Submission on Natural Environment Bill and Planning bills

13th February 2026

Submitter: Pacific Institute of Resource Management
www.pacificecologist.org; www.pirm.org.nz
Contact: Dr Cliff Mason

21 Voelas Road
LYTTELTON 8082
Telephone (03) 328 8538
e-mail: cliff.mason@hotmail.com

The Pacific Institute of Resource Management (PIRM) welcomes the opportunity to comment on these Bills. PIRM is a long-established organisation dedicated to promoting the sustainable use of the earth’s resources. It publishes the occasional journal “Pacific Ecologist”. We have made frequent submissions to government on resource management legislation including submissions on the Resource Management Act (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill 2009, the proposed Environmental Reporting Bill of 2011, “Improving our Resource management System” and “Freshwater Reforms” Discussion Documents of 2013, the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill of 2015, the “Managing our Wetlands” Discussion Document of 2021 and the Natural and Built Environment Bill of 2023. These submissions and others are available on our website, www.pirm.org.nz.

This Submission follows the recommended form being divided into four sections dealing with general issues, matters common to both Bills and matters specific to the individual Bills.

Part 1 General Comments

a) Division rather than Integration

The proposed replacement of the Resource Management Act 1991 by two Bills would create an artificial division in legislation between human activities and the environment in which they occur. While this approach may be consistent with conventional economic theories of ‘externalities” and with the ideological assumptions of private property rights, it is divorced from the simple fact that humans are an integral part of the biosphere. The inadequate recognition of this fact is a major factor in the present environmental crisis.

The relative value of integrated versus separated legislation has been comprehensively explored by a number of organisations as disparate as the Productivity Commission and the Environmental Defence Society. The matter was addressed by the Resource Management Review Panel in their 2020 Report. Their conclusions have favoured retention of an integrated approach to resource management.

Despite the perceived shortcomings of the RMA in practice, the integrated approach to resource management that it attempted remains the most likely means of achieving a non-destructive presence for humanity within the biosphere.

The separation of these Bills has resulted in evident duplication and is likely to promote rather than resolve conflict in their respective provisions. The opportunity to produce legislation defining a sustainable relationship between humanity and nature has been missed.

The division of the legislation also supports the identification of “land” as an abstract spatial concept rather than as a physical entity. This is very likely to result in a devaluation of the material aspects of land, its natural attributes such as life-supporting capacity/fertility and is completely at odds with Te Mana o Te Ao.

b) Structural bias

The proposed resource management legislation has an intentional bias in favour of use and development. While this bias is admitted with justificatory reasons, the contention that use and development under the legislation will not incur significant environmental damage is questionable. The risk of environmental protection being compromised is increased by the unequal division of the legislation in which the combination of spatial planning and land use legislation in the Planning Bill outweighs the interests of the natural environment in the smaller and more deferential Natural Environment Bill.

c) Reduced scope and scale

There is ample evidence that the perceived constraints of the RMA have nonetheless coincided with reduced quality of the natural environment and some aspects of the built environment in both urban and rural settings. The loss of a presumption in favour of preservation and the status quo to overt favouring of development and change must entail increased effects on both the built and natural environments. These effects will increase in both scope and scale. It is thus counter to the effective management of these effects to reduce the scope and scale of legislative measures as this pair of Bills proposes.

d) Absence of any actions to mitigate climate change

The use of land and other activities that are controlled by resource management legislation are primary sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Yet only adaptation to climate change is mentioned in the Bills. Climate change mitigation by reducing emissions and potentiating carbon sequestration is of such critical importance that it must be included in the primary legislation that governs resource management.

e) Loss of advances made with the Resource Management Act

Although transitional measures may mitigate the effects and the Expert Advisory Group report claims to have incorporated the ‘learnings’ from the years of the RMA’s operations, the new legislation will constitute a ‘reset to zero’ for many of the hard-won if somewhat messy advances that have been made in resource management. It remains to be seen whether the new structure will yield what it promises in more efficient and effective functioning.

f) Expense

Whatever the outcomes in terms of improvements in the built and natural environments, there is no doubt that the system will be more expensive to run effectively. The marked increase in reporting, recording, auditing and compliance assessment and the requirements of continuous improvement of the resource management system will all be costly. Under-resourcing of the RMA has been identified as one of the causes of poor performance and in the current fiscal environment more money for better resource management will be hard to find. Even the streamlining and simplification of administration, reduced legal challenges and the increased use of technology including data processing will not offset the costs of management under the new Acts.

g) Decision making

The new Bills greatly increase centralized control of resource management, especially the powers of the Minister. These include powers to intervene directly in downstream management activities that are already under the control of the hierarchical architecture of the system and to dismiss elected officers of local authorities. Together with reduced eligibility of citizens as affected persons or submitters the new Bills seem likely to significantly reduce democratic decision making in resource management matters.

There is some mitigation of this possibility by the provision in the Planning Bill (Section 45 (3)) that the Minister must consider all submissions received in the preparation of National Policy Directions.

Part 2: Aspects of both Bills

a) Oversimplification of architecture

The radical simplification of the architecture of resource management law that is proposed is an unrealistic approach to matters that are intrinsically complex. This apparent simplicity can only be achieved by an excessively narrow focus which, under the ‘funnel’ structure of the legislation will lead to decision-making that is hopelessly underinformed. In the Natural Environment context the scheme fails to recognise the ecological law that everything is connected to everything else. In the Planning context it makes no provision for varying opinions that are fundamental to human freedom. The architecture threatens a dictatorial prescriptive approach to resource management utterly determined by Cabinet ideology.

The simplistic architecture of the Bills suggests an attempt to create an artificial world of certainty and limited possibilities which are assumed to be both completely understandable and understood. This structure is utterly divorced from real-world messiness. This attempt at a brutal pragmatism in the complex and contingent world of resource management risks disaster.

b) Procedural rather than substantial content

While the length of the Bills reflects their procedural complexity and comprehensiveness, they are relatively light in matters of substance. This is evident in comparison with the RMA and is emphasised by comparing two of the major documents informing the development of the Bills: the RM Review Panel (“Randerson Report”) publication of 2020 and the Expert Advisory Group “Blueprint for Resource Management Reform” of 2025. While the recommendations of the former include many substantial matters with a nuanced approach, the EAG Report is much blunter and short on substantial detail. Although the latter is an impressive piece of administrative streamlining, it was produced under time constraints and accordingly limited to ‘high level’ recommendations.

The proposed Bills also leave most of the functional aspects of the legislation to the future production of National Policy Direction and National Standards. Given the history of the maligned incumbent Act, it would have been expected that the Bills would have included more directives. The failure to produce National Policy Statements and Standards for years following enactment was a major problem with the RMA in practice. The new Bills threaten to have similar practical weaknesses although less likely to be a consequence of delays than of deficient content.

c) Responses to adverse effects

The General Duty to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects made in Section 17 of the RMA has been variably interpreted as a hierarchy with the responses in order of preference being avoid, remedy and mitigate. In the Bills, the General Duty remains in Sections 26 of the Natural Environment Bill and Section 25 of the Planning Bill. However, the order (perceived hierarchy) of the actions has been disrupted — “…avoid, minimize or remedy..”. (the change of term from mitigate to minimize is acceptable in the interests of plain English).

It is our contention that the hierarchy of responses to adverse effects warrants formalization in resource management legislation and that in the interests of reducing adverse effects whenever and as far as possible, these actions should be mandatory. We submit that the appropriate Sections in both Bills should include:

In fulfilling this duty:

(a) Adverse effects must be avoided wherever practicable

(b) Any adverse effects that cannot be avoided must be remedied wherever practicable

(c) Any adverse effects that cannot be avoided or remedied must be minimized as far as practicable.

In addition, the possibilities of offsetting and compensation are allowed for. Although these may be legitimate notions in the built environment, they are at least controversial and probably invalid with respect to the natural environment where no two instances are identical. Ecological offsetting has been widely condemned for its assumption of equivalence between ecosystems that is used essentially to circumvent ecological limits. It presumes comprehensive understanding of structures and processes that is unachievable in practice. It presumes to quantify and reduce to commensurability disparate qualitative aspects of ecosystems. It introduces concepts from economics such as substitutability and “trading up” that are alien to ecology. It seems impossible to reconcile with a Maori world view that has a highly specific sense of place.

Compensation is an even worse concept. It is ridiculous to suggest that supercharging one factor within an ecosystem can compensate for a loss within another ecosystem. We submit that:

Section 15 (1) (a) (ii) should be removed from the Natural Environment Bill

Section 150 (2) (a) (ii) should have the portion “…offset or provide compensation for..” removed

d) Exclusion of amenity from matters for consideration

The RMA recognizes the importance of amenity value by placing the maintenance and enhancement of such values within Section 7 as something that those exercising functions under the Act should have particular regard to. In stark contrast, the Bills propose not just to ignore amenity but to actively preclude it from consideration. The definition of amenity — the quality of being pleasant or agreeable; something that conduces to material comfort and convenience — would seem to link it strongly to the Purpose of the Planning Bill: to “establish a framework for planning and regulating the use, development and enjoyment (our emphasis) of land.” That amenity is not only absent from the goals of Section 11 but also is specifically excluded from the scope of the Planning Bill in Section 14 is a curious inconsistency in the Bill’s intent.

The Natural Environment Bill is also silent on amenity. The preclusion of amenity is also apparently provided for by Section 14(b): “must not consider effects regulated under the Planning Act 2025”.

We consider that amenity is fundamental to the enjoyment of the built and natural environments and that its provision should be included in both of the new Bills.

We contend that Section 11 of the Planning Bill should include:

(j) to maintain and enhance the amenity values of urban and rural areas

And that Section 11 of the Natural Environment Bill should include:

(g) to maintain and enhance the amenity values of natural areas

6/9

The following clauses excluding these matters from consideration should be removed from Section 14 of the Planning Bill:

(e) the visual amenity of a use, development, or building in relation to its character, appearance, aesthetic qualities, or other physical feature:

(g) views from private property

(h) the effect on landscape

The brevity and anodyne wording of the Purpose of both Bills exposes their procedural nature and conceals their potentially damaging effect. That the Bills’ Purpose is not to achieve any particular ends directly but merely to establish a ‘framework’ leaves almost everything undefined. The small word ‘use’ infers both use to the exclusion of others, to ‘use up’ and to exploit.

e) New Activity Classes

Reducing the number of classes appears to be a desirable simplification.

Part 3 Natural Environment Bill

a) Environmental (Health) Limits

Although the recognition in legislation of limits on natural resources is applauded, the definition and useful employment of such measures is difficult. Far from being an easy quantitative tool in the technocratic machine, limits, even on objectively measurable biophysical aspects are not fixed, are determined by multiple factors (most of which are beyond human control), are interactive and are generally diminishing with the widespread overexploitation of natural resources, appropriation of habitat and overwhelming of waste recycling capacity. Critical limits beyond which irreversible shifts occur (‘tipping points’) are often unable to be defined and the point of approach to such limits at which remedial action is mandated is a matter of judgement. The assessment of limits that manifest as qualities rather than quantities or that are functional rather than material is even more difficult. As an essential element in decision-making the consequences of any revaluation of limits would have very widespread consequences and this might well deter the making of changes that are indicated by the data.

Reliance on limits risks creating a situation where exploitation of all available resources above the limit may be seen as acceptable. Just as a significant amount of legal activity under the RMA has resulted from developers testing the limits of the legislative provisions, environmental limits are also likely to be legally contested. There will likely be claims that limits can be engineered to human advantage — that human intervention can make nature more resilient — or that limits can be circumvented or offset. Even the most firmly established limits are unlikely to lead to the improvements in the environment that are required in many cases.

Rather than pursuing limits of resilience within natural systems that are difficult to define and assess it would be easier and more honest to define limits to human actions. Unlike natural limits, human activities are readily measurable and controllable by legislation. This is the core business of resource management although rarely expressed in such terms. A fundamental driver of activities that affect the environment is of course economic growth on which any constraints are regarded as inconceivable. But without the expression of necessary constraints in legislation, damage to the natural environment will continue.

The maligned “culture of No” may in fact be an expression of conscious restraint; the most important cultural trait required for sustainability.

Although the intention to ‘preserve the life-supporting capacity of the natural environment’ suggests a quantitative aspect that will not be diminished, it does not appear that this is how the wording is interpreted.

Although the Bill as written is hard to fault, internally consistent and appears to mandate preservation and enhancement , its function in practice appears much less certain given the inevitable conflicts with the Planning Act Goals and the probable nature of National Policy Directions.

b) Regulatory Relief

The concept of regulatory relief is worth exploring but has both good and bad aspects. While clearly introduced as a feature supporting private property rights, as proposed it has excessive potential for corrupt practice. Regulatory ‘capture’ of local authority agents is already regarded as a problem in administration of the RMA and could become worse with the wide range of relief measures proposed. Transparency would be difficult to ensure. There is a case to be made however for some recognition that the public good has been served by the action or restraint of individual property owners and limited rates relief does not seem inappropriate if standardized and publically notified.

c) Participation

By limiting participation in permit processing to those materially affected, some relevant expertise, experience and knowledge is likely to be excluded. It is also corrosive of the sense of social solidarity if one is only permitted to have active opinions and engagement in matters that affect one personally. Concern about what others are doing in one’s community or country is an integral part of citizenship and should be supported rather than prohibited. This aspect of citizenship can only be manifested if one is informed about intended activities and for this reason notification of applications for permits should be the default.

d) Compliance

The intention to improve compliance within the resource management system is a valuable proposal as poor monitoring and enforcement under the RMA has been identified as a problem. The immediate practical value of preventing and remedying environmental harms and securing cost recovery is supplemented by the value of improved information gathering to the continued improvement of the overall management system. Other proposals to monitor the efficiency and effectiveness of system elements at Regional Council level and to assess the achievement of intended outcomes and emergence of new issues at Ministry level are also likely to improve both natural and built environments.

e) Absent Concepts

The intent to activate economic growth within the limits of natural resources ignores some essential features of resource management that were at least partly recognized in the RMA and its amendments. The first is the concept of sustainability, once extricated from the problematic concept of sustainable development. The primary supposition of the proposed legislation is that adverse effects on the natural environment must occur to enable growth but that this is permissible if it does not breach environmental limits. The problem is that adverse effects must increase with economic growth that, regardless of claims for “dematerialisation”of economic activity, must increase the consumption of resources and production of waste. There is no way in which increasing adverse effects can avoid colliding with environmental limits. Sustainability proposes a situation in which activities can be continued indefinitely because adverse effects are avoided, remedied or stabilized at a level that does not incur cumulative damage.

One way in which sustainability could be achieved would be by cessation of economic growth but this is plainly not on the agenda of any incumbent or prospective government. The other is by the transition to renewable materials and energy as means for economic activity.

The Bills do not identify sustainability as a concept and while acknowledging and pursuing renewable energy do not differentiate renewable and non-renewable materials. Although these fundamental features of any plausible resource management system may appear within National Policy Directions they would be better placed within the core legislation. There is no indication within the Bills or their explanatory commentaries that sustainability or renewable materials have been given any consideration.

f) Wildlife Act

The intention to overrule provisions of the Wildlife Act is particularly egregious.

Part 4: Planning Bill

a) Bias potentiated

The bias in favour of use and development at the expense of the natural environment mentioned in Part 1 above is exacerbated by clauses of the Bill which embed environmental damage as permitted effects. For example:

Section 127: Whether adverse effects likely to be more than minor

(3) The consent authority may consider whether any adverse effects of the

proposed activity are consistent with the character, intensity, or scale of the

adverse effects anticipated by the land use plan or the regional spatial plan.

Sections138 Matters that consent authority must disregard

1(c) any adverse effect of the activity on the environment if the land use plan

or a national rule permits an activity with that effect.

b) Designating authority given to private sector

The proposal to confer designating authority on core infrastructure operators would give this extreme privilege to significant numbers of private sector entities. This is utterly inappropriate. Authority with such large consequences must remain the prerogative of democratically elected government alone.

c) Precautionary Principle

It is highly commendable that this principle has been included and clearly defined in section 166.

d) Adaptive Management

It is highly commendable that this approach has been adopted and its operation clearly detailed in Section 167.

Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission. We wish to appear at any select Committee hearing into these Bills.

Yours faithfully,
Cliff Mason