Last year when the government announced its proposals for replacing the Resource Management Act, it touted them as a once-in-a- generation reform. That was probably a step too far given commentators pointed out the broad thrust of the changes was similar to those Labour introduced in the last term and which this government scrapped. However, if the government truly believed this hyperbole, all the more reason for having a top notch process for examining the proposed law which was thorough and not rushed so any changes made would be enduring. There should have been plenty of time for that, given that the reforms were not expected to be fully introduced until 2029. A good process would include seeking cross party support to find a way through the most contentious parts and not springing any last minute surprises after the submissions process. But that is not what has happened. This week, when the Resource Management Reform Minister Chris Bishop was explaining the reporting back of the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill from the Environment Committee, it was clear his enthusiasm for bipartisanism was limited. ``It probably would have been possible to kind of find a bunch of things which everyone could kind of compromise on and create a bit of a muddle.’’ He was not about creating muddle but creating good law that served New Zealand and was in the national interest. The jury is out on that bold claim. One of the most controversial changes made in the latest drafts of the Bills is the scrapping of Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements, introduced by a National-led government in 2017 where councils and iwi developed formal agreements on how to work together on resource management and environmental planning. Originally, the proposed law was to allow existing agreements to continue but prevent new ones, but the government was supposedly concerned about more iwi negotiating them recently. It is hard to understand what was so terrible about these agreements, why there was no involvement of iwi in the decision-making about changes to them, and where localism fits now councils will only be allowed to enter into much narrower participation agreements with iwi. Another area councils are understandably fearful about, and which the majority of the select committee stubbornly would not shift on, is the regulatory takings regime. This is where councils will have to pay landowners if their enjoyment of land is impacted by regulations. As Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Simon Upton said in a note to Members of Parliament on the Bills this week, this effectively reasserts a right to destroy biodiversity which, if curtailed, must now be compensated for by ratepayers. There is no clarity on how our cash-strapped councils will pay for this and there have already been concerns that it will mean biodiversity and heritage will go unprotected. Mr Upton’s note, which is well worth reading, also asks MPs to consider what proposed changes to local government could mean for the management of the physical environment. He said ending up with 25 or 30 unitary councils to appease parochial interests would be disastrous for environmental management. The commissioner is highly critical of the ministerial power given in the Bills, giving ``complete discretion to ministers to strike whatever environmental or developmental balance they prefer’’. Depending on the degree of concern of a minister about the environment, the outcome of national policy direction and other national instruments could be quite protective of the environment or it could allow it to be steadily degraded. He points out that whereas in 1991 with the RMA the House was able to agree on a guiding purpose, what the Bills are supposed to achieve is being left to the executive to determine. Allowing widespread ministerial discretion increased the likelihood ministers will be the target of special-interest lobbying, he said. We agree with Mr Upton the Bills need to go back to the select committee for further consideration. Without a real effort at getting a consensus we will have to endure more flip-flopping on environmental law. A good place to start, as Mr Upton has previously pointed out, is recognising the economy is a subset of the environment, not vice versa.
