Aotearoa and the world are at a crunch point of a climate and biodiversity crisis. Te Tiriti ō Waitangi has been trampled on. The good news is that we can still turn it around.

But pivotal to this, is a functional environment and planning system.  

Our resource management laws set out the boundaries that guide decisions on things like  where housing can be built, when water can be taken from a stream, and when native plants or the homes of our native species can be destroyed so the land can be developed.  

These laws have been difficult to navigate for some time, and were in need of reform. However, it’s important we get this right. These laws are the first basic protection for the things we all need and all care about to live good lives – our freshwater, our nature, and all the critters who live in it.  

Our goal during the submission period is to get the basics right. In order to do that at Select Committee and improve these laws, we need YOUR HELP!  

Make a submission to urge the Government to ensure our planning laws protect people and planet.  

The basic areas that need improvement are: 

1) Stronger environmental bottom lines  

2) An overarching ‘maintain or improve’ goal 

3) Securing the role of Māori in the new system 

4) Ditching ‘regulatory relief’ - which sees councils paying to protect biodiversity 

5) Keeping and strengthening the positives of the proposed laws 

Please submit on the new Resource Management laws and have your say. 

When you make your submission, the website asks whether you would like to do an oral submission to the select committee. Please  do click yes- you can always change your mind about presenting but it shows you care.

You will then be asked to make 'comments' and 'recommendations'. You can also choose to upload a written submission.

Below, we have set out suggestions to help you craft your submission. Use the sentence starters and reasons we have given to help you write yours.

1. The need for strong environmental bottom lines 

What 

• The new resource management bills set out a framework for environmental limits, including environment bottom lines. These limits will be set for human health at a national level, and for ecosystem health at a regional level by councils. These ‘limits’  can be set for things like the amount of nitrate pollution in water, or the amount of pollution allowed in the air. Bottom lines will be set at a national level for human health, and councils will set levels at a regional limit for ecosystem health. 

Why this matters 

• While there are some potentially good features of the environmental limits framework, there is a lot that can be improved and needs securing. We have not seen any detail on what these limits will be and guidance for councils on how to implement these limits is light on detail. Councils will be required to weigh up environmental protections against economic development when setting limits. At a national level, councils can have limits weaker than set, if they simply ‘justify’ it.  

Starters 

• I support having strong environmental limits at a national level, that cannot be made less stringent by councils. 

• I think councils should receive more guidance on how to set limits, and how to manage conflicting goals between the natural environment bill, and the planning bill. 

• I support environmental limits having legal consequences, so that these limits are not breached, and where they are there are consequences. 

• I support having a strong monitoring and compliance framework, to ensure limits aren’t breached and that human and ecosystem health is protected. 

2. The need for an overarching ‘maintain or improve’ goal 

What 

The new Natural Environment Bill sets out goals that all people performing functions under this Bill must follow. These are:  

(a) to enable the use and development of natural resources within environmental limits: 

(b) to safeguard the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems: 

(c) to protect human health from harm caused by the discharge of contaminants: 

(d) to achieve no net loss in indigenous biodiversity: 

(e) to manage the effects of natural hazard associated with the use or protection of natural resources through proportionate and risk-based planning: 

(f) to provide for Māori interests through— 

(i) Māori participation in the development of national instruments, spatial planning, and natural environment plans; and 

(ii) the identification and protection of sites of significance to Māori (including, wāhi tapu, water bodies, or sites in or on the coastal marine area); and 

(iii) enabling the development and protection of identified Māori land. 

However, these goals don’t say specify that we should maintain or improve the health of our environment. We think this needs to change and that the direction of environmental improvement, rather than degradation, should be clear. 

Why 

We think these goals should include a target to ‘maintain and improve’ our environment. This would mean that things like freshwater pollution or the loss of indigenous habitat cannot get worse, but must be kept at current levels, or improved. This would provide absolute clarity that we do not support further degradation of te taiao. 

Starters: 

• I support including a ‘maintain and improve’ goal in the Natural Environment Bill, to clarify that further pollution or degradation is not acceptable, and that so-called trade-offs such as concepts like ‘no net loss’ for biodiversity are not taken advantage of to permit the destruction of rich, healthy biodiversity for lesser value green-washing. 

3. Securing the role of Māori in our environment and planning laws 

What 

Many iwi and hapū have established practices, relationships and experience with the current Resource Management Act. The new legislation introduces an out-dated and token ‘consultation’ role for Māori within the resource management system.  

To truly provide a fit for purpose 21st century environmental management system, the bill must provide for strong roles for hapū and iwi alongside the protection and implementation of Te Tiriti, including treaty settlement rights and crown obligations. The bill currently fails to do so, and therefore fails at the most fundamental level in delivering a functional system. 

Starters: 

• I do not support the role of Māori being reduced to consultation only. 

• I support iwi and hapū having strong decision making roles within the resource management system, as kaitiaki of Aotearoa. 

• I want to see Māori interests protected as an enforceable goal in the legislation to uphold Te Tiriti obligations, not as just an objective 

• I support strengthening the treaty clause beyond just ‘recognising the crown’s responsibilities’ – as currently drafted, the Bills have a weaker commitment to te Tiriti and Māori than the Resource Management Act had. 

4. Ditching ‘Regulatory relief’ 

What is it? 

• Regulatory relief is a new idea being introduced to our resource management law. It could mean that if councils seek to protect significant natural areas, indigenous biodiversity, or sites of significance for Māori, and that impacts on private landowners, then councils may be forced to ‘compensate’ these landowners. Compensation can take the form of cash, rebates on rates, or bonus development rights. 

Why we want it removed 

• This is problematic, because it could lead to councils avoiding any new environmental protections because they may have to compensate private landowners. It could overwhelm councils and lead to increased time and resources spent in court. This will be made even worse by the Government’s proposal to cap rates, meaning councils won’t have resources available to them to be able to respond to the required regulatory relief. 

Starters: 

• I am opposed to the introduction of the concept of regulatory relief for private landowners where councils seek to adopt environmental regulation or controls.  

• In an environment where councils are already finding it tough to fund things infrastructure and services, and where the Government is proposing to cap rates, I am concerned that regulatory takings will discourage councils from making environmental rules, out of fear of being taken to court or being forced to give up already limited resources for simply protecting indigenous biodiversity or outstanding landscapes 

• I think indigenous biodiversity, significant natural areas, and outstanding natural landscapes should be protected as part of the public good for all people in Aotearoa. Requiring councils to pay private individuals for protecting biodiversity does ? 

5. Keeping and strengthening the positives:  

Here are some additional sentence starters you can use to show what you like about the new Bills- these would fiit well under the 'make a comment' section: 

• I support keeping and upholding Water Conservation Orders. They are the highest level of protection available for lakes and rivers and an important tool for environmental protection. 

• I support the reduction in the number of plans. There are currently a lot of different plans across Aotearoa made by a range of different councils and local authorities. Simplifying the number of plans without losing the integrity of the community-agreed environmental protections will help make resource management clearer and more effective. 

• I support stronger compliance and monitoring of the environment, and stronger enforcement tools and consequences for those who pollute the environment or breach environmental bottom lines. 

• I support protecting our outstanding natural landscapes. Aotearoa is home to unique habitats and natural history and these must be protected. 

Thank you for taking the time to submit on this vitally important piece of legislation. Please do share this page with anyone you think may be interested in submitting to protect te taiao.