosperity.

The committee also listened to the farmers and growers and raised concerns about the lack of certainty, compliance costs, and day-to-day workability. Controlled activity classes have been restored, giving primary production greater certainty. The importance of having a simpler and fairer process was emphasised to me last October, when I was privileged to be meeting mid-Canterbury farmers, organised by Federated Farmers in the Lagmhor Westerfield War Memorial Hall. This expressed their concerns, and they expressed their concerns in deep frustration about their lack and uncertainty of their futures, and I really worry about that. That was the message we took back, and we addressed those issues in the bill. I have a son who’s looking to start that farming career, who will be a fifth-generation farmer in our family.

For those reasons, I am very proud of this bill and I’m looking forward to the outcomes to be better for the environment and for the farming families of New Zealand. I commend it to the House.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call.

I wish to take some words that have been spoken by various members of the Government this evening, and I want to start with something that was said by the Hon Mark Patterson. He said, “We were sent here to fix the RMA.” The only problem with that was the Resource Management Act (RMA) wasn’t enforced when he arrived back in the House; the RMA had been repealed and replaced with some substantial bills aimed at reforming the planning system in this country. This Government decided to just toss that out and do the work all over again. Instead of perhaps picking up and amending what was there, they decided to do it all over again. If the RMA has remained in force for even longer, it is because of that Government, which decided to faff around because of its own ego.

There was another phrase that another member of the Government used over there, and that was the phrase: “It’s just common sense”. You know, frankly, if you have to resort to saying that something is “common sense”, it means you don’t have an argument to stand on. It appeals to some vague, out-there sentence instead of actually what is written in the bill. Find some new words; find some actual arguments that support this bill in particular. Find some words to deal with the very serious objections that were raised on this side of the House. Find some words to deal with the fact that on this side of the House, members of our party and others worked hard through the select committee process to try to make this work, including one of our members who is an absolute expert in resource management law, and yet that was overlooked.

One of the difficulties with this bill is just that, straightforwardly, the purpose of this bill—let me read the purpose of this bill. It’s sitting in clause 4: “The purpose of this Act is to establish a framework for the use,”. That’s the first thing that we have for the environment—the “use” of the environment. Then it goes on to add the protection and the enhancement of the natural environment. But there’s an attitude right there, right from the start, that the environment is there to be used and exploited. Let’s be clear: we do need to find ways to live with this in this environment, but I beg the other side of the House to remember that the environment is not there to serve the economy; it is the other way around. The economy is a subset of the environment. If we do not protect and look after our environment, there will be no economy.

That is why, on this side of the House, we wanted to amend that purpose statement to say that we wanted to maintain and improve the natural environment to safeguard that human health, to provide for adaptation to climate change, to manage the risk of natural hazards, because if we do none of those things, then there is no economy.

Then, there’s a whole set of goals in this bill—goals which are to guide what is to be done when it comes to the natural environment. The first goal—the very first one listed—says, in clause 11: “(a) to enable the use and development of natural resources, including for the production of food and fibre (including aquaculture):”. It says there’s a whole list of goals for what we should be doing in terms of working through this legislation, and it does say that the order in which the goals appear does not assign the order of importance. We can guarantee that when the courts have to come to interpret these goals and the way that they conflict with each other, then they have no guidance to resort to other than the order in which they are listed in this document. No matter what they say, that is what will happen.

When we look at what has been done in this bill, when we look at the way that the environment has been subsumed and put under the economy, we say that is a mistake. It is a mistake. Of course we need to find ways for the environment and the economy to work together, but let’s remember that New Zealanders value their environment, that New Zealanders value the clean water, they value the clean air, they value our bush, and this bill makes those things secondary.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. New Zealand is a country with huge opportunities. We’ve got a huge amount of entrepreneurialism, we’ve got people that want to utilise it, but we’re so frustrated. We are disappointed by the fact that we don’t have a regime that allows us to be able to do what Kiwis can do, and that is contribute to the world, contribute to our country. It doesn’t make sense that we have consents, renewal of consents taking years when there’s not even changes in conditions in that. It doesn’t make sense that it takes eight, 10 years to get a consent, when it takes less than two years to build the project itself. We need to unleash our country, realise the potential we have, and increase the opportunities with the economy. We have a great economy. It will help us out with our Public Service. It is all good news. I commend the bill to the House.

Kia orana, Madam Speaker.

💬 Hon David Seymour: Oh no, not Tangi!

What’s that?

💬 Hon David Seymour: Oh no!

I haven’t even said anything yet. The Deputy Prime Minister seems to be in fine form tonight.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will comment that the previous speaker on the Labour side was a class act at ignoring the interjections and carrying on, so let’s see how this member goes.

I’m very happy to entertain them, Madam Speaker. I’m very happy to entertain them, because this is the penultimate sitting day. It’s the dying days of this Government.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know, it feels like the last day of school, sitting up here.

It is, indeed, the penultimate sitting day of the 54th Parliament, and what we are doing is, effectively, passing legislation that is not a great bill and that is going to lead to much more uncertainty for many, and create a lot of confusion along the way. We remain opposed to this bill this evening, and it’s not because we oppose reform, actually; we have consistently said that, in terms of resource management reform, there was some work that needed to be done, and that is why the work was done under the last Government. I recall, actually, sitting with colleagues on the Environment Committee of the last Parliament working through many of the issues that were identified at the time. This is a Government that has got its priorities in all of the wrong places.

When we had this bill come to the House for its first reading, members on this side of the House supported an opportunity, in good faith, to explore what some of those issues were and to iron out many of those concerns as part of the select committee process. Why did we do that? Because we thought it was a constructive approach to dealing with a piece of legislation currently before the Parliament. Now, it is an absolute disgrace that this Government believed, so soon after that select committee had reported back, a matter of hours, that they would land a set of proposals, heading through the committee stage, that would simply overturn many of the approaches that had been identified as part of the select committee process.

I know there are members in this House who spent countless hours in select committee working through the range of options, to come up with a piece of legislation that would have enjoyed some cross-party support, but, only a matter of hours after that committee had reported back, this Government decided that, actually, they were not going to respond in the more traditional approach of all of those submitters who were participating in the select committee process; instead, they were going to land their own policy proposals, and they are at complete odds with what all members of that select committee worked through and what came back to the House. This bill has to be one of the few bills in the Parliament’s history that has gone off to select committee and has come back in a way worse position than when the select committee actually received it.

Now, how is that possible; that you would expect people to submit through this process, spend countless hours preparing, for members opposite to simply say, “We know better. We don’t care about all of the people who submitted through this process. We’ve got our own views, and we’re just going to pile ahead”—through urgency previously, I might add—“to deal to this issue.”? The whole point of select committees is to improve legislation and for the public to actually have their say, and what this Government has demonstrated, in bringing this through to the third reading tonight, is that they have shut out the public from having an opportunity to share with decision makers what their views are on the policy proposals that they have changed in the face of the concerns that had already been identified and addressed. I think that is absolutely disgraceful.

The Government simply squandered that opportunity to work alongside other parties, and indeed the community, to get the decisions and the policy settings right, but they have determined that they actually know way better than that. When you have more than 3,000 submitters who want to share with the Parliament what their views are on this matter and you have a Government on the other side that simply wants to shut the door to hearing those concerns and opportunities—many of them were very, very good suggestions—that, I think, speaks volumes to the direction of travel that this Government wants to take, in terms of supporting community views on a whole pile of things. Members who submitted to this bill would have rightly expected that their views were considered, and they were entitled to have the legislation return to the Parliament broadly reflective of many of the issues that were identified throughout that process. What we have in front of us this evening is something that is far from that.

It is interesting to note, and I’m not going to go through the whole list of people who submitted, but it is a cross-section of our community—people who think resource management reform is needed in one direction, others in a different—and to shut them out is, I think, something that was very, very disappointing. One of those specific changes, of course, is when it comes to Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements, which I think are a key example around this. What we heard, of course, through the process—from the Minister himself, through the select committee process—was, “Do you know what? We’re not going to shut the door on those agreements and arrangements; we’re going to allow them to continue.” The complete opposite, in terms of a flip, is the policy position of the Government, and what is in this bill is, “No, we’re going to scrap them altogether.” That is a significant policy shift, a significant positional shift, on behalf of the Government.

It is no surprise; it comes hot on the heels of this Government saying one thing face to face and doing something completely the opposite when its alternative opportunity presents itself. I think of the recent—just last week—Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill, where, at the last minute, effectively, they decided to slam the opportunity for Houkura and the Independent Māori Statutory Board to have voting opportunities. This is a consistent approach from this Government, where they are wanting to slam Māori opportunity and other community opportunities with legislation that they want to progress and put forward—yet another opportunity, of course, for them to say, “Oh no, no, we talked about this.”, when, even in the last 24 hours or so, we have Mayor Wayne Brown, we have Deputy Mayor Desley Simpson, and we have chair Richard Hills all saying that this Government and its Ministers were saying one thing to their face but actually the legislation, when it comes to this House, is completely different to the face-to-face conversations they had. For a Government that wants to talk about partnership with local government, that is something that is heading in completely wrong direction.

This issue of hierarchy, which we’ve heard about with this bill, also turns it completely on its head, where it will be over to the whim of the Minister of the day to be making decisions around who gets what, when, how, and why—and where. This is about resources, it’s about our natural environment, but it’s also about ministerial influence and not having a key set of principles to align around how those decision-making processes would be constructed and how they would be actually followed through. That means that, naturally, outcomes will differ, because decisions will change, the Minister will change, Governments will change, political cycles will change—these are all of the things that are sitting behind the hierarchy that this bill introduces and the amount of power sitting with the Minister themselves. What we will see, potentially, is a whole pile of judicial review. That’s the only way these sorts of opportunities can be challenged. It’s great for lawyers, because it gives them plenty more opportunity, and this is the only way in which those issues could be addressed.

My colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking, through the committee stage, identified a number of Amendment Papers that, I think, quite acutely signal the direction of travel on this side of the House. Many of them are, for example, in the space of making some direct changes—ensuring that an incoming Labour Government will signal very clearly what those changes will mean, not just for local government but for lawyers as well, who undertake work in this particular sector. The other, which has been touched on previously, is this issue of regulatory relief, and the implication that local councils and local government and ratepayers would be expected to foot the bill because of this issue of private property interests and how that works. This is a Government that is not interested in public good; it is a Government that is afraid—I mean, the word “wellbeing” sends shivers up the spines of this Government. None of this is where its priorities want to lie.

What we do say to members opposite and to Aotearoa New Zealand is that change is coming on 7 November, and that change will be for the better, because, as we know, in terms of on this side of the House and for the election, “Better starts now”.

It’s a privilege to speak in the final speech of the third reading of the duo of the planning and environment bills that will reform this country and enable productivity and prosperity to truly be unleashed. It gives me great pleasure.

You might recall a Japanese expert called Marie Condo, who, years ago, started a thing called decluttering—a decluttering process where someone would declutter their wardrobe or their kitchen. They’d release it, and they’d thank it. Tonight, we are decluttering from the Resource Management Act (RMA). We thank the RMA for its 35 years of service. We release it and we thank it for its service. It is no longer fit for purpose.

With these two new planning bills, the future is looking bright and prosperity is about to be unleashed. To all the staff, the officials, the Ministers, and the Environment Committee, we salute you. We thank you for the work that will be the legacy and hallmark of this Government. I commend the bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Natural Environment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 4)

Second Reading